dmarc117 Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 was the captain an independent contractor or employee? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 If a drunk recreational boater caused an accident, I'm sure Perch would be the first one here defending the guy from not having to pay all of the associated costs. Nope, if a drunk recreational boater caused an accident I would say the drunk recreational boater was responsible for the direct cost to those injured parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 The cost of doing business? ...and how can you put a cost on certain actual damages. Like in Alaska... the loss of animal life... the hit to the fisherman.... the enviromental damages, etc Ok, I can go with the cost of doing business, if you and the others banging on the oil companies realize that record profits one year help to offset the cost of doing business in other years. With regard to actual damages, it should be fairly easy to determine. Animals don't pay taxes, and don't have any use for money so they don't need to be paid for their damages. With the fishermen, you can look at their tax returns see what they have made over the last few years, give them a couple of years salaries, and pay for them to relocate to waters where the fishing wasn't affected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 was the captain an independent contractor or employee? Dunno. But mere labels are insufficient to deflect legal responsibility. What ever *his* designation, the boat was called the EXXON Valdez. So Exxon sort of has some responsibility for who they put behind the wheel of their boat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Respondeat superior, my man. The master is responsible for his agents. While there are certainly exceptions to that general rule, that's still the rule. I realize that, I'm just questing why? Actually I know the answer to that as well. The master usually has more money than the agents, and the bigger the settlement the bigger the lawyers fee, and lawyers make the laws. We should punish the individual offenders not those that they work for. Of course there is no money in that for those who write the laws. Don't get me wrong, if a company knowingly allows someone to be harmed hammer them, but in most cases its an individual, that does the harm, and 9 times out of 10 the company couldn't have seen it coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted June 25, 2008 Author Share Posted June 25, 2008 Ok, I can go with the cost of doing business, if you and the others banging on the oil companies realize that record profits one year help to offset the cost of doing business in other years. With regard to actual damages, it should be fairly easy to determine. Animals don't pay taxes, and don't have any use for money so they don't need to be paid for their damages. With the fishermen, you can look at their tax returns see what they have made over the last few years, give them a couple of years salaries, and pay for them to relocate to waters where the fishing wasn't affected. and if they want to stay home with their friends and family and their culture? they'd be able to do that if not for exxon as for the animals and wildlife - if Vick can get in trouble for dog fights... or folk can get arrested or fined for animal cruity then animals have a value. They are also part of a food chain which could arguabley affect other things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Dunno. But mere labels are insufficient to deflect legal responsibility. What ever *his* designation, the boat was called the EXXON Valdez. So Exxon sort of has some responsibility for who they put behind the wheel of their boat. obviously this rule does not apply in michigan to realtors and real estate companies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 No they aren't. Profit = income - costs. He was joking... I hope. In the case of businesses I've always used income and profit interchangably. Revenue - costs = profit (income). Maybe the hairsplitting is that I didn't say net income. I don't normally hear income used in place of revenue (or sales). meh... income Definition 1 For corporations, revenues minus cost of sales, operating expenses, and taxes, over a given period of time. Income is the reason corporations exist, and are often the single most important determinant of a stock's price. Income is important to investors because they give an indication of the company's expected futuredividends and its potential for growth and capital appreciation. That does not necessarily mean that low or negative earnings always indicate a bad stock; for example, many young companies report negative income as they attempt to grow quickly enough to capture a new market, at which point they'll be even more profitable than they otherwise might have been. also called earnings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geeteebee Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 No they aren't. Profit = income - costs. Thanks for playing, but no. Profit = Revenue - costs profit = income Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted June 25, 2008 Author Share Posted June 25, 2008 The master usually has more money than the agents, and the bigger the settlement the bigger the lawyers fee, and lawyers make the laws. We should punish the individual offenders not those that they work for. If I 'f' up on my own time - I don't expect my company to pay for my mistakes. If I 'f' up while while making them money - that is something different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 (edited) I realize that, I'm just questing why? Actually I know the answer to that as well. The master usually has more money than the agents, and the bigger the settlement the bigger the lawyers fee, and lawyers make the laws. We should punish the individual offenders not those that they work for. Of course there is no money in that for those who write the laws. Don't get me wrong, if a company knowingly allows someone to be harmed hammer them, but in most cases its an individual, that does the harm, and 9 times out of 10 the company couldn't have seen it coming. Your love of lawyers knows no bounds. Honestly, I don't think it has to do with lawyers making the laws (well, the legislature, really. But I get your point). It has more to do with the fact that you get the economic upside of their labor. So its only fair that you share in the economic downside of their mistakes. Edited June 25, 2008 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 and if they want to stay home with their friends and family and their culture? they'd be able to do that if not for exxon as for the animals and wildlife - if Vick can get in trouble for dog fights... or folk can get arrested or fined for animal cruity then animals have a value. They are also part of a food chain which could arguabley affect other things. If they want to stay rather than paying them relocation costs, pay for education so that they can work in a similar paying field where they are. With regard to the animals, yes there are laws to prevent animal cruelty, if it is done on purpose. If you are driving down the road and hit a dog on the way home for work, and is lies there kicking and whimpering for 30 minutes before it actually dies, are you going to be charged with animal cruelty. There has to be intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 In the case of businesses I've always used income and profit interchangably. Revenue - costs = profit (income). Maybe the hairsplitting is that I didn't say net income. I don't normally hear income used in place of revenue (or sales). meh... As I already posted, you're right... Income, refers to consumption opportunity gained by an entity within a specified time frame, which is generally expressed in monetary terms.[1] Usage of the term may, however, be somewhat ambiguous. For households and individuals, "income is the sum of all the wages, salaries, profits, interests payments, rents and other forms of earnings received... in a given period of time."[2] For firms, income generally refers to net-profit: what remains of revenue after expenses have been subtracted.[3] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 As I already posted, you're right... Sorry, I had you on ignore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted June 25, 2008 Author Share Posted June 25, 2008 Your love of lawyers knows no bounds. Honestly, I don't think it has to do with lawyers making the laws (well, the legislature, really. But I get your point). I has more to do with the fact that you get the economic upside of their labor. So its only fair that you share in the economic downside of the mistakes. profit ultimately equals the good things your employees do minus the bad things your employees do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 In the case of businesses I've always used income and profit interchangably. Revenue - costs = profit (income). Maybe the hairsplitting is that I didn't say net income. I don't normally hear income used in place of revenue (or sales). I usually differentiate between gross income/cash flow and net/taxable income to avoid confusing the slows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Your love of lawyers knows no bounds. Honestly, I don't think it has to do with lawyers making the laws (well, the legislature, really. But I get your point). I has more to do with the fact that you get the economic upside of their labor. So its only fair that you share in the economic downside of the mistakes. And I could agree with that if you know there is a problem, but in most cases you don't. Say you own a trucking company, and you hire a guy with a spotless driving record, has no medical history of drugs and alcohol (not that an employer is privy to this mind you), you keep a well maintained fleet, and your driver has only been on the road for 3 hours. He stops in at the local quickie mart and buys a 40 drinks it down and has a wreck 30 minutes later. Why is the company at fault? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Sorry, I had you on ignore. I figured as much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 was the captain an independent contractor or employee? Employee. An employee known by Exxon prior to the disaster to be a problem drinker. Hazelwood's driver's license had been suspended or revoked three times by the state of New York for alcohol violations since 1984. At the time of the Exxon Valdez incident, his New York state driving privileges were suspended as a result of a driving under the influence arrest on September 13, 1988.[8] He entered a rehabilitation program in 1985 at South Oaks Hospital in Amityville, New York. Following rehabilitation he received 90 days of leave to attend Alcoholics Anonymous, but it is not clear if he attended during that leave. He wasn't at all a bad ship's master, judging by his bio. In some ways, he was a microcosm of the principle that the guy in charge takes the fall (and also gets the credit, BTW). The same principle applies to companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 And I could agree with that if you know there is a problem, but in most cases you don't. Say you own a trucking company, and you hire a guy with a spotless driving record, has no medical history of drugs and alcohol (not that an employer is privy to this mind you), you keep a well maintained fleet, and your driver has only been on the road for 3 hours. He stops in at the local quickie mart and buys a 40 drinks it down and has a wreck 30 minutes later. Why is the company at fault? Most jurisdictions have a "frolic" exception to the general rule that protects employers when their agents go outside the scope of employment and *then* do something wrong. So its not like business owners have strict liability for the people that work for them. But on the flip side, if employers had zero liability for their employees they wouldn't exactly have the same level of incentive to keep things well-maintained, now would they? Part of why the law is geared this way is to "encourage" employers to stay on top of this kind of stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Employee. An employee known by Exxon prior to the disaster to be a problem drinker. He wasn't at all a bad ship's master, judging by his bio. In some ways, he was a microcosm of the principle that the guy in charge takes the fall (and also gets the credit, BTW). The same principle applies to companies. So, in order for companies to better protect society and the environment you would be all for companies to have full access to employees medical histories, so that they can know if there is a history of drug or alcohol abuse, if the possible hire has sleep apnea, or something else that could possibly impair them, and if they do, you are saying in order for companies to protect society and environment they can tell a person that they are not being hired because of what is in there medical history without fear of litigation. What are we to do with all the unemployed druggies, drunks, and other people with medical problems? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 What are we to do with all the unemployed druggies, drunks, and other people with medical problems? Elect them to public office? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Perch, the employer reaps the most benefits from a successful company, using labor paid whatever the market dictates, right? And that is as it should be. Greatest risk gets greatest profit. Why, therefore, should employers not reap the biggest penalties when things go wrong (that they could reasonably prevent / cure)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Most jurisdictions have a "frolic" exception to the general rule that protects employers when their agents go outside the scope of employment and *then* do something wrong. So its not like business owners have strict liability for the people that work for them. But on the flip side, if employers had zero liability for their employees they wouldn't exactly have the same level of incentive to keep things well-maintained, now would they? Part of why the law is geared this way is to "encourage" employers to stay on top of this kind of stuff. Same scenario, and the driver doesn't stop for the 40, but still has the accident, and it is not due to mechanical failure but due to his own actions are lack there of, why should the company be on the hook for it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 So, in order for companies to better protect society and the environment you would be all for companies to have full access to employees medical histories, so that they can know if there is a history of drug or alcohol abuse, if the possible hire has sleep apnea, or something else that could possibly impair them, and if they do, you are saying in order for companies to protect society and environment they can tell a person that they are not being hired because of what is in there medical history without fear of litigation. What are we to do with all the unemployed druggies, drunks, and other people with medical problems? Exxon knew the captain had a drink problem, period. That made him a risk that they chose to take. They lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.