Is BP monitoring ATS? posting of documents may have brought them out.

great post, very insightful information. I can't blame them for trying to pull a stunt like that on a contract when they obviously know the risks of the products they're using.

I would have thought contracts like that should be made illegal as it's obvious why they are worded that way. I just feel sorry for the poor people who signed them either not having bothered to read it, or not completely understanding the consequences of what it means.

Surely 'negligence' in terms of health and safety is criminal matter and not something you can just sign away? If that #'s legal then its a sorry state of affairs for the law!

props on posting it for the masses to see. And that video of the 'cleaned up' (or should I say 'covered up', in both senses of the word ) is just shocking. Surely they must realise it's not going to just disappear under and inch of clean sand! Unless they planned on shutting off ALL access to the beach for years to come someone would obviously notice.

Shocking stuff, and great post.

Many people correctly point put that these documents are standard legal mumbo jumbo. Many of us execute similar contracts in the day to day running of a business. For most of us "small people", these documents are mostly pro forma because we conduct business in a responsible, sane manner. And few of us have the time or resources to hire legal clowns, security goons, or corrupt politicians to enforce them. BP does.

serfs on the bp plantation

An Idea on How to Get Direct Information from Spill Cleanup Workers

Originally posted by SWCCFAN


I have re-posted the documents below so you don't have to bounce to 4 threads to see what you need to see.

I'm not going to say these documents are not real, however, I find it odd that a real document with all its legal ramifications would have such a grammar/spelling error as "COMPNAIES. I did not notice any more errors in any of the other documents, so that could've just been an oversight. Yet it does make me question, if not the documents presented, then most assuredly this company (ies) and their managements ability to do anything other then to make money and throw themselves and their people under the bus in a desperate search for those dollars.


--Charles Marcello


[edit on 10-7-2010 by littlebunny]

i like your mentality, except all companies and corporations draw up ridiculous forms to cover their butts.

fireal its a way of life for them. so perhaps the problem is that we only file lawsuits when we should be filing for witch hunts.

Hey BP, I have a message for you "my friend".
Get #ed.

Some things that I noticed. First, with the neglence clause it doesn't say you can't make the claim, it says you can't make the claim on the company. You can still make the claim in the state and federal programs-another expense of the taxpayer.
Second, these companies are the ones holding contracts with who?????? for the clean-up. Are these companies the only ones allowed to go there and clean up. So if nobody signed these contracts then it wouldn't get cleaned up? I understand that businesses use contracts and some of them suck- just like these do-but if everybody quit signing away personal and perfessional liability maybe the corps would have to make a much greater offer to destroy the planet.

corporate contracts are a conspiracy in themselves. maybe i should do a thread on it.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by eazyriderl_l]

reply to post by OuttaTime

Everyone should copy all these documents and send them to AC360, and all news stations covering the gulf. So that they are bombarded with BP's documents. And keep sending them to all news outlet until they are forced to show this on the news.

Since when is it legal for a company you work for to have you sign a contract that they can seize your computer? # 7 in the contract. If you work for a company and they come to your door and ask to either see the documents in your computer or seize the entire thing, would you let them? This shows how desperate people are for work - isn't this totally illegal? Would it hold up in a court of law if you refused to abide by the contract after signing it?

reply to post by killicon



Good idea, we need for everyone to see what BP is asking of their employees! I will do that if it is alright with the OP, I would not want to implicate you in anyway, please advise.

I suppose in theory they could ask you do absolutely anything in a contract, there's nothing forcing you to sign it as you have the freedom to say no. Unfortunately in times of economic hardship and high unemployment rates they probably figure they can take advantage and push it further than normal when people are desperate.

reply to post by crezo


That is most likely what they are doing - taking advantage of people, no thought for the good of humanity. BP -disgusting pieces of rubbish!

People... come on. Use your heads. They're covering their asses in case of a lawsuit or criminal charges. How's that going to look to a Judge when they're asked to provide "such and such document," and BP has to respond, "Well, the employee in possession of that document deleted it?" I'll connect the dots for you: It'll look like a little crime called "destruction of evidence."

Think occasionally. It'll make your brain stronger.

I don't suppose this will be very popular, and I'm all for giving BP a real hard time about all this stuff, but we ought to be careful to not be rediculous in what we find to be rediculous.

A) You don't have to sign it! If you don't want to accept these conditions then don't accept them. In fact, the only way that you would accept these conditions(assuming that you are a rational person) is if you feel that the benefits of doing the job outweigh the risks/downside of signing the contract. If you don't think it's worth it, you simply won't do it. You will only sign it if you think it's worth it. What's wrong with that? People are being allowed to choose. . . is this not a choice that they should be allowed to make? It's clear that those of you who scream about this stuff probably wouldn't sign the document, but it's not unethical for these companies to put this kind of contract out there and let people sign it if they choose to.

B) You can't sign away your protection again anything criminal. In the same way that it would still be illegal for someone to kill you, even if you signed something saying that it would be okay, you cannot sign away your ability to be compensated if you are injured due to criminal negligence, or any other criminal behavior. Contracts, by law, cannot and do not protect criminal behavior. The entire content of the contract is assumed to refer to and be applicable only to legal matters (here, not "legal" in the sense of having to do with the law, but "legal" in the sense of being within the law; as opposed to illegal). What this means is that if anything that is actually illegal is the cause of any injury/harm/loss on the part of the employees - the people who sign the contract - they would still be able to sue, and the responsible party would still be held accountable in court for breaking the law. Regulations by organizations like OSHA and the EPA, as well as criminal negligence laws, are all legally binding despite this contract and would protect people in these cases.

C) Virtually all dangerous jobs or dangerous activities( i.e. recreational sports like skiing or skateboarding or things like tattoos) that fall under the responsibility of any company require the participants - employees or otherwise - to sign waivers of liability. I'm sure you've all done it many times. The legal thrust of these documents is that you assume responsibility for participating in this action, as opposed to the company that you engage in the action with or on behalf of.

An example for a less inflammatory industry: I work in a lab and at times I deal with tritium, which is radioactive. I signed a waiver of liability for the University that owns and operates the lab. If I get hurt there, I can't sue them, unless they did something negligent or illegal that lead to my injury. Doesn't that seem reasonable? What's going on in the case in this thread is not substantially different(except there's not anything radioactive. . .).

I don't think there's anything wrong with these documents. Don't sign them if you don't want to. If you do sign them, the companies still can't do anything illegal that harms you and be protected by the contract; it offers no protection to the companies and the employees give up no rights if the matter at hand is actually in violation of any laws.

Also, you must remember that it's very clear that there are many people who just can't wait to sue a company for rediculous stuff. These contracts protect against those people who might stub their toe on the job then go on disability for back problems for 5 years and demand pain and suffering compensation. There is a large body of such frivolous suits. It is reasonable for companies to protect themselves against these sorts of things, especially in cases like this where the public opinion is already so strongly on the side of anyone who challenges any company at all related to BP or oil.

The non-disclosure/information management stuff is also nothing to get too worked up over. Again, it's all voluntary. Isn't it clear that any company would try very hard to tightly control and manage information about high profile, controvertial issues (like the oil spill)? It's a simple proposition really; you can't do this job if you're not willing to play along with information management side of it. You have a choice. Is this a bad thing? Anyone who is in possession of real evidence of any illegal practices is totally protected by whistleblower laws, and can expose everything and tear this contract up; that's not what these contracts address. If it's not illegal, you don't have the right to disclose it, since the company wouldn't have given you access to it if you hadn't agreed in advance to their policies. The freedom of employees of these companies is not, and should not be, the kind of freedom given to the press or other independant organizations; employes aren't independant of the company and are given priviledged access because they agree to the policies of the company related to disclosure and information management.

What, from any of this, is bad?

Edited to bold key points. . . I got a little carried away in terms of length so I bolded what I think is the crux of the issue.

[edit on 7/10/10 by OnceReturned]

Hey Swcc, this just boils down to the same thing that everything we see on here does anymore, blah blah blah, they as in TPTB, are attempting as normal, to make you the innocent folks of the world, sick and dead , again, How many more stories of us rich folk absolutely demolishing your homes, our Earth, and removing any chance of you all surviving or standing a chance in life of living the American dream. We figure we can just keep showing you all this sickening garbage until it is completely commonplace and you won't even care anymore. C'mon people are you out of your damn minds!? When is enough enough!? When do you finally look to your neighbors and family and say forget it! We are no longer goiung to play your sick game! Wake up folks before it's too late! Change whatever you can and change it yesterday! I for one am giving up oil use! I'm working on converting my home to solar and my car to bio-diesel! Come on folks we can do it! Tell them to shove i where the sun don't shine and hurt em the only plaace where you can, take away their power!

reply to post by OnceReturned


oncereturned, You logic beaks down on point number one. An employee does not have fee choice when the ramifications of not-signing such a document might mean the loss of your job. In a recession economy with the well-being of your family (or yourself) at stake, in terms of merely being able to continue to eat, your freedom of choice is stripped unless you are become willing to take the chance on your loved ones going hungry. You make an argument that perfectly backs up Karl Marx's analysis that freedom under capitalism is a "dual freedom" - freedom to eat or freedom to starve. Don't know if you really want to do that and I'm sure you probably wouldn't, but this is not a free choice - it's extortion.

Originally posted by harrytuttle
reply to post by Daughter2

 

I worked for a $2.5 billion/year corporation with over 22,000 employees and I never had to sign a ridiculous contract like that pertaining to work related documents, only a non-compete clause.

Your ignorance of this matter is even further expounded by the fact that this document is written SPECIFICALLY for the "April 20, 2010" oil spill disaster and all activities related to it.

So for you to claim this is "standard stuff" is a completely false statement. Are you one of the BP shills the OP was warning us about?


[edit on 10-7-2010 by harrytuttle]

The document pertaining to evidence non-spoilation is a form routinrly used to help in rebutting claims that documents have been hidden or destroyed. While obviously this document was prepared for use in matters surrounding the oil spill, it parrots the specemin set out in American Jurisprudence Pleading and Practice Forms Annotated. I can't copy the form here since it is copyrighted but you can verify by going to your nearest law school library and comparing the document to the form in the form book. Google the court case of Carlucci v. Piper Aircraft to see what happens when you fail to have document retention guidelines.
So the form absolutely is standard for use in situations where one foresees litigation.
And for the person who posted about signing a contact with the words "under duress"; sorry, but that is no help. If you are under duress and coerced to sign, then you may be able to avoid the contract. But that kind of legal duress is something like the other party holding a gun to your head. Financial need, that is not caused by the other party, is not defensive "duress." For example, if you go to the bank and borrow $5,000 and sign a note, you can't get out of it later by saying, "But Judge, I was under duress. My wife was pregnant and my kids were hungry.
And the fact that you write "under duress" by your signature is meaningless and,in fact in most states would be inadmissible. It is an out of court statement (I'm signing under duress) to prove the truth of the statement (I was under duress) and that is the textbook definition of hearsay.

reply to post by Redwookieaz


Redwookieaz, good for you! I can't go that way entirely because of the downturn and have few resources to be able to do these things. One thing that would help a lot of people like me was a very successful tax credit policy under Jimmy Carter for converting homes to Solar energy. It reduced the costs to consumers enough that we a solar manufacturing and construction industries popped up all over the country in a few short years. They largely disappeared after Reagan repealed the credit (or rather it was repealed under Reagan). Something like that cold be accomplished fiscally by simply cutting down the subsidies Congress now gives to oil companies for new drilling. No tax hike, just a tax shift. Anyway, I'm working in that direction (getting off of oil as much as is economically possible) not too.

As one who signed the document, I must point out that it does not ,, I repeat does not release the company's workers comp insurance company from any damages or injury's sustained on the job while working, and that is standard for every company that i have work for ,, thats the reason company's carry insurance to protect themselves. as anyone should know baseless law suites are filed all the time and it cost company's and the or we taxpayers billions in losses

reply to post by 4nsicphd


Many of my friends are lawyers and as a result I have learned more about the workings of the law than I ever expected I would in a lifetime. These are people I not only like and, or love, but respect. One thing about them though that I think is true of all of us in any job structure and culture, is that you begin to think in the jargon of the law. "Legaleeze" becomes second nature and the logic of the technicalities of the law comes to appear natural and obvious to you and you forget that the "logic of the law" is different from the logics of other people.

A "gun to the head" which is very real to a worker whose family depends on their income to stay alive means something very tangible that dissolves into smoke and mirrors in a courtroom. For most of us, the perception of having a gun put to your head to sign something of your rights away when your continued survival depends on doing it is very real - IT IS EXTORTION.

There is a certain imperative for language to be precise in contracts and laws, but we've gone much too far over the years making it more complicated than it need be. This is why the Supreme Court will occasionally have to refer to things like the federalist debates, or Constitutional convention to make a decision on an issue where there is no clear precedent to try and determine "the intent of the founders and "spirit of the law." That, then, is appealing to the values of the law in THIS society and in this society we don't like guns, real or metaphorical put to our heads for any reason. We were created as a country out of a revolution over just that feeling.