Lawyers are Anxious to find Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 so they can start the Lawsuits

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 30th, 2014

Week in Review

The disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 has devastated families of those who were on board.  But some people are absolutely giddy about the missing airplane.  And can’t wait for the wreckage to be found.  Lawyers.  So they can start suing and making a lot of money off of the suffering of others (see Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370: Aviation lawyers flock to China by Peter Ford posted 3/27/2014 on The Christian Science Monitor).

Nineteen days after Malaysia Airlines flight 370 disappeared, search teams have still found no shred of physical evidence to clarify what happened to it or to the 239 people aboard.

But as planes and ships hunt the waters of the Indian Ocean for possible wreckage, lawyers are already scouting for clients at the Lido Hotel in Beijing, where passengers’ relatives are staying.

Holding out the prospect of multimillion dollar compensation deals, aviation disaster lawyers from US and Chinese firms are hovering in the hotel’s coffee shop and corridors in the hope that the biggest mystery in modern aviation history will end with a major payout for victims’ families, and for them…

Mr. Wang, who headed for Beijing as soon as he heard that the plane had disappeared, says he has offered his firm’s services to the relatives of more than 100 passengers on a “no win, no fee” contingency basis, and that about 10 have signed up with Ribbeck…

Equally complex is the question of where any suit against Malaysia Airlines may be heard (though a complaint against Boeing, an American company, would most likely be heard in the United States). While a Malaysian or Chinese court might seem the obvious place, lawyers for potential plaintiffs would be anxious to have any complaint judged in the United States, because “you are looking at a much larger award” there, says Ms. Feng.

This is why they make lawyer jokes.  Call them ambulance chasers.  These are the only people—apart from terrorists— who smile at the loss of life.  Because whenever there is a tragedy it means a big paycheck for a law firm.  Those on the left will call doctors greedy and that they shouldn’t profit on the suffering of others.  Many blaming them for all our health care woes.  Those greedy doctors.  Who the government should force to work for less.  As Obamacare will.  But it should be noted that doctors actually save lives while getting rich.  Lawyers don’t.  They just take the biggest cut of any legal settlement.  Helping themselves far more than they help their clients.  But those on the left have no problem with lawyers getting rich on the suffering of others.  Why?  Because lawyers support Democrats.  And donate money to their campaigns.  Which is why the Democrats will never reform tort law.  Because lawyers and Democrats make a lot of money with these lawsuits.  And they have no intentions of ever changing that.


Tags: , , , , , ,

FT129: “You can safely criticize and fire a white man for doing a poor job without being accused of discrimination.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 3rd, 2012

Fundamental Truth

It takes Two to Flirt but Only One to Sexually Harass

Today when you hire into a new company chances are they are going to sit you down and make you watch a video on sexual harassment.  Even if you’re not in a supervisory position.  But you will watch a video where some man will be making an uncomfortable workplace for a woman he supervises.  During the Eighties when the military was trying to get more women into the officer corps they taught officer candidates appropriate man-woman touching.  Resting a hand on a near shoulder while looking over her work was okay.  But placing a hand on a far shoulder was sexual harassment.

People like to socialize in the workplace.  And men especially like to socialize with attractive women in the workplace.  Which can create a minefield for an employer.  Even if they have all employees sit through sexual harassment training.   For there is a fine line between flirting and sexual harassment.  Social chatter often goes into subjects inappropriate for the workplace.  An employer may have some midlevel men that begin to spend too much time around the reception desk.  Men responsible for sales or maintaining customer relationships.  Who have become important cogs in the machine.  Even though they may cruise the single bars after work.  But as long as their personal life didn’t interfere with the workplace their personal life was their personal life.  Until, that is, they start flirting with the pretty women in the workplace.

Flirting is a two-way street.  It takes two to flirt.  But it only takes one to sexually harass.  An employer may like to hire a new receptionist who flirts less because it would be easier to hire a new receptionist than hire a new important cog.  This would be the easiest change to prevent flirting from escalating into harassment.  But doing that will require a lot of documentation of disciplinary actions against the receptionist.  Creating an uncomfortable workplace.  And the inevitable lawsuit for wrongful dismissal.  If the employer doesn’t act fast enough this innocent flirting can escalate to an unwelcomed grope in the supply closet.  Then it’s too late.  Now the employer has a lawsuit to deal with.  As well as having to fire the man responsible for the groping.  Causing an even more unpleasant atmosphere in the workplace.  A business disruption.  And an embarrassing task of explaining it to your customers.  At least those affected by the loss of this individual.

Not every Employee may have been the Best Candidate for their Job when the Labor Department encourages Diversity

This is a problem when you mix men and women in the workplace.  Most of the time there are no problems.  People do their jobs and go home to their families.  But problems happen.  Few will make it through their working career without working at a place without some kind of incident.  And it’s rare for a business owner not to have at least one incident in their business life.  Or to know someone who has.  Still, it doesn’t stop them from hiring women.  Not if they’re the best candidate for a position.  And the best candidates typically are those employees that just want to do their jobs and go home to their families.

But not every employee was the best candidate for their job.  Not when the labor department monitors a business’ diversity in hiring. Some businesses are in such a narrow niche market that there aren’t a lot of employees with the requisite skills to choose from.  When the pool of candidates is small chances are the there isn’t a lot of diversity in that pool.  New technologies are sometimes so new that few even know of them.  And the educational system is still playing catch-up.  But anyone ever audited by the government for diversity compliance (typically when federal money is involved) can attest that it is better to be diverse than to be audited.  So you hire people that may not be the best but you hope that with a lot of on-the-job training they will become an important cog in the machine.

Then you have people who just game the system.  Contractors who want to work in big cities have to meet a plethora of requirements just to bid on a project.  Especially when there is federal money involved.  Included in some of these requirements are diversity requirements.  And residency requirements.  They want to award these projects to city-based companies whose workers live in the city.  A noble goal if you’re trying to revitalize the local economy.  But a difficult requirement to meet in some new technologies.  Where they may have only a few companies qualified to do the work to begin with.  But if there is only one who meets the residency requirement this company is going to be at a distinct advantage.  Who can even underbid the project to seal the deal.  And once they have the project they can then bury the city with additional charges and delay the project until they get what they want.

Anyone who Dares to Criticize President Obama and his Policies is Quickly Labeled a Racist

I once sat in some meetings with such a contractor.  He was a smart guy.  He knew the new technology in the project like few others.  Which gave him an advantage in those meetings.  He went on about design mistakes and omissions but it was Greek to everyone at the table.  And nothing ever got done without a fight over additional money.  This guy used the system to delay the project and get the owner to capitulate and pay his additional claims.  Especially when they threatened to replace him with another contractor.  None of which he knew met the residency requirement.  And he said off-the-record to someone that if they did remove him from the project he would sue for discrimination.  Don’t know if that was true but everyone in those meetings acted as if it were.  This guy gave ulcers to everyone on the management team.  But they were always guarded with their comments.  Except for one.  Who let go a verbal barrage in one meeting that stunned everyone.  Saying what everyone wanted to say but didn’t.  Out of fear of being accused of racism.  For criticizing a black man.  So why did this one man speak his mind?  Two reasons.  When he sat in those meetings he was the smartest one in the room.  He didn’t hear Greek.  He just heard a lot of BS.  And he had no problem criticizing a black man.  For he, too, was a black man.

This is why some people like hiring white men.  Because they can criticize them.  And fire them for doing a poor job.  With the least amount of fear that someone will charge them for wrongful dismissal.  Or charge them with discrimination.  Having the ability to easily fire bad (or less than stellar) employees makes business easier.  And less costly.  So an employer has many considerations in the hiring process.  When it comes to older candidates with proven experience it typically is a pure meritocracy.  They hire the best qualified candidate.  For younger inexperienced candidates it may be less a meritocracy than hedging their risk.  Meet any diversity requirements first.  Then maybe hire people that they’ll be able to fire easier if they don’t work out.

It can be risky business criticizing a black man.  Or trying to fire one.  Consider President Obama.  Any objective analysis of his economic policies shows them to be an abject failure.  The official unemployment rate (U-3) hasn’t been below 8% since he’s been president.  The real unemployment rate that counts the underemployed and those who’ve quit looking for work (the U-6 unemployment rate) is just north of 15%.  Which is little better than it was during the Great Depression.  His Keynesian policies are doing no better than the Keynesian policies of Jimmy Carter.  His regulatory zeal has punished business.  It’s even putting the domestic coal and oil industries out of business.  And Obamacare has paralyzed small business with the fear of the unknown.  With no idea what the total cost will be to them they are not hiring anyone unless they absolutely have to.  After an objective economic analysis (leaving the politics out of it) there can be but one conclusion.  President Obama is not good for the American economy.  But anyone who dares criticize him and his policies is quickly labeled a racist.  Which begs the question what would they label those who criticize the president if President Obama was white?


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,