here's a list of senators who voted AGAIST precluding rape in contracting
#21
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,507
Total Cats: 4,080
The two party system means nothing anymore. I don't fit the mold in any party. I tend to vote conservative for federal issues and liberal for social, like a 'true' republican. we are so far to the left on both parties now a days, i didn't see a difference between obama and mccain, so i didnt vote. I am however voting against Deeds for Governor in a few weeks.
#22
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,507
Total Cats: 4,080
Or they can be asked to sign the arbitration clause, or pack-up and go home. Can you seriously suggest that its acceptable for tax money to be used on a contract with an organization that provides special clauses which specifically enable rape with impunity to the rapist? Please, come the **** on with the partisan, liberty bullshit.
Don't read it, but defend the rape enabling contract. That's a great idea.
Don't read it, but defend the rape enabling contract. That's a great idea.
#23
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,675
Total Cats: 3,017
We don't need more stupid laws enacted as part of some political game (and that is ALL that is behind it). If those politicians were actually concerned about rape and not Haliburton there would be wide support, but they're not, and there isn't. And you are naive if you think that the amendment has anything to do with stopping rape. Ask Juanita Broderick if she thinks that allegations of rape are really important to them. Politicians suck.
#25
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,100
For ****'s sake, the federal government removes highway funding from states that don't adhere to the 21 year old drinking age, but it's not the Senate's place to revoke funding from DOD contractors that hide rape charges
**** you jeff sessions
#26
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,100
The Republican party is so back-asswards it makes me sick to my stomach. BRB, I have to go re-register as a Democrat. Even though I don't agree with half the **** they do, I don't agree with ALL the **** the GOP has been doing recently.
#30
The problem is that the party needs a re-form but everyone for some god damned reason thinks that the only reason the party exists is for people who want to resist being reformed and changing.
People like Scott and Myself, and several others I know don't have many options. I'm not a democrat, I don't really support dems values, and don't like federal policies of democrats. But I don't read the bible and don't believe gays should be incapable of being married and I'm pro-choice etc. etc. etc. I can name a lot of people like that, even my 50+ year old co-worker is registered republican and believes the same things. Heck she's even more liberal about things than I am, she watches fox news and still considers herself a republican and thinks that Obama is naive.
People like Scott and Myself, and several others I know don't have many options. I'm not a democrat, I don't really support dems values, and don't like federal policies of democrats. But I don't read the bible and don't believe gays should be incapable of being married and I'm pro-choice etc. etc. etc. I can name a lot of people like that, even my 50+ year old co-worker is registered republican and believes the same things. Heck she's even more liberal about things than I am, she watches fox news and still considers herself a republican and thinks that Obama is naive.
#31
Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Falls Church, VA
Posts: 1,361
Total Cats: 17
Halliburton, KBR, and other contractors mentioned in the amendment's purpose statement are paper entities and as such do not have penises and therefore cannot commit rape, no matter how much the talking heads on CNBC try to convince you otherwise.
Let's assume for the sake of friendly argument that you and I both work for Halliburton and I **** you in the ***. Let's also assume that you didn't first ask me to, that you didn't enjoy it immensely, and now you claim it was rape. No arbitration clause between you and Halliburton would have any legal consequence as far as the "allegedly" criminal use of my mighty poz rod. I'd still go to jail. Private party contracts do not provide criminal immunity.
If I wanted to play devil's advocate, I could spin that vote as just another example of Democrats catering to those whose version of the American Dream involves suing anyone and everyone they possibly can.
Here's the text of the amendment that passed:
Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.
Since you don't get to pick which parts to vote for or against, I'd vote against that amendment too because of the "negligent hiring, supervision, or retention" part. That clause gets too far away from a gang rape and too close to a trial lawyer's wet dream that will result in far more frivolous matters than a gang rape ending up in court rather than arbitration where they belong. Remember that these are govt contractors so the resulting costs of doing business will be passed to the taxpayer. Which might not bother you if you are in favor of big government and high taxes.
If all of those allegations are true the victim would walk away from arbitration with more than enough money to be set for life. It's not like arbitration is a magic fantasy world where companies have no financial culpability. It is somewhat less likely than a jury trial to result in a $14M award for a spilled coffee, however. But if you don't like a company's arbitration policy, don't sign it. If that means not working for them, or quitting, tough noogies. Nobody is forcing you to work there.
Let's assume for the sake of friendly argument that you and I both work for Halliburton and I **** you in the ***. Let's also assume that you didn't first ask me to, that you didn't enjoy it immensely, and now you claim it was rape. No arbitration clause between you and Halliburton would have any legal consequence as far as the "allegedly" criminal use of my mighty poz rod. I'd still go to jail. Private party contracts do not provide criminal immunity.
If I wanted to play devil's advocate, I could spin that vote as just another example of Democrats catering to those whose version of the American Dream involves suing anyone and everyone they possibly can.
Here's the text of the amendment that passed:
Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.
Since you don't get to pick which parts to vote for or against, I'd vote against that amendment too because of the "negligent hiring, supervision, or retention" part. That clause gets too far away from a gang rape and too close to a trial lawyer's wet dream that will result in far more frivolous matters than a gang rape ending up in court rather than arbitration where they belong. Remember that these are govt contractors so the resulting costs of doing business will be passed to the taxpayer. Which might not bother you if you are in favor of big government and high taxes.
If all of those allegations are true the victim would walk away from arbitration with more than enough money to be set for life. It's not like arbitration is a magic fantasy world where companies have no financial culpability. It is somewhat less likely than a jury trial to result in a $14M award for a spilled coffee, however. But if you don't like a company's arbitration policy, don't sign it. If that means not working for them, or quitting, tough noogies. Nobody is forcing you to work there.
#34
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,100
That's exactly what arbitration is. Arbiters are chosen based on their track record of ruling in favor of the companies they are hired by, and some arbiters rule in favor of the corporation 95% of the time. Arbitration was designed to allow two companies to settle disputes without costly legal battles, but powerhouses like KBR and Haliburtion (and dozens and dozens of other companies, universities, etc) use it today to deny their employees/students/etc the right to a legal complaint.
#35
Sadly, he does know what he is talking about. I have done too many case studies on corporate liabilities and seen how they find the outragious settlements they do. It is unreal. The jury gereneraly side with the plaintiff and view the large companies are souless. Really the whole vor dire process is a loss limitation and not picking people who will side with you. You are picking people who will hate the corporation less.
#37
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,100
There is no justification of this that is even remotely rational, folks. It's rape, end of story. If you seriously think that corporations like KBR that actively utilize arbitration to avoid confronting accusations like this deserve our tax dollars, you need to take a serious step back. This is not about protecting big business, or partisan politics: This is about basic human rights.
#40
I normally don't get into political discussions on here but I got interested when I saw that Demint (who I generally agree with and believe is an upstanding fellow) voted against the amendment. I am looking for some quotes from those who opposed it but I haven't found much yet.
If it was a political thing (trying only to bust Halliburton's ***** or get the government involved in all hiring contracts for more Fed power) I would like to know. I somehow doubt that ANY Senator likes to see young girls get rapped without full recourse of the law. If one does, they need to hang.
Anyway, FWIW, here was what Sessions said:
Senator Sessions: (3:38 PM)
· Spoke against the Franken Amendment #2588 to H.R. 3326.
o SUMMARY "The amendment would impose the will of Congress on private individuals and companies in a retroactive fashion, invalidating employment contracts without due process of law. It's a political amendment, really at bottom, representing sort of a political attack directed at Halliburton, which is a matter of sensitivity. Notwithstanding, the Congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts. That's just not how we should handle matters in the United States Senate. Certainly without a lot of thought and care and without the support or at least the opinion of the Department of Defense. Senator Franken introduced the amendment because he apparently does not like the fact that there are arbitration agreements in employment contracts. I would suggest that is common all over America today."
If it was a political thing (trying only to bust Halliburton's ***** or get the government involved in all hiring contracts for more Fed power) I would like to know. I somehow doubt that ANY Senator likes to see young girls get rapped without full recourse of the law. If one does, they need to hang.
Anyway, FWIW, here was what Sessions said:
Senator Sessions: (3:38 PM)
· Spoke against the Franken Amendment #2588 to H.R. 3326.
o SUMMARY "The amendment would impose the will of Congress on private individuals and companies in a retroactive fashion, invalidating employment contracts without due process of law. It's a political amendment, really at bottom, representing sort of a political attack directed at Halliburton, which is a matter of sensitivity. Notwithstanding, the Congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts. That's just not how we should handle matters in the United States Senate. Certainly without a lot of thought and care and without the support or at least the opinion of the Department of Defense. Senator Franken introduced the amendment because he apparently does not like the fact that there are arbitration agreements in employment contracts. I would suggest that is common all over America today."