here's a list of senators who voted AGAIST precluding rape in contracting
10-15-2009, 07:16 PM
#41
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
Sorry, the population of my state isn't retarded enough to vote A PAIR of senators into office that are so dead-set in the ideals of party politics that they will LITERALLY vote to PROTECT COMPANIES THAT COVER UP RAPES in order to maintain their party lines.
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.
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.
Reply
0
0
10-15-2009, 07:37 PM
#42
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.
.
People for this say it's about rape and assault victims. People against it say it's about a business's right to protect itself. The debate here is the same as the debate in the congress and senate. Vote against it and you are for rape! Who can possibly be FOR rape?
The problem is it is not exclusively about violent crime. It is also not about primary businesses but also subcontractors AT ANY LEVEL. So a company services the water bottles in the lounge of security company A who was hired by Corp B working for Corp C under license from some arm of Haliburton. If the water company violates this law, Haliburton is now on the hook. It doesn't matter how many times removed they are.
All legislation has multiple reasons to vote for or against it. Most legislation has so many pages and so much attached to it it's insane. This was about as clean as law that gets voted on, yet there really is no clear choice. If this were about violent crime, why did they have to tag on hiring, supervision and retention? Why did they have to use the phrase "at any tier"?
It is about voting the lesser of two evils every single vote. Both sides suck. No black and white. Only shades of gray.
Reply
0
0
10-15-2009, 07:58 PM
#43
Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Falls Church, VA
Posts: 1,361
Total Cats: 17
Arbitration versus a civil jury trial has nothing to do with human rights and everything to do with money. Your criminal actions and your financial liability are totally separate issues. Just ask O.J. 
The liberals would have you believe that if she went into arbitration to resolve her financial claim against the big bad employer (to whatever extent they are responsible) that the rapists wouldn't go to jail. It's patently absurd, because arbitration cannot be used to resolve criminal matters. Rapists are guilty of rape and if the company covered it up those involved should also be charged in criminal court with conspiracy, aiding and abetting and whatever else fits, and locked up if/when found guilty. That's criminal justice and no arbitration contract can get any party out of it.
What Al Franken really meant by the victim "getting her day in court" was "getting an astronomical cash award from a civil jury because everybody knows that Halliburton and Dick Cheney are evil." Money, that's all. Nothing in his legislation pertains to enforcement of any criminal code. If Al Franken really wanted to focus on this one case, the amendment would simply read "...any claim arising from gang rape and false imprisonment." Instead we have "...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," the last six words of which will open up the courts to much more frivolous litigation than that involving gang rape.
This reminds me of that time several years ago when the bible thumpers exploited a single video of a blank stare from the brain-dead Terry Schaivo to rally support for their much broader pro-life agenda. Plenty of sheeple bought into that too.
Do I think that arbitration would result in a more "fair" or "reasonable" monetary judgment than a jury trial? Often times yes. In this specific case I wouldn't mind seeing a jury trial just because I'm curious how many zeroes would be attached to the verdict. It's too bad she voluntarily signed away that recourse when she took the job. I do know that if her lawyer was worth a **** she would walk out of arbitration with millions. A civil jury would probably get her 5-10X as much. But that's only money, not real justice or human rights.
What Al Franken really meant by the victim "getting her day in court" was "getting an astronomical cash award from a civil jury because everybody knows that Halliburton and Dick Cheney are evil." Money, that's all. Nothing in his legislation pertains to enforcement of any criminal code. If Al Franken really wanted to focus on this one case, the amendment would simply read "...any claim arising from gang rape and false imprisonment." Instead we have "...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," the last six words of which will open up the courts to much more frivolous litigation than that involving gang rape.
This reminds me of that time several years ago when the bible thumpers exploited a single video of a blank stare from the brain-dead Terry Schaivo to rally support for their much broader pro-life agenda. Plenty of sheeple bought into that too.
Do I think that arbitration would result in a more "fair" or "reasonable" monetary judgment than a jury trial? Often times yes. In this specific case I wouldn't mind seeing a jury trial just because I'm curious how many zeroes would be attached to the verdict. It's too bad she voluntarily signed away that recourse when she took the job. I do know that if her lawyer was worth a **** she would walk out of arbitration with millions. A civil jury would probably get her 5-10X as much. But that's only money, not real justice or human rights.
Reply
0
0
10-15-2009, 08:17 PM
#45
Tour de Franzia
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
Actually, this is dealing with arrangements like gang rape...and I firmly believe that women have the right to not be raped, and when they are raped women should be able to utlize any legal purview available to provide proof and send the rapist to jail/hell/albertois.
Reply
0
0
10-15-2009, 08:28 PM
#47
Tour de Franzia
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
well, I don't know that we're lynching people per say. We are dragging black people behind trucks still. When I worked in Beaumont last year there was a highly publicised KKK rally. I'm not fuckign around...this nation is fucked up.
Reply
0
0
10-15-2009, 09:03 PM
#51
What people for this like to believe, is this legislation prevents a company from denying it's employees the right to sue the company should that employee be raped or beaten by another employee. Sounds so simple.
What it also does is allow someone in govt or elsewhere, with a grudge against a large corporation, to go and search through all of the companies doing work for that corporation and all of the companies working for those companies and so on, to find a violation so they can go back and screw with the big company.
When we go to drive the track we sign a contract limiting liability of the track or the sponsor of the event. Say we get t-boned by some ******* who was out of control all day and should have been black flagged and sent home? Well, we signed the damn contract. We signed it and took our chances. We can press charges against the violator, we can sue the violator and anyone involved with him and his car. We just have prescribed methods of dealing with the track or event sponsors liability due to that contract.
By the way. I'm simply being devils advocate in this. I really have no idea if it's good legislation or not. Just emphasizing that little is ever clear cut when it comes to govt legislation.
What it also does is allow someone in govt or elsewhere, with a grudge against a large corporation, to go and search through all of the companies doing work for that corporation and all of the companies working for those companies and so on, to find a violation so they can go back and screw with the big company.
When we go to drive the track we sign a contract limiting liability of the track or the sponsor of the event. Say we get t-boned by some ******* who was out of control all day and should have been black flagged and sent home? Well, we signed the damn contract. We signed it and took our chances. We can press charges against the violator, we can sue the violator and anyone involved with him and his car. We just have prescribed methods of dealing with the track or event sponsors liability due to that contract.
By the way. I'm simply being devils advocate in this. I really have no idea if it's good legislation or not. Just emphasizing that little is ever clear cut when it comes to govt legislation.
Reply
0
0
10-15-2009, 09:03 PM
#52
The focus here is on the company liability for rape and false imprisionment. A company can't be held liable for any criminal actions. Members of the company can be held accountable for crinimal actions thought. I would have a hard time believing that a board member, or anyone in a power situation, is worried about criminal prosecution on a rape from an employee in Arizona on a job site.
*Meant to say Argentina
*Meant to say Argentina
Last edited by rharris19; 10-15-2009 at 10:07 PM.
Reply
0
0
10-15-2009, 09:08 PM
#53
When we go to drive the track we sign a contract limiting liability of the track or the sponsor of the event. Say we get t-boned by some ******* who was out of control all day and should have been black flagged and sent home? Well, we signed the damn contract. We signed it and took our chances. We can press charges against the violator, we can sue the violator and anyone involved with him and his car. We just have prescribed methods of dealing with the track or event sponsors liability due to that contract.
Reply
0
0
10-15-2009, 09:32 PM
#54
Tour de Franzia
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
The focus here is on the company liability for rape and false imprisionment. A company can't be held liable for any criminal actions. Members of the company can be held accountable for crinimal actions thought. I would have a hard time believing that a board member, or anyone in a power situation, is worried about criminal prosecution on a rape from an employee in Arizona on a job site.
Sure, this happened in another nation, but the Federal Acquisition Regulation requires that ethical standards are maintained because its "freedom money" and this nation doesn't rape, torture, or generally abuse humanity because we're the USA, and we're the best!!!
Reply
0
0
10-15-2009, 11:15 PM
#56
Tour de Franzia
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
The bible reads that women are possesions and must stay home to procreate and clean the **** stains out of my whitey-tighties...so if they expect to be accepted into the workforce they should appreciate the rape as a form of endearment. We should also note that the supported the criminal prosecution preclusion through arbitration would also madate that the woman bear the offspring of the rapists rather than terminate the pregnancy. With any luck, the offspring will vote republican and impregnate more rape victims.
Reply
0
0
10-16-2009, 12:09 AM
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Austin, TX yall
Posts: 846
Total Cats: 0
For Context and Clarification (original story):
Lawsuits: Mandatory Binding Arbitration Means Alleged Halliburton Rapists Could Go Free
I'm no fan of BS litigation but binding arbitration is worse. In the majority of instances the company picks an arbitrator that is less than fair. Forcing people to use an Arbitrator in any instance is not Just (IMO).
Even with the flaws in our Legal System, it's far more Just for both parties.
Binding Arbitration: What Is Mandatory Binding Arbitration?
Picture, b/c it seems creepily relevant:
Other examples:
Forced Arbitration: You Can't Sue Us For Discrimination
Arbitration: "We Build In Middle Class Neighborhoods Because You Can't Afford To Fight Us"
Forced Arbitration: You Lose, Now Pay For Our Lunch
Forced Arbitration: As Fair As A Sucker Punch
Arbitration: Mandatory Binding Arbitration Isn't Just Bad For Consumers, It's Bad For Small Businesses
That's a BS excuse. You can't take away people's rights or have them sign BS agreements (as defined by society/law) to work for someone.
I wouldn't have as big a problem with arbitration if it was a more just industry and if it would have self-regulated better.
Chris
Lawsuits: Mandatory Binding Arbitration Means Alleged Halliburton Rapists Could Go Free
A woman who filed a civil lawsuit against Halliburton for being the victim of a gang rape by her coworkers in Iraq will have her day in court, kangaroo court, thanks to the mandatory binding arbitration clause in her employment contract. Jamie Leigh Jones says she was drugged and raped by her fellow workers, then imprisoned inside a shipping container and left without food or water until the US embassy came to rescue after the State Department got calls from her father. She says she was told she would be fired if she sought medical treatment.
Mandatory arbitration means that all disputes are handled by an extra-judicial arbitration firm whose fees are paid for by the corporations and there's zero appeals. One study found that arbitration firms rule against consumers 95% of the time. Now, this is just a civil case, and with the media attention surrounding her story, there will probably be action by the Justice Department to press criminal charges. Let's hope so because we know arbitration is not going to give her justice.
Mandatory arbitration means that all disputes are handled by an extra-judicial arbitration firm whose fees are paid for by the corporations and there's zero appeals. One study found that arbitration firms rule against consumers 95% of the time. Now, this is just a civil case, and with the media attention surrounding her story, there will probably be action by the Justice Department to press criminal charges. Let's hope so because we know arbitration is not going to give her justice.
...
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.
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.
I'm no fan of BS litigation but binding arbitration is worse. In the majority of instances the company picks an arbitrator that is less than fair. Forcing people to use an Arbitrator in any instance is not Just (IMO).
Even with the flaws in our Legal System, it's far more Just for both parties.
Binding Arbitration: What Is Mandatory Binding Arbitration?
Picture, b/c it seems creepily relevant:
Arbitration companies get the bulk of their business from large corporations, so there's a definite possibility for bias in order to protect their revenue stream.
Forced Arbitration: You Can't Sue Us For Discrimination
Arbitration: "We Build In Middle Class Neighborhoods Because You Can't Afford To Fight Us"
Forced Arbitration: You Lose, Now Pay For Our Lunch
Forced Arbitration: As Fair As A Sucker Punch
Arbitration: Mandatory Binding Arbitration Isn't Just Bad For Consumers, It's Bad For Small Businesses
I wouldn't have as big a problem with arbitration if it was a more just industry and if it would have self-regulated better.
Chris
Reply
0
0
10-16-2009, 12:17 AM
#59
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Austin, TX yall
Posts: 846
Total Cats: 0
.........
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."
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."
Go try to find a Major Cell Phone Provider that doesn't include it in their Contract. Up until recently I would've challenged anyone to find a Major Bank/Financial Institution that didn't require it as well (they've started to change as a result of other bad publicity/BAILOUT).
See examples listed above as well.
Chris
Reply
0
0
10-16-2009, 10:53 AM
#60
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,640
Total Cats: 3,007
This amendment has nothing to do with rape and everything to do with money.
If you don't want a lien against your house, don't move into a deed restricted community and fail to maintain your lawn. If you want to be able to sue the pharmacy where you work because another employee raped you in the stockroom, don't sign a piece of paper that gives up that right. And besides, why is it the pharmacy's fault that one of its employees broke the law?
If I shoot one of my coworkers at Pizza Hut (I don't) because he's an *******, why would the widow get to sue Pizza Hut? It was my fault and I go to prison, but why is Pizza Hut responsible for my illegal actions? They are not. But they've got money and I don't, so the lawyers chase Pizza Hut like the zombies from Resident Evil.
If it was called the "Evil Lawyers Extort Money from Hard Working People Amendment" it would get even fewer votes. The name of the amendment or act is usually a sham. It is a fine old tradition in this country.
If you don't want a lien against your house, don't move into a deed restricted community and fail to maintain your lawn. If you want to be able to sue the pharmacy where you work because another employee raped you in the stockroom, don't sign a piece of paper that gives up that right. And besides, why is it the pharmacy's fault that one of its employees broke the law?
If I shoot one of my coworkers at Pizza Hut (I don't) because he's an *******, why would the widow get to sue Pizza Hut? It was my fault and I go to prison, but why is Pizza Hut responsible for my illegal actions? They are not. But they've got money and I don't, so the lawyers chase Pizza Hut like the zombies from Resident Evil.
If it was called the "Evil Lawyers Extort Money from Hard Working People Amendment" it would get even fewer votes. The name of the amendment or act is usually a sham. It is a fine old tradition in this country.
Reply
0
0
