Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I got fired for looking at **** at my last job. I sued them and won. They provided the computer that fueled my addition, not my fault; theirs, they didn't install net nanny.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

Never mind, this thread is beyond reproach.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

Because you realized you were on the illogical side of the issue? Glad I could help to clarify your understanding.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

If you stop your scenario there, sure, they're not responsible.

But let's actually make it comparable, shall we?

-Your coworker complains that you've brought a gun to work before, and he doesn't feel safe at work. Your manager ignores his concerns.
-After you shoot your coworker (he survives, but is mentally scarred for life by the incident), your manager locks him in a box and refuses to let him go home
-It takes governmental intervention to get your coworker unlocked
-When your coworker finally gets out of the box, a rape kit is taken for evidence, which is magically "lost" by your manager or his boss or someone in the organization
-When your coworker gets home, she tries to bring criminal charges against you, and the manager, and everyone else, but the DOJ refuses to listen to her and no charges are filed.
-You don't get fired, let alone spend a single night in jail.

So you're telling me you don't deserve to bring civil charges against this organization?

hustler

iTrader: (6)

its very important that you also acknowledge that American tax money pays for this ****. This is why "we" must hold our tax money uses to a higher standard.

rharris19

iTrader: (41)

What you have discribed would be concidered gross negligence. There is little to nothing that can save a company from that, regardless of forms signed. All a company can do is provide a clause that states that they are not liable for actions made by an employee when there is no precident of concern for this situtation happening.

Everyone is interpriting a lot out of a somewhat vague paragraph. I would like to read the rest of the bill to see what else was in it or if this was elaborated on more.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

Cueball's argument last page is the only legitimate one in this entire thread. The idea that the amendment reaches too far by listing retention, etc. is a plausible one, and worth debating. What really scares me is every argument here is either "well she shouldn't have signed the contract" (Did you ever consider that perhaps NOBODY should be able to sign that contract?) or "well the company isn't reponsible, they didn't do anything wrong" (They did SEVERAL things wrong, some of them negligent, some of them criminally negligent).

Savington

iTrader: (31)

Except forced arbitration clauses can do exactly that - essentially protect the company from any and all negligence, even when it's legitimate negligence. That is the scary thing about forced arbitration - it gives companies absolutely free reign to do whatever the **** they want with no judicial oversight whatsoever. Like Hustler said, we need to hold the companies that are taking our federal tax dollars to a higher standard than that.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

At least I'm not a libertarian..I'd be like 'The Jungle' all over again and then unions would have to form and the whole vicious cycle would start all over.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

me too. I haven't read it, so who knows if it blows my argument away, but here it is, straight from the library of Congress.

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

edit: short enough to just post here:
That's just the amendment, here's something that might get you to the rest of the bill, but there's no "printer friendly" version to post.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR03326:

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

What happens if you find out it was due to the illegal activities of ACRON that Al Fraken got "elected"? Then what? Ignore the fact that democrats are morally bankrupt as well (or just about any career politician for that matter)?

rharris19

iTrader: (41)

There are levels of negligence that will, with out a doubt, force you to go into arbitration, but it can reach a level of gross negligence that can not be forced into arbitration.

Arbitration in my mind is so beyond flawed. People need to take responsibility for what they should be accountable for. It is like David vs. Goliath, but this is real life and not some fairy tale. David will always get crushed. Don't get me wrong, the court system is flawed as well. There is always some way that one side will have an advantage.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I interpret that as: No contracts/funding for companies that want to protect themselves against lawsuits for inter-workplace issues and force arbitration instead.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

Whole text:

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Savington

iTrader: (31)

100% agree with all of this. I feel like Franken's amendment does a decent job of sorting out what kinds of things corporations should be protected from (consumer negligence, tripping and falling in the workplace, etc.) and hits the stuff that is really nasty (sexual harassment, assault/battery, negligent retention). The retention clause is arguable, but you have to think about it: You can sign a contract saying they can never fire you ever, and then they can fire you, and it goes to arbitration and you lose. Which sorta sucks.

jdmaddox88

iTrader: (1)

Too god damn right.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

First of all, where did I shoot him to make him become a "her" a couple of sentences later? And then raped him/her? Eeeeewwww!

Seriously, I would then be guilty of those offenses and so would the boss in whatever jurisdiction it occurred. What do the actions of a couple of individuals have to do with corporate liability except money? What did O.J. Simpson's (alleged) murder of two people have to do with the NFL, ABC Sports, or Hertz Rent-A-Car? Nothing. They were just his employers.





If the law enforcement officials in that jurisdiction choose not to act then it sucks to be in a shithole lawless country and you should definitely not make that mistake again. I have a little personal rule about not going to places where there is no law and bandits use brute force, guns, or bribery to do whatever they want. I'm not a big fan of visiting Colombia or Nicaragua for that reason. And I don't like hanging around with the Kennedys for the same reason.

This amendment doesn't make any of these actions more illegal or more enforceable. It is a stabbing motion being made towards a pet target of the leftists.

And yes, civil charges might be in order against me and against the boss, but what does that have to do with Pizza Hut? Those people in their cubicles at the Pizza Hut home office are not responsible for my psychopathic behavior. And to say they are is preposterous.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

I don't even know where to begin with this ****.

Absolutely everything, actually. Corporate law in the US dictates that an employer is reponsible for its employees' conduct while the employee is on the job, or on company property, or acting in a way that represents the company. Whether you agree with this or not, the company is still liable. Sorry, but that's how it is.

It makes no difference, but like I said I don't like frivolous litigation. If you spill hot coffee, you spilled ******* coffee and you're stupid. If you put the cruise control on and went to back to make a cup of joe in your Winnebago, you're a fool and you deserve nothing. If you're raped and told to keep quiet or you'll lose your job, you probably deserve something for it - or at least the corporation deserves to lose something.

Those are actions taken on behalf of the corporation. This isn't just a manager doing something stupid, this is a manager doing something stupid on behalf of the company - telling an employee that they'll be fired if they disclose a wrongdoing is so morally corrupt it's stunning.

Victim: Gang-Rape Cover-Up by U.S., Halliburton/KBR - ABC News

There comes a point at which the corporation that willingly hired all of these people becomes liable for the gross negligence, destruction of evidence, rape, unlawful detainment, etc. that occurred. If you don't think that she should recover a monetary award, then there's probably a case to be made there. The problem is that this is not an isolated incident.

Another KBR Rape Case

Think Progress » Rep. Poe: At Least 3 Other Women Were Sexually Assaulted While Working For KBR In Iraq

This isn't just 2 guys raping a girl. This is unlawful detainment, destruction of evidence, etc. This is not the kind of conduct the employees of a corporation that is funded by federal tax dollars should be able to get away with.

So it's her fault for going to Iraq in the first place, because if you go to Iraq and get raped you should have no legal recourse of any kind? Are you ******* kidding me?

It's not as if contractors that go overseas aren't still bound by US law:

http://www.contractormisconduct.org/...tml?CaseID=898



That's the point of a corporation, hence one form being named "Limited Liability Corporation". It protects individual hiring managers and CEOs by creating an entity that can and should be held responsible for the grossly negligent misconduct of its employees.

This is not hot coffee in your lap, this is not electrocuting yourself in the bathtub, this is not stopping a chainsaw with your genitals. This is rape, unlawful detainment, and destruction of evidence, and she did ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong. For you to suggest that she should have no legal recourse whatsoever because the crimes committed against her were overseas is so ludicrous it makes me sick to my stomach.

I'd love to see even one of you make this case to your wives or girlfriends.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

That's the best case I can make, guys.

-Even if you don't like frivolous litigation, I don't think you can call compensation for rape and unlawful detainment frivolous
-US Law dictates that corporations can and should be held liable for the actions of their employees
-KBR attempted to use arbitration to get out of their legal responsibilities, and more than a few people think that's bullshit (including the conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals)

With that, I'm not going to post in here anymore because it's giving me a headache.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

- did KBR tell the employees to rape the girl?
- I understand the '30 minutes or it's free' argument, but a business needs to protect itself from everything including isolated incidents of random acts of violence and govt bureaucracy.
- wouldn't you if it happened at Track Speed? What if one of your employees kills someone on the track and the family sues trackspeed...funny how you have to sign a waiver to get on the track.