Check out some similar questions!

excon · Oct 22, 2009, 03:41 PM

Hello:

Silly Republicans. 30 of 'em who call themselves Senators voted AGAINST an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill that would STOP federal funding for contractors that FORCED victims of assault to settle their claims through arbitration. The amendment stemmed from what happened to Jamie Lee Jones in Iraq when she worked for KBR, where she was brutally assaulted by co-workers.

Republican Senator Jeff Sessions said the amendment was “a political attack by Senator Al Franken aimed at Haliburton.” Senator Franken pointed out that no contractor was named in the amendment, not that it would matter to anyone so idiotic as to vote against an assault protection amendment.

These are the same Senators who are calling for an investigation of ACORN where only PRETEND prostitution was considered, but who don't want an investigation into a company where REAL rapes happen.

The mere idea that arbitration would shield a company from ANY wrongdoing while at the same time that company is receiving OUR TAX DOLLARS is beyond the pale.

excon

Ren6 · Oct 22, 2009, 05:16 PM

The silence is deafening! Here's a link I picked up from the Thom Hartmann show yesterday...
Republicans for Rape - Blog

tomder55 · Oct 23, 2009, 02:44 AM

What you fail to mention is that the Obama Defense Dept. sent a letter to the Senate urging that the amendment be rejected. The DOD and the White House itself ,although in favor of the intent of the amendment ,had issues with the enforceablilty of it .

I also agree with the intent of the amendment and hope it is reworded to cover ALL business contracts within U.S. jurisdiction ;and not just a transparent attack on a single contractor.

Imagine the nightmare of having to review the employee contracts of all contractors and sub-contractors doing business with the government . It would be an impossible time consuming bureaucratic waste of time.

But the rabid left wing attack machine spins it to mean that having issues with the technical wording of the amendment is the same thing as being in favor of rape.

Simply stated ,no employee ,whether they work for Haliburton and subsidiaries or not ;should be compelled to sign mandatory arbitration clauses as a precondition to employment if they include signing away their right to pursue justice from criminal violation .And if Americans can get away with gang rape ,be they working in the borders or outside the borders of the country ,then there is a lot more wrong than issues of employee contract law.

speechlesstx · Oct 23, 2009, 06:27 AM

Another one of those "Right wing, despicable, UNAMERICAN behavior!" posts (which you sure dropped pretty quick). Even on Huffpo Ryan Grim says "It's a question, it turns out, best addressed to the White House."

Nice try.

ETWolverine · Oct 23, 2009, 06:48 AM

First of all, how does voting against a LABOR LAW equate to "voting for rape"?

Secondly, the Amendment, as I understand it, doesn't protect women or even penalize those who rape them. It does nothing to protect anyone.

Third, the law is a LABOR law that has nothing to do with DOD appropriations.

Fourth, even the White House has come out against the law. I guess that means that Obama also voted for rape.

You're on very thin ground here, excon.

Elliot

NeedKarma · Oct 23, 2009, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

First of all, how does voting against a LABOR LAW equate to "voting for rape"?

Secondly, the Amendment, as I understand it, doesn't protect women or even penalize those who rape them. It does nothing to protect anyone.

I know you have more respect for corporations than women but some feel otherwise.

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and "warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job." (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.

Offering Ms. Jones legal relief was Senator Al Franken of Minnesota who offered an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR "if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court."

Here are those who vote to protect a corporation over a victim of rape:

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

NeedKarma · Oct 23, 2009, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Another one of those "Right wing, despicable, UNAMERICAN behavior!" posts (which you sure dropped pretty quick). Even on Huffpo Ryan Grim says "It's a question, it turns out, best addressed to the White House."

nice try.

So you also would have voted against the amendment?

speechlesstx · Oct 23, 2009, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

So you also would have voted against the amendment?

Yes, NK, I have more respect for corporations than women. :rolleyes:

This has nothing to do with whether anyone voted for the amendment, it's about the blatantly false and outrageous charge that Republicans are for rape, and especially while ignoring the fact that the administration was against it as well. Using your logic Obama is FOR rape as well.

NeedKarma · Oct 23, 2009, 07:18 AM

So what is the logic behind the 30 who voted against it?

tomder55 · Oct 23, 2009, 07:19 AM

The answer is yes I would've voted against it for the reasons I cited above.

Furthermore ;Senator Al Franken knew the weaknesses in the amendment and introduced it anyway so it could be demagogued .

NeedKarma · Oct 23, 2009, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

The answer is yes I would've voted against it for the reasons I cited above.

So the 75% of Republican congressmen who voted FOR it are not as savvy as you?

tomder55 · Oct 23, 2009, 07:42 AM

So the 75% of Republican congressmen who voted FOR it are not as savvy as you?

I don't care why the Republicans voted . Show me they voted because they were for rape ? You can't .

But while you are quick to make phoney charges against the Republicans you neglect to point out how much in bed the Democrats are with the trial lawyer lobby.

The facts are that a rape in the workplace is a rare event;and I don't believe any court would uphold the proposition that an employee could not seek criminal and civil redress because of some employee contract .

But liberal trial lawyers have long objected to mandatory arbitration provisions for things like discrimination cases. And that is in fact what Franken was targeting... The fact that it happened to a defense contractor that the left despises... (despite the fact that this administration and the previous Democrat Administration had ongoing contracts with them)... is just the icing on the cake.

NeedKarma · Oct 23, 2009, 07:45 AM

Wow, I'm speechless.

speechlesstx · Oct 23, 2009, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Wow, I'm speechless.

If only...

tomder55 · Oct 23, 2009, 07:52 AM

You should be . It's absurd on face level to make a claim that any company policy could trump the law. Rape is illegal so no company policy could possibly exempt someone who is guilty of rape.

excon · Oct 23, 2009, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

I don't care why the Republicans voted . Show me they voted because they were for rape ? You can't .

The facts are that a rape in the workplace is a rare event;and I don't believe any court would uphold the proposition that an employee could not seek criminal and civil redress because of some employee contract .

But liberal trial lawyers have long objected to mandatory arbitration provisions for things like discrimination cases. And that is in fact what Franken was targetting ... The fact that it happened to a defense contractor that the left despises ....

Hello again, tom:

I can. By objecting to an employees right to seek redress of their grievances in a court of law, they are supporting WHATEVER behavior caused the grievance in the first place. If that behavior is rape, then they support rape. That is just so...

Mandatory arbitration with NO appeal, whether you think so or not, has been upheald. Otherwise, why do you think Halliburton uses it? They use it, to LIMIT the rights of the employee and EXPAND their own. They are ABUSIVE of an employees rights. To end the practice is good, and right, and just, and the American way.

excon

tomder55 · Oct 23, 2009, 08:08 AM

Yes I'm aware of the Scotus decision in the Gilmer case (upheld 7-2) .
I'll repeat myself. NO WAY does that cover instances of rape .

I'll also repeat myself that if Congress were to pass a law banning mandatory arbitration I would support it. This was a sneaky back door trick by Franken.

excon · Oct 23, 2009, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

It's absurd on face level to make a claim that any company policy could trump the law. Rape is illegal so no company policy could possibly exemp someone who is guilty of rape.

Hello again, tom:

I think you misunderstand the fundamentals... We're not talking about criminal law here. If we were, you'd be right. No company policy shields someone from criminal charges...

What we're talking about here, is someone seeking civil redress for the wrongs committed against them while employed, no matter WHAT those wrongs are. Mandatory arbitration is a way to LIMIT a citizens rights under the Constitution. THIS legislation is a way to CLOSE that loophole.

excon

tomder55 · Oct 23, 2009, 08:30 AM

Then create legislation that would close that loop hole and sign me up .

This amendment rider to a defense appropriations bill does nothing of the sort however . That is why the WH objected to it.

Btw I think Jamie Lee Jones could pursue this in court and win because it was a criminal act against her. To my knowledge she has not pursued ANY judicial or criminal redress at all. So far all I see is her testifing to Congress and setting up web sites. If I'm wrong about that please correct me.

excon · Oct 23, 2009, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

If I'm wrong about that please correct me.

Hello again, tom:

I don't know what she's doing. But, she has a lawyer, and lawyers sue people. They don't make money when their client goes on TV. Maybe she's laying the foundation first. That ain't dumb. Or she's trying to guilt trip Halliburton into settling with her. That ain't dumb either.

excon