“If ever there was a time for the unanimous passing of an amendment, the Franken anti-government contractor rape liability bill would seem to be that,” said Jon Stewart on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show.” Stewart’s bit highlighted the 30 GOP male senators, including Kansas’ Pat Roberts and Sam Brownback, who recently voted not to bar federal contracts to defense contractors if they prevent their employees from taking workplace sexual assault and discrimination cases to court. Among the 68 votes that carried the amendment to passage were the only four women Republicans in the chamber: Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
100 Comments
Sam (the Sham) Browback is pro-rape.
How else is he gonna get laid?
I thought that Brownback was suppose to be so family value. Guess he doesn’t figure that a woman should be able to file charges against a man for rape? Guess maybe he is still stuck back in the dark ages where women were to seen and not heard and property of the man. Does he think that the women must have done something to justify being raped and therefore deserved it?
So according to Brownback’s stances, the rapist wouldn’t be prosecuted, and the victim would be forced to bear any child resulting from the act.
Sam (the Sham) Brownback is a typical Kansas CON.
He brays out so-called “principled” positions without understanding the consequences of his stances here in the real world.
He channels “Snowflake Babies” as if he knows what they’re “thinking.”
He advocates illegal abortions. (”Leave no back-alley butcher behind.”)
He’s familiar with and depends on the people who conspired to assassinate George Tiller.
Traditional Kansas family farms are dying, due to corporate farms and feedlots. But traditional Kansas family farmers don’t have a corporate jet to fly Brownback all over the nation to raise…. Well, not money (as it turned out in his 2008 presidential campaign… I guess it raised him out of erectile dysfunction; political Viagra, y’know.
How else is he gonna get laid?
Oh! I know!
Don’t let rape victims seek legal recourse!
Franken Uses Inflammatory Rape Claim to Destroy
Stewart Smalley’s bill included much more than rape. Rape was in it to demagogue opponents of this favor to the trial lawyers. If Stewart Smalley was concerned about rape victims, he wouldn’t have loaded the bill with all the other garbage and probably had a 100% vote for. As it stands now, it is a bill to just clog the courts further.
—————
Arbitration of Employment Disputes, Including Disputes Totally Unrelated to Rape
by Hans Bader
October 20, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
ShareThis PrintThis PrintThis EmailThis EmailThis
Tags: Al Franken, arbitration, Franken, Franken Amendment, Halliburton, huffington post, Jon Stewart, Ledbetter, Ledbetter v. Goodyear, Lilly Ledbetter, rape, Republicans for Rape, sexual assault
Recently, the Senate voted to ban defense contractors — that is, much of American business — from contractually mandating arbitration of employment discrimination disputes. The bill’s sponsor, Al Franken (D-Minn.), pushed the bill by claiming that arbitration provisions in an employment contract kept Jamie Leigh Jones from suing her alleged rapists. But they didn’t: a federal appeals court ruled the arbitration provisions didn’t apply to Jones’ case, leaving her free to sue in court.
Franken’s amendment to a defense appropriations bill banned contractors from requiring arbitration of employment discrimination disputes and sexual assault cases, including “arbitration” of “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.” The language about sexual assault was irrelevant to most employers: Lawsuits against employers for employment discrimination vastly outnumber lawsuits over sexual assault, which are a tiny fraction of all court cases, so the bill’s real purpose was to ban arbitration of discrimination cases, not to do anything for rape victims. Few rapes occur in the workplace, as opposed to private settings like homes; and even rapes that do occur in the workplace often fall outside the scope of arbitration clauses. (Arbitration does not, of course, prevent criminal prosecution.)
Liberal trial lawyers have long objected to Supreme Court decisions like its 7-to-2 Gilmer decision upholding contractual provisions that require binding arbitration of employment discrimination cases, even though arbitrators often rule in favor of employees and consumers, and award them substantial monetary damages (although they do permit plaintiffs less discovery than courts do; on the other hand, arbitration typically results in “lower litigation costs and expenses“). Franken’s amendment largely fulfills their fantasy of banning arbitration in discrimination cases.
Although Franken’s amendment has a big effect on discrimination cases — and no effect at all on most rape cases — it has been falsely described ever since as an “anti-rape amendment,” and the 30 senators who voted against the amendment have been depicted ever since by liberal sites such as Huffington Post as the “Republicans for Rape“ — even though the Defense Department opposed Franken’s amendment, and even though Senators like Bob Corker said they might have voted for the amendment had it merely covered rape and violence claims, rather than a vast array of unrelated employment disputes.
Jon Stewart, for example, depicted the amendment as being all about rape, asking his viewers “How is ANYONE against this?” and suggesting that only a nut or a misogynist could do so. (This is the same Jon Stewart who selectively edits taped interviews to make conservatives look stupid, or make them appear to say the opposite of what they actually said). But the liberal Stewart has aimed this criticism only at conservative lawmakers, not at the Obama Defense Department (or the liberal Supreme Court justices who voted with their conservative colleagues to allow all employment disputes, including those involving sexual assault, to be governed by contractual arbitration provisions in the Gilmer case). So has Huffington Post, whose first inflammatory article on the vote generated over 2000 comments, many of them angry and vituperative. The inflammatory coverage has resulted in Senators who voted against the amendment receiving hate mail and angry and hateful messages.
Liberal journalists and bloggers complain a lot about the use of so-called “wedge issues,” but they themselves are the ones who typically use inflammatory wedge issues, as the Franken amendment illustrates.
Another example is the many false claims made by liberal journalists and Obama about the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, a subject I addressed at length here. In the Ledbetter case, the press claimed that the Supreme Court had created a rigid 180 day deadline for suing over pay discrimination — when in fact it did no such thing.
By the way, studies show that Jon Stewart’s viewers aren’t any smarter than Bill O’Reilly’s — contrary to what liberal journalists believe.
Sad for journalism, isn’t it, that the political agenda of the day is set by a comedian?
I’ve heard today’s college students are stupid, but they’re not dumb. (Look at http://www.textsfromlastnight.com to lose all hope in the next generation.)
But one thing I do remember is how today’s college students consider O’Reilly and Glenn Beck jokes to smoke and drink to. There’s even a Glenn Beck Drinking Game somewhere in the archives.
I’m hardly a regular viewer of the (cluster) Fux Noise Channel, but I sporadically channel surf to O’Reilly and/or Beck just to watch the insanity.
It’s Wally George all over again.
“outlander” muses –
“Sad for journalism, isn’t it, that the political agenda of the day is set by a comedian?”
Nah.
We’re used to it after 8 years of Shrub.
It’ll take us a while to wean ourselves from that phenomenon.
Oh, wait…
You mean George WMD Bush wasn’t a joke?!
no don’tcha know that if women feel the need to workkk outside the home, they should be able to give up their right to be rape free. At least that seems to be what our senators say.
This is why having an equal representation of women in lawmaking positions becomes so important.
Discrimination is just as important in the contract. You don’t get out of your responsibility to not discriminate by writing a contract saying you basically can discriminate.
Outlander you’re not supposed to be of this world anyway.
Things are looking up in America… There is HOPE for women… and in the way women are viewed in the workplace… Now this Franken Amendment… THIS is Change we can believe in. Should be a fine and dandy day ahead on WE BLOG!! :-))
Incidentally, the Obama administration (through the D of D) opposed the Franken bill.
“related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment.”
Outlander whines that banning the above tort through arbitration is a gift to trial lawyers. What Outlander conveniently overlooks is that it was lawyers who wrote the weasely contract in the first place. Oh, but see, those lawyers are okay, because they work for the Most Holy And Sanctified Corporation, May It Be Blessed In God’s Name.
In Outlander’s small world, corporations can hire entire armies of lawyers to represent and protect their interests. However, if just one raped or sexually harassed woman had the nerve, the audacity to hire a lawyer, the world will end in Final Judgement, the Pearly Gates will slam shut forever, and the Antichrist will begin his reign over all humanity.
Because, doncha know, one raped woman with an attorney trumps 100 corporate lawyers plus all the outside law firm counsel no-bid contract money can buy.
……if they prevent their employees from taking workplace sexual assault and discrimination cases to court
—————————————————-
How is that policy even legal?
“outlander” tries –
“…the Obama administration (through the D of D) opposed the Franken bill.”
Oh!
The Department of Defense has been advocating this issue (which occurred in 2005 — who was president and vice-president then) since George WMD Bush’s reign of error.
It’s not the “Obama Administration,” but the already presented evidence from years ago you, “outlander,” are trying to attribute to an administration which has been in the White House for 9 whole months.
Pretty pathetic.
Jon Stewart?
Who cares?
I want to know what Will Ferrell thinks.
How is that policy even legal?
=============================
It’s not.
Company policy does not over ride federal law.
ANTI
Posted October 22, 2009 at 8:23 am | Permalink
How is that policy even legal?
=============================
It’s not.
Company policy does not over ride federal law.
—————————————————-
Precisely my point.
I think this is another useless action by Congress to score points with a misinformed electorate.
Right up there with the Congressional congratulations to the Super Bowl champion, etc.
outlander
Posted October 22, 2009 at 7:22 am | Permalink
Sad for journalism, isn’t it, that the political agenda of the day is set by a comedian?
It was your guy, Hans Bader, who saw fit to write nearly 700 words attacking Jon Stewart. It’s a comedy show, and Stewart has never claimed to be a journalist. In fact, he has repeatedly made the point that he’s not a journalist, and shouldn’t be treated as one.
Just for fun, remember this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE
It’s funny that Bader compares Stewart to O’Reilly. One is a professional comedian, the other is just a laugh.
Arbitration agreements are nonbinding when it comes to criminal acts.
What this bill was all about is an attempt by the trial lawyers to eliminate arbitration agreements, which limit their fees, behind the guise of protecting women.”
This allows unscrupulous employees to use threat of going to court to win large settlements from their bosses for baseless claims.
The Franken amendment was a smokescreen to open up the purses of employers for trial lawyers.
The Franken amendment bars any contractor with the Department of Defense from using arbitration.
Jamie Jones, the rape victim, asserted that that Halliburton attempted to short circuit her lawsuit by sending the case to arbitration.
Note, the key words here folks, her lawsuit. Jamie Jones wasn’t prevented access to the courts. The court already ruled that courts ruled that Halliburton could not arbitrate.
There was never any “there” there.
You can sure tell thomaswitt is a lobbyist. How? well, Notice he addressed none of my points about the bill including all sorts of other categories of claims. Disingenuous one-sided arguments.
Incidentally Monkey, here is something from the Huffington Post re: the D of D not supporting the Stewart Smalley bill.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/defense-department-oppose_n_326569.html
Monkeyhawk
Posted October 22, 2009 at 7:28 am | Permalink
I’ve heard today’s college students are stupid, but they’re not dumb.
____________
Monkey man thinks that college students are not dumb. I see he finds a group with his mentallity.
Outlander,
Those weren’t “your” points; there were 700 words of BS lifted from a right wing blog. I focused on the operative language. Here’s the full text of the Franken amendment:
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.
If contrators don’t want to comply with this, they don’t have to. They can just stop doing business with the government. Think of this as the Hyde Amendment for rapists.
Mr_Kia
Posted October 22, 2009 at 8:26 am | Permalink
ANTI
Posted October 22, 2009 at 8:23 am | Permalink
How is that policy even legal?
=============================
It’s not.
Company policy does not over ride federal law.
—————————————————-
Precisely my point.
I think this is another useless action by Congress to score points with a misinformed electorate.
===================================
See: thomaswitt, Monkeyhawk, & political mama.
So T.WITT, do you miss having an office next to ProKanDo? I mean, the money supply from the ’scrapers’ must be hard to come by now.
Today is a proud day for Kansas. Brownback and Roberts have made our fine state the buckle on America’s rape belt.
http://www.republicansforrape.org/blog/2009/10/15/the-real-america.html
Add Daniel to the list of the uninformed.
#
ANTI
Posted October 22, 2009 at 9:00 am | Permalink
Add Daniel to the list of the uninformed.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Why do you call me uninformed while the others are on the list of the misinformed?
Are you discriminating against me? I suddenly feel oppressed.
Lost in all of this, of course, is any sense of perspective from the so-called “conservatives.” We’re going to shut ACORN down for stupid behavior on the part of a couple of employees (that video was on what, the 7th or 8th try?) and for turning in people for fraudulent voter registration. Let me repeat that last part: ACORN turned in its own employees for committing voter registration fraud. ACORN followed the law there.
But when Halliburton sends its army of lawyers to try to shut down a lawsuit over a gang rape committed by its employees on company property while on company time and its own complicity in looking the other way? Well, attack the victim! Attack her right to legal counsel! Attack the trial lawyers! SANCTITY OF CONTRACT!!!
Some people are so full of crap its unbelievable.
Not how thomas witt again avoids the issue. He is a good lobbyist, this one.
Why do you call me uninformed while the others are on the list of the misinformed?
===================================
My apologies,
Correction:
Add Daniel to the list of the misinformed.
Feel oppressed no more.
Well, attack the victim! Attack her right to legal counsel!
====================
No one here has done that.
But please, continue the emotion filled rants.
“Well, attack the victim! Attack her right to legal counsel”
I don;t see anybody doing that, do you?
Perhaps leaving off the “or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.” would have left the amendment about rape and sexual harrassment.
By the way, no company can hold you to an agreement to arbitration about matters that break the law. So, the bill, in cases of rape or sexual harassment, would have accomplished exactly what? Perpahs the real reason for the bill was the “negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.”
Anti,
Outlander’s complaint on this, both last night on a different thread and on this one this morning, is that trial lawyers will somehow get rich by clogging the courts with lawsuits.
First of all, if the lawsuits are frivolous, judges will toss them on the first hearing. Secondly, if they’re not, then what’s the beef? That’s what the courts are for: To hear disputes between parties. Outlander is saying that women subjected to sexual abuse or harassment don’t deserve to hire trial lawyers (because those kinds of lawyers are bad), but corporations can hire armies of lawyers to write arbitration contracts because, I can only assume, those kinds of lawyers are good.
You don’t see the disconnect here?
The lawsuit in question Jones won by a 2-to-1 margin in the a court of appeal in September of this year.
How was she denied access to the courts?
Littlejohn,
If there’s negligence, why can’t people have their day in court? Why should my tax dollars go to support corporations on no-bid contracts who tell their employees “we can be negligent, and your only recourse is an arbitrator who works for the industry?”
Think Hyde Amendment. If the anti-choicers get to make the case that Federal funds (you know, your tax dollars) cannot be used to pay for pregnancy terminations, then I get to make the same case that Federal funds (you know, my tax dollars) don’t get to support corporations that treat their people this way.
“Sam (the Sham) Browback is pro-rape”
“Guess he doesn’t figure that a woman should be able to file charges against a man for rape?”
“So according to Brownback’s stances, the rapist wouldn’t be prosecuted, and the victim would be forced to bear any child resulting from the act.”
“Don’t let rape victims seek legal recourse!”
Oh, but see, those lawyers are okay, because they work for the Most Holy And Sanctified Corporation”
Yeah, sure. BS. And either you know it, or you need tofigure it out.
“
T.WITT writes: But when Halliburton sends its army of lawyers to try to shut down a lawsuit over a gang rape committed by its employees on company property while on company time and its own complicity in looking the other way? Well, attack the victim! Attack her right to legal counsel! Attack the trial lawyers! SANCTITY OF CONTRACT!!!
Bull Ships.
The courts already ruled that courts ruled that Haliburton could not arbitrate Ms. Jones case.
There never was any “there” there.
This is more about Haliburton hysteria than anything else.
Outlander is saying that women subjected to sexual abuse or harassment don’t deserve to hire trial lawyers
================================
No he’s not.
And yes I see the disconnect, but it is with you.
“Outlander is saying that women subjected to sexual abuse or harassment don’t deserve to hire trial lawyers”
———-
He did it again. This thomas witt is an exceptional liar.. er.. lobbyist. Someone hire him. Please.
Mr_Kia, she should have never had to sue for the right to sue in the first place. It’s ridiculous.
Littlejohn, um, I didn’t say those first three things.
outlander
Posted October 22, 2009 at 7:17 am | Permalink
Stewart Smalley’s bill included much more than rape. Rape was in it to demagogue opponents of this favor to the trial lawyers. … As it stands now, it is a bill to just clog the courts further.
Let see if I get this right.
This bill changes nothing in regards to a woman’s right to prosecute charges of rape. Rape is a crime, and not open to abitration.
So the only thing this bill changes is that it essentially brings every sexual harrassment claim into the courts through the lure of huge settlements instead of being corrected and sorted out by the company (as the company desires).
This bill is not about rape and does not change anything except make it easier for trial lawyers to make a buck off the backs of companies doing business with the DOD.
And potential employers, thomaswitt is also capable of editing out relevant language. Still skeptical, check out what the … in his 9:25 post left out.
“If Stewart Smalley was concerned about rape victims, he wouldn’t have loaded the bill with all the other garbage and probably had a 100% vote for.”
Not really so long that one would leave it out for brevity’s sake. But it was adverse to his lying position. That thomaswitt is very crafty.
Franken’s bill is a trial lawyers dream. Every frivolous claim against employers can go directly to a court system and go on emotional appeal rather than facts.
This is how the Lib mind and trial lawyers’ minds work.
Hysteria over substance.
Outlander, would you prefer that from now on, when one or two of your clearly contradictory sentences will prove a point, that I bone-dig and repost every word you’ve ever had to say on any given subject? I picked out what was relevant, and indicated an edit. Anyone interested could just scroll back and see what was cut. The relevant parts of your comments were about trial lawyers and courts; your speculation on whether changes would have produced unanimity were meaningless to the discussion. While it was an amusing (to you) slam against Senator Franken, substantively it was nothing more than background noise.
America is the Land of Opportunity for those who work.
If you are not currently pursuing a multi-million dollar settlement, you’re just not working hard enough.
Phinatic,
Since the gang rape happened in Iraq, there was no prosecution. Under the terms of the occupation, DOD contractors are immune from Iraqi law, and getting these cases prosecuted in the US just hasn’t happened.
Here’s a relevant 2008 article from the Cato Institute titled “No Justice on Contractor Rape:”
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9342
According to written testimony at the Senate hearing, the Justice Department has not prosecuted any cases involving sexual assaults against civilians who work for contractors in Iraq or Afghanistan, despite a law giving it that authority.
The department has taken action in 12 cases under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, and five of those involved sex crimes. In those cases four were successful convictions, but they were, with one exception, for relatively minor offenses; sexual abuse of a minor by a Defense Department civilian employee in Japan, child pornography crimes by Defense Department contractors in Iraq and Qatar, and abusive sexual contact by a Pentagon contractor against a soldier in Iraq.
One of the witnesses, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker, testified that investigating and prosecuting serious crimes in a war zone is a very difficult and costly proposition, which is why investigations and prosecutions under MEJA may take significant time to complete.
Yet, some of the incidents in Afghanistan and Iraq occurred as much as three to five years ago, and not one such case has been prosecuted thus far.
Even by this administration’s standards that is an abysmal record.
Ah!
The Halliburton Defense League (aka WE Blog CONS) are out in force.
The crime occurred in Iraq.
You might want to make the case Iraqi laws against rape (if any) apply to this case.
Except the gang rape occurred on Halliburton-controlled property, was committed by Halliburton-employed rapists, and prevented the victim from addressing Halliburton’s actions after the rape (locking her up in a shipping container patrolled by armed Halliburton guards) unless she subjected herself to Halliburton-decreed “arbitrators.” Binding arbitrators.
It wouldn’t be an issue for CONs had it not been Senator Franken’s amendment.
CONs know that. Everyone knows that.
The gang-rape occurred in 2005.
How much Halliburtion lawyer money has tried to block her valid claim since then? How much money has she had to spend to get justice?
Franken’s amendment merely removes doubt from Halliburton’s litigation abuse. They never had a case to begin with but they had a legal staff ready to try and intimidate the gang-rape victim into submission.
Among the 68 votes that carried the amendment to passage were the only four women Republicans in the chamber: Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski.
Left wing shills, each and every one of them. Especially that Kay Bailey Hutchison. She’s to the left of Nancy Pelosi, doncha know.
They never had a case to begin
==============================
That is all that need to be said, Monkeyhawk.
Anti,
The rest of Monkeyhawk’s sentence says “but they had a legal staff ready to try and intimidate the gang-rape victim into submission.”
One of the primary complaints against the Franken Amendment is that it will “clog up the courts.” I wonder – how much courtroom time has Halliburton burned trying to stop this case from going forward? Who is it that’s “clogging up the courts?” Especially, as you’ve apparently agreed, they never had a case to begin with.
Maybe our good Senators will sponsor a ‘hold harmless’ bill for companies, so we can contain costs.
You sign an agreement to work at your own risk.
The rest of Monkeyhawk’s sentence says “but they had a legal staff ready to try and intimidate the gang-rape victim into submission.”
========================================
Very good thomaswitt, today you have learned the nature of lawyers…That’s kinda their gig.
thomaswitt
Posted October 22, 2009 at 10:15 am | Permalink
Anti,
The rest of Monkeyhawk’s sentence says “but they had a legal staff ready to try and intimidate the gang-rape victim into submission.”
One of the primary complaints against the Franken Amendment is that it will “clog up the courts.” I wonder – how much courtroom time has Halliburton burned trying to stop this case from going forward? Who is it that’s “clogging up the courts?” Especially, as you’ve apparently agreed, they never had a case to begin with.
————–
Bull Chips
The case was never stopped.
A judge ruled in the victims favor and said the case could go forward in the court system.
The purpose of the bill was to eliminate all arbitration efforts for DOD contractors.
Franken used the rape case as some grisly standard of emotional appeal when there was no “there” there. It was already resolved by a Judge.
Anti, if you’ll read all my comments on this, it’s clear that what I’m advocating is a level playing field for employees who get raped on the job, and their employers who don’t want to be held responsible. If the Most Holy Corporations can use lawyers to stymie this woman’s pursuit of justice, why should she have to sign away her rights to the same? And why should my tax dollars go to support such an injustice?
Our Government SHOULD always be on the side of the worker against the employer. Unfortunately, it is mostly the other way around.
thomaswitt
Posted October 22, 2009 at 10:24 am
If the Most Holy Corporations can use lawyers to stymie this woman’s pursuit of justice, why should she have to sign away her rights to the same? And why should my tax dollars go to support such an injustice?
——————————-
Bull Chips
No one was denied justice.
A judge ruled in favor of the victim that she could have the case heard in court rather than the arbitration.
Here’s the text of the amendment:
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.
Now STFU
#
ANTI
Posted October 22, 2009 at 9:07 am | Permalink
Feel oppressed no more.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Free at last, free at last…
#
Regular
Posted October 22, 2009 at 10:27 am | Permalink
thomaswitt
Posted October 22, 2009 at 10:24 am
If the Most Holy Corporations can use lawyers to stymie this woman’s pursuit of justice, why should she have to sign away her rights to the same? And why should my tax dollars go to support such an injustice?
——————————-
Bull Chips
No one was denied justice.
A judge ruled in favor of the victim that she could have the case heard in court rather than the arbitration.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Yeah, after four years of litigation the Appellate Court finally ruled that she could pursue her case against KBR in the courts. I’m assuming that KBR will appeal the Appellate Court’s ruling based on current law.
The Franken Amendemnt insures that a plaintiff would have standing in the courts from the get go.
That apparently the Cons on the blog are pro rape is sad, but explains why women are bailing on the republican party. And this is a issue that is going to haunt them in the next election Brownback is running for Gov at some point during the campaign someone will ask him if he would be OK with someone raping his daughters not getting prosecuted
outlander: “Note how thomas witt again avoids the issue. He is a good lobbyist, this one.”
Failure to address the issue? Outlander, Thomas Witt pulled the pylon out from under the “issue” you thought you posted.
Thomas Witt posted the Franken amendment in its entirity. So, what are you going to believe, the actual amendment, or the apocalyptic and questionable interpretation of a paid shill for an outfit like the CEI? The amendment is a condition for contracting with the federal government, and ya know, the federal government can do that just like any other entity can.
That apparently the Cons on the blog are pro rape..
=========================================
More ridiculous LIB think.
Amendment 2588
Statement of Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims.
Check your health insurance policy. Chances are, it requires manditory arbitration.
Franken’s amendment to a defense appropriations bill banned contractors from requiring arbitration of employment discrimination disputes and sexual assault cases, including “arbitration” of “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.”
The language about sexual assault was irrelevant to most employers: Lawsuits against employers for employment discrimination vastly outnumber lawsuits over sexual assault, which are a tiny fraction of all court cases.
The bill’s real purpose was to ban arbitration of discrimination cases, not to do anything for rape victims.
Let the flood gates of lawsuits begin…
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.
The troll posts: “Amendment 2588
Statement of Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims.”
The “certain claims” are any claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and sexual assault or harrassment, which is further defined to include “assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.”
http://www.eeoc.gov/types/race.html
In other words, it is not just any employee dispute, but employee disputes where the employer is alleged to have violated or covered up violations of at least one law.
And again, this is a condition for those companies that would contract with the federal government. Ya know, some conservatives like to claim that the government and its subsidiaries should have to follow their own laws. If the arbitration requirement essentially protects an employer (one that contracts with the federal government) from the consequences for violating federal law, or in the case of Halliburton was used in an attempt to evade the consequences of federal law, then such arbitration requirements are a legitimate issue.
The ‘jawless fish’ fails to see the entirety of the amendment as it was to amend a House Bill which had said language as previously described in conjunction with and in adherence to.
You can smash Regular under you boot, but he never realizes he’s dead.
DorisKing
Posted October 22, 2009 at 11:44 am | Permalink
You can smash Regular under you boot, but he never realizes he’s dead.
——————-
I am the IED of bloggers. Step on me and lose an appendage.
“The ‘jawless fish’ fails to see the entirety of the amendment as it was to amend a House Bill which had said language as previously described in conjunction with and in adherence to.”
Yep, he’s done.
Re: Regular
DNFTT
Good grief, Agnatha, did you have to repost that? It makes even Vogon poetry look good.
See, see the sainted sky
Marvel at its big chartreuse depths.
Tell me, Regular do you
Wonder why the opossum ignores you?
Why its foobly stare
makes you feel piqued.
I can tell you, it is
Worried by your snarflagel facial growth
That looks like
Cottage cheese.
What’s more, it knows
Your halcyon potting shed
Smells of leaves.
Everything under the big sainted sky
Asks why, why do you even bother?
You only charm nematodes .
Don’t give up your day job Daniel.
LOL Daniel! You have just supplanted Azgoths of Kria as the Second Worst Poet in the Universe! Congratulations!
Besides gang Raping their employees KBR has murdered 1/2 dz soldiers, even without the Rape shenigans why should they get gov contracts again?
Regular
Posted October 22, 2009 at 1:22 pm | Permalink
Don’t give up your day job Daniel.
—–
Oh boy, not another pre-algebraic logic minded, under or unemployed, lib, English major on WEblog.
My ex father-in-law was an English major. He worked in a small town in Texas fixing flat tires for 20 years before he retired.
“Besides gang Raping their employees KBR has murdered 1/2 dz soldiers, ”
Prove it. Please.
“In October 2004, the United States Army issued an urgent bulletin to commanders across Iraq, warning them of a deadly new threat to American soldiers. Because of flawed electrical work by contractors, the bulletin stated, soldiers at American bases in Iraq had received severe electrical shocks, and some had even been electrocuted.
The bulletin, with the headline “The Unexpected Killer,” was issued after the horrific deaths of two soldiers who were caught in water — one in a shower, the other in a swimming pool — that was suddenly electrified after poorly grounded wiring short-circuited.
“We’ve had several shocks in showers and near misses here in Baghdad, as well as in other parts of the country,” Frank Trent, an expert with the Army Corps of Engineers, wrote in the bulletin. “As we install temporary and permanent power on our projects, we must ensure that we require contractors to properly ground electrical systems.”
Since that warning, at least two more American soldiers have been electrocuted in similar circumstances. In all, at least a dozen American military personnel have been electrocuted in Iraq, according to the Pentagon and Congressional investigators….
… American electricians who worked for KBR, the Houston-based defense contractor that is responsible for maintaining American bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, said they repeatedly warned company managers and military officials about unsafe electrical work, which was often performed by poorly trained Iraqis and Afghans paid just a few dollars a day.”
———————–
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/05/04/kbr-allegedly-behind-soldier-electrocutions/
“…which was often performed by poorly trained Iraqis and Afghans paid just a few dollars a day.”
Dear DICK Cheney’s pals at Halliburton & KBR:
Nice work on getting those 12-figure, no-bid contracts! Bravo! I’m especially proud that you were able to claim to fulfill your contractual obligations by hiring people who had no idea what they were doing to perform such skilled work. And finally, kudos to your clever ability to blame “government standards,” which you say you followed, absolving you of all legal and moral financial responsibility for the carnage you caused.
Love and kisses,
Me.
Regular
Posted October 22, 2009 at 11:50 am | Permalink
DorisKing
Posted October 22, 2009 at 11:44 am | Permalink
You can smash Regular under you boot, but he never realizes he’s dead.
——————-
I am the IED of bloggers. Step on me and lose an appendage.
_________________________________
More like the terd of bloggers. Step on him and you’ll have to cut off an apendage to get rid of the smell.
Good Afternoon, Reg
http://cbs13.com/national/soldiers.electrocuted.iraq.2.681407.html
basically the same info as above http://talkradionews.com/2008/07/soldiers-killed-in-iraq-but-not-by-guns/
and my mistake its not half a dozen its a full dozen dead soldiers, but we will cut Acorn funding over fraud allegations but KBR can rape its employee’s and murder servicemen and thats OK?
TomPaine,
It doesn’t seem to bother Obama, he’s still paying them with our money.
KBR is still in Iraq, under Obama.
“and my mistake its not half a dozen its a full dozen dead soldiers, but we will cut Acorn funding over fraud allegations but KBR can rape its employee’s and murder servicemen and thats OK?”
If youu think I said anything like that, then you need to have your head examined. Hysterical rhetoric does nothing but prove that the orator has nothing but hysterical rhetoric.
Now, KBR might have been negligent, I guess a court can make that decision, but murder is a as strong word, with exacting legal standards. You;ve proven nothing to your charge.
Regardless, I hope KBR pays dearly for their negligence.
“More like the terd of bloggers. Step on him and you’ll have to cut off an apendage to get rid of the smell.
Good Afternoon, Reg”
______________________________
Jeez, Reg, you’re no fun at all today.
Did your mom run out from under the porch and bite you?
XXX
Posted October 22, 2009 at 3:22 pm | Permalink
“More like the terd of bloggers. Step on him and you’ll have to cut off an apendage to get rid of the smell.
Good Afternoon, Reg”
______________________________
Jeez, Reg, you’re no fun at all today.
Did your mom run out from under the porch and bite you?
——————————–
Naw, actually I do work at my own pace. This is a possible model for a 3D game. A possum from h3ll. :)
i.e. submit 100 models, they may like one, then decide not to use it or use it. :D
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/1518/pssmfromhell.jpg
One Sen Franken just tried to cut their funding and every con on the blog is howling in Protest.
and LJ I didnt say you said anything just posting info. If you dont think 13 dead soldiers is a issue then thats your opinion
“and LJ I didnt say you said anything just posting info. If you dont think 13 dead soldiers is a issue then thats your opinion”
Are you a moron, or do you just play on on weblog?
“Sad for journalism, isn’t it, that the political agenda of the day is set by a comedian?”–outlander
And a damn poor one at that!
Im the Moron?
LJ Didnt you not just post literally minutes ago Now, “KBR might have been negligent, I guess a court can make that decision, but murder is a as strong word, with exacting legal standards. You;ve proven nothing to your charge.”?? Do you not read what you post?? 13 dead soldiers isnt Proof enough for you??
Then theirs three other posters who have to follow up your “Prove it. Please.” with posts about the the very topic. Do you not know how to open a tab and use google, or are you just lazy? Im sure the other posters did just that.
That KBR has killed US soldiers story isnt some scoop uncovered by WEBLOG posters its been covered by the News quite a bit, the WEBLOG is really the first time youve heard of this? You dont watch the News or read it, and somehow Im the moron..
“somehow Im the moron..”
Well, somehow you got “If you dont think 13 dead soldiers is a issue then thats your opinion”” out of “I hope KBR pays dearly for their negligence.”
So did you not read what I said? Or are you a moron? Or are you just playing one on WEBLOG?
I’ll take my dedication to the US Military to yours anyday.
Murder probably isn’t the right term for what happened with KBR and its subcontractors. Negligent homicide is more likely the case.
TomPaine posts: That KBR has killed US soldiers story isnt some scoop uncovered…
Wave it like a Liberal flag on the path to nightware scenario of half-truths and skewed views.
How many taxi cab drivers die per year?
Do you put up the same fuss when local police die?
Yeah, I doubt it – it didn’t have an Lib ’cause’ in there for ya.
Ghoul…
Monkeyhawk,
Thank you for mentioning that Haliburton forced the rape victim into a large packing crate with an armed guard keeping watch over her to try & force her into arbitration.
And Daniel and others–thank you for pointing out the number of electocutions of our soldiers because of the terrible job that KBR had done on wiring up bathroom showers in scattered places around Iraq.
“janeeyre” –
Males simply do not understand the consequences of female rape victims.
The equivalent isn’t quite prison-style butt-rape. For many women I’ve talked to, the closer equivalent is forced castration.