In 2005, a 19-year-old Texas woman working in Iraq for federal defense contractor KBR said she was drugged and gang raped by co-workers and then held against her will in a shipping container by her employer.
The woman, Jamie Leigh Jones, eventually returned to the United States through the help of her congressional representative.
Before the incident, Jones said she told KBR, then a subsidiary of Halliburton, about a hostile working and living environment full of sexual harassment where a small number of women lived with hundreds of men, but the contractor did nothing. KBR has denied Jones’ allegations.
Jones is suing KBR in a civil lawsuit. The company says an agreement she signed as a condition of employment requires her to go through private, binding arbitration to resolve her claim.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Senate approved on a 68-30 vote an amendment to the Department of Defense appropriations bill that would prohibit the department from spending money on existing or new contracts if the contractor or a subcontractor requires employees to resolve sexual assault, discrimination or certain other claims through arbitration.
Kansas’ two senators — Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts, both Republicans — voted against the amendment.
When asked Monday by the Lawrence Journal-World why they voted against the amendment, neither senators’ office provided a response. Brownback is running for governor of Kansas in 2010.
The amendment was authored by U.S. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn.
"Contractors are using fine print to deny women like Jamie Leigh Jones their day in court," Franken said during debate on the proposal.
Republican senators who voted against the amendment and who have commented said they believed that arbitration was a better way to settle employee-employer grievances and that the amendment was an overreach by the government into business dealings.
“The Congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts,” said Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also opposes the amendment.
A briefing document prepared by the Republican Policy Committee says, “The real motivation behind this amendment is, of course, Democrat hostility to all things arbitration, on behalf of trial lawyers.”
Ten Republicans, however, did vote for the amendment.
Jones has started a foundation for people who have been crime victims while working abroad for government contractors. Recently, a federal appeals court panel said that despite signing the arbitration clause, Jones’ civil case can go forward. KBR has said it disagrees with the ruling and is considering an appeal.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
foodboy (anonymous) says…
The Republican party is a wholly owned subsidiary of Haliburton. They have no problem making rules for family planning clinics, the teaching of science or allowing torture but balk at protecting women from corporate condoned brutality. Arbitration my a$$
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) says…
Just to be clear, what Brownback and Roberts are tacitly condoning is rape.
If the CEO of a large corporation found out one of their contractors was so flippant about rape, that CEO would take similar action to what the Franken amendment proposes. Just as businesses will refuse to deal with "bad players," so should the government.
"Republican senators who voted against the amendment and who have commented said they believed that arbitration was a better way to settle employee-employer grievances and that the amendment was an overreach by the government into business dealings."
And Sam Brownback wants to be CEO of Kansas? News flash - this is a government contract, i.e. a business dealing of the government. Can you imagine giving Sam Brownback total control of the literally tens of thousands of contracts the State of Kansas has?
Coming soon to state contracts - permission to sexually assault, harass, and discriminate against your employees.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Careful there, Bob_Keeshan... there's still an arbitration process.
So, corporate rape isn't exactly free--Brownback and Roberts have just lowered the price down into the bargain basement.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
foodboy (anonymous) says…
Check out:: www.republicansforrape.org
KEITHMILES05 (anonymous) says…
It goes to prove these two bozos definitely are in the minority and WRONG.
TacoBob (anonymous) says…
A terrible thing happened to this woman, to be sure.
One should be concerned when the government starts (is) meddling in private contracts.
This woman signed an agreement and took the paycheck. One assumes she read the agreement and accepted the terms. Should she sue? Yes - the rapists - for all they are worth. But perhaps that is the problem - their net worth. When the option appears to sue someone, follow the money. Go after the evil company (with the deep pockets). If KBR were bankrupt, there would be no lawsuit.
Again, horrible event. Just don't lose sight of the other facets of this situation. Trailer park logic leads to the 'Republicans condone rape' argument.
BigPrune (anonymous) says…
Was there a criminal trial?
Mari (Mari Windermere) says…
TacoBob:
One should be concerned when private contracts violate the law. Shouldn't the government be in the business of upholding the law?
TacoBob (anonymous) says…
Beo, your comments make no sense.
rooster (anonymous) says…
Taco Bob tacitly condones rape. You read his own statement. He is all for allowing our government to accept companies who force their employees into arbitration over rape.
Okay so arbitration when you get fired for calling in sick or not doing the job well. But Rape.
Sam Brownback
Pat Roberts
Taco Bob
Anybody else want to try to defend this? You'll get added to the list too.
TacoBob (anonymous) says…
Wow, are you guys missing the point.
CommonSenseChris (anonymous) says…
These are not private contracts. These are Federal contracts by our government with our money. The Government runs on our tax dollars so these are not private contracts. The Senator's that voted against this bill should be ashamed of themselves. This should have been a unanimous vote in favor, and any reasons for voting against the amendment are just a smoke screen for some sick political stunt at rape victims expense
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
"Wow, you guys are missing the point."
Someone sure is.
"One should be concerned when the government starts (is) meddling in private contracts."
But, of course, they're not.
"(a bill) that would prohibit the department from spending money on existing or new contracts if the contractor or a subcontractor requires employees to resolve sexual assault, discrimination or certain other claims through arbitration."
All they are saying is that in order to do business with the government or receive its money, you have to abide by certain standards. Halliburton, being the free, capitalist enterprise that it is, can abide by these terms, or @#$% off and find another buyer for its services.
cait48 (anonymous) says…
This are our reps. One of them wants to be our governor. They support legalized rape. GJ Kansas.
TacoBob (anonymous) says…
* Comments pertain to private contracts between employer and employee.
* 'Certain other claims' Hmmm, that draws a line that will never move.
* The point here, for those that need clarification, is to look at the ramifications of our government stepping into yet another area where they may or may not be trusted to not overstep.
Something to give some thought to - or not. The hand that holds you is the hand that holds you down.
The amendment will pass so no need to expend more pixels.
situveux1 (anonymous) says…
It would be nice to know if there was a criminal trial and if there was a verdict. The vote was wrong, but saying a nea vote condones rape is just partisan rhetoric. If they had voted she wasn't entitled to a criminal trial, now that's condoning rape. But of course there isn't enough information in this story to determine that.
kansasfaithful (anonymous) says…
Thank you senators for your vote that is based on common sense rather than providing a new income source for attorneys to "rape" the tax payer of even more tax dollars. If a crime is committed there needs to be a trial by jury and not an extortion payout forced on businesses. Not all businesses working for the federal government are "Haliborton" but all could be setup for legal action that will cost business thousands if not millions by bogus lawsuits that have nothing to do with the business itself. Stop the attacks on businesses who are not responsible for the crimes of a few bad employees. This case might warrent an investigation but if this legislation becomes law it won't be just those big corporations being picked apart by these lawsuits but the attacks will trickle down to the smallest of business.
BigPrune (anonymous) says…
Could the thousands upon thousands of children in our national public school system that have been sexually violated by their teachers sue the Department of Education, the State Board of Education or the local School District? I didn't think so.
So, back to my question, was there a criminal trial?
livingstone (anonymous) says…
So why aren't KBR and Halliburton ban from getting more contracts from the government, while ACORN immediately gets its punishment? "market" forces at work.... dude.
pace (anonymous) says…
Yellowback stands behind those in the front line, way behind. He is a coward and cares nothing for those that are in harms way. He stands up for the corporate boys,
blindrabbit (anonymous) says…
When I see a picture of Smilin Sam Brownback, he looks like the most sexually repressed person I can imagine. I'll bet if you told him as off-color joke, he would turn off-color (blushhing red). Suggest you read "The Family" by Jeff Sharlet, he dedicates a whole chapter to this challenged man.
ozzynbn (anonymous) says…
Right now its her word against the company. Many of you here have already played judge and jury. Shame on you.
weeslicket (anonymous) says…
from the article:
"Jones is suing KBR in a civil lawsuit. The company says an agreement she signed as a condition of employment requires her to go through private, binding arbitration to resolve her claim."
1. there is not a criminal complaint ongoing here.
2. the plaintiff will likely be forced to go through an arbitrations process (note: this process has nothing to do with what is right, correct, moral or wise. this process has to do with monetary liability, mostly. and of course beating someone into the ground after they have already been beaten into the ground-- so to speak.)
3. federal laws supercede most things, what with all the details and such.
4. a contract that requires a person to be the victim of illegal activity; or to participate in illegal activity; or to participate in the coverup of illegal activity-- is not a legally enforceable document (unless you are david wittig; and you live in kansas)
4. on the face of it, i think this plaintiff has a legitimate "plaint".
5. i really miss senator kassebaum.
pace (anonymous) says…
It should be and probably is illegal to forge a contract to ride above and over law. One could make a contract to allow an employee to kill or rape, and if caught rather than facing the law one would go to little meetings, that flies in the face what contracts should be able to cover.
If you have problems with rapist facing their acts in court, you are holding hands with the rapist. If you say a contractor is not liable for conduct because he used a wide umbrella clause in his paper work then you are holding hands with fascism. This is wrong, if our politicians can't see that, they have decided to stand on the side of wrong. Is there no way to end the corruption and corporate bedding of politics.
9070811 (anonymous) says…
Some Christian Sam Brownback is. Yes, you really want to help God's people. You might want to consider protecting the world's greatest resource: women.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Le...
http://www.jamiesfoundation.com/
http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2008/05/...
Phillbert (anonymous) says…
The gang rape occurred in Iraq, so good luck getting a criminal trial for the rapists.
As for arbitration, KBR said the victim's rape was job related, so the arbitration was required under her employment contract. To it, getting gang raped and locked in a shipping container by KBR employees for 24 hours without food or water was really just an employment dispute.
Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts apparently agree. After all, the amendment simply bans contracts with companies that require "employees to resolve sexual assault, discrimination or certain other claims through arbitration."
Since they refuse to explain their votes, we can only infer that our good senators think sexual assault is just another employment matter, like disputes about vacation days or sick leave. And that's just sick.
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) says…
A handful of posters actually congratulated the Senators for their courageous vote.
Talk about willfull ignorance. In particular I love the post by Pilgrim2, who makes a flippant comment about a contract and then praises the Senators for voting against an amendment which would make clear the United States Government's stance on what terms are acceptable.
Now that is some brilliant rationalization.
And for the record, nobody is attacking businesses. This was merely an attempt to set a pretty minimal standard of conduct and, seriously, decency for businesses that wish to do business with the federal government and be paid with my tax dollars.
It is worth saying again - if Sam Brownback is the next Governor of Kansas, will any business be too shameful for the state to do business with? Will we be contracting with Satriale's Pork Store and Barone Sanitation?
blindrabbit (anonymous) says…
Don't forget that the former CEO of Haliburton was none other than Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney. Wonder where their "culture" came from!
malehrman (Matt Lehrman) says…
Sen. Franken's questioning in committee before passage of the bill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kiZI...
pace (anonymous) says…
Talking about justice, one would assume if this happened to a coworker, what did the animals think would be fun to do on a night out in the community. The community has no voice. This is probably just a beginning of a horrible story of our contract war. Privatize, decriminalize rape, this is not a standard I want our government to stand for.
BrianR (anonymous) says…
Private, binding arbitration = Smith & Wesson
jayhawklawrence (anonymous) says…
"One should be concerned when the government starts (is) meddling in private contracts. "
My response:
If it is a government contract I don't consider that the same as a private contract.
Where is the righteous former CEO of Haliburton standing on this issue?
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about...
jayhawklawrence (anonymous) says…
At this point it looks like our Kansas Republican response is political, not moral.
At the very least, they should profess some outrage and an investigation rather than calling it a "private" contractual matter.
jafs (anonymous) says…
Just a couple of comments:
1. I believe that clauses requiring arbitration are fairly standard these days - so good luck simply finding a job that doesn't have one.
2. According to a report on NPR, businesses routinely pick arbitrators who don't award much to employees, and cease doing business with those who do. Employees can choose from a list of arbitrators approved by the employers.
Hardly sounds like a fair situation to me.
rooster (anonymous) says…
Taco Bob tacitly condones rape. You read his own statement. He is all for allowing our government to accept companies who force their employees into arbitration over rape.
Okay so arbitration when you get fired for calling in sick or not doing the job well. But Rape.
Sam Brownback
Pat Roberts
Taco Bob
Kansas faithful
Pilgrim 2
Anybody else?
mickeyrat (anonymous) says…
Phillbert's 9:48 pretty much hit it, but I have a few things to add, especially for those who insinuate this is a "deep pockets" issue.
The situation in Iraq makes for some unique factors which *do* make the contractor responsible. If something like this happened in Kansas, the victim could go to the police, and the police could go onto company property to investigate and make arrests. While there are not many details in the reports about the location and function of the post where the victim served, workers are almost entriely at the mercy of their companies (KBR, in this case) in Iraq. One cannot simply "walk away" or "go to the police": I seriously doubt this woman could rent a car, drive through some friendly Shiite or Sunni neighborhood, and hop on a Southwest Airlines flight out of Saddam International Airport. Truth is, if you're living in trailers behind concrete barricades in the middle of a war zone, your very life depends on your contractor, and if they're okay with you being locked up and raped, justice can only be found back in the States.
rrussell (Rex Russell) says…
The NO vote for this is indefensible. We, as a government should not do business with companies that have such contracts. You can't sign away basic rights. The KBR/Haliberton company should be brought to the light of day. If you want to make the arguement that we need them because they are the only company to do this kind of work for the government, fine. They need this contract just as much as we need them. Make them change their policy to ensure further business contracts. Simple business. The votes against this are just disgusting. Indefensible.
rooster (anonymous) says…
Taco Bob tacitly condones rape. You read his own statement. He is all for allowing our government to accept companies who force their employees into arbitration over rape.
Okay so arbitration when you get fired for calling in sick or not doing the job well. But Rape.
Sam Brownback
Pat Roberts
Taco Bob
Kansas faithful
Pilgrim 2
Vet
Anybody else?
Btw vet, this bill would not meddle with company contracts, It would only prevent the U.S. government from contracting with companies who set arbitration clauses in rape cases.
Once Again,
Anybody else wanna try to defend this?
justthefacts (anonymous) says…
Facts.
A. Rape is illegal. Even in Iraq. Thus, the question that remains unanswered - is there any criminal prosecution going on against the men involved?
B. There are two contracts involved; (1) between the company and the US government and (2) between the employee and the company. It is the second of these that is at issue. Those employees and people who argue against allowing the terms of an employment contract to be enforced may not be so eager to take that position if/when the contract term in question favors them. For example, what would you say if the Congress wanted to overturn a contract clause (freely entered into by both parties) that gave the employees a right to bonuses? Freedom of contract without government interference is a pretty solid legal principle for a reason. When/if the courts and government start ignoring or overruling a contract clause that is legal at the time it was agreed to by the parties, what is to stop the courts and government from picking and choosing what contract terms they like or don't like in all cases?
C. If the arbritration does not go as the employee likes (which is quite likely) what is to say that she cannot then go after the slimes? Is there a contract clause that prohibits that as a next step? Not likely. So she CAN get her day in court. Eventually. She did not sign away a basic right. She signed an agreement adding a step to the process. It usually takes time to get justice. But it does not mean she won't eventually get millions of dollars (after her attorneys take theirs off the top).
D. I personally would not vote for Brownback if he were running against Hitler!! So please don't think I am a fan of his ilk. Just trying to see BOTH sides and avoid hype.
sourpuss (anonymous) says…
vet: "This one was between a private co. and individual.She was a big girl-she agreed to the stipulations."
So, by this logic, it would be okay for one of these companies to, say, put in their contract that it would be okay to steal a baby, kill it, and eat its heart? ANY sort of illegal activity is suddenly okay, just because it is in a contract?
What this amendment is saying is that it ISN'T okay for the government to contract work to companies that have contracts like this. This isn't a question of this particular case, it is a question of, do you want your tax dollars being given to companies that condone illegal activities? The fact that it was rape, in this case, is almost beside the point.
Would you hire a thief to come paint your house? Probably not. So let's keep the government from hiring companies that (supposedly) have practices that are against what we as a country are supposed to stand for.
jimmyjms (anonymous) says…
This vote took place over a week ago....
"Trailer park logic leads to the 'Republicans condone rape' argument."
Actually, basic logic leads to the unavoidable: republicans place their business/money interests over the concerns of citizens.
Remember, these are the same people who got worked up over ACORN - a fake situation in which fake people made reference to a hypothetical crime. In contrast to the KBR situation, in which an actual crime took place.
The GOP is sickening.
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) says…
justthefacts, this is wrong - "B. There are two contracts involved; (1) between the company and the US government and (2) between the employee and the company. It is the second of these that is at issue."
Yes, the second is at issue but ONLY as it applies to the first.
The Franken amendment would have no bearing on the second contract. That second contract would still be in place, however having it is place would prevent the company from getting the first contract. The Franken Amendment would NOT overturn the existing contract. Saying it would is not a fact, it is a blatant falsehood.
It is the first contract that is the only contract effected by the Franken amendment. Private companies are still free to have these contracts with their employees, they just can't do business with the United State Government and be rewarded with my tax dollars.
Please stop posting such blather and representing it as "facts."
justthefacts (anonymous) says…
My mistake Bob. We all make them. However, it is in fact the arbitration clause that is at issue here. So it's not entirely inaccurate to say that the contract clause that is causing the heart burn is in the employee's contract with the employer.
Arbitration clauses are extremely common in employment contracts. Many large companies put them in, as a way to settle things prior to going to the next step (court). It is a way of trying to avoid going to court (with all its attendant costs - including legal fees for trial attorneys).
If the government wanted to do business with only those employers who do not have such abritration clauses with their employee's contracts, what is stopping them now? Aren't the federal agencies free to make that part of their request for purchases, now?
It might be interesting to see how many bids they'd get with that as part of the bid requirements.
justthefacts (anonymous) says…
Oh, and sourpuss - one of the basic tenents of contract law is that it cannot be for an illegal purpose. For example, a contract whereby one person hires another to burn down his house (for insurance) would be void. Unenforceable. As another example, a contract whereby a pimp hires a prostitute would not be enforcable. The courts do not uphold contracts agreeing to do illegal things. But, so far, it is not illegal for an empllyee with a grievance against an employer to agree to go to arbitration prior to going to a court. The trial lawyers might want to make that illegal, but so far it's not.
Gareth (anonymous) says…
Republicans overwhelmingly supported killing all tax dollars going to ACORN, because of allegations of illegality.
Yet, when a vote comes forward that will block *future* contracts to organizations that deny employees the right to sue if they are assaulted, the Republicans vote against it.
Double-standard? Sure looks like it.
...and the hayseed conservative public will mindlessly suppport the GOP, still ignorantly believing that they're the party of Christians, rather than Corporations.
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…
@justthefacts, re your 1029:
The only thing I find wrong with what you wrote is the implication that employees agree (in a contract) to arbitration prior to going to court. In this instance, the arbitration was (would have been) binding and the young lady would have had no recourse.
*****
re your 1025:
The government cannot contract an agency based on their internal hiring and employee management practices. They can only hire by the lowest bidder, except in the case of no bid contracts such as those awarded to Halliburton and Blackwater.
*****
Franken's amendment does put an extra step or two in the contract awarding process. Specifically, it will require contractors to provide a copy of their contracts with employees for review prior to being awarded a contract. If it requires employees to sign away all rights and agree to binding arbitration for everything (to include rape), then the company does not get the contract.
*****
It's a known fact that arbitration favors the company (see jafs at 0850). I know from personal experience.
*****
Final note. It's reprehensible, but not unexpected, that both Roberts and Brownback voted nay to this amendment. Brownback's run for governor, which he'll win because of the political nature of Kansas, is simply a notch in his experience belt in a run for the White House. I will not vote for him in either event. I also shudder to think of what he will do to this state. (But that's beside the point.)
davidnta (anonymous) says…
Wait a minute, I thought it was the government's job to handle federal contracts going to contractors. What is Jeff Sessions talking about what the Congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts? I think he must be confused about something else or he just doesn't care that women are gang rapped.
Jimo (anonymous) says…
Just apply the ACORN standard to defense contractors - if anyone in the organization, no matter how lowly, does anything seemingly objectionable, the entire organization is cut off from any federal funding.
Satirical (anonymous) says…
The bottom line is that women who allege sexual assault, discrimination will get awarded more money in settlement since there is a possibility of going to trial which costs more money.
This legislation will increase the pay-out for women who have actually been sexually assaulted or discriminated against; but it will also increase the pay-out for frivolous claims of the same. When the pay-out for frivolous claims increases, more frivolous claims will be filed. This will cause contrators' costs to increase, which will lead to taxpayers paying more money. So in the end, you and I are paying more money for some legitimate and many frivolous claims of sexual assault and discrimination.
The people it will help the most is the trial lawyers, who vote heavily for Democrats, and whom the Dems want to please. If you believe in freedom, then why are the Dems against the freedom to contract? I guess the right to contract doesn't apply when it hurts those who support the Dems.
rooster (anonymous) says…
Taco Bob tacitly condones rape. You read his own statement. He is all for allowing our government to accept companies who force their employees into arbitration over rape.
Okay so arbitration when you get fired for calling in sick or not doing the job well. But Rape.
Sam Brownback
Pat Roberts
Taco Bob
Kansas faithful
Pilgrim 2
Vet
Satirical
Anybody else?
JudgeScmails (anonymous) says…
There are some wild assumptions being made about the arbitration process in the comments to this article. The arbitration process doesn't leave victims of work place sexual abuse or assault without legal redress, it simply means that three professional independent arbitrators will hear her case and determine if her claims are valid and determine her damages instead of a jury. The arbitration process can be a very fair and cost efficient means of resolving disputes. Defense lawyers hate arbitration as much if not more than plaintiff's lawyers. The case discussed in the article is the worst case scenario, one in which lawyers working on a contingency fees would fall over themselves to handle. It is also the exception. For the thousands of other cases the proposed law would impact, in which the allegations are offensive but not nearly as egregious and potential damages not nearly as large the plaintiff may not have access to a quality lawyer because the potential fee is not large enough to justify the risk. In those cases the arbitration process may very well provide legal redress the civil justice system may not otherwise provide.
The arbitration clause has absolutely nothing to do with holding the sexual predators who perpetrated the despicable crimes against the woman in the article criminally responsible. I am far from an expert on international criminal law, but if the acts took place on soil occupied by the United States or a military base (even if temporary) there is likely United States federal jurisdiction for the crimes.
puddleglum (anonymous) says…
thankyou rooster.
it is nice to see that list.
porch person nailed it & it is worth repeating:
Now we are paying tax payer dollars to the tune of over $680 Billion American and the companies who we give this money to have the right to suspend the American Constitution for their employees to avoid having their complaints heard in a court of law??
This isn't “business”, this is “what can I get away with”. KBR and Halliburton will only get away with what we will let them. They aren't on *our* side.
Big Prune- She isn't allowed a trial, that's the point.
Halliburton is trying to play 'above the law' which should come as no surprise, considering everything that cheney has tried to get away with.
why does the republican party continue to support big business and steamroll worker's rights?
if you own a business and vote republican, I can understand. If you actually work (for an employer) for a living and vote republican, I don't understand.
Satirical (anonymous) says…
rooster...
Congratulations on winning a typical LJWorld poster of the day award for ad hominem personal attacks without any support of facts or logic. You follow the ignorant blogger playbook perfectly when you are confronted with an opinion different than your own which you are unable to comprehend.
Congrats again!
Satirical (anonymous) says…
JudgeScmails…
Thank you for clearing up the arbitration process for those on this post who do not understand it. I especially appreciate the part explaining how the arbitration process can allow resolution for rape victims, etc., when it wouldn’t be available otherwise.
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) says…
Satrical, regarding your 12:30 pm post - all of it is baloney.
Nothing in the Franken amendment prohibits a company from continuing requiring these contracts. Nothing in the Franken amendment will lead to any of the ridiculous conclusions in your 12:30 pm post.
Why would you come around and post that nonsense after it has been debunked no fewer than 14 times on this page?
rooster (anonymous) says…
Taco Bob tacitly condones rape. You read his own statement. He is all for allowing our government to accept companies who force their employees into arbitration over rape.
Okay so arbitration when you get fired for calling in sick or not doing the job well. But Rape.
Sam Brownback
Pat Roberts
Taco Bob
Kansas faithful
Pilgrim 2
Vet
Satirical
Judgescmails
Anybody else?
I still don't understand how anybody can defend this. Nobody on earth is against arbitration in probably 99% of cases where someone is fired. But in rape/sexual assault cases?
Godot (anonymous) says…
The Obama administration's Defense Department officially opposes the bill, as well. Better add Barack Obama to the list of rape approvers:
"The DoD opposes the proposed amendment," reads a message sent from the administration to the Senate on October 6, the day the amendment passed by a 68-30 vote.
"The Department of Defense, the prime contractor, and higher tier subcontractors may not be in a position to know about such things. Enforcement would be problematic, especially in cases where privity of contract does not exist between parties within the supply chain that supports a contract," reads the DoD note. "It may be more effective to seek a statutory prohibition of all such arrangements in any business transaction entered into within the jurisdiction of the United States, if these arrangements are deemed to pose an unacceptable method of recourse."
rooster (anonymous) says…
Taco Bob tacitly condones rape. You read his own statement. He is all for allowing our government to accept companies who force their employees into arbitration over rape.
Okay so arbitration when you get fired for calling in sick or not doing the job well. But Rape.
Sam Brownback
Pat Roberts
Taco Bob
Kansas faithful
Pilgrim 2
Vet
Satirical
Judgescmails
Department of Defense
Anybody else?
I still don't understand how anybody can defend this. Nobody on earth is against arbitration in probably 99% of cases where someone is fired. But in rape/sexual assault cases?
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
"I still don't understand how anybody can defend this."
You don't? It's pretty obvious.
Check bill sponsorship for (D) or (R).
If (R) applause.
If (D) criticize.
Cogitate for a rationalization. (or don't)
That's just for this bill, of course. Other topics display an inverse of the above.
JudgeScmails (anonymous) says…
Rooster:
Why don't we leave the ad hominem attacks for talk radio and discuss the issue like the civilized adults we all are.
I guess I don't understand why you think a properly formed arbitration panel is in any worse position to deal with the civil damages issues of rape and sexual assualt than a jury. In either a jury trial scenario or arbitration scenario the victim presents the evidence of the acts and then presents evidence of her damages both economic and non-economic. Either the jury or the arbitration panel is left to sort out whether the act occurred and if so what the victim's damages are.
I think it would be fair to say an arbitration panel is less likely to award enormous damages based on sympathy and emotion than a jury. But it would also be fair to say the risk of an inadequate (in the eyes of the law) award is also less likely in an arbiration proceeding than a jury trial.
If the companies are including provisions in the arbitration clause of the employment contracts that prohibit awards of punitive damages then I definitely see your point. But I'm fairly certain that is not the case, and such contract provisions would likely be void or voidable on public policy grounds.
Godot (anonymous) says…
rooster omits Barack Obama from the list. What, does Barack Obama not have control of the Department of Defense now? Is he just an innocent bystander with no responsibility?
rooster (anonymous) says…
You guys(see list above) can try to rationalize this any way you want but the inclusion of arbitration for rape/sexual assault is indefensible.
They certainly are not adding that clause for the benefit of the rape victim are they?
rooster (anonymous) says…
Taco Bob tacitly condones rape. You read his own statement. He is all for allowing our government to accept companies who force their employees into arbitration over rape.
Okay so arbitration when you get fired for calling in sick or not doing the job well. But Rape.
Sam Brownback
Pat Roberts
Taco Bob
Kansas faithful
Pilgrim 2
Vet
Satirical
Judgescmails
Department of Defense
Godot
Anybody else?
I still don't understand how anybody can defend this. Nobody on earth is against arbitration in probably 99% of cases where someone is fired. But in rape/sexual assault cases?
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) says…
Nice to see Godot defending bureaucrats at DOD who don't want an extra hoop to jump through in order to protect our tax dollars.
Just a note - anytime a bureaucrat starts talking "enforcement," it is a smokescreen. DOD is not an enforcement agency, all the amendment requires is certification during the bid process.
Still, congratulations on your newfound embrace of mid-level career government employees.
rooster (anonymous) says…
Godot, the DOD does not call the president every time they take a position on a defense matter.
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Bob_Keeshan…
“Nothing in the Franken amendment prohibits a company from continuing requiring these contracts.”
When did I say it would? This bill only applies to contractors who want work from the Federal Government. My comment was in regards to that situation alone, since that is what the bill address. Nice attempt to change the topic.
------------------------
“Nothing in the Franken amendment will lead to any of the ridiculous conclusions in your 12:30 pm post.” - Bob_Keeshan
Way to back up your opinion with facts or logic…
I guess we should all just take your word for it, rather than allowing logic and facts guide us.
------------------------
“Why would you come around and post that nonsense after it has been debunked no fewer than 14 times on this page?” - Bob_Keeshan
(1) I wasn't aware reading all previous comments was a prerequisite to posting...
(2) If you responded to me the same way you responded to other similar arguments then you haven’t “debunked” anything.
JudgeScmails (anonymous) says…
Explain why it's indefensible. In order for the victim to seek the redress she/he seeks she/he is going to have to present her case to either a jury or an arbitration panel. Why is an arbitration panel inherently worse than jury in determinining the victim's damages?
Are the arbitration clauses added to the contract to benefit the employee regardless of the allegations, not necessarily. But that doesn't mean a majority of people wouldn't benefit in some way from an arbiration agreement. There are a lot of people who obtain redress in an arbiration proceeding who would never be able to navigate the civil litigation process to an award. Arbitration provides some benefit to both the plaintiff and defendant.
rooster (anonymous) says…
No satirical, you seem to be more concerned with the payouts to victims of rape than the payouts to companies who put arbitration clauses on rape.
That is exactly the postion that got you into the list.
There's a great website for people like you, republicansforrape.com
Satirical (anonymous) says…
JudgeScmails…
I think “rooster,” (and anyone else) should be ignored who (1) cannot support his/her position with any logic or facts, (2) can’t counter any arguments other than by using ad hominem attacks, and (3) can’t read or understand your posting explaining how arbitration will HELP women who have been raped. Responding to rooster and those like him/her will only further encourage their childish behavior.
Again, thank you for your well reasoned posting.
pace (anonymous) says…
Suppose the girl had died (murdered by her coworkers) would this limit her opportunity to arbitration? A corporation which purposely chooses to decriminalize rape and physical assault is way past corrupt. Politicians who abet this corporation in decriminalizing basic criminal acts are as guilty as those that raped and beat the woman. Yellowback and pass the hat Pat should face the victims of their corruption. Impeach the blighters.
Satirical (anonymous) says…
JudgeScmails...
Apparently, after rooster's last post, I have to add to roosters tactics...(4) putting words in others mouths and twist what they right to create straw man arguments.
rooster (anonymous) says…
judgescmails, If the arbitration clause position was out of concern for the victim then they failed. If the clause is there to avoid legal costs then the company will spend more after the arbitration fail and it goes to court.
Once again in 99% of firings the general population will overwhelmingly support arbitration.
Why don't you tell all of your female friends/family/co-workers about your strongly held support for arbitration for rape victims.
Godot (anonymous) says…
rooster, it does not matter whether they called him and said, "is this okay with you?" He is responsible for everything they do. period.
JudgeScmails (anonymous) says…
How does requiring arbitration in lieu of a civil jury trial to determine the plaintiff's civil damages "decriminalize" rape or murder?
rooster (anonymous) says…
I just love reading about how you guy's in the list can justify arbitration for rape.
Just amazing.
Arbitration was not created for the purpose of aiding a victim. It was created to minimize the cost of lawsuits for corporations.
Keep defending it. Your moms would be proud.
pace (anonymous) says…
One more thing, for those animals who are saying that arbitration should be the action in case of rape, are you extending that to us gals at home? Do these contracts cover all periods, places of employment, for employees of this firm or do they have a special clause that rape in certain locales should be arbitrated?
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Pace…
“Politicians who abet this corporation in decriminalizing basic criminal acts are as guilty as those that raped and beat the woman.”
This bill doesn’t address anything criminal. This bill is about civil lawsuits, and specifically whether an employee of a contractor for the federal government has the right to agree to waive a jury trial in any civil case regarding sexual assault or discrimination, and is instead allowed to agree solely to binding arbitration (which has been already pointed out, is often very beneficial to victims).
Those who support this bill do not believe employees of contractors for the federal government should have the right to solely agree to binding arbitration with the company.
pace (anonymous) says…
If you don't know the meaning of a big word, decriminalization, look it up before you sound like an utter and complete fool.
Decriminalization is the abolition of criminal penalties in relation to certain acts, perhaps retroactively, though perhaps regulated permits or fines might still apply (for contrast, see: Legalization). The reverse process is criminalization.
Decriminalization reflects changing social and moral views. A society may come to the view that an act is not harmful, should no longer be criminalized, or is otherwise not a matter to be addressed by the criminal justice system. Examples of subject matter which have been the subject of changing views on criminality over time in various societies and countries include:
Satirical (anonymous) says…
LOL - Correction from my post at 3:10 p.m. today
“(4) putting words in others mouths and twist what they (write) to create straw man arguments.”
mickeyrat (anonymous) says…
The "arbitration clause" does nothing to protect employees, it protects the company.
Does KBR/Halliburton want to protect rapists? Are they still pulling down six-figure salaries, effectively out of the reach of American law? This report doesn't tell us, but I'd wager that they are still in their overseas fiefdom echoing the "hey, she's a big girl, she signed the contract" sentiment posted here.
JudgeScmails (anonymous) says…
Pace, you do understand the arbitration provisions in employment contracts have nothing to do with criminal proceedings against the people who committed the acts.
It has only to do with determining whether the victim proved more probably than not the events occurred and how much the employer owes her/him in civil damages.
I don't think anyone is arguing the people who commit the crimes shouldn't be criminally punished. And the arbitration clauses do not prevent the government from prosecuting the companies criminally if their failure to protect the victims rose to the level of criminal conduct.
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Mickeyrat…
“The “arbitration clause” does nothing to protect employees, it protects the company.”
Incorrect. See JudgeScmails comments. Specifically at 1:02 p.m., 2:41 p.m., and 3:02 p.m. (today)
rooster (anonymous) says…
Wow maybe satirical deserves his own website.
satiricalforrape.com
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
"The bottom line is that women who allege sexual assault, discrimination will get awarded more money in settlement since there is a possibility of going to trial which costs more money.
"This legislation will increase the pay-out for women who have actually been sexually assaulted or discriminated against; but it will also increase the pay-out for frivolous claims of the same. When the pay-out for frivolous claims increases, more frivolous claims will be filed. This will cause contrators' costs to increase, which will lead to taxpayers paying more money. So in the end, you and I are paying more money for some legitimate and many frivolous claims of sexual assault and discrimination.
"The people it will help the most is the trial lawyers, who vote heavily for Democrats, and whom the Dems want to please. If you believe in freedom, then why are the Dems against the freedom to contract? I guess the right to contract doesn't apply when it hurts those who support the Dems."
____________________________________________________
Really? It's all about the money, then?
So, assuming the victim is a virgin, what's your going rate for a hymen these days? Is there a market you know about, that the rest of us don't? Are they priced "per pound?"
Sometimes, it's not just about the money. Sometimes it's also about dignity, degradation, humiliation. Would you be so quick if it was your mother? How about your daughter? Would you rather just go for the bigger payoff?
Example: I lost an aunt and uncle to a drunk driver @ 15 years ago. The drunk was a Mexican national, here illegally. Got drunk, drove into a ditch, overcompensated, crossed the center line**WHAM!!**
End of story.
Not even a trillion dollars can bring those people back. They're gone; however, putting that sorry alcoholic troglodyte behind bars. Thanks to several letters from my mother, her surviving siblings, and the work of the local M.A.D.D. organization, the worthless sac lost every single parole hearing he had. Served a full sentence.
That's the result of our day in court.
This, really, speaks again to the Culture of Irresponsibility that dominates many of America's corporations. Once you get up to a certain level in the corporate hierarchy, you don't have to be responsible for your accountants, you don't need to be responsible for your employees and their behavior while "on the clock," you don't have to be responsible for defective or dangerous products. You don't have to be responsible for anything, except turning a profit for the shareholders. By any means necessary.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
pace (anonymous) says…
JudgeScmails (Anonymous) says… In either a jury trial scenario or arbitration scenario the victim presents the evidence of the acts and then presents evidence of her damages both economic and non-economic. Either the jury or the arbitration panel is left to sort out whether the act occurred and if so what the victim's damages are."
So in your mindset, rape is something that is best settled by a fine or money. The rapist should pay a certain amount for his raping. I think that is really strange. Would it be like a tax? could you deduct it. could you buy rape insurance, say if you get caught, just pay the bill and it is all ok? Corporate arbitration boards don't have the power to jail people. Nor do I want corporations to have court powers over their employees. Corporations can't do much more than fire them. And I disagree the financial settlement would be less through corporate abritation, it might be more through a corporation. Most rapist don't have deep pockets. wooo.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
interesting. No wonder big businesses (and their sympathizers) love arbitration so much:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_...
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Agnostick…
“That's the result of our day in court”
Again, you like many others are confusing criminal with civil. This bill does not prevent the sort of justice the illegal Mexican nation who killed your aunt and uncle. Rapist -would still be prosecuted and be required to serve jail time. This bill addresses civil lawsuit only.
-----------------
“Really? It's all about the money, then?” - agnostick
That is the remedy in civil lawsuits….is it not? (Jail is for criminal, not civil)
You are clearly confused as to my position. I fully support actual victims getting everything they deserve. Arbitration is often the best place to make sure that happens.
The reason why most companies have a binding arbitration clause for civil suits (not just sexual assault, discrimination, etc.) is because not having the clause leads to increased costs, which means less they can pay the employee, and more than have to charge (to the federal government in this case, which means you and I).
The victims often don’t benefit anymore from the possibility of a (civil) jury trial. The ones who primarily benefit are liars who want a bigger payday (alleging rape, ruining a man’s life, and getting a truckload of money), and trial lawyers (which largely support Democrats).
Again, if you support victims you should support arbitration. I could now claim you don’t support arbitration and lob all sorts of personal attacks and innuendo as you have done to me, but I will not. Clearly you are confused as to the difference in civil and criminal lawsuits and the fact arbitration often does help the victim. Hopefully this was able to clear up that misunderstanding.
JudgeScmails (anonymous) says…
Okay, I understand now. You are under the mistaken impression that an arbitration clause prevents criminal prosecution.
If an arbiration clause some how prevented criminal prosecution of either the individuals or the corporation which commited the criminal act I would wholeheartedly agree with you. But since an arbitration clause does nothing of the sort I don't.
rooster (anonymous) says…
Satirical, You clearly have brain damage.
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Pace…
“So in your mindset, rape is something that is best settled by a fine or money.”
How many times does JudgeScmails and I have to repeat ourselves? This bill addresses civil lawsuits and doesn’t affect whether criminals must serve jail time. Think of it this way…O.J. Simpson had both criminal charges and civil lawsuit brought against him. One did not preclude the other. Simpson was found “not guilty” in the criminal charges, and was found guilty or liable in the civil proceeding (and forced to pay money, which is the basically the only thing the court could have granted). Simpson being found guilty in one proceeding would not have precluded the other.
Even if this bill were defeated (as the Senators from Kansas voted), criminals would still have to go to jail for rape or any other crime, and victims would still be able to be compensated on the civil side, through arbitration (and perhaps be compensated more than if they went to trial). So why would you be opposed to allowing criminals to still get justice (because this bill doesn’t address criminal charges), and allowing victims to be in perhaps a better position for a full recovery?
rooster (anonymous) says…
if the arbitration is mandatory and binding, the parties waive their rights to access the courts and have a judge or jury decide the case
Clearly judgescmails is the brain damaged one.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Okay, so perhaps I was misguided in my confusion of civil vs. criminal.
Still, the disadvantages I linked to @ 3:41pm say much about the arbitration process. For example, the rather loose enforcement of arbitration agreements--does anyone else really think that O.J. Simpson would've lost his house and valuable possessions if he'd gone through arbitration, rather than a civil trial? Would all the evidence have come out? Or would everything have been sealed up, and swept under the rug?
What we're still talking about is a system that heavily favors corporations over individuals... and feeds the Culture of Irresponsibility, even in the civil courts.
The whole "trial lawyer" schtick is just that--schtick. I suspect certain folks would have extended fits of glee if all trial lawers were registered Democrats, and formed one big union, and all married up to public school teachers and abortion providers. These folks could then conveniently cart around just the one straw man, instead of being burdened with four or five.
--Ag
pace (anonymous) says…
Well judgy, it is like pulling teeth. Yes the issues being arbitrated are also criminal. In the United States, sexual harassment is mostly defined under civil law, though some are also defined under criminal law. This committee can not put the "supervisors" who abbetted the acts into jail. Their behavior/acts, if as described could be criminal
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) says…
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
When did I say it would? This bill only applies to contractors who want work from the Federal Government. My comment was in regards to that situation alone, since that is what the bill address. Nice attempt to change the topic
You may want to read your original post again before you accuse others of changing the topic.
Sadly, with all your posts, you are still not very good at this.
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Agnostick…
“For example, the rather loose enforcement of arbitration agreements”
Perhaps you failed to read your own link which states:
“in some legal systems, arbitral awards have fewer enforcement remedies than judgments; although in the United States, arbitration awards are enforced in the same manner as court judgments and have the same effect”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_...
-------------------
“Would all the evidence have come out?” – agnostick
Likely yes. Do you have an argument to the contrary?
---------------
“What we're still talking about is a system that heavily favors corporations over individuals… and feeds the Culture of Irresponsibility, even in the civil courts.” – agnostick
What evidence do you have to show arbitration or suits in civil court “heavily favors corporations over individuals?”
-----------------
“The whole “trial lawyer” schtick is just that—schtick.” – agnostick
Yet if I replaced the “trial lawyer” with “insurance company” you would likely be singing a different tune…
Again, kudos on supporting your opinion with logic and/or facts…
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Bob_Keeshan…
“You may want to read your original post again before you accuse others of changing the topic. Sadly, with all your posts, you are still not very good at this”
So…in other words...you cannot back up your claim. Okay, good to know.
Also, just for the record, what I brought up was directly related to the topic on the thread, but perhaps you thought I was changing the topic because I didn’t talk about what YOU wanted.
You, on the other hand, changed the topic when you claimed my post, “prohibits a company from continuing requiring these contracts,” when I said nothing to that effect. You changed topics by putting words in my mouth. But obviously you cannot respond when I asked you to back up your claim, and likely you will not be able to intelligently respond to support your claim that I changed the topic.
JudgeScmails (anonymous) says…
Agnostick, there are downsides to arbitration for both the plaintiff and defendant. I don't think anyone could reasonably dispute that. You have to weigh the upside against the downside. The upside is that in the vast majority of cases in which the Franken bill would apply the arbitration clause would give the victim of discrimination a fighting chance of obtaining some legal redress (damages) that they might not otherwise have access to. As a general rule arbitration is significantly less expensive than a jury trial. The criticism of arbitration most often heard from both plaintiffs and defendants is that the arbitrators tend to play King Solomon and "split the baby" leaving neither side totally satisfied with the result. Some people may call that compromise and deem it a good way to resolve these kinds of disputes.
Would O.J. have lost his house in an arbitration proceeding? I don't see why not. Once the arbitration panel reaches its decision it is filed with the court and becomes a judgment just as if a jury or judge had reached a verdict. Once it becomes a judgment the plaintiff has all of the methods to collect against the defendant the law allows. Would an arbitration panel have awarded Ron Goldberg three billion dollars, probably not. But do we really govern in such a way that protects damages awards that are clearly not tied to any reasonable legal principal? Compensatory awards are intended to make the plaintiff whole and nothing more, punitive damages are intended to punish but still must be grounded in reason. If you have a problem with those definitions or limitations of damages you have a problem with our system of civil justice regardless of whether it is despensed by a judge and jury or arbitration panel.
I have a great deal of respect for trial lawyers, and nothing I have said should be taken any other way.
The one argument you make that I don't have a good response to is that some people just want their day in court. I completely understand this sentiment. However, I would say such a sentiment is mostly emotional rather than rational. Laws (or the decision not to enact a law in this case) should be based on rational thought rather than emotion. I don't mean that to be as condescending as it may sound, but generally laws passed out of emotion are not good laws. My short fallings as a writer makes it impossible for me to say more eloquently
.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Advantages and disadvantages
Parties often seek to resolve their disputes through arbitration because of a number of perceived potential advantages over judicial proceedings:
* when the subject matter of the dispute is highly technical, arbitrators with an appropriate degree of expertise can be appointed (as one cannot "choose the judge" in litigation)
* arbitration is often faster than litigation in court
* arbitration can be cheaper and more flexible for businesses
* arbitral proceedings and an arbitral award are generally non-public, and can be made confidential
* because of the provisions of the New York Convention 1958, arbitration awards are generally easier to enforce in other nations than court judgments
* in most legal systems, there are very limited avenues for appeal of an arbitral award
[cont.]
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
However, some of the disadvantages of arbitration can be that:
* arbitration agreements are sometimes contained in ancillary agreements, or in small print in other agreements, and consumers and employees sometimes do not know in advance that they have agreed to mandatory binding pre-dispute arbitration by purchasing a product or taking a job
* if the arbitration is mandatory and binding, the parties waive their rights to access the courts and have a judge or jury decide the case
* in some arbitration agreements, the parties are required to pay for the arbitrators, which adds an additional layer of legal cost that can be prohibitive, especially in small consumer disputes
* in some arbitration agreements and systems, the recovery of attorneys' fees is unavailable, making it difficult or impossible for consumers or employees to get legal representation; however most arbitration codes and agreements provide for the same relief that could be granted in court
* if the arbitrator or the arbitration forum depends on the corporation for repeat business, there may be an inherent incentive to rule against the consumer or employee
* there are very limited avenues for appeal, which means that an erroneous decision cannot be easily overturned
* although usually thought to be speedier, when there are multiple arbitrators on the panel, juggling their schedules for hearing dates in long cases can lead to delays
* in some legal systems, arbitral awards have fewer enforcement remedies than judgments; although in the United States, arbitration awards are enforced in the same manner as court judgments and have the same effect
* arbitrators are generally unable to enforce interlocutory measures against a party, making it easier for a party to take steps to avoid enforcement of an award, such as the relocation of assets offshore
* rule of applicable law is not necessarily binding on the arbitrators, although they cannot disregard the law.
* discovery may be more limited in arbitration
* the potential to generate billings by attorneys may be less than pursuing the dispute through trial
* unlike court judgments, arbitration awards themselves are not directly enforceable. A party seeking to enforce an arbitration award must resort to judicial remedies, called an action to "confirm" an award
* although grounds for attacking an arbitration award in court are limited, efforts to confirm the award can be fiercely fought, thus necessitating huge legal expenses that negate the perceived economic incentive to arbitrate the dispute in the first place.
[from the Wikipedia link I posted earlier]
JudgeScmails (anonymous) says…
There is always a better resource than WIkipedia.
Look at it this way, nearly every state in the nation has passed the Uniform Arbitration Act. You can assume the legislature of nearly every state in the union is crooked and in the pocket of big business. Or you can assume that nearly every state in the union has concluded that the Uniform Arbitration Act creates a fair, but surely not perfect, way for people to resolve civil disputes.
tomatogrower (anonymous) says…
The government needs to end all business with Haliburton and their subsidiaries immediately. I'll bet these rapists are still working for them. The women they raped have to come back, and probably don't get the pay they deserve, but the big, bad macho jerks are still raking in the dough. Haliburton should be held responsible, and so should the lawmakers who voted in favor of these jerks. No wonder they want to work in Iraq and other countries who think women are nothing but a man's property. It took a call to her father and a lawmaker to get her out of there. Where were her employers? Defending their hired rapists and destroying evidence. They have aided and abetted rapists, and the lawmakers who support them are no better. Holier than thou Brownback is a hypocrite of monumental proportions.
63BC (anonymous) says…
Factual question:
If a plaintiff prevails in a lawsuit, often her lawyer will take 30-50% of the award and sometimes expenses are on top of that.
If a victim wins an award in arbitration, what percentage does she get to keep?
tomatogrower (anonymous) says…
Hopefully are real man working for have guts enough to come back and tell the truth about what is going on over there. Of course, they would need to hire a body guard, considering Haliburton is run by a bunch of mercenaries.
JudgeScmails (anonymous) says…
It would depend upon the individual attorney who takes the case. The cost savings would likely be in the expenses not the contingency fee. The attorney would still likely take 40% plus or minus. Most but not all contingency fee contracts deduct expenses before the fees are calculated. (Required in Kansas)
tomatogrower (anonymous) says…
"barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
It's great to see male progressive C.L.a P. and ACORN supporters try to defend the poor Jamie Leigh Jones from the evil rebublicans. Progressive ladies, I sense that there is hope and change for you from the progressive men that entertain you."
So you are outraged by what happened at ACORN which was faked anyway, but you aren't outraged by what is being allowed by companies who earn most of their money through tax monies? Covering up a rape and assault, and not just one, is ok with you? Real moral, upstanding citizen, aren't you. We should let all women know, so they will avoid dating you.
puddleglum (anonymous) says…
barrypenders:
winner of yet another jerk-auf-of the day award.
Godot (anonymous) says…
rooster, I have a solution. Women who do not want to go through aribitration with their corporation over charges of rape by an employee should never, ever, with full consent, sign the contract that requries arbitration.
I can just hear Rooster's response: women are too dumb to read contracts, and therefore require the protection of Congress on a selective basis.
rooster (anonymous) says…
We can make it even simpler godot.
If your company forces an employee to sign the requirement to get the job, then no gov't dollars.
tomatogrower (anonymous) says…
No more government money to those mercenaries anyway. Cut them off. And I do mean that literally. Take that anyway you want it.
Godot (anonymous) says…
rooster, if a company offers an applicant a contract for employment that contains provisions the applicant finds objectionable, the applicant can decline the offer of employment. If the employer is unable to fill the jobs required to complete the project, the employer will be unable to fulfill the obligations of the government contract and will lose the contract and the money.
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…
You're losing again Pilgrim2, ridiculing, instead of responding. Then again, many of your posts above do that.
Godot's response indicates acceptance of companies allowing employees to sign their rights away. Your response indicates agreement. Since you seem prefer emotion from the "looney left" rather than discussion then, that puts you both on one of the lists above condoning rape.
The amendment doesn't say the government will write contracts between contractors and employees. It does say that contrators with employee contracts such as Halliburton/KBR had will not receive government contracts, plain and simple. In essense, it holds government contractors to a higher standard. Now, tell us what's wrong with that?
More simply put, it's the Federal Government telling contractors that if their contracts don't meet basic standards, they won't receive a Federal Contract.
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) says…
Pilgrim2, given your rants about ACORN you don't really have a leg to stand on when it comes to Godot's argument.
Godot's argument is let the company manage its business and let the government contract with whomever wins the bid regardless of business practices. You do not agree with this argument. Nobody on the right agrees with this argument.
For the record, I agree with the rants about ACORN. I think the government has a responsibility to encourage model behavior among its vendors. If you want a government contract you have to meet certain standards.
jafs (anonymous) says…
The NPR report showed that companies routinely select "approved arbitrators" that favor employers in arbitration proceedings.
Thus the list of arbitrators that employees can choose from is weighted in favor of employers.
And again, since arbitration clauses are quite standard, trying to find a job that doesn't require them would be quite difficult (for the "don't take that job" people).
jafs (anonymous) says…
And, if ACORN is to be prohibited from receiving federal funding on the basis of allegations, there are many companies that have been convicted that should be prohibited as well.
cait48 (anonymous) says…
This is a full list of the thirty senators that voted against the Franken Amendment:
http://www.republicansforrape.org/leg...
It's interesting to note that all thirty of them are men. All female Republican Senators (four, if I recall correctly) voted FOR the amendment. The map that comes with the web page also shows an interesting demographic. With a handful of exceptions (New Hampshire being among them) the vast bulk of these men either came from the Midwest or the south. The majority come from that part known as "the Bible Belt",
By the way, the Franken amendment did pass the Senate, just not with the support of these men, Brownback and Roberts among them.
One can hope that this is a wake up call to the farmers and ranchers in western Kansas. Somehow I doubt it, though.
cait48 (anonymous) says…
"Neither criminal prosecution of the individual perpetrators nor financial penalties levied against the employer have been taken off the table."
But Ralph, it has. or at least in the case of Jamie Leigh Jones it has.
Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Le... and pay very close attention to the section titled "Inaction by the United States Department of Justice".
b_asinbeer (anonymous) says…
FYI--
Rape is not a political issue. It's a human rights issue. Those who voted for rape (I'm looking at you 3/4 of the senate republicans who voted against the bill)...shame on you.