What's a citizen to do?

[hutch1983]

Second clip is from Republican Thad Cochran who voted against the bill and states why in his own words - HOW IS THAT BIASED.  And I am saying please hold so I can find you the links.

[USA4ME]

I'll believe that liberals care about women whenever they publicly condemn Kennedy and Dodd on the floor of the US Senate for their "waitress sandwich" routines.

.

[TheSarge]

Second clip is from Republican Thad Cochran who voted against the bill and states why in his own words - HOW IS THAT BIASED.  And I am saying please hold so I can find you the links.

How about using your own words and your own thoughts to tell us.

You know...do what you accuse us of not doing.
 

[Mike220]

Is this another one of "deportliberals" personalities?

[NHSparky]

The floor debate preceding the vote brought Minnesota's junior senator, a Democrat, head-to-head with the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who maintained that Franken's amendment overreached into the private sector and suggested that it violated the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution. Sessions also pointed out that the Department of Defense opposed the amendment.

LINK

So, tell me what is fundamentally wrong with a company telling their employees that in civil matters, they should seek arbitration first.  The woman in question CLAIMS she was raped.  Nobody was ever charged, let alone convicted, of any such act.  So does that somehow mean that if we are to work under a government contract we should submit to conditions that are so onerous as to drive one out of business?

Nobody is saying that if this woman was in fact assaulted that the guilty parties shouldn't be brought to justice.  What you're trying to paint is that somehow you want to associate responsible contractual obligations between employer and employee to be portrayed as somehow evil and heartless.

[Crazy Horse]

LINK

So, tell me what is fundamentally wrong with a company telling their employees that in civil matters, they should seek arbitration first.  The woman in question CLAIMS she was raped.  Nobody was ever charged, let alone convicted, of any such act.  So does that somehow mean that if we are to work under a government contract we should submit to conditions that are so onerous as to drive one out of business?

Nobody is saying that if this woman was in fact assaulted that the guilty parties shouldn't be brought to justice.  What you're trying to paint is that somehow you want to associate responsible contractual obligations between employer and employee to be portrayed as somehow evil and heartless.

thanks for answering my question to dutch's brother hutch

I knew that answer already.............but dumbass links to a political commentator and it calls us the groupthink sheep

[hutch1983]

Radio guy:  What opinion do you want me to share with you?  I think that gang raping an employee is wrong and I think the republicans that voted against the bill did so because Al Franken proposed it.  If a republican proposed that bill, I guarantee that it would have passed without any objection from the left simply because they are smart enough not to vote for companies to have a legal right to make employees sign contracts that makes gang-rape A-OK.  i think the reason republicans will never win another major election is simply because of stupid moves like this.  And honestly, I can't find you guys a FOX News snippet of this coverage because guess what - THEY DIDN'T COVER IT.  I guess they realized the terrible light this would place the right in.  What I am asking for - is an honest conservative to tell me why in the world they would vote against this bill.  Can you?  And if you can, would you let your wife sign that contract?  Or, better yet, work for a company that even presented such a contract?

USA4ME:  Wasn't it John McCain that cheated on his wife when she was sick with Cancer?  And while I forget the name of the guy, I also believe it was a republican who cheated on his wife with a man in a bathroom stall.  Let's not pretend any politicians - rep or dem give to sh*ts about their wives or loved ones.

[NHSparky]

Oh, and FWIW dipshit, here's a link from HuffPo, just so you don't think we're all evil mean kitten-eating Rethuglicans or anything:

LINK

"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."

Kind of dovetails to what I said earlier, doesn't it?

[hutch1983]

Crazy, you live up to your name.  The issue is this:  Haliburton and other overseas (Iraq) contractors have contracts that they require all employees to sign prior to working for them.  One company was found to have included in their contract, that if any employee was raped by a supervisor or superior, they would have to waive their rights to sue the company itself.  Now, that doesn't mean that they cannot report the perp or file claims against him/her, but they cannot go after the company itself - whether they know of the problem of not.  How did we learn of this issue?  A woman tried to sue the company she was working for because she was raped by her boss and up to three other men.  She could not because she had signed this contract.  Guess what, she could also not have them arrested because the attacks allegedly occured in Iraq and she had not reported the incident until she had returned home.  Local authorities had no authority to prosecute for crimes committed overseas and federal authorities had no way to officially prove or disprove the incident.  Why didn't she report it until she got home?  Shickingly, she was ashamed and didn't know where to turn when overseas, in another country, without any true law enforcement or any way to ensure her own protection.

[USA4ME]

USA4ME:  Wasn't it John McCain that cheated on his wife when she was sick with Cancer?  And while I forget the name of the guy, I also believe it was a republican who cheated on his wife with a man in a bathroom stall.  Let's not pretend any politicians - rep or dem give to sh*ts about their wives or loved ones.

If that's the case, then the last thing you should be pressing as an issue is any Senator who voted either for or against this bill.

Your rhetoric is that of someone who can never be open-minded, something that doesn't interest conservatives in general since we are willing to examine both sides.  For instance, making claims that it was only opposed because Franken brought it up (which, as you state, it's doubtful if he cares at all about his wife or loved ones),  or that if a R had brought this forward it would have been approved by them, or your comments on Fox News or Rush, etc...  You aren't saying anything that I can't find a liberal equivalent and make the same statements.  Are you trying to convince yourself that if a conservative were to go to a lib board and do that to you, that you'd have a different reaction to them than you're getting here?

You're just not that bright.  If you were smart, you would have come here humbly and in meekness stating your desires to talk, saying the same types of things that you would have said were you talking to us face to face, but you didn't.  Oh well.

.

[MrsSmith]

The Franken amendment is very broad and, in fact, I deliberately omitted a very important part of the claims it is meant to cover. In addition to the issues faced by Jones the amendment would also include “any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of…. negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.” (italics added). Franken’s addition of the italicized portions has received almost no play in the press (should I say the “liberal press?”). They essentially encompass the vast majority of employee grievances including termination or discrimination based on sex, religion, age, disability, or minority status. These become irrelevant because the arbitrator is under no obligation to consider all the merits of the claimant. Franken’s amendment, therefore, effectively bars defense contractors from imposing binding arbitration on employees under any circumstances. The Supreme Court, however, has ruled that arbitration is a legitimate process.

What are the odds this will survive it's first court challenge?  But Frankenstein will be claiming brownie points until it's trashed, I'm sure.

[NHSparky]

Crazy, you live up to your name.  The issue is this:  Haliburton and other overseas (Iraq) contractors have contracts that they require all employees to sign prior to working for them.  One company was found to have included in their contract, that if any employee was raped by a supervisor or superior, they would have to waive their rights to sue the company itself.  Now, that doesn't mean that they cannot report the perp or file claims against him/her, but they cannot go after the company itself - whether they know of the problem of not.  How did we learn of this issue?  A woman tried to sue the company she was working for because she was raped by her boss and up to three other men.  She could not because she had signed this contract.  Guess what, she could also not have them arrested because the attacks allegedly occured in Iraq and she had not reported the incident until she had returned home.  Local authorities had no authority to prosecute for crimes committed overseas and federal authorities had no way to officially prove or disprove the incident.  Why didn't she report it until she got home?  Shickingly, she was ashamed and didn't know where to turn when overseas, in another country, without any true law enforcement or any way to ensure her own protection.

BZZZZZTTTTT!!!!  WRONG!!!!!

She can still seek redress against the company via arbitration.  Guess what?  I bet if I looked somewhere deep in my employee contract and/or union contract, the same little clause exists!

And if a contractor is on assignment under US government contract and they commit a crime, guess what?  THEY'RE SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION UNDER US LAW, UNLESS THEY COMMITTED THE OFFENSE AGAINST A FOREIGN NATIONAL, AND IF THERE IS NO SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement), THEN THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE HOST NATION.

Isn't that amazing? 

So now I have a question for you, little noob--if she was in fact raped, why didn't she report it BEFORE coming back to CONUS?

[USA4ME]

What are the odds this will survive it's first court challenge?  But Frankenstein will be claiming brownie points until it's trashed, I'm sure.

Ah, so Franken wanted to handcuff corps from binding any arbitration, in turn making it where their legal costs of operating overseas could skyrocket.  Even on his radio show he was constantly harping on corps taking jobs elsewhere.  Nothing like providing the opportunity for gov't to limit freedom while lining their own pockets to drum liberals in line for a lockstep vote.

.

[Rebel]

Here's a question:  What did you think about the new bill Frankin tried to pass to make it illegal for Halliburton to make female employees sign a contract that says they cannot sue the company if a supervisor or superior rapes them in Iraq?

Why do they need another law? It's already covered under the EEOC. If Halliburton is doing that, which I seriously do NOT believe as I know people who work for that great firm, they're in the wrong and subject to litigation.

Do you know that every republican in attendance voted no?  How can you possibly justify this?  Republicans stated they felt the government should not be stepping in to reprimand and/or set rules and regulations for private sector companies.  Ummmmmmmm....... Isn't that what they are trying to do with ACORN???

Again, if there's already a law that covers it, I'm in agreement. Reason? Because it's nothing but an additional law to get media exposure by a media whore. Like dumbass hate crimes legislation.

[Crazy Horse]

Here's a question:  What did you think about the new bill Frankin tried to pass to make it illegal for Halliburton to make female employees sign a contract that says they cannot sue the company if a supervisor or superior rapes them in Iraq?

Do you know that every republican in attendance voted no?  How can you possibly justify this?  Republicans stated they felt the government should not be stepping in to reprimand and/or set rules and regulations for private sector companies.  Ummmmmmmm....... Isn't that what they are trying to do with ACORN???

That's a lie in bold.

Why not tell the truth and not give lies and falsehoods.

[bkg]

Crazy, you live up to your name.  The issue is this:  Haliburton and other overseas (Iraq) contractors have contracts that they require all employees to sign prior to working for them.  One company was found to have included in their contract, that if any employee was raped by a supervisor or superior, they would have to waive their rights to sue the company itself.  Now, that doesn't mean that they cannot report the perp or file claims against him/her, but they cannot go after the company itself - whether they know of the problem of not.  How did we learn of this issue?  A woman tried to sue the company she was working for because she was raped by her boss and up to three other men.  She could not because she had signed this contract.  Guess what, she could also not have them arrested because the attacks allegedly occured in Iraq and she had not reported the incident until she had returned home.  Local authorities had no authority to prosecute for crimes committed overseas and federal authorities had no way to officially prove or disprove the incident.  Why didn't she report it until she got home?  Shickingly, she was ashamed and didn't know where to turn when overseas, in another country, without any true law enforcement or any way to ensure her own protection.

Hey ****-nuts. Get out of my thread. You're worthless.

[Peter3_1]

A contract that is in violation of public policy is voidable on its' face by the agreeved party. That is, rape is against public policy. If a rape occured/occurs, and one has signed a contract saying they agree to take no action, well, that would be voidable by the victom. But, that  did not happen.  Why? Could it be because there was no rape? Because there WERE criminal and civil remidies in place that were adequate?

So the proposed law by the SEN Stewart Smalley is completely unnecessary , redundant, and itself is a violation of the public policy.