naomiglover Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 An amendment that would ban federal funds going to companies that require arbitration in the case of sexual assault passed the Senate on Tuesday. The amendment was offered by Sen. Al Franken and was added to the defense appropriations bill by a vote of 68 to 30. The amendment was offered after Jamie Leigh Jones, an employee of Kellogg, Brown & Root (formerly a subsidiary of Halliburton) was sexually assaulted by her co-workers in Iraq and then locked in a shipping crate when she tried to report the rape. Her return to the United States was facilitated by U.S. Rep. Ted Poe, R-Tex., but upon her return, she learned that the fine print of her employment contract banned her from taking the case to court. On the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., called it “a political attack directed at Halliburton.” Franken rebutted, “This amendment does not single out a single contractor. This amendment would defund any contractor that refuses to give a victim of rape their day in court. 30 senators voted against this amendment. What a bizarre world we live in. http://minnesotaindependent.com/46483/fran...-assault-passes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 30 senators voted against this amendment. And 68 voted for it. What a bizarre world we live in. Not so bizarre that more than twice as many voted for it as against it. This bill passed, which I would think is a good thing, so I'm not sure why you're apparently unhappy with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 This story makes no sense. Why such a employement provision even be legal in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 And 68 voted for it.Not so bizarre that more than twice as many voted for it as against it. This bill passed, which I would think is a good thing, so I'm not sure why you're apparently unhappy with it. 3/4 republicans voted against the bill, that means if we went by the senators represented in the Senate for every 4 we meet 3 of them think rape is some how good, or at least not bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 (edited) 3/4 republicans voted against the bill, that means if we went by the senators represented in the Senate for every 4 we meet 3 of them think rape is some how good, or at least not bad.This case is so absurd I needed to figure how any rational person could vote against it and I think I figured it out.Basically, the republican objection is government contracts should not be used to control the agreements that employers make with their employees since these contracts are freely entered into. There is a real danger that this precedent will lead to many other less worthy stipulations to satisfy the demands of various interest groups. For example, if the government can refuse to deal with companies that require arbitration in cases of sexual assault then what stopping it from refusing to deal with companies that don't have a union or do not provide a dental plan? I personally think these objections are reasonable and that this case should have been dealt with by an amendment to the employment standards act that made clauses that prevent prosecutions for crimes unenforceable under contract law. Similar laws already exist to protect whistle blowers. The real question is why didn't Franken try to solve this problem the right way for all companies instead of using this back door route that only affects companies that do business with the government? My guess is he wanted a quick way to get publicity and was happy to abandon women who work for companies that don't get government contracts in order to statisfy his need for a quick fix. Edited October 15, 2009 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 The case is not absurd, when you realize what it demonstrates. This shows the power and influence that companies like Haliburton have over the US senate. There is no reason those senators would vote against it, other than they have been bought by Haliburton. Powerful corporations use their wealth to influence the legal system, and to put their own representatives into positions of legal power in government. We think that we have a fair and honest democracy, when what we have has decayed into fascism. Our leaders show that, at least some of them are not working in the interest of the public who they should represent. They are planted, to give certain advantages, to the profiteers. And now if anyone ever criticizes islamicists for blaming the victim in a rape case, as we have seen before, we can point to this case right here. Proof of our own moral bankruptcy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 The case is not absurd, when you realize what it demonstrates. This shows the power and influence that companies like Haliburton have over the US senate. There is no reason those senators would vote against it, other than they have been bought by Haliburton. Powerful corporations use their wealth to influence the legal system, and to put their own representatives into positions of legal power in government. Nonsense.....the US federal government also prohibits employee lawsuits for government liability without its permission. Something about "indemnity"...from all manner of transgressions. We think that we have a fair and honest democracy, when what we have has decayed into fascism. Our leaders show that, at least some of them are not working in the interest of the public who they should represent. They are planted, to give certain advantages, to the profiteers. Meh.....the profiteers don't have any more votes than I do. And now if anyone ever criticizes islamicists for blaming the victim in a rape case, as we have seen before, we can point to this case right here. Proof of our own moral bankruptcy. Speak for yourself..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 the profiteers don't have any more votes than I do. Right, and you get to vote for any of the representatives they put in front of you. Vote for the one with the nicest smile... it will make you feel good! Speak for yourself..... I am. Or do you mean to say, you find rape and confinement acceptable, as long as its sanctioned by your government Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) Right, and you get to vote for any of the representatives they put in front of you. Vote for the one with the nicest smile... it will make you feel good! More nonsense...have you ever seen a real US federal election ballot ? I am. Or do you mean to say, you find rape and confinement acceptable, as long as its sanctioned by your government No, I mean to say that your moral pronouncements only apply to you....and you certainly have nothing better to offer. Edited October 16, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 I mean to say that your moral pronouncements only apply to you Because I thought there was a thing called "the just society", where laws applied to everyone. In that place no one could write a contract that put their employees above the law. Things like rape and forced confinement being illegal, was not just one persons moral pronouncement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) Because I thought there was a thing called "the just society", where laws applied to everyone. In that place no one could write a contract that put their employees above the law. Things like rape and forced confinement being illegal, was not just one persons moral pronouncement. More nonsense....which country do you live in? Have you ever been subject to the provisions of manadatory arbitration? Why do you confuse civil and criminal law, as well as jurisdiction? Or do you just start humping the first thing that comes along for a morally superior high? Edited October 16, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 This story makes no sense. Why such a employement provision even be legal in the first place? I was baffled about this as well. However, from what I have read it appears that her contract did not prevent her from reporting the crime to the police. Rather, the clause refers to her pursuing civil action against them-- by signing to the contract she waived the right to sue KBR and agreed that disputes with the company would be settled through private arbitration rather than civil dispute. A couple of points worth mentioning... First off, Haliburton/KBR apparently win over 80% of arbitration cases, and more than that, of 119 arbitration cases, only 3 resulted in the employee receiving any money at all. Secondly, while I've read nothing to suggest that Jones' contract in any way prevented her from reporting the crime to legal authorities... the question is: what legal authorities? The crime occurred outside the jurisdiction of the United States. However, US contractors operating in Iraq have legal immunity from Iraqi law enforcement as well. Jones' attackers will never see the inside of a courtroom, because nobody can charge them. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 I was baffled about this as well. However, from what I have read it appears that her contract did not prevent her from reporting the crime to the police. Rather, the clause refers to her pursuing civil action against them-- by signing to the contract she waived the right to sue KBR and agreed that disputes with the company would be settled through private arbitration rather than civil dispute. Thank you so much.....nice to know that somebody still knows the difference.....and a bit about jurisdiction too. Salute ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 No, I mean to say that your moral pronouncements only apply to you....and you certainly have nothing better to offer. So you are not against rape and confinement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 So you are not against rape and confinement? No.....I believe that rape and confinement exist. Being for or against is meaningless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 Thank you so much.....nice to know that somebody still knows the difference.....and a bit about jurisdiction too. Salute ! Kimmy's point has cleared up some of the confusion here. Thank you Kimmy. What I find interesting is how there is no apparent legal authority to protect this person. She's in legal limbo, and laws were passed to protect the government/ military/ businesses from being sued if they fail to provide security. These unscrupulous types took advantage of that situation and raped her, probably knowing that they were outside the law. So if that is how this story shakes down, it still demonstrates to me that some lawmakers have no interest is finding ways to protect individuals from being abused. If there is no legal authority operating in her circumstances they could have also killed her, and nothing could/ would be done by these types. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) .....So if that is how this story shakes down, it still demonstrates to me that some lawmakers have no interest is finding ways to protect individuals from being abused. If there is no legal authority operating in her circumstances they could have also killed her, and nothing could/ would be done by these types. Welcome to reality....UN diplomats enjoy the same protections. Civil suits are always an option, with no guarantee of success. Edited October 16, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 Welcome to reality....UN diplomats enjoy the same protections. Civil suits are always an option, with no guarantee of success. Yeah... thank you master for the education. Why do you always make me feel like Jean Van Damme in"Bloodsport"? (the training scenes) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 Yeah... thank you master for the education. Why do you always make me feel like Jean Van Damme in"Bloodsport"? (the training scenes) Fight with spirit and honor....your reward is Leah Ayres . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 What I find interesting is how there is no apparent legal authority to protect this person. She's in legal limbo, and laws were passed to protect the government/ military/ businesses from being sued if they fail to provide security.These unscrupulous types took advantage of that situation and raped her, probably knowing that they were outside the law. What I read suggests that KBR claims to be "self-policing", which is why the US Army turned the rape-kit over to KBR representatives. ...and when the US Dept of Justice obtained the rape kit later on, they found stuff that the US Army said was in the kit wasn't in the kit anymore. And Jones was told that if she pursued the claim that she shouldn't plan on working for them in Iraq any longer, and don't plan on working for them in the US either. And that if she had a problem with any of that she can't sue them but she can take them to "private arbitration". So it sounds like KBR's "self policing" process more or less consists of doing nothing, destroying evidence, threatening people with dismissal if they pursue complaints, and forcing them into an "arbitration process" that the company always wins. "Self policing" means just one thing: covering your own ass. A great example: the Dziekanski inquiry. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 So it sounds like KBR's "self policing" process more or less consists of doing nothing, destroying evidence, threatening people with dismissal if they pursue complaints, and forcing them into an "arbitration process" that the company always wins.Which is why this kind of problem needs to be handled with legislation similar to the whistle blowers legislation and not tacked on to some government procurement bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naomiglover Posted October 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 And 68 voted for it.Not so bizarre that more than twice as many voted for it as against it. This bill passed, which I would think is a good thing, so I'm not sure why you're apparently unhappy with it. It is bizarre that 30 senators voted against an amendment that would give rape victims the chance to seek justice. I'm assuming that all KBR employees are subject to U.S. Law: Contractors Working Overseas Subject to U.S. Law Members of the House of Representatives passed legislation making U.S. contractors operating overseas accountable under U.S. law. The bill, passed 389-30 on Thursday, comes after the recent shooting deaths of Iraqi citizens by Blackwater USA, the private security firm hired to protect U.S. State Department officials in Baghdad. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=15027390 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 No.....I believe that rape and confinement exist. Being for or against is meaningless. Why is it meaningless? It's like saying (and stay with me for a moment) you believe terrorism exists, and being for it or against it is meaningless. But that can be for another thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 It is bizarre that 30 senators voted against an amendment that would give rape victims the chance to seek justice.I'm assuming that all KBR employees are subject to U.S. Law: Naomi, It's not that bizarre when you know of the power of that company, whom most people haven't heard of. Brown & Root was a smallish construction firm in Texas when they met up with a congressman named Lyndon Johnson, and created a political-economic juggernaut that would have arguably the most underrated impact on American life possible. And this cuts across right and left politics too, as LBJ brought in the Civil Rights Act, expanded the space program as well as the Viet Nam war, and created the War on Poverty as well as many social programs in the US that exist today. A lot of people talk about conspiracies, as if great power needs to be hidden, but it doesn't. The power that these people had is part of public record, but just not known... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) It is bizarre that 30 senators voted against an amendment that would give rape victims the chance to seek justice. I doesn't sound as if the amendment was about giving rape victims the chance to seek justice; it seems to be about prohibiting federal funds for any contract with companies that "require that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims." So seems to me as if the companies can still have the clause in their contracts; it's just that they won't get any contracts using federal funds. So that, apparently, is what the vote was about -- whether or not these companies could get federally funded contracts, not whether or not rape victims would have the opportunity to seek justice. So in that regard, I'm not surprised some 'corporation supporting' Congressmen voted against it. Specifically, the amendment would bar federal funds from going to defense contractors that continue to apply mandatory arbitration clauses to claims of sexual assault, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring, retention and supervision. The amendment also covers civil rights claims of workplace discrimination, according to Franken's office. The amendment does not require contractors to change or modify existing employment contracts. link But maybe I'm wrong. I'll have to look into it more when I have more time ...... Edited October 16, 2009 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.