Rape is bad, right?

[Michael Hardner]

M Dancer,

Should a mugging victim sue Rogers if they are robbed by a Rogers employee?

Actually, some crimes that are committed while in service of one's employer are civilly actionable, such as car accidents. Remember the mythical Domino's 30 minute or free case ?

[Michael Hardner]

Naomi,

You've tried to downplay these lawmakers' vote from the beginning. Their vote was against an amendment that would prevent companies, who try to disable employees from receiving the right to take rapers to court, from receiving funds from the federal government.

As Morris pointed out, you haven't picked up on the subtlety of what's being discussed here. You get the broad strokes, which is that a big company wants to reduce its financial risks, and that there is a sexual assault case at the center of it - but you should reread the thread.

[Michael Hardner]

American Woman,

And I think signing such a contract seems ignorant. Corporations can get away with such things because people sign the contracts. Why? For the Big Bucks? If people refused to sign such a contract, refusing to work for such a corporation, the corporation would be forced to change the contracts.

This is wise advice. Too many people don't realize how much they're signing away for the 'big money'.

Likewise a good friend of mine (someone whom I respected on these boards) had a daughter who wanted to receive free college tuition in the US in exchange for National Guard (I think) enrollment. She did a very smart thing and insisted that if the daughter did that, she would not support her financially. The daughter relented. That was in the late 1990s, and several of her classmates spent several years deployed in the ME.

[naomiglover]

Naomi,

As Morris pointed out, you haven't picked up on the subtlety of what's being discussed here. You get the broad strokes, which is that a big company wants to reduce its financial risks, and that there is a sexual assault case at the center of it - but you should reread the thread.

This can be sugarcoated in many different ways, but what it comes down to is that the contract prevented a rape victim from having any recourse.

Are there any other companies that you know of that have such a clause in their contracts?

Have the rapists been disciplined by the company?

Edited October 20, 2009 by naomiglover

[M.Dancer]

M Dancer,

Actually, some crimes that are committed while in service of one's employer are civilly actionable, such as car accidents. Remember the mythical Domino's 30 minute or free case ?

Indeed, there can be liability while performing their job if...

I don't think there are any jobs that call for criminal activity. ie rape.

[M.Dancer]

..... but what it comes down to is that the contract prevented a rape victim from having any recourse.

False. Victims still have the right to press charges against the alledged perpetrator.

Have the rapists been disciplined by the company?

What? Like dock their pay? Forced overtime?

[Guest American Woman]

This can be sugarcoated in many different ways, but what it comes down to is that the contract prevented a rape victim from having any recourse.

No, it didn't. The courts had already ruled, before this law was passed, that she could bring her case to court. Franken himself referred to that fact in Congress (emphasis mine):

Ms. Jones won a small but important victory just a few weeks ago. The conservative Fifth Circuit Court, encompassing Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, ruled that most of Ms. Jones’ claims do not belong in arbitration, and she is entitled to her day in court. The Fifth Circuit ruled that even when you sign an employment contract requiring arbitration, there are some rights to sue your employer that just can’t be signed away. These include assault and battery, infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision.

Once again. The law doesn't change anything regarding what companies can include in their contracts. All it states is that the federal government will not give contracts to any companies that include such a clause in their contracts.

Edited October 20, 2009 by American Woman

[Michael Hardner]

MD

Indeed, there can be liability while performing their job if...

I don't think there are any jobs that call for criminal activity. ie rape.

Not true... there are even examples where the company is liable for things that happen off premises and off hours.

Geek Choice was held liable for theft of one of their employees because they didn't do a criminal check.

[M.Dancer]

Geek Choice was held liable for theft of one of their employees because they didn't do a criminal check.

There would have to have been a tangible connection...ie the theft occured at a place the employee was while doing his job. Anbd any company that has employees visiting clients should have their agents bonded.

What makes the contractor case unique is, while in Iraq (or anywhere away from the USA in hostile environs) the victim has little choice who s/he can assoiciate with or where they can relax, making even your off time somewhat on the company time. In which case it should be to a resonable extent the responsibility of the company to provide a safe environment.

Now where this would get screwy, what if a crime happens in the USA, an employee of say X company is raped by another employee....off site. Why on earth should the employer be held responsible?

[naomiglover]

False. Victims still have the right to press charges against the alledged perpetrator.

Tell me how many of the rapists have received punishment. How many of them are still working at KBR?

What? Like dock their pay? Forced overtime?

Like, maybe, not work there anymore? Because it's bad to rape, beat up and imprison people. Right? We still believe that it's wrong?

[M.Dancer]

Tell me how many of the rapists have received punishment. How many of them are still working at KBR?

Like, maybe, not work there anymore? Because it's bad to rape, beat up and imprison people. Right? We still believe that it's wrong?

Well if you know, please show. You might want to start by showing how many victims were not allowed to press charges.

The doing that, show how many perperators upon conviction still had their jobs.

Never the less, I think you're blowing smole for being pantsed so badly.

[Guest American Woman]

Tell me how many of the rapists have received punishment. How many of them are still working at KBR?

At present time, they are "alleged" rapists. Tell me how many people who were accused of rape "received punishment" before being given a trial and being found guilty. And then tell me if you approve of "punishment" before the benefit of a trial.

[naomiglover]

At present time, they are "alleged" rapists. Tell me how many people who were accused of rape "received punishment" before being given a trial and being found guilty. And then tell me if you approve of "punishment" before the benefit of a trial.

It took her 3 years to get the right to take any legal action, mostly due to KBR's efforts and the states departments lack of effort to take this case seriously. If there was no 'rape is okay' clause, it wouldn't have taken this long. It will take another few years before she can take them to court.

"An examination by Army doctors showed she had been raped "both vaginally and anally," but that the rape kit disappeared after it was handed over to KBR security officers. "

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=3977702&page=1

So why are you two downplaying this incident like it's not really a problem? KBR has done everything in its power so that Jamie Leigh Jones would not be able to press criminal charges against the rapists.

Here is the amendment. Why is it wrong to vote for this amendment?

Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

[Michael Hardner]

Morris,

Why on earth should the employer be held responsible?

Presumably, if there were prior complaints about employee's lecherous behavior (think the 'pizza delivery boy role' in some of your earlier films for example) or if the relationship was some kind of employee-employer type relationship.

My extensive 30 second Google search hit on a few examples like that.

Carry on...

[Guest American Woman]

It took her 3 years to get the right to take any legal action, mostly due to KBR's efforts and the states departments lack of effort to take this case seriously. If there was no 'rape is okay' clause, it wouldn't have taken this long. It will take another few years before she can take them to court.

How do you know how many more years it's going to take before she can go to court?

But the main thing is this: this law doesn't change KBR's contracts. It just excludes the government from giving them contracts. So here's the thing: KBR can decide it doesn't want government contracts, so the same thing can happen on non-government jobs, and nothing will have changed.

"An examination by Army doctors showed she had been raped "both vaginally and anally," but that the rape kit disappeared after it was handed over to KBR security officers. "

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=3977702&page=1

That's a partial quote, and it's not presented as such. Very dishonest. Here's the full quote (emphasis mine):

"Jones told ABCNews.com that an examination by Army doctors showed she had been raped 'both vaginally and anally,' but that the rape kit disappeared after it was handed over to KBR security officers."

So she said an examination showed that she was raped. Furthermore, the examination, even if it could conclude rape, wouldn't conclude who was guilty.

So why are you two downplaying this incident like it's not really a problem? KBR has done everything in its power so that Jamie Leigh Jones would not be able to press criminal charges against the rapists.

Yet she has been able to press charges. She has been granted her day in court. Even without this law, which only states that government contracts won't go to companies that have such arbitration clauses. Do you really not get that?

Here is the amendment. Why is it wrong to vote for this amendment?

Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

No one here said it was wrong to vote for it.

Now please address the questions you igonred. I'll re-post here for your convenience:

At present time, they are "alleged" rapists. Tell me how many people who were accused of rape "received punishment" before being given a trial and being found guilty. And then tell me if you approve of "punishment" before the benefit of a trial.

Edited October 20, 2009 by American Woman

[naomiglover]

How do you know how many more years it's going to take before she can go to court?

But the main thing is this: this law doesn't change KBR's contracts. It just excludes the government from giving them contracts. So the same thing: KBR can decide it doesn't want government contracts, so the same thing can happen on non-government jobs, and nothing will have changed.

Why did you downplay the importance of this amendment? Why do you act like it's not a big issue that 30 senators voted against this amendment?

That's a partial quote, and it's not presented as such. Very dishonest. Here's the full quote (emphasis mine):

"Jones told ABCNews.com that an examination by Army doctors showed she had been raped 'both vaginally and anally,' but that the rape kit disappeared after it was handed over to KBR security officers."

So she said an examination showed that she was raped. Furthermore, the examination, even if it could conclude rape, wouldn't conclude who was guilty.

She has not been able to press charges for years. There is a problem. If you don't see it as a problem, then you are making excuses.

Yet she has been able to press charges. She has been granted her day in court. Even without this law, which only states that government contracts won't go to companies that have such arbitration clauses. Do you really not get that?

Have you looked into how long it has taken and what she had to go through to get a hearing? Maybe you should.

No one here said it was wrong to vote for it.

The first post in this thread was about the 30 senators who voted against the amendment. You downplayed how bizarre it is for these senators to vote against an amendment that would not give contracts to companies who protected employees who rape.

Why aren't you unhappy that 30 lawmakers voted against this amendment?

It is a big deal.

[M.Dancer]

Here is the amendment. Why is it wrong to vote for this amendment?

Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

My only objection is it limits an entity's ability to defend itself from individuals seeking monetary damages from the entity for crimes crimes neither committed by or sanctioned by the entity.

If an individual feels that there is criminal liability by the corporation for failing to provide a safe environement which resulted in a crime being committed, let them sue for that.

[Riverwind]

Why did you downplay the importance of this amendment? Why do you act like it's not a big issue that 30 senators voted against this amendment?

Because the amendment nothing but political grandstanding that does not address the issue at hand. A law that actully addressed the issue would make it clear that such clauses in employment contracts are unenforceable. There are people in the world who feel that it is bad to do the "wrong thing" for the "right reasons". Edited October 20, 2009 by Riverwind

[M.Dancer]

Morris,

Presumably, if there were prior complaints about employee's lecherous behavior (think the 'pizza delivery boy role' in some of your earlier films for example) or if the relationship was some kind of employee-employer type relationship.

Tell you what, you cease with the film crap and I will not mention your rent boy days.

[Michael Hardner]

Tell you what, you cease with the film crap and I will not mention your rent boy days.

[Guest American Woman]

Why did you downplay the importance of this amendment?

What makes you think I'm downplaying it? Pointing out what it does/doesn't do isn't "downplaying it." It's stating the facts. This law did nothing to get Jones her day in court; she got it before this law passed. As I pointed out earlier, Franken even referred to that fact in his speech to Congress. It seems as if you are trying to make this about 'voting against giving women the right to go to court with rape charges,' but that's not what the law is about; it's about the government not giving contracts to companies with such arbitration clauses.

Why do you act like it's not a big issue that 30 senators voted against this amendment?

I don't find it "bizarre" that 30 senators voted against it, which is the word you used and what I was responding to. I don't think it's a "big issue" that they voted against it, either, because the law passed. If I thought it was a "big issue" every time a law didn't pass unanimously, I'd be upset all the time. As I said, considering that some saw it as a vote against corporations, I am not surprised that there are some 'corporation supporting' senators who voted against it. I don't find it "bizarre" that they did, and I don't think their voting against it means 'we live in a bizarre world.' I'm not that naive and bewildered by The Real World.

She has not been able to press charges for years. There is a problem. If you don't see it as a problem, then you are making excuses.

Have you looked into how long it has taken and what she had to go through to get a hearing? Maybe you should.

Yes, I have. Now please answer the question, which I'll repeat here for your convenience: How do you know how many more years it's going to take before she can go to court?

The first post in this thread was about the 30 senators who voted against the amendment. You downplayed how bizarre it is for these senators to vote against an amendment that would not give contracts to companies who protected employees who rape.

That would be "alleged rapists," and an amendment that would not give government contracts to companies who insisted on arbitration in such cases. As I keep pointing out, it does not force corporations to change their ways. It only means the government won't give them contracts. That does protect the government, though, from future suits.

As for "downplaying how bizarre it is," see my comments at the beginning of this post.

Why aren't you unhappy that 30 lawmakers voted against this amendment?

Because it passed. As I said, if I were "unhappy" every time a law/amendment didn't pass unanimously, I'd pretty much be unhappy every time a law/amendment went up for vote. Furthermore, I don't see it as protecting women in similar situations unless the government is involved; ie: there's a government contract. For everyone else, it's 'business as usual.'

It is a big deal.

Not to me, since it passed, and neither of my senators voted against it. But here's the thing-- people whose senators did vote against it have the option to vote them out next time around.

Now, since you ignored my questions for the second time, I'll present them to you again: At present time, they are "alleged" rapists. Tell me how many people who were accused of rape "received punishment" before being given a trial and being found guilty. And then tell me if you approve of "punishment" before the benefit of a trial.

[Guest American Woman]

Because the amendment nothing but political grandstanding that does not address the issue at hand. A law that actully addressed the issue would make it clear that such clauses in employment contracts are unenforceable. There are people in the world who feel that it is bad to do the "wrong thing" for the "right reasons".

I agree, although it would give corporations that want government contracts incentive to change, and I think that would include Halliburton and KBR.

But it does seem as if there was a lot of "political grandstanding" going on since Jones had already won the right to her day in court.

Edited October 20, 2009 by American Woman

[ReeferMadness]

What makes the contractor case unique is, while in Iraq (or anywhere away from the USA in hostile environs) the victim has little choice who s/he can assoiciate with or where they can relax, making even your off time somewhat on the company time. In which case it should be to a resonable extent the responsibility of the company to provide a safe environment.

Now where this would get screwy, what if a crime happens in the USA, an employee of say X company is raped by another employee....off site. Why on earth should the employer be held responsible?

Really? I thought that what made this case unique was that the employer, upon hearing her complaint, held her hostage at gunpoint, destroyed critical pieces of evidence and tried to force a criminal matter through a secret administrative process that it controlled.

[M.Dancer]

Really? I thought that what made this case unique was that the employer, upon hearing her complaint, held her hostage at gunpoint, destroyed critical pieces of evidence and tried to force a criminal matter through a secret administrative process that it controlled.

I was refering to the law as it appies to contractors operating outside of the US, not the specific allegations of one case.

[lictor616]

i'd follow the prevailing liberal orthodoxy and say that rape is bad UNLESS, its a black man raping a white woman... because really its only a case of taking affirmative action to the logical next level... for centuries white women were not encouraged to copulate with blacks and so its only really setting the bar even and fixing historical injustices....

besides, anyone who criticizes interracial rape is a filthy racist swine... and should be ashamed of himself.

or could a well meaning liberal be wrong?

Edited October 23, 2009 by lictor616