GOP mad after they voted against Anti-Rape Amendment

punked · December 4, 2009

The Republicans are steamed at Franken because partisans on the left are using a measure he sponsored to paint them as rapist sympathizers -- and because Franken isn't doing much to stop them.

"Trying to tap into the natural sympathy that we have for this victim of this rape --and use that as a justification to frankly misrepresent and embarrass his colleagues, I don't think it's a very constructive thing," Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said in an interview...........

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30088.html

Soft on crime Republicans who support rape. Just sad.

Gabriel · December 4, 2009

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30088.html

Soft on crime Republicans who support rape. Just sad.

In all seriousness, this story is as dumb as the Obama birth certificate scandal. Republicans aren't supporting rape, they're just opposing a stupid 'revenge' bill that seeks to ban future business dealings with a very important and reputable contractor. A bad story that occurred involving employees of a particular company in no way justifies removal of the company from future consideration of contracts that it can potentially fulfil. If I drive drunk and smash into a kid, should my entire firm be punished for my negligence? Get real, punked.

Peter F · December 4, 2009

Republicans aren't supporting rape, they're just opposing a stupid 'revenge' bill that seeks to ban future business dealings with a very important and reputable contractor. A bad story that occurred involving employees of a particular company in no way justifies removal of the company from future consideration of contracts that it can potentially fulfil. If I drive drunk and smash into a kid, should my entire firm be punished for my negligence? Get real, punked.

The flap isn't about 'punishing' anyone. To quote from the linked article:

At issue is an amendment to the Pentagon spending bill that would bar future and existing federal contracts to defense contractors and subcontractors at any tier who mandate employees go through a companys arbitration process for workplace discrimination claims including claims of sexual assault.

So, you see, your firm wouldn't be punished for your deadly negligence. Only that your firm wouldn't get a pentagon contract if your firm has employment clauses that say employee's cannot use the normal court process to persue claims against the employer.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Peter F

Gabriel · December 4, 2009

The flap isn't about 'punishing' anyone. To quote from the linked article:

So, you see, your firm wouldn't be punished for your deadly negligence. Only that your firm wouldn't get a pentagon contract if your firm has employment clauses that say employee's cannot use the normal court process to persue claims against the employer.

Requiring an employee to go through internal processes DOES NOT prevent the employee from seeking resolution for some grievance through outside sources - i.e. the justice system. No company prevents its employees from pursuing justice through the justice system for on-the-job problems. The same rules requiring internal reporting apply to virtually every other bad thing within a company - i.e. reporting internal theft, reporting employees who arenot adhering to safety protocols, etc. So my statement remains the same, this is a fake story promoted by some democrats in order to appease some of its extremist base. people who hate national defense, in general, or people who hate Halliburton.

Peter F · December 4, 2009

So my statement remains the same, this is a fake story promoted by some democrats in order to appease some of its extremist base. people who hate national defense, in general, or people who hate Halliburton.

There's nothing fake about this story. A bill was passed in the senate that disallows companys with mandatory arbitration as a condition of employment from getting Defense contracts.

Some Republicans voted against the bill and been called 'supporters of rape' by political partisans. What else is new?

What is fake about that?

Gabriel · December 4, 2009

There's nothing fake about this story. A bill was passed in the senate that disallows companys with mandatory arbitration as a condition of employment from getting Defense contracts.

Some Republicans voted against the bill and been called 'supporters of rape' by political partisans. What else is new?

What is fake about that?

Allow me to clarify, to suggest that this is an "anti-rape" amendment is disingenuous. To further suggest that opponents of this bill are "pro-rape" or anything of the sort is also disingenuous. This is a fake controversy. It's Jon Stewart-esque. The OP is perpetuating this bullshit.

punked · December 4, 2009

Allow me to clarify, to suggest that this is an "anti-rape" amendment is disingenuous. To further suggest that opponents of this bill are "pro-rape" or anything of the sort is also disingenuous. This is a fake controversy. It's Jon Stewart-esque. The OP is perpetuating this bullshit.

Ohhhh you're so right. Even though many women who have been raped and have been not allowed too seek proper justice testified for the amendment, and have questions those Senators who voted against it this bill is about bisuness. I am tired of Republicans trying to frame every question as one on bisuness. Sometimes we have to look at the larger pictures and morals. Sorry the Republicans are against this anti-rape legislation, and they are crying about it. That is just the way it is and it is sad.

Gabriel · December 5, 2009

Ohhhh you're so right. Even though many women who have been raped and have been not allowed too seek proper justice testified for the amendment, and have questions those Senators who voted against it this bill is about bisuness. I am tired of Republicans trying to frame every question as one on bisuness. Sometimes we have to look at the larger pictures and morals. Sorry the Republicans are against this anti-rape legislation, and they are crying about it. That is just the way it is and it is sad.

What women haven't been allowed to seek justice? At first I thought you were knowingly lying about this story, but now it's apparent that you actually believe the lies. Did you even read my posts in this thread? I specifically said that tehe internal policies of a company DO NOT override a person's ability to seek resolutions from outside the company. More specifically, the company policies DO NOT restrict someone from going outside of the company to address problems - i.e. calling the police about a discrimination or sexual assault. The internal policies only state that the employee IS REQUIRED to report such incidents to relevant internal bodies, such a human resources department. This is a normal and appropriate policy. If you've ever worked for a large company you'd realize that they normally require you, as a part of policy (usually agreed to via a employment contract), to report any unsavoury activity that you are aware of. For example, if you know of theft going on within a company, you are required to report. The same goes for more serious offences like discrimination and assault. An employee MUST report this internally. This reporting DOES NOT prevent the employee from escalating the issue with proper law enforcement authorities.

The bottom line - this is NOT anti-rape legislation. This is bullshit legislation grandstanding as anti-rape legislation, when it reality it is trying to block the government from doing business with companies that have NORMAL and INTELLIGENT internal policies.

Btw, is English not your first language?

punked · December 5, 2009

What women haven't been allowed to seek justice? At first I thought you were knowingly lying about this story, but now it's apparent that you actually believe the lies. Did you even read my posts in this thread? I specifically said that tehe internal policies of a company DO NOT override a person's ability to seek resolutions from outside the company. More specifically, the company policies DO NOT restrict someone from going outside of the company to address problems - i.e. calling the police about a discrimination or sexual assault. The internal policies only state that the employee IS REQUIRED to report such incidents to relevant internal bodies, such a human resources department. This is a normal and appropriate policy. If you've ever worked for a large company you'd realize that they normally require you, as a part of policy (usually agreed to via a employment contract), to report any unsavoury activity that you are aware of. For example, if you know of theft going on within a company, you are required to report. The same goes for more serious offences like discrimination and assault. An employee MUST report this internally. This reporting DOES NOT prevent the employee from escalating the issue with proper law enforcement authorities.

The bottom line - this is NOT anti-rape legislation. This is bullshit legislation grandstanding as anti-rape legislation, when it reality it is trying to block the government from doing business with companies that have NORMAL and INTELLIGENT internal policies.

Btw, is English not your first language?

You are wrong period. Watch the testimony first hand.

Young Turks gives a great explanation.

Edited December 5, 2009 by punked

Peter F · December 5, 2009

What women haven't been allowed to seek justice?

Jamie Leigh Jones for one. KBR's mandatory adjudication forced upon her due to employment contract. She went to a Texas court to get out of the adjudication. The Texas court said the mandatory adjudication stands. She appealed to the US 5th circuit court and they allowed the appeal. IE This woman - allegedly raped in KBR barracks by KBR employee's - was not allowed to seek justice in a court-room until the 5th circuit appeals court upheld her appeal. So you see US courts did in fact "override a person's ability to seek resolutions from outside the company".

The rest of your post about company policies completely ignores US mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts.

Companies with such clauses not only demand employee's report abuses - as you mention - but also require employee's abandon any - any - other means of seeking redress from the company. Thus Jamie Leigh Jones' mandatory arbitration with KBR was upheld by the Texas court. Fortunately she won her appeal. That is not to say that all mandatory arbitration clauses become invalid.

In my view, this legisltation does not "block the government from doing business with companies that have NORMAL and INTELLIGENT internal policies." since NORMAL and INTELLIGENT companies do not have mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts.