30 brave Republican Senators stand by their conservative principles...

[PixelPusher]

...I'm assuming. I'm sure these guys had a "good" reason to oppose this amendment, I just lack the proper Burkean perspective to see it myself. Maybe one the board conservatives can enlighten me.

Ok, now that we got the bipartisan, "give the other side the benefit of the doubt" niceties out of the way, on with the show.



30 GOP Senators Vote to Defend Gang Rape (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/healthwellness/143164/30_gop_senators_vote_to_defend_gang_rape/)

It is stunning that 30 Republican members of the United States Senate would vote to protect a corporation, in this case Halliburton/KBR, over a woman who was gang raped. The details from Think Progress:

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and "warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job." (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.


Offering Ms. Jones legal relief was Senator Al Franken of Minnesota who offered an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR "if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court."

Seems simple enough. And yet, to GOP Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions of Alabama allowing victims of sexual assault a day in court is tantamount to a "political attack" at Halliburton. That 29 others, all men, chose to join him in opposing the Franken amendment is simply mind-boggling.

Here are those who vote to protect a corporation over a victim of rape:

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

In the debate, Senator Sessions maintained that Franken's amendment overreached into the private sector and suggested that it violated the due process clause of the Constitution.

To which, Senator Franken fired back quoting the Constitution. "Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution gives Congress the right to spend money for the welfare of our citizens. Because of this, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, 'Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds and has repeatedly employed that power to further broad policy objectives,'" Franken said. "That is why Congress could pass laws cutting off highway funds to states that didn't raise their drinking age to 21. That's why this whole bill [the Defense Appropriations bill] is full of limitations on contractors -- what bonuses they can give and what kind of health care they can offer. The spending power is a broad power and my amendment is well within it."

God I love it when Senator Franken quotes the Constitution. Not every Republican was so clueless. Ten voted for the Franken amendment including the GOP's female contingent of Senators (Snowe, Collins, Hutchinson and Murkowski).

"We need to put assurances into the law that those kind of instances [the Jamie Leigh Jones case] are not capable of being repeated," said Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who voted in favor of Franken's amendment. "I want to make sure that a woman, any individual who is a victim of a terrible act, knows that they have got protections."

Murkowski said that she considered the arguments that Sessions made about the amendment being too expansive before she decided to vote for the legislation.

"I looked at it," said Murkowski. "And, I tell you, you look at some of the things we do and you have to say, 'OK, you have a specific instance we're trying to address and does this go above and beyond?' But when you have to err on the side of protecting an individual, I erred on the side of greater generosity, I guess."

Republican Sen. George LeMieux of Florida echoed some of Murkowski's sentiments.

"I can't see in any circumstance that a woman who was a victim of sexual assault shouldn't have her right to go to court," LeMieux said. "So, that is why I voted for it."

Although Franken chatted up LeMieux on the Senate floor before the vote, LeMieux said that he had already made his decision. But, LeMieux added, Franken's talk didn't hurt.

"I had decided to vote for it before I came here, but I was happy to hear his argument for it," LeMieux said. "He did what a senator should do, which was he was working it. He was working for his amendment." I'll add, Al Franken is everything a United States Senator should be.

As for Jamie Leigh Jones, she was nothing but elated and thankful. "It means the world to me," Jones said of the amendment's passage. "It means that every tear shed to go public and repeat my story over and over again to make a difference for other women was worth it."

And for the GOP, it is a new low.

[clambake]

palin calls them "real americans".

[MiamiHeat]

They don't actually protect rape.

I guarantee you that 99.999% of all of those senators all WANT TO protect women.

The problem? Haliburton owns them. $$$. Haliburton tells them to do something, they will do it, even if it means this.

[exstatic]

Shameful, but not surprising. The GOP is run as a culture of fundamentalist religion and misogyny. Actually, that was redundant. Fundamentalist religions are inherently misogynistic.

[Wild Cobra]

It really shows you guy's level of thought process when you take the words of a Think Progress article and not something that explains the other side.

I'll bet it was specific to working in the Middle-Eastern culture, where such activities may have the woman executed by their laws. Still, I'm sure there is more to it than that as well.

Anyone have the full text, or are you liberals going to continue to be liberal thugs?

[PixelPusher]

I have no fucking clue.

[PixelPusher]

I am the very embodiement of mindless, kneejerk defenders of the conservative tribe!

[PixelPusher]

"They" must have made it up, cause I never heard this story mentioned on Hannity.

[MiamiHeat]

PixelPusher, don't think that democrats aren't bought either. look at the corrupt crap both sides do

their main allegiance is to $$$$. don't act like the dems are on a high horse.

[clambake]

didn't a conservative get killed fucking a horse?

[PixelPusher]

My God's Man! You libtards just dont' understand! The rights of no-bid contracted corporations to fuck over it's fucked over employees is what our Founding Fathers fought for!

[spursncowboys]

The fact is Alternet, where this story came from is a self described "echo chamber of progressive ideas". Go to there About link. Also why is this included in the Defense budget? Same Liberal tactics. Here is a article from the Politico about this bill.


House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) are voting against the House/Senate fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill — because it contains hate crimes provisions designed to protect gays and lesbians. Boehner, speaking at his weekly press conference Thursday, said the inclusion of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in the defense bill was "an abuse of power" by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that sought to punish offenders for what they thought — and not what they did.
He accused the speaker of pursuing her social agenda "on the backs" of the troops.
GOP Whip Eric Cantor is also a no, saying that the legislation constitutes classifying a new group of "thought crimes."
...
The bill makes illegal, for the first time, hate crimes based on sexual orientation, adding it to race and gender as factors in Justice Department prosecutions. Proponents say it's no different than existing bias crime legislation and is, thus, constitutional.
Despite GOP opposition, the authorization bill is expected to pass the House, as early as this afternoon.


If Obama vetoes it, does that mean he likes rapists?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/white-house-threatens-to-veto-defense-bill.html

[PixelPusher]

PixelPusher, don't think that democrats aren't bought either. look at the corrupt crap both sides do

their main allegiance is to $$$$. don't act like the dems are on a high horse.

Never claimed to. Ironically, liberals' discontent with Democrats was cause for chuckles by Republicans for decades. You see we lack the "discipline" and "unity" to do what Wild Cobra just did.

[PixelPusher]

dodge.

[MiamiHeat]

Hey it could have been worse. She could have gotten a ride from Ted Kennedy.

[boutons_deux]

So Halliburton's campaign $$$ are more important to them that rape justice for women, but they really, really care about women.

So Repug asshole wrote that working women are a "detriment" to family values.

Repugs are all about old, wealthy, white male supremacy and killing foreigners.

[Wild Cobra]

OK, am I the only one curious about the text of the amemdment?

Here is is:


On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert
the following:
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.

(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does
not apply with respect to employment contracts
that may not be enforced in a court of
the United States.

Source:

Senate record, October 1, 2009, page S10069 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2009_record&page=S10069&position=all)

Senate record, October 1, 2009, page S10070 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2009_record&page=S10070&position=all)
It almost completely throws out arbitration. This wasn't targeting just bad crimes, but is a huge gift to trial lawyers. This can be so thoroughly abused by people and lawyers wanting to get rich, it's ridiculous. It's also a job killer for USA jobs. Corporations contracting with the DoD will simply subcontract out to companies under a different nation's jurisdiction.

That's right libtards. Another job killer you guys are championing.

nonsense


nonsense


and even more nonsense]
Wow... My logic must really piss you off. I just like to have facts rather than knee-jerk reactions like you do. Funny how all you can do is slanderous type actions with no substantial discourse. That's OK. I understand that you have such low self esteem you have to put others down.

[PixelPusher]

I (a. didn't know / b. pretend not to know) the difference between a vote on the bill and a vote on an amendment to the bill.

[MiamiHeat]

Weird how Democrats weren't outraged when scores of women came forward to say they had been sexually abused by Slick Willie Clinton.

[PixelPusher]

My Gods Man! If no-bid government contracted corporations can't shield themselves from litigation in specific casees involving assault, that's FUCKING SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Spurminator]

The fact is Alternet, where this story came from is a self described "echo chamber of progressive ideas". Go to there About link.

If it makes you more comfortable, here is an article from RightPundits.com (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=4855).

[spursncowboys]

I either a. knew this was an opinion "story" with no facts but posted it anyway thinking I could get alteast one mindless liberal dumbass to think this is true or b. thought this to be true and am disgusted by the mean republicans and have a new found respect for Al Franken and Liberal actors everywhere.

[clambake]

thats funny. hawks claim they wage war just to protect women.

[Spurminator]

thats funny. hawks claim they wage war just to protect women.

We're protecting our "freedom."

[PixelPusher]

This wasn't targeting just bad crimes, but is a huge gift to trial lawyers. This can be so thoroughly abused by people and lawyers wanting to get rich, it's ridiculous. It's also a job killer for USA jobs. Corporations contracting with the DoD will simply subcontract out to companies under a different nation's jurisdiction.

That's right libtards. Another job killer you guys are championing.

Ok, I didn't make that up...Wild Cobra actually typed that himself. That 19 year old girl and her lawyer are going to kill jobs because she has the audacity to sue for her wrongful imprisonment and rape.

[clambake]

he doesn't respect his daughters.

[Spurminator]

It's also a job killer for USA jobs. Corporations contracting with the DoD will simply subcontract out to companies under a different nation's jurisdiction.

:lol

All so they can avoid the possibility that an employee might sue for sexual harassment??

[PixelPusher]

If it makes you more comfortable, here is an article from RightPundits.com (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=4855).



Personally I have no problem with the Franken Amendment, besides the fact that it singles out Halliburton, which Democrats love to use as their favorite boogey man next to Karl Rove. Actually, I don’t get why so many Republicans voted against it. Do we really want to say that victims of sexual assault can’t get access to courts to sue their employer. I’m all in favor of arbitration and mediation, but those types of alternate dispute resolution were not really set up to handle victims of rape or sexual assault, they are more for contractual issues, pay issues, etc. We should have judges and juries of our peers evaluating these kinds of important cases. The biggest strike against arbitration is that they are nearly impossible to appeal, so once the case is decided, there is nothing you can do after that point.

Sen. Sessions, who did vote against the bill, argued that this gives Congress too much power to alter employment contracts of private companies and that it went against the recommendation of the Defense Department, but eh, I don’t think those concerns outweigh the concerns that rape victims should have more legal protections.

So, as much as I hate to say it, good on you Sen. Franken. I think your incessant hounding of Halliburton is childish, but over all, the Franken Amendment probably accomplishes something worthwhile.

Heretic! He must be purged!

[jman3000]

Man they grow 'em smart up there in Oregon.

WC continues to prove how much of a joke he is.

[clambake]

the men were just being men and she doesn't deserve her day in court.

ship her to gitmo.

[Wild Cobra]

Ok, I didn't make that up...Wild Cobra actually typed that himself. That 19 year old girl and her lawyer are going to kill jobs because she has the audacity to sue for her wrongful imprisonment and rape.
My God man. Are you really that retarded? I never said she didn't have a valid case.

You don't pass bad law to protect from someone or something needing protection. Pass a law that's good and addresses the concerns without creating more problems. Maybe that felonies cannot be shielded by arbitration. This amendment is too open to abuse.

[Wild Cobra]

Man they grow 'em smart up there in Oregon.

WC continues to prove how much of a joke he is.
You show your ignorance for not understanding the bad in the amendment. You are the joke.

[ChumpDumper]

So Republicans are against imaginary child prostitution but for real rape.

Sounds about right.

[clambake]

:lmao

[PixelPusher]

I show my ignorance for not understanding the amendment. I am joke.



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.

(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does
not apply with respect to employment contracts
that may not be enforced in a court of
the United States.

[spursncowboys]

My God man. Are you really that retarded? I never said she didn't have a valid case.

You don't pass bad law to protect from someone or something needing protection. Pass a law that's good and addresses the concerns without creating more problems. Maybe that felonies cannot be shielded by arbitration. This amendment is too open to abuse. Look who you are writing to. They don't use logic. They think welfare helps poor people.

[Wild Cobra]

You know, another thing that makes this bad law is that it was already ruled in her favor for a lawsuit by the Court of Appeals.

Again, you don't pass bad law with good law.

[spursncowboys]

So Republicans are against imaginary child prostitution but for real rape.

Sounds about right. Is abortion in the first and second trimester murder?

[clambake]

no

[PixelPusher]

Look who you are writing to. They don't use logic. They think welfare helps poor people.

Other people read this thread, enlighten them. Explain in detail why this particular admendment is so harmful.

[Cry Havoc]

Hmmm. I'm not entirely sure about this. The story doesn't seem to be as objectively written as it should be.

[ChumpDumper]

Is abortion in the first and second trimester murder?Not according to the Supreme Court decision.

If you want to pass an amendment, get on that.

Now, why are you in favor of real rape?

[clambake]

if she got pregnant from the rape and got an abortion...she should be tried for murder.

[PixelPusher]

You know, another thing that makes this bad law is that it was already ruled in her favor for a lawsuit by the Court of Appeals.
Which is being appealed by Halliburton.


Again, you don't pass bad law with good law.
How is withholding government funding from corporations that shield themselves from due process a bad law?

[Wild Cobra]

How is withholding government funding from corporations that shield themselves from due process a bad law?
The restriction simply goes too far. I'm not saying a law shouldn't be passed to protect peoples tort rights, just not this law.

Consider carefully the impact of part (b). All a corporation has to do that contracts for the DoD is sub-contract with companies of other nationalities, which shields them from this law. Do you really think this wont push them to do just that?

Isn't this going too far:

or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention
What does that mean anyway? Rather than allowing arbitration, you must sue if you have a bad manager maybe? How much fun do you think trial lawyers will have with that? Way too open to interpretation for my taste.

[jman3000]

How about you just make sure your employees don't go off and rape/imprison their co-workers and the employer doesn't even have to worry about this.

[jman3000]

I suppose that's too much to ask.

[Wild Cobra]

If it makes you more comfortable, here is an article from RightPundits.com (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=4855).
LOL...

That's a joke of a site. Is there a single link that doesn't go to an advertisement, or through google?

Yes, the right has some loonies too, and the story is wrong.

[PixelPusher]

The restriction simply goes too far. I'm not saying a law shouldn't be passed to protect peoples tort rights, just not this law.

Consider carefully the impact of part (b). All a corporation has to do that contracts for the DoD is sub-contract with companies of other nationalities, which shields them from this law. Do you really think this wont push them to do just that?

Isn't this going too far:

What does that mean anyway? Rather than allowing arbitration, you must sue if you have a bad manager maybe? How much fun do you think trial lawyers will have with that? Way too open to interpretation for my taste.

Ah, so this is all a matter of "taste".

[clambake]

wc will side with a company that hires people that can get away with rape.

[jman3000]

Qualifications?

Rape, murder, arson, and rape.

You said rape twice.

I like rape.

[PixelPusher]

How about you just make sure your employees don't go off and rape/imprison their co-workers and the employer doesn't even have to worry about this.


I suppose that's too much to ask.

The number of no-bid contract jobs lost is just too much for Wild Cobra's taste.

[spursncowboys]

Other people read this thread, enlighten them. Explain in detail why this particular admendment is so harmful.
1.It shouldn't be snuck into a defense bill for starters.
2.The Courts ruled it diddn't have to stay in arbitration. This is Franken's way of getting some credibility.
3. It takes away the responsibility of the individual. No one is made to work for a co. who makes you sign an arbitration contract.
4. This penalizes big corporations who use arbitration
5. Why not include this in the Arbitration Fairness Act (S. 1782, H.R. 3010) where it can be debated?

[clambake]

all rape should be arbitrated.

[PixelPusher]

1.It shouldn't be snuck into a defense bill for starters.
It wasn't "snuck" in...it was voted on.

2.The Courts ruled it diddn't have to stay in arbitration. This is Franken's way of getting some credibility.
And Halliburton has appealed the ruling. And what does Franken's "credibility" have to do with anything? Oh, yeah...you're a conservative, and as such are required to mindlessly oppose anything a Democrat says or does.

3. It takes away the responsibility of the individual. No one is made to work for a co. who makes you sign an arbitration contract. Yes, foolish 19 year old girl...she should have known going in that she couldn't sue for the rape, assault and imprisonment that awaited her.

4. This penalizes big corporations who use arbitration
No, it penalizes corporations under contract with the U.S. Government who use arbitration to dodge accountability in case of assault and rape. All...one of them (Halliburton).

5. Why not include this in the Arbitration Fairness Act (S. 1782, H.R. 3010) where it can be debated?Because this doesn't affect corporations' right to use arbitration, only whether they are eligible to recieve U.S. Funds based on their arbitration policy.

[Wild Cobra]

That's OK, Pixil, Clambake, et al would throw out the baby with the bath water.

They are fine with making bad law if it does just one good thing.

[spursncowboys]

It wasn't "snuck" in...it was voted on. in a defense budget bill.


And Halliburton has appealed the ruling. And what does Franken's "credibility" have to do with anything? Oh, yeah...you're a conservative, and as such are required to mindlessly oppose anything a Democrat says or does.So what Halliburton is appealing it. Does that mean you are for tort reform? Franken is a JR senator and needs something to show for getting elected.

Yes, foolish 19 year old girl...she should have known going in that she couldn't sue for the rape, assault and imprisonment that awaited her. It would be worse if a foolish 19 yr old thinking the govt. is going to protect her. People need to make an honest assessment that do they want the ability to sue or are they comfortable with an arbitration hearing. Arbitration aren't the big boogie man thatyou libs want them to be, like the Tobacco, insurance, soda companies, auto co. and defense co. keeping out of the courts helps both parties.



Because this doesn't affect corporations' right to use arbitration, only whether they are eligible to recieve U.S. Funds based on their arbitration policy. This doesn't effect our defense either. So why is it snuck in a defense appropriations bill?

[PixelPusher]

That's OK, Pixil, Clambake, et al would throw out the baby with the bath water.

They are fine with making bad law if it does just one good thing.

That's Ok, Wild Cobra, spursncowboys would throw rape victims under the bus.

They are fine with it as long as one government contracted corporation doesn't have to pay for it's crimes.

[spursncowboys]

That's Ok, Wild Cobra, spursncowboys would throw rape victims under the bus.

They are fine with it as long as one government contracted corporation doesn't have to pay for it's crimes. YOu are the one thinking justice for a rape victim is an amendment that takes away govt. money. Way to show intelligence and class.

[PixelPusher]

This doesn't effect our defense either. So why is it snuck in a defense appropriations bill?
Ok, I'll give this another shot. Because...it...involves...government...funds...app ropriated...to...a...defense...contractor.

[clambake]

i bet she dressed provocatively. women should be forced to wear burka's.

[spursncowboys]

i bet she dressed provocatively. women should be forced to wear burka's. pant suits.

[PixelPusher]

YOu are the one thinking justice for a rape victim is an amendment that takes away govt. money. Way to show intelligence and class.

You and WC are more offended that a laywer might make a buck and a corporation might lose out on cherry, no-bid government contract than that a rape victim gets her day in court. Way to show some fucking humanity.

[Spurminator]

Where was spursncowboys when Online Poker was made illegal through legislation added to a Homeland Security bill?

[Spurminator]

Consider carefully the impact of part (b). All a corporation has to do that contracts for the DoD is sub-contract with companies of other nationalities, which shields them from this law. Do you really think this wont push them to do just that?

Where is your outrage at the company who would hypothetically do this?

Fuck them, we can give our millions of dollars to a different company who will use American workers and afford them the reasonable right to seek justice in cases of assault and rape.

People will line up. There is a lot of money at stake.

[clambake]

how do we know she wasn't hired as a whore?

tell us wc. you know about whores.

[Wild Cobra]

You and WC are more offended that a laywer might make a buck and a corporation might lose out on cherry, no-bid government contract than that a rape victim gets her day in court. Way to show some fucking humanity.
I told you what I don't like, and there your are. Acting like a scandalous bitch again, making things up again.

[PixelPusher]

It would be worse if a foolish 19 yr old thinking the govt. is going to protect her.

Yes, the damn federal guv'mit has no place protecting people from rape and assault. Fucking liberals, with their...laws and whatnot...

[Wild Cobra]

how do we know she wasn't hired as a whore?

tell us wc. you know about whores.
I don't have any experience with whores. I stay away from them.

That's your expertise, isn't it?

[spursncowboys]

Where was spursncowboys when Online Poker was made illegal through legislation added to a Homeland Security bill? I wasn't a Bush cheerleader.

Pixelpusher-where does no-bid contracts come into this? I am against that. Unlike you BHO cheerleaders, I have an idea I didn't pick up from a MSNBC talking head. Obama and the dems do it too. No bid is one of the most corrupt govt. problems, next to unions.

[clambake]

I don't have any experience with whores. I stay away from them.

That's your expertise, isn't it?

did amanda break up with your wallet?

[spursncowboys]

Yes, the damn federal guv'mit has no place protecting people from rape and assault. Fucking liberals, with their...laws and whatnot...
:lol SO once again this is your version of justice? Yeah fucking liberals. With your amendments to take away money from a company. Not give it to the victim, just take it from the co. GO ahead. Take a bow.

[Wild Cobra]

I wasn't a Bush cheerleader.

Pixelpusher-where does no-bid contracts come into this? I am against that. Unlike you BHO cheerleaders, I have an idea I didn't pick up from a MSNBC talking head. Obama and the dems do it too. No bid is one of the most corrupt govt. problems, next to unions.
I'm about done arguing with these fools. They immediately jumnp to opinions, offer nothing vredible against our arguments.

Notice how they keep going to the same points we agree with, and act as if we don't?

They are not intelligent enough to counter the good points we have, and resort to changing the argument, or name-calling.

[Wild Cobra]

did amanda break up with your wallet?
Amanda's not a whore, and if you knew her, you might like her. Although she wouldn't like you I bet.

Since when is a bartender making money form tips a whore?

[clambake]

Amanda's not a whore, and if you knew her, you might like her. Although she wouldn't like you I bet.

Since when is a bartender making money form tips a whore?

so...she broke up with your wallet.

[PixelPusher]

I wasn't a Bush cheerleader.

Pixelpusher-where does no-bid contracts come into this? I am against that. Unlike you BHO cheerleaders, I have an idea I didn't pick up from a MSNBC talking head. Obama and the dems do it too. No bid is one of the most corrupt govt. problems, next to unions.
Despite Wild Cobra's apocalyptic rant about all the jobs that will be lost and laywers that will get paid, the net result of this defense spending amendment is that one corporation is negatively affected. That corporation, Halliburton, just happens to be the Undisputed, Icon Of The Ages, Grand Champion of no-bid contracts.

[Wild Cobra]

so...she broke up with your wallet.
Not at all. She's just a friend first of all, I use to go out with a friend of hers. Now I did buy some jewelry, but your insinuations are so fucking retarded. How many ex wives do you have?

See, you liberals resort to defaming people when you have no good argument against them.

[PixelPusher]

:lol SO once again this is your version of justice? Yeah fucking liberals. With your amendments to take away money from a company. Not give it to the victim, just take it from the co. GO ahead. Take a bow.

So you think the federal government should subsidize corporations that shield themselves from charges of rape and assault?

[spursncowboys]

I'm about done arguing with these fools. They immediately jumnp to opinions, offer nothing vredible against our arguments.

Notice how they keep going to the same points we agree with, and act as if we don't?

They are not intelligent enough to counter the good points we have, and resort to changing the argument, or name-calling.
:toast Yeah sometimes I forget that they don't even read what we put, they just scan for misspellings.

[Wild Cobra]

Despite Wild Cobra's apocalyptic rant about all the jobs that will be lost and laywers that will get paid, the net result of this defense spending amendment is that one corporation is negatively affected. That corporation, Halliburton, just happens to be the Undisputed, Icon Of The Ages, Grand Champion of no-bid contracts.
That's not true. The legislation applies to all contractors with the DoD that fall under US law.

Why is the amendment here like spursncowboys points out? Why are we limiting this legislation to the Department of Defense contractors, and not contractors of other government agencies? If it's good law, why isn't it being made part of the Arbitration Fairness Act? Shouldn't it apply to every business in the USA?

[clambake]

Not at all. She's just a friend first of all, I use to go out with a friend of hers. Now I did buy some jewelry, but your insinuations are so fucking retarded.
cash, jewelry and begging wasn't enough, huh?

How many ex wives do you have?
none, but i bet you have at least one very happy one.

See, you liberals resort to defaming people when you have no good argument against them.
you're protecting a company that rapes.

[PixelPusher]

That's not true. The legislation applies to all contractors with the DoD that fall under US law.
Other government contracted corps raped their employees too? Do tell...


Why is the amendment here like spursncowboys points out? Why can't you and spursncowboys comprehend why an amendment specifically regarding the allocation of defense funds would be in a defense funding bill? Amazing...


Why are we limiting this legislation to the Department of Defense contractors, and not contractors of other government agencies? If it's good law, why isn't it being made part of the Arbitration Fairness Act? Shouldn't it apply to every business in the USA?
Yes. If you two can't grok the difference between a contract dispute and a violent assault, I can't help you...

[Wild Cobra]

Other government contracted corps raped their employees too? Do tell...
How does it matter? It will not address the legal concerns of this case. It's an ex-post-facto law!

Why can't you and spursncowboys comprehend why an amendment specifically regarding the allocation of defense funds would be in a defense funding bill? Amazing...
Are you admitting to democrats targeting only one corporation? Isn't that illegal? Is it right? Are you admitting you are for such actions of bias?

Yes. If you two can't grok the difference between a contract dispute and a violent assault, I can't help you...
I can and I do understand. If such legislation has any merit, why is it limited to the DoD? I wonder what Boeing thinks of the manager angle of this? Maybe this will force the DoD to only buy from Airbus?

[PixelPusher]

How does it matter? It will not address the legal concerns of this case. It's an ex-post-facto law!
All new laws are ex-post-facto, dumbass...we pass them to prevent it in the future.


Are you admitting to democrats targeting only one corporation? Isn't that illegal? Is it right? Are you admitting you are for such actions of bias?
Yes they are, and not it's not, because Halliburton isn't singled out specifically...they just happen to be the one defense contracted corporation trying to get away with raping their empolyees. And yes, I am biased against corporations that rape their employees.


I can and I do understand. If such legislation has any merit, why is it limited to the DoD? I wonder what Boeing thinks of the manager angle of this? Maybe this will force the DoD to only buy from Airbus?
Relax WC, this whoe "raping the employee" thing isn't the backbone of military-industrial complex...this isn't going to shut it down.

[Wild Cobra]

All new laws are ex-post-facto, dumbass...we pass them to prevent it in the future.
Then why not at least write legislation that applies to all government contracts? Why just the DoD? Are you saying it could never happen maybe to Blackwater contracted under the State Department?

Yes they are, and not it's not, because Halliburton isn't singled out specifically...they just happen to be the one defense contracted corporation trying to get away with raping their empolyees. And yes, I am biased against corporations that rape their employees.
I'm against the rape also. I say there should be long jail sentences not just for the seven who raped her, but everyone in the attempted cover-up also.

You simply do not pass bad law because it has one good thing in it. What part of that don't you understand?

Relax WC, this whoe "raping the employee" thing isn't the backbone of military-industrial complex...this isn't going to shut it down.
If that was all that was covered...

Apparently you don't understand the implications of Frankin's amendment. It goes way past Title VII protection from arbitration. I suggest you read it carefully and look at the abuses that can occur because of the law.

You know, if it was only addressing Title VII, I could agree with it.

[Galileo]

...I'm assuming. I'm sure these guys had a "good" reason to oppose this amendment, I just lack the proper Burkean perspective to see it myself. Maybe one the board conservatives can enlighten me.

Ok, now that we got the bipartisan, "give the other side the benefit of the doubt" niceties out of the way, on with the show.

Why would anyone want to work for Haliburton?

[Wild Cobra]

Why would anyone want to work for Haliburton?
Why does anyone work? Maybe it's the best offer someone has.

They need the money. It's a job, good or bad, WORK is a four letter word.

[angrydude]

whatever else this is, its a gift to the legal industry.

[Wild Cobra]

whatever else this is, its a gift to the legal industry.
A real big gift. Funny how the democrats do almost what ever the trial lawyers want.

Democrats want to lower the cost of medicine, but refuse to use serious tort reform. Could you imagine if frivolous lawsuits were a thing of the past? How many things would be cheaper?

[clambake]

^ wc protecting rapist if it would hurt a conservatives bottom line.

[spursncowboys]

^ wc protecting rapist if it would hurt a conservatives bottom line.how?

[clambake]

you didn't read the thread?

[PixelPusher]

Funny how the democrats do almost what ever the trial lawyers want.


Funny how republicans do almost what ever corporate interests want.

[PixelPusher]

whatever else this is, its a gift to the legal industry.

Yes, if rape victims get to sue the companies that literally raped them, we all lose.

[PixelPusher]

Apparently you don't understand the implications of Frankin's amendment. It goes way past Title VII protection from arbitration. I suggest you read it carefully and look at the abuses that can occur because of the law.

You know, if it was only addressing Title VII, I could agree with it.

Yeah...maybe if I had listened to right wing radio 24/7 for the past 2 decades I'd get why your fears of imagined abuses would trump the real life abuses that have already occured.

[spursncowboys]

Yes, if rape victims get to sue the companies that literally raped them, we all lose. Employees of the company raped an employee. Then other employees covered it up and denied her her rights by holding her. Stop trying to create boogy men.

[PixelPusher]

Employees of the company raped an employee. Then other employees covered it up and denied her her rights by holding her. Stop trying to create boogy men.
Stop trying to excuse the corporation that enabled them.

[coyotes_geek]

I see the GOP is continuing to do a bang up job at picking fights they can't win.

[boutons_deux]

Pro-business Repugs will always support institutions and businesses as they abuse/rape citizens, consumers, employees.

No surprise that Repugs want to block raped women from suing their employer. A great way to piss off millions of women voters.

[spursncowboys]

Pro-business Repugs will always support institutions and businesses as they abuse/rape citizens, consumers, employees.

No surprise that Repugs want to block raped women from suing their employer. A great way to piss of millions of women voters. You seem like the kind of guy who I would have to think a little more cognitively if we agreed on something. I would have to double check my bases to make sure I didn't miss something.

[spursncowboys]

I see the GOP is continuing to do a bang up job at picking fights they can't win. With supermajority in congress and the Presidency, what fight has Obama won?

[jman3000]

I see the Dream Team of Spursncowboys and Wild Cobra are still at it. Comendible I suppose.

[jman3000]

With supermajority in congress and the Presidency, what fight has Obama won?

:lol CG is a conservative. Don't get your panties in a wad over protecting your precious Republican party. Ideologue much?

To me CG comes off as a nonpartisan conservative to boot.

[coyotes_geek]

With supermajority in congress and the Presidency, what fight has Obama won?

None. But that doesn't make the republicans look any smarter for picking this fight.

[coyotes_geek]

:lol CG is a conservative. Don't get your panties in a wad over protecting your precious Republican party. Ideologue much?

To me CG comes off as a nonpartisan conservative to boot.

Fiscal conservative, social moderate.

[jman3000]

Either way, SnC is a complete hack who somehow believes he is enlightened and understands all.

[Wild Cobra]

I see the Dream Team of Spursncowboys and Wild Cobra are still at it. Comendible I suppose.
You're right. I sent off an e-mail to the a representative of the Machinists Union that covers the Portland area Boeing workers, asking if this would make them lose contracts to Airbus or change their contacts pertaining to arbitration...

Just stirring the pot...

[PixelPusher]

You're right. I sent off an e-mail to the a representative of the Machinists Union that covers the Portland area Boeing workers, asking if this would make them lose contracts to Airbus or change their contacts pertaining to arbitration...

Just stirring the pot...
Does Airbus get to rape their empolyees too? You know, maybe Roman Polanski should've incorporated himself and made wartime propaganda films...he'd be much better off having the full force of the pro-rape military industrial complex behind him than a couple of batty Hollywood twits.

[Wild Cobra]

Does Airbus get to rape their empolyees too? You know, maybe Roman Polanski should've incorporated himself and made wartime propaganda films...he'd be much better off having the full force of the pro-rape military industrial complex behind him than a couple of batty Hollywood twits.
It has nothing to do with that, but the difficulty in requiring business to make necessary contract changes with their employes. That does bot apply to corporations that do not fall under USA jurisdiction. Part of the legislation:


(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does
not apply with respect to employment contracts
that may not be enforced in a court of
the United States.
You see, Airbus is immune from the legislation, but Boeing isn't. Seems to me it makes Airbus the preference of the DoD for lack of legal difficulties.

[PixelPusher]

It has nothing to do with that, but the difficulty in requiring business to make necessary contract changes with their employes. That does bot apply to corporations that do not fall under USA jurisdiction. Part of the legislation:


You see, Airbus is immune from the legislation, but Boeing isn't. Seems to me it makes Airbus the preference of the DoD for lack of legal difficulties.

I will ask you the same question I asked sprusncowboys: Do you support taxpayer money subsidizing corporations that use arbitration to sheild themselves from charges of rape and assault?

[Wild Cobra]

I will ask you the same question I asked sprusncowboys: Do you support taxpayer money subsidizing corporations that use arbitration to sheild themselves from charges of rape and assault?
I don't support subsidization. Not for welfare, not for corn farmers, not for anything. What are you talking about? This is a contract for services, not subsidization.

I'll ask you again. Why just the DoD? Why not all government contracts?

Now I agree that arbitration is not a substitution for the justice system dealing with a crime. In all cases. Not just this case.

[spursncowboys]

I will ask you the same question I asked sprusncowboys: Do you support taxpayer money subsidizing corporations that use arbitration to sheild themselves from charges of rape and assault?
Main Entry: sub·si·dize
Pronunciation: \ˈsəb-sə-ˌdīz, -zə-\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): sub·si·dized; sub·si·diz·ing
Date: 1769
: to furnish with a subsidy (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy): as a : to purchase the assistance of by payment of a subsidy (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy) b : to aid or promote (as a private enterprise) with public money <subsidize soybean farmers> <subsidize public transportation>
— sub·si·di·za·tion \ˌsəb-sə-də-ˈzā-shən, -zə-\ noun
— sub·si·diz·er noun
No I do not support subsidies going to corp. that use arbitration to shield themselves from rape and assault charges. also do not support the school system that taught you.

Are we talking about bail-outs here or Govt. contracts? SUbsidies like ACORN?

Are the arbitration clauses from Halliburton in the contract specifically for shielding from rape and assault? I do not think Halliburton hires people with the idea that they might be raping a fellow employee. You are also making arbitration into a always bad thing. Libs always want to find bad guys, except when they are killing Americans and waging war with us.

[spursncowboys]

work | life | balance

for many of us, finding the balance between our work lives and personal lives can be difficult, but striking that balance can be crucial. For some, finding that balance could mean having the time and resources to get the advanced degree they’ve long wanted. For others, it means having the opportunity to travel the world. And for others, it could mean being able to spend more time with family.
No matter what work/life balance looks like to you, halliburton provides numerous benefits and resources to help you balance the demands of your work and personal lives.
Though the opportunities vary depending on your location, some of our work/life balance benefits include:
education
learning and development is an important part of the halliburton culture. We offer educational reimbursements to pay for or reimburse a portion of fees related to job-related workshops, off-site seminars, courses taken at accredited educational institutions and other programs targeted to improve your skills and performance, plus paid time off for study and exams.
travel
halliburton offers international opportunities that enable you to work and train in locations around the globe. With a presence in approximately 70 countries, halliburton offers many opportunities to work on interesting projects, collaborate with new people, experience new cultures and see the world.
time off
with our generous flex day, holidays, leaves of absence and vacation opportunities, you get the time you need to enjoy life outside of work.
health and wellness
halliburton offers a wellness program that promotes the health and well-being of our employees and their families through the delivery of customized solutions to help lose weight, quit smoking and get in better shape.

[PixelPusher]

I don't support subsidization. Not for welfare, not for corn farmers, not for anything. What are you talking about? This is a contract for services, not subsidization.

I'll ask you again. Why just the DoD? Why not all government contracts?

Sound good to me. Unfortunately, Franken's admendment only pertains to defense contractors because, as I've tried to explain repeatedly to both of you, this was a defense spending bill.



No I do not support subsidies going to corp. that use arbitration to shield themselves from rape and assault charges. also do not support the school system that taught you.

Are we talking about bail-outs here or Govt. contracts? SUbsidies like ACORN?

Are the arbitration clauses from Halliburton in the contract specifically for shielding from rape and assault? I do not think Halliburton hires people with the idea that they might be raping a fellow employee. You are also making arbitration into a always bad thing. Libs always want to find bad guys, except when they are killing Americans and waging war with us.

Sure. Pretend Halliburton's no-bid contract doesn't amount to a subsidy. And while your at it, keep pretending corporations don't enjoy an overwhelming advantage in arbitration hearings. You're such a tool.

[PixelPusher]

work | life | balance
blah, blah, corporate brochure...


WTF? Do you work for Haliburton or something? Are you recruiting for some fresh meat?

[Wild Cobra]

Sure. Pretend Halliburton's no-bid contract doesn't amount to a subsidy. And while your at it, keep pretending corporations don't enjoy an overwhelming advantage in arbitration hearings. You're such a tool.
Hmmm...

You guys are still on that one. Do you have a clue how many contracts Halliburton has with the US government and how many were bid on and how many weren't?

Just because one was not bid on doesn't mean all were. In fact, the contract they didn't bid on dealt with rebuilding of the expected war damage of the oil facilities that Halliburtan built, had the blueprints, and spare parts for.

Did you know that? Did you also know that the there was only one other company that dealt with oil facilities construction that could have done the job? It was a French company, and it would have meant either slow progress, or mandating Halliburton turn over their designs and blueprints.

Halliburton already had several other contracts with the military that were bid on. Did you know that?

[Wild Cobra]

Sound good to me. Unfortunately, Franken's admendment only pertains to defense contractors because, as I've tried to explain repeatedly to both of you, this was a defense spending bill.

They do it all the time, attach amendments that pertain to other things.

Why part (b)? Why not require all contacts with foreign companies abide by the same guidelines?

Why add the last part of section (a)? Can you explain that one please. Why is arbitration not allowed for non criminal activities?

Why are you willing to pass a bad law just because of one type of incident?

[PixelPusher]

Hmmm...

You guys are still on that one. Do you have a clue how many contracts Halliburton has with the US government and how many were bid on and how many weren't?

Just because one was not bid on doesn't mean all were. In fact, the contract they didn't bid on dealt with rebuilding of the expected war damage of the oil facilities that Halliburtan built, had the blueprints, and spare parts for.

Did you know that? Did you also know that the there was only one other company that dealt with oil facilities construction that could have done the job? It was a French company, and it would have meant either slow progress, or mandating Halliburton turn over their designs and blueprints.

Halliburton already had several other contracts with the military that were bid on. Did you know that?
Halliburton gets away with charging us $45 for every 6-pack of Coke provided to the troops. Did you know that?

...but that's not technically a "subsidy" so it's all good right WC?

[spursncowboys]

They do it all the time, attach amendments that pertain to other things.

Why part (b)? Why not require all contacts with foreign companies abide by the same guidelines?

Why add the last part of section (a)? Can you explain that one please. Why is arbitration not allowed for non criminal activities?

Why are you willing to pass a bad law just because of one type of incident?Didn't Halliburton move their HQ to Dubai?

[Wild Cobra]

Halliburton gets away with charging us $45 for every 6-pack of Coke provided to the troops. Did you know that?

...but that's not technically a "subsidy" so it's all good right WC?
Hmmm...

How much does a six pack cost these days? about $4?

OK... How much is shipping, refrigeration, and transport in a war zone? Don't tell me you think they are profiting more than $40 per six pack.

Want to blame someone for that one, blame the Clinton administration for stripping the military supply system of soldiers and replacing that aspect with civilians. It doesn't matter who the contractor is. You pay a pair of truck drivers 6ix figures and the associated help, security, etc... All goods are going to be expensive.

[Wild Cobra]

Didn't Halliburton move their HQ to Dubai?
I think so. Still, the US employees they have fall under US jurisdiction.

I know... They can hire Mexicans... That might alleviate the illegal immigrations if they hire citizens from other nations. Then they don't have to deal with this fascist/authoritarian shit.

[spursncowboys]

Halliburton gets away with charging us $45 for every 6-pack of Coke provided to the troops. Did you know that?

...but that's not technically a "subsidy" so it's all good right WC?
Steaks on friday too. It still costs the Govt. less than if they did it with mil. personnel.

[PixelPusher]

Hmmm...

How much does a six pack cost these days? about $4?

OK... How much is shipping, refrigeration, and transport in a war zone? Don't tell me you think they are profiting more than $40 per six pack.


Yes, WC, I'm sure Halliburton pays retail for each 6-pack of coke it sells. And I'm sure it' costs them $40 per to ship and stock it.

The stupid, it burns...

[spursncowboys]

No profit goes unpunished

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, WC, I'm sure Halliburton pays retail for each 6-pack of coke it sells. And I'm sure it' costs them $40 per to ship and stock it.

The stupid, it burns...
Show me the numbers please.

I don't care if coke is 5 cents a can wholesale. You have high paid civilians in a war zone. Tell me that doesn't substantially add to the costs of food and goods moved by them rather than military personnel.

[PixelPusher]

Steaks on friday too. It still costs the Govt. less than if they did it with mil. personnel.

And you know this because? Oh, that's right...you don't...you're just passing along ideological spew.

[PixelPusher]

profit uber alles

[Bartleby]

Steaks on friday too. It still costs the Govt. less than if they did it with mil. personnel.

Really? How is that?

[PixelPusher]

Show me the numbers please.

I don't care if coke is 5 cents a can wholesale. You have high paid civilians in a war zone. Tell me that doesn't substantially add to the costs of food and goods moved by them rather than military personnel.

Apparently, considerably less than $40 per, since Halliburton "corrected" the, erm, mistake.


New Halliburton waste alleged (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5333896)
Former company auditor: ‘It’s just a gravy train’

By Lisa Myers and the NBC Investigative Unit
updated 1:28 p.m. MT, Mon., July 26, 2004

The Pentagon has already awarded Halliburton Co., the controversial military contractor, deals worth up to $18 billion for its work in Iraq. But now former Halliburton insiders have come forward with new allegations of massive waste of taxpayer money.

Marie deYoung, a former Army chaplain who worked for Halliburton, was so upset by attacks on the company she e-mailed the CEO in December with a strategy on how to fight the "political slurs." But today, after five months inside Halliburton's operation in Kuwait, deYoung has radically changed her opinion. "It’s just a gravy train," she said.

DeYoung audited accounts for Halliburton’s subsidiary KBR. She claims there was no effort to hold down costs because all costs were passed on directly to taxpayers. She repeatedly complained to superiors of waste and fraud. The company's response, according to deYoung was: "We can be as dumb and stupid as we want in the first year of a war, nobody’s going to care."

DeYoung produced documents detailing alleged waste even on routine services: $50,000 a month for soda, at $45 a case; $1 million a month to clean clothes — or $100 for each 15-pound bag of laundry.

"That money could have been used to take care of soldiers," she said.

DeYoung also claims people were paid to do nothing. Mike West says he was one of them. Paid $82,000 a year to be a labor foreman in Iraq, West claims he never had any laborers to supervise. "They said just log 12 hours a day and walk around and look busy," he said. "OK, so we did."

Both deYoung and West have since left the company. Pentagon documents obtained by NBC News support the whistleblowers' charges. In December auditors complained of Halliburton's "serious deficiencies," including "lack of cost control and cost consciousness." Some examples:

* Purchase of hundreds of high-end SUVs and pickups, loaded with options like CD players, which "most KBR employees do not need."
* "Duplication ... and gold-plating" in purchases of computers and high-tech equipment.
* Halliburton employees living in 5-star hotels.

The company declined an interview but suggests in an e-mail to NBC News that critics are politically motivated: "When Halliburton succeeds, Iraq progresses. Sadly, a few people don't want either of those results."

Halliburton also said the soda problem has been "corrected," and the laundry charges are being investigated, but insists it's "absolutely not true" the company is cavalier about taxpayer money.

Whistleblower deYoung thinks the problem is obvious. "They're using the war as an excuse, but it's not the war," she said. "It was very bad management."

Pentagon auditors apparently agree. They're withholding $186 million from the company and threatening to hold back even more unless Halliburton corrects the problems.

[Wild Cobra]

Apparently, considerably less than $40 per, since Halliburton "corrected" the, erm, mistake.
And it's a case. Not a six pack. At $40, that's $10 a six pack. It sounds lake a far more reasonable cost considering you're paying the delivery men six figures each, and security like Blackwater attached to the supply deliveries.

As for the other allegations in the article? Working or not, the people are there to be ready to work. If you need someone in six hours, you can't just hire someone from the states and teleport them there.

I said it years ago, and I'll say it again. President Clinton really fucked up the military.

[clambake]

wc was a rabbit ear soldier.

[Wild Cobra]

DeYoung also claims people were paid to do nothing. Mike West says he was one of them. Paid $82,000 a year to be a labor foreman in Iraq, West claims he never had any laborers to supervise. "They said just log 12 hours a day and walk around and look busy," he said. "OK, so we did."
You can find an example in any large corporation that does what they shouldn't. Here is a written statement:

Testemony of Mike West (http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/west_testimony.pdf)

Granted, there were wrong things occurring. Management was apparently looking to maximize profits to maximize bonuses, and they are hopefully fired for cause. Funny how it is likely true, but the left would never say so if true. I'm not going to pretend to know the right or wrong at various levels. I'm not that stupid, but apparently you liberals are.

[Wild Cobra]

wc was a rabbit ear soldier.
No, the closest we had to wabbit ears were dipoles.

[PixelPusher]

And it's a case. Not a six pack. At $40, that's $10 a six pack. It sounds lake a far more reasonable cost considering you're paying the delivery men six figures each, and security like Blackwater attached to the supply deliveries.

As for the other allegations in the article? Working or not, the people are there to be ready to work. If you need someone in six hours, you can't just hire someone from the states and teleport them there.

I said it years ago, and I'll say it again. President Clinton really fucked up the military.
Yeah. I'm sure Clinton should've forseen the massive war profiteering that would take place after his term.

Here's some more Haliburton chicanery you can make up creative excuses for:



Halliburton's Fleecing Ends -- Or Does It? (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aWq.XoaVqS4U&refer=columnist_carlson)
Commentary by Margaret Carlson

July 17 (Bloomberg) -- I wonder how many customers McDonald's Corp. would keep if instead of including a Coke with a Happy Meal, as the menu promised, the company charged for it twice.

That's what Halliburton Co. did to Uncle Sam, billing $45 for soda by the case and billing for it again when served by the glass at meals.

It's all part of the cost-plus, no-bid life of Halliburton and its subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root, the sole source of just about everything the U.S. Army needs to supply troops in Iraq. For three years, the U.S. government kept paying double for soda and many other things with nary a complaint.

But last week, all that ground to a screeching halt when the Pentagon announced the end of no-bid contracts -- or did it?

Not really. That's like saying to the outlaw Jesse James, ``We'll no longer hand over the money. You have to ask nicely.''

Which is not to compare Halliburton to a common criminal.

There's nothing common about what Halliburton did and a heist of $1.4 billion, an estimate of Halliburton's overcharges by Pentagon auditors.

Two sets of hearings by Representative Henry Waxman and Senator Byron Dorgan, using the Pentagon's own information, exposed Halliburton's deceitful billing practices: charging for twice as many employees as actually hired and always choosing the most expensive vendor. Instead of paying 80 cents a pound for bacon, Halliburton paid $6. Instead of $450,000 for ice, Halliburton paid $3.4 million, blaming transportation costs. Where did it come from, Alaska?

`MWR Baghdad'

For 2,500 soldiers, KBR billed $152,000 for videos, and $617,000 for extra soft drinks for MWR (``morale, welfare and recreation''). How's $100 per bag of dirty laundry and $1.5 million for ``tailoring, seamstress service and textile repair'' sound? Need towels for the gym? Halliburton's happy to supply 'em at prices you won't believe.

At one hearing, former Halliburton employee Henry Bunting held up an ordinary towel made extraordinary after KBR insisted on embroidering a logo on it saying ``MWR Baghdad.'' That jacked the price up from $1.60 each to $7.50.

Halliburton charged for ``surge capacity'' for extra meals long after there was no chance 5,000 extra mouths would be passing through base camp to be fed. When Halliburton food manager Rory Mayberry noted the discrepancy, his superiors told him to keep quiet about it or face reassignment.

It would be bad enough if this awful behavior claimed no victims, but Halliburton's greed put soldiers already in harm's way at greater risk. Rather than purify the water, KBR ignored regulations so that soldiers bathed and brushed their teeth in water with E. coli bacteria floating in it. Rather than fix new but poorly maintained trucks, KBR abandoned or torched them, leaving soldiers stranded along roads mined with explosive devices, according to an eyewitness at Dorgan's hearings.

Sell-By Date

Food long past its sell-by date was served, along with food spoiled by insufficient refrigeration. Imagine coming home from a hard day at war trying not to get killed and being presented with rancid meat.

While soldiers were afraid to shower for fear of getting nasty bacterial infections, KBR managers charged the Pentagon for luxurious rooms with crystal clear water at the Kempinski Hotel on the ``unpolluted azure coastline'' of Kuwait for $10,000 a month, according to former Halliburton employee Marie DeYoung.

How could the Bush administration stand by and pay up while the troops were so poorly treated? The same way L. Paul Bremer, the U.S.'s former top official in Iraq, could get a Medal of Freedom even as a draft audit of the Coalition Provisional Authority shows that $8.8 billion went unaccounted for on his watch. At the same time, for telling auditors about those 5,000 daily meals not served (adding up to over $200 million), poor Rory Mayberry was banished to a hardship posting in Fallujah.

Life Is a Breeze

And consider what happened to Bunnatine Greenhouse, the highest-ranking civilian in the Army Corps of Engineers. She added a handwritten note that couldn't be missed to the Halliburton contract the Secretary of Defense had to see when he signed off advising the contract be limited to one year. She had already criticized the Defense Department for letting Halliburton attend confidential Pentagon meetings.

Greenhouse was ignored, sidelined and lost her job. She later testified before Congress to ``the most blatant and improper contract abuse'' she'd ever witnessed.

For Halliburton, life is still a breeze. The Pentagon ignored its own auditors and paid most of Halliburton's bills, including hundreds of millions for gas from Kuwait. To justify paying for double meals, it upped Halliburton's take to 3 percent of costs and every individual meal was counted as 1.3 meals.

Terrible Message

Letting Halliburton continue, much less bid on government logistics contracts again, sends a terrible message. It says, If I catch you bilking the government, I'll suggest you knock it off. But I'll still pay you, and require only that you compete for the opportunity to do so again -- and likely win because of experience gained from three years on the job, more information than anyone but the Army itself, and an infrastructure already in place. Halliburton could lose if federal procurement officials took into account ``past performance,'' as required, although their pathetic performance in the past makes this unlikely.

In March, Waxman tried to amend the defense appropriations bill to deny contracts to any firm the Pentagon found billed more than $100 million in unreasonable costs. Republicans blocked it.(naturally)

With their tax cuts and sweetheart contracts, Republicans have asked mostly what their country could do for them even while the country is at war. Halliburton is just the lucky bidder. Dick Cheney, Halliburton's chief executive during the second half of the 1990s, should be ashamed of his former company.

(Margaret Carlson, author of ``Anyone Can Grow Up: How George Bush and I Made It to the White House'' and former White House correspondent for Time magazine, is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Margaret Carlson in Washington at [email protected]
Last Updated: July 17, 2006 00:10 EDT

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah. I'm sure Clinton should've forseen the massive war profiteering that would take place after his term.

Here's some more Haliburton chicanery you can make up creative excuses for:
Yes, they should have forseen these problems.

I don't care about your complaints against Halliburton. Shit happens. The people responsible should be prosecuted and jailed!

This was a bad decision from the start, to replace soldiers with civilians in combat zones. Blame this on the way congress accepted the contracts, and the president that allowed it all to start in the early 90's. Prosecute the management responsible also.

[Trainwreck2100]

she signed the contract, a no file rape charge cause should probably send up a red flag.

[sabar]

So, is anyone going to find out the view of those senators, or just keep arguing straw-men?

Also, appealing to pity does not make one correct in any argument.

[Wild Cobra]

So, is anyone going to find out the view of those senators, or just keep arguing straw-men?

Also, appealing to pity does not make one correct in any argument.
I plan to place calls to both my senator's offices tomorrow.

Do you consider may argument as ones of fallacy?

[PixelPusher]

So, is anyone going to find out the view of those senators, or just keep arguing straw-men?

Also, appealing to pity does not make one correct in any argument.
Yeah, we covered the gist of their argument in this thread:


"For overall justice in the American system, I think arbitration employment contracts is legitimate and we ought not to constrict it too much," said Sessions.

The ability for corporations to arbitrate cases of assault is - like - too important to mess with and whatnot.

[ChumpDumper]

You board Republicans still have yet to explain how you are for rape and against imaginary sex slaves.

[spursncowboys]

Really? How is that? Oh steaks on friday. I don't know. But it was good. A1 sauce :king

[spursncowboys]

Also, appealing to pity does not make one correct in any argument. Well that throws out the lib's whole play book.

[spursncowboys]

The ability for corporations to arbitrate cases of assault is - like - too important to mess with and whatnot. The ability for a corporation to offer arbitration, for their employees. Why does Al Franken think because he got elected, he knows more about running a company than the people who actually run the company?

[clambake]

The ability for a corporation to offer arbitration, for their employees.
they don't give you the choice, so it's not an offer.

Why does Al Franken think because he got elected, he knows more about running a company than the people who actually run the company?
he knows what negligence smells like.....if you can't control the actions of your employees, you make people accept arbitration.

smells more like willful negligence.

[elbamba]

I think that this is a bit of a distortion of the truth. She does in fact get her day in court. It is just not a court of public record. She will probably get a large award from the arbitrators if her allegations turn out to be true. The only thing we loose is a big public show. We only have pieces of her allegations together with an arbitration clause in an employment contract and we want to automatically presume the worst. This is wrong on so many different levels.

His amendment essentially would strike arbitration clauses from employment contracts and takes away one of the most fundemental rights that we have and one of the greatest protections employers and employees have in our right to contract.

Plus, if the arbitrators make a wrong decision she could appeal to a court. It is a very hard process but my instincts tell me that if she has a case and the arbitrators were unjust, the court would probably overrule the decision. Again, the only thing we lose is the public show, which is why we have arbitration agreements.

[elbamba]

they don't give you the choice, so it's not an offer.

he knows what negligence smells like.....if you can't control the actions of your employees, you make people accept arbitration.

smells more like willful negligence.

The choice is to sign the contract. No one has to sign a contract that contains an arbitration clause, there are plenty of jobs that do not have them. However, if courts uphold cell phone contract arbitartion clauses, they will hold up employment arbitration clauses.

[clambake]

yes, corporate protection is the most important aspect involving rape.

[boutons_deux]

"she will probably get a large award from the arbitrators if her allegations turn out to be true."

the arbitrators are chosen/paid by the corporations, I'm pretty sure, so nearly always side with the corporation. arbitration = employee raped (again).

[spursncowboys]

they don't give you the choice, so it's not an offer. you have the choice of working for them.


he knows what negligence smells like.....if you can't control the actions of your employees, you make people accept arbitration. get rid of frivolous lawsuits and co. wouldn't need arbitration clauses.


smells more like willful negligence.yo mama
bouton- The arbitrator is paid by the corp. but is an independent third party. You way of thinking would take out every HR group in every co. in America because they are hired and paid by the co.

[spursncowboys]

I think that this is a bit of a distortion of the truth. She does in fact get her day in court. It is just not a court of public record. the courts ruled that she didn't have to abide by the contract and could take Halliburton to court.
This is wrong on so many different levels.:toast

[clambake]

you have the choice of working for them.
she probably thought "hmmmm, a job or unemployment. what could happen?"


get rid of frivolous lawsuits and co. wouldn't need arbitration clauses.
rape=frivolous, good to know.


yo mama
?

bouton- The arbitrator is paid by the corp. but is an independent third party. You way of thinking would take out every HR group in every co. in America because they are hired and paid by the co.
they are about as independent as a no-bid contractor corp.

[nuclearfm]

I thought this was about rape. Nutjob (not even conservative) posts for the win!

[elbamba]

yes, corporate protection is the most important aspect involving rape.

If the issue were really about rape and rape alone this would be a criminal action not a civil question. She wants money and this issue has changed from an issue of rape to an issue of our rights to contract.

She wants to take them to court rather then arbitration so this is now about money and not about criminal justice. Two completely seperate issues. Any corporation has the right to include whatever language they want to in a contract, did someone hold a gun to her head and force her to sign an arbitration clause. She took the job probably because it paid well.

The main reason you go to arbitration is keep things off the public record. This is a very important principle to corporations and individuals.

[elbamba]

"she will probably get a large award from the arbitrators if her allegations turn out to be true."

the arbitrators are chosen/paid by the corporations, I'm pretty sure, so nearly always side with the corporation. arbitration = employee raped (again).

Wrong...you nor I have read the contract. However, both sides get to choose and agree on the arbitrators. I have never seen it any other way. You are correct that employees often get screwed. But I can tell you that I have screwed plenty of employers playing the same game. It all depends on your evidence.

[elbamba]

I thought this was about rape. Nutjob (not even conservative) posts for the win!

Again, if it were about rape then this would be a criminal matter.

This case is really about our right to contract. We use a situation like this were someone claims rape because it outrages most people and they grant unlimited power to govern situations we otherwise would not want the government to abuse.

I am certainly not saying that she doesn't have a case. If she was raped then she should certainly be entilted to damages, including but not limited to punitive damages. However, "rape" is not the real motive behind the proposed legislation.

[elbamba]

the courts ruled that she didn't have to abide by the contract and could take Halliburton to court.:toast

There you have it. I don't know their reasoning but my guess is they ruled it unconscionable?

[ChumpDumper]

Which outrages people more: imaginary sex slaves or real rape?

[spursncowboys]

she probably thought "hmmmm, a job or unemployment. what could happen?" It's understandable how you think the average individual is dumb and in need of govt. "help.:rolleyes




they are about as independent as a no-bid contractor corp.
I am completely against no-bid contract, like union deals.

[spursncowboys]

Which outrages people more: imaginary sex slaves or real rape? What is the correlation between this and ACORN?

[ChumpDumper]

What is the correlation between this and ACORN?You really don't see it?

That's hilarious.

[spursncowboys]

You really don't see it?

That's hilarious. What's the problem explaining it then?

[ChumpDumper]

What's the problem explaining it then?Gee, what happened recently with ACORN in Congress that could be analogous to what is happening with Haliburton in Congress?

Do you think you could figure that out on your own?

Do you need me to hold your hand?

[spursncowboys]

Gee, what happened recently with ACORN in Congress that could be analogous to what is happening with Haliburton in Congress?

Do you think you could figure that out on your own?

Do you need me to hold your hand? Your an idiot. Trying to make it obvious doesn't make it obvious.

[ChumpDumper]

Your an idiot.Touche'.
Trying to make it obvious doesn't make it obvious.Its obviousness makes it obvious.

Have you figured it out yet?

[Bartleby]

Steaks on friday too. It still costs the Govt. less than if they did it with mil. personnel.


Really? How is that?


Oh steaks on friday. I don't know. But it was good. A1 sauce :king

So, basically, you can't back up your claim. Talking out your ass, as usual.

[spursncowboys]

So, basically, you can't back up your claim. Talking out your ass, as usual. I don't know how KBR got steaks for every friday for every FOB in Iraq. But they were there. They were not a figment of my imagination.

[Bartleby]

I don't know how KBR got steaks for every friday for every FOB in Iraq. But they were there. They were not a figment of my imagination.


Steaks on friday too. It still costs the Govt. less than if they did it with mil. personnel.

Do you always pretend to be stupid when people call you on your bullshit or are you really that stupid?

[spursncowboys]

Do you always pretend to be stupid when people call you on your bullshit or are you really that stupid? No I don't have a quote. I couldn't find the quote on the prices. I am not going to look for it. IMO you can assume that the Govt wouldn't pay less for the money they are allocating to KBR to spend on it. Then we focus on what each co. is paying for employment. Each soldier, the amount of money it costs to train and equip, is given full medical, dental, and life insurance. Also retirement benefits. Halliburton can hire people with a two year contract. Also you have to have all the people who do the paperwork for buying, storing, and allocating the food. With the way the govt. works, there is alot more room for waste and abuse.

[nuclearfm]

What kind of country are we coming to if you can't have majority democratic rule? Gang rape is a clear testament of that. 5+ rapers yay for vs 1 woman nay. That's a landslide... Where is the dispute?

Crazy liberals. DESTROYING OUR DEMOCRATIC FOUNDATION!

[LnGrrrR]

Here's the thing: arbitration is fine for normal workplace activities. Let's say you're screwing around: I'm fine with arbitration determining whether or not you have been working or not.

However, when a company is shown to be grossly negligent, like this case seemingly is, I don't think arbitration should be used to determine it. Sexual harrassment is one thing; being gang raped and locked inside a shipping container is another.

[LnGrrrR]

She wants to take them to court rather then arbitration so this is now about money and not about criminal justice. Two completely seperate issues. Any corporation has the right to include whatever language they want to in a contract, did someone hold a gun to her head and force her to sign an arbitration clause. She took the job probably because it paid well.

Money IS justice in many aspects.

Also, just because you include language in a contract does not make it legal.

For instance, let's say Apple comes out with a new iphone that has a problem with spontaenously combusting. If they bury a new clause in the middle of the contract statement that says something to the effect of, "You can't sue us if your phone spontaneously combusts and you get injured", do you think that would hold up in law? It's highly doubtful.

[LnGrrrR]

So, basically, you can't back up your claim. Talking out your ass, as usual.

The reason why civilians are contracted instead of military is due to the lifetime costs of using military personnel: healthcare benefits mainly. It's cheaper short term to use military, yes.

Also, you could (theoretically) sue a contractor if they screw up. I say theoretically because I've seen alot of shoddy contractor work with no repercussions.

[elbamba]

Money IS justice in many aspects.

Also, just because you include language in a contract does not make it legal.

For instance, let's say Apple comes out with a new iphone that has a problem with spontaenously combusting. If they bury a new clause in the middle of the contract statement that says something to the effect of, "You can't sue us if your phone spontaneously combusts and you get injured", do you think that would hold up in law? It's highly doubtful.

Money does not provide criminal justice. Criminal justice takes place when a criminal is before a judge and jury and is awarded a punishment for his/her crimes.

In this case, money is what she is after and this can be taken care of in different forums outside the public record.

I do not disagree that sometimes contract provisions are unenforceable. unsually most solid contracts have a severability clause which essentially states that if any provision in the contract is found to be unenforceable or invalid, that it will not invalidate the rest of the contract.

An arbitration clause is an enforeceable provision that is perfectly legal. Usually, the problem with arbitration clauses is that they are not specific in what they cover. In other words, a court will look at the language and say, the arbitration is for this reason and this reason alone. Here, it is obvious that the company drafted a very specific clause in their employment contract that provided for arbitration for any sexual harrassment complaints. In my opinion, this is direct and leaves no room for a court to interpret or put their own spin on it. I would appeal the decision and win at the appellate level.

[LnGrrrR]

An arbitration clause is an enforeceable provision that is perfectly legal. Usually, the problem with arbitration clauses is that they are not specific in what they cover. In other words, a court will look at the language and say, the arbitration is for this reason and this reason alone. Here, it is obvious that the company drafted a very specific clause in their employment contract that provided for arbitration for any sexual harrassment complaints. In my opinion, this is direct and leaves no room for a court to interpret or put their own spin on it. I would appeal the decision and win at the appellate level.

Yes, but gang-raping is a step above 'sexual harassment', isn't it? I would think that would lead to criminal charges. The same would go for storing someone in an area with limited food and water for 24 hours. I don't see why those shouldn't be allowed to go to court.

[clambake]

as if they care about criminal justice.

polanski could have walked (through a parade of cheers from you guys) if he worked for these guys.

[elbamba]

Yes, but gang-raping is a step above 'sexual harassment', isn't it? I would think that would lead to criminal charges. The same would go for storing someone in an area with limited food and water for 24 hours. I don't see why those shouldn't be allowed to go to court.

No, under the terms of the contract I would read it as being any issue relating to a sexual nature. I haven't seen the contract and don't know the precise language.

I hope that there are criminal charges being filed. If there is evidence to support the allegations then justice will be served by sending people to jail.

There is a tort for false imprisonment. Off the top of my head I would say anyone involved in this is liable for damages under this theory.

This lady can bring an action against any individual that was responsible for the act. Again, everyone here jumps over the corporation when it was really individuals who committed the act. The individuals will not be protected by arbitration and she could go after them in civil court. The company just has deeper pockets. Again, this is motivated by money more then a sense of justice.

[LnGrrrR]

No, under the terms of the contract I would read it as being any issue relating to a sexual nature. I haven't seen the contract and don't know the precise language.

I hope that there are criminal charges being filed. If there is evidence to support the allegations then justice will be served by sending people to jail.

Ok, so you and I agree with the criminal charges. What you're against is the right to sue for monetary damage, correct?

I would say that sexual harassment in the workplace is not the same thing as being raped, even though being raped is of a "sexual" nature. When an ACTUAL crime is committed, I think that a person should have the right to sue for money.

Again, what we're debating is not denying Halliburton the legal ability to provide arbitration; we're just determining if we should deny federal funds to those who use arbitration in these types of cases. It seems reasonable to me.


There is a tort for false imprisonment. Off the top of my head I would say anyone involved in this is liable for damages under this theory.

I'm not familiar with that precedence/law/etc etc, so I can't comment. Does false imprisonment include knowingly false imprisonment, such as kidnapping or this cae?


This lady can bring an action against any individual that was responsible for the act. Again, everyone here jumps over the corporation when it was really individuals who committed the act. The individuals will not be protected by arbitration and she could go after them in civil court. The company just has deeper pockets. Again, this is motivated by money more then a sense of justice.

Isn't the whole point of a corporation that it is treated as a person? If so, why not go after the corporation?

Tell me, if YOU were raped by your coworkers, and then told you'd be fired if you sought medical help, would you try to go for what you thought was a 'fair share' through arbitration, or would you try to take every penny you could? I would most likely do the latter, as I would think every penny I took from them is more than fair.

[nuclearfm]

There is very little to debate here. It is a massive fail of common welfare and respect for individual rights to be against Al Frankens amendment.

I detest those arguing against it. You should all find another judicial system to live in.

[Wild Cobra]

The choice is to sign the contract. No one has to sign a contract that contains an arbitration clause, there are plenty of jobs that do not have them. However, if courts uphold cell phone contract arbitartion clauses, they will hold up employment arbitration clauses.
I find it so ironic that the champions of unions, the democrats, want to remove arbitration from employment contracts.

What do you think the unions, who have members at Boeing, which contracts for the DoD think of such a move?

[Wild Cobra]

they don't give you the choice, so it's not an offer.

What about jobs that require you join a union for work?

How is that different?

[clambake]

shut up.

[nuclearfm]

I find it so ironic that the champions of unions, the democrats, want to remove arbitration from employment contracts.

What do you thing the unions, who have members at Boeing, which contracts for the DoD think of such a move?

:lol

You really don't have common sense do you? This is a completely different scenario. So now you're pro-union?

[Wild Cobra]

What's the problem explaining it then?
You should ignore that ass. No matter how well you answer, he will come back with something else to irritate you with. It's useless debating him. When you win, he changes the argument. He's just a troll. Ignore him, and if enough people do, he will go away.

[clambake]

:lol

You really don't have common sense do you? This is a completely different scenario. So now you're pro-union?

this dill weed is a union member.

[nuclearfm]

shut up.

I agree, sometimes people hurt society. WC could die tomorrow and the world would be that much better from the lack of proportional BS.

[nuclearfm]

Let's get to the point of this denial and arguing straw man BS.

This is what these arguments come down to:


Gang Rape is a good thing!

[Spurminator]

I find it so ironic that the champions of unions, the democrats, want to remove arbitration from employment contracts.

What do you thing the unions, who have members at Boeing, which contracts for the DoD think of such a move?


Good lord man, you still don't get it?

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.


It's not all arbitration.

Why would UNIONS have a problem with this?

[Wild Cobra]

Here's the thing: arbitration is fine for normal workplace activities. Let's say you're screwing around: I'm fine with arbitration determining whether or not you have been working or not.

However, when a company is shown to be grossly negligent, like this case seemingly is, I don't think arbitration should be used to determine it. Sexual harrassment is one thing; being gang raped and locked inside a shipping container is another.
I agree that arbitration is no place for any crimes at this level, or even any crime. They all should go through the court system. However, Frankin's amendment goes way too far.

[Wild Cobra]

There is very little to debate here. It is a massive fail of common welfare and respect for individual rights to be against Al Frankens amendment.

I detest those arguing against it. You should all find another judicial system to live in.
I see you didn't read it, and if you did, you don't understand the ramifications of it.

[nuclearfm]

I agree that arbitration is no place for any crimes at this level, or even any crime. They all should go through the court system. However, Frankin's amendment goes way too far.

You disagree that she should be able to take this to civil court for damages?

I didn't give it to the whole intellectual read, but I did come across with prohibits “the Defense Department from contracting with companies that require employees to resolve sexual assault allegations and other claims through arbitration"

[spursncowboys]

You disagree that she should be able to take this to civil court for damages? She can take it to civil court dumas. Are we debating what this amendment says or are we talking about her case?

[nuclearfm]

She can take it to civil court dumas. Are we debating what this amendment says or are we talking about her case?

She can now,but it had to be originally ruled by the on by the courts before she could proceed. Kind of presumptuous are we, "dumas"?

[Wild Cobra]

You disagree that she should be able to take this to civil court for damages?
No, I agree its a case to take to court and all involved in the rape and cover up should face serious jail time.

I didn't give it to the whole intellectual read, but I did come across with prohibits “the Defense Department from contracting with companies that require employees to resolve sexual assault allegations and other claims through arbitration"
Its obvious you didn't read the whole thing. Please go back and do so. Think of the ramifications of imposing such requirements on USA corporations, but not foreign ones. How many USA jobs will be lost? Think about the DoD not being able to sign contracts with defense companies who employ union labor. That's arbitration, right?

[Wild Cobra]

She can take it to civil court dumas. Are we debating what this amendment says or are we talking about her case?
No kidding.

I had a brain-fart and forgot something important. I just remembered this is the liberal M.O. Find a heart compelling subject to pass bad law over.

[spursncowboys]

She can now,but it had to be originally ruled by the on by the courts before she could proceed. Kind of presumptuous are we, "dumas"?
Sorry about the name calling. So are we talking about her case or are we talking about the amendment?

[spursncowboys]

No kidding.

I had a brain-fart and forgot something important. I just remembered this is the liberal M.O. Find a heart compelling subject to pass bad law over. Yeah, remember the if you were against extending schip, you hated children?

[elbamba]

Ok, so you and I agree with the criminal charges. What you're against is the right to sue for monetary damage, correct?

I would say that sexual harassment in the workplace is not the same thing as being raped, even though being raped is of a "sexual" nature. When an ACTUAL crime is committed, I think that a person should have the right to sue for money.

Again, what we're debating is not denying Halliburton the legal ability to provide arbitration; we're just determining if we should deny federal funds to those who use arbitration in these types of cases. It seems reasonable to me.



I'm not familiar with that precedence/law/etc etc, so I can't comment. Does false imprisonment include knowingly false imprisonment, such as kidnapping or this cae?



Isn't the whole point of a corporation that it is treated as a person? If so, why not go after the corporation?

Tell me, if YOU were raped by your coworkers, and then told you'd be fired if you sought medical help, would you try to go for what you thought was a 'fair share' through arbitration, or would you try to take every penny you could? I would most likely do the latter, as I would think every penny I took from them is more than fair.

It is clear that I am not being clear. You and I do not disagree on most of this. She should be entitled to money compensation if her allegations are true and she was raped and imprisoned by her co-workers.

However, I believe that the corporation has the right to protect itself through arbitration. I think you oversimplify the legal entity that is a corporation by stating that it is like a person. It shields individuals acting under the corporation. However, if the corp was responsible or if people were using the corporation for protection she would be entitled to pierce the veil of the corporation to go after individuals.

The legal question is not where the individual wants to bring an action, the question is where the individual legally can bring the action. This legislation would override generations of precedence that respects and honors people's right to contract and the courts respect of that right.

She signed a contract that said she could only bring an action thourgh arbitration. I don't care what her problem is, the right forum is arbitration. Maybe that is too cold for you but the reality is that is what she agreed to do. If we are not going to honor contracts then what is the point of having them? It sounds like it is skewed in favor of the rich corps but trust me on this one, I have saved more people by contracts drafted by large corporations then I can remember. She might not have had bargaining power but that doesn't mean squat when you are an at-will employee.

FYI--false imprisonment is when you detain someone without their ability to leave or escape for any period of time. This is a simplified definition but she definitely has a cause of action under this principle as well as several other torts against her captors.

In sum, she should be able to bring an action against the corporation through arbitration. However, she should be able to file a civil action against the individuals in a district court. she will get her day in court, but I believe in honoring contracts at all times, even in the rare situations where our emotions demand that we ignor the law and apply what we feel would be the proper form of justice.

[Wild Cobra]

The legal question is not where the individual wants to bring an action, the question is where the individual legally can bring the action. This legislation would override generations of precedence that respects and honors people's right to contract and the courts respect of that right.

And override it to an extreme.

I agree similar legislation needs to be passed, but not this. Only legislation that goes as far as saying criminal activity cannot be covered under arbitration.

On top of that, it needs to be US law, not just for DoD contractors.


She signed a contract that said she could only bring an action thourgh arbitration. I don't care what her problem is, the right forum is arbitration. Maybe that is too cold for you but the reality is that is what she agreed to do. If we are not going to honor contracts then what is the point of having them? It sounds like it is skewed in favor of the rich corps but trust me on this one, I have saved more people by contracts drafted by large corporations then I can remember. She might not have had bargaining power but that doesn't mean squat when you are an at-will employee.

I don't think anyone expects that they will be the victim of a violent crime, to be handled by arbitration, in the work place.


In sum, she should be able to bring an action against the corporation through arbitration. However, she should be able to file a civil action against the individuals in a district court. she will get her day in court, but I believe in honoring contracts at all times, even in the rare situations where our emotions demand that we ignor the law and apply what we feel would be the proper form of justice.

That's her limits now without some good legal maneuvering. Still, if such arbitration is allowed for such activities, what stops an unscrupulous employer from engaging in illegal forced sexual services of it's employees?

There needs to be a limit to what arbitration can cover. I just say this legislation goes way to far.

[ElNono]

In sum, she should be able to bring an action against the corporation through arbitration. However, she should be able to file a civil action against the individuals in a district court. she will get her day in court, but I believe in honoring contracts at all times, even in the rare situations where our emotions demand that we ignor the law and apply what we feel would be the proper form of justice.

The problem is that 'the law' you mention above is 'contract law' and that is not the same everywhere.
There's plenty of contracts that establish arbitration clauses, mandatory or not, that are simply declared unconscionable or unenforceable by certain states all the time.
At this point in time, arbitration is not even cheaper than litigation in a lot of cases, and it's highly debatable wether giving up the protection of the court is always desirable.

[Wild Cobra]

The problem is that 'the law' you mention above is 'contract law' and that is not the same everywhere.
There's plenty of contracts that establish arbitration clauses, mandatory or not, that are simply declared unconscionable or unenforceable by certain states all the time.
At this point in time, arbitration is not even cheaper than litigation in a lot of cases, and it's highly debatable wether giving up the protection of the court is always desirable.
How ever all this ends up, I believe it's wrong to allow contracts to shield criminal activity.

Seems to me, she should sue using RICO? Is that plausible? After-all, there is complicity because of the attempted cover-up.

[ElNono]

How ever all this ends up, I believe it's wrong to allow contracts to shield criminal activity.

I don't think you'll find a court that will think such contract is enforceable.


Seems to me, she should sue using RICO? Is that plausible? After-all, there is complicity because of the attempted cover-up.

I'm sure her lawyer will shoot all the darts together and see what sticks.

[elbamba]

And override it to an extreme.

I agree similar legislation needs to be passed, but not this. Only legislation that goes as far as saying criminal activity cannot be covered under arbitration.

On top of that, it needs to be US law, not just for DoD contractors.

I don't think anyone expects that they will be the victim of a violent crime, to be handled by arbitration, in the work place.

That's her limits now without some good legal maneuvering. Still, if such arbitration is allowed for such activities, what stops an unscrupulous employer from engaging in illegal forced sexual services of it's employees?

There needs to be a limit to what arbitration can cover. I just say this legislation goes way to far.

"crimes" are not and never will be handled by an arbitrator. Nor can a company shield itself from criminal prosecution through an arbitration clause.

It is important that you and everyone else realizes that arbitration is not done for criminal activity. That is left to a city, county, state, or U.S. attorneys. THese people handle the criminal aspect.

The company's ability to force arbitration is only for civil matters. In this case, she wants to be able to sue the company for money damages. She is not suing the company for rape, the company did not rape her.

[elbamba]

The problem is that 'the law' you mention above is 'contract law' and that is not the same everywhere.
There's plenty of contracts that establish arbitration clauses, mandatory or not, that are simply declared unconscionable or unenforceable by certain states all the time.
At this point in time, arbitration is not even cheaper than litigation in a lot of cases, and it's highly debatable wether giving up the protection of the court is always desirable.

I respectfully disagree. Most courts do not rule out arbitration clauses, at least in the U.S. and in the individual states. In fact, quite the opposite, most courts will find them valid because it clears their dockets and prevents the obvious reverseable error on appeal by invalidating a valid arbitration clause.

The only way an arbitration clause will be thrown out on a contract such as this, is if it does not specify what is to be arbitrated. I do not think this is the case here. I just handled a case where I got an employee out of a major piece of litigation in the U.S. District COurt of Kansas under an arbitration clause. There were about 9 parties involved and the judge stayed all proceedings for the arbitration clause that my client had with one of the plaintiffs. The Plaintiff dropped my client with prejudice because that clause held up all of their litigation.

[ElNono]

I respectfully disagree. Most courts do not rule out arbitration clauses, at least in the U.S. and in the individual states. In fact, quite the opposite, most courts will find them valid because it clears their dockets and prevents the obvious reverseable error on appeal by invalidating a valid arbitration clause.

I don't disagree that courts actually like arbitration, for a number of different reasons, and they've pushed the FAA extensively on Commercial/Contract, Labor and Securities arbitration. Even non-binding Judicial arbitrations lately.

Then again, there are some public interest ones where they did not (Douglas v. Talk America, 495 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2007), Harris v. Blockbuster Inc., No. 3:09-cv-217-M (N.D. Tex. April 15, 2009))

But more importantly, I can't find a single one where a criminal charge was levied and arbitration agreement prevailed.


The only way an arbitration clause will be thrown out on a contract such as this, is if it does not specify what is to be arbitrated. I do not think this is the case here. I just handled a case where I got an employee out of a major piece of litigation in the U.S. District COurt of Kansas under an arbitration clause. There were about 9 parties involved and the judge stayed all proceedings for the arbitration clause that my client had with one of the plaintiffs. The Plaintiff dropped my client with prejudice because that clause held up all of their litigation.

My point is that contract law does not supersede criminal law. Otherwise, things like assisted suicide would be entirely legal by means of a waiver of rights and liability on a contract. Heck, even abortion!

[LnGrrrR]

Think of the ramifications of imposing such requirements on USA corporations, but not foreign ones. How many USA jobs will be lost? Think about the DoD not being able to sign contracts with defense companies who employ union labor. That's arbitration, right?

Why do you think this would only affect US corporations? The amendment would prevent the government from hiring ANY corporation that would allow arbitration for such items as sexual harassment, etc etc.

I've not seen anything saying that foreign companies would be exempt from these federal fund disbursement rules.

[LnGrrrR]

WC,

I think you and I have the same opinion on this, for the most part. I would agree with your law that arbitration can't cover criminal acts, though it seems obvious. I'm fine with arbitration for sexual harassment and things of that nature that aren't criminal in nature.

Elbamba,

Forgive my ignorance, but is the arbitration amount forced to be private? For instance, does she already know the amount provided by arbitration but isn't satisfied by it?

[Wild Cobra]

The company's ability to force arbitration is only for civil matters. In this case, she wants to be able to sue the company for money damages. She is not suing the company for rape, the company did not rape her.
Than what good does Frankin's amendment do for a similar case in the future?

[Wild Cobra]

Why do you think this would only affect US corporations? The amendment would prevent the government from hiring ANY corporation that would allow arbitration for such items as sexual harassment, etc etc.

I've not seen anything saying that foreign companies would be exempt from these federal fund disbursement rules.
Part (b) of the amendment excludes corporations outside the USA.

Did you read the quoted amendment I put in an early post?

[elbamba]

I don't disagree that courts actually like arbitration, for a number of different reasons, and they've pushed the FAA extensively on Commercial/Contract, Labor and Securities arbitration. Even non-binding Judicial arbitrations lately.

Then again, there are some public interest ones where they did not (Douglas v. Talk America, 495 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2007), Harris v. Blockbuster Inc., No. 3:09-cv-217-M (N.D. Tex. April 15, 2009))

But more importantly, I can't find a single one where a criminal charge was levied and arbitration agreement prevailed.



My point is that contract law does not supersede criminal law. Otherwise, things like assisted suicide would be entirely legal by means of a waiver of rights and liability on a contract. Heck, even abortion!

You and I agree that contract law does not nor will it ever supersede criminal law. That was never my point. Arbitration clauses are only for civil purposes. They cannot be for criminal. However, the individual does not bring a criminal charge against an individual, onlt a prosecutor can do that. In other words, this lady cannot bring an action against Haliburton in a criminal court to which Haliburton will be subject to criminal charges.

My point is that arbitration is sufficient to cure her case against Haliburton. She can bring her actions against her individual captors in civil/state or federal court (probably federal).

The confusion over this issue is exactly why I am worried. NO CONTRACT supercedes criminal activity. However, Haliburton did not commit a crime here, individuals did who happen to work for Haliburton. Perhaps there is an action for vicarious liability I do not know the details of the case.

What I do know is that justice can be served in her case in three ways that are perfectly legitimate: 1) arbitrate with Haliburton 2)b bring a civil action against the individuals who committed the acts 3) report her case to a police department or the proper authorities and allow them to open an investigation that will bring these alleged criminals to justice through the appropriate criminal court. All three are open right now without the need for an amendment to the law. If everyone understood this they would realize that the real criminals are not off the hook through an arbitration clause.

[elbamba]

WC,

I think you and I have the same opinion on this, for the most part. I would agree with your law that arbitration can't cover criminal acts, though it seems obvious. I'm fine with arbitration for sexual harassment and things of that nature that aren't criminal in nature.

Elbamba,

Forgive my ignorance, but is the arbitration amount forced to be private? For instance, does she already know the amount provided by arbitration but isn't satisfied by it?


Yes, people and corporations arbitrate to keep in quite. This is done through a confdentality agreement which I can promise she signed. We will never know the outcome of an arbitration case because if she blabs, she is liable for talking about the settlement.

Think of arbitration like this, if you invent the worlds greatest fajita and people come from all over the world to eat your fajitas and your only partner works for you and steals your seceret and tries to start a new business. If you arbitrate your "trade secret" or special reciepe for fajitas is protected from the public. You don't want this info getting out.

Now, lets say Haliburton settles this case through arbitration for 5,000,000. She runs out and tells everyone. Then Haliburton receives 5 lawsuits next week with similar allegations. That is why you want to keep amounts quiet.

People take advantage of situations like this. I must have received 500 calls for personal injury lawsuits after the McDonalds spilled coffee jury verdict. Too bad millions of dollars were never paid. This is why people, including attorney's these kinds of settlements to stay silent.

[elbamba]

Than what good does Frankin's amendment do for a similar case in the future?

In my opinion, NOTHING. It is a useless amendment. Right now, all aspects of a courthouse are open in this case. She can sue Haliburton through arbitration. She can sue the individuals in a civil court of public record. She can file a police report and a US attorney/federal prosecutor can press charges against any individual or entity that has engaged in criminal activity. This too would be done in a court that is open to the publice.

The only thing we will not know is what settlement/decision was reached in arbitration. We will know if criminal charges lead to convictions and we will know what individual judgments (monetary) she gets against the individuals. This is all available now without need for amending.

[Wild Cobra]

In my opinion, NOTHING. It is a useless amendment. Right now, all aspects of a courthouse are open in this case. She can sue Haliburton through arbitration. She can sue the individuals in a civil court of public record. She can file a police report and a US attorney/federal prosecutor can press charges against any individual or entity that has engaged in criminal activity. This too would be done in a court that is open to the publice.

The only thing we will not know is what settlement/decision was reached in arbitration. We will know if criminal charges lead to convictions and we will know what individual judgments (monetary) she gets against the individuals. This is all available now without need for amending.
Thank-you. I was under the false impression part of the amendment was needed. Now I see the democrats are even more pathetic than I originally thought.

[LnGrrrR]

Part (b) of the amendment excludes corporations outside the USA.

Did you read the quoted amendment I put in an early post?

Ah, I must've missed that. Yes, that's a stupid clause.

[LnGrrrR]

The confusion over this issue is exactly why I am worried. NO CONTRACT supercedes criminal activity. However, Haliburton did not commit a crime here, individuals did who happen to work for Haliburton. Perhaps there is an action for vicarious liability I do not know the details of the case.


What about her being told that if she sought medical attention she'd be fired? Wouldn't that come down from the company?

As well, couldn't the company be liable if it was found that they in some way encourage/allowed/tolerated a hostile atmosphere?

[Wild Cobra]

What about her being told that if she sought medical attention she'd be fired? Wouldn't that come down from the company?

As well, couldn't the company be liable if it was found that they in some way encourage/allowed/tolerated a hostile atmosphere?
Can she prove that? I see that as a problem. This becomes a he-said-she-said situation. If it really happened, then the manager, supervisor, or who ever gets fired, and that's Halliburton's part. However, if the firey the person who said that, by her word alone, with no other evidence, then they open themselves up to a wrongful firing lawsuit as well.

Evidence is the key. Innocent till sufficient cause can be shown.

What happened is a tragedy, but what can one do?

[LnGrrrR]

What happened is a tragedy, but what can one do?

Sue, of course. I think the whole point of this thread though has gone into a meta-discussion of WHERE is the appropriate place to sue. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

I see WC is still defending real rape.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Can she prove that? I see that as a problem. This becomes a he-said-she-said situation. If it really happened, then the manager, supervisor, or who ever gets fired, and that's Halliburton's part. However, if the firey the person who said that, by her word alone, with no other evidence, then they open themselves up to a wrongful firing lawsuit as well.

Evidence is the key. Innocent till sufficient cause can be shown.

What happened is a tragedy, but what can one do?

:rolleyes

[boutons_deux]

WC and rightie ilk coming down, habitually, on the side of an (private) institution over an individual, while bitching about (the govt taking) their freedoms and rights. fucking hypocrites.

[Wild Cobra]

WC and rightie ilk coming down, habitually, on the side of an (private) institution over an individual, while bitching about (the govt taking) their freedoms and rights. fucking hypocrites.

You are such a stupid ass.

I am pointing out real concerns. Lower management is likely guilty of at least an attempted cover-up, and I want to see anyone responsible in jail. The problem is, without tangible evidence, there is no course that still doesn't open them up to a lawsuit for something like wrongful termination. Just because she was raped, it doesn't automatically make everything she said true. I would bet the corporation did all they can yo avoid risking farther legal trouble. It's a law enforcement task, not Halliburton's. I'm sure amy employees shown to have had a part will be terminated. You just are one that things it should happen without cause. I think you should consider how much of an authoritarian fascist that makes you look like.

Why are you against Halliburton without enough facts? Why do you carry so much hatred, that allows such profound bigotry?

Way to go Bouton's the Bigot.

[spursncowboys]

WC and rightie ilk coming down, habitually, on the side of an (private) institution over an individual, while bitching about (the govt taking) their freedoms and rights. fucking hypocrites.
The individual is the private institution.

[Nbadan]

Here is freshman Minnesota senator Al Franken's first-ever legislative action, a relatively simple, almost laughably surefire bill requiring the Pentagon no longer do business with any contractor -- hi, Halliburton! -- that requires its employees to agree that she cannot sue said contractor if she is, oh let's just say, gang raped by its employees.

You read that right. It's a can't-sue-us-if-you're-raped clause. In a U.S. government contract. Aimed squarely at Halliburton. Thanks, Dick Cheney!

First, you are required get over your initial disgust that such legislation is even necessary, that such clauses even exist and that the Pentagon is already doing business with such contractors (hi, Halliburton/KBR!), and that there has already been a truly horrible case validating it, wherein a 20-year-old female employee was allegedly gang-raped by contractors, locked in a shipping container, abused every way from Sunday, and found out later she was unable to sue.

Let us pause to imagine if, say, Wal-Mart had such a clause. Or maybe Toys 'R' Us. Starbucks. Let us imagine the appalled outcry. But Halliburton? Dick Cheney's vile little spitwad of shameless war profiteering? No problem. Hey, it's Republican-endorsed military contracting. No one said it was ethical.

But that's not most the repellant part. Ready?

SF Gate (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/10/16/notes101609.DTL#ixzz0U5LOteTQ)

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

All the Usual Susupects...

[PixelPusher]

Y6kiZIlMFto

[Cry Havoc]

Y6kiZIlMFto

That is just devastating.

And Halliburton should pay severely for this. Not for the crime that occurred. For their continuing efforts to take credibility away from this woman or minimize what happened to her. They engaged in a massive cover-up and damage control at all levels from a woman who had serious emotional, physical, and mental pain inflicted upon her. It's like a husband beating the hell out of his wife and then becoming angry that she's bleeding on the carpet.

Absolutely insane. Every time they have stalled this they should have to pay millions of dollars in compensation. Every year they tried to delay or get this tossed they should have to pay tens of millions. So I think a nice $50,000,000 settlement in favor of the woman sounds about right. I hope the purported other women come forward as well. And if it's ever found to happen again to a contractor, double the costs of everything. Send a message that this kind of cover-up will cost you a lot more than a couple jobs in the future. And ANYONE involved in the cover up should be given a minimum of 5 years in jail, anyone involved directly in the rape gets whatever the max is for aggravated rape. This company tried to fuck this woman over after she has been through a worse ordeal than most of us will ever experience in our lives -- and they should pay heavily for it.

[boutons_deux]

Repugs really pushing to win the women vote in 2010. :lol

[Cry Havoc]

Repugs really pushing to win the women vote in 2010. :lol

It's amazing how politically incompetent the GOP has become*.



* Not all of them obviously, but the party as a generalized whole. Yikes.

[Wild Cobra]

This company tried to fuck this woman over after she has been through a worse ordeal than most of us will ever experience in our lives -- and they should pay heavily for it.
Well, since you have first hand knowledge of such facts, rather than the hearsay the rest of us contend with, you should go and testify as to what you know!

[Winehole23]

WC demands better evidence. Since SpursTalk posters cannot offer any direct physical evidence -- or proof beyond a reasonable doubt -- WC will not be swayed.

The criminal standard of proof is a commendable one in its proper context -- a criminal court.

It's a little strict for a message board. Applied here, disputation would very soon conclude for good.

I wonder why WC thinks a sport-themed discussion board owes him a a criminal level of proof, when Ms. Jones must only show preponderance of the evidence in her own lawsuit.

Perhaps he wants to make the Ms. Jones's case against Halliburton appear weaker than it actually is, by insisting that actual crimes be proved, when what we are actually dealing with here is torts and suits.

And the legislative attempt to rejigger the equities so as allow victims of violent assault to have their day in court, without fear of retaliation by their employers for complaining.

[jman3000]

So from 50% and a feather to 50% and a truck.

[elbamba]

Y6kiZIlMFto

This video just proves my point. They use extreme facts from one case, one case that is so outrageous that we are willing to set aside fundamental rights to contract, in favor of emotion. These are the kinds of situations that allow our federal government to step all over our rights.

Why do we not just do away with arbitration all together? If the hearings are never fair, then they should just ban arbitration and allow every party that has ever felt cheated in arbitration to appeal the decisions to a federal or state judge.

Legally speaking, in my humble opinion, Fraken has no clue what he is talking about and he tries to hide behind yes/no questions to paint as extreme a picture as possible so that fact and law are not taken into consideration. This is congress not a radio talk show. Those air america tricks should not be tolerated.

[elbamba]

when what we are actually dealing with here is torts and suits.

And the legislative attempt to rejigger the equities so as allow victims of violent assault to have their day in court, without fear of retaliation by their employers for complaining.

Actually, we are dealing with contracts and the right of we the people to contract without the government intruding on those rights.

[Winehole23]

Actually, we are dealing with contracts and the right of we the people to contract without the government intruding on those rights.From the standpoint of the company it is a dispute about the enforcement of contractual terms pure and simple.

However, the circumstances of the injury suffered makes enforcement of the contract appear not only self-serving, but inequitable and unjust. Surely you can understand that too, elbamba. Shouldn't victims of certain serious crimes have their day in court if they want it?

[Winehole23]

Ms. Jones was raped by fellow employees, was she not?

Is it your argument, elbamba, that she signed away her privilege to seek legal remedies for being raped by her co-workers, when she signed her contract?

[PixelPusher]

If rent-seeking, no-bid defense contractors are compelled to change their arbitraiton policies in order to do business with the federal government, the very foundations of capitalism will be imperilled! What are trifles of a couple of rape victims compared to that?

[elbamba]

Ms. Jones was raped by fellow employees, was she not?

Is it your argument, elbamba, that she signed away her privilege to seek legal remedies for being raped by her co-workers, when she signed her contract?

No, not at all. AS I have stated repeatidly, she has the right to sue each and every one of her co-workers in a court of law. This would not be subject to the arbitration clause. The co-workers might argue that they are shielded by their employment contract but they would lose that argument.

She also has the right to press charges and I am sure that a US attorney would love the publicity that would come with this case. If the company has some form of criminal liability I am sure a good US attorney will be able to discover the crime and this too would be public record.

The only thing that she should not get is her day in court against Haliburton because she willfully signed a contract stating that she would arbitrate this particular issue. She DID sign away her right to seek a legal remedy in a federal or state court against Haliburton. This fact is undisputable. Equity is served here through arbitration whether you like it or not. People can argue all day that it is unfair but what would truely be unfair is for the federal government to come in and invalidate valid contracts.

[Cry Havoc]

The only thing that she should not get is her day in court against Haliburton because she willfully signed a contract stating that she would arbitrate this particular issue. She DID sign away her right to seek a legal remedy in a federal or state court against Haliburton. This fact is undisputable. Equity is served here through arbitration whether you like it or not. People can argue all day that it is unfair but what would truely be unfair is for the federal government to come in and invalidate valid contracts.

I might agree with this if Haliburton had not attempted for four years to get her case completely thrown out of court citing arbitration as the resolution for her after she was gang-raped.

Their response was a criminal one in this regard however, and they as a company should be held criminally liable. If they had taken her side in the first place, I would agree with you. Instead, they fought her for her right to get some kind of justice for what was done to her, and they deserve to pay in every way possible for that. What they did was evil.

[Winehole23]

The only thing that she should not get is her day in court against Haliburton because she willfully signed a contract stating that she would arbitrate this particular issue. She DID sign away her right to seek a legal remedy in a federal or state court against Haliburton. This fact is undisputable. I agree. If it weren't, there would be no call for a legislative remedy.


People can argue all day that it is unfair but what would truely be unfair is for the federal government to come in and invalidate valid contracts.It would be, if that were happening. Happily, it is not.

How is any contract invalidated if the government in the future attaches conditions to its own contracts stipulating that contractors limit their access to arbitration?

[elbamba]

I might agree with this if Haliburton had not attempted for four years to get her case completely thrown out of court citing arbitration as the resolution for her after she was gang-raped.

Their response was a criminal one in this regard however, and they as a company should be held criminally liable. If they had taken her side in the first place, I would agree with you. Instead, they fought her for her right to get some kind of justice for what was done to her, and they deserve to pay in every way possible for that. What they did was evil.

Welcome to the world of litigation. If you have an arbitration clause, you would be foolish to take a case to court. What they did was perfectly legal and everyone here would do the same thing regardless of the facts of the case.

Their response was not criminal it was legal. And if it was criminal then she would not have any recourse for a criminal matter. This would be prosecuted by a U.S. attorney, not some random plaintiff attorney.

What they did was try to enforce their legal rights. Under your theory of what is evil, should we take away a defendant's right to defend his case? Do you really think that cases like this get resolved in five weeks? Some litigation goes on for 10 years.

The only criminal act is what congress is doing, imho.

[Winehole23]

The only criminal act is what congress is doing, imho.Hyperbole, surely.

Government can limit contractors; if the contractors don't like it, they can seek their fortunes elsewhere.

[elbamba]

I agree. If it weren't, there would be no call for a legislative remedy.

It would be, if that were happening. Happily, it is not.

How is any contract invalidated if the government in the future attaches conditions to its own contracts stipulating that contractors limit their access to arbitration?

I noticed that you did not respond to any portion of response that spells out specifically how she gets her day in court and how justice has been served or how it may be served against every party involved in this case.

Can we presume that you do agree that she has the right to sue the individuals in a court of law? Can we also agree that a US prosecutor can bring a criminal action against the individuals and Haliburton in a criminal court of law? Both of these actions would satisfy justice correct? Everyone here crying that there would be no public record is wrong.

Finally, can we agree that she has the opportunity to bring an action against Haliburton through arbitration? Thus, she has three potential cases, two of which would be public record and one against Haliburton behind closed doors.
Can we also agree that few people on this board have actual arbitration experience and therefore few people can speak to the fairness of an arbitration proceeding?

Now, to answer your question, the government can attach whatever clause it wants to in a contract. Why not simply attach a clause in the governments next contract that states something to the effect of:

"Corporation hereby agrees that it will not include any clause or provision requiring binding arbitration or mediation for any potential cause of action arising out of claims of sexual assault"

Would that not solve the present case? No need for an amendment. No need for the federal government to interfere in our freedom to contract, no need for the waste of tax payers money to hold hearings which are political in nature to go after an executive whom you claim/imply is exempt from this amendment. No need to worry about the countless contracts that are presently valid today that would be the source of litigation over the changes made by the amendment.

[elbamba]

Hyperbole, surely.

Government can limit contractors; if the contractors don't like it, they can seek their fortunes elsewhere.


And I am sure that they will. But why does that answer work with corporations and not with individuals. If she did not want binding arbitration she could have gone elsewhere. Why the outrage over her and not every party?

[LnGrrrR]

Edit: Question asked and answered already... I need to refresh more often. :)

[LnGrrrR]

And I am sure that they will. But why does that answer work with corporations and not with individuals. If she did not want binding arbitration she could have gone elsewhere. Why the outrage over her and not every party?

Due to the sensationalism, surely. A women using arbitration to determine monetary payment due to sexual harassment doesn't have nearly the same emotional impact as a woman who was raped by multiple members of the company.

[LnGrrrR]

Now, to answer your question, the government can attach whatever clause it wants to in a contract. Why not simply attach a clause in the governments next contract that states something to the effect of:

"Corporation hereby agrees that it will not include any clause or provision requiring binding arbitration or mediation for any potential cause of action arising out of claims of sexual assault"

Would that not solve the present case? ...

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I assumed that was the essence of the amendment in the first place.

[Winehole23]

BTW, what contracts have been invalidated, or would be by what's being proposed?

If Halliburton/KBR does not want to renegotiate terms with the US Government in the light of changed policy about rape, it can, and probably should, seek its fortune elsewhere.

Halliburton is free at all times free not to sign on the dotted line.

[Winehole23]

And I am sure that they will. But why does that answer work with corporations and not with individuals. If she did not want binding arbitration she could have gone elsewhere. Why the outrage over her and not every party?Her case was memorable. Ms. Jones was imprisoned in a shipping container and gang-raped by her co-workers.

[PixelPusher]

Her case was memorable. Ms. Jones was imprisoned in a shipping container and gang-raped by her co-workers.
And got out after a sympathetic guard lent her a cell phone so she could call her father in Texas.

In a completely unrelated move (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/01/kbr.cellphones/index.html), KBR banned the use and/or possession of cell phones for it's employees in Iraq.

[Winehole23]

I noticed that you did not respond to any portion of response that spells out specifically how she gets her day in court and how justice has been served or how it may be served against every party involved in this case.I did not notice that you asked. I presume that either the statute has elapsed on Ms. Jones's criminal causes or that they otherwise have failed in court. I honestly don't know which. In my mind it doesn't matter. Congress can rejigger the equities by statute in favor of the rape victim.

Your mention of "every party involved" notionally compasses Halliburtons remedies too. What was the injury again?


Can we presume that you do agree that she has the right to sue the individuals in a court of law? Can we also agree that a US prosecutor can bring a criminal action against the individuals and Haliburton in a criminal court of law? Both of these actions would satisfy justice correct?Something is already happening on the civil side, I don't know about the criminal track.


Everyone here crying that there would be no public record is wrong.Who, please?


Finally, can we agree that she has the opportunity to bring an action against Haliburton through arbitration? Thus, she has three potential cases, two of which would be public record and one against Haliburton behind closed doors.Halliburton generously provides an official avenue of complaint.

We already knew that. How magnanimous of them. Your point, Sir?


Can we also agree that few people on this board have actual arbitration experience and therefore few people can speak to the fairness of an arbitration proceeding?Underrated, I'm sure. Do you make money at this?


Now, to answer your question, the government can attach whatever clause it wants to in a contract. Why not simply attach a clause in the governments next contract that states something to the effect of:

"Corporation hereby agrees that it will not include any clause or provision requiring binding arbitration or mediation for any potential cause of action arising out of claims of sexual assault"I think that is exactly the sort of thing intended. Would you have a problem with that?


Would that not solve the present case? No need for an amendment. No need for the federal government to interfere in our freedom to contract This happened how, again? I missed that part. Little help? Would you care to give color to your claim that this statute is illegal? It seems plain to you; it is not to me.


no need for the waste of tax payers money to hold hearings which are political in nature to go after an executive whom you claim/imply is exempt from this amendment. Is there a provision for hearings to follow the statute I am unaware of? Does the law provide a soap box you object to?

Is this comment more specifically topical than you have disclosed so far, elbamba?

Did congressional hearings involving some CEO pinyata recently commence? Are they about to?

Link, please?


No need to worry about the countless contracts that are presently valid today that would be the source of litigation over the changes made by the amendment.The language is being offered as an amendment to a defense allocation, right? You have a problem with it being an amendment or something?

@elbamba: I am trying to understand just where you're coming from without misunderstanding you excessively. A little more help from you would be nice, if you happen to have the time.

[Winehole23]

Maybe, just maybe, Halliburton is protesting the possible interruption of its customary immunities to US law a bit too loudly. (elbamba seems to construe it as a crime in progress :lol)

It were better people did not have that in the record before them in the first place, as a pure PR issue.

[Winehole23]

The only criminal act is what congress is doing, imho.