Reply With Quote
All so they can avoid the possibility that an employee might sue for sexual harassment??
he doesn't respect his daughters.
All so they can avoid the possibility that an employee might sue for sexual harassment??
Heretic! He must be purged!
Man they grow 'em smart up there in Oregon.
WC continues to prove how much of a joke he is.
the men were just being men and she doesn't deserve her day in court.
ship her to gitmo.
My God man. Are you really that re ed? 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.
You show your ignorance for not understanding the bad in the amendment. You are the joke.
So Republicans are against imaginary child pros ution but for real rape.
Sounds about right.
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 le 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.
Look who you are writing to. They don't use logic. They think welfare helps poor people.
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.
Is abortion in the first and second trimester murder?
no
Other people read this thread, enlighten them. Explain in detail why this particular admendment is so harmful.
Hmmm. I'm not entirely sure about this. The story doesn't seem to be as objectively written as it should be.
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?
if she got pregnant from the rape and got an abortion...she should be tried for murder.
Which is being appealed by Halliburton.
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:
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.or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention
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.
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.
Ah, so this is all a matter of "taste".
wc will side with a company that hires people that can get away with rape.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
