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

[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?

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]

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 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.

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 en led 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 en y 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 en led 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.