Reply With Quote
How does Franken's Amendment change any of your hyperbole?
You know, I did make a point of couching the employer's duty in terms of an employee's work for the employer or being on premises controlled by the employer. But I suppose that was too subtle for WC.
I'm sure, if WC ever has a say about it, if I'm stabbed at my desk while working, I'll have no recourse to recover from my employer; and if the state gets to my assailant before I do and begins a prosecution of that person before I can get a judgment in a civil suit then I'm just SOL with those injuries that were no fault of my own.
How does Franken's Amendment change any of your hyperbole?
FWD's example is analogous to Ms. Jones's situation, and the figure of speech used was understatement, not hyperbole.
Never let your zeal for exac ude interfere with the flames, SnC .
Franken's Amendment would, I'd submit, require that the employers who owe duties to protect their employees from things like rape will have claims arising from their breaches of those duties referred to courts of law instead of arbitrators. I support that.
Wild Cobra has been insisting that the employer, by contrast, has no duty to the employee to prevent a rape and disputes the rationales for allowing pursuit of both criminal and civil penalties for the same conduct; my hypothetical simply illustrates my disagreement with Wild Cobra's untethered logic, which is the intellectual mooring for his argument that the Franken Amendment goes too far.
That isn't an understatement.
FWD comparing himself getting hurt behind his desk at work to Ms. Jones getting raped at work is understatement.
I'm not sure why anyone would be bellyaching over criminal liability in this case. Maybe I'm missing something, but the center of this controversy has to do with arbitration and civil liability arising from rape.
You're right, doobs, but surely you're not suggesting there shouldn't be criminal liability for rape. Are you?
The language of the bill in how it is only toward American companies trying for contracts. WH: This bll has nothing to do with criminal liability. Why do you keep trying to bring that up in this discussion?
I see the reference to stabbing now; first time through I didn't. It isn't understatement. In correcting you I made an error myself. Didn't I just post on that somewhere?
Not sure it's hyperbole either. It still looks like an analogy to me.
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-29-2009 at 01:04 PM.
Why are you being such a concern troll about topicality?
The question of criminal liability is still relevant to the victim and any just resolution of her case, even if the Franken Amendment does not address it.
No, of course not. What makes you think I was suggesting that?
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that the Franken Amendment has nothing to do with criminal liability for rape. And, btw, the required arbitration clause in this case did nothing to prevent this woman from pursuing her claim.
I've underlined the parts that would have made me consider voting against it:
This sounds like a nifty trick to simultaneously help out trial lawyers and demonize the opposition.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.
I was unsure. You seem not to be bothered that Ms. Jones apparently has no standing in any criminal court, and content that she still has a civil remedy.
It's a foot in the door for sure.
If Halliburton had sought justice for their employee instead of stonewalling and insisting on an arbitrated remedy for false imprisonment and gang rape, maybe it wouldn't have come to this.
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-29-2009 at 01:06 PM.
At any rate, the Franken Amendment stands a decent chance of being stripped from the bill, I've heard.
Oh, come on. We're discussing the Franken Amendment, and only the Franken Amendment.
Nice try, though.
Sure. Maybe.
But this isn't about Halliburton or the rape of Jamie Jones or "pro-rape Republicans"---except to the mindless left and its cynical leaders. This is totally about throwing some meat to trial lawyers.
Think about the actual impact of this amendment. Companies are FAR more likely to encounter employment discrimination or sexual harassment lawsuits than lawsuits arising out of rape. (And, I would like to note again, the arbitration clause in this case was held to be unenforceable.) What is wrong with an employer and an employee agreeing in an employment contract to require arbitration in these more-common kinds of cases?
I wonder what the vote would have been if Franken had limited his amendment only to cases arising out of sexual assault.
Actually, the conversation has been wide-ranging and includes the ambient cir stances of the case. Your insistence on one topic at a time is hypertechnical and IMO, a bit cynical. This isn't a courtroom. It's a discussion board.Oh, come on. We're discussing the Franken Amendment, and only the Franken Amendment.
Nice try, though.
When discussing the amendment at issue, surely reference to the case from which it arises is germane.
This is a plausible take.
I agree.
That would have been more apropos, but again, perhaps the amplitude of the amendment relates also to the brazenness of war contractors.I wonder what the vote would have been if Franken had limited his amendment only to cases arising out of sexual assault.
Sure it is. And the conversation here may have been wide-ranging, but you said: "I was unsure. You seem not to be bothered that Ms. Jones has apparently no standing in any criminal court." (Emphasis mine.)
How do I seem unbothered about that? Because I didn't comment on it at all? I think it's kind of irrelevant to the Franken Amendment; in fact, that's kind of my point.
Ok.
I would hope so. My senator's office must have recieved a whole lot of complaints. As soon as I mentioned my concern to one of them, the guy answering was obviously in distress, and said something like "yes, you want to say how fascist we are." Thing is, I never said any more than having a concern and question. I was nice, but this guy basically yelled back at me.
They must have some really hard days answering those phones.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions