Reply With Quote
I thought this was about rape. Nutjob (not even conservative) posts for the win!
she probably thought "hmmmm, a job or unemployment. what could happen?"
rape=frivolous, good to know.get rid of frivolous lawsuits and co. wouldn't need arbitration clauses.
?yo mama
they are about as independent as a no-bid contractor corp.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.
I thought this was about rape. Nutjob (not even conservative) posts for the win!
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.
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.
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.
There you have it. I don't know their reasoning but my guess is they ruled it unconscionable?the courts ruled that she didn't have to abide by the contract and could take Halliburton to court.
Which outrages people more: imaginary sex slaves or real rape?
It's understandable how you think the average individual is dumb and in need of govt. "help.
I am completely against no-bid contract, like union deals.they are about as independent as a no-bid contractor corp.
What is the correlation between this and ACORN?
You really don't see it?
That's hilarious.
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?
Your an idiot. Trying to make it obvious doesn't make it obvious.
Touche'.Its obviousness makes it obvious.Trying to make it obvious doesn't make it obvious.
Have you figured it out yet?
So, basically, you can't back up your claim. Talking out your ass, as usual.Oh steaks on friday. I don't know. But it was good. A1 sauce
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.
Do you always pretend to be stupid when people call you on your bull 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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
