| |
The Halliburton/KBR employment contract rape clause.
by Decius at 9:00 am EDT, Oct 8, 2009 |
This is absolutely mind boggling. In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad... 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.
Seriously!? In my time I've seen many examples of lawyers abusing the imbalanced negotiating position present in employment contacts but this takes the cake. An agreement not to press charges for rape? Are you fucking kidding me?! Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed 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.” On the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) spoke against the amendment, calling it “a political attack directed at Halliburton.” In the end, Franken won the debate. His amendment passed by a 68-30 vote, earning the support of 10 Republican senators including that of newly-minted Florida Sen. George LeMieux.
30 United States Senators voted against this? What could the basis of their opposition possibly be? Al Franken is not above political grandstanding at all, but when push comes to shove, why would you oppose this? I've searched on Google for an alternative perspective to no avail. Does anyone know a source where these people have articulated their position? As LeMieux put it: "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."
If anything Franken's amendment does not go far enough. This is prima facie evidence that there is a serious structural problem with employment contracts. No contract clause of this sort ought to be respected in any context relevant to US law and major reform of rules surrounding US employment contracts is needed. People who voted against this amendment include:
Alexander (R-TN)
Bond (R-MO)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Corker (R-TN)
Isakson (R-GA) |
| |
RE: The Halliburton/KBR employment contract rape clause.
by Neoteric at 4:48 pm EDT, Oct 8, 2009 |
People who voted against this amendment include:
Alexander (R-TN)
Bond (R-MO)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Corker (R-TN)
Isakson (R-GA)
Hint guys... anything that time that a vote can be described as "pro-rape" is probably a bad vote. --timball |
|
Calling Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss
by Acidus at 9:59 pm EDT, Oct 8, 2009 |
This is absolutely mind boggling. In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad... 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.
I simply do not understand how this is even possible. Obviously a civil contract between 2 parties cannot prevent a district attorney from calling a grand jury and seeking an indictment. However he/she probably would not do so without the victim's testimony. Surely it is not possible to waive your right to speak at a trial? Has a judge ever order a rape victim to appear in court or give testimony? Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed 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.” On the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) spoke against the amendment, calling it “a political attack directed at Halliburton.” In the end, Franken won the debate. His amendment passed by a 68-30 vote, earning the support of 10 Republican senators including that of newly-minted Florida Sen. George LeMieux.
Who in their right fucking mind would vote *against* an amendment like this? It not as if these senators voted against a bill that already had this amendment because the bill also had another utterly insane amendment they could not in good conscience vote for. These people voted against the amendment. I mean really. This is not about right vs. left. I don't give a fuck if its the lame-duck Dems scoring points off a defense contractor. Be the better man. Corporations should not be allowed to place forced arbitration clauses into employment contracts for cover any type of violent criminal offense. Period. End of discuss. 30 fucking percent of those who represent the American people voted against this? Just let that sink in. ... Both Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss, the 2 senators from Georgia voted against this ammendment. I will be calling their Washington offices tomorrow to express my shock and outrage. Please feel free to do the same: Johnny Isakson: 202-224-3643
Saxby Chambliss: 202-224-3521 |
| |
RE: Calling Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss
by k at 2:12 am EDT, Oct 11, 2009 |
Acidus wrote:
I mean really. This is not about right vs. left.
Oh, LOL, you still think there's anything -- ANYTHING -- too sacred for the average national politician to view through a lens other than, ahem, a political one. I applaud that you've somehow retained one or two shreds of idealism... Of course this is an outrage, but look back over the last ten years or so. It's one outrage after another. One "What are they even talking about?!" after another. One example of utter and complete hypocrisy after another. One "How can *anyone* even think that way!? It doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense! zblergle flargen pzort *head asplode*" after another. I literally can't take it anymore... there's simply no way to wrap a logical mind around the situation in this country without stipulating that huge numbers of people are complete morons and just simple don't know or don't care that their representatives are out and out liars and opportunists. At which point said rational mind decides the only thing to do is bow out gracefully since there's no longer any place for it here and maybe it'd have more fun writing code or reading a nice book. The majority of national politicians -- not to even mention the punditocracy -- now behave, without reflection, without any attempt to spend a few minutes to apply reason or logic, in knee jerk opposition to what they think the other party wants to do. Those 30 people would have voted against ANYTHING proposed by ANY Democrat. I honestly believe that there is no action that could be taken by the president that wouldn't be maligned in some way by the majority of Republicans. He could literally cast down Osama Bin Laden with bolts of lightning and they'd be going batshit insane about him spending his precious time surreptitiously learning the Force and if it's appropriate for the president (and a Nobel Peace Prize Recipient!!!) to have the power to electrocute people with his mind. And I think that while the Democrats are marginally more capable of actually thinking, they either don't realize how utterly useless it is to engage in any such logical endeavor and end up losing when their opponent destroys them on trumped up ideology or else they just end up capitulating without a real fight in the face of a political ideology that's Lovecraftian in it's capacity to drive a man mad. (This is intriguing, actually... I think henceforth I'll refer to the various bleatings, tearful demagoguery and self interested pontificating of the "Right" as Nyarlathotep, the simultaneously singular God and incomprehensibly ramified multitude referred to as the Crawling Chaos -- each time I happen across some screed put out by these mendacious bastards I feel like my brain is trying to search every surface of a 3d fractal for something it can recognize as "thought", whence comes insanity.) Reason is dead. Accountability is dead. Respectful debate on merits is so long dead it's mostly bones. Intellectualism is reviled and god forbid you should contemplate common ground... it's all now disputed territory and each square inch is won or lost in bloody battle (though, as in all wars, mostly it's the average person who suffers). The last time I communicated with a Senators office (Chambliss, I think) I was treated like a fringe nutbag (by the podunk fuckwit responsible for answering phone calls from constituents) for having the temerity to indicate that basic human compassion is a universal Good. Glad that dick isn't "representing" me anymore. Of course, now I live in DC where I don't even get representatives... part of me feels liberated by that. Having no voice means I don't have to worry about having it marginalized and ignored. |
|
| | |
RE: Calling Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss
by flynn23 at 2:48 am EDT, Oct 11, 2009 |
k wrote: Of course this is an outrage, but look back over the last ten years or so. It's one outrage after another. One "What are they even talking about?!" after another. One example of utter and complete hypocrisy after another. One "How can *anyone* even think that way!? It doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense! zblergle flargen pzort *head asplode*" after another. I literally can't take it anymore... there's simply no way to wrap a logical mind around the situation in this country without stipulating that huge numbers of people are complete morons and just simple don't know or don't care that their representatives are out and out liars and opportunists. At which point said rational mind decides the only thing to do is bow out gracefully since there's no longer any place for it here and maybe it'd have more fun writing code or reading a nice book. The majority of national politicians -- not to even mention the punditocracy -- now behave, without reflection, without any attempt to spend a few minutes to apply reason or logic, in knee jerk opposition to what they think the other party wants to do. Those 30 people would have voted against ANYTHING proposed by ANY Democrat.
This is all theater. Yes, the root cause of our societal ills is a complete lack of real education and critical thinking. BUT, the reason for this is because it allows this drama to be perpetuated over and over again, distracting us from the fact that corporations control everything and you are an economic slave. |
|
The Halliburton/KBR employment contract rape clause.
by Rattle at 8:40 pm EDT, Oct 8, 2009 |
This whole situation is truly mind boggling. It's ironic that the person to drive this into the limelight is the Senator that everyone likes to think is a joke. Nothing about rape is a laughing matter. Decius writes: This is absolutely mind boggling. In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad... 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.
Seriously!? In my time I've seen many examples of lawyers abusing the imbalanced negotiating position present in employment contacts but this takes the cake. An agreement not to press charges for rape? Are you fucking kidding me?! Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed 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.” On the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) spoke against the amendment, calling it “a political attack directed at Halliburton.” In the end, Franken won the debate. His amendment passed by a 68-30 vote, earning the support of 10 Republican senators including that of newly-minted Florida Sen. George LeMieux.
30 United States Senators voted against this? What could the basis of their opposition possibly be? Al Franken is not above political grandstanding at all, but when push comes to shove, why would you oppose this? I've searched on Google for an alternative perspective to no avail. Does anyone know a source where these people have articulated their position? As LeMieux put it: "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."
If anything Franken's amendment does not go far enough. This is prima facie evidence that there is a serious structural problem with employment contracts. No contract clause of this sort ought to be respected in any context relevant to US law and major reform of rules surrounding US employment contracts is needed. People who voted against this amendment include:
Alexander (R-TN)
Bond (R-MO)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Corker (R-TN)
Isakson (R-GA)
More on this from ThinkProgress, including video of Franken's speech on the floor. |
There is a redundant post from ubernoir not displayed in this view.
|
|
