U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: How would you vote on the amendment?
Yea 6 40.00%
Nay 9 60.00%
Voters: 15. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 10-12-2009, 07:12 AM
 
Location: NJ/NY
10,635 posts, read 16,653,634 times
Reputation: 2808

Advertisements

While this amendment enjoyed some bi-partisan support: 30 People voted AGAINST this amendment to withdraw funding to defense contractions that put clauses in their contracts that sexual assault will be handled by an arbitrator selected by the company rather than in the courts. The woman in the article was gang raped and unable to file charges due to that clause.

How would you vote? (Text of Amendment below)
Quote:
To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims.
Think Progress Franken Wins Bipartisan Support For Legislation Reining In KBR€™s Treatment Of Rape

Quote:
In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” (Jones was not an isolated case.) 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.

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.” Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, Franken said:

The constitution gives everybody the right to due process of law … And today, defense contractors are using fine print in their contracts do deny women like Jamie Leigh Jones their day in court. … The victims of rape and discrimination deserve their day in court [and] Congress plainly has the constitutional power to make that happen.

Last edited by newtoli; 10-12-2009 at 07:21 AM..

 
Old 10-12-2009, 09:02 AM
 
8,180 posts, read 11,294,326 times
Reputation: 2880
Thanks for bringing this to everyones attention ---- I must admit that I doubted Al Frankens ability to govern, but he earns a lot of respect for this!!

Here is a list of those that voted nay -- I for one will be contacting my states senator who voted against this and will demand to know

why.U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
 
Old 10-12-2009, 09:36 AM
 
Location: NJ/NY
10,635 posts, read 16,653,634 times
Reputation: 2808
I had no idea really that it was even happening, but I was so disgusted to find out it is.

To put a clause in an employment contract stating that sexual assault will be punished by the company (by an arbitrator hired by the company, no less) rather than by the courts is plain WRONG - and any company that does it should NOT receive federal dollars.

I want to know WHY 30 people would vote against this amendment.

I want to know WHY it was even legal to put such things in a contract in the first place??? Reading what happened to this woman, it's absolutely disgusting - her father had to call his senator to intervene just to get her released from a shipping container her employer put her in:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=3977702&page=1
 
Old 10-12-2009, 09:40 AM
 
Location: um....guess
10,478 posts, read 13,872,807 times
Reputation: 1825
My senators voted for the amendment. But hey, it got passed so that's all that matters.
 
Old 10-12-2009, 09:51 AM
 
Location: Idaho Falls
5,027 posts, read 5,542,559 times
Reputation: 1479
Your title is a bit misleading - I think it confuses two different issues.

One is that crimes committed in Iraq have an unusual legal status based on the strange AUMF and supporting legal agreements between the US, Iraq, and the contractors. It's not really clear who should be going for criminal convictions.

The issue at play with Franken's amendment is on the civil side. Who does Jamie Leigh Jones go in her attempt to sue KBR? Does she get to go before an American court, or does a third party arbitration company decide how much KBR pays her.

Clearly, there should be crimes so henious that civil law supercedes employment contracts, and clearly, what happened to Jones crossed that line. However, it's not clear where that line should be - especially in the crazy legal system of occupied Iraq.

It's just another example of the insane "logic" created when we decided that invading Iraq was the goal and then tried to figure out how to justify it.
 
Old 10-12-2009, 09:57 AM
 
7,422 posts, read 13,727,171 times
Reputation: 4944
i wish the people voting "yes" (who are in the lead right now) would explain their reasoning.
 
Old 10-12-2009, 10:06 AM
 
Location: NJ/NY
10,635 posts, read 16,653,634 times
Reputation: 2808
Quote:
Originally Posted by groar View Post
i wish the people voting "yes" (who are in the lead right now) would explain their reasoning.
I should have worded the title differently. The actual poll question is if you would vote yes or no on the amendment. Voting yes would indicate that you were in favor of the amendment to not provide federal funds to companies that do such things.
 
Old 10-12-2009, 10:09 AM
 
Location: um....guess
10,478 posts, read 13,872,807 times
Reputation: 1825
Quote:
Originally Posted by groar View Post
i wish the people voting "yes" (who are in the lead right now) would explain their reasoning.
Voting yes to the amendment means they do NOT want a 3rd party company to arbitrate, which is a good thing I personally think. Just think how many times those companies would get paid off by the senior company to deliberate in favor of the defendant?
 
Old 10-12-2009, 10:12 AM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,884 posts, read 13,048,329 times
Reputation: 5212
Quote:
Originally Posted by groar View Post
i wish the people voting "yes" (who are in the lead right now) would explain their reasoning.

I voted yes, but I also took by your question that the poll was about whether or not the bill should be passed.
 
Old 10-12-2009, 10:39 AM
 
8,180 posts, read 11,294,326 times
Reputation: 2880
Oh crap. I read the poll wrong -- I voted 'yea' when I should have voted 'nay'.

Obviously private companies should not be able to put a clause in an employment contract that stipulates sexual assaults will be dealt with in private arbitration and not through the legal system. The fact that Halliburton put such a clause in makes me believe that they fully expected sexual assaults to occur against their female employees by their male employees (though I would not doubt that there have been male on male violance as well).

Halliburton stinks to high heaven - it is past time to remove such corrupted filth from the federal teat.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top