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.
This system DOESN'T work, that's what we're saying. The company allowed this to happen repeatedly. Despite their being a clause in their contract forbidding lawsuits, that does not mean they should not take action to prevent illegal behavior simply because they cannot be sued for the same. What is so difficult to understand that they did not do what needed to be done to protect their employees??
without a doubt they should be helping authorities in EVERY way possible, but in no way should be held responsible for the actions of a few dirtbags.
Just because i dont think she should be able to SUE the company suddenly makes me the guy who "condones rape"
without a doubt they should be helping authorities in EVERY way possible, but in no way should be held responsible for the actions of a few dirtbags.
Just because i dont think she should be able to SUE the company suddenly makes me the guy who "condones rape"
Obviously, they are anticipating violent crimes such as rape if they have a clause about distancing themselves from it. Don't you think that they should have more stringent rules and laws for the people that they employ?
without a doubt they should be helping authorities in EVERY way possible, but in no way should be held responsible for the actions of a few dirtbags.
Just because i dont think she should be able to SUE the company suddenly makes me the guy who "condones rape"
The worst part of this entire case is that it happened to other women prior to Ms. Jones. The company, by ignoring prior reporting of rapes, is guilty of not taking any steps to prevent it from happening again. They obviously didn't go after the men who raped the first time or any of the other instances thereafter because of this idiotic clause that protected them. After all, they didn't have to worry about any money coming out of their pocket, so why spend any to keep employees safe? Now, their inaction is going to cost them dearly or at least it should.
I never said you, personally, condoned rape. I do think that if someone you loved had been treated as this woman had, you wouldn't give a damn about a contract.
Obviously, they are anticipating violent crimes such as rape if they have a clause about distancing themselves from it. Don't you think that they should have more stringent rules and laws for the people that they employ?
there is no clause about rape. come on people! lets be realistic here.
The company is wrong for not helping authorities. they are right for standing behind teh fact that they are not responsible for her rape
The worst part of this entire case is that it happened to other women prior to Ms. Jones. The company, by ignoring prior reporting of rapes, is guilty of not taking any steps to prevent it from happening again. They obviously didn't go after the men who raped the first time or any of the other instances thereafter because of this idiotic clause that protected them. After all, they didn't have to worry about any money coming out of their pocket, so why spend any to keep employees safe? Now, their inaction is going to cost them dearly or at least it should.
I never said you, personally, condoned rape. I do think that if someone you loved had been treated as this woman had, you wouldn't give a damn about a contract.
that statement is the problem with people. If you dont like a contract, dont sign it. nobody is forcing you! If you do sign it, it is a legal binding contract! case closed. what is a contract if people dont give a damn about it?
...and the historical racist Jeff Sessions from Alabama just took the cake stating that these types of situations are merely "disputes."Really...brutal gang rape is just a "dispute?" That statement is beyond comical.
.
Perhaps the men that voted against this need to be subjected to the same sort of 'disputes'.
If you want to call Dan Inouye's office to let him know how you feel about this, here is his phone # 202-224-3934. I am not posting his personal phone # but his office #.
there is no clause about rape. come on people! lets be realistic here.
The company is wrong for not helping authorities. they are right for standing behind teh fact that they are not responsible for her rape
When she got home and reported the rape, she was told that an arbitration clause in her contract made it impossible for her to sue Halliburton or the men who raped her. She would have to settle for binding arbitration, which meant little if any penalty to the company and no criminal penalty to the men involved.
I don't know what else to call this clause if not a CLAUSE!
I'll be very realistic...why is it when you are provided with information, you negate it without doing the due dilligence of researching it first? Why do you leave it up to the people that have gotten the facts straight prior to posting to provide you with proof of the accurate information?
Last edited by sickofnyc; 10-22-2009 at 06:32 PM..
If you want to call Dan Inouye's office to let him know how you feel about this, here is his phone # 202-224-3934. I am not posting his personal phone # but his office #.
Thanks
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.
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.
