Jump to content


Al Franken Amendment (SA 2588) passes


Recommended Posts

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/j...r_n_321985.html

 

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her Halliburton/KBR co-workers while working in Iraq and locked in a shipping container for over a day to prevent her from reporting her attack. The rape occurred outside of U.S. criminal jurisdiction, but to add serious insult to serious injury she was not allowed to sue KBR because her employment contract said that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration--a process that overwhelmingly favors corporations.

 

This year, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment that would deny defense contracts to companies that ask employees to sign away the right to sue. It passed, but it wasn't the slam dunk Jon Stewart expected. Instead the amendment received 30 nay votes all from Republicans. "I understand we're a divided country, some disagreements on health care. How is ANYONE against this?" He asked.

 

He went on to show video of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) arguing that it's not the government's place to decide who the government does business with and juxtaposed that with Republican sentiment on how the government should deal with ACORN. "I guess it's an efficiency thing. You don't want to waste tax-payer money giving it to someone who advises fake prostitutes how to commit imaginary crimes, you want to give it to Halliburton because they're committing real gang rape."

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/07/kbr-ra...nken-amendment/

 

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.

 

On the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) spoke against the amendment, calling it “a political attack directed at Halliburton.” Franken responded, “This amendment does not single out a single contractor. This amendment would defund any contractor that refuses to give a victim of rape their day in court.”

 

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. “He did what a senator should do, which was he was working it,” LeMieux said in praise of Franken. “He was working for his amendment.”

 

Appearing with Franken after the vote, an elated Jones expressed her deep appreciation. “It means the world to me,” she said of the amendment’s passage. “It means that every tear shed to go public and repeat my story over and over again to make a difference for other women was worth it.”

Link to comment
  • 5 weeks later...

I cannot believe not one person responded to this. I heard about this bill and the 30 votes and I was appalled. I was even more disgusted to find out that Mike Johanns was one of them.

 

But even more appalling is the fact that Johanns isn't being questioned about this by his constituents. WE are to blame for this.

Link to comment

I cannot believe not one person responded to this. I heard about this bill and the 30 votes and I was appalled. I was even more disgusted to find out that Mike Johanns was one of them.

 

But even more appalling is the fact that Johanns isn't being questioned about this by his constituents. WE are to blame for this.

First, most of us here knew the amendment for what it was. Just feelgood crap that doesn't do anything except throw a bone to the nutroot fringe at the Dailykooks, Huffpuff, Think Regress, and Moron Matters. It's about pushing the meme about the evil Bush/Cheney cabal with Haliburton and it's subsidiaries. When in fact, the continuation of a long trend toward hiring out to KBR that was exacerbated by the massive shift to defense contracting labor for sustaining overseas operations begun under the Clinton administration. I wonder how Senator Franken reconciles with himself knowing he profited off Haliburton stock all these years discovered in his financial disclosures while running for the Senate.

 

This is little more than a poison pill amendment.

 

Poison pill is a term referring to any strategy, generally in business or politics, to increase the likelihood of negative results over positive ones for a party that attempts any kind of opposition.

 

S.AMDT.2588

Amends: H.R.3326

Sponsor: Sen Franken, Al [MN] (submitted 10/1/2009) (proposed 10/1/2009)

 

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:

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.

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S10069-10070

STATUS:

 

* 10/1/2009: Amendment SA 2588 proposed by Senator Franken. (consideration: CR S10027-10028; text: CR S10027) 10/6/2009: Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S10143, S10146-10148, S10149-10150) 10/6/2009: Amendment SA 2588 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 68 - 30. Record Vote number: 308.

The language bolded if left by itself would violate the Bill of Attainder provision of the U.S. Constitution...No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. ..... shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Article I Sec. 9 U.S. Constitution

 

However, Franken added the the bolded italics passage to skirt the law as his intended target was mentioned directly.

SA 2588. Mr. FRANKEN (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3326, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; as follows:

 

On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

Sec. 8104. (a) 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 title 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. [Page: S10070] GPO's PDF (B) The prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply with respect to employment contracts that may not be enforced in a court of the United States.

This is an issue of what method is to be used to be compensated in money for a tort by ones employees. It has nothing to do with criminal law, civil fines or anything of the sort. It is solely about the method of acquiring compensation, not about the amount of compensation or whether there should be compensation. It is certainly not about approving of rape.

 

Whereas, it eliminates arbitration for any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act, any claim resulting from negligent hiring, negligent supervision or retention of an employee--virtually any employment dispute that is now resolvable under arbitration, which the U.S. Supreme Court has said is good. Statistics show that employees get final judgment and actually win more cases under arbitration than they do going to the expense of a Federal court trial.

 

The whole thread is based on the falsehood that she was forced into arbitration, whereas the issue has already been resolved in federal court and there is no need for any amendment to change the arbitration process. What we are seeing here is government overreach by Congress subsequently rewriting existing contracts. Jones had won her case that sexual assault lies outside the arbitration process. Haliburton subsequently appealed and lost again. http://federalappeals.net/2009/09/jones-v-...tration-clause/

 

Obama's DOD was against this amendment from the start because they have provisions for this kind of criminal prosecution in place, and they do not want the Congress micromanaging who they award contracts to. The Department of Defense could have and still can prosecute these crimes under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act and the Patriot Act's special maritime and territorial jurisdiction provisions, but has opted not to for some reason not disclosed.

 

The only thing this bill does is enrich the trial lawyers lobby who see $$$$ in frivolous lawsuits where the taxpayer will be picking up the cost. Sure, Jones praised the legislation Franken passed but it is symbolism over substance. Jones was duped if she thinks this legislation will do anything.

 

......And if you ask the question if you are fine with continuing to give contracts to companies that do not allow their employees to file criminal charges against people that have raped them? Obama's Congress did just that with a 30 million KBR award in February.

Link to comment

Why do you think, if these provisions (MEJA, PA) provide for such prosecutions, they haven't been seen in court yet? MEJA dates back to 2000. That's Bush II and nearly a year of Obama. What's the holdup?

 

And if the DOD isn't prosecuting these cases, shouldn't it be easier for the victim of such crimes to be heard in court? Should the DOD, who cannot be called an impartial third party in these cases, have the final say whether these victims are heard?

 

I'm OK with spending a couple of taxpayer dollars on trials like this. In my opinion, this is what my government should be doing with my money.

Link to comment

Why do you think, if these provisions (MEJA, PA) provide for such prosecutions, they haven't been seen in court yet? MEJA dates back to 2000. That's Bush II and nearly a year of Obama. What's the holdup?

 

And if the DOD isn't prosecuting these cases, shouldn't it be easier for the victim of such crimes to be heard in court? Should the DOD, who cannot be called an impartial third party in these cases, have the final say whether these victims are heard?

 

I'm OK with spending a couple of taxpayer dollars on trials like this. In my opinion, this is what my government should be doing with my money.

The whole point of my lengthy post was that she won her day in court. The arbitration process didn't cover the allegations she brought forth on sexual assault. She could have sued the company at any time in civil court if she wanted monetary damages.

 

The reason why there were NO votes on this legislation was because it was junk legislation with no teeth or enforcement.

 

MEJA and PA falls under the jurisdiction of the AG's office. They may have felt she had no case because she only knows the name of one of her attackers and they were all under the influence of alcohol. Otherwise, have no idea why there wasn't prosecutions because there was no formal statement from the AG's office on the case unless it is a still ongoing investigation.

Link to comment

All for protecting the innocent. Waste billions on a lot of frivolous things so spending for a good cause seems like a good thing. Will it work or be worth it :dunno

 

 

 

GBR

Problem is trial lawyers eat up most of the awards in fees leaving the plaintiffs with little compensation.

Link to comment
Problem is trial lawyers eat up most of the awards in fees leaving the plaintiffs with little compensation.

 

True, but if at the end of the day the company is punished, that's a worthy result as well. The victim may never be made whole again (and really, how can they?), but if the company goes unpunished it'll happen again. And again. And again.

 

The reason these bits of legislation aren't entirely wasted is they keep that nagging thought in the back of every company's mind, "We could go to jail for this."

 

That's a good thought for companies who operate on the fringes of the law to have.

Link to comment
Problem is trial lawyers eat up most of the awards in fees leaving the plaintiffs with little compensation.

 

True, but if at the end of the day the company is punished, that's a worthy result as well. The victim may never be made whole again (and really, how can they?), but if the company goes unpunished it'll happen again. And again. And again.

 

The reason these bits of legislation aren't entirely wasted is they keep that nagging thought in the back of every company's mind, "We could go to jail for this."

 

That's a good thought for companies who operate on the fringes of the law to have.

Is the company really punished when they pass on their cost of doing business (lawsuits, taxes, ect.) to their customers?

Link to comment

Problem is trial lawyers eat up most of the awards in fees leaving the plaintiffs with little compensation.

 

True, but if at the end of the day the company is punished, that's a worthy result as well. The victim may never be made whole again (and really, how can they?), but if the company goes unpunished it'll happen again. And again. And again.

 

The reason these bits of legislation aren't entirely wasted is they keep that nagging thought in the back of every company's mind, "We could go to jail for this."

 

That's a good thought for companies who operate on the fringes of the law to have.

Is the company really punished when they pass on their cost of doing business (lawsuits, taxes, ect.) to their customers?

Yes. There's no guarantee their customers will accept those costs. Even a product as inelastic as gasoline found a ceiling last year. Charge too much for anything and you'll lose your buyers, even for something so vital as gas.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...