My God...

Thats incredible but I would also remind you that it is very easy to crop video and interject your own comments to redirect video context.

Now I am not saying that has happened here but I think I would like to see an uncut version of that tape before I fire up the villagers for a hanging.
 
That goes without saying MontyB, I haven't researched this extensively and my reaction is solely to the linked video.

What worries me more than people voting against removing this, is how the hell this legislation got in place at all.
 
It's actions like these that can and have kindle(d) revolutions isn't it :???: makes one wonder about the *psychological stability* of the senators n if not, it should be a concern. Real or not.
 
This is what the bill said:

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.

http://www.dcemploymentlawupdate.com/articles/arbitration/

 
I cannot see the video not available in my country. Is this not a satirical show?
Have these bill legislators never heard of a Fog index?

Assume this is what it is about,

You may have seen a recent segment of The Daily Show captioned "Rape-Nuts," pertaining to Sen. Al Franken's amendment to a defense appropriation bill banning the use of mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts which bar employees from suing their employer for civil damages, even in cases of criminal misconduct of rape and sexual assault. (There is a split among the circuit courts of appeal regarding the enforceability of these mandatory arbitration agreements. I believe they are one-sided contracts of adhesion that are unenforceable as a matter of public policy. Several courts agree.)

The satirical segment by The Daily Show does not do this story justice or treat it with the seriousness which this topic deserves. Susie Madrak of Crooksandliars.com wrote this post Sen. Al Franken Stands Up to Support KBR Rape Victim and Others Like Her:
Click to expand...

http://arizona.typepad.com/blog/2009/10/rapenuts.html
 
I'm not in the habit of claiming to understand why politicians do what they do but maybe it was the mandated arbitration that they opposed. I think you've got to take everything into consideration before you pass judgement.
 
I believe there is a limit as to what you can put into a contract.
For example, if in the fine print, it said, "By signing this contract, you, the consentee, agree to become a property of XO Corporation and will forfeit any personal rights or freedoms and agree to be subject to all of XO Corporation's orders until permanent death, be it natural or unnatural," you would actually not be subject to that clause.
Now I don't know for sure but it is what a lawyer told me.

Although it's not exactly the case, I have a feeling that getting gang raped and then locked in a box would come pretty close.
 
Well, the bill is about corporations wishing to do business with the federal government having all inclusive mandated arbitration clauses in employment contracts.

The article Perseus presented is a fair summary of the case. And the_13th_redneck is almost right. whether you can enforce such a contract varies from court to court and state to state. The same article Perseus showed covered that as well.

I personally won't sign an agreement to mandatory arbitration. They are more common than you think these days. You'll find them at car dealerships all the way to plumbers.
 
That corporations will even attempt to enforce such contracts is sufficient proof is that we need strong employment legislation to maintain an adequate quality of life for the masses, because they will stop at nothing in the search for higher profits.
 
How can someone sue a company because they get raped anyway. Sounds like a money grab that these companies want to protect themselves from. It's not the company that rapes them, it's a person, nothing to do with the company.
 
"How can someone sue a company because they get raped anyway."

Something along the lines of unsafe work environment I suppose or complicity by company supervisors, before and after.

And you shouldn't forget the allegation of false imprisonment by corporate representatives after she reported the rape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top