Better?mspencer82 said:Might be helpful if the thread title didn't imply something else. Also, saying "A 'Nay' vote is a vote for rape." kind of makes your position a little unclear.
While I do hate Kit Bond(one of my senators) I mildly feel like there was more to this legislation. Even if the reason is purely economic, I would like to know what made people like Bond vote against this.Alex_P said:snip
At spec, there's no sane person who wouldn't agree with you. The government doesn't allow for certain rights to be consigned under any circumstance, contract or no. Short, plausible, concise, and completely missing the point. Anything in law in a question of (a) propriety, and (b) cost-benefit analysis. If we accept that we should never be allowed to sign away the right to litigation, the fallout is a bit more broad than just this one case.DeathWyrmNexus said:~Snip~
Once again, you're conflating two issues. I have absolutely no problem with saying "they have to have rigorous safety protocols to prevent raping and pillaging". That's not the issue. The question isn't "should they prevent rape", it's "should the government disallow the use of binding arbitration in contracts". If you want to have a real conversation on the merits, please don't confuse and align the two as being in any way intimately related. There exists no privity between "rape is bad" and "binding arbitration is something we shouldn't allow". I even have no problem with prosecution of these crimes. I said that in my post. But the bill in question (a) does nothing for this case (since it can't apply ex post facto), (b) does bugger all to actually enforce lawfulness in Iraq for the PMCs, and (c) is a massive overreaction of misdirected rage.Alex_P said:With the sharp increase in contractors providing field support and private military services, we increasingly face situations where contract workers operate in situations of danger and lawlessness. Just as the government has always mandated strict standards for security and labor accounting for firms that engage in research and manufacturing back home, it now needs to manage the safety and conduct of contractors overseas. Previously, it could rely on the normal laws that all US corporations follow to do this stuff; it's hard to enforce those in a warzone, which is where more and more contractor operations are happening. Should the government suspend the Uniform Code of Military Justice to try to save some money, too?
Nice dodge, dude. I'm serious, I've done it before, and this is impressive. You not only take my argument to the illogical extreme, but you put words in my mouth, but you do so in a way that makes it sort of sound like I did say it. That's well done.Alex_P said:The position that setting limitations on contracts encourages "foolishness" is absurd. Where's the benefit in a system that allows a business deal to invalidate basic rights, exactly?
People like to imagine that a world of contracts in place of laws will free us to make our own decisions. Quite the opposite: it'll chain us up and drug us down. Unrestricted contracts create a situation where each and every transaction can generate its own body of law, utterly stripping citizens of their ability to understand the law or engage with it.
-- Alex
KBR/Haliburton has used arbitration to squelch a pattern of sexual assault among its employees. Knocking this stuff out into the open is rather important if you're actually going to deal with it.Seldon2639 said:Once again, you're conflating two issues. I have absolutely no problem with saying "they have to have rigorous safety protocols to prevent raping and pillaging". That's not the issue. The question isn't "should they prevent rape", it's "should the government disallow the use of binding arbitration in contracts". If you want to have a real conversation on the merits, please don't confuse and align the two as being in any way intimately related. There exists no privity between "rape is bad" and "binding arbitration is something we shouldn't allow". I even have no problem with prosecution of these crimes. I said that in my post. But the bill in question (a) does nothing for this case (since it can't apply ex post facto), (b) does bugger all to actually enforce lawfulness in Iraq for the PMCs, and (c) is a massive overreaction of misdirected rage.
Government contractors have always had to live up to higher standards than regular ol' corporations. It's necessary because of the sensitive nature of their work.Seldon2639 said:What makes her claim of negligence (in terms of the law, rather than a high-minded emotional reaction) more worthy of protection?
Sexual assault, assault and battery, and false imprisonment all represent violations of basic rights. Given the way person-to-company arbitration favors the business, settling those claims in arbitration is tantamount to signing your protections away. (The false imprisonment was perpetrated by someone acting on behalf of the company, not ones of the rapists.)Seldon2639 said:I don't believe a business deal should be able to invalidate a basic right. But you assume without evidence that litigation is a basic right. I agree that bringing a grievance is a basic right, but when other administrative procedures exist (like, say, arbitration) why is "litigation" a "basic right"? Until we suss out whether litigation is a basic right (hint: the Supreme Court says it's not, and will (I hope) smack this law down so hard it'll make your head spin).
Yeah really, they might be crooked as hell but atleast they're anti-rape.Zetona said:For all the political craziness in New Jersey at the moment, at least our senators voted Yea.
The government can overreact (and even do some really silly things) without anything have to do with pork, or hundred-page bills. Massive just means scope, not the length of the bill. Your claim that there is a pattern of sexual abuse which has been "squelshed" through arbitration (odd, since arbitration is done in front of an unbiased officer (often a judge) and is often to the benefit of the employee) is unsubstantiated by any evidence you've provided. I don't disagree that sexual assault, battery, and false imprisonment can't be forced into arbitration, but that's also not really what the bill says. There's a difference between "sexual assault" and "negligence" or "abetting". The sexual assault claims (which are criminal in nature, and directed at the perpetrator himself), have nothing to do with arbitration with the company. She wants punitive damages to the company for tort claims.Alex_P said:KBR/Haliburton has used arbitration to squelch a pattern of sexual assault among its employees. Knocking this stuff out into the open is rather important if you're actually going to deal with it.
The 5th Circuit, which ruled on Ms. Jones' case, has already made a decision that sexual assault, battery, and false imprisonment can't be forced into arbitration. Far from a "massive overreaction", the amendment was an attempt to build on that decision in a narrow and targeted way. A "massive overreaction" would be more like turning this whole thing into a giant bill with its own hundred pages of rules, loopholes, and pork.
That's confusing the issue again. Higher standard is fine. Make them put in more safeguards, sure. Force them to be more careful in watching, fine. What does that have to do with binding arbitration? Arbitration only (and I can't stress this enough) deals with civil liabilitiesAlex_P said:Government contractors have always had to live up to higher standards than regular ol' corporations. It's necessary because of the sensitive nature of their work.
Once again, you're misstating my position. I accept that one cannot give permission to be sexually assaulted, assaulted, or falsely imprisoned. But there's a difference between the criminal and tort components of that. Criminal violations are still handled by the court (they can't be consigned to arbitration), the only thing you can consign is your right to civil litigation (she can't sue for damages).Alex_P said:Sexual assault, assault and battery, and false imprisonment all represent violations of basic rights. Given the way person-to-company arbitration favors the business, settling those claims in arbitration is tantamount to signing your protections away. (The false imprisonment was perpetrated by someone acting on behalf of the company, not ones of the rapists.)
-- Alex
I read the text of the amendment (it is short).manaman said:I at least can hold out judgment until I can find the particulars on this issue.
You're forgetting that there was a contract involved. If you remember the AIG bonuses, one of the guiding principals of government/corporation relationship in this country is that a contact is binding. The the case of AIG, before the economic collapse, certain employees were given contracts for X amount of dollars upon Y event, specifically, hiring and severence packages. Which is why even though the government gives them bailout money which they mishandle, the government isn't in much of a position to do anything about it. Sure, they could sue, but it would be years in court and make the government look like blundering idiots who didn't know what they were pumping money into.Seldon2639 said:Even assuming (arguendo) that arbitration provides a shield for strict liability, it does nothing for criminal charges. The only thing in question is tort claims, not criminal claims.
I can promise you I read the full text of the amendment (and I wonder whether Alex has as well), which provides that no money go to contractors who have binding arbitration of "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."Cheeze_Pavilion said:I don't think Alex made any such categorical statement--I think you just misunderstand the state of the law.
Uh... Not really. Read your own Wiki cite: "For a contract to be treated as a contract of adhesion, it must be presented on a standard form on a ?take it or leave it? basis, and give the purchaser no ability to negotiate because of their unequal bargaining position"Cheeze_Pavilion said:A long time ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_of_adhesion#Contracts_of_adhesion
I guess all those reality shows I've watched have been really illegal. And a lot of porn, too. The use of this statute (like that of "outrageous conduct") in caselaw requires an act so beyond the pale as to be patently disgusting. Being attacked by dogs isn't there.No, you cannot:
http://chestofbooks.com/business/law/Handbook-Law-Of-Contracts/Agreements-Contrary-To-Public-Policy.html
It has to be actions taken "in the course of the employment" (seriously, your own wiki citation). Rape is not an action taken in the course of employment, and thus cannot be a tortuous offense by the employer. Failure to properly clean a floor is a failure of the employment responsibilities "failure to not rape" isn't. That's the difference.You've just answered your own question--see, if you sue the employer for negligence for allowing another employee to hurt you, guess what: that's way more effective in preventing future crimes than maybe even criminal prosecution--the employer will take the steps that will reduce the chances of this happening again if they know they'll face financial penalties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort#Vicarious_liability
I'm pretty sure I could make statements that are more wrong, and (in this case) made statements entirely in line with even those citations you purport to prove me incorrect. Perhaps before claiming someone to be "making statements that could not be more wrong" you ought to confirm they actually are. You also really ought to cite things in context, rather than using them to make implications wildly outside of their original meanings. For instance, that last little quote you pulled out was specifically in reference to the lack of any cited source by Alex. He doesn't provide any basis for his claims. You, to your credit, at least made an attempt.Maybe before telling someone else they need "to put aside your rhetorical devices, appeals to emotion, and bald declarations of categorical fact" and be snarky about "that an entire body of law exists to govern contracts, right?" you should at least know enough about it that you're not making statements that could not be more wrong and then telling other people they aren't "providing any basis in evidence, law, or logic"?
They fucked up her rape kit and stuffed her in a cargo container... I would call that breach of contract.Seldon2639 said:At spec, there's no sane person who wouldn't agree with you. The government doesn't allow for certain rights to be consigned under any circumstance, contract or no. Short, plausible, concise, and completely missing the point. Anything in law in a question of (a) propriety, and (b) cost-benefit analysis. If we accept that we should never be allowed to sign away the right to litigation, the fallout is a bit more broad than just this one case.
For instance, carnival waivers would no longer exist. Not to mention that most work contracts would become a lot more onerous. And, not for nothing, but once again: why is it the government's job to say (aside from in the most abjectly extreme circumstances) you aren't allowed to make this choice of what to do with your body/life/work?
Where are the pro-choice and/or decriminalization people when the choice people are making is one they don't agree with? There's nothing wrong with binding arbitration in and of itself, so I find the argument that it rises to the level of "I can't sell my body into slavery" specious.
I don't mean to sound condescending, and so I do apologize if anything in the following comes across as snide or snarky.SamuraiAndPig said:You're forgetting that there was a contract involved. If you remember the AIG bonuses, one of the guiding principals of government/corporation relationship in this country is that a contact is binding. The the case of AIG, before the economic collapse, certain employees were given contracts for X amount of dollars upon Y event, specifically, hiring and severence packages. Which is why even though the government gives them bailout money which they mishandle, the government isn't in much of a position to do anything about it. Sure, they could sue, but it would be years in court and make the government look like blundering idiots who didn't know what they were pumping money into.
The employee in this case signed a contact that stated sexual assualt cases were to be handled by in-company arbitration. Since there's not much data on that I'm going to assume this makes it more difficult to file criminal charges, which is why she's suing in civil court. Pressing criminal charges would violate the contract and get her fired.
At it's core, the bill wants companies to allow employees to press criminal charges on co-workers/superiors without the risk of losing their job, which is kind of moot because you'd be fired anyway and wouldn't get your job back until after the trial, which could take years.
I completely agree. But, remember, all we're talking about is the civil claims against the company. The bill provides that no money go to contractors who have binding arbitration of "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."DeathWyrmNexus said:They fucked up her rape kit and stuffed her in a cargo container... I would call that breach of contract.
They aren't settling it out of court, ergo they have reneged on their end of the contract. Breach of Contract, all bets are off. So, how about you read the opening post. She can bring charges up on them for not honoring the contract in a timely manner. It doesn't take a year to handle her problem.
And yes, I am for our government removing the right for companies to put in a hamhanded clause to fistfuck people. Which is what her company did. They aren't doing a damn thing and rape is a far cry from your carnival ride example. On the level of fucked up, rape is closer to slavery than it is to a carnival ride.
Besides, if the contract isn't going to be honored in a reasonable fashion and timeframe, it shouldn't be allowed to be part of it. She didn't go on a carnival ride. She went to do a job and was raped. While you can waive your right to sue, you can't waive your right to have your crime followed up on.