Like rape? VOTE REPUBLICAN

[BBOX]

Republicans For Rape

[Tygerr]

I hope you're not serious.

[BBOX]

Ask Jamie Leigh Jones about how serious I am.

[JScullin]

Rape is so un-PC. Surprise sex is the proper term.

[BBOX]

Rape is so un-PC. Surprise sex is the proper term.

Ah but Republicans hate political correctness, it's such a liberal thing to not use negative terms to describe someone, so rape it is!

[slomoe]

rape... for those times when no really means yes.

[NorCalCoug]

For clarification, here's the wording of the amendment proposed by Al Franken:

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.

Basically what happens is that these independent contractors have tried to eliminate the possibility of lawsuits from sexual harassment claims while people are working out of the country by including a private arbitration clause to such claims. And it appears that in several incidents, some employees (and some employees with power) have taken advantage of this clause by raping, sexually harassing or sexually assaulting female employees.

It's shocking that anyone would vote against this amendment. Obviously the possibility for abuse by employees or the employer is incredibly high, and while the "mission statement" behind the amendment may seem to focus on KBR and Halliburton, the actual wording of the amendment DOES NOT single them out. So saying this amendment singles out Halliburton is a ridiculous claim as to why you would vote against it.

[slomoe]

For clarification, here's the wording of the amendment proposed by Al Franken:



Basically what happens is that these independent contractors have tried to eliminate the possibility of lawsuits from sexual harassment claims while people are working out of the country by including a private arbitration clause to such claims. And it appears that in several incidents, some employees (and some employees with power) have taken advantage of this clause by raping, sexually harassing or sexually assaulting female employees.

It's shocking that anyone would vote against this amendment. Obviously the possibility for abuse by employees or the employer is incredibly high, and while the "mission statement" behind the amendment may seem to focus on KBR and Halliburton, the actual wording of the amendment DOES NOT single them out. So saying this amendment singles out Halliburton is a ridiculous claim as to why you would vote against it.

Yeah it seems pretty damn stupid to vote against this. Is it legal for companies to have employees sign similar contracts stateside?

[NorCalCoug]

Yeah it seems pretty damn stupid to vote against this. Is it legal for companies to have employees sign similar contracts stateside?

No, it wouldn't be, because the contract would be illegal. (From what I understand)

[slomoe]

No, it wouldn't be, because the contract would be illegal. (From what I understand)

If that's the case then I fail to see how the contracts could possibly be legal anyways just because they were made overseas. Its still American employees working for American companies and (I'd assume) paying American taxes.