“Court rules that KBR employee’s gang rape wasn’t a personal injury ‘arising in the workplace.’“
Franken’s “No Arbitration for Gang Rape” amendment was passed 68-30. The thirty Republican Senators who voted against the amendment bear an uncanny resemblance to one another.
How much more evidence do we need that the Republican Party has become fundamentally bad.
I suppose no one should be surprised anymore by this sort of hypocrisy. What does it say about Republican voters, that they will vote for someone who is against taxpayer funded abortions and for taxpayer funded gang rape?
In case anyone is unaware, KBR employees gang raped a 19-year-old colleague then they imprisoned her for complaining.
By their actions, The Republicans have sent a clear message endorsing gang rape by American contractors in Iraq and anywhere.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Rape-Nuts | ||||
|
||||
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.
Meet the girl who got gang raped by KBR employees, imprisoned, fired, and told to shut up. And meet the Democrat who fights for her, and all woman.
#1 by Larry Bergan on October 15, 2009 - 1:43 pm
Good for Al Franken! He has exposed the Republicans in a way no other has. They want businesses to literally have the right to rape their employees.
Oh, but it’s only “over there”, for now.
#2 by Larry Bergan on October 15, 2009 - 2:02 pm
And that’s not the only important issue Franken is standing up for. Thank goodness he fought for his seat after winning the election; that was also a first for the Democratic party.
#3 by Richard Warnick on October 17, 2009 - 11:36 am
Republicans made a major mistake when they went after ACORN using the accusation of “government contractors behaving badly.” ACORN does not rely that much on government funding, and nobody at ACORN has been convicted of a crime.
Now that the door has been opened, by all means let’s go after all the crooked government contractors. The list is a long one.
#4 by Larry Bergan on October 17, 2009 - 1:28 pm
I can still hear the sound of the door hitting Norm Coleman in the butt; oh, but, of course, he would be taking this same action…
Not!
Franken is brilliant! Imagine if we could get rid of every other Republican who voted against this bill with something even the American people can understand:
Sex.
I mean, after all, isn’t that why the media couldn’t cover anything but Bill Clinton’s sex life. Of course we are not being informed and that’s why we don’t know about things like binding arbitration, but I’ve always thought this focus on sex lives was a subliminal tool to make us THINK we only cared about our genitals.
We can use Karl Roves tactic of negative campaigning, only we don’t have to make stuff up. Every ad against every Republican who voted against this bill should point out the fact that they were casting a vote in favor of gang rape and then after the election we can become a civil nation!
#5 by Larry Bergan on October 17, 2009 - 1:29 pm
Come on media! This is a sex story!
Get on it boys!
#6 by brewski on October 17, 2009 - 10:42 pm
To get any job at Goldman Sachs you are required to agree to binding arbitraion.
Goldman Sachs was the #1 contributor to the Obama campaign.
Yes, it is all about the Republicans. Democrats are oooh so good.
#7 by Larry Bergan on October 17, 2009 - 11:28 pm
brewski:
You do realize you’re completely missing the point, don’t you? Thirty Republicans voted to allow gang rape that was allowed by binding arbitration. How can you say both parties are the same after THAT. I’m just amazed.
#8 by brewski on October 18, 2009 - 1:05 pm
Yes it is awful awful awful.
The point is that Goldman sachs also has mandatory binding secret arbitration, so there are probably hundreds of sexual discrimination cases, sexual harrassment cases, racial discrimination cases, among many others that you and I will never know about. None of these are as bad as gang rape, obviously, but don’t pretend the Democrats and their benefactors are Boy Scouts when it comes to these kinds of legal injustices.
#9 by Larry Bergan on October 18, 2009 - 2:07 pm
That’s an interesting point brewski: there might BE rape cases at the Goldman Sachs operation that men or women are barred from disclosing, but I have spoken against the Democrats many times. The democratic party doesn’t have an eleventh commandment; the republicans do.
I guess you’re one of these independents. How’s that working out for you? Are you getting your way? What’s your plan to bring America back from the abyss? Vote the bums out on Diebold/Premier/ES & S, or are you so afraid of mob rule that you’d rather use those methods?
#10 by Cliff Lyon on October 18, 2009 - 5:47 pm
Larry, I must applaud your ability to take’em out at the knees with such grace.
I should learn a thing or two from you.
Well Done! Independents are just spineless side-liners. A mere audience. All opinion, no action.
#11 by brewski on October 18, 2009 - 6:20 pm
I don’t call myself an independent. Although I have voted for candidates of 3 parties in my life and I have taken positions of specific issues which could be called very liberal and very conservative. I don’t see any reason to sign up for some long checklist of issues and leaders of any one party or another.
#12 by brewski on October 18, 2009 - 9:19 pm
By the way, I don’t mean to be a legalistic techincal dweeb about this, but the Franken amendement does not mention rape, or gang rape anywhere.
The actual text is:
So under this language, Halliburton and KBR would be barred from government contracts, but oh, say, Goldman Sachs would be just fine if they required arbitration, which they do.
So to vote against this amendment it not quite what I would call “a vote for taxpayer funded gang rapes”, as my esteemed colleague from Martha’s Vinyard described it.
How much more evidence do we need that Democrats are fundamentally dishonest?
#13 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on October 18, 2009 - 9:31 pm
Brewski really is missing the point. This law will doubtless effect contributors to democratic campaigns. It’s not about Goldman-Sachs having these kinds of rules. I’m sure that Obama never looked into Goldman-Sachs’ employee policy when he ran; few candidates would.
This argument is about Republicans supporting the corporations when an objection to their policies comes to the table. So what if Democrats accepted contributions from KBR and Halliburton, for heaven’s sake? They still supported a law that gives prosecution rights to victims of crimes, while 30 Republicans did not.
You can bet that any Democrat opponents of this bill will take heat for it. This is about justice, not party. I’m sorry that Cliff covered this story, because of his obvious anti-Republican bias, but you have to admit that this story is telling of the majority of Senate Republicans. It seems to me that either they:
1) Voted against the amendment simply because it was promoted by a Democrat (Al Franken, in particular);
OR
2) Voted against the amendment because they genuinely believe that solving rape cases in contracted arbitration is acceptable, and that a person’s right to due process can be signed away as a condition of employment.
What a despicable trend in their thinking patterns. I applaud the Republicans who voted for it.
In defense of the 30, however: it should be known that the bill’s language was a little vague on a few points. However, I believe that those issues about which it was vague STILL should not be solvable through arbitration. If anything, we should have a judicial-branch arbitration department for such things, NOT contractors who have every profit-motivated reason to side with the guys who sign their checks.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#14 by brewski on October 18, 2009 - 10:47 pm
You forgot one key possibility:
3) They voted against it because (as Cliff’s citation proves) the amendment is a total waste of time, will have no legal effect, and is really all about getting press.
Per Mother Jones:
So, what this means is that even with all the arbitration agreements in place today, with no change in the agreements, no change in the law, and no yea or nay votes from any senators, the current law of the land is that rape is not covered by the contracts. Period.
So, as hard and ugly as it has been, the victim won, Halliburton lost, the Federal Court of Appeals has ruled that rape is not covered under these agreements. So the Franken amendment would, at best, confirm what is already the law. At worst it makes the mistake of naming one company and does not mention the other thousands of companies who do the same thing. So in fact, it could be argued that the Franken amendment could be damaging to other potential victims by its limit of scope compared to the breadth set by the precendent confirmed by the Court of Appeals.
#15 by Larry Bergan on October 19, 2009 - 1:44 am
brewski:
So what you’re saying is that Franken jumped the gun!
We’ll see who the fools without names are.
#16 by brewski on October 19, 2009 - 6:13 am
No, what I am saying is that Franken was too late. The court ruling was September 18. Franken’s theatrics was in October. So what Franken was doing would be akin to holding a vote on segregated schools, even though the courts had already decided that segregated schools were illegal. So it is nothing more than grandstanding, a waste of time, a waste of resources when there are other things to do.
#17 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on October 19, 2009 - 9:11 am
Brewski–
I might agree with your interpretation, except that establishing legislative standards for crime (rather than relying on judicial precedent) is part of Congress’s job.
In case you didn’t read about the law, part of the point is to prevent the government from contracting with corporations who use arbitration contracts of this type–not to make such contracts illegal. It’s to establish rules of employer conduct when contracting with the government.
Besides, isn’t it REDUCING waste? Removing such stipulations from contracts would reduce the time wasted in bogus arbitrations, then further reduce the time wasted listening to lawyers argue that a case is unlawful because of arbitration agreements. It’s now a simple matter–you work with the government, you commit a crime, you go to court. End of story. Just read the actual 5th District Court decision. They list several such cases that already made judgments on arbitration–yet, despite such decisions, arbitration lawyers keep wasting the court’s time. Furthermore, read the dissenting opinion in this case. It shows that such disputes are still up for grabs, largely because courts work on a case-by-case, contract-by-contract basis, relying on interpretations of precedent. Where precedent is not explicit, disagreement abounds. Besides–is the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals the supreme court of the land? This issue may still be up for debate, with new victims and new crimes. It will keep on being hard and ugly for other people as long as corporations and their lawyers still think they can get away with slippery arbitration agreements, which the court’s decision has hardly outlawed. Just think–It took 4 years to decide that rape shouldn’t be covered by arbitration clauses, and the court’s actual decision in Jones’s favor relies largely on contractual technicalities. It hardly states within the decision that, “the current law of the land is that rape is not covered by the contracts. Period.” Furthermore, consider that it was already decided upon, in Smith ex rel. Smith v. Captain D’s, LLC, which is cited in the 5th Circuit’s decision–yet it didn’t change the fact that she spent 4 years seeking justice. The law, on the other hand, will make a clear and decisive statement about the kinds of arbitration the government will abide in its contractors.
This law is exchanging a few hours of legislative debate for potentially endless years of future court waste. I only wish it did more. But, of course, it’s an amendment to a defense appropriations bill; if it did more, it would be called an “earmark” or some other nonsense. We need new laws, to outlaw binding, contracted third-party arbitration, in favor of binding, judicial arbitration. If we want to streamline the judicial system for some cases, let’s do it–just not through privatization. This kind of thing SHOULD be codified, brewski, whether by Democrats or Republicans it doesn’t matter.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#18 by Cliff Lyon on October 19, 2009 - 9:33 am
Brewski, I have no idea what you point is here because it seems to have nothing to do with the issue.
This is about the injustice of binding arbitration agreements. It shouldn’t take many years and $$ to render justice in these kinds of cases.
The finding you quote is related to a technical question before the court. The decision is in no way a victory against the injustice of binding arbitration, nor does it set a precedence of any judicial implication that relates to the binding arbitration (or the Frankin amendment).
Your argument it just way off base.
Read the rest of the text from which you stole the insignificant sliver that some idiot republicans has used to claim, Jones has her day in court and won. Jones was gang-raped and 4 years later, has NOT has her day in court. THAT is the issue.
#19 by brewski on October 19, 2009 - 2:10 pm
Cliff,
First of all, there is a difference between civil complaints and a crime. A company can’t contract away its potential criminal responsibility. It’s not like the police show up at a murder and then leave since someone has an arbitration agreement. The question in the case of this victim was whether the rape was a crime or a workplace dispute. Also, the fact that the crime occured in Iraq made the jurisdicational issues even muddier. It should not have taken four years to come to the right conclusion and the victim’s valor should be commended.
The reason it did take 4 years is because our judicial system allows people like Halliburton to try to wear opponents down with motions, discovery, depositions and endless appeals….hoping you will run out of money, will or just give up. It is this lengthy and costly process that gave rise to arbitration in the first place. Then once companies get you to agree to arbitration, then they rig the game by only hiring employer-friendly arbitrators.
The problem with the Franken amendment is that it does not get rid of employer mandated arbitration, or even employer mandated arbitration for government contractors, or employer mandated arbitration for defense contractors. No, what it does is to name one company and exclude them from government contracting unless they dump mandatory arbitration.
There is a good possibility the Halliburton could successfully fight this amendment under the “equal protection” clause of the constitution, since it would be treated differently than all other companies. This has been done successfully before.
So, my point is Cliff that you lied. A vote againist this amendement is not a vote for taxpayer funded gang rape. It is against an amendment with dubious constitutional standing, zero practical effect, and was designed to do nothing other than humiliate Halliburton and win contributions back in Minnesota. Humiliating Halliburton seems pretty appropriate, but the rest is party hack antics.
#20 by Cliff on October 19, 2009 - 3:35 pm
Brewski, You are SOOO wrong, in so many ways.
I’ll leave you with one question which should help your understanding of the issue; Why can’t Jones sue her American rapists under criminal law???
#21 by brewski on October 19, 2009 - 8:00 pm
The crime took place in Iraq.
#22 by Cliff on October 20, 2009 - 6:01 am
Congratulations Brewski,
Its not like you to be less than verbose. May I assume this revelation has expanded your understanding of this situation?
Don’t you think KBR bears some responsibility when its employees rape another employee, in and on the company’s facility?
Do you now see the problem with overly broad binding arbitration agreements which in effect and fact serve to protect violent gang rape?
#23 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on October 20, 2009 - 11:16 am
Ok, Brewski. It’s time to put this one to rest. Here’s the actual wording of the amendment:
Does that sound like it’s a useless assault on Halliburton to you? I don’t see “Halliburton” or “KBR” anywhere in there. Rather, I see a straight-forward prohibition on defense spending on contractors who require employees to put their right to justice at potential risk as a condition of employment. Sounds like it’s at least as reasonable as the Republican attempt to punish ACORN.
The fact is that the Bush administration made it VERY hard to prosecute contractor crimes. This shows why. The claim is that military contractors are not subject to military discipline as they’re not military; that they’re not subject to Iraqi law as they’re U.S. citizens under U.S. jurisdiction; and that they’re not subject to U.S. law because they’re not in the U.S. Ultimately, it is up to the Justice Department to decide when a U.S. criminal in Iraq can be prosecuted and when they can’t. See paragraph 8 of this document, in particular, to describe part of the legal confusion. It wasn’t until the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement of 2008 that contractors finally would be firmly held up to prosecutorial scrutiny in Iraq, and even that wasn’t well-defined.
The atrocities of the last eight years were many, and many of them aren’t being prosecuted. Some cases are downright appalling. If murder, slave trafficing, and pedophilic rape aren’t being prosecuted, what makes you think Jones’ rape will be? We need laws to ensure criminal prosecutions for U.S. citizens acting within U.S. jurisdiction of ANY kind, as well as laws that allow prosecution by the nation a U.S. citizen is working in if outside of U.S. jurisdiction. This amendment, as I said, doesn’t go far enough. But it’s a start, at least, to make it so much easier for victims to file civil suits against criminals, and to shove corporations and their crime-blind profit-motive out of the way.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#24 by Larry Bergan on October 20, 2009 - 7:07 pm
I don’t know how much information, if any, has come out in the larger media, but at least some of us have heard about this unacceptable occurrence.
Franken is to thank for that, and he also embarrassed 30 Republicans who should lose their seats.
#25 by brewski on October 20, 2009 - 7:30 pm
I have run across these sorts of arbitration agreements at various times in my life and find them to be particularly insidious when it comes to employment. In fact, the WSJ and others have done stories about Wall Street firms and how employees almost never win cases in which one would think they have a good case. It seems the the arbitrators are often retired executives of the very same firms who hire them.
However, this amendment has some serious problems. It only applies to defense contractors and not to Goldman Sachs. How convenient. It covers “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.”
So, it is not the big issues that are the problem, it is the small ones. The way this is written Boeing cannot require arbitration for simple discimination cases, a much lesser dispute that could be resolved out of court. And if it was handled in arbitration, it could be handled by an arbitrator which was acceptable to both parties. And if Boeing refused, then all of a sudden the USAF has no spare parts for its planes and the USAF comes to a grinding halt. (Not to mention the Navy and Army).
This reminds me of when the City of Chicago required that Commonwealth Edison to implement some lefty social engineering program, and if not then ComEd would be forbidden to sell electricity in Chicago. So ComEd basically said “no” and said they would comply with the law and would turn off all power to Chicago the next day. Needless to say, the City backed down.
So yes, I think rigged arbitration sucks in a huge way. But this amendment is not the way to deal with it. The 68 clowns who voted for it should lose their seats.
#26 by Ged on October 30, 2009 - 4:33 am
So the upshot of all this is that employees in Iraq have no recourse to due process and KBR/Halliburton are conveniently exempted from their duty of care obligation. When I heard of this case it brought to mind the writings of one of your foremost sociologists, Thorstein Veblen:
`It is a matter of common notoriety that when individuals, or even considrable groups of men, are segregated from a higher industrial culture and exposed to a lower cultural environment, or to an economic situation of a more primitive character, they quicky show evidence of reversion toward the spiritual features which characterise the predatory type…`
The argument against the thirty Republicans definately holds water. US corporations have for too long considered federal funds as their own private slush fund. They treat the main aggregate contributors to that tax pool, the workers, with disdain. The political representatives on both sides of Congress have merely facilitated this sorry situation.
#27 by brewski on October 30, 2009 - 7:34 pm
No, the upshot is that gang rape is not work-related so not covered by the arbitration agreement. KBR and anyone else can now be held liable.
#28 by R Henkle on November 4, 2009 - 1:43 pm
Thanks for this article. I was very disappointed to see Senator Thune casting the worst vote of his time in the Senate. This was Really a no brainer.
#29 by Anonymous on October 30, 2010 - 8:00 pm
Sorry there brewski, but you better read the WHOLE bill not just the abrivated version.
It DOES mention rape, gangrape, & all the rest.
So did you really miss this, or were YOU being dishonest???
#30 by Anonymous on October 30, 2010 - 8:08 pm
There should be NO NEED for this anyway, companies can NOT arbitrate CRIMES!!
The idea that they can is beyond belief, and the idea that this is even being fought in court is insane.
The woman was GANG RAPED & then KIDNAPPED by her employers, these people involved should be in PRISON….PERIOD!! NO “and’s”, “if’s, or “buts”!!!
No friggen company in the USA can arbitrate crimes, and neither should ANY company while they are operating out of the country.
This is NOT a “party” issue, it’s COMMON SENSE.
#31 by Anonymous on November 21, 2010 - 11:25 am
The courts have already ruled, although I don’t know WHY they would have to even consider this BS.
You can not “arbitrate” felony crimes!!! It don’t take a genius to figure that out.
This isn’t a Dem VS Rep problem, BOTH parties (as a whole) have shown themselves to be less than honest, this is the corporations trying to usurp the power of law…
#32 by Anonymous on November 21, 2010 - 11:30 am
Where the HECK do you get this idea!?!?
This will include ANY company that has government contracts.