Good work, Al! The situation without this was ridiculous.

Sen. Al Franken’s (D-MN) “rape amendment,” which guarantees that rape victims who work for defense contractors can pursue charges against their employers, has been championed by many but opposed by Obama’s Department of Defense. The Pentagon initially called the measure unenforceable. But the provision, part of the defense appropriations bill, made it through conference committee and is now supported by the White House.

So what changed?

[…] The White House was concerned about the original language, which […] may have forced the government to reneg on multi-billion-dollar contracts.

[…] So White House staff, after a week or so perusing contract and grant law, came up with a “clever construct,” the official said. The contractors, in order to stay in the lucrative government contract business, don’t have to remove the arbitration clauses. But they can’t enforce them.

[…]But it will affect any company, such as KBR, once it signs a new contract. (And the major contractors sign a lot of contracts.) Here’s the real bite to the restriction: It will affect the entire company, and everyone who works for it.




  1. Dallas says:

    Franken continued to impress.

    He can be an effective Senator driving common sense legislation and still turn around and rip Bill O’Reilly a new asshole in public.

    VOTE Franken/Obama in 2012

    Palin/Limbaugh has no chance.

  2. bobbo, how do you know what you know and how do you change your mind says:

    Well, the unasked question of larger import is why haven’t the Fed’s initiated their own CRIMINAL PROSECUTION of companies repetitive rape, kidnapping, and intimidation not to report against ALL such US Based Corporations?

    Why don’t they do it now???? Well within statute of limitations. Instead==allow the public the “notion” of justice and give a plaintiff access to a civil trial on the issues. Yea, that helps most low paid female employees who intruded into a male culture and got more attention than they bargained for.

    Hah, hah.

  3. Ah_Yea says:

    Here is the dirty little secret most contract writers don’t want you to know.

    In the US, a contract arbitration clause isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. I use it in nearly every contract as a speed bump before the lawyers jump in, but anyone can sue anyone for anything in the US, arbitration notwithstanding.

    Arbitration doesn’t negate the constitutional guarantees of a speedy trial of your peers.

    Arbitration came about solely to help two agreeing parties to cut through the legal mess and get to a resolution quickly and inexpensively. It was never intended to force someone to give up their rights.

  4. Ah_Yea says:

    On another note: #1, Franken/Obama 2012.

    HAR! If Franken keeps this up he might have a shot with a Franken/ABB (Anyone But Barack) ticket!

  5. bobbo, having experience right on point says:

    #3–Ah Yea==you are COMPLETELY WRONG on several points. Sure you can sue but you are subject to early dismissal for not going to arbitration==IE A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY OR THE MISINFORMED as you post here.

    There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to a speedy civil trial. Really bad you would mix the two issues up.

    Makes you look like you DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AT ALL. Very unusual for yourself.

  6. Ah_Yea says:

    Bobbo, where have you been?

    Experience is the best teacher. In my case my company – which makes money – gets sued regularly so others who didn’t earn by doing can still get a piece of the pie.

    Each of these suits were civil (company to company). Each of these suits were summarily dismissed. Each of these suits dealt with contracts with an arbitration clause.

    In other words, I have dealt with this repeatedly first hand. And you?

    Yes, someone who uses the courts instead of arbitration technically “breeches the contract”, (and they loose their job) but so what? If things have gotten this bad, then the contract and their job is over anyhow. Great whoopi-doo!

    And you totally ignored the point of my post, the last paragraph where “Arbitration … was never intended to force someone to give up their rights”.

    So, bobbo. If you have a contract with an arbitration clause, do you give up all your rights to a trial?

  7. Ah_Yea says:

    Oh, and bobbo. In this case we are talking about rape, torture, and others forms of physical abuse.

    Last time I looked, rape wasn’t a “civil offense”. Ergo, constitutional rights do apply.

  8. bobbo, an advocate of Democracy says:

    6-7–Ah Yea==something must be being lost in translation. The evidence you use to refute my accurate analysis does just the opposite==simply restating WHAT I SAID.

    You (somehow) know that two companies have arbitration clauses but one choose to sue instead and immediately the case was DISMISSED. THAT is conclusive evidence that arbitration clauses are ENFORCED!!! not that “they aren’t worth the paper they are written on.” JUST THE OPPOSITE AS YOU POST. How is your understanding and representation so completely asstarded?

    As far as unilaterally enforced arbitration clauses “giving up rights” that is true with most laws. One ox gets gored while another’s runs free. MUTUALLY agreed to arbitration AFTER civil suit is filed is a good thing. Lost of problems with where we are today.

    Constitutional rights apply against the government. I don’t think the government controlled subcontractors have been held as so closely related that their acts are those of the government. So, again, NO> Constitutional rights not involved.

    There you go Ah Yea. 0 – 3 even after some time to reconsider and quibble. Heh, heh. Its not a technical question though, I’ll give you a pass.

  9. Ah_Yea says:

    Bobbo, are you off your meds?

    My cases being dismissed had nothing at all to do with the arbitration clause. They were dismissed because they were without merit!

    You were there to hear the decision, weren’t you? No? Then how can you tell ME why my cases were dismissed?
    Don’t go dumb on me, please!!

    Your ignorance of the subject at hand is showing. You believe that a judge will throw out a lawsuit because the contract had an arbitration clause.

    How naive. Your fantasy world must be a nice place, full of unicorns and rainbows.

    In every case the judge hears the lawsuit based on the merits of the dispute. In my case each lawsuit was dismissed because of non-performance of the terms of the agreement. Thrown out based on the merits of the case. When the contract states delivery of 1000 units in one month and we only get 500, then they breached the agreement and should not be paid for the 500 not delivered. They cannot then sue me to try to pressure me to pay on product not delivered. Using the courts as coercion.

    Therefore, summary dismissal.

    Got that??

    Now, what we have here is a case of using arbitration as coercion to subvert basic civil rights.

    Got that??

  10. Ah_Yea says:

    Bobbo, I’ll through you one bone, though.

    Arbitration does help in one way. It gives the judge one additional reason to rule in your favor if the other party decides to use.

  11. bobbo, still no connection says:

    #9–Ah Yea==ok, you said the case was summarily dismissed. Parties filing lawsuits instead of going to arbitration is a very common basis for summary dismissal but not the only basis so I over read your post.

    And ambiguity/error/confusion still remains. Ruling for one party because of the non-performance of the other party is a ruling on the merits and is not a summary disposition. Now, I can see “loose talk” calling a case submitted on agreed facts being called “summary” but in fact that is not the case===BY DEFINITION.

    Similarly, BY DEFINITION, arbitration clauses are valuable to corporations and are overused by them as a result. Why do you think YOUR company still uses them if they are worthless?

    Silly. HEY–got a link for the dismissal? Should be a public record at your local court house. NOT a citation, but a local use reference and link should be still available for modern court systems for the last 5-10 years. Maybe we could clear this all up rather than huff and puff?

  12. Ah_Yea says:

    Ok, agreed. Not to mention that once a dispute has been put through binding arbitration, it becomes far more difficult to go to a civil court.

    Therefore, when someone thinks that the arbitrator will rule against them, they go straight to the courts. Not to force a judgment, but to simply try to get a settlement. Going to court cost money, and they want to get paid a somewhat lesser sum to go away.

    That’s the way our legal system often works. It costs money to defend against a lawsuit. Even if you win, you often cannot collect, so it is often cheaper to a little to get rid of them.

    It’s evil and stupid, but also very common.

    As far as looking up the case itself, civil lawsuits in state court don’t end up on the internet. You would have to travel to the courthouse and pull up the records.

    That’s one reason scammers keep operating. Go small scams which get prosecuted in state court. Then move to another state.

  13. clifffton says:

    I guess 2010-2019 will be the Al Franken Decade.
    Seems the Year of the Linux Desktop is possible too!

    “Get to know me!”-Al Franken

  14. verycheeky says:

    Is Al Franken your boyfriend?


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5800 access attempts in the last 7 days.