# No big deal, right? She wasn't your daughter **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 18, 2009, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194 "2009-10-18T02:35:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/121 "2009-10-20T18:26:19Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I hope you’re not accusing me of whoring out my integrity. More precisely, I’m observing that w/r/t politics at least, you apparently don’t have any. If you wanna be one of those “ends justify the means” people, go for it. But as **Bricker** points out, it gives you no room to complain when the pubs lie. You’re both playing the same game. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/122 "2009-10-20T18:35:50Z")
The Dems didn’t lie. The comparison to “death panels” is bogus. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/123 "2009-10-20T18:52:16Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > They’re not unenforceable. The gravamen of Jones’s complaint, intentional tortious conduct, fell outside of the subject matter of the employment contract, and accordingly, the forum for resolving those outside-the-contract disputes is not determined by the arbitration clause. Blah blah blah lawyer speak. Thanks for proving my point that its all about the technical details of the law for some, and not about whether it is morally defensible that a company can put in place policies designed to prevent employees from getting justice when wronged. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/124 "2009-10-20T18:56:02Z")
> [@furt](#): > > If you wanna be one of those “ends justify the means” people, go for it. But as **Bricker** points out, it gives you no room to complain when the pubs lie. You’re both playing the same game. See my response to **Bricker** - I’ve never complained when the pubs lied. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/125 "2009-10-20T19:13:20Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Thanks for proving my point that its all about the technical details of the law for some, and not about whether it is morally defensible that a company can put in place policies designed to prevent employees from getting justice when wronged. Oh grow up. You presumably support the Franken Amendment, which as far as I can tell is a law with a lot of little details in it. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/126 "2009-10-20T19:29:06Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Oh grow up. You presumably support the Franken Amendment, which as far as I can tell is a law with a lot of little details in it. Did you not read it? It’s like five lines of text. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/127 "2009-10-20T19:30:52Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Oh grow up. You presumably support the Franken Amendment, which as far as I can tell is a law with a lot of little details in it. But he’s got quite a talent for feeling emotions. And really, isn’t that the most important thing when designing a system for the administration of justice? Not all this boring, bloodless “lawyer speak.” ---
**Author:** ![Myself](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8491ac/32.png) [@Myself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Myself)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/128 "2009-10-20T19:40:49Z")
Personally, I’m rather disappointed at the name-calling and personal attacks on this thread. I’ve seen so much better stuff elsewhere on this site. I’m not sure you are really trying. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/129 "2009-10-20T20:05:52Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The Dems didn’t lie. The comparison to “death panels” is bogus. I’ve conceded that this lie is not as egregious as the “death panel” business. But it’s most certainly a lie. The Dems characterized this as a principled stand against gang rape, failing completely in the public debate to mention the long list of Title VII claims that would be ineligible for binding arbitration. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/130 "2009-10-20T20:58:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’ve conceded that this lie is not as egregious as the “death panel” business. > > But it’s most certainly a lie. The Dems characterized this as a principled stand against gang rape, failing completely in the public debate to mention the long list of Title VII claims that would be ineligible for binding arbitration. Again, the language of the amendment would seem to exclude most of that long list unless they arise from sexual misconduct. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/131 "2009-10-20T21:30:25Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > I won’t defend Halliburton here, but I will note that when you need to carry water for the trial lawyers’ lobby, and when one of their major goals is limiting arbitration as much as possible Arbitration is not limited one whit by the Franken amendment. If you want to eat pork, don’t convert to Judaism or Islam. If you want government contracts, don’t impose a binding arbitration requirement on your employees. If you want to drive at 10 PM, don’t drink at 9 PM. Et cetera. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/132 "2009-10-20T21:32:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Since the legislation in question goes well beyond gang rape, and forbids arbitration for a wide variety of claims It does not forbit arbitration for any case whatsoever. See my previous message. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/133 "2009-10-20T21:47:01Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > But he’s got quite a talent for feeling emotions. And really, isn’t that the most important thing when designing a system for the administration of justice? Not all this boring, bloodless “lawyer speak.” I can at least see when a large corporation is using the law as a blunt tool to intimidate employees, and keep them from seeking legal redress when wronged. The Franken amendment, from what I can see (when I’m not all crying and emotionally overwrought) simply says that federal funding will be denied to > [@](#): > > a contractor or a subcontractor at any tier (who) 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. This would prevent a company such as Haliburton from: a) coercing an employee into binding arbitration when the employee is not actually obligated to follow the terms of their contract\*, and signing away their legal rights b) drawing out a complaint about being forced into binding arbitration for\*\* 4 years in court\*\*, using lawyers who specialize in horseshit nit-picking, very legal behavior designed to stall, stall, stall, and make it as difficult as possible for a victim to get justice. I further note that this amendment only applies to > [@](#): > > 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. I fail to see why the honorable Mr. **Gibbler** would wish to defend the scummy politicians that seem to feel that Haliburton would be unduly harmed by this amendment. \*I believe that you can’t be forced by contract into signing away your legal rights - I"m sure someone will correct me if wrong ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/134 "2009-10-20T21:49:00Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > It does not forbit arbitration for any case whatsoever. See my previous message. And DADT doesn’t forbid gays in the military, it just imposes an extra hurdle here or there. No big whoop. Can we give up the canard that the Franken Amendment takes dead aim at a practice with the intention of eliminating it? And that the supporters need to establish why we should eliminate it, and not blithely–and insincerely–suggest that maybe defense contractors could just find clients other than the federal government? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/135 "2009-10-20T21:56:11Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > And DADT doesn’t forbid gays in the military Yes it does. > [@](#): > > Can we give up the canard that the Franken Amendment takes dead aim at a practice with the intention of eliminating it? And that the supporters need to establish why we should eliminate it, and not blithely–and insincerely–suggest that maybe defense contractors could just find clients other than the federal government? You’re the one who needs to convince us that they are entitled to our money. The Franken amendment does not seek to eliminate a practice. It seeks to impose a condition for federal contracts. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/136 "2009-10-20T21:56:50Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > I fail to see why the honorable Mr. **Gibbler** would wish to defend the scummy politicians that seem to feel that Haliburton would be unduly harmed by this amendment. As I mentioned above, I do think our current system of arbitration (or maybe more accurately, our federal law and policy favoring arbitration) could stand a pretty thoroughgoing review. However, when you tinker with not just substantive law, _ **but the substantive law of how other substantive legal questions will be tried, answered, and enforced** _, it seems to behoove us to be exceptionally scrupulous. After all, the enterprise goes to the organic heart of our system of dispensing justice. So, with stakes as high as these, we need a comprehensive, systemic, well-informed review. Carving out exceptions here and there–especially to score shrill partisan soundbites (“subsidizing gang-rape”!? Does this sound like the kind of talk that should characterize a debate on what is essentially civil procedure!?)–only serves to vitiate and muddle our administration of justice. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/137 "2009-10-20T22:01:42Z")
> [@furt](#): > > More precisely, I’m observing that w/r/t politics at least, you apparently don’t have any. > > If you wanna be one of those “ends justify the means” people, go for it. But as **Bricker** points out, it gives you no room to complain when the pubs lie. You’re both playing the same game. The ends of hundreds of thousands died, people brutally tortured, and suffocating war debt was worth lying? Maybe the justified end was the massive unemployment that could have been avoided had republicans stopped committing war crimes long enough to fix the banking sector? ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/138 "2009-10-20T22:02:25Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You’re the one who needs to convince us that they are entitled to our money. > > The Franken amendment does not seek to eliminate a practice. It seeks to impose a condition for federal contracts. Because there’s a deadweight cost to regulation. Which means profit-minded firms will either charge us more for goods and services or provide us with lesser quality goods and services. And this regulation in particular is addressed to one extraordinary situation that can hardly be held to obtain in nearly any other case. So we ended spending more money than we need to for no apparent reason. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/139 "2009-10-20T22:07:32Z")
If it won’t apply in any other case, then no company should have anything to worry about. As long as they don’t practice gang rape, they won’t be affected. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/140 "2009-10-20T22:09:53Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Because there’s a deadweight cost to regulation. Which means profit-minded firms will either charge us more for goods and services or provide us with lesser quality goods and services. And this regulation in particular is addressed to one extraordinary situation that can hardly be held to obtain in nearly any other case. So we ended spending more money than we need to for no apparent reason. They should be proud of their ability to police their employees and provide a safe place for females to work. I would think that is the cost of doing business. To suggest it is too expensive to keep employees safe, is a horrible line of thinking. It is not an added expense. It should be well understood that when you go to work for them ,you will not be gang raped. And if it happens ,vigorous legal response will be taken. There can be no excusing the rapists or Halliburton in this at all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194.md?page=8)