From what I saw, it was barely mentioned (especially on Fox News). I sure didn’t see any pervasive coverage.
Unless you watch Fox News 24/7, how on earth do you know how much coverage it got? This was back in 2006, per the link to this AP story on FoxNews website:
FYI, anyone interested in an actual debate about this topic, here’s the GD thread on this subject.
Wow. What an amazing blanket statement. Paint with a broad brush much?
Bad idea. If you try to eat caviar while shrugging, the little eggs spill down your shirtfront, which leaves a residual fishy odor.
Grassley has seen his ratings plummet over the last few months, and Lugar is widely known to be conservative in some ways but always willing to work with anyone, which is why he was reelected without opposition in 2006.
Well, yes, because the former is a lot more interesting. And you must not have been looking very hard, because I saw a few that did so. Besides, voting against not awarding contracts to companies that basically ignore rape (that’s essentially what arbitration does; employees win substantially less than half the time, and most of that time they win practically nothing) is a lot more heinous than voting for that is respectable.
I would just like to repeat your post, without comment, because it makes so, so much so very, very clear.
Sen Al Franken questioning KBR arbitration attorney regarding this case.
So where’s all the outrage from the Repubs who were foaming at the mouth merely a month ago to defund and refuse to contract with ACORN because a couple of low level employees failed to react strongly enough to a fake pimp with his fake whore asking questions about how to evade taxes? They were quite sure that holding the entire company to blame for each and every action of its employees was the only way to ensure our American Way Of Life survived intact. Or is it just that actual brutal rape doesn’t damage the fiber of our society the way fictional tax evasion does?
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that, based on the apparent discrepancy of the reactions of Republican senators–ACORN: we don’t like what they do so stop giving them money! vs. KBR: it’s none of our business what they do, let’s keep giving them money!–that it’s political.
Whaddya think? Any other possible explanation?
Seriously, actually, I’d like to hear a Republican-identified Doper reconcile these two seemingly contradictory positions.
I am reminded of what Curtis White once said of Terry Gross: Well, she says she’s on my side, but, God, she’s so stupidly on my side that I hardly recognize my side as my side.
In other words, we are all supposed to ignore the ( Republican ) elephant in the living room and pretend that the massive misogyny of the Right does not and never did exist. No matter how many right wingers act with hostility towards women ( or gays, or blacks, or poor people, or… ) we are all supposed to pretend that each is just an isolated bad apple.
People call the Nazis genocidal because they committed genocide; even though not all of them killed people. People call the Communists oppressive even though not every Communist oppressed someone. Well, I’m calling conservatives historically ( and still ) misogynistic even though not every single one is; same principle. When a group overwhelmingly acts or believes in a certain way, it’s standard practice to refer to how “Group X is Y”.
And I’m quite sure that if I started talking about how “most did this” and “often they do that” instead of lambasting me for “using a broad brush” you’d lambast me for using weasel words instead.
In fairness, it takes about five minutes of watching Fox News* on any given day to figure out what they’re talking about during the entire day.
- Or CNN, or one of those other ones whose names escape me.
From the link you provided.
What has happened to the accused? Have they been tried in US Court? What legal recourse is available to the victim?
This story is not front page news today. It had it’s 15 minutes and now it is largely forgotten.
Minnesotans should be proud of their junior Senator and I’m wondering why my senators didn’t do this earlier.
So, in other words, a poorly-thought out amendment taken up as a battlecry without considering its impacts in a wide array of circumstances, which could substantially affect the ability of the government to get its way in the future, should be passed anyway, on account of the sponsor had in mind the fact that somebody abused their power in one of many actions which would be affected by the amendment?
Or maybe, just maybe, the Republicans who voted against it saw that the proposed law was badly thought-out.
No, they just want to protect their sugar daddies.
I liked watching Franken kick that fuckwad’s ass, but it still isn’t all that satisfying. The shitbags who raped that woman and stuffed her in a box will never suffer any consequences, and the Republicans are apparently completely ok with that.
The whole concept of binding arbitration is disgusting. It’s preposterous that a person should be required to surrender her civil rights a a condition of employment, and I’ll never understand why the political wing which which claims to mistrust democratic government so much is so happy and willing to cede absolute power to corporations.
I’d like the OP to provide a cite showing that the arbitration agreement prevented a lawsuit against Halliburton from proceeding, thus making legislative action necessary.
You know, since I found this:
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, it is wise in the PR game to go after the scariest case you can find - even when that arbitration agreement wasn’t found valid in these circumstances.
It took her four years to get that decision, and yes, the sleazeball arbitration agreement did indeed prevent her from being able to sue for four years.
Getting the ability to sue is not the point of the Franken amendment anyway. The amendment just cuts off funding to companies who try to prevent employees from being able to sue them for gang rape.
Remember how the Republicans wanted to cut off funding to ACORN because a couple of low level workers played along with a Michael Moore stunt? This is like that, only instead of getting punked by a fake pimp, Halliburton gang rapes female employees and stuffs them in boxes.
Do you think it’s fair to cut off funding to such a group? Yes or no. That’s the question.
Suppose a senator opposed gang rape, and even opposed forcing civil redress for gang rape be part of binding arbitration, but still believed that other claims, like general sexual harassment, should be settled by arbitration if the company and employee agreed to that term.
Since the legislation in question goes well beyond gang rape, and forbids arbitration for a wide variety of claims, including simple claims of sexual harassment, what should that senator do?
That Senator is still philosphically wrong. Companies should not be able to require employees to surrender their right to sue for sexual harassment as a condition of employment, or at least, I don’t want my tax dollars to go to those companies. If that Senator votes against the Franken amendment, then he is voting to subsidize both gang rape and sexual harassment with taxpayer money.
Given the protections that both the Federal Arbitration Act and the AAA rules afford against biased panels, why not allow arbitration panels to adjust employee grievances? After all, you’ll typically find that submitting disputes to arbitration is a frequent clause in union-negotiated collective-bargaining agreements, and nobody suggests that unions don’t know what they’re doing.
Do you have any reason, beyond a general sense of unease, for disfavoring arbitration? And if so, why does that not apply to all systems of private dispute resolution. Should we eliminate moderators from this message board? Should paying members of the SDMB be able to take message board conflicts into state court?
ETA: I’m sorry, I overlooked this: “If that Senator votes against the Franken amendment, then he is voting to subsidize both gang rape and sexual harassment with taxpayer money.” I now realize you’re an idiot.