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 Dems didn’t lie. The comparison to “death panels” is bogus.
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.
See my response to Bricker- I’ve never complained when the pubs lied.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
It does not forbit arbitration for any case whatsoever. See my previous message.
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
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
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
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?
Yes it does.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.