You didn’t see that rape of a KBR employee in October 2008.
<waves hand>
You can go about your business now.
Move along.
I guess we have different subjective beliefs about the likelihood of gang-rapes occurring at KBR sites abroad and correspondingly different figures as to the expected value of gang-rape occurrences.
I’m not sure why you bring up the federal contractor nature of KBR and your doubt as to the legitimacy of that engagement. Could you flesh out how you think those facts correlate with an increased probability that such an entity’s employees will engage in gang-rape.
Objection!
Counsel is seizing upon an inconsequential tidbit in order to throw up a smokescreen - aka the “dazzle them with diversion” gambit.
More generally, there are more military contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan than there are US soldiers. Many of these contractors are local, but not all are. And AFAIK, none fall under the DOD code of justice, though I understand that there’s a supreme court case being debated now.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/study_more_contractors_in_afghanistan_than_militar.php
So the Franken amendment isn’t primarily about arbitration. It’s about placing a check on abuses hurled on those who serve the US in war but wear no military uniform.
On preview:
I think I just addressed KG’s point. Huh. Specifically, when there are thousands of Americans fighting wars out of uniform in foreign lands, I would expect abuses of various sorts to occur. Their employers should be liable for negligent supervision, given that they are not subject to military discipline. Said abuses include both rapes and gang rapes, in case it wasn’t clear.
The dubiousness of military outsourcing was discussed in this 2006 Business Week article. Potentially, privatization could prompt cost savings. But no bid contracts are up to $100 billion by now and there has been a steady trickle of articles about private war zone fraud. Businessweek - Bloomberg
Now military mercenaries are not going away: they will work hand in glove with the US military to a greater or lesser extent. But it’s important to put the proper controls in place and we’ve really only just begun that task. Muscular congressional oversight is appropriate.
I thank Jamie Leigh Jones for standing up to abuse, for pushing for needed reforms and for her service to America.
There are 2 elements to the story:
[ul]
[li]Gangrape![/li][li]Incomprehensible mumbo jumbo about requiring said parties to submit themselves to civil courts rather than alternative dispute resolution mechanisms even when the underlying activity was criminal, though for Haliburton it was only a matter of negligent supervision, and the unit was spun off and is now called KBR anyway… snorrrre…[/li][/ul] So I guess #2 trumps #1, as far as the media is concerned.
But I believe it probable that this vote will come back to bite at least a few of the 30 Republican Senators in the ass in 2010. At any rate I hope so. Pending explanations offered by them that withstand scrutiny, I believe they deserve it.
Actually, I’m not so sure. That was my initial reading of the amendment’s language as well, but looking at it more closely (since it seemed bizarre that the scope of the amendment would be crafted to encompass all Title VII claims), I think it might just be a case of sloppy drafting. Specifically, I think it’s missing a couple of commas.
Here’s the relevant text:
Here’s what I think was intended:
That is, it seems to me that a cleaner, more plausibly narrow reading of the amendment is that “related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment” modifies both “any claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” and “any tort.” Under that construction, the only Title VII claims for which binding arbitration could not be required would be those related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment. Which makes way more sense.
Of course, if you have a statement from Sen. Franken evincing his intention to foreclose mandatory, binding arbitration for all claims that could possibly arise under Title VII (which, as you point out, is a fairly broad category), then I’ll cheerfully admit I’m wrong – and then scratch my head in confusion about their reason for couching the amendment to include stuff that had nothing to do with the facts of the Jones case.
As it stands, though, I think the language of the amendment is ambiguous at the very least, and in such cases the general canon of construction is that it be read as narrowly as possible while still being consistent with its plain meaning.
I think it’s probably fair to assume that the next victim won’t get stuffed in a shipping container until her congresscritter intercedes on her behalf.
I don’t see how voting to subsidize gang rape does not show de facto support, or at last indifference to, gang rape. That observation does not, however, equate to a statement that the Franken amendment is a referendum on gang rape. I don’t know why you’ve convinced yourself that you’ve located some kind of insconsistency on my part, but you haven’t.
Um… huh?!?
The plain meaning of the words are not ambiguous. They’re quite clear. Yes, if the commas were in different places, it would mean something different. That’s true, but utterly irrelevant.
Nor could a court construing the language even look to a statement from Senator Franken, since legislative intent is irrelevant when a statute’s meaning is plain on its face, as this is.
That said, I am perfectly willing to believe it was originally sloppy drafting, and that Sen. Franken intent was more in line with what you envison. But since most people in this thread, and in Congress, with (D) after their name seem perfectly happy with the expanded meaning of capturing all Title VII claims as safe from forced arbitration,let’s see if there’s a rush to correct the “sloppy draft.”
I’m guessing there won’t be.
I don’t see what kind of horrrible, unintended consequences this thing is supposed to have. What’s the worst that will happen? A few scummy, sleazy contractors won’t get my money anymore? Who gives a shit? We shouldn’t be contracting with these criminal organizations anyway. It’s not like they serve any vital purpose. The contract with Halliburton, in particular, was just a scam for Cheney and his cronies to loot the public coffers.
Maybe none. Maybe it’s a great idea to force federal contractors to eliminate Title VII claims from forced arbitration.
But that’s not the debate that we had about this bill. The debate we had was about favoring gang rape. My point is that the presentation of the issue was dishonest.
Your post above, inartfully and amateurly phrased, at least has the virtue of being basically honest: let’s screw the sleazy contractors.
A few scummy, sleazy contractors will incur significantly increased litigation costs, presumably. Now, obviously it shouldn’t be difficult for Halliburton to continue to turn a sizeable profit with their outrageous no-bid federal contracts, but assuming Bricker is right and this does apply to all Title VII claims the cost of doing business with the fed could rise a lot.
Litigated employment-related torts usually settle for significant* amounts regardless of the merits of individual claims, because (a) the cost of litigation is so high, (b) the potential exposure if the case goes to trial is really, really high, and © because most people who do have a valid claim usually have grounds for one or two more, so getting the thing settled and making sure you’re released from further liability is generally a good idea.
*not necessarily individually significant to corporations of the size to win federal contracts, but they’d add up - say, $20,000 a pop.
http://www.alternet.org/world/81266/?page=1 One Houston Law Firm is handling 15 cases of sexual assault by American contractors in Iraq, including KBR and Halliburton. It is not an isolated case. It is not to be waved away. It is a problem.
Bricker:
I completely disagree. I think the language is absolutely ambiguous, and it’s easy to see how it might have happened. (We’re not talking about commas being in different places, by the way, but about the drafters omitting commas or figuring they weren’t needed to convey their meaning. To think about it a different way, put imaginary brackets, programmer-style, around each of the intended clauses, as I do below.)
The other construction makes no real sense in context (some courts might not consider legislative history, but you and I can), especially given the name of the freaking amendment, and I’m kind of at a loss as to how you can say that it’s plain on its face (except that you then get to score points against Democrats by chiding them for injecting needless politics into the amendment).
Cite that “most” Democrats who voted for the amendment did so with the understanding that it would apply to all Title VII claims, rather than those relating to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment?
sigh
The plain language of the amendment.
Although I concede on reflection that they may well have not read it, or been overly influenced by the same rhetoric we’re discussing here, and may well have believed that they were voting for something less expansive.
So I’ll withdraw that claim. I have no idea what the legislators on either side were actually thinking.
And since it’s my position that “[t]he plain language of the amendment” is not, in fact, plain, it looks like we’re at an impasse and can agree to disagree.
Since Title 7 is the law of the land, why shouldn’t companies doing business with the American government and receiving tax payer money be subject to it? It should simply be a restatement of the law, with a stress on sexual harassment and assault, because they are what generated the amendment. There have been more than 15 sexual harassment cases . This is not an isolated case getting special treatment.
They are subject to it. Title VII just bestows a private right of action – it says, basically, that anybody with X grievance may file a civil suit in federal court seeking redress. But it doesn’t force them – that is, people with X grievance – to do so. If you get discriminated against in the workplace on the basis of your gender, you’re not obligated to make a federal case out of it.
So companies come along and insert clauses in their employment contracts which say, essentially, “By signing this I agree that if I ever have X grievance, I will forego my ability to seek redress of that grievance in federal court. Instead, should I choose to pursue a complaint against my employer based on X grievance, I will do so through private arbitration (which wrests our dispute out of the hands of the federal courts and away from pesky things like rules of civil procedure, published caselaw, transparency, and the need for judges to explain their decisions through reasoned elaboration).”
And since your employment contract is, y’know, a contract between you and your employer, it has the force of law, and you’ve given up your right to redress X grievance against your employer in federal court forever and ever and ever and can’t get it back, not even if you ask nicely. Unless you renegotiate your contract and bargain for exclusion of the clause…which, practically speaking, doesn’t happen.
That’s the debate you and **Dio **had. I just re-read the OP, and I don’t think it was presented dishonestly. I think it was a bit hysterical and unclear, but the OP doesn’t charge any Rs with “voting for gang rape”. The charge made is in the sfgate quote:
“The most repellent part is the 30 U.S. senators – Republicans each and every one – who just stepped forth to vote against the Franken amendment, essentially saying no, women should have no right to sue if they are sexually abused or gang raped, Halliburton and its ilk must be protected at all costs, and by the way we hereby welcome Satan into our rancid souls forevermore. God bless America.”
Bolding mine. While paraphrased, it is near enough to the truth. The Satan bit is over the top, but that’s charging them with being in Haliburton’s pocket, not with loving rape.
As I’ve said before, the votes had more to do with politics than rape. I would expect 30 Republican Nays if Senator Franken proposed an amendment giving all Senators pay raises. I agree that “they voted for rape!” is counterproductive (with 5 pages of this thread as my cite). But any way you twist it, a Nay vote clearly sides with money over human rights. If they objected to Senator Franken’s way of approaching it, they could have offered any of the alternative ideas that posters here have come up with, some so easy that you only need to move 2-3 commas. But they didn’t. They argued that Haliburton was being made a victim, not about the scope of the language. They flat out voted that No: they are not at all interested in finding ways to improve our standards as a customer in order to guaranty that some victims are able to seek justice in court. I also think they managed to twist the meaning of the amendment, as if it rewrote federal law on how all companies do business, ignoring the fact that it only applies to who we want to shop with.
I’m not sure you’ve really indicated your own opinion, Bricker. My guess is that you’d have voted Nay on the basis that it is too broad. Is that right? It is written in a way that allows too many victims get their day in court? The govt should not strive to require contractors to treat people better? Arbitration is just as just as a trial in court? Costs must be kept down, even it it means people’s rights get trampled? It was already illegal, nothing to see here, move along (Gibbler’s argument, I think)?