The Jamie Leigh Jones Amendment-

[James48843]

Minnesota Senator Al Franken introduces an amendment to the Defense Bill to disqualify defense contractors who require their employees to give up their rights to sue if they are raped.

Named after former KBR contractor employee Jamie Leigh Jones, this amendment would prohibit defense spending for contractors who make their employees give up their rights to file suit if they are raped on the job.

XIKo-vy4010

Who would vote in favor preventing women who were raped on the job from being able to have their day in court?

(read more: http://minnesotaindependent.com/46483/franken-amendment-to-protect-victims-of-sexual-assault-passes )

Why, it was 30 male republicans, of course.

NAYs ---30

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

No defense on this one, folks.


Record: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00308

So, the right of corporations are that important to republicans?

More than the rights of a woman to have her day in court?

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2588 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SP2588:) to H.R. 3326 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR3326:) (Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010)
Statement of Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims.

Vote Counts:

YEAs68

NAYs30

[Buster]

I am appalled that anyone in their right mind would NAY a BILL such as this..as much as I dislike Al Franken and his politics..he is worthy of credit for this one.

Thanks Jim for bringing this to light..you may add my name to the "YEA" list

[grandma]

My Stars ! What on earth were those men thinking? No doubt their wives & daughters had a few things to say to them at supper time.... not to mention their constituents!

[phil]

Apalling. I see that Senators Collins Snowe Hutchison and Murkowski are noticably absent from the list, and that Senators Vitter and Ensign are. I think Republicans should take note of this one. If I were a woman who was a loyal Republican......I would.

[James48843]

I am appalled that anyone in their right mind would NAY a BILL such as this..

Well, Buster, two of those on the list are YOUR Senators- Mr. Coburn (R-OK), and Mr. Inhofe(R-OK). You might want to consider giving their office a call sometime and ask them why. They both need to hear from their constituents. Your voice is more powerful than mine.

[Buster]

Well, Buster, two of those on the list are YOUR Senators- Mr. Coburn (R-OK), and Mr. Inhofe(R-OK). You might want to consider giving their office a call sometime and ask them why. They both need to hear from their constituents. Your voice is more powerful than mine.
You can bet I will..right now this very minute, I'm contacting all the local News Stations..:mad:

[nnuut]

I would have voted for this one myself. :nuts:It seems to me that there may have been other reasons that these Reps voted against this amendment. Congress works in mysterious ways most of the time and sometimes it is not perfectly clear what is really going on when it comes to Politics, deals are made and deals are broken that we never are aware of. :cool:

[Viva La Migra]

I have a question for the ladies out there with regard to this thread. If you're applying for a job and the employer you've filed the application with tells you they will not hire you unless you waive your right to sue if you are raped, would you continue the employment process?

Before y'all flame me, let me state for the record that I support an employee's right to sue in such circumstances. Notice that I did not specifically cite women here. Let's face it, in today's world there's a chance that a man in such employment could be raped too.

[James48843]

Here is Senator Jeff Session's floor argument on why this amendment should have been defeated (An extract- but it hits the highlights- you can read the whole transcript on http://thomas.loc.gov )


“Mr. SESSIONS: Mr. President, I would like to speak about the Franken amendment if it is OK with the bill managers.

The amendment would impose the will of Congress on private individuals and companies in a retroactive fashion, in validating employment contracts without due process of law. It is a political amendment, really at bottom, representing sort of a political attack directed at Halliburton, which is politically a matter of sensitivity. Notwithstanding, the Congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts.”

And

“Senator Franken offered this amendment because he apparently does not like the fact there are arbitration agreements in employment contracts. I would suggest that is common all over America today.
The Supreme Court of the United States has already resolved that arbitration agreements contained in employment contracts are not only valid but in most instances beneficial. In most instances, arbitration is considered to be beneficial. In fact, employees tend to win more arbitration disputes than they do lawsuits in court. So I think that is a matter we should consider.”

And

There is no doubt that contracts are a property right. We do not have any allegations that the contracts Senator Franken is trying to invalidate were imposed on employees or that fraud or coercion was involved in creating them.

To invalidate these contracts would violate not only the due process rights of employers but the employees as well. Employees could, indeed, benefit from arbitration rather than having to go to Federal court.

The Congress is in no position to determine whether an employee negotiated for additional compensation in exchange for signing an arbitration agreement----

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority time has expired.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have one additional moment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would conclude by saying that I do believe this is an important issue; that the Department of Defense is not asking for this. It is a reaction to some specific event, I assume, that has not justified changing Federal law. Arbitration in itself can be better for employees than filing an expensive lawsuit in Federal court. I believe we ought to at least dig into the issue far more in depth than we have before we up and pass such legislation as this.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

[Viva La Migra]

Here is Senator Jeff Session's floor argument on why this amendment should have been defeated (An extract- but it hits the highlights- you can read the whole transcript on http://thomas.loc.gov )


“Mr. SESSIONS: Mr. President, I would like to speak about the Franken amendment if it is OK with the bill managers.

The amendment would impose the will of Congress on private individuals and companies in a retroactive fashion, in validating employment contracts without due process of law. It is a political amendment, really at bottom, representing sort of a political attack directed at Halliburton, which is politically a matter of sensitivity. Notwithstanding, the Congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts.”


And

“Senator Franken offered this amendment because he apparently does not like the fact there are arbitration agreements in employment contracts. I would suggest that is common all over America today.

The Supreme Court of the United States has already resolved that arbitration agreements contained in employment contracts are not only valid but in most instances beneficial. In most instances, arbitration is considered to be beneficial. In fact, employees tend to win more arbitration disputes than they do lawsuits in court. So I think that is a matter we should consider.”


And

There is no doubt that contracts are a property right. We do not have any allegations that the contracts Senator Franken is trying to invalidate were imposed on employees or that fraud or coercion was involved in creating them.

To invalidate these contracts would violate not only the due process rights of employers but the employees as well. Employees could, indeed, benefit from arbitration rather than having to go to Federal court.

The Congress is in no position to determine whether an employee negotiated for additional compensation in exchange for signing an arbitration agreement----

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority time has expired.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have one additional moment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would conclude by saying that I do believe this is an important issue; that the Department of Defense is not asking for this. It is a reaction to some specific event, I assume, that has not justified changing Federal law. Arbitration in itself can be better for employees than filing an expensive lawsuit in Federal court. I believe we ought to at least dig into the issue far more in depth than we have before we up and pass such legislation as this.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
As a former union representative, I can state that it is my experience that the statements made by Senator Sessions as they relate to arbitration are very true. For federal employees odds are better at winning in arbitration than they are with the Merit System Protection Board.

How that relates to the amendment, I have no idea.

[Show-me]

Vote them all out, every one.

[Show-me]

You don't have to worry about Bond, he is retiring after this term.

[Show-me]

I really would like to know the reason behind the 30 idiots votes, from their own mouths that is.

[alevin]

Eh-hem. 1. I'm grateful none of my reps voted nay on this. 2. I note both the reps from the state where much of my family resides, did vote nay-I'll be talking to family members about this one. 3. As fed. employee, we have choice of going MSPB OR arbitration, as I understand it. Those defence contractor employees are giving up that choice if they sign those contracts with that clause. 4. women who would sign up for that kind of work-do you think they'd willingly do that kind of work if they had better options open to them, knowing the risks? How often does a man think about that particular risk when he signs up for that kind of work?

I think Sessions little comment about how "congress has no idea if employees negotiated a higher price contract as incentive to sign"-true but seriously I suspect unlikely and I think he's really reaching on that one as a justification. It is far far far more probable a woman would face that than any man, it has historically been a weapon of war and humiliation and domination, but used much less against men than women throughout history relatively speaking.

[Buster]

Here is Senator Jeff Session's floor argument on why this amendment should have been defeated (An extract- but it hits the highlights- you can read the whole transcript on http://thomas.loc.gov )


“Mr. SESSIONS: Mr. President, I would like to speak about the Franken amendment if it is OK with the bill managers.

The amendment would impose the will of Congress on private individuals and companies in a retroactive fashion, in validating employment contracts without due process of law. It is a political amendment, really at bottom, representing sort of a political attack directed at Halliburton, which is politically a matter of sensitivity. Notwithstanding, the Congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts.”

And

“Senator Franken offered this amendment because he apparently does not like the fact there are arbitration agreements in employment contracts. I would suggest that is common all over America today.
The Supreme Court of the United States has already resolved that arbitration agreements contained in employment contracts are not only valid but in most instances beneficial. In most instances, arbitration is considered to be beneficial. In fact, employees tend to win more arbitration disputes than they do lawsuits in court. So I think that is a matter we should consider.”

And

There is no doubt that contracts are a property right. We do not have any allegations that the contracts Senator Franken is trying to invalidate were imposed on employees or that fraud or coercion was involved in creating them.

To invalidate these contracts would violate not only the due process rights of employers but the employees as well. Employees could, indeed, benefit from arbitration rather than having to go to Federal court.

The Congress is in no position to determine whether an employee negotiated for additional compensation in exchange for signing an arbitration agreement----

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority time has expired.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have one additional moment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would conclude by saying that I do believe this is an important issue; that the Department of Defense is not asking for this. It is a reaction to some specific event, I assume, that has not justified changing Federal law. Arbitration in itself can be better for employees than filing an expensive lawsuit in Federal court. I believe we ought to at least dig into the issue far more in depth than we have before we up and pass such legislation as this.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
I agree that there maybe a too wide of a brush stroke in Franken's BILL...But in rebuttal to Mr Sessions' argument above...The point of this specific BILL is not to overwrite all employer/employee arbitration issues..BUT to give an employee DUE PROCESS of LAW suit against an employer if he/she was harmed in anyway due to a CRIME against them as in the LAW of the LAND and not just an employment issue...Perhaps that's why so many responsible minded Republicans voted against it..I'm sure it wasn't because of the good ole boy Republicans that voted against it, was only because the BILL came from the Dems, but that they seen flaws in the overall wording of the BILL that wasn’t specific enough so that it wouldn’t impinge on normal day to day arbitration rules and practices globally.

[phil]

So.....maybe Senators Hutchison, Collins, Snowe and Murkowski were just having a bad Republican day? Why didn't any of them vote with their colleagues?



I agree that there maybe a too wide of a brush stroke in Franken's BILL...But in rebuttal to Mr Sessions' argument above...The point of this specific BILL is not to overwrite all employer/employee arbitration issues..BUT to give an employee DUE PROCESS of LAW suit against an employer if he/she was harmed in anyway due to a CRIME against them as in the LAW of the LAND and not just an employment issue...Perhaps that's why so many responsible minded Republicans voted against it..I'm sure it wasn't because of the good ole boy Republicans that voted against it, was only because the BILL came from the Dems, but that they seen flaws in the overall wording of the BILL that wasn’t specific enough so that it wouldn’t impinge on normal day to day arbitration rules and practices globally.

[Buster]

So.....maybe Senators Hutchison, Collins, Snowe and Murkowski were just having a bad Republican day? Why didn't any of them vote with their colleagues?
I'm a lot of things, but a mind reader isn't one of them..:D

[JTH]

I'll bite, what does this amendment really do? I see it as a nice gesture, but the reality is it's nothing more than the equivalent of patching the Hoover dam with a stick of bubble gum. I wonder if Halliburton wanted to put these stipulations in their contracts, or if the insurance companies forced them too because of excessive lawsuits?

Look who Co-sponsored this bill. This was a far left aim (under disguise of rape) at sticking it to defense contractors, but what about the other corporations out there and why were they left out? Why can corporation A not hire me because I'm a fat smoker? But rest assure those 30 will be billed as pro-rape during the next election campaign.

If they really want to fix this problem, then they need to write and pass a comprehensive Worker's Bill Of Rights...

[James48843]

I'll bite, what does this amendment really do? I see it as a nice gesture, but the reality is it's nothing more than the equivalent of patching the Hoover dam with a stick of bubble gum. I wonder if Halliburton wanted to put these stipulations in their contracts, or if the insurance companies forced them too because of excessive lawsuits?


The amendment makes contractor corporations ask one important question- do they want to take away the rights of their workers? If they do, then they will have to find another customer, because the United States Taxpayer is not going to be paying for rape of it's citizens, nor for the intentional forced cover up of the rape, as a condition of employment.

Here is the exact language:
----
"Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier 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."
----
The company can continue to require employees to give up their constitutional rights to bring contract disputes to court- but the company will no longer force employees, as a condition of having the job in the first place, to give up their rights to sue in the event of a Civil Rights Act of 1964 violation, nor the other crimes cited above.

If they do force employees to give up those rights- they simply can't be funded with U.S. tax dollars. They will have to find a customer elsewhere.



Sounds reasonable to me.

[Buster]

I'll bite, what does this amendment really do? I see it as a nice gesture, but the reality is it's nothing more than the equivalent of patching the Hoover dam with a stick of bubble gum. I wonder if Halliburton wanted to put these stipulations in their contracts, or if the insurance companies forced them too because of excessive lawsuits?

Look who Co-sponsored this bill. This was a far left aim (under disguise of rape) at sticking it to defense contractors, but what about the other corporations out there and why were they left out? Why can corporation A not hire me because I'm a fat smoker? But rest assure those 30 will be billed as pro-rape during the next election campaign.

If they really want to fix this problem, then they need to write and pass a comprehensive Worker's Bill Of Rights...

....you're a Fat Smoker?

[JTH]

The amendment makes contractor corporations ask one important question- do they want to take away the rights of their workers?

James I'd rather they go one step further and strip the corporations out of our personal lives altogether. That's my biggest gripe here. :mad:


....you're a Fat Smoker?

No but I'm working on it. :D

[Frixxxx]

....you're a Fat Smoker?

No but I'm working on it. :D

JTH, What exactly are you working on? The inhaling of smoke or food?

[Viva La Migra]

JTH, What exactly are you working on? The inhaling of smoke or food?
I'm picturing lard wrapped up in a Zig Zag.:sick: