TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Breaking Mews › John McCain votes in support of rape-friendly corporate contracts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

John McCain votes in support of rape-friendly corporate contracts

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
Rape case seeks to force US defence firms into the open
Quote:
The legislation to end the bar on legal action passed the Senate with a clear majority but 30 Republican members voted against it, including the former presidential candidate John McCain. Among the objections were claims that the government had no business interfering in a private contract between a company and its workers.
Gee, what a stand up guy. I imagine he also holds a dim view of whistle-blowers, seeing as they are probably in violation of a private contract between them and their company.

Since when has employment contracts been a defense against felony prosecution?
post #2 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Since when has employment contracts been a defense against felony prosecution?
Since union thuggery charges are almost always dropped after a contract is signed?

But if he voted for it just to be against the Democrats, then it was a pretty lame excuse for a pretty stupid move.
post #3 of 13
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Since union thuggery charges are almost always dropped after a contract is signed?

But if he voted for it just to be against the Democrats, then it was a pretty lame excuse for a pretty stupid move.
I've never worked with a union, so I honestly can't say.

But, I don't really think he's being stupid, I think it's just business. Everybody in DC is in somebody's pocket.
post #4 of 13
I think it is more the player at the middle of the controversy than the principles. Haliburton is a friend of the Republicans. If it had been ACORN, these senators would have been leading the charge.
post #5 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Since when has employment contracts been a defense against felony prosecution?
This case, while heinous to say the very least(!!), would not fall under US law enforcement jurisdiction because if it had happened on US soil the employer would have no say as to whether or not charges would be pressed against the animals that did that to her. It happened in Iraq, so any felony prosecution would have to be done in Iraqi (or international) courts, and apparently they aren't doing it.

This is solely about civil lawsuits that the rape victim c/would bring against the company citing that they all but encouraged attacks like this to take place. While I think they should be sued and sued heavily if even 1/2 of the back story is true, she should get herself a good lawyer who will go through the process as lined out in her contract and when arbitration fails (as it most certainly will) then move it to the courts.

This type of clause is actually pretty common in large corporations (from what I understand...I've never actually had to sign a contract for hire). The corporation stands as a ripe target for those who want to get rich quick by civil lawsuits, and there are plenty of unscrupulous lawyers who will sue a potatoe for having a blemish if they think they can get money out of it. While this is an extreme case, the congressional measure is about allowing civil lawsuits against corporations, thus negating the contract between private parties. It's not about justice for this poor woman, unless you feel justice can be served via dollars.
post #6 of 13
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
This case, while heinous to say the very least(!!), would not fall under US law enforcement jurisdiction because if it had happened on US soil the employer would have no say as to whether or not charges would be pressed against the animals that did that to her. It happened in Iraq, so any felony prosecution would have to be done in Iraqi (or international) courts, and apparently they aren't doing it.

This is solely about civil lawsuits that the rape victim c/would bring against the company citing that they all but encouraged attacks like this to take place. While I think they should be sued and sued heavily if even 1/2 of the back story is true, she should get herself a good lawyer who will go through the process as lined out in her contract and when arbitration fails (as it most certainly will) then move it to the courts.

This type of clause is actually pretty common in large corporations (from what I understand...I've never actually had to sign a contract for hire). The corporation stands as a ripe target for those who want to get rich quick by civil lawsuits, and there are plenty of unscrupulous lawyers who will sue a potatoe for having a blemish if they think they can get money out of it. While this is an extreme case, the congressional measure is about allowing civil lawsuits against corporations, thus negating the contract between private parties. It's not about justice for this poor woman, unless you feel justice can be served via dollars.
But why would an assault against a US citizen working for a contractor hired by the State Department fall under Iraqi jurisdiction, while the alleged murder of Iraqi citizens by Blackwater, a contractor hired by the State Department, fall under the jurisdiction of US Federal Courts. I'm having a bit of difficulty with that one.
post #7 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
But why would an assault against a US citizen working for a contractor hired by the State Department fall under Iraqi jurisdiction, while the alleged murder of Iraqi citizens by Blackwater, a contractor hired by the State Department, fall under the jurisdiction of US Federal Courts. I'm having a bit of difficulty with that one.
Mike I've been thinking about this thread, and especially about this thread and this Bill in light of the Pay Czar deciding that the pay of executives in some of the larger private companies should be - nay, MUST BE - cut by up to 90%. Doesn't sound the same? Actually, it is almost the exact same thing.

What both of these decisions are saying is that private companies can are no longer held to contract law; that the government can come in at any time and decide that they don't like what's in that contract and change it. Nevermind that it it is in the Constitution that the government can't do that. The Dems control the Presidency and the Congress - they can do anything they damn well please! And they think that these contracts aren't fair, even though both private parties agreed to them when they were agreed on.

This bill does not say that there cannot be criminal charges filed in whatever courts would handle this jurisdiction. I'm not sure why there were federal charges against US citizens who did something bad in Iraq, because they were employed by the State Dept. Frankly, that makes no sense to me, but they didn't ask me and I don't know the laws that would pertain to that. If they could charge that person/those persons, then I don't know why they are hesitating to charge these criminals who raped and mutilated that woman.

What this bill does say is that she can't file a criminal lawsuit, i.e. sue the company, without going through the arbitration process first. The only thing these victims cannot do under their current contracts is to sue the company for not protecting them or harboring a hostile work environment.

So once again, unless you think that justice is served with a check this bill has nothing to do with justice but rather with contract law between private parties.
post #8 of 13
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
Mike I've been thinking about this thread, and especially about this thread and this Bill in light of the Pay Czar deciding that the pay of executives in some of the larger private companies should be - nay, MUST BE - cut by up to 90%. Doesn't sound the same? Actually, it is almost the exact same thing.

What both of these decisions are saying is that private companies can are no longer held to contract law; that the government can come in at any time and decide that they don't like what's in that contract and change it. Nevermind that it it is in the Constitution that the government can't do that. The Dems control the Presidency and the Congress - they can do anything they damn well please! And they think that these contracts aren't fair, even though both private parties agreed to them when they were agreed on.

This bill does not say that there cannot be criminal charges filed in whatever courts would handle this jurisdiction. I'm not sure why there were federal charges against US citizens who did something bad in Iraq, because they were employed by the State Dept. Frankly, that makes no sense to me, but they didn't ask me and I don't know the laws that would pertain to that. If they could charge that person/those persons, then I don't know why they are hesitating to charge these criminals who raped and mutilated that woman.

What this bill does say is that she can't file a criminal lawsuit, i.e. sue the company, without going through the arbitration process first. The only thing these victims cannot do under their current contracts is to sue the company for not protecting them or harboring a hostile work environment.

So once again, unless you think that justice is served with a check this bill has nothing to do with justice but rather with contract law between private parties.
I'd not heard of the pay czar decision until you mentioned it, so I had to look that up first. And, I think it's crazy. I also think the two situations have very little to do with one another, and are barely similar. The pay czar delving into the operations of private business is actually frightening. But in the case of corporations with government contracts, especially service providers working as government sub-contractors, they already are regulated heavily by the government. The Federal Acquisition Regulation is thousands upon thousands of pages of regulations, including hundreds of pages concerning the corporation's employees; their transportation, lodging, security, security clearances, even how heavily they have to be insured. The employee/employer contract with government contractors is already subject to greater scrutiny than private, public service industry. This is simply closing a badly abused loophole. This bill does not say that corporations cannot have such contracts...it simply says that the government doesn't have to act as their milk-cow with lucrative contracts if they do. In fact, the politicians involved is probably the only reason it even got noticed.

https://www.acquisition.gov/FAR/

It's not about justice for one person, it's about an ongoing climate of crime. I read into it a bit more and found out that she could have sought criminal charges in the US...IF...KBR had not "misplaced" crucial parts of the rape kit that was turned over to them by a military physician. I agree that this bill is very heavily pointed at one particular contractor, and that it could be dropped if all the KBR employees involved in these assaults, to include those "handling" the evidence, holding her in detention after the assault, firing other women that reported such things and banning cell phones after it was found out she used one to call for help; were rounded up and put on the stand to explain their actions. But this is not going to happen, because there is too much political money tied in with their revenue. McCain and the rest of their payola politicians would close ranks and do whatever they felt was necessary to protect that oh so important source of political capital. He apparently see's his financial well being as far more important than the lives and safety of a mere handful of women.
post #9 of 13
Actually, the pay czar was only talking about those companies who have taken TARP money and have not yet paid it back, making the U.S. one of their main shareholders. The old golden rule.

A little scarier is the attempt of the Fed to restrict all pay in the financial sector.
post #10 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Rape case seeks to force US defence firms into the open


Gee, what a stand up guy. I imagine he also holds a dim view of whistle-blowers, seeing as they are probably in violation of a private contract between them and their company.
Yes, what a guy....looking out for companies is more important than looking out for people And just hide behind the "we're fighting the Big,Bad,Evil Government" label - what a joke!!!
post #11 of 13
Thread Starter 
Even McCain's own constituents are wanting to string him up.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/..._id=4059490656

Oh, how the "above reproach" hath fallen.

Quote:
Here lies a fallen god. His fall was not a small one. We did but build his pedestal; a narrow and a tall one
post #12 of 13
Without reading Franken's bill, and I mean every clause and amendment, there's no telling for sure why McCain voted against it.

But it IS true that it and the pay czar issues are exactly what valanhb said, an effort to make an end run around corporate contract law. Think this doesn't matter? This is a test run for negating the health insurance agreements of all the unions in the country.

It's unfortunate that this particular piece of legislation came up when it did.

By the way, the case that sparked the Franken bill is quite muddled. I haven't seen a Blackwater defense or even a statement, except that the alleged victim agreed to an arbitration clause in her employment contract. I don't think she has ever kept an appointment with the arbitrator.

And arbitration clauses are cropping up all over the place, in car loan documents, home loan documents, etc. That's a whole other discussion.
post #13 of 13
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Without reading Franken's bill, and I mean every clause and amendment, there's no telling for sure why McCain voted against it.
Because his corporate handlers wanted him to
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Breaking Mews
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Breaking Mews › John McCain votes in support of rape-friendly corporate contracts