Journal Sylver Dragon's Journal: They really said, "no"? 3
Was over on Fark and ran into an article about the amendment Senator Al Franken proposed to the House Appropriations bill. Now, as intended by the article, I had an inital WTF moment. Why did 30 Senators feel it necessary to oppose this amendment.
As one might expect, I was skeptical of the claim that this amendment was all about preventing rape cover-ups. After all, 30 Senators voting against it seems to indicate that the amendment doesn't contain what the title says it does. So, go over and read the text myself:
On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following: 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.
That's is, that's the amendment in its entirety. No dodgy language, no hidden "And we're going to give everyone with a 'q' in their name 1 million dollars". Nada. It really looks like it does do what the title says, which is defund any contract with a mandatory arbitration clause which tries to include the type of thing KBR is trying to force under it. Sure, it's gonna fuck with Halliburton, KBR and probably a few other contractors which they get their employment contracts sorted, so what? Overall, great job Senator Franken.
For the 30 Senators who voted 'no', WTF, over?
As one might expect, I was skeptical of the claim that this amendment was all about preventing rape cover-ups. After all, 30 Senators voting against it seems to indicate that the amendment doesn't contain what the title says it does. So, go over and read the text myself:
On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following: 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.
That's is, that's the amendment in its entirety. No dodgy language, no hidden "And we're going to give everyone with a 'q' in their name 1 million dollars". Nada. It really looks like it does do what the title says, which is defund any contract with a mandatory arbitration clause which tries to include the type of thing KBR is trying to force under it. Sure, it's gonna fuck with Halliburton, KBR and probably a few other contractors which they get their employment contracts sorted, so what? Overall, great job Senator Franken.
For the 30 Senators who voted 'no', WTF, over?
Durrr (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)