Republicans against workplace rights for sexual assault, battery, discrimination

[Xevrex]

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/meet-the-senators-who-vot_n_312976.html

I think that all homo sapiens can understand how the mere thought of an organization that receives government money through contract mechanisms being tangentially involved in setting up a fake tax shelter for a fake pimp and his fake prostitution ring of fake prostitutes can justifiably lead to lawmakers going absolutely cross-eyed with white-hot, impotent rage. But what happens when a similarly taxpayer-endowed contractor attempts to cover up employee-on-employee gang rape by locking up the victim in a shipping container without food and water and threatening her with reprisals if she report the incident? Somehow, it doesn't engender the same level of anger!

Credit new Senator Al Franken however, for introducing an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill that would punish contractors if they "restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court." You'd think that this would be a no-brainer, actually, but that didn't stop Jeff Sessions from labeling Franken's effort a "political attack directed at Halliburton." Franken, of course, pointed out that his amendment would apply broadly, to all contractors, because otherwise, 'twould be a bill of attainder, right? Right?

Franken's amendment ended up passing, 68-30. Here's a list of the Senators who showed broad support for Roman Polanski by voting against it:

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)

ADDENDUM: It's been pointed out to me that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce lobbied against the Franken amendment as well:

Republicans point out that the amendment was opposed by a host of business interests, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and applies to a wide range of companies, including IBM and Boeing.

I guess we must cover up crimes like rape in order to save capitalism.

Is it just me, or is the right-wing getting crazier every day?

 

[lefty]

what the fuuuuuuuuuucccck. Kill them all.

 

[Warped]

I'm so lost, but I'm pretty sure Al Franken is the hero in this situation

 

[Sparta]

Why do corporate rights come in front of individual rights to neo-conservatives?

 

[Wanted Bob]

Thats so messed up...

 

[unozero]

Why do corporate rights come in front of individual rights to neo-conservatives?

wow I didn't think you were that naive.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Do you want to either make proper points or **** right off please?

DURHURHUR I DDNT THINK U WER THAT NAIVE.

Well? Enlighten us, shitheel. Spit it out.

 

[Sparta]

Do you want to either make proper points or **** right off please?

DURHURHUR I DDNT THINK U WER THAT NAIVE.

Well? Enlighten us, shitheel. Spit it out.

Ummm... I was going to say the same thing (ask to elaborate) only without the attitude. I'm genuinely interested to hear the conservative side of the argument.

 

[unozero]

It has nothing to with being conservative,using cliche terms like make you like childish and like one sheeple that alot of you here including me make fun of.The people that you wanna throw all in basket and just call "neocons" Are infact a very diverse group of people of course it's despicable that these men voted against this amendment,BUT obviously not all republicans voted against it.
What in fact makes a person voting against this amendment automatically a "neocon?"
You sir are ignorant fool and no better then mirror universe Hannity who likes to use words like secular and liberal is a negative insult.

 

[Sulkdodds]

only without the attitude. I'm genuinely interested to hear the conservative side of the argument.

So am I (even if that's not what uno is offering), but I have absolutely run out of patience with people posting what are essentially insults in lieu of even the slightest hint of an argument. After all, who could have predicted from unozero's post that his argument was actually what it is?

using cliche terms

sheeple

Tee hee.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Right wing, left wing...lets just make the [strike]bird[/strike] Charizard and fly already.

 

[lord_raken]

All this tells us is that 30 senators were swayed by lobbyists. It only reinforces my belief that a good number of politicians are policy prostitutes. They will say, do, and vote for/against anything that will help to secure their reelection. Our positions of power have become positions of profit and that needs to change. public service should be a sacrifice not a career Other wise it attracts the people we DON'T want in office..

 

[Sparta]

It has nothing to with being conservative,using cliche terms like make you like childish and like one sheeple that alot of you here including me make fun of.The people that you wanna throw all in basket and just call "neocons" Are infact a very diverse group of people of course it's despicable that these men voted against this amendment,BUT obviously not all republicans voted against it.
What in fact makes a person voting against this amendment automatically a "neocon?"
You sir are ignorant fool and no better then mirror universe Hannity who likes to use words like secular and liberal is a negative insult.

Well you've got me on generalising neo-conservatives, but there is definitely a massive trend in the current Republican party that consists of it's members championing the rights of the corporation over the rights of the individual. I'm not saying the people who support these Republicans' stand for the same thing, but when I'm referring to neo-conservatives I mean people who fall more in line with Dick Cheney's politics than anything else.

Still, I'd love to hear their side of the argument, beyond "This is a political attack on Halliburton".

 

[Robbo]

Were these contracts restricting the person taking legal action against the 'people' involved or the company. If the company then why should the company pay for actions that it probably couldn't foresee and therefore couldn't control?

And before people start raging I wasn't making a point here I would just like to know the rationale other than 'obviously we should pass the bill because it's "rape"' which is all I've heard so far.

 

[Sparta]

I think you need to read it more carefully. It's not allowing the victims to sue the company because of their rape. It's allowing the victims to sue the company for attempting to cover up their rape. Big difference.

 

[David.Seth2]

here's a little backstory about the amendment

On Tuesday night, the Minnesota Democrat got his first piece of legislation passed by the United States Senate via roll call vote. The amendment stopped federal funding for those defense contractors who used mandatory arbitration clauses to deny victims of assault the right to bring their case to court. It passed by a 68-30 margin with nine Republicans joining each voting Democrat. And in the immediate aftermath, Franken was granted the chance to revel, ever so slightly, in his victory.

"The story came to my attention of Jamie Leigh Jones who, when she was 19, went to Iraq to work for [defense contractor] KBR and she was put in the barracks with 400 men and was sexually harassed," Franken told the Huffington Post in a brief interview shortly after the vote. "She complained. But they didn't do anything about it. She was drugged and gang raped and they locked her up in a shipping container. She tried to sue KBR and they said you have a mandatory arbitration clause in your contract. She tried to fight back and said this is ridiculous. She took it to court and they have been fighting her for three years."

"This bill would make it so that anybody in business with the Department of the Defense can't do this," he concluded emphatically. "They can't have mandatory arbitration on issues like assault and battery."

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/franken-gets-first-amendm_n_312399.html

ed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd8gVRMio_E