Gang Bang Bob (Corker)speaks on pro Gang Rape Vote

[okz]

Bob Corker had to come out to defend his pro-gang rape vote. He said that he did it to help the Obama Administration. It is nice to see him working with the Administration like that. I'm sure that he will be just as helpful when a healthcare bill reaches his desk.

I'll bet his daughters give him the frosty shoulder at Thanksgiving this year.

www.newschannel9.com/news/senator-985810-bob-corker.html

[Justin Thyme]

But the Franken amendment had less to do with ensuring justice for rape victims and more to do with limiting the use of arbitration to settle employment claims. It went too far."

This is a very reasonable justification for his vote.

[Jay]

Did you actually read the amendment???

SA 2588. Mr. FRANKEN (for himself
and Ms. LANDRIEU) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 3326, making appropriations
for the Department of Defense
for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2010, and for other purposes;
as follows:
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.

(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does
not apply with respect to employment contracts
that may not be enforced in a court of
the United States.

[okz]

Oct 23, 2009 13:46:53 GMT -5 Jay said:

Did you actually read the amendment???

SA 2588. Mr. FRANKEN (for himself
and Ms. LANDRIEU) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 3326, making appropriations
for the Department of Defense
for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2010, and for other purposes;
as follows:
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.

(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does
not apply with respect to employment contracts
that may not be enforced in a court of
the United States.

I posted it in another thread last week, What is your problem with it, please be specific and show your work

[BlackFox]

Oct 23, 2009 13:38:49 GMT -5 Justin Thyme said:

This is a very reasonable justification for his vote.

Yea, except that he's dead wrong.

I would say Mr. Corkers vote had more to do with protecting arbitration as a means of ensuring favorable outcomes for companies he gets donations from.

[okz]

Oct 23, 2009 13:38:49 GMT -5 Justin Thyme said:

But the Franken amendment had less to do with ensuring justice for rape victims and more to do with limiting the use of arbitration to settle employment claims. It went too far."

This is a very reasonable justification for his vote.

[/quote]A growing number of U.S. employers are forcing employees to sign contracts with arbitration agreements. So when an employment dispute arises a third-party, in most cases a person or agency hired by the employer, decides the outcome of the case. In most arbitration agreements the employee gives up their right to settle the matters in court.[/quote]

These Arbitrators are hired by and paid for by employers and are almost always slanted in favor of the employers who hire and pay for them. It is a loophole around Title 7 that should be slammed shut. It is no justification from Gang Bang Bob and we all know it.

[Jay]

Oct 23, 2009 13:54:22 GMT -5 okz said:

Oct 23, 2009 13:46:53 GMT -5 Jay said:

Did you actually read the amendment???

I posted it in another thread last week, What is your problem with it

Since my post was right after Justin Thyme's statement, my question was directed at him.

He's defending Corker's vote, and I'm trying to show that the amendment isn't directed at all arbitration, but only trying to remove arbitration from cases involving sexual assault or harassment.

[okz]

sorry jay

[Jay]

No worries.

[Justin Thyme]

Arbitration clauses are used everywhere and they are used to try to hold down the cost of litigation that every large company is going to face whether they are in the right or not. This amendment would not only prevent arbitration for the serious charges of sexual harassment but also the minor ones that are brought up by hypersensitive employees that I'm sure every one of you have worked around before and made fun of.

This type of crap is what I was expecting from Franken when I first heard he was running for the Senate. This amendment was designed not to protect rape victims from their evil employers but to embarrass pro-business Republicans who see arbitration as a legitimate means for controlling costs for business. And it is a legitimate way to control litigation costs and not necessarily a system that is weighted in favor of the business.

Read through the amendment again. This isn't an amendment needed to bring rapists to justice. It isn't even an amendment to keep businesses from being found libel for monetary damages due to an unfriendly workplace. It's an amendment to take away arbitration as a tool to control legal costs. Franken is using some trigger words to keep the casual reader of the amendment from seeing what the bill is actually going to do. This is dirty politics, plain and simple.

[rstewart]

All politics is dirty.

[Scarlet&Gray]

All politics is dirty.

So is Bob's daughter's

[professorx]

Oct 23, 2009 13:25:07 GMT -5 okz said:

Bob Corker had to come out to defend his pro-gang rape vote. He said that he did it to help the Obama Administration. It is nice to see him working with the Administration like that. I'm sure that he will be just as helpful when a healthcare bill reaches his desk.

I'll bet his daughters give him the frosty shoulder at Thanksgiving this year.

www.newschannel9.com/news/senator-985810-bob-corker.html

Great. This message fails at any level. Clearly it was not meant to be intelligent. Maybe political humor? "Gang rape" Bwaahaha. Hilarious.

I am no fan of Corker, but please...

[okz]

Oct 23, 2009 16:05:12 GMT -5 Justin Thyme said:

Arbitration clauses are used everywhere and they are used to try to hold down the cost of litigation that every large company is going to face whether they are in the right or not. This amendment would not only prevent arbitration for the serious charges of sexual harassment but also the minor ones that are brought up by hypersensitive employees that I'm sure every one of you have worked around before and made fun of.

This type of crap is what I was expecting from Franken when I first heard he was running for the Senate. This amendment was designed not to protect rape victims from their evil employers but to embarrass pro-business Republicans who see arbitration as a legitimate means for controlling costs for business. And it is a legitimate way to control litigation costs and not necessarily a system that is weighted in favor of the business.

Read through the amendment again. This isn't an amendment needed to bring rapists to justice. It isn't even an amendment to keep businesses from being found libel for monetary damages due to an unfriendly workplace. It's an amendment to take away arbitration as a tool to control legal costs. Franken is using some trigger words to keep the casual reader of the amendment from seeing what the bill is actually going to do. This is dirty politics, plain and simple.

This is a fundamental difference between liberal and conservative ideology.

Overall liberals believe that government should play a role to some degree to protect the rights of individual from corporations. This is done with regulations and consumer protection legislation.

Overall conservatives believe in protecting corporations from individuals. This is done with deregulation and tort reforms.

There is clearly abuse from both sides with frivolous lawsuits from one side and corporate malfeasance on the other.

To ask that companies who do business with the government abide by the letter and spirit of the law (in this case title VII) I don't think is too much to ask at all.

there is nothing wrong with the bill

[Justin Thyme]

there is nothing wrong with the bill

Of course not, if you are a trial lawyer. There is nothing wrong with arbitration either except that it doesn't put any money in trial lawyers' pockets. This bill isn't about rape or physical assaults on women. Those terms were thrown into the bill to make it seem like voting against it is the same as voting in favor of rape. That is a straw man argument. Straw man arguments are what "Senator" Franken has always been very good at constructing. This isn't about protecting the individuals from big business, arbitration can do that just as well as a civil trial, this is about protecting an industry (trial lawyers) that donates a lot of money to Democrats.

[okz]

I agree that it helps to attach an attractive 19 year old rape victim's face/story to your bill but the bill still stands on it's own. Arbiters are literally bought and paid for by the employer. To imply that they could be impartial is really not an honest argument. It is a Kangaroo court set up to circumvent the American legal system.

You are correct that it is not just about rape or physical assaults on women, it covers all of Title VII. It does not do away with arbitration in general, it is only limited to companies who want to do business with the government.

Voting against the bill is about protecting an industry (defense contractors) that donates a lot of money to Republicans.

[Justin Thyme]

Nov 14, 2009 19:17:03 GMT -5 okz said:

Arbiters are literally bought and paid for by the employer. To imply that they could be impartial is really not an honest argument. It is a Kangaroo court set up to circumvent the American legal system.

Not all arbiters are bought and paid for by the employer. It would be very easy to set up arbitration to be impartial and if there is going to be legislation on the matter it should be to regulate arbitration so that it is impartial. Throwing out arbitration all together is just throwing a bone to the trial lawyers association.

You are correct that it is not just about rape or physical assaults on women, it covers all of Title VII. It does not do away with arbitration in general, it is only limited to companies who want to do business with the government.

And this goes back to my original contention with the way the Senators who voted against this piece of trash legislation were painted. Their vote had nothing to do with protecting rape victims. It was a sleazy bit of politicking that both sides practice and you will hear me calling it out for what it is regardless of the party propagating it.

Voting against the bill is about protecting an industry (defense contractors) that donates a lot of money to Republicans.

And the same can be said about voting for the bill (Trial Lawyers Association). The bill wasn't about rape. It's disingenuous to claim it was. But what else could you expect from a bill written by a former SNL writer and Air America host. I'm just really disappointed with the DNC running the ad.