(Post a new comment)

	faultypremise 2009-11-03 05:26 am UTC (link)
	Boy he sure did his best to dodge her artfully. Bless her for standing her ground and refusing to let him derail her questions. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	tez 2009-11-03 05:43 am UTC (link)
	And bless everyone who chose to blast his attempts to dodge all over the internet. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	evilsqueakers 2009-11-03 06:29 am UTC (link)
	Don't forget the people who were blasting him along with the survivor. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	shadwing 2009-11-03 05:49 am UTC (link)
	I have seen the flimsy arguements that such a law would be 'intrustive' and 'un-enforceable' but don't companies who are seeking Government Contracts have to provide prove that they don't racially descriminate when hiring...that they pay proper (Union) wages ect...why can't the companies just provide a copy of how they handle assault cases as well? (Reply to this)(Thread)

tez
2009-11-03 06:05 am UTC (link)

why can't the companies just provide a copy of how they handle assault cases as well?

Because the issue isn't whether or not the company provides a copy of how they handle assault cases, the issue is how they handle those cases. I'm sure you could find copies of the KBR arbitration clause without any trouble. That doesn't change that the clause itself is abhorrently, disgustingly unfair.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

eleutheria
2009-11-03 08:51 am UTC (link)

I'm sure you could find copies of the KBR arbitration clause without any trouble.

Which doesn't change the fact that there's still no way for prospective employees to know how often it happens, or the kind of climate they're walking into, if the arbitration proceedings are closed. Rather like my alma mater trying to hush up instances of rape and other crimes involving athletes, and rape in general, until Glamour magazine mentioned the school in an article about on-campus rapes. People deserve to know how bad the risk is. (So I agree, it's disgustingly unfair.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

sgaana
2009-11-03 04:36 pm UTC (link)

I keep getting stuck on the question: how is it even possible that there is any way to "handle" assault cases except "an employee who commits a felony will be fired"? (As well as, "if the company is informed of an accusation of any employee committing a felony, the company will do everything in its power to cooperate with police investigations, including helping to notify police of such an accusation... or the company will be held responsible as an accessory to the crime".)

I mean, how is anything else even LEGAL?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

aliaras
2009-11-03 06:08 pm UTC (link)

Well, not all felonies are created equal. For example, in Oregon, it's a felony to have a fake ID. Is having a fake ID and going out for drinks something everyone should be fired for? I mean, it's stupid, yes, but should it mean an instant loss of job?

I mean yes, by all means, people who commit assault, arson, murder, etc should be fired immediately, but I'm not sure you can just paint all felons with the same brush.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

sgaana
2009-11-03 06:18 pm UTC (link)

To be honest, I would say that in that case, it is up to the citizens and businesses in that state to lobby to have the law changed. Either to reduce "having a fake ID" from being a felony, or creating categories of felony that would recognize the fundamental difference between having a fake ID and committing rape/arson/murder/kidnapping etc.

Meaning: that sounds like a fundamentally stupid law in the first place (unless someone can suggest why it is put on a par with those more serious crimes), and the solution is to address the law.

But in the meantime, yes: I would rather that businesses had a policy of firing employees who are convicted of a felony while in their employ, and had the obligation to cooperate in investigations if the felony was committed on the company's time... even if it's kind of a stupid felony.

Do I think that having a fake ID, going out for drinks, and getting caught is serious enough to warrant it being a felony? No. But it's still against the law, and anyone who obtains a fake ID and uses it to go out drinking knows they're breaking the law, so I don't see why they shouldn't expect to lose their job along with other legal consequences if they are caught.

(And I'm not saying that from a puritanical position. Did I ever have a fake ID? No. Did I drink while underage? Yes. Did I think it was a stupid law? Yes. But I knew I was breaking the law and was thus risking consequences.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	inalasahl 2009-11-03 06:52 pm UTC (link)
	Meaning: that sounds like a fundamentally stupid law in the first place (unless someone can suggest why it is put on a par with those more serious crimes), and the solution is to address the law. Fake IDs aren't only used by kids seeking to get into R-rated movies. Having a Fake ID facilitates all kinds of serious crimes. Many, many states consider it a felony. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	sgaana 2009-11-03 06:59 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, I dig that. And I guess I dig the overall reasoning that "there is no reason to possess a fake ID except to break the law". But I think I still feel uncomfortable about merely having a fake ID being of felony status. It just seems like it's treating the possession of a fake ID extra-seriously because of the extra-serious crimes you MIGHT commit with it. (Reply to this)(Parent)

inalasahl
2009-11-03 07:04 pm UTC (link)

Are you really saying that once someone commits a felony they should never be able to hold a job again?

I mean, if I wanted to hire someone who had robbed a bank at gunpoint, for example, you think there should be a law against it?

I don't see how anyone could ever be rehabilitated, if they knew that it was literally illegal to support themselves. They might as well just get out of jail and continue robbing banks, if the very holding of a job is illegal anyway.

As I understand the Franken amendment (and I haven't read very much), the issue isn't banning companies from hiring rapists. The issue is banning companies from disallowing their employees from pressing charges against rapists, which is a very different thing.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

sgaana
2009-11-03 07:11 pm UTC (link)

No, that was not what I was saying.

I am saying that if you commit a felony while you are employed, you should expect to lose your job when you are convicted of the felony.

I am also saying that if you commit a felony while on the job, it should be expected that your employer will help convict you -- not SHIELD you from conviction.

I'm also not saying that people who are *accused* of committing felonies don't have a right to due process. Of course they do. But your employer should not be shielding you from investigation or conviction (which is what the "you can't press charges" rules also has the effect of doing). And I'm saying that if you commit the felony while on the job, and your employer tries to block the investigation or shield you in any way, then the employer should be considered an accessory to the crime.

And what I am asking is: how is it even legal for an employer to tell an employee "you cannot press charges against a fellow employee who has committed a felony against you"?

I said absolutely nothing about what should happen after someone has been convicted, sentenced, served time, and been rehabilitated. And I don't know where you got that from my post.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

inalasahl
2009-11-03 07:40 pm UTC (link)

I said absolutely nothing about what should happen after someone has been convicted, sentenced, served time, and been rehabilitated. And I don't know where you got that from my post.
Well, because you asked how anything other than a policy of "an employee who commits a felony will be fired" could be legal. And barring a breakdown in the justice system, someone who's been convicted of a felony has committed a felony.

But I agree with you that it should not be legal for an employer to bar an employee from pressing charges in the criminal justice system. (And I think that should be true whether the crime is a felony or a a misdemeanor.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

sgaana
2009-11-03 07:50 pm UTC (link)

Well, because you asked how anything other than a policy of "an employee who commits a felony will be fired" could be legal. And barring a breakdown in the justice system, someone who's been convicted of a felony has committed a felony.

Right; but I'm asking the question in the context (oh god, that word, now) of an employee who commits a felony while in the company's employ. Nothing about hiring practices; it's about what employees can do while employed, and what a company's legal obligations are regarding crimes committed by employees.

I'm boggling about the fact that there are companies (multiple) whose response to their employees committing felonies while in their employ seems to be "we don't want to hear about it", and I don't see how that's legal. Nor do I see how it's legal for a company to even create such a contract rule, because it just seems like the rule itself would be illegal.

So this whole thing has not just been about senators-for-rape (though it is, because that's the main example driving the legislation). It's also, very basically, senators who support companies who have contractual policies that obstruct justice and... HOW CAN THAT BE? is my question.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

sgaana
2009-11-03 07:14 pm UTC (link)

I should also add: my understanding is that the Franken amendment doesn't ban companies from disallowing their employees from pressing charges etc. The Franken amendment only says that companies that include such clauses will not be hired for government contracts. (But if I've misunderstood that, I hope someone will correct me.)

What I don't understand is how it can even be legal in the first place for a company to have a contract clause that basically obstructs justice.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	inalasahl 2009-11-03 07:29 pm UTC (link)
	Thanks for the clarification! (Reply to this)(Parent)

jaciem
2009-11-04 05:40 am UTC (link)

The clauses in question come into play when the employee attempts to sue the company in civil court for monetary damages - for negligence, presumably, if not in hiring then in allowing a management structure where a gang-rape could a) happen at all and b) be covered up via illegal imprisonment. A case I would think the survivor would have a good chance of winning if it was heard by a jury.

The clauses do not cover situations when the employee attempts to press criminal charges against the individuals who attacked her. You are correct in assuming that no employee can sign away the State's right to confer criminal charges (remember, it's People v. Scumbag, not Survivor v. Scumbag).

The "arbitration clause" states that ANY disagreement between employee and company is required to be resolved through arbitration, not in court. The Franken amendment attempts to bar that only in cases of sexual assault, rape, sexual harassment and the like. The employee would still have to go into secret arbitration if she wanted to dispute how the company was paying her overtime, for example.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	jaciem 2009-11-04 05:44 am UTC (link)
	Also, yes, the amendment just says "the Federal Government can't do business with companies that have this clause in the contracts they use to hire people for the Government business", nothing more. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	rachelmap 2009-11-03 06:59 am UTC (link)
	You stay classy, Diaper Dave. (Reply to this)(Thread)

darksumomo
2009-11-04 04:27 am UTC (link)

Yeah, good old Diaperboy, who also thinks that formaldehyde is great stuff that shouldn't be regulated.

Vitter Wants EPA To Delay Rules On Pollutant -- Mirroring Stance Of Industry That Backs Him
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) is blocking an EPA nomination because he wants the agency to delay establishing safety procedures for formaldehyde. Meanwhile, major emitters of the dangerous chemical have been generous contributors to the senator's reelection campaign.

Vitter met yesterday with EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, who sought, unsuccessfully, to convince him to remove the hold he had placed on Paul Anastas, who has been nominated to be the EPA's assistant administrator in charge of its Office of Research and Development, reports the New Orleans Times-Picayune.

...

But Vitter's stance on the issue is identical to that taken by the Formaldehyde Council Inc. (FCI), a trade group of formaldehyde producers. The group told TPMmuckraker in a statement that "an NAS review of formaldehyde has been a long-standing policy goal of the industry," and added that "FCI believes that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows that formaldehyde and formaldehyde-derived products are safe when used appropriately." In addition, lobby disclosure reports examined by TPMmuckraker show that the group paid $30,000 to a Republican lobbying firm this year in part to win "support for a National Academy of Sciences review of scientific studies on the toxicity of formaldehyde."

At least Diaperboy is loyal to the people who bought him. Besides, formaldehyde is used in the manufacture of many, if not most disposable diapers. :->

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	wallflower 2009-11-03 07:16 am UTC (link)
	From the comments of that article: http://www.republicansforrape.org/legislators/ (Reply to this)(Thread)

	taktuk 2009-11-03 07:54 am UTC (link)
	Any way to get former senator Ted Stevens inducted as an honorary member? He voted in favor of torture, y'know. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	cjk 2009-11-03 03:51 pm UTC (link)
	watches your icon morosely I haven't played in over a year; I don't even have a client installed on this machine. But this made me all nostalgic, like. misses being a seal clubber (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	suziecroft 2009-11-03 04:58 pm UTC (link)
	...You don't need a client. All you need is a regular browser. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	cjk 2009-11-03 05:35 pm UTC (link)
	Oh, I know. But the client was comfortable, with all kinds of scripts and things. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	cassildra 2009-11-03 05:57 pm UTC (link)
	Boo NS! I'm in the middle of that quest in stupid Kittycore. mopes (Reply to this)(Parent)

	mmanurere 2009-11-03 03:49 pm UTC (link)
	I was slightly surprised that they were all white men until I remembered the "Republican" part. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	inalasahl 2009-11-03 06:56 pm UTC (link)
	There are four female Republican senators, but they all voted in favor of the bill. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	platedlizard 2009-11-04 02:08 am UTC (link)
	Gee I wonder why. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	quantumreality 2009-11-04 05:21 pm UTC (link)
	What a chickenshit little asshole, trying to dodge voting against a law like that by claiming Obama's against it. As the years go by, the Republicans never fail to prove that there is no depth too low to which they will not sink to justify siding with the great against the powerless. (Reply to this)