Forums | MacLife

Tallgeese wrote:

Punishing ACORN > rape and murder by government contractors

My understanding is that the same bill about corruption that effects ACORN also affects Halliburton.

And in case you are not aware, let me explain to you how politics works.

Politicians want something put into the bill about Title VII arbitration, but they can never get it in, so they combine something else with it - such as rape arbitration - that could have been an amendment on it's own.

Then when other politicians who (right or wrong, I have to look at the issues) don't want the the Title VII arbitration clause and oppose it the addition, morons like you post about how they like and want to protect rape.

But the issues were not on separate additions to the bill, so you don't know that. But it makes for good angst, so you use it anyway.

No, it's that a lot of unfounded lawsuits take place. Arbitration puts a dent in the legal costs a corporation has because some chick who didn't do her job is upset about losing her job.

It's still illegal for companies and individuals to break the law.

Last edited by resedit (2009-10-07 11:57 pm)

resedit wrote:

No, it's that a lot of unfounded lawsuits take place. Arbitration puts a dent in the legal costs a corporation has because some chick who didn't do her job is upset about losing her job.

It's still illegal for companies and individuals to break the law.

Ah.  More generalizations about an amazingly complex issue that you have *zero* experience in.  And "some chick"?  LOL.  What a paradigm of humanity you are.

resedit wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Yes, we should worry about business' insurance costs more than brutal rape. Good Republican thinking.

The bottom line is that they are standard.
The government won't have as much selection with who they can do business with, driving cost up.
If they really want to make a difference, they'll pass a law stating that such arbitration clauses do not apply to sexual crimes, regardless of whether or not a .gov contract is involved.

Or maybe the companies that want government contracts will drop the arbitration clauses in question, hmmm?

Hit em where it hurts, their pocketbook, cause they sure as hell won't change out of any moral goodness.

And ACORN.

resedit wrote:

jkahless wrote:

Or maybe the companies that want government contracts will drop the arbitration clauses in question, hmmm?

Doubtful.
Lawsuits are expensive.

More expensive than losing one of your biggest customers?

I have no problem whatsoever with a company being liable for violent crimes that took place due to their negligence.
Make that law across the board, there's no reason for it to be specific to companies that get government contracts.

This addition though also covers other types of arbitration, and that very well may be exactly what the Republicans in congress objected to.

To suggest that Republicans like rape, and then to suggest that I in particular like rape, is completely ludicrous.

And I find it very telling that Alien chooses to reprehend on me referring to him as a moron for making those comments but seems to have no problems with him using inciteful language suggesting that both another party, and indeed another board member, likes rape.

Absolutely ludicrous.

Is this addendum a good thing?

Like I already said, I don't know, I haven't looked at the issues, but it is clear the issues go beyond whether or not a .gov contractor can require their employees go through arbitration to settle cases where a company is financially liable for a crime that took place.

Arbitration also does not deny the damaged party retribution. It simply means both parties agree that a third neutral party will decide rather than have it dragged through a court of law.

http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/arbitration/543-1.html

Rising legal costs have increased the appeal of arbitration clauses in contracts. In the event of a contract dispute, arbitration can reduce the legal fees for all parties involved.

Lawyer fees can be $400 or more an hour plus expenses. At prices like this, legal costs can quickly skyrocket, driving up your overall business expenses. (You can still accrue some legal fees in arbitration, however, as lawyers do sometimes write the contract clause and represent the parties involved in the dispute.)

There are very good reasons for companies to have arbitration clauses, and Republicans objecting to this addendum has absolutely nothing to do with them "liking rape".

Had this girls case gone to court, it may not have turned out any differently.
Arbitration clauses do not absolve the company of responsibility.

radarman wrote:

The real problem here is that is contractors found a crack in the justice systems and exploited it. A better idea would be to close the crack, and make these scum criminally liable in the US if the local jurisdiction doesn't - in addition to barring arbitration in cases where criminal comduct was involved.

This bill does neither

The bill goes a long way to close the crack and the sad fact is that Congress can't force the DoJ to prosecute anybody.

Yes, I am.

.tsooJ

resedit wrote:

jkahless wrote:

Or maybe the companies that want government contracts will drop the arbitration clauses in question, hmmm?

Doubtful.
Lawsuits are expensive.

Not so expensive the possibility of them is worth losing the hen that lays the no bid contract eggs.

The point is the rape thing is just as ridiculous as when people (not I) were saying those who opposed the Patriot Act "hated America"

Rape, murder, arson and rape.

He likes rape.

Now for the game and $25,000, what movie were RobertB.'s and my lines paraphrased from?