I was recently watching the Daily Show and there was a story about Al Franken's proposed amendment regarding government contracts. An employee, Jamie Lee Jones, of Halliburton/KBR, was drugged and raped in Iraq by fellow employees. When she reported the rape to she bosses she was put in a shipping container and told not to seek medical attention.
Senator Franken has proposed the amendment to ensure that government contractors cannot make employees sign contracts where they cannot seek court action against them but are instead forced into arbitration.
During the vote 30 of the 40 Republicans voted against this amendment. Four of the ten voting to support it were all the female Republican Senators.
Why are so many Republicans against protecting women from rape by government military contractors?
Wow! Talk about a
quantum leap in logic!
Do you really believe, do you honestly believe, let alone expect us to believe those congressmen voted against this measure because they don't want to protect women from rape??? Or is that just a hastily drawn conclusion in support of a partisan bias against republicans?
That was a heinous act, for sure - and the offenders deserving of punishment and the victim deserving of justice if the facts of the story are even partly true. But it breaches the bounds of credibility to suggest these congressmen support rape.
What were the stated reasons these congressmen did not support this measure? Did anyone ask this question or post their responses?
Would there be unforeseen consequences were the measure to pass? If so, what might they be? Were any brought forth during the debate?
Did the woman take this heinous act to arbitration as her contract allowed? If so, what was the outcome? Did anyone ask that question?
Al Franken made this comment:
The constitution gives everybody the right to due process of law ... And today, defense contractors are using fine print in their contracts do deny women like Jamie Leigh Jones their day in court
Did Al Franken cite any other cases in support of his measure or did he base it entirely on the Jamie Leigh Jones incident?
Is a contract not considered "due process of law?" Is arbitration not considered "due process of law?"
Not justifying the heinous act at all, but this story does beg the question - why did this woman agree to those terms when she signed the contract? Did this company force her or somehow coerce her to sign the contract? Did she read the contract before she signed it? Did she know that clause was in the contract? How big is the contract anyway? How many pages did it contain? Did she read it and assume being a woman in a foreign battle zone far from home surrounded by mostly men with few other female contacts would guarantee her safety? Or did she sign it before she knew she might have to travel to Baghdad?
I review contracts regularly as part of my job. EVERY contract is
drafted with every possible verbiage in favor of the company who writes it. That's just the way contracts work. But everyone who signs a contract too has a right to edit portions of a contract as they deem fit for their interests. It's done all the time. The company may refuse the changes or they may accept some or all of them - that's a standard part of the contract negotiation process and sometimes parties will walk away from signing because those negotiations failed to reach resolution.
Has anyone questioned or probed this aspect of her situation?
