The liberals strike back and pass the Franken Amendment. Remember when we thought Franken was a washed up comic who was never really funny? Well, seems like he’s been actually working in the Senate and today was able to get Senate Amend. 2566, which is aimed at defense contractors, passed.
Al Franken
Specifically the bill prohibits “the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims.”
Basically this bill would prohibit federal funds to go to any defense company (notice how Halliburton is singled out) that requires arbitration for sexual assault cases instead of a full criminal trial.
This legislation is in response to a Halliburton employee Jamie Leigh Jones who alleges that she was raped by co-workers while in Iraq in 2005. When she managed to get home and try to sue the company she discovered that her employment contract required the case to arbitrated, and that she could not file suite.
Personally I have no problem with the Franken Amendment, besides the fact that it singles out Halliburton, which Democrats love to use as their favorite boogey man next to Karl Rove. Actually, I don’t get why so many Republicans voted against it. Do we really want to say that victims of sexual assault can’t get access to courts to sue their employer. I’m all in favor of arbitration and mediation, but those types of alternate dispute resolution were not really set up to handle victims of rape or sexual assault, they are more for contractual issues, pay issues, etc. We should have judges and juries of our peers evaluating these kinds of important cases. The biggest strike against arbitration is that they are nearly impossible to appeal, so once the case is decided, there is nothing you can do after that point.
Sen. Sessions, who did vote against the bill, argued that this gives Congress too much power to alter employment contracts of private companies and that it went against the recommendation of the Defense Department, but eh, I don’t think those concerns outweigh the concerns that rape victims should have more legal protections.
So, as much as I hate to say it, good on you Sen. Franken. I think your incessant hounding of Halliburton is childish, but over all, the Franken Amendment probably accomplishes something worthwhile.
October 8th, 2009 at 10:28 am
How is Franken’s “hounding” of Halliburton any worse than conservatives “hounding” ACORN?
I’m pretty sure the bill that defunded ACORN singled out ACORN as well.
October 8th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Good analysis Bryan.
If ACORN is going to be held to some basic standards in order to receive federal funding — and rightly so — the same reasoning should apply to Haliburton, or Lockheed Martin, or any other private corporation receiving government contracts.
Being an engineer, I’ve been involved in a couple projects involving government funding, and there are already plenty of hoops you have to jump through, including collection of one’s bodily fluids in some cases. Why is it reasonable to require a contractor to drug test, but at the same time allow it to protect violent offenders?
Franken has actually pleasantly surprised me — not that the bar was set too high to begin with. But a couple weeks back he was reading the 4th amendment out loud (the Constitution? What a novel concept!), and now he’s applying a little basic logic. If he keeps heading in this direction, he’ll be ditching that diaper in no time.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Halliburton is not activley trying to change the fabric of our country.
Halliburton may be a threat to some corporate ethics or what have you but they are not trying to turn America into a communist state.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Mick there is a whole range of various misdeeds and evils that I think should preclude a company from federal funding. ACORN wasn’t defunded for “trying to turn America into a communist state” — something that isn’t illegal — they were defunded because it was clear that federal money was funding illegal activity.
The decision to defund ACORN was not a response to their ideological bent, it was a response to their methodological shortcomings. Other companies should be subject to the same methodological standards.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:58 am
isn’t it illegal to have a law that applies to just one company ? that being said I think Haliburton is wrong on the rape case.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:59 am
“ACORN wasn’t defunded for “trying to turn America into a communist state” — something that isn’t illegal ”
Awww give me a huge freaking break.
That organization has so many layers to peel back in question theres no comparison to Halliburton.
They are aligned with more anticapitalist and anti America agendas, organizations and cohorts than I can shake a stick at. They wont even prosecute the insiders that embezzle from them. They played a huge part and role in the economic collapse we see today.
And should be attacked rightly so.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
This isn’t about being “anti-Amwerican”, it’s about being illegal. Big difference.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
what is the difference between illeagle and unlawful ?
October 8th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
I didn’t say there was a difference between illegal and “unlawful”. I said there was a big difference between illegal and what Micky calls “Un-American”.
ACORN was defunded for the illegal activities they in which they partook. They were not defunded for being un-American.
October 8th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Impeach him.
October 8th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
“This isn’t about being “anti-Amwerican”, it’s about being illegal. Big difference.”
ACORN is like the fricking Gambino family.
They are illegal and anti- American.
Last I checked following American law was the American thing to do.
Not only do they not follow our laws, they want to trade them for a complete set resembling communist Russia. Theres plenty of communist positions that would be illegal to try and institute in our country.
Berthas not too far off claiming McCarthyism. If she’d take an honest look she’d understand that its justified.
My point is that Xavier asked “How is Franken’s “hounding” of Halliburton any worse than conservatives “hounding” ACORN?”
And my reply is that ACORN deserves to be hounded at every possible opportunity for it is a far more dangerous organization than Halliburton.
PERIOD
Is Franken being an equal opportunity hounder and going after ACORN ? Of course not. ACORN is largely responsible for him getting elected.
October 8th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Since the ‘alleged’ rape involves KBR/Halliburton as the employer, I fail to see how it is being ’singled out’. I was glad to see Senator Hutcheson vote in favor of the amendment, but saddened to see Senator Cornyn join the pro-rape group. But when you’ve sucking on the Halliburton tit for that many years, I guess it’s hard to let go.
October 8th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Yeah fair enough Micky, actually trying to institute a blatantly communist regime would clearly be unconstitutional, and will not happen.
But my point is about the actual language of the house resolution and statements by those who spearheaded it. Not a word about communism, capitalism, or anything else. The entire legislative basis was “fraud” and illegal acts committed by ACORN employees.
And that’s where defense contractors come in.
http://www.contractormisconduct.org/
That’s a list of documented contractor misconduct cases since 1995. Now maybe some of them aren’t all that sinister. But there are several hundred offenses here. If there are companies whose employees have committed crimes commensurate with those committed by ACORN workers, why shouldn’t those corporations pay the same price?
October 8th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
(Oh and Haliburton isn’t even on the list. Lockheed has had the most violations. But when it comes to monetary damage, it’s the Merck. Gotta love big pharma.)
October 8th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Al Franken for President! Not Al Smith, not Al Gore. Al Franken!
Hey, if he can do something that you people like, then he must be a pretty amazing person.
She cannot sue Haliburton, but could she sue the individuals themselves who were involved? Not that she would get much, but would this be possible?
October 8th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Good job Sen. Franken (seriously). Now, he should be shot (seriously).
October 8th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Micky:
I feel like Jimmy Hoffa owns acorn now.
October 8th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Klo, she could almost certainly sue the people who raped her (I used the term allegedly only because I don’t know if criminal charges were ever filed) but the deep pockets here would be Haliburton, that’s where the cash is. Odds are the individuals involved don’t have much money.
What is somewhat ironic about this whole situation is that if they were government employees, the Federal government has absolute immunity from civil suits, so she could not sue the government in a civil case.
October 8th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
You failed to mention that Ms. Jones was locked in a freight container, while still in Iraq, by Halliburton employees when she attempted to report the rape. Wonder if the employees were investigated. I know, naive to think that with this companies track record of cover ups, there would be one. Silly me to assume anyone there would have accountability. Under whose leadership did Halliburton come up with such clauses in their employee contracts? Hmmm, that would be Mr. DICK Cheney. Look it up!
October 9th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
[...] has a good analysis here. (Yes, you read that right, Right Pundits, a Republican-leaning blog) After all, not all [...]
October 10th, 2009 at 11:24 am
[...] Bryan McAffee at Right Pundits: Personally I have no problem with the Franken Amendment, besides the fact that it singles out Halliburton, which Democrats love to use as their favorite boogey man next to Karl Rove. Actually, I don’t get why so many Republicans voted against it. Do we really want to say that victims of sexual assault can’t get access to courts to sue their employer. I’m all in favor of arbitration and mediation, but those types of alternate dispute resolution were not really set up to handle victims of rape or sexual assault, they are more for contractual issues, pay issues, etc. We should have judges and juries of our peers evaluating these kinds of important cases. The biggest strike against arbitration is that they are nearly impossible to appeal, so once the case is decided, there is nothing you can do after that point. [...]
October 12th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
[...] is childish, but over all, the Franken Amendment probably accomplishes something worthwhile. Senate passes Franken amendment Right Pundits Just as info: 2007 ABC story about the individual case of Jamie Leigh Jones which includes the [...]
October 12th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
You think Haliburton being “singled out” had anything to do with a) all the no-bid contracts it was awarded by the Bush/Cheney crime family and b) KBR is a subsidiary? The most outrageous outcome of all this is that parents of daughters will vote for these 30 GOP advocates of sexual abuse against women when they’re up for reelection.
October 13th, 2009 at 6:53 am
James probably thinks that Bush is responsible for 9/11 too.
October 14th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Republican opposition to this amendment epitomizes perfectly why I am no longer a Republican. Keep it up conservatives! You become more obsolete with every vote you make!