Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Because 99.9% of companies are never at fault in a case like this. >> A case where a group of employees sexually harrassed and then gang raped a female co-worker. Then the employer's security team locked her up in a shipping container while they destroyed evidence. So, you're saying that in 99.9% of cases like this, the employer is not at fault?
Originally Posted By DAR And again that was wrong in every way. I don't know how clear I have to be on this.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJv5qLsLYoo" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...5qLsLYoo</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc What you don't seem to get, DAR, is that your mom and pop businesses can be sued RIGHT NOW. Only giant corporations have these protections. So once more, slowly: You. Are. Advocating. Special. Treatment. For. Corporation. You're not advocating fairness or for small business.
Originally Posted By DAR Thank. You. For. Trying. To. Clear. That. Up. But. I. Think. That. Eventually. This. Will. Make. Things. Worse. For. Your. Small. Businesses.
Originally Posted By ecdc So there's an emerging pattern in your posts, DAR. Let's not address real problems now out of fear of imaginary problems that might possibly happen in the future.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It changes nothing for small businesses. They can be sued right now, today, this minute. This has been explained to you countless times but you seem extraordinarily confused by this fact.
Originally Posted By DAR Wait small businesses can be sued but the large corporation can't?? Why didn't you guys say that.
Originally Posted By DAR Now convince me that this a vote for rape. The acutal physical horrific act of rape.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Wait small businesses can be sued but the large corporation can't?? Why didn't you guys say that.<< It's not our job to educate you. Perhaps you should read up before going on anti-government tirades. >>Now convince me that this a vote for rape. The acutal physical horrific act of rape.<< And the wack a mole game continues.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <But this will allow for other companies who weren't complicit in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM FROM BEING PROSECUTED and all it takes is one jury to get it wrong.> It won't allow that at all. It doesn't even speak to that. You've got this completely bass-ackwards, DAR. Completely. You are simply not addressing what this piece of legislation covers and what it doesn't. What it does is outlaw the practice of requiring, AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, the agreement that EVEN IF the company contributes to the rape and EVEN IF the company actively covers it up, the victim cannot sue. That's it, and that's all. Think about if YOU were looking for a job, DAR. You find another insurance company that is a shorter commute or something, and think about working for them instead. But they tell you "Well, if you want to work for us, DAR, you have to sign away your right to sue us if - and I'm not saying this will happen to you, but it has happened to others - 20 burly Teamsters we know hijack you and gang rape you, and then imprison you while they destroy evidence about it, and we know it's happening and we're actively involved in the coverup... again, buddy, we're not saying that WILL happen, but it might, you know? And if it does, you can't sue us. Don't like that? Fine. We're not going to hire you." Surely, you must admit this practice should not be allowed. And that's all this is about. Not phantom fears of what might happen to small businesses (that are already not protected to begin with) in the future. Just this. Please tell me you understand the difference.
Originally Posted By mawnck Add to that list Inouye (D-HI). >>An amendment that would prevent the government from working with contractors who denied victims of assault the right to bring their case to court is in danger of being watered down or stripped entirely from a larger defense appropriations bill. Multiple sources have told the Huffington Post that Sen. Dan Inouye, a longtime Democrat from Hawaii, is considering removing or altering the provision, which was offered by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and passed by the Senate several weeks ago.<< >>"Inouye either will get the amendment taken out altogether, or water it down significantly. If they water it down, they will take out the Title VII claims. This means that in discrimination cases, they will still force you into a secret forced arbitration on KBR's (or other contractors') own terms -- with your chances of prevailing practically zero. The House seems to be very supportive of the original Franken amendment and all in line, but their hands are tied since it originated in the Senate. And since Inouye runs the show on this bill, he can easily take it out to get Republicans and the defense contractors off his back, which looks increasingly likely."<< <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/22/frankens-anti-rape-amendm_n_329896.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...896.html</a> (Avert your eyes, utahjosh!)
Originally Posted By DAR <<It won't allow that at all. It doesn't even speak to that. You've got this completely bass-ackwards, DAR. Completely. You are simply not addressing what this piece of legislation covers and what it doesn't. What it does is outlaw the practice of requiring, AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, the agreement that EVEN IF the company contributes to the rape and EVEN IF the company actively covers it up, the victim cannot sue. That's it, and that's all. Think about if YOU were looking for a job, DAR. You find another insurance company that is a shorter commute or something, and think about working for them instead. But they tell you "Well, if you want to work for us, DAR, you have to sign away your right to sue us if - and I'm not saying this will happen to you, but it has happened to others - 20 burly Teamsters we know hijack you and gang rape you, and then imprison you while they destroy evidence about it, and we know it's happening and we're actively involved in the coverup... again, buddy, we're not saying that WILL happen, but it might, you know? And if it does, you can't sue us. Don't like that? Fine. We're not going to hire you." Surely, you must admit this practice should not be allowed. And that's all this is about. Not phantom fears of what might happen to small businesses (that are already not protected to begin with) in the future. Just this. Please tell me you understand the difference.>> Yes and thank you for not being an ass while explaining it.
Originally Posted By DAR (Still don't know how it's a pro-rape vote though, the act itself, not the cover-up)
