Predicto Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Did anyone read the law? All this does is say that defense contractors can't force their employees to private arbitration, rather than court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 I have to think what this ammendment does is illegal. If I'm assulted at work it is legal for my company to say that if you take it to court we are going to punish (i.e. a restriction infers that there is some penalty (i.e. being fired) if you do) you in some manner?If that's not illegal, they should have passed a law that makes it illegal for EVERY company. Not just defense contractors. That is already illegal, for every company. Title VII. This amendment is not about that. It is about forcing employees into private arbitration, and not letting them go to court at all. Companies like private arbitration, because you can keep the results secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Did anyone read the law?All this does is say that defense contractors can't force their employees to private arbitration, rather than court. Pay them no mind,they are off on a tangent. But since you are here:) Will this be applicable to ALL defense contractors and subs? Will defense contractors of other nationalities be included?...if so,I really like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Will defense contractors of other nationalities be included?...if so,I really like it. And if so, one unintended consequence could be keeping any future Chinese-operated subcontractors away from sensitive military knowledge. Or forcing changes to the way they handle justice. Or forcing them to use US courts. Or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Pay them no mind,they are off on a tangent.But since you are here:) Will this be applicable to ALL defense contractors and subs? Will defense contractors of other nationalities be included?...if so,I really like it. No idea. Sorry. Just thought people should know what they are arguing about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 And if so, one unintended consequence could be keeping any future Chinese-operated subcontractors away from sensitive military knowledge. Or forcing changes to the way they handle justice. Or forcing them to use US courts. Or something. Well we already use many foreign contracting companies,I guess what I'm asking is if this makes them play by our laws. Could they be forced to abide by our civil rights laws in order to gain contracts? Or would employees have standing to sue foreign defense contractor companies in our courts ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Interesting first bill for Franken to take on. Not what you would guess he would pursue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Well we already use many foreign contracting companies,I guess what I'm asking is if this makes them play by our laws.Could they be forced to abide by our civil rights laws in order to gain contracts? Or would employees have standing to sue foreign defense contractor companies in our courts ? Interesting questions. I'm hoping that the answer to one of them, or to a similarly momentous question, would be "yes." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Horrible bill. "resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention." Arbitration is a much better way to resolve internal disputes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Horrible bill."resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention." Arbitration is a much better way to resolve internal disputes. Well it does not preclude arbitration,just forbids barring them from going from that to court...not so bad a idea,though it will increase costs The law is written rather broadly ,it will be interesting to see how it is implemented and the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Horrible bill."resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention." Arbitration is a much better way to resolve internal disputes. It sure is - if you don't want the world to know what you have been up to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 OK on the whole this doesn't sound too bad until you get to the part I highlighted in red. WTF is that supposed to mean? I know what it is supposed to mean, but it seems to be far to broad in it's interpretation. Still. it seems that this amendment is intended only to prevent employers from forcing bad contracts on employees as a condition of employment. I don't have a problem with that. "Negligent hiring, supervision, or retention" is when an employer knows or should know that one of its supervisors is a sexual harasser, but doesn't bother to investigate or do anything about it. And I just realized that MadMike read the amendment and tried to understand what it actually meant before I jumped in to lecture everyone. Good job, buddy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Just thought people should know what they are arguing about. Son, I'm kinda sur-prized at you. You ain't new in town. That's some kinda weirdo ideas yur spreadin'. I'm willing to figure this is just some kinda mix-up. I hope I'm right. Nice young feller like you...be a shame for things not to work out, what with your bright future at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 It sure is - if you don't want the world to know what you have been up to. Or the other side is when people have the ability to threaten you with a frivolous lawsuit; arbitration hearings can be a way NOT to have your name dragged through the mud. How many times have you seen something along the lines of X charged with Y (Y being something bad) and the headlines are huge for the charge, but the dropped charges are never covered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 "subcontractor at any tier" That’s the part that bothers me the most though. Now you are responsible for everyone you hire (that’s fine) and if you contract out the work you are responsible for them (that’s ok also) but if they contract out some of the work you are in charge of their rules as well (second tier) and so on? Many of these projects are subbed out to the 5th and 6th tier. That’s a lot of hassle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Or the other side is when people have the ability to threaten you with a frivolous lawsuit; arbitration hearings can be a way NOT to have your name dragged through the mud.How many times have you seen something along the lines of X charged with Y (Y being something bad) and the headlines are huge for the charge, but the dropped charges are never covered. Yep. That is a danger in having an open justice system. I think that there is a bigger danger in allowing companies to unilaterally draw up one sided adhesive contracts that force you to sign away your right to seek justice in a court as a condition of getting a job. But that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 "subcontractor at any tier"That’s the part that bothers me the most though. Now you are responsible for everyone you hire (that’s fine) and if you contract out the work you are responsible for them (that’s ok also) but if they contract out some of the work you are in charge of their rules as well (second tier) and so on? Many of these projects are subbed out to the 5th and 6th tier. That’s a lot of hassle. So you make it a standard condition in your form contract with your subcontractors that they not put arbitration clauses in their agreements with their employees. Problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Yep. That is a danger in having an open justice system.I think that there is a bigger danger in allowing companies to unilaterally draw up one sided adhesive contracts that force you to sign away your right to seek justice in a court as a condition of getting a job. But that's just me. How is it one sided? An arbitration hearing isn't something where the employer just looks at the case and makes a decision. You have someone outside reviewing both sides of the case and making a judgment. It’s much cheaper and faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 So you make it a standard condition in your form contract with your subcontractors that they not put arbitration clauses in their agreements with their employees. Problem solved. I think thats the goal of this law. Now ANY company doing business with any company that may work on these contracts must put that in their standards of operation. Maybe owning a business makes me see the other side better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polywog999 Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 A) There are laws that require employers to provide a workplace safe from sexual assault and discrimination. ENFORCE THEM. Companies want to make themselves NOT have judicial responsibility (they don't want to be liable). I don't see a problem with allowing people to have rights. Also, this Idea people have of "keeping cost down"... It can be quite tragic... big companies have to be made to be responsible for a safe work environment or they won't. They do need to cap the amount of money someone can sue for, though. Some of these cases are kind of ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polywog999 Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Horrible bill."resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention." Arbitration is a much better way to resolve internal disputes. Arbitration is another way big companies **** people! Arbitrators generally side with big business 97% of the time (depends on who's giving you figures, though). Do you think arbitration would have helped in the days of no minimum wage and no laws for worker safety? Heck no! Why do you think companies push for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Arbitration is another way big companies **** people! Arbitrators generally side with big business 97% of the time (depends on who's giving you figures, though).Do you think arbitration would have helped in the days of no minimum wage and no laws for worker safety? Heck no! Why do you think companies push for it? Can you link me to something showing the 97% number? We aren't talking about an arbitrator ruling on if someone deserves a higher wage (like is done in the work place all the time) we are talking about if a person has a legit complaint against the company or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 How is it one sided? An arbitration hearing isn't something where the employer just looks at the case and makes a decision. You have someone outside reviewing both sides of the case and making a judgment. It’s much cheaper and faster. Yes, it is cheaper and faster, and with many safeguards can be somewhat fair. But it usually isn't fair. There is a huge industry capture problem. The parties have to agree on the arbitrator. The big companies are repeat players in the game, the individual plaintiffs are not. So here is the scenario. A plaintiff goes before an arbitrator one time. Win or lose, the plaintiff is done. The big company goes before arbitrators over and over. So, if an arbitrator gives a big judgment to a plaintiff, guess what - no more business for that arbitrator from this company, or any other company that this company talks to. They refuse to agree to him as arbitrator any more - he is out of business. And the only arbitrators that remain are the ones that tend to deny the claims and rule for the big companies. There are other problems. Some arbitration clauses don't allow either side to do real discovery (of course, only the company has access to the witnesses and documents). Some arbitration clauses require you to bring your claim in an unreasonably short period of time, or expressly limit the recovery you can get, or require you to arbitrate in Latvia. There is no end to the inventiveness of oppressive arbitration clauses when one side gets to write the agreement and the other side has no choice but to accept if or find another job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Can you link me to something showing the 97% number?We aren't talking about an arbitrator ruling on if someone deserves a higher wage (like is done in the work place all the time) we are talking about if a person has a legit complaint against the company or not. I don't have any numbers at all about which way arbitrators rule what percentage of the time. But . . . . Who picks the arbitrator? (Somehow I suspect it's the company.) Do you think the company picks the arbitrator who's the most fair? Or the one who saves the company the most money? Do you figure the arbitrator knows this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 How is this even remotely controversial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.