Comments on: The Truth About the Franken Amendment

By: Greg Biggs

Greg Biggs — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 04:20:52 +0000

Very true! I have some friends, who are dealing with a large multi-level marketing corporation. Mandatory binding arbitration is a license for any corporate body to leverage their tax-deductible corporate and outside counselors along with their economic power against an individual with limited resources and force them into bankruptcy.

By: Ned Racine

Ned Racine — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 01:04:34 +0000

Think about this. Arbitrators are paid. So who do you suppose an arbitrator is likely to rule in favor of? YOU, who is before him once? Or the corporations, who choose the arbitrator repeatedly?

By: Ned Racine

Ned Racine — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 01:01:45 +0000

Leon, Durango, CO, as you say, you clearing do not understand the law. If, as you claim, both parties believe they will benefit from arbitration, they can choose to do so. Stop complaining about something you know nothing about.

This bill is vital to undo what the Right Wing has done in attacking Americans.

By: Ashli, NC

Ashli, NC — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 05:42:47 +0000

I was in Iraq after Jamie Leigh Jones worked there. Problem–no legal recourse whatsoever for true crimes perpetrated by U.S. contractors. U.S. Contractors were still, in 2006, not under UCMJ, not under U.S. Federal, and not under Iraqi law (thanks to Paul Bremer of the Coalition Provisional Authority 2 weeks before he left Iraq adding to the agreement that Iraqis were not permitted to hold contractors accountable under their legal system for any crime committed by the contractor). Let me tell you, contractors knew they were under no legal jurisdiction whatsoever. Nearly ALL women working in the war zone that I knew were assaulted. There were many, many rapes. There was much seemingly authorized acceptance of women being harmed physically or careers destroyed if they dared to report assaults. Nearly always, the most that happened was that the woman was moved to another location, nothing done to the man, and word got out and so men harassed her so much more in her new location–if she didn't have her career destroyed first. Added to this, were all the felons hired. Now felons can be dedicated, diligent workers–some were and admirably so–but if you look at recidivism rates, it might not be the wisest thing hiring lots of felons, placing them into positions of power over women, giving them "no accountability use" of vehicles day and night with easy access to guns and the women–especially since even the CHU's (little trailers we slept in once we got out of the tents) often had doors that would "pop lock" open by sliding an ID card between the door and door jam. Any idea how terrifiying it is to have men trying to break in while you sleep, stalk you day and night and when you report it you are told the man is "too young" to be stalking you and then he hits you with a vehicle (like happened to me–after already having my head thrust forcibly into a projection on a military vehicle because I refused to "go down" on my foreman–with migraines over two years afterward…and horse-laughed at by my supervisor when I reported being touched and continually trapped at work by another foreman and him insisting he "needs to be with a woman". Most women were too afraid to report the assaults and rapes–because they saw what happened to women brave or foolish enough to report what was going on–either way, the women suffered, just more so if they did not comply sexually or if they reported the assault. Added to the "normal war zone stress" experienced by both men and women, was that additionally women had to deal with the very real danger of imminent rape, assault, and often daily abuse/harassment (and "little" things like another woman I know getting called a whore over the loudspeaker on convoy so how does she not mentally think about that or not become emotionally ticked/upset in addition to being shot at by "the enemy" while on convoy on Iraqi streets when she must be mentally alert to see exposive wires and snipers) by your co-worker or foreman. Some women died in Iraq because they were too afraid to go to the bathrooms located elsewhere from their sleeping area so they quit drinking water in the late afternoon so they wouldn't have to pee and get assaulted. They dehydrated to death–due to justified fear of rape. And they lived this very real fear hour after hour, day after day, month after month–never knowing when and where the (next) assault was coming from. Afraid to even go to sleep. The Franken Amendment helps protect women in the war zones "after hours" as they would be protected here in the USA. Had not the security guard taken pity on Jamie Leigh Jones, and given her his cell phone to call her family, who knows what would have happened. With Lavecia Hurd, even CID covered up her acid and gasoline(?) burned body as a suicide–until Lavecia's family was able to prove otherwise. Wasn't it the State Department that rescued Jamie Leigh Jones from that KBR management-mandate of a locked container they forced her to be in? Didn't I read that they initially denied her any medical treatment and that the brutality of her rape required 5 surgeries to not get her quite back physically to the woman she was when she arrived in Iraq just days before? Until this past year–every single case of rape from the war zone was tossed out of the court system because of corporate-protecting-themselves "arbitration only" contracts. "Arbitrating-only" keeps rapists within the populace and directly aids his raping women over and over. Most crimes are committed by a few repeat offenders. I used to work at a maximum security prison and when I read my foreman's rap sheet–even I was amazed at how long it was.

By: Fabrice, Thailand

Fabrice, Thailand — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:26:23 +0000

What would make you think that companies would use the money spent defending themselves in court against lawsuits in "creating more jobs" as opposed to fattening their profit.

Halliburton and other monster warfare companies can and should be accountable by the law, not just an "external" arbiter that they appoint.

By: James

James — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:57:39 +0000

Wow, if that's not lipstick on a pig, I do not know what is…

The REAL truth is that mandatory arbitration contracts that cover these kinds of potential employee claims are100% unethical. You can not even begin to argue COST as a mitigating factor to support your claim when it comes to issues of this nature. REALLY?

let's all have a little reminder of the ninth indicator of Fascism.

"Corporate power is protected The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship for the power elite."

So, Good for Mr. Franken! We should _not_ allow our tax dollars to be spent on these corporations that are so willing to stamp out potential justice.

By: Franken Amendment and Mandatory Arbitration « Massachusetts Workplace Blawg

Franken Amendment and Mandatory Arbitration « Massachusetts Workplace Blawg — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 22:34:48 +0000

[...] Employer advocates claim that litigation is too expensive, and that this is a way to simplify and streamline the process. While that can be true, it is more often true that employers receive more favorable treatment employees. After all, arbitrators are almost always wealthy lawyers, meaning that they have a life experience more likely to resemble management. This is not to say that arbitrators are biased — in fact, they work quite hard to be impartial. Still, there is a reason the Seventh Amendment to the US Constitution creates a right to a trial before a jury of one’s peers. [...]

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:54:08 +0000

"Given that Franken chose to highlight her case, you might assume that the courts ruled in Haliburton’s favor, and that she was not able to bring her claims in court instead of to an arbitrator. But then you would be wrong. The courts ruled that Halliburton could not arbitrate her claims of assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, retention and supervision of employees involved in the assault, and false imprisonment."

Not entirely true…

Because…

"The court, however, stayed litigation of those claims until the parties complete arbitration of the rest of the claims found arbitrable by the court."

By: Asher, Seattle

Asher, Seattle — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 01:46:41 +0000

Doesn't this case make it obvious that corporations have no business fielding a mixed-gender workforce outside the jurisdiction of the civil law in US domains?

By: Travis, CA

Travis, CA — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:37:31 +0000

You point out that the courts allowed her a day in court. You fail to mention that this was ruled by the 5th circuit court, and only applies to the 5th circuit's jurisdiction. Thus provoking Franken to propose this amendment.

Also if you read the amendment it only prohibits mandatory binding arbitration. Mandatory non-binding arbitration and voluntary binding arbitration are still fine, correct me if I'm wrong. If you're saying that these effectively amount to no arbitration happening, then I would question the value of arbitration to victims of crime. How is this good for any employee if this is the case?