Sen. Franken Questions de Bernardo About Binding Arbitration

[PokerGuy]

As one would expect, Franken is an idiot and he's wrong about this one as well. Hayabusa and Elfenix both brought up good points.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Phokus
:thumbsup: to al franken

Yeah, while I disagree with him on various issues, I've always recognized him as a man of integrity and intellect, and both can be seen in full force in that video.

Originally posted by: Phokus
:thumbsdown: to scumbag republicans who support binding arbitration, who support corporate interests over that of the common man. Lower than dog shit, that's what they are.

It's not a republican vs democrat thing, there are many on both sides of the isle arguing in support of their faith in some mystical Greater Good.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
As one would expect, Franken is an idiot and he's wrong about this one as well. Hayabusa and Elfenix both brought up good points.

2 lone supporters in here with you eh? :laugh:

Glad Franken has your panties in a wad

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

franken's pending legislation didn't do anything for her. the fifth circuit already said the arbitration clause didn't apply to her rape.

it seems like a gotcha question, the typical settlement has non-disclosure clauses and so the amounts for 'prevailing' wouldn't be known to the researchers and probably couldn't be disclosed to congress without specific subpoena.

She barely won 2-1 in appeals and KBR is appealing AGAIN. That and the fact that she seemed to have won based on the fact that she was raped in the barracks (where alcohol wasn't allowed) is how she won.

If Franken's legislation were in place, KBR wouldn't even have a chance to appeal. In fact, Jamie Leigh wouldn't have had to go to court just to be able to sue for the right to a trial.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Phokus

She barely won 2-1 in appeals and KBR is appealing AGAIN. That and the fact that she seemed to have won based on the fact that she was raped in the barracks (where alcohol wasn't allowed) is how she won.

If Franken's legislation were in place, KBR wouldn't even have a chance to appeal. In fact, Jamie Leigh wouldn't have had to go to court just to be able to sue for the right to a trial.

like i said, the pending legislation didn't do anything for her. KBR hasn't appealed either (afaik they can't appeal to the supreme court anyway). they've filed a motion for rehearing en banc. don't see much difference coming of it. 99% of the time these things are denied.

 

[razor2025]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Phokus

She barely won 2-1 in appeals and KBR is appealing AGAIN. That and the fact that she seemed to have won based on the fact that she was raped in the barracks (where alcohol wasn't allowed) is how she won.

If Franken's legislation were in place, KBR wouldn't even have a chance to appeal. In fact, Jamie Leigh wouldn't have had to go to court just to be able to sue for the right to a trial.

like i said, the pending legislation didn't do anything for her. KBR hasn't appealed either (afaik they can't appeal to the supreme court anyway). they've filed a motion for rehearing en banc. don't see much difference coming of it. 99% of the time these things are denied.

I think you've missed the point. Had the legislation been in-place PRIOR to Jamie's rape, she would've had her justice without such horrific delay as it is now. I don't understand the mentality of those who would go against this amendment or defend KBR's action. Morally bankrupt indeed.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Franken is smarter then people give him credit.

He was at times over 10points behind in the sen race. What happened is people heard him speak and found out he is a real honest and smart guy. That and Coleman did not take4 him as a serious person at first and that did not help either.

What happened is Obama won by 10 points in MN.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Bitek

+2 for the hot chick behind Franken

she looked like the asian from dollhouse, except hotter

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: razor2025

I think you've missed the point. Had the legislation been in-place PRIOR to Jamie's rape, she would've had her justice without such horrific delay as it is now. I don't understand the mentality of those who would go against this amendment or defend KBR's action. Morally bankrupt indeed.

here's what's really difficult for her in this: in order to make a vicarious liability case against KBR she'd have to show that the actions of KBR's employees were somehow work related.

frankly, i think the best argument would have been that the employment agreement's arbitration clause would apply to things that would normally go along with employment: hiring/firing, pay, overtime, promotions, typical workplace accidents, proprietary information, that sort of thing; and that a rape and subsequent false imprisonment are so outside the realm of employment-type disputes that the arbitration clause did not contemplate them. that gets her out of having to argue both ways. i haven't read the briefs at the trial court level to see what was argued, though, and i'm not that much of an employment lawyer.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: ElFenixlawyers in practice are starting to move away from putting in arbitration clauses because arbitrators have the reputation of splitting the baby.

Really?

I'm not an expert on ADR nor even particularly knowledgeable about it, but my understanding is that the businesses get to choose which state's law will govern and the arbitrator and the ground rules and playing field, and the arbitrators know that they won't get repeat business if they don't rule favorably for the party that chooses the arbitrator.

That's the problem with these arbitration agreements as I understand it; in principle arbitration isn't too different from a regular bench trial, but in practice the arbitrators can be biased. Also, as I understand it, an arbitrator's decision cannot be appealed to an appellate court even if it is clearly wrong.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: sandorski
He's good enough
He's smart enough
and dog gone it
people like him

Hahahahaahahaha!
This reply rocks.
QFT

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Bitek

+2 for the hot chick behind Franken

she looked like the asian from dollhouse, except hotter

That woman behind him is definitely cute. The woman on Dollhouse looks nice with dark hair.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bozack
Like every other hack franken has his own agenda...

What was his 'hack agenda' in this situation?

Let's see if you are the hack. You are, by the way, but the floor is yours to explain.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bfdd
I just thought of something.... You know you can't sign away your rights, right? That came about around the time unions popped up(actually learned this when I joined Millwrights Union). So I'm wondering... these contracts SHOULD be invalid period.

You *can* sign away some of your rights.

You raise an interesting point in that I hadn't considered quite where the line is drawn, but for example, you can have the right to keep your $10, or to sign a contract where you pay it; you can sign away your right to a speedy trial or to remain silent with police, but you can't sign away your right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

My non-expert opinion on this is that these contracts currently fall under 'rights you can sign away', and it would take Congress passing a law to change that.

You hit the spirit of labor rights in noting that's how it works, when the employer has the power to pressure employees and they need the law to protect their interests.

It's a bit like how poor parents had the 'freedom to choose' whether to have their 10 year olds work in the factory until the law said 'no' and did things to reduce poverty causing it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: sportage
I?m going to say it. We usually don?t want to say it. But I?m going to say it...
I told you so!!!!
That Franken was and is a savvy politician, first, that just happens to have a sense of humor, second. All those that assumed he would be a clown and go down flaming... WRONG.

Ding, ding, ding. As usual. To be fair, this one clip doesn't prove him a good Senator, but I think his actions are likely to back up the same thing that he's a huge improvement.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: bfdd
I just thought of something.... You know you can't sign away your rights, right? That came about around the time unions popped up(actually learned this when I joined Millwrights Union). So I'm wondering... these contracts SHOULD be invalid period.

Correct me if I am wrong but the Constitution only protects your rights in Criminal court. I don?t know of any amendment that protects a person?s right to civil court? That was the issue here was weather she could sue in civil court. The criminal matter was a whole other item.

I'm not sure either. This woman in this circumstance deserves to have a chance in court no question about it. To play devils advocate though, what does this legislation really mean?

As an example, imagine that there is an employee who is passed over for promotion who happen to be black. He's angry about that and so wants justice. He decides to take this to court. Now the problem in this case is that his race has nothing to do with it. He's not competent enough to move to the next level.

Will he automatically have the right to engage in expensive litigation without any intermediary process? He takes an attorney on a "pay if you win" arraignment. He's nothing to lose. What does this amendment actually mean?

Certainly there needs to be a mechanism in place where justice is served, but the accuser is not always the one who is right.

I'd think that having binding arbitration could be the way to go, however if the alleged victim feels the process was unfair, the case could be passed up to an intermediary charged with determining if the results were fair before going to into an expensive litigation. This person or body has the power to investigate the situation. If it's deemed fair, then that's it. If not, then we move up to the next level. If the premise of the accuser is deemed to be ridiculous (someone is upset because they didn't get a raise but are a chronic absentee without cause for example), then that person gets fined. Why? Because trying to blackmail a person or a company is also wrong. If the person in question is like this woman, then not only does she get her day in court, but will receive damages above that which the jury determines.

In either case, play the system and you pay the price literally, but if you are seriously harmed and not properly compensated as determined by an impartial third party (which could be a court agency) then that corporation will be punished in a real and significant way, and as I say, it eliminates those cases which are frivolous from going to court.

That's why there are early motions in the process to dismiss frivolous lawsuits.

How is the worker going to get a lawyer to take a baseless case? Does he have big dollars to waste? Lawyers on contingency don't take crapy cases much. They want money.

The system is already pretty stacked against the worker, even with access to court.

Then again, of course, you get the exception judges like one Bush appointed, who never once ruled for the victim in over 600 gender discrimination cases.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
here's what's really difficult for her in this: in order to make a vicarious liability case against KBR she'd have to show that the actions of KBR's employees were somehow work related.

She was imprisoned in a shipping container under direct orders from KBR. You don't think she might have a case against them for that?

 

[Craig234]

You know, there's a real clear distinction between the Democrats and Republicans in two situations they took on involving a woman - this case and Terri Schiavo.

The Republicans pursued an issue out of pure political corruption to pander to their base and threw a man in a tragic situation under the bus to do so, based on a lie.

Here the Democrats are pursuing legitimate justice for a woman who was the victim of a contractor very closely linked to Republicans with a reckless 'who cares' policy.

Her situation is a clear reflection of the Republican neglicence and corrupt ideology - no legal accountability for contractors in Iraq under US OR Iraqi law, and so on.

Seruously, if a Blackwater contractor had walked up to an Iraqi civilian and shot them in the head after raping them, there was no criminal accountability under US OR Iraqi law as I understand it - the US ensured that the contractors were 'above the law' in Iraq, exempted, which understandably outraged the 'soevereign' Iraqis. Republicans thought this was a nifty way to set things up. Where was their morality, justice? All they did was to serve the interests of the contractors over the moral issues.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: ElFenix
here's what's really difficult for her in this: in order to make a vicarious liability case against KBR she'd have to show that the actions of KBR's employees were somehow work related.

She was imprisoned in a shipping container under direct orders from KBR. You don't think she might have a case against them for that?

oh certainly that's a strong case. but that's not the vicarious liability case, which is what i was talking about there.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: ElFenix
here's what's really difficult for her in this: in order to make a vicarious liability case against KBR she'd have to show that the actions of KBR's employees were somehow work related.

She was imprisoned in a shipping container under direct orders from KBR. You don't think she might have a case against them for that?

oh certainly that's a strong case. but that's not the vicarious liability case, which is what i was talking about there.

I wouldn't worry about the specific causes of action, there appear to be plenty involved.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: bfdd
I just thought of something.... You know you can't sign away your rights, right? That came about around the time unions popped up(actually learned this when I joined Millwrights Union). So I'm wondering... these contracts SHOULD be invalid period.

Correct me if I am wrong but the Constitution only protects your rights in Criminal court. I don?t know of any amendment that protects a person?s right to civil court? That was the issue here was weather she could sue in civil court. The criminal matter was a whole other item.

I'm not sure either. This woman in this circumstance deserves to have a chance in court no question about it. To play devils advocate though, what does this legislation really mean?

As an example, imagine that there is an employee who is passed over for promotion who happen to be black. He's angry about that and so wants justice. He decides to take this to court. Now the problem in this case is that his race has nothing to do with it. He's not competent enough to move to the next level.

Will he automatically have the right to engage in expensive litigation without any intermediary process? He takes an attorney on a "pay if you win" arraignment. He's nothing to lose. What does this amendment actually mean?

Certainly there needs to be a mechanism in place where justice is served, but the accuser is not always the one who is right.

I'd think that having binding arbitration could be the way to go, however if the alleged victim feels the process was unfair, the case could be passed up to an intermediary charged with determining if the results were fair before going to into an expensive litigation. This person or body has the power to investigate the situation. If it's deemed fair, then that's it. If not, then we move up to the next level. If the premise of the accuser is deemed to be ridiculous (someone is upset because they didn't get a raise but are a chronic absentee without cause for example), then that person gets fined. Why? Because trying to blackmail a person or a company is also wrong. If the person in question is like this woman, then not only does she get her day in court, but will receive damages above that which the jury determines.

In either case, play the system and you pay the price literally, but if you are seriously harmed and not properly compensated as determined by an impartial third party (which could be a court agency) then that corporation will be punished in a real and significant way, and as I say, it eliminates those cases which are frivolous from going to court.

That's why there are early motions in the process to dismiss frivolous lawsuits.

How is the worker going to get a lawyer to take a baseless case? Does he have big dollars to waste? Lawyers on contingency don't take crapy cases much. They want money.

The system is already pretty stacked against the worker, even with access to court.

Then again, of course, you get the exception judges like one Bush appointed, who never once ruled for the victim in over 600 gender discrimination cases.

There are always reports of people who have sued on ridiculous grounds. That one finds an attorney that takes a case does not automatically mean they are right.

If the system works against access to court, then that needs to be addressed.

Let's face it, there is potential for abuse by multiple parties. What is needed is a system that allows someone in a similar situation to obtain justice, while preventing abuse. I've seen the latter as well as the former. If it's wrong, then it's wrong independent of who's doing it.

As far as the Republicans go, I haven't seen the statistics you quote. If people who are genuinely harmed are denied appropriate remediation, then that needs to be corrected. If it's a Republican policy, that matters not. It needs to be fixed.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: razor2025

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Phokus

She barely won 2-1 in appeals and KBR is appealing AGAIN. That and the fact that she seemed to have won based on the fact that she was raped in the barracks (where alcohol wasn't allowed) is how she won.

If Franken's legislation were in place, KBR wouldn't even have a chance to appeal. In fact, Jamie Leigh wouldn't have had to go to court just to be able to sue for the right to a trial.

like i said, the pending legislation didn't do anything for her. KBR hasn't appealed either (afaik they can't appeal to the supreme court anyway). they've filed a motion for rehearing en banc. don't see much difference coming of it. 99% of the time these things are denied.

I think you've missed the point. Had the legislation been in-place PRIOR to Jamie's rape, she would've had her justice without such horrific delay as it is now. I don't understand the mentality of those who would go against this amendment or defend KBR's action. Morally bankrupt indeed.

I haven't seen anyone defend KBR's actions. I've seen people defend the usefulness in certain situations of arbitration, and how essentially this amendment would remove that tool from the toolbox. Only idiots fail to understand that being against this amendment doesn't mean you support KBR's actions or the events that took place.