The 2010 Defense Appropriations bill is about not giving money to government contractors who don’t allow their employees to sue them if they are sexually assaulted on the job.
Sounds reasonable to me, but 30 Republican Senators voted against it!
I thought, there has to be more to it than this. Nobody votes against something like that. Franken must have added something controversial and/or inappropriate in, like the public option or legalized marijuana or something. Maybe the amendment is 1000 pages and they didn’t have time to read it.
Or maybe their all protecting Halliburton!
See What you think:
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 1st Session
As compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Question: On the Amendment (Franken Amdt. No. 2588 )
Vote Number:
308
Vote Date:
October 6, 2009, 04:37 PM
Required For Majority:
1/2
Vote Result:
Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number:
S.Amdt. 2588 to H.R. 3326 (Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010)
Statement of Purpose:
To prohibit 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.
Vote Counts:
YEAs 68 – NAYs 30 - Not Voting 2
Just for the record, here are the 30 Republicans who voted against Franken’s bill. I was disappointed to see McCain’s name in there:
Alexander (R-TN), Barrasso (R-WY), Bond (R-MO), Brownback (R-KS),
Bunning (R-KY), Burr (R-NC), Chambliss (R-GA), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS),Corker (R-TN),Cornyn (R-TX),Crapo (R-ID),DeMint (R-SC),Ensign (R-NV),Enzi (R-WY),Graham (R-SC),Gregg (R-NH),Inhofe (R-OK),Isakson (R-GA),Johanns (R-NE),Kyl (R-AZ),McCain (R-AZ),
McConnell (R-KY),Risch (R-ID),Roberts (R-KS), Sessions (R-AL),Shelby (R-AL),Thune (R-SD),Vitter (R-LA),Wicker (R-MS)
From Senate.gov.
The text:
“Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract 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.”
“(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply with respect to employment contracts that may not be enforced in a court of the United States.”
2 comments:
Bacus health care bill to be clear.
Such nonsense. Seriously. There are women out there RIGHT NOW who were horribly assaulted by their fellow employees in some of these government contracting offices, and their cases are being routinely thrown out of court due to these employment contracts. On a much smaller scale, I've had landlords who want me to sign rental agreements waiving some of my legal rights as a renter before allowing me to rent from them, too. Since when do contracts trump the laws of the land? Can you imagine if I wanted my bank to sign a contract stating that if I robbed them, they wouldn't prosecute me? Hey... Hmmmm...
Post a Comment