[jthomas1600]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

1) Suing someone who wronged you is a civil right. Making giving up your rights as a condition of employment should be illegal.

2) And this is really important. The bill would not have outlawed such contracts... it would merely have told the pentagon to forbid such contracts in its own contracts.

Haliburton can remove the right to sue if they want, but they won't get the defence contracy.

So would good tort reform mean that you could not hold an incompitent or downright malevolent doctor or hospital responsable for the harm they infict? That seems bad tort reform to me.

Jerry, I posed the possibility that maybe someone might vote against such an amendment because they wanted caps on damages. I didn't say anything about someone opposing the amendment because they wanted to deny someone the wright to sue.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

Jerry, I posed the possibility that maybe someone might vote against such an amendment because they wanted caps on damages. I didn't say anything about someone opposing the amendment because they wanted to deny someone the wright to sue.

But that's the only thing Frankin's ammendment did. Stopped the pentagon from giving contracts where the employees were under contracts that deinied them the right to sue in civil court.

Or did I miss something you said somewhere?

[jthomas1600]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

But that's the only thing Frankin's ammendment did. Stopped the pentagon from giving contracts where the employees were under contracts that deinied them the right to sue in civil court.

Or did I miss something you said somewhere?

Yes, you missed some of what I said. First I will repeat, I'm not saying anyone should have voted against this...I'm sure I would have voted for it. I threw out a few reasons why someone might have voted against this. One reason might be that they wanted additional things in the amendment....like limits on damages. I might say "yes, lets make sure people have the right to sue, but lets also make sure there are limits to what they can sue for". I might say that I will vote against any amendment that didn't have caps on damages, but when you proposed one that did, I would vote for it.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

Yes, you missed some of what I said. First I will repeat, I'm not saying anyone should have voted against this...I'm sure I would have voted for it. I threw out a few reasons why someone might have voted against this. One reason might be that they wanted additional things in the amendment....like limits on damages. I might say "yes, lets make sure people have the right to sue, but lets also make sure there are limits to what they can sue for". I might say that I will vote against any amendment that didn't have caps on damages, but when you proposed one that did, I would vote for it.

but none of the Republican Senators that voted against it made those arguments.

[TunerSteve]

On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

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.

[Page: S10070] GPO's PDF (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.

This is the actual text from the Franken amendment 2588.

It clearly outlines what situations it would address, and the reasons I've heard given for voting against are very weak. Both of my Senators (Brownback and Roberts R-Ks) opposed the amendment.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by TunerSteve

This is the actual text from the Franken amendment 2588.

It clearly outlines what situations it would address, and the reasons I've heard given for voting against are very weak. Both of my Senators (Brownback and Roberts R-Ks) opposed the amendment.

The only part of that I have any problem with is the emotional distress part. That is far too subjective an issue to leave so vague in a bill. Some people are too thin skinned and some have taken advantage of that. I don't know if there are standards out there that determine the level when something can be determined "emotional distress". But other than that, as long as the company is not held liable for things beyond its control- it is an amendment that should have garnered no objections.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by nolidad

I don't know if there are standards out there that determine the level when something can be determined "emotional distress"

IIED is defined in tort law. It involves an intentional and reckless act that is extreme enough to cause severe emotional distress. It also typically requires testimony from a psychiatrist. The "taking advantage" stuff you're worrying about is probably in regards to NIED: Negligent infliction of emotional distress.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by slap_j

IIED is defined in tort law. It involves an intentional and reckless act that is extreme enough to cause severe emotional distress. It also typically requires testimony from a psychiatrist. The "taking advantage" stuff you're worrying about is probably in regards to NIED: Negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Thanks, why should I have even been mildly surprised that we have definable standards in law to measure emotional distress. I appreciate the info you gave.

[slap_j]

YouTube - Sen. Franken Questions an Arbitration Lawyer about Binding Arbitration