JPF Home Page Forums Republicans Oppose Law on Protecting Victims of Gang Rape

Joyboy
I agree it might be a diversion from the issue but if the amendment as written is not fully enforceable what good is it? Now whether the republicans that voted against it did so because of that might be a different story.

If a major contractor does business with the government there should be provisions to protect it's employees. There should also be transparency in all contracts. I agree with this completely. No person should have to worry about their safety.
Those same major contractors subcontract out work to other companies. The amendment would have to cover all those subs as well, many of which may be foreign companies over which we have no control. How do you provide that protection for the employee? Should the major contractor be open for liability for everything it's subcontractors do?
I'm not saying that's the case here but there is a lot more to this than what's on the surface.

As far as this thread goes. The purpose of the thread was to paint all republicans as women haters, people who will allow women to be sexually abused and gang raped in the workplace.
Or as he put it those sick republicans.
The article I posted shows that republicans aren't the only ones who are having a problem with this amendment. It doesn't matter why the democrat might axe it. The fact is he might. It doesn't matter why the democratic white house might axe it. The fact is they might.

So to paint the republicans with this brush without adding the democrats to the same canvas is nothing more than a typical left wing tactic to try to smear all republicans.



So
If you sign a contract that says you won't hold a company liable if you are sexually assaulted on the job it should be void if you actually are?
What if you sign a contract and it says you can't sue them if you chop your finger off with a saw when you are drunk? Should the contract be void if you actually get drunk and chop your finger off? Should there be a congressional amendment for that too?

People are overlooking these people work under contracts. Provisions in those contracts often limit the liabilities of the companies, such as this arbitration clause.
If, and it's a big IF, this lady was under such a contract the lady in question didn't have to go to work for this company. If she was under contract she had to have read the contract. She didn't have to sign the contract. If the provisions of the contract said she would have to use an arbitrator to resolve all sexual harassment or assault complaints she should have looked for another job.
But she didn't. She chose to take the job anyway.

I am not saying that is the case but if it did go down that way she has opted to give up those rights. Now that something has happened she wants to change the rules of the game?