Ken Collins: Do officials care?

Advertisement

Dick Cheney and Al Franken. Opposite ends of any spectrum, but now there's a relationship. Does Cheney, ex-CEO of Halliburton, still loom over Congress? A subsidiary of Halliburton has a government contract for some federal business. A female worker for that company was allegedly gang-raped by fellow employees and subsequently locked in a container by her employer. She went on to sue her employer.

Enter the junior-est senator, Al Franken. He introduced his first-ever bill. It was to make it illegal for the government to hire for federal work any company that had a rule against an employee's ability to sue it for anything, including employee rape at work. It's hard to believe that a bill would even be needed for that reason. Slam-dunk vote in the Senate, one would think. A 68-30 vote. The 30 votes against that Federal Contractor Employee Liability Act were, to a person, all Republicans.

Ask yourself, please, how can any human being be against a bill like that? We all have or know mothers, daughters, sisters, wives who are out in the work force. To have U.S. congressmen who worry more about the companies that may do the government's work over the female employees' safety makes me wonder something. Just how much do these Republicans who are "worried" about our health care reform really care about the American people? The woman's lawsuit, by the way, was thrown out due to the fine print in her contract, against suing. Does that make you feel all warm and fuzzy, America?

Ken Collins

Oak Creek

Comments

Fred Duckels 4 years, 6 months ago

Ken Ken, Let's go back to the year 2000, how many liberal infiltrators do you suppose will be applying for a job at Haliburton, if a no suit clause was abandoned? They would need a battery of Philadelphia lawyers to handle all the politically motivated lawsuits. Franken is a knee jerker, but this scenario would cut both ways.

0

sledneck 4 years, 6 months ago

Well, lets see. If Ken was a contractor who hired a sub-contractor who had some employees who raped a fellow employee should Ken be sued? Sure, because Ken is "big oil"!

Please! Making it easier for anyone to sue anyone is a horribly stupid idea. I am currently a defendant in a totally frivilous lawsuit and believe me it is upsetting.

But back to Ken, the "big oil" contractor. He is sipping rum on his yacht in the BVI. Why is he responsible for the rape? The people who should be punished (shot) are the rapists. But the same crowd that is all for suing Halliburton for an act of a third party favors meaningless punishment for individual criminals. The hypocracy here is gut wrenching.

The Al Franken crowd is against killing (even torturing)terrorists or any other murdering scum but pro-abortion. They favor strong unions to keep good paying jobs here and high minimum wadge laws but favor letting our borders be overrun with $2.00/ hr labor. By the way, you know all those jobs that "americans won't do!" ? I'll bet now that 10 million people are out of work Americans would do those jobs now! (not Ken, of course) What a coincidence thats about the number of illegals our screwed up government (both parties) has let invade our nation. And on the subject of lawsuits, of course the Franken bunch favors them. Thats why no matter how screwed up the legal system gets you never hear disdain for "big law" or any proposal to fix that!

The largest part of the problem in healthcare can be attributed to ambulance chasers but does the Franken crowd want to fix that? No... it's them!

For God sakes, you got the damn law passed after all and still...bitch, bitch, bitch. Stop your whining about the former congress and executive (jerks each and all) and pay attention to the current bunch that is "one-upping" every bad behavior previously considered the limit.

0

Mike Heineke 4 years, 6 months ago

Ken..Sorry if I can't get the Cheney link to the rape. He's been tied to Haliburton for a long time and has made a handsome living, to be sure, but what is the link there? Gosh darn ken! Lets just have all Dems vote on these laws and we wouldn't have to worry about all the social injustice in the world. Or better yet, lets do away with Washington and follow the "Captain" (like the ad).

0

HowardRoark 4 years, 6 months ago

Fred Duckels, Sledneck and Shark: It is people like you, and your twisted mentality, that is the cancer that is, and will, destroy this country. This is not a "Frivilouse law suit" as Sledneck stated; in fact I bet sledneck, and the rest of them, would be singing a different tune if it were their daughter or sister that had been drugged and gang raped! You fools bicker about this, and that, and all the while miss the big picture. Our country has been taken over by international bankers whose only goal is your enslavement, and world domination. Those responsible for this OWN Halliburton, KBR, Baxter pharmaceuticals, ect...

0

Fred Duckels 4 years, 6 months ago

Howie, At issue here is the ability to do government work if a no suit clause is in effect. I'm sure that the stipulation against lawsuits is commonplace, otherwise competitor sabotage would be rampant. The rape case may be heartbreaking but a company that intends to stay in business must protect itself, or leave it's fate in the hands of chance. I'm familiar with Haliburton and they go back over a hundred years and have been an important part of our history, they do not deserve the trashing that antibusiness zealots heap on them. They sold the Iraq defense venture, didn't need the hassle of political opportunists.

0

sledneck 4 years, 6 months ago

There is a name for those OWNERS of Halliburton, Exxon Mobil, Cheveron, "big oil", "big phamacuticals", "big tobbacco",and "big everything else" you want to villanize. They are called SHAREHOLDERS. If you were possesed of any real understanding of business outside of your conspiracy theories you would also know that their shares trade 5 days/ week on the open market. You would further recognize that most of the millions of shareholders are simple working class people who think its is actually good for the company in which they have a stake to earn a profit and not get recklessly sued.

If you think companies such as this are making ridiculous profits and if raking in the cash is so easy for them then why don't people like you have the good sense to purchase shares? Then you can take YOUR ridiculous proffits and donate to the legal defense fund for rape victims!

I would rather be a slave to a big corporation, which can be assuaged by a few dollars, than a slave to idealogical tyrants whose constant tormenting can not be satisfied. Their conscience is never guilty because their enslavement is "for my own good" or "the good of the planet". THOSE are the ones who never relent and who have no conscience about my enslavement. That culprit is government and it is the Al Franken crowd who would expand it.

Government is like fire... a wonderful servant but a terrible master. Government laws come from lawyers. Government sucks and law suits suck.

One last principal Howie missed in government school is as follows: Corporations pay NO TAXES! NEVER HAVE, NEVER WILL! They only collect taxes from you and pass it along to the government. Likewise, when a corporation is sued, that expense goes into the price of the products it sells. Therefore, if Haliburton was sued Howies gas would go up. Of course Howie would, no doubt, have an explanation for that which would somehow implement Dick Cheney rather than the blood sucking lawyers.

Don't feel bad Howie, I understand that your government education was a mile wide but only an inch deep. I don't blame you for the governments failure to educate you... on second thought, I do blame you! Put down the remote control and pick up a basic economics book for God sakes. "Free your mind and your ASS will follow". Seriously, you people REALLY do not have even an elementary understinding of economics do you?

0

JLM 4 years, 6 months ago

Actually, an allegation of rape is generally not an employment issue, it is generally a criminal issue. Rape is a crime. A very, very serious crime. Rapists are criminals. Criminals should be prosecuted and punished.

What we are really talking about here and in the instant case is a civil action to collect punitive damages --- big punitive damages.

No employee of any company has any prohibition against reporting a crime.

Upon the reporting of a crime, it becomes a law enforcement issue rather than an employment issue. Law enforcement issues are decided by law officers and professional prosecutors.

Law enforcement does not even require the victim to report the crime, they can obtain knowledge of the crime in any manner with or without the cooperation of the victim. They can compel grand jury testimony.

It is not uncommon for employers to require individual employees to waive their rights, if any, to sue their employer as a condition of employment. This generally relates solely to civil lawsuits (read --- money damages lawsuits) and is generally cloaked in an alternative dispute resolution provision. Typically binding arbitration.

It is also not uncommon for entire industries to prohibit lawsuits as a condition of the industry --- as an example the brokerage business. If you have an account at Merrill Lynch, you cannot sue Merrill Lynch, you can however engage in binding arbitration.

Even in the instant case, an employee can always report individual and corporate conduct to the EEOC and obtain a redress of grievance and alternatively the issuance of a "right to sue" determination letter. This is a right which is virtually impossible to "contract away" or for an employer to prohibit.

Many municipalities, political subdivisions and governmental entities simply cannot be sued for anything which would otherwise result in the award of direct, subsequent, consequential or punitive damages under various theories of "sovereign immunity" and even when a governmental entity is sued and loses, the failure to appropriate necessary funds can forestall otherwise rightful or legitimate collection actions.

Corporations are "persons" under the law but their real ownes are the shareholders and as has been pointed out the shareholders are the ultimate victim in this arrangement.

Note the recent refusal by a Federal Judge to approve the SEC v Bank of America settlement because the injured party --- the shareholders of B of A --- was going to have to pay themselves for the alleged damages.

0

Mike Heineke 4 years, 5 months ago

Howie.....I must inform you that I certainly do not have a "twisted mentality". I do live in the real world however, and do what I can to ensure a quality life for myself and family. You may consider looking in the mirror occasionally and picking up a good book to educate yourself of what is really happening in the world. It goes way beyond what you have said, but we're all in it make it better, right?

0

Duke_bets 4 years, 5 months ago

sledneck - You used multiple education references in your post, but you failed to complete one proper sentence in a 6 paragraph rant.

0

seeuski 4 years, 5 months ago

Sledneck, You know you hit the nail when Duke_ grades the paper for grammar. Again, awesome post.

0

Jeff Kibler 4 years, 5 months ago

You are the grammar queen Old and tart, IQ of seventeen

Grammar queen, Keats and Yeats Would have split a spleen

You can't spell, or punctuate Better than those you berate

Here's advice, get a life Become a banking queen

0

kathy foos 4 years, 5 months ago

Your comment sledneck about the jobs being available to mexicans because americans dont want to do them,is just trash.That was never a true statement only something that the politicans say to get their agendas to pass,and bring in people from all over the world for our jobs.Its crosses the lines of both major partys and has always been just a bunch of bull.What about the job they do fill?That being of bringing hard drugs into our country,and they get free health care for the familys that are born while here,while american familys go without.Jobs that americans wont do is such a stupid comment ,they have taken our jobs and the corporations prefer to do that to us workers to save money for themselves(social security)wages ,pensions insurance and god knows how else they save money,then they blame americans that they wont do the work,so they have to bring in the visa worker or border crashing criminals.Not only does that statement insult our intelligence,It invites more workers to come and take our jobs because they think we really need them,when really they were asked to come here to break our labor force apart for money for the corporations while profiting from the sale of illegal drugs.

0

JLM 4 years, 5 months ago

Pretty damn..............................................................clever! LOL

0

kathy foos 4 years, 5 months ago

I cant believe people are even thinking that its so out of line to sue as a remedy to conflict.What would you take away the only recourse available to disgruntled partys,short of the old fashioned duel or all out war?Give me a break,the rape victem is stuck with the same justice system we all are,criminal justice system,hopefully prison time,parole,then paybacks financially if the victem is lucky.Its a crime,but no one says it turns out fair,your frivolas lawsuit you are plagued by,must not be so frivolas,or the court can just throw it out.Would you prefer to have to deal with someones anger over what you have done ,old west style with guns?The ones who should be locked up are people who lie under civil depositions(Bill Clinton)they are real criminals.

0

Duke_bets 4 years, 5 months ago

Jeff- Nice poem. seeuski probably thinks it's awesome!

Sledneck mentioned 'Howie' and education levels at least 5 times. Am I correct? Yes.

I did not berate a post. I stated a fact that was very evident from a post.

If you want to talk about education, you should be capable of passing a 4th grade spelling test.

0

JLM 4 years, 5 months ago

The problem with a frivilous lawsuit is that under the American system of jurisprudence one must still pay to defend themselves whether the complaint and the allegations contained therein are correct or not.

The cost to the defendant is in the legal fees that must be paid to prevail in the lawsuit. Legal fees are horrendous whether the allegations are true, partially true or false.

To be able to collect damages, a defendant has to make their own counterclaim and essentially be able to prove that the original lawsuit was made in bad faith and recklessly without any regard for the truth. This is an extraordinarily high standard.

The simple truth of the matter is that Courts and Judges are very, very protective of the interests of their legal brethren and will do almost anything to ensure they get paid their legal fees.

In the English system --- "loser pays" --- the plaintiff would pay the defendant's legal fees if the plaintiff failed to prevail under the original complaint. An infinetely fairer system in my view.

Alas, not gonna happen in the US when the entire legislature is made up of lawyers.

0

seeuski 4 years, 5 months ago

Duke... Instead of finding fault with the speelling of a salocted fuw thet yuo do'nt ugree width whi not taken a posituon on a subject? You maye like it. Hows my speeling?

0

sledneck 4 years, 5 months ago

Sun, My comment about Americans not willing to do certain jobs was a joke. I believe Americans would do the jobs... that was my point. They are not afforded a chance because of all the illegals taking the jobs. My point was that it sure would be nice (hypathetiaclly) if we could snap our fingers and make all the illegals go home. If so the unemployment situation would look a lot different, no? I further agree that the illegal immigration problem is not isolated to one political party. That is why neither democrats or republicans will ever get a vote from me.

However, I do not blame a business for cutting costs everywhere possible nor will I get on the bandwagon that believes having a good job is somehow an American birthright. When you say they "come and take our jobs" that is troubling because it sounds like a bit of entitlement mentality. It is not your job, it is your bosses or companys job. They created it and they can give it to whomever they choose. Obviously that pool of perspective workers should all be legal and not trespassers.

Competion and proffit are motivators. The person who hits the ground running and pleases the most people with their product should prevail. This is something I would like to expand on because so many do not seem to understand this.

In this healthcare debate I have read several comments promoting profitless healthcare and or insurance. This idea seems so foolish to me that I almost think these advocates must be joking. Without profit there is no incentive. Without incentive there is no innovation. Without innovation there is no improvement in healthcare or any other industry.

If you were paying attention you witnessed the end result of that in the USSR. For the sake of explaination the simple version went like this... The government declared that all must have access to affordable bread. The sign in the store said "bread 10 cents" but on the shelf there was no bread. Why? Because the bakers would rather drink vodka than bake bread for 10 cents because it gave them no margin for profit. Meanwhile, in the alley a mobster was selling illegal bread to starving citizens for $2! The baker could have baked it and profited for$1 but the government made that illegal!

That philosophy condemed all who lived under it to poverty or corruption and bankrupted an empire. The result will be no different here.

Profit is not a bad thing. It is a good thing. Let me ask all of you a question... If Bill gates gave back every cent of all the money he ever made and took back all the products he ever created would you and the rest of the world be better off? Of course not! We have all benifited from his innovations and he did it all for profit!

0

seeuski 4 years, 5 months ago

The anti Capitalism crowd and the Michael Moore faithful are bound and determined to "fundamentally change" this country, as Obama promised, to a Communist style model. That is what this fight is about. The people who are so excited about the promises of health care reform, cap and tax etc. don't know what we are in for if this transformation is adopted.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.