Dear Senators Chambliss and Isakson,

[Slack3r78]

Senator [Chambliss/Isakson],

I am writing you regarding your recent vote on Senator Franken's amendment to the upcoming Defense Appropriations bill.

When I first heard the rhetoric surrounding the vote on this amendment, my initial reaction was that surely its supporters were overstating their case. It seemed obvious to me that there was a reasonable explanation for the dissent on this legislation; the junior Senator from Minnesota must have overstepped and introduced an overly broad amendment. Perhaps he's trying to prevent private companies that do business with the government from using binding arbitration to avoid unnecessary litigation, while scoring cheap political points. Opposing that seems reasonable enough.

Then I saw the text of the amendment in question:

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.

This is not what I was expecting to see at all. Rather than a sweeping ban, it's a narrowly crafted piece of law intended to address exactly the shortcomings in basic human decency that were exposed by the Jamie Leigh Jones case.

Frankly, Senator, this vote calls your fundamental judgment into question. While I perfectly understand and accept the ideals of restraint in government, this goes beyond the bounds of the reasonable. It is rather difficult for me to come up with any explanation for your vote that does not involve either sheer simple-mindedness or petty partisanship, one.

Senator, having to rationalize the actions of those who purportedly represent me is wearisome. It would be greatly appreciated if you could try just a bit harder to avoid shaming our great state in the future.

Regards,

[National Kato]

Rape-nuts. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts)

[Slack3r78]

Rape-nuts. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts)

Yeah, per usual, Stewart nailed it.

And I seriously was giving these Senators benefit of the doubt. I've seen Senators and Representatives attacked too many times for opposing a broad bill which become characterized by small portions of it to buy into the hype.

But holy shit is the text of the amendment damning.

The even sicker irony here? Saxby Chambliss was elected on a smear campaign against Max Cleland (who is a multiple amputee from his service in Vietnam) suggesting that Cleland didn't support President Bush or the troops and was helping the terrorists win.

zJQYAD7DKWE

In reality? Cleland had voted against the Republican version of a spending bill and for the Democratic version of it.

Chambliss is scum. I'm still undecided on Johnny Isakson, though this vote doesn't bode well.

[Dorkandproudofit]

I think the saddest thing about this is that someone voted these guys in.

[cppcrusader]

The real irony is that last month I had to sign a Business Ethics and Conduct document which is a requirement for all government contractors now.

[Slack3r78]

Got a response from Isakson:

Dear Mr. XXXXX:



Thank you for contacting me regarding an amendment included in the Senate-passed Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 2010, that prohibits funding for federal contractors who require the use of arbitration to settle employment disputes. I appreciate hearing from you and the opportunity to respond.



Senate amendment 2588 to H.R.3326, Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 2010, was introduced by Senator Al Franken in response to the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, a 22-year-old Texan who alleges that in 2005 she was drugged and gang raped by fellow contract workers while working for defense contractor Halliburton/KBR at Camp Hope in Baghdad. Ms. Jones sued Halliburton/KBR and a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in September 2009 that Jones' employment contract with Halliburton/KBR does not prohibit her from suing over the claims she has made and that her lawsuit against Halliburton/KBR can go to trial. I am glad Ms. Jones is getting her day in court for these civil claims against the company, and I believe that if the charges bear out, those responsible for this horrific crime should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.



I voted against this amendment in accordance with the recommendation of the President and his Department of Defense, which opposed this amendment. Under the Franken amendment, defense contractors who receive federal funding could no longer require that employees sign contracts mandating that they settle employment disputes through arbitration. The amendment applies to current defense contracts and thus contractors who have employment arbitration agreements with their employees and who have already completed work for the military would not be able to paid for that work, under the Franken amendment.

In addition, I believe that this amendment would reverberate far beyond Ms. Jones' claim against Halliburton because it would lead to defense contractors eliminating arbitration altogether as an option for employees. Arbitration is a proven process that offers fast and fair resolutions of employment disputes, and its must be preserved as an option.


Without arbitration, employees are left with only the option of going to court, which is a very expensive and lengthy process. Arbitration allows employees to still make their claim and pay nothing or nearly nothing to do so because an employee does not have to hire an attorney for arbitration. Additionally, statistics show that employees actually fair better in the arbitration process than they do in court. According to a survey, employees have a 63 percent chance of prevailing in arbitration versus a 43 percent chance of prevailing in court.



The Franken amendment ultimately passed by a vote of 68 to 30, and some are characterizing the 30 senators who voted against the Franken amendment as "Pro-Rape" or "Pro-Gang Rape." This is politics at its worst. I am a husband, a father of a daughter, and a grandfather to three granddaughters, and it is absolutely ludicrous to characterize me or my colleagues as "pro-rape." Rape is a heinous crime and those who commit sexual assault should be punished, and I believe that the U.S. Justice Department should become more aggressive in prosecuting cases of rape and violent crime in combat zones such as Iraq. Unfortunately, the Franken amendment would not do anything to protect women from violence or to punish criminals. If it had, I would certainly have voted for the amendment.



Thank you again for contacting me. Please visit my webpage at http://isakson.senate.gov/ for more information on the issues important to you and to sign up for my e-newsletter.


Sincerely,
Johnny Isakson
United States Senator


I'll post my response when I send it, but the short version is that he's mischaracterizing what the amendment bars.

[Hemalin]

Y6kiZIlMFto



I'm curious as to what is Isakson's take on the possibilities of overreach of the defund ACORN bill. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/whoops-anti-acorn-bill-ro_n_294949.html)

[National Kato]

Damn, Franken's superb in that clip.

[Slack3r78]

Senator Isakson,

Thank you for your prompt response to my previous correspondence regarding your vote on the Franken Amendment.

Let me begin by noting that we agree that much of the hyperbole surrounding this piece of legislation has been unnecessary and offensive. In fact, it was the childish behavior of some of the amendment's supporters that caused me to initially approach the matter with a level of heightened suspicion. Simply put, I disagree with the notion that those who do not support the amendment are somehow "pro-rape."

That said, I found your explanation for your vote on the amendment lacking. In your response you describe arbitration as being a valuable form of alternative dispute resolution between government contractors and their employees. I do not disagree with this, however, I also do not see where Senator Franken's amendment blocks the use of arbitration as a means of dispute resolution. The amendment is quite narrow in scope. It does not bar the use of binding arbitration by government contractors; rather, it bars requiring employees to waive their right to sue and accept binding arbitration as their only means of dispute resolution as a condition of their employment.

There is absolutely nothing in the text of the amendment which would prevent contractors and their employees from voluntarily choosing to pursue binding arbitration in lieu of civil litigation. If the process of binding arbitration is as beneficial to both parties as you suggest, then it seems obvious that simple market forces would deem that employees would opt to resolve their disputes in that manner of their own volition.

In the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, it has taken the courts nearly two-and-a-half years to rule that she even has the right to sue her former employers at KBR. Further, one of Mrs. Jones' complaints was that by being forced into binding arbitration, she'd have also been bound to remain publicly silent on the matter. In her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 7 of this year, Mrs. Jones stated in fighting for her right to a jury trial, she has learned of other women who were similarly gagged by KBR's binding arbitration clause. In her testimony, even Mrs. Jones agreed that arbitration is a potentially valuable tool for all parties involved, but that forced, binding arbitration in cases like hers were a serious injustice. I am inclined to agree.

All told, Senator Franken's amendment is incredibly clear and concise for a work of Congress. It does not ban the use of binding arbitration. In fact, it doesn't even ban all uses of mandatory arbitration -- it only prevents it as a condition of employment for "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." In short, it is tailored to apply specifically to cases like that of Mrs. Jones.

Let me again register my disappointment in the stance you have chosen to take on this issue. While I find the over the top attacks you've been subjected to as a result of this controversy unfortunate, I cannot help but ultimately be left feeling that your justification for this vote is incredibly misguided. As I said in my initial correspondence, I feel that your vote on this matter has not reflected positively upon your judgment, nor does it help the perception of our state on a national level.

Thank you for your time.

[Slack3r78]

Damn, Franken's superb in that clip.

Yeah, seeing that video is actually what sparked my interest in really looking into this issue. Like I said in my letter, I really did assume that Franken had introduced an overly broad amendment that tried to regulate much more than was necessary. As noted in both my messages to Senator Isakson, I was rather impressed with the brevity and narrow scope of the actual amendment.

Either way, Franken's making a name for himself as one of the best members of the Senate, in my book.

[ShivaX]

Damn, Franken's superb in that clip.

I have never liked Franken, but goddamn am I behind him on this. He did a great job and its definately an injustice that people should know about.

"My question to you is if that's a better workplace, what was the workplace like before?"

Quote of the year.

[Slack3r78]

I have never liked Franken, but goddamn am I behind him on this. He did a great job and its definately an injustice that people should know about.

"My question to you is if that's a better workplace, what was the workplace like before?"

Quote of the year.

I got a kick out of "You cite what is essentially page 30 of a 10 page report." You'll notice that Isakson cites that same flimsy statistic in his response to me.

Also, not to toot my own horn, but:

There is absolutely nothing in the text of the amendment which would prevent contractors and their employees from voluntarily choosing to pursue binding arbitration in lieu of civil litigation. If the process of binding arbitration is as beneficial to both parties as you suggest, then it seems obvious that simple market forces would deem that employees would opt to resolve their disputes in that manner of their own volition.

Writing that made me absolutely giddy. There's something quite satisfying in tossing somebody's own ideology back at them.