From The Huffington Post:
An amendment that would prevent the government from working with contractors who denied victims of assault the right to bring their case to court is in danger of being watered down or stripped entirely from a larger defense appropriations bill.
Multiple sources have told the Huffington Post that Sen. Dan Inouye, a longtime Democrat from Hawaii, is considering removing or altering the provision, which was offered by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and passed by the Senate several weeks ago.[…]
“The defense contractors have been storming his office,” said a source with knowledge of the situation. “Inouye either will get the amendment taken out altogether, or water it down significantly. If they water it down, they will take out the Title VII claims. This means that in discrimination cases, they will still force you into a secret forced arbitration on KBR’s (or other contractors’) own terms — with your chances of prevailing practically zero. The House seems to be very supportive of the original Franken amendment and all in line, but their hands are tied since it originated in the Senate. And since Inouye runs the show on this bill, he can easily take it out to get Republicans and the defense contractors off his back, which looks increasingly likely.”
This is possible because the bill is now in conference committee, where the House and Senate versions of the bill are merged into a single bill.
Kos has lots of contact info for Inouye, and more information (including the claim that various congressional staffers have anonymously accused Inouye of sexual harassment and in one case rape).
The Huffington Post noted that Obama’s Defense Department also opposed Franken’s amendment due to concerns about enforceability.
And I think a lot of the moral force goes out of this once you’re getting down to discrimination claims instead of matters that are both civil and criminal, such as sexual assault. Employment contracts routinely require you to arbitrate those, and the Supreme Court has recently said with regard to age discrimination claims that your labor union can give away your right to litigate (though Congressional Democrats have a bill in the works that would invalidate the SCOTUS decision, which was made on statutory rather than constitutional grounds and thus can be overridden by a change in statute).
I think consideration is due to the suggestion from the White House that perhaps Congress should simply forbid all employers, whether military contractors or not, from mandating arbitration of discrimination claims or those that could also be charged criminally. Why is mandatory arbitration of discrimination claims peculiarly unacceptable for military contractors, but totally cool for, say, Wal-Mart?
“Weaken” not “weaking”. FF2D.
[Fixed, thanks! –Amp]
[Er, what does FF2D stand for? –Amp]
including the claim that various congressional staffers have anonymously accused
The bill sounds sensible to me; I’m inclined to support it. But this sounds a lot more like anonymous character asassination than supporting the bill on it’s merits.
Why are defense contractors fighting this? I mean, I know why in general, but I mean specifically? How is it a hardship for KBR et al if they’re not allowed to protect rapists? Does it give them a competitive disadvantage somehow? Is it somehow necessary for whatever it is they’re doing over there (which is apparently assaulting women)?
I other words, when I ask Sen. Gillibrand why she supported Inouye’s amendment (and she well might),what’s she going to tell me?
How is it a hardship for KBR et al if they’re not allowed to protect rapists? Does it give them a competitive disadvantage somehow? Is it somehow necessary for whatever it is they’re doing over there (which is apparently assaulting women)?
I think you misunderstand what Franken’s amendment did, which is to eliminate mandatory arbitration in employment contracts only for a small set of employers, while other employers can continue to use them. I frequently find Kathleen Parker silly, but she gets at how the arguments against it have been unfairly dismissed.