That first one.. I'm boggled that that would be considered the best way to solve the problem.
I can see the intent, I think. Hitting companies like Haliburton with a lawsuit isn't enough, 'cos they make so much money they just pay the fines and change nothing within the company... So lets starve 'em of all that income!
But isn't what was done in the trigger case a clear human rights violation? Shouldn't it be the case that the US doesn't contract to companies that commit human rights violations, full stop? (Oh no, silly me... Then they'd never be able to do business in, well, lets say certain parts of the world that they absolutely *have* to do business with... =:o\ )
What laws are there existing to bar the US from contracting to companies that commit other crimes, such as murder? Is this proposed law modelled on those?
Perhaps there are sensible answers that I could track down if wasn't dog tired and in a flat spin over my own problems, but... Hey, U.S.? WTF?
[AFTER READING A BIT MORE IN THE MORNING] *Employment contracts*? How the hell can employment contracts be allowed to override basic human rights?
Indeed the appeal judge has got it exactly right: Being raped was not part of her job description (or is that a rash assumption on my part? =:o{ ), so no way should any part of her contract interfere with her right to bring charges. Yet apparently the company involved doesn't feel it has any responsibility to prevent its employees raping and/or falsely imprisoning each other. That needs fixing *somehow*...
Comments 2
I can see the intent, I think. Hitting companies like Haliburton with a lawsuit isn't enough, 'cos they make so much money they just pay the fines and change nothing within the company... So lets starve 'em of all that income!
But isn't what was done in the trigger case a clear human rights violation? Shouldn't it be the case that the US doesn't contract to companies that commit human rights violations, full stop? (Oh no, silly me... Then they'd never be able to do business in, well, lets say certain parts of the world that they absolutely *have* to do business with... =:o\ )
What laws are there existing to bar the US from contracting to companies that commit other crimes, such as murder? Is this proposed law modelled on those?
Perhaps there are sensible answers that I could track down if wasn't dog tired and in a flat spin over my own problems, but... Hey, U.S.? WTF?
Reply
Indeed the appeal judge has got it exactly right: Being raped was not part of her job description (or is that a rash assumption on my part? =:o{ ), so no way should any part of her contract interfere with her right to bring charges. Yet apparently the company involved doesn't feel it has any responsibility to prevent its employees raping and/or falsely imprisoning each other. That needs fixing *somehow*...
Yeuch. Messy. =:o{
Thanks for the heads-up.
Reply
Leave a comment