Organize the South

I wrote a letter to my senators asking why they would vote no to Senate amendment 2588. They both responded, but I still have questions. Here's my response to their response.

Dear Sen. Johnny Isakson, Sen. Saxby Chambliss:

Thank you for replying to my letter asking you about your no vote on S. Amdt. 2588 of the Defense Authorization Bill. I am sending this follow-up letter because from reading your response your no vote was based on different information than what I was aware existed. I’m hoping that this letter can help clarify matters, so if I’m wrong please let me know.

Sen. Isakson, you wrote that you voted against the amendment “in accordance with the recommendation of the President and his Department of Defense, which opposed this amendment.” Perhaps you aren’t aware that the President is not against the intent of this legislation. He had some concerns about how it would be implemented, but he supported the legislation. The Department of Defense had questions about whether the amendment was enforceable, but it is overstating the case to say they opposed it.

As an aside though, can you clarify how important the President’s opinion is in casting your vote? I don’t have a problem with you deciding to vote “in accordance with the President.” That cannot be any worse than any other way of voting. I’m assuming that since the President is for the Employee Free Choice Act, you will now also vote in favor of that bill.

Sen. Isakson you also wrote that the amendment “would lead to defense contractors eliminating arbitration altogether as an option for employees.” Sen. Chambliss you wrote that employers would be “forced to eliminate mandatory arbitration as an option for resolving employment disputes.” Are you both aware that, in fact, this amendment wouldn’t do that? The amendment doesn’t eliminate arbitration, it eliminates having arbitration as the only option. In other words, workers would still be able to go to court.

What’s interesting to me is that the both of you are so concerned about making sure employees have multiple options when it comes to settling grievances. I applaud this intent. I would once again like to suggest you support the Employee Free Choice Act since this legislation would give employees, not employers, more options when it comes to deciding whether or not to have a union. Right now, workers can be forced by their employer into an election, “a very expensive and lengthy process.” (That’s from your letter about the court system, Sen. Isakson.) Also, the current process is ripe with employer abuse including harassment and illegal firings. Giving employees more options- like only having them vote once on whether they want a union rather than filing cards asking for an election and then voting in a months-long election process designed to protect employers while they abuse human rights- would help stop this process.

Lastly, I’m curious about your votes on federal funding for ACORN. The both of you have supported banning the group from receiving federal monies because of their transgressions. Will you also call for other organizations to be banned from federal funds? I’m talking about organizations like Blackwater since they killed civilians in Iraq. In fact, they have a history of it. Also there’s the case of Halliburton. Jamie Leigh Jones, a former Halliburton employee, alleges she was gang raped by her coworkers while in Iraq. You both know about her because Sen. Franken introduced his amendment to give her some relief in court. She also alleges that Halliburton covered up the crime. If this is true, then Halliburton would be guilty of covering up a horrific crime. Without a doubt you both would agree with this since you both stated in your letters how much you believe rape to be a terrible violation. I have no doubt that you both would support banning Halliburton from receiving federal funds. That's the only way I can see your votes as being consistent. If you aren't consistent, then there must be some ulterior motive for attacking ACORN but leaving Halliburton and Blackwater alone. If I’m wrong, please let me know.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing more from you.

Dan

On Wednesday, October 21 I received this thoughtful reply from Sen. Johnny Isakson concerning his no vote on S. Amendment 2588. That amendment, introduced by Sen. Al Franken, would deny federal contracts to employers who deny their employee's right to go to court regarding sexual assault and sexual discrimination. I am reprinting the letter verbatim. I will have a response to this letter since the Senator has mistaken intent with impact. For example, one can intend to protect people from sexual assault yet vote for something that has the impact of making it easier to cover up sexual assault.

------------

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

For future correspondence with my office, please visit my web site at http://isakson.senate.gov/contact.cfm.

In an earlier post I wrote a letter to Sen. Johnny Isakson and Sen. Saxby Chambliss about their inexplicable support of Haliburton's efforts to cover up gang rape committed by their employees in Iraq. To date, I haven't heard a reply from the senators. Jon Stewart has a great 4 minute clip on this amendment. Although he doesn't mention the good senators from Georgia, he hits all of the arguments.

If you would like, you contact the Senators yourself:

Sen. Johnny Isakson
One Overton Park, Suite 970
3625 Cumberland Blvd
Atlanta, GA 30339
Tel: (770) 661-0999
Fax: (770) 661-0768
Email Contact


Sen. Saxby Chambliss
100 Galleria Parkway
Suite 1340
Atlanta, GA 30339
Main: 770-763-9090
Fax: 770-226-8633
Email Contact

Dear Senator Johnny Isakson & Senator Saxby Chambliss:

The 2010 Defense Appropriations bill had an amendment introduced by Sen. Al Franken. The amendment was S. Amdt. 2588. Sen. Franken's amendment would ban companies that restrict their employees' ability to take sexual assault cases to court. According to an article on Alternet, Sen. Franken specifically offered this amendment to provide relief for Jamie Leigh Jones. Jones was gang raped by her co-workers at Haliburton while she was in Iraq. She was then threatened if she left Iraq for medical treatment. This is according to ABC News.

Apparently, both Sen. Isakson and Sen. Chambliss voted against this amendment. I'd like to know why. You must have a good reason. Sen. Sessions from Alabama suggested that the amendment would violate the due process clause of the Constitution. Was that your reason? Sen. Franken did a good job of explaining how an amendment, one that does target a specific company but does specify how federal funds are to be spent, is quite constitution. But if that was your reason, why do both you Sen. Isakson and Sen. Chambliss support, nay co-sponsor, an amendment to insure ACORN no longer receives federal money. If a bill that would target a specific organization is not un-Constitutional in your mind, how would a bill that doesn't target a specific company be unconstitutional?

Sen. Chambliss, you said that organizations that "undermine our democratic process should not be eligible for taxpayer dollars." Doesn't raping a woman, covering up the crime, and not allowing her access to the courts count as undermining democracy? Sen. Isakson you signed on to a letter that said, in part, "American taxpayers must be able to trust that their money is being spent responsibly and is not being used to fund criminal enterprises." Why is it that when it comes to ACORN both of you are able to feel such outrage, yet an effort to make sure women have a chance to hold rapists receiving federal funds accountable gets a no vote? Can you explain this to me?

Thanks,

Dan