In a free market society, people make employment contracts with employers. If they don't like it, they find another employer. Thirty of your US Representatives believe that it is acceptable to allow "non-prosecution of rape" clauses in employment contracts for those businesses employed by the US Federal Government. (i.e.) If a woman is raped while employed by the firm, the dispute must be settled through arbitration and not the legal system. These Congressmen further believe that it is not the job of the Congress to intervene in free market contracts between employer and employee.
In a free-market society, should employers be able to put such clauses into their contracts? Is it the job of Congress to interfere in this free market activity? Use facts in your argument (pro or con)....not logic, morality or "feelings." What would be your solution?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The government is supposed to protect the people and their rights, and when contracts have hidden clauses that won't let rape cases go to the legal system, the government should have the right to intervene.
ReplyDeleteThis being a free-market society, employers should [and do] have the right to create contracts with hidden clauses like this one. However, they should be subject to Congressional intervention should the issue arise.
Even though a person should read all the fine print before signing anything, the government is [supposed to be] there to protect them for when they make choices like that. And America being the land of the free, employers have the right to write whatever they want in their contracts, because appliers don't have to sign the dotted line.
This is a moral issue and also a legal issue...how could the government let some words on a contract affect the rights of this woman? She deserves to be protected by the government - with the pain that this lady went through, something should be done to change it. A law enforcing these clauses not to be allowed
ReplyDeleteIt alone baffles me that an applicant for a job would not read such critical fine print! It also disgusts me that a company would make a fine print of such context! But that's beside the point. If this lady can't just sue the company, why can't she get a criminal investigation launched and have the alleged rapists sued? That would be my solution, get those guys put in jail!!! Unless, of course, the rapeage didn't take place on U.S. territory, then she's screwed.
ReplyDeleteI do not understand why some people are not smart enough to read fine print. Sometimes the fine print is there to hurt you and sometimes to help you. This lady should have read the fine print before she signed the paper. I think that the government should protect people against things like this, but I also think that this lady should be able to sue the company, for at least all of the medical charges.
ReplyDeleteIn principle I believe the government has absolutly no business interfering with a private company. The crime did not occur in the United States and therefore the U.S. government should have nothing to do with it. My simpathy is with Jamie Leigh Jones, but I stand with the 30 US Represenatives in the principle of allowing free market to actually be free. If you do not like the contract, do not sign it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo sad, but true. I say "if it was on U.S. soil" in my previous comment, but we all know that it most likely wasn't. I guess technically she could sue them within the Iraqi judicial system, but that's bound to be a long, complicated, and dreadful process. All one can do is take a moral disliking to the situation, but it comes out to be the equivalent of a loophole in which several men got away with rape. It would be (from an ethical standpoint) just in editing the fine print of their contract, but only the company can do this and no one else, not even the government.
ReplyDeleteWhy such things are included in an employment contract completely baffles me; it is ridiculous and in my opinion, is quite suggestive. Like Steven said, we are a free market, and if someone doesn't like what they see in the fine print, then they should not sign it. This is true; however, certain things should not be allowed such as this "non-prosecution of rape" clause. The government should intervene for the sole reason that such a clause is suggestive and completely unnecessary if no harm is intended.
ReplyDeleteSimply put, rape is a crime. It deserves a hearing no matter what. Despite the fact that the woman may not have been smart by neglecting to read the contract in full, her signature was given with the thought that nothing so harsh would occur.
Yes, the contract was signed, but legal action should at least be taken against the company. The government is responsible for protecting its citizens, and the US embassy did intervene.
The Government has no right to interfere with private business, that is a fact. In this case it is a hard fact to swallow but one that must be indeed swallowed.
ReplyDeleteThis should never be allowed... I feel like this violates the very rights of the Constitution. These people need to working to secure our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not finding loop-holes for horny CEO's. It becomes the job of Congress to interfere with free-market activity when the actions of the free-market interfere with those rights laid out by the Constitution and defended by the Judicial branch.
ReplyDelete-Erika Alfieri
So by your logic the Government should hold everyone's hand when the sign a contract? No. If you do not agree with the Contract.....DO NOT SIGN IT. The Government should not have to tell you that.
ReplyDeleteFOR REAL. By the way, what's all this about "hidden clause" and "fine print" in a contract? Where did the article say that the clause was hidden or in smaller print than anything else? All the article said is that the clause was in the freaking contract! Jamie Leigh Jones agreed to a condition by signing her name -- a condition that she later claimed she had no idea was in the contract. Her case is unfortunate, no doubt, but she shouldn't have been so stupid as to put her name on something without fully understanding it. Why should the government protect stupidity, Christina? And while in this case, court action is necessary, I don't believe that government should, or for that matter, has any right to disallow such clauses in company contracts. The reason for a company to want arbitration is valid. Perhaps a compromise would be to require these clauses to exclude sexual harassment cases, but in principle I completely agree with Steven. Don't sign something without reading it, and CERTAINLY don't expect the government to bail you out when you do.
ReplyDeleteWhether there be a clause or not, the case should be allowed to go through the legal system. An issue such as rape should be beyong the clause. The woman has rights, so does any employer, yet that should not matter. Congress should have some interference or part in the case even if it is free market activity.
ReplyDeleteWhoa. U.S. Representatives are completely wrong. "Non-prosecution of rape", are you kidding me? This type of decision should not be left up to the words of a clause. Congress should interfere and oversee special cases such as this.
ReplyDeleteThe clause should not get in the way of this lady's private issue. Rape is an issue that should be dealt with separately and I don't think the government should let the clause interfere with her rights.
ReplyDelete