Is Jeff Sessions' Face Red Today?

[The Rabbi]

What gives them that power?

A hell of a lot of guns.

So the government should be not allowed to dictate contracts with independent contractors because they have a hell of a lot of guns?

Yes. They should not be allowed to dictate terms to anyone except terrorists and defeated powers.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

A hell of a lot of guns.

So the government should be not allowed to dictate contracts with independent contractors because they have a hell of a lot of guns?

Yes. They should not be allowed to dictate terms to anyone except terrorists and defeated powers.

So contractors should get to write their own contracts?

 

[The Rabbi]

So the government should be not allowed to dictate contracts with independent contractors because they have a hell of a lot of guns?

Yes. They should not be allowed to dictate terms to anyone except terrorists and defeated powers.

So contractors should get to write their own contracts?

It's called "negotiation." Look it up in the dictionary. It's just before "numbnuts."

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yes. They should not be allowed to dictate terms to anyone except terrorists and defeated powers.

So contractors should get to write their own contracts?

It's called "negotiation." Look it up in the dictionary. It's just before "numbnuts."

Well, this is part of the negotiation. The "This contract must include this, or we won't do it" part. There's no reason for this stipulation not to exist.

 

[The Rabbi]

So contractors should get to write their own contracts?

It's called "negotiation." Look it up in the dictionary. It's just before "numbnuts."

Well, this is part of the negotiation. The "This contract must include this, or we won't do it" part. There's no reason for this stipulation not to exist.

But it's not negotiation. The government cannot say "we'd like this". They must do it this way. That isnt negotiating, thats dictating.
And as an American citizen I object to the government increasing the costs of their goods and services by including clauses that have nothing to do with obtaining goods and services.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's called "negotiation." Look it up in the dictionary. It's just before "numbnuts."

Well, this is part of the negotiation. The "This contract must include this, or we won't do it" part. There's no reason for this stipulation not to exist.

Right.
And as an American citizen I object to the government increasing the costs of their goods and services by including clauses that have nothing to do with obtaining goods and services.

And as an American citizen I object to the government drawing up contracts that include a clause denying people access to legal retribution for criminal acts. So we're at an impasse.

EDIT TO ADD: And just like you or I, the government has the right to dictate terms. If one contractor don't like it, then I'm sure another one will. Isn't that how the free market works?

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, this is part of the negotiation. The "This contract must include this, or we won't do it" part. There's no reason for this stipulation not to exist.

Right.
And as an American citizen I object to the government increasing the costs of their goods and services by including clauses that have nothing to do with obtaining goods and services.

And as an American citizen I object to the government drawing up contracts that include a clause denying people access to legal retribution for criminal acts. So we're at an impasse.

EDIT TO ADD: And just like you or I, the government has the right to dictate terms. If one contractor don't like it, then I'm sure another one will. Isn't that how the free market works?

If the gov't is involved it is not the free market anymore. And many of the companies covered under this don't have the option to go somewhere else--their whole business is government business. So it is effectively the gov't dictating how management runs the business, which is an unwarranted intrusion of gov't power into private enterprise.
Kind of like firing the CEO of GM.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Right.
And as an American citizen I object to the government increasing the costs of their goods and services by including clauses that have nothing to do with obtaining goods and services.

And as an American citizen I object to the government drawing up contracts that include a clause denying people access to legal retribution for criminal acts. So we're at an impasse.

EDIT TO ADD: And just like you or I, the government has the right to dictate terms. If one contractor don't like it, then I'm sure another one will. Isn't that how the free market works?

If the gov't is involved it is not the free market anymore. And many of the companies covered under this don't have the option to go somewhere else--their whole business is government business. So it is effectively the gov't dictating how management runs the business, which is an unwarranted intrusion of gov't power into private enterprise.
Kind of like firing the CEO of GM.

It's not the government dictating how management runs the company, its dictating terms for future contracts. I see no reason that the government shouldn't have any less rights in creating contracts than I do.
If a contractor does all of their business with the government, and don't like the terms of the contract (which, by this amendment are JUST stopping companies from doing something that is borderline illegal anyway), that's the contractor's problem. Adapt to the contract rules, or fail. That's how free markets work: provide the needed service, or fail.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Right.
And as an American citizen I object to the government increasing the costs of their goods and services by including clauses that have nothing to do with obtaining goods and services.

And as an American citizen I object to the government drawing up contracts that include a clause denying people access to legal retribution for criminal acts. So we're at an impasse.

EDIT TO ADD: And just like you or I, the government has the right to dictate terms. If one contractor don't like it, then I'm sure another one will. Isn't that how the free market works?

If the gov't is involved it is not the free market anymore. And many of the companies covered under this don't have the option to go somewhere else--their whole business is government business. So it is effectively the gov't dictating how management runs the business, which is an unwarranted intrusion of gov't power into private enterprise.
Kind of like firing the CEO of GM.

So if a company holds enough in gov't contract then the government should not be able to negotiate any terms - they should just accept whatever the contractor offers????
Nope - sorry - not buying it.

Government contractors can't discriminate - gotta hire EOE, ADA, a wealth of other legitimate contractual demands. Been going on for decades - heck - probably since the first government contract.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion - but I'm glad it isn't the prevailing opinion.

 

[The Rabbi]

And as an American citizen I object to the government drawing up contracts that include a clause denying people access to legal retribution for criminal acts. So we're at an impasse.

EDIT TO ADD: And just like you or I, the government has the right to dictate terms. If one contractor don't like it, then I'm sure another one will. Isn't that how the free market works?

If the gov't is involved it is not the free market anymore. And many of the companies covered under this don't have the option to go somewhere else--their whole business is government business. So it is effectively the gov't dictating how management runs the business, which is an unwarranted intrusion of gov't power into private enterprise.
Kind of like firing the CEO of GM.

It's not the government dictating how management runs the company, its dictating terms for future contracts. I see no reason that the government shouldn't have any less rights in creating contracts than I do.
If a contractor does all of their business with the government, and don't like the terms of the contract (which, by this amendment are JUST stopping companies from doing something that is borderline illegal anyway), that's the contractor's problem. Adapt to the contract rules, or fail. That's how free markets work: provide the needed service, or fail.

They are dictating the way the company is run through the use of contracts. Companies do things that are borderline illegal every day. Everyone does things that are borderline illegal every day. If they want to outlaw binding arbitration agreements they can do so.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If they want to outlaw binding arbitration agreements they can do so.

They took a less invasive approach - they simply said if you use them to block legal redress is some very specific circumstances - then you can't get a government contract.

 

[The Rabbi]

If they want to outlaw binding arbitration agreements they can do so.

They took a less invasive approach - they simply said if you use them to block legal redress is some very specific circumstances - then you can't get a government contract.

Thats like saying they can draft every person in the US to work for free for 10 years and its OK because its less invasive than chattel slavery. The fact that it is merely less bad than some other alternative doesn't make it good. It makes it bad.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If the gov't is involved it is not the free market anymore. And many of the companies covered under this don't have the option to go somewhere else--their whole business is government business. So it is effectively the gov't dictating how management runs the business, which is an unwarranted intrusion of gov't power into private enterprise.
Kind of like firing the CEO of GM.

It's not the government dictating how management runs the company, its dictating terms for future contracts. I see no reason that the government shouldn't have any less rights in creating contracts than I do.
If a contractor does all of their business with the government, and don't like the terms of the contract (which, by this amendment are JUST stopping companies from doing something that is borderline illegal anyway), that's the contractor's problem. Adapt to the contract rules, or fail. That's how free markets work: provide the needed service, or fail.

They are dictating the way the company is run through the use of contracts.

Which is entirely the point of a contract.

Companies do things that are borderline illegal every day. Everyone does things that are borderline illegal every day. If they want to outlaw binding arbitration agreements they can do so.

So, you'd be more ok with outlawing binding arbitration agreements than the government simply saying they won't give contracts to companies with said agreements?

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not the government dictating how management runs the company, its dictating terms for future contracts. I see no reason that the government shouldn't have any less rights in creating contracts than I do.
If a contractor does all of their business with the government, and don't like the terms of the contract (which, by this amendment are JUST stopping companies from doing something that is borderline illegal anyway), that's the contractor's problem. Adapt to the contract rules, or fail. That's how free markets work: provide the needed service, or fail.

They are dictating the way the company is run through the use of contracts.

Which is entirely the point of a contract.

Companies do things that are borderline illegal every day. Everyone does things that are borderline illegal every day. If they want to outlaw binding arbitration agreements they can do so.

So, you'd be more ok with outlawing binding arbitration agreements than the government simply saying they won't give contracts to companies with said agreements?

No it is not the point of a contract. I can't go in to a car dealer and say I want the salesman paid a flat rate and not on commission.
I think it would be more intellectually honest to try to outlaw binding arbitration. It would recveal the actual stupidity of the government. Of course I would oppose that even more than this.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

They are dictating the way the company is run through the use of contracts.

Which is entirely the point of a contract.

Companies do things that are borderline illegal every day. Everyone does things that are borderline illegal every day. If they want to outlaw binding arbitration agreements they can do so.

So, you'd be more ok with outlawing binding arbitration agreements than the government simply saying they won't give contracts to companies with said agreements?

No it is not the point of a contract. I can't go in to a car dealer and say I want the salesman paid a flat rate and not on commission.

But if you owned the car dealership, you could make whatever contract you wanted with your employees, and pay them by commission, or on a flat scale, or hourly.

I think it would be more intellectually honest to try to outlaw binding arbitration. It would recveal the actual stupidity of the government. Of course I would oppose that even more than this.

 

[nodoginnafight]

No it is not the point of a contract. I can't go in to a car dealer and say I want the salesman paid a flat rate and not on commission.

No, but you can go into a car dealership and if you find they treat their employees in a way you don't approve of - you can take your business elsewhere.
The government has the exact same right.
Companies are not OWED government contracts - they have to earn them by doing business the right way. ANY customer - U.S. Government included - has the right to choose who they do business with based on reasonable criteria. NOT doing business with companies who try to shield rapists from the legal consequences of their actions is a reasonable criteria.
If you don't think so - then get your votes together and get it changed.
I for one am very grateful that Sessions couldn't get the votes.

 

[EriktheRed]

As a side note...

In the wake of Sen. David Vitter's (R-LA) vote against the Franken Amendment -- which seeks to guarantee access to the court system, rather than private arbitration, for military contractor employees who are sexually assaulted -- Vitter's Democratic opponent, Rep. Charlie Melancon, has released a statement strongly endorsing it.

<snip>


Let this be a clear signal: Democrats fully intend to hang this vote around Vitter's neck, as well as any other Republicans who opposed a measure designed to protect rape victims.

Melancon Endorses Anti-Rape Law, After Vitter Opposed It | TPMDC

 

[nodoginnafight]

If they want to outlaw binding arbitration agreements they can do so.

They took a less invasive approach - they simply said if you use them to block legal redress is some very specific circumstances - then you can't get a government contract.

Thats like saying they can draft every person in the US to work for free for 10 years and its OK because its less invasive than chattel slavery. The fact that it is merely less bad than some other alternative doesn't make it good. It makes it bad.

No it doesn't make it "better" or "worse" it makes it less invasive - period.

 

[The Rabbi]

Which is entirely the point of a contract.
So, you'd be more ok with outlawing binding arbitration agreements than the government simply saying they won't give contracts to companies with said agreements?

No it is not the point of a contract. I can't go in to a car dealer and say I want the salesman paid a flat rate and not on commission.

But if you owned the car dealership, you could make whatever contract you wanted with your employees, and pay them by commission, or on a flat scale, or hourly.

EXACTLY! Employment is between the employers and the employees, not the customers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No it is not the point of a contract. I can't go in to a car dealer and say I want the salesman paid a flat rate and not on commission.

But if you owned the car dealership, you could make whatever contract you wanted with your employees, and pay them by commission, or on a flat scale, or hourly.

EXACTLY! Employment is between the employers and the employees, not the customers.

BS, buddy. If the government is seeking to award the contract, it can require the company to use only unions, or make its employees were green caps, or throw out aribtration for certain allegations. You are dead wrong, Rab on the Run, and have lost any creditibility on this subject. You should move along, please.