Originally Posted by egofed sigh...maybe I am out of touch. I would prefer the guy who demonstrated his work ethic and can do attitude by taking what job he could get at the time and providing for his family versus sucking at the gov't teat. If your right about working in any capacity "tarnishing" your image, then we are screwed as a country. Actually, someone told me that an inmate was given a sex change with tax payer money....we are dooooomed.;-)

Welcome to Obama's America. Free birth control and free sex changes. That guy was convicted of murdering his wife. But of course we must be sensible to his feelings. There was a time when common sense dictated and the simple answer was to say no to a murderer. Don't remember that personally.

They've also been ordered to pay for his electrolysis.

Originally Posted by cfootball1 Welcome to Obama's America. Free birth control

Was this meant to be a bad thing?

Are you saying that he's taken my corner???

Your posts have never been that bad imo.

pre-or-post jerkiness? (I don't know if anyone has noticed that I've been trying to be less of a shithead the past few months. This includes just not engaging posters who are dreadful trolls.)

Post jerkiness has been a bit of a change, but your posts have always been ones I'd make sure to read. I do like it now that you are a little more straight forward and less snarky, but regardless they have always been informative.

Originally Posted by UncleBob From a pure business standpoint, why would any employer pay an employee 1.5x the standard rate when they can just get a second employe and pay them 1x the standard rate?

Because 4 hours of 1.5x is significantly cheaper than 2 employees both making 1x (thus twice the labor cost) for 40hrs?

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by camoor Was this meant to be a bad thing?

"A Letter from Hobby Lobby Stores CEO
By David Green, the founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

When my family and I started our company 40 years ago, we
were working out of a garage on a $600 bank loan, assembling miniature picture frames. Our first retail store wasn't much bigger than most people's living rooms, but we had faith that we would succeed if we lived and worked according to God's word. From there,Hobby Lobby has become one of the nation's largest arts and crafts retailers, with more than 500 locations in 41 states. Our children grew up into fine business leaders, and today we run Hobby Lobby together, as a family.

We're Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I've always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God's laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money. And that's what we've tried to do. We close early so our employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on Sundays, one of the week's biggest shopping days, so that our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest. We believe that it is by God's grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees. We've not only added jobs in a weak economy, we've raised wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage.

But now, our government threatens to change all of that. A new government health care mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs. It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one. If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million PER DAY in government fines.

Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy. Our government threatens to fine a company that's raised wages four years running. Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. It's not right. I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it's the same for everybody. But that's not true. The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won't exempt them for reasons of religious belief.

So, Hobby Lobby and my family are forced to make a choice. With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our business. We don't like to go running into court, but we no longer have a choice. We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit.

My family has lived the American dream. We want to continue growing our company and providing great jobs for thousands of employees, but the government is going to make that much more difficult. The government is forcing us to choose between following our faith and following the law. I say that's a choice no American and no American business should have to make.
The government cannot force you to follow laws that go against your fundamental religious belief. They have exempted thousands of companies but will not except Christian organizations including the Catholic church.

Since you will not see this covered in any of the liberal media, pass this on to all your contacts.
Sincerely,
David Green, CEO and Founder of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc."

I think its insane for the government to be able to mandate this. Shall we give every right, opinion, principle, and freedom over to a government with a Kill List and astronomical debt?

And that's why, in select cases, as I initially stated, I was able to get overtime. My favorite was the two-week period I worked 80/week. Damn, that was a sweet paycheck.

However, I would have gladly worked 50+ hour work weeks on a regular basis while I was putting myself through college (without a dime of student loans, mind you). Instead, we would have to hire a second employee to work. Why pay me for 15 hours of labor and only get ten when you can hire a second employee and get 15 hours of labor for 15 hours of pay?

If your reply was a game of darts, you would have just the outer ring of the board 8ft to the side of the one we're playing on.

Originally Posted by egofed I think its insane for the government to be able to mandate this.

That's the cost of doing business. Don't like it, don't get into business. Individuals are entitled to their religious beliefs, but they are not entitled to impose them on others. Crafting an exemption for a religious organization goes against fundamental Constitutional principles of separation.

To speak of any contraception as "abortion causing" shows that Green is a religious extremist with no interest in the science of reproduction, to speak of the "liberal media" is juvenile (particularly since I saw this story covered on at least 5 different occasions by CNN alone).

I think it would be insane for the government to get in bed with religion and allow them to participate on a different level than other businesses. You show your fickle endorsement of "free market" principles if you allow one business to provide a different quality of health care coverage than another; you're endorsing giving one group a government-rooted market advantage over competing businesses. Try explaining your position to the fine people at AC Moore.

Lastly, this is government regulating *business*. Green seems to think the government is walking into a house of worship to tell people of faith how they might pray. Government is, instead, going into a place of business and telling them how they must cover their employees. Hobby Lobby is a house of balsa wood and knitting needles, not a holy domain.

Originally Posted by nasum If your reply was a game of darts, you would have just the outer ring of the board 8ft to the side of the one we're playing on.

Nice non-reply. Thanks.

Originally Posted by mykevermin [...]you allow one business to provide a different quality of health care coverage than another[...]

Why not?

We allow businesses to pick and choose rates of pay, hours, schedules, retirement benefits, vacations, etc., etc. Why not allow a private business to determine what level of health insurance they wish to provide and let the potential employees use that as part of the process to determine who they wish to work for?

Perhaps the government should set *all* aspects of employment at a single, universal level? Every employee at every business will make exactly $10.75/hour. No more, no less. Every employee will work exactly 40 hours. No more, no less. Every employee will get two weeks of paid vacation, no more, no less. Every employee will be entitled to 5 "personal days" off without pay. No more, no less.

Originally Posted by mykevermin That's the cost of doing business. Don't like it, don't get into business. Individuals are entitled to their religious beliefs, but they are not entitled to impose them on others. Crafting an exemption for a religious organization goes against fundamental Constitutional principles of separation. To speak of any contraception as "abortion causing" shows that Green is a religious extremist with no interest in the science of reproduction, to speak of the "liberal media" is juvenile (particularly since I saw this story covered on at least 5 different occasions by CNN alone). I think it would be insane for the government to get in bed with religion and allow them to participate on a different level than other businesses. You show your fickle endorsement of "free market" principles if you allow one business to provide a different quality of health care coverage than another; you're endorsing giving one group a government-rooted market advantage over competing businesses. Try explaining your position to the fine people at AC Moore. Lastly, this is government regulating *business*. Green seems to think the government is walking into a house of worship to tell people of faith how they might pray. Government is, instead, going into a place of business and telling them how they must cover their employees. Hobby Lobby is a house of balsa wood and knitting needles, not a holy domain.

"Being Christians, we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs."

"Definition of ABORTION

1
: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus"

Sounds like Green is right on the money calling any drug taken after the fertilization of an egg as abortion.

" I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it's the same for everybody. But that's not true. The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won't exempt them for reasons of religious belief."

Ok, then you say "You show your fickle endorsement of "free market" principles if you allow one business to provide a different quality of health care coverage than another; you're endorsing giving one group a government-rooted market advantage over competing businesses. Try explaining your position to the fine people at AC Moore."

Sounds like the gov't already gives advantages, no? And why should I not be able to offer what benefits I want to my employees? Like em, work for me. Don't like em, work for somebody else.

More in depth:
a person making $10 an hour doesn't cost $10 an hour. Payroll taxes, benefits, payroll processing cost, training cost, etc...
Simply paying another person to pick up what can't be done by another after 40 hours isn't a cost savings by any stretch of the imagination. OT under 10hrs would be a significant savings compared to hiring another person to give 15hrs of labor based on your illustration.

Originally Posted by nasum More in depth: a person making $10 an hour doesn't cost $10 an hour. Payroll taxes, benefits, payroll processing cost, training cost, etc... Simply paying another person to pick up what can't be done by another after 40 hours isn't a cost savings by any stretch of the imagination. OT under 10hrs would be a significant savings compared to hiring another person to give 15hrs of labor based on your illustration.

To an extent - yes. However, you're excluding other advantages that you'd have by hiring a second employee - the ability to work both at the same time during high-traffic periods, the ability to give the second employee even more hours (heck, we could both work a total of 80 hours a week easily, where as one person could not sustain that over an extended period of time). Also, easier to cover one guy's vacation if he works 40 hours than if he works 50.

The deck is already stacked against a singular employee with more hours vs. a second employee and splitting the hours. I don't need a third party to create additional artificial barriers to my ability to compete in the marketplace.

I just want the libs here to try and defend the atrocity caused by the teacher's union as detailed in "Waiting for Superman".

Originally Posted by egofed Sounds like the gov't already gives advantages, no? And why should I not be able to offer what benefits I want to my employees? Like em, work for me. Don't like em, work for somebody else.

Big words for a probe who enjoys all the benefits and protections of being a state employee.

Originally Posted by egofed Sounds like Green is right on the money

Perhaps; I confused this with other birth control fights, so I didn't realize that this did not include traditional birth control pills. My mistake.

However, when you realize that Green admits that Hobby Lobby's health insurance *did* include the very specific drugs they're now trying to sue to avoid including up until the PPACA passed, Green's motives become more suspect. That is, they did provide drugs for employees up until "Obamacare" passed, and now they're throwing a temper tantrum about it. I hope that's as suspicious to you as it is to me.

Sounds like the gov't already gives advantages, no? And why should I not be able to offer what benefits I want to my employees? Like em, work for me. Don't like em, work for somebody else.

Green argued that exemptions exist, not me. Find a few examples of what those exemptions are and get back to me on how those exemptions should be stretched to include religion.

Thanks for the mistake acknowledgement, I'll put out there that I didn't know they were covering these things pre-Obamacare. It is suspicious. I'll post if I get more info. I fail to see how offering the benefits that you want to an employee who actively pursued a job with you is "imposing" your religion on them, though. And camoor, you still have not responded to my request to share any info about yourself, yet you love to sling personal attacks my way for being a firefighter. I fail to see how pursuing a career helping people precludes me from calling out abuses in welfare programs and the like. The city offered me a set position with defined salary/benefits for determined work. What's the problem? I'm not demanding any free entitlements. I just hope they live up to the contract that we both entered into freely.

Originally Posted by egofed I just want the libs here to try and defend the atrocity caused by the teacher's union as detailed in "Waiting for Superman".

We will as soon as you start talking about how charter schools pad their numbers by removing "under-performing" students...especially the private ones.

Originally Posted by egofed I fail to see how offering the benefits that you want to an employee who actively pursued a job with you is "imposing" your religion on them, though. And camoor, you still have not responded to my request to share any info about yourself, yet you love to sling personal attacks my way for being a firefighter. I fail to see how pursuing a career helping people precludes me from calling out abuses in welfare programs and the like. The city offered me a set position with defined salary/benefits for determined work. What's the problem? I'm not demanding any free entitlements. I just hope they live up to the contract that we both entered into freely.

No problem - I think working Americans should get a salary and health benefits. Your job contract with the state, which includes mandated health benefits for you (plus I would assume a cozy arrangement for your significant other and/or offspring) is the way job contracts should work.

Just sadly ironic that we are getting lectured about how free enterprise should be deregulated from a state employee who has hit it out of the park when it comes to guaranteed benefits and job protection.

Originally Posted by UncleBob To an extent - yes. However, you're excluding other advantages that you'd have by hiring a second employee - the ability to work both at the same time during high-traffic periods, the ability to give the second employee even more hours (heck, we could both work a total of 80 hours a week easily, where as one person could not sustain that over an extended period of time). Also, easier to cover one guy's vacation if he works 40 hours than if he works 50. The deck is already stacked against a singular employee with more hours vs. a second employee and splitting the hours. I don't need a third party to create additional artificial barriers to my ability to compete in the marketplace.

Wow.

If it only requires the one employee 40hrs and 5hrs of OT, obviously there is no necessity to have 80hrs of work done in the week. There is only 45hrs of work to be done. A very simple cost/benefit analysis there. A temp at the same $10 wage would cost nearly $22.50 per hour. Still cheaper to pay $15 for 5hrs. Keep in mind, you're the same guy that has argued against higher wages as it is a cost to consumers.