Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 cincydooley wrote:
Saves money how? They're under no obligation to give her anything. And presumably they hired someone else to replace her when she was terminated.

Well, they got 5 months work out of her which they might not have got if the manager said "We'll fire you and you won't get your job back" when she asked them what would happen when it was time to have her baby.

 Frazzled wrote:

And the whole point of your posting righteous indignation over a minor event that may or may not ber an absolute lie is why again?

Oh yea, they disagreed with the Obama administration doing something that wasn't even in the law. Got it.

Wrong.

It is because they used Jesus for their own personal gain while gaking on His teachings.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Why? What if 3 months later you get sick? "Oh we are sorry, but we cant help you, you only been here 3 months"

Then you have your COBRA from your previous employer or your ACA marketplace plan to cover you until you are eligible for your employers benefits, or you do what your uninsured butt has been doing before the job... Go to the emergency room.

Lots of companies have benefits which are not eligible until different periods have passed. I get 25 days of leave and 10 holidays. Guess what? new employee doesn't get that. I have stock options, New employees don't get that. I have life and long-term disability policies, new employees don't get that.

Every corporation has some benefits which are restricted or not eligible to new employees. And having minimal hours worked or longevity with a company is quite common and reasonable.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Saves money how? They're under no obligation to give her anything. And presumably they hired someone else to replace her when she was terminated.

Well, they got 5 months work out of her which they might not have got if the manager said "We'll fire you and you won't get your job back" when she asked them what would happen when it was time to have her baby.

5 months of irreplaceable part time work, to be sure.

They told her she could reapply.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Not giving a woman her job back when you said you would and also blocking her attempt to get benefits by lying?

What benefits did she have?? She worked there for less than 6 months... I can't think of a single place that you get full benefits from day one (in the private sector.... government employment is its own animal)

From the article posted in the OP

When Allen applied for unemployment benefits, she says Hobby Lobby’s corporate office gave the unemployment agency a false version of events, claiming she could have taken off personal leave but chose not to. In the end, Allen says she won her claim for unemployment benefits, but she felt she had been wrongly discriminated based on the fact that she was pregnant.

 cincydooley wrote:
100% access to benefits day one. That blows my mind.

I'm happy to have blown your mind. Makes me feel like Pink Floyd or something.

 cincydooley wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Saves money how? They're under no obligation to give her anything. And presumably they hired someone else to replace her when she was terminated.

Well, they got 5 months work out of her which they might not have got if the manager said "We'll fire you and you won't get your job back" when she asked them what would happen when it was time to have her baby.

5 months of irreplaceable part time work, to be sure.

They told her she could reapply.

Well, for those 5 months they didn't have to train a new cashier, did they?

And when she initially asked her boss if she would lose her job, the answer was no.

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Saves money how? They're under no obligation to give her anything. And presumably they hired someone else to replace her when she was terminated.

Do some research on how companies pay for unemployment and how their unemployment taxes are calculated and you will find the answer.

But her time worked was never In question and therefore her base period would not have been affected by any "lies".

I mean, the only thing that could potentially be affected is her UI exempt status, which she wouldn't have appeared to qualify for anyway.

Do some research on how companies pay for unemployment and how their unemployment taxes are calculated and you will find the answer

Those are the only two potentials I'm seeing, my friend. Point out to me where I'm wrong or where else it would benefit them.

She qualified for unemployment after being fired by Hobby Lobby, so now Hobby Lobby has to pay more in unemployment taxes.
If she would not have qualified for unemployment, then Hobby Lobby would have saved money because they would not have had to pay more in unemployment taxes.

So Hobby Lobby has a financial incentive to lie about unemployment cases.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Saves money how? They're under no obligation to give her anything. And presumably they hired someone else to replace her when she was terminated.

Well, they got 5 months work out of her which they might not have got if the manager said "We'll fire you and you won't get your job back" when she asked them what would happen when it was time to have her baby.

5 months of irreplaceable part time work, to be sure.

They told her she could reapply.

Well, for those 5 months they didn't have to train a new cashier, did they?

And when she initially asked her boss if she would lose her job, the answer was no.

But if he would have said 'yes' it still wouldn't have been illegal. Sounds like her boss misspoke due to ignorance and the answer of 'when you go AWOL, you will be terminated and can reapply' was not a good answer as her health benefits (if she had them) would have been terminated upon her being AWOL and her pregnancy would not have been covered unless she did COBRA.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Well, for those 5 months they didn't have to train a new cashier, did they?

They could have hired any other schmuck. She was a part time cashier. Not a chemical engineer.

And when she initially asked her boss if she would lose her job, the answer was no.

So says the woman that didn't remember signing her arbitration agreement.

 jasper76 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
This thread is getting stupid. Im going to go watch bad Sci-fi

I bet Starfleet lets women back in after they recover from childbirth

Kirk Starfleet? - no babies, just skirts and beehive haircuts
Picard Starfleet? - the whole crew are a bunch of babies.

nkelsch wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Saves money how? They're under no obligation to give her anything. And presumably they hired someone else to replace her when she was terminated.

Well, they got 5 months work out of her which they might not have got if the manager said "We'll fire you and you won't get your job back" when she asked them what would happen when it was time to have her baby.

5 months of irreplaceable part time work, to be sure.

They told her she could reapply.

Well, for those 5 months they didn't have to train a new cashier, did they?

And when she initially asked her boss if she would lose her job, the answer was no.

But if he would have said 'yes' it still wouldn't have been illegal. Sounds like her boss misspoke due to ignorance and the answer of 'when you go AWOL, you will be terminated and can reapply' was not a good answer as her health benefits (if she had them) would have been terminated upon her being AWOL and her pregnancy would not have been covered unless she did COBRA.

If he had said yes, then she could have looked for other work for after her babies birth in advance. By saying "no" he lead her to believe she had security right up until it was time for her to go on maternity leave. Maybe not illegal but definitely not good practice, especially for a company which supposedly has "christian values".

 cincydooley wrote:
They could have hired any other schmuck. She was a part time cashier. Not a chemical engineer.

It would be easier to take your arguments seriously if you didn't refer to workers as schmucks and so forth. Not to tone-troll, but I am getting a picture in my mind of a cigar chewing billionaire who has nothing but contempt for the proletariat.

This woman is a worker amd a human being, plain and simple. People hire workers so they can make money. They make their money off the backs of their employees, without which they would make nothing.

And if you really believe low-skilled workers are immediately replaceable by any other human, I've got some streeets in Baltimore I could show you.

 cincydooley wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Well, for those 5 months they didn't have to train a new cashier, did they?

They could have hired any other schmuck. She was a part time cashier. Not a chemical engineer.

And when she initially asked her boss if she would lose her job, the answer was no.

So says the woman that didn't remember signing her arbitration agreement.

1) It still takes a bit of time to teach someone how to use a till. That also requires another member of staff to be on hand to show them how to do it and answer any questions. Some of the tills I've had to use were ancient and required long combinations of button presses to do simple processes such as removing an accidentally double scanned item. And then at the end if someone wanted to use a discount coupon/pensioner discount/whatever.... You had to reset it and rescan everything again after putting in the discount code/scanning their card/whatever.

2) And I'm sure she was of course well informed as to what it actually was she was signing

 jasper76 wrote:
And if you really believe low-skilled workers are immediately replaceable by any other human, I've got some streeets in Baltimore I could show you.

Any other human and self-checkout machines, would be more accurate.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

And the whole point of your posting righteous indignation over a minor event that may or may not ber an absolute lie is why again?

Oh yea, they disagreed with the Obama administration doing something that wasn't even in the law. Got it.

Wrong.

It is because they used Jesus for their own personal gain while gaking on His teachings.

Er...no what personal gain? They spent hundreds of thousands on a lawsuit over a minor expense.

 Seaward wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
And if you really believe low-skilled workers are immediately replaceable by any other human, I've got some streeets in Baltimore I could show you.

Any other human and self-checkout machines, would be more accurate.

I guess my point was missed. Not every human being is capable of holding down even a low-skilled part time job. Also, self checkout machines still require a monitor. At least if you want people to actually pay for your merchandise.

This whole thing wouldn't have happened if she had said no.

/victim blamed.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
. By saying "no" he lead her to believe she had security right up until it was time for her to go on maternity leave.

But according to the "article" she did. Right up until she left. In which case she was told she could reapply.

@Jasper - I have trouble believing she wasnt pretty easily replaceable. I'm sorry if you took offense to "schmuck;" it was simply a filler word.

I just don't think she was entitled to anything, and certainly not full benefits from the get-go. But that's a matter of differing opinions.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

And the whole point of your posting righteous indignation over a minor event that may or may not ber an absolute lie is why again?

Oh yea, they disagreed with the Obama administration doing something that wasn't even in the law. Got it.

Wrong.

It is because they used Jesus for their own personal gain while gaking on His teachings.

Er...no what personal gain? They spent hundreds of thousands on a lawsuit over a minor expense.

Well, they obviously in it for the long game. Probably wouldn't take long to recoup those losses with a big enough employee base.

I guess my point was missed. Not every human being is capable of holding down even a low-skilled part time job. Also, self checkout machines still require a monitor. At least if you want people to actually pay for your merchandise.

Thats their problem (and the government's) not Hobby Lobby, or mine.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
And if you really believe low-skilled workers are immediately replaceable by any other human, I've got some streeets in Baltimore I could show you.

Any other human and self-checkout machines, would be more accurate.

I guess my point was missed. Not every human being is capable of holding down even a low-skilled part time job. Also, self checkout machines still require a monitor. At least if you want people to actually pay for your merchandise.

And if you want to be able to sell age-restricted items such as alcohol, fireworks, knives etc.

I imagine a hobby shop sells knives?

 Frazzled wrote:

I guess my point was missed. Not every human being is capable of holding down even a low-skilled part time job. Also, self checkout machines still require a monitor. At least if you want people to actually pay for your merchandise.

Thats their problem (and the government's) not Hobby Lobby, or mine.

Not my problem as I do not employ people. If I did, it would immediately become my problem, and I'm sure difficuly in finding capable workers is a common problem for companies such as Hobby Lobby that make their money playing the low-skilled employment game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
@Jasper - I have trouble believing she wasnt pretty easily replaceable. I'm sorry if you took offense to "schmuck;" it was simply a filler word.

I just don't think she was entitled to anything, and certainly not full benefits from the get-go. But that's a matter of differing opinions.

Fair enough. For what its worth, I do understand your point of view, and as you mention, we just disagree.

I think hobby lobby probably mitigates part of the "low skilled employment game" by paying more and offering better benefits than their competition.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

And the whole point of your posting righteous indignation over a minor event that may or may not ber an absolute lie is why again?

Oh yea, they disagreed with the Obama administration doing something that wasn't even in the law. Got it.

Wrong.

It is because they used Jesus for their own personal gain while gaking on His teachings.

Er...no what personal gain? They spent hundreds of thousands on a lawsuit over a minor expense.

Which was cheaper than

a) medications for their employee base, or
b) paying the fines.

 cincydooley wrote:
I think hobby lobby probably mitigates part of the "low skilled employment game" by paying more and offering better benefits than their competition.

Present issue aside, I wonder if this works as a strategy. It seems to me that you'd just be encouraging more people to apply in general, rather than encouraging more capable applicants specifically.

Bigger pool of candidates = bigger group of better qualified candidates?

The point is that just because Hobby Lobby is a Christian corporation they don't have to behave like Christians if it goes against their best profit interests.

So...which is it? Is she a low wage schmuck running a till, or someone above the "low skilled employment game" because Hobby Lobby offered better benefits than their competition, prompting the person in question to apply there?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The point is that just because Hobby Lobby is a Christian corporation they don't have to behave like Christians if it goes against their best profit interests.

The confused morality of the Capitalist Christian is something probably best left to psychotherapists.