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.

 d-usa wrote:
Hobby Lobby made themselves a target for scrutiny. Not just with the SCOTUS case itself, but with all their actions to the contrary of their stated ideals.

"We don't want to give money towards abortion." - contributes and invests in companies that make these drugs.

While that's a great zinger, that's really an unfair accusation as just about every large corporations who invests is susceptible.

"We don't believe in abortion." - almost all their inventory is made in China whose policies force over 13 million abortions a year, 5 times the US rate.

If we're going to play this game, then everyone is complicit in just about every ills in the world.

"Our Christian values are above all else." - sells religious everything made in China, manufactured by people under slave conditions under a regime that is extremely hostile to Christianity.

See previous point.

There are no angels... there are no devils... we're only human.

I could read all that in less than 59 seconds.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I'm surprised contracts signing away your right to sue your employer are legal.

Binding arbitration is generally a good thing as it reduces frivolous suits. It ain't perfect and the system probably does need an overhaul, but the idea has merits.

Between that and 'at will' States, the power is all in the hands of the employer to do what they like.

What's wrong with "at will" states again? It not all dire news dude... even, early returns on Michigan as a Right-to-Work State shows incomes is rising.

Next time she should get guarantees from her boss in writing. Get them to sign a dated letter saying that you will be rehired after having your baby.

As to people questioning this bit:

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.

She would have been told the reason (or would be well within her rights to file a request for the reason) that she did not get benefits.

Also, how is this:

In February 2012 she sued Hobby Lobby, but her lawsuit was swiftly dropped because, like most—if not all—Hobby Lobby employees, Allen had signed away her rights to sue the company.

a thing? Who would sign away their rights to take their employer to court? How is that legal?

We gotta protect the real people, the corporations, Malus.

All those pointless lawsuits about discrimination, employee safety etc, just hinder business, and that is a sin.

The US is gak when it comes to workers rights. Capitalism FTW!

 d-usa wrote:
Hobby Lobby made themselves a target for scrutiny. Not just with the SCOTUS case itself, but with all their actions to the contrary of their stated ideals.

"We don't want to give money towards abortion." - contributes and invests in companies that make these drugs.
"We don't believe in abortion." - almost all their inventory is made in China whose policies force over 13 million abortions a year, 5 times the US rate.
"Our Christian values are above all else." - sells religious everything made in China, manufactured by people under slave conditions under a regime that is extremely hostile to Christianity.

MMM yes much better if they treated their retail employees like Walmart or that big Democratic donor McDonalds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
The US is gak when it comes to workers rights. Capitalism FTW!

Thats what happens when you have an open border.

As the old saying goes, elections matter.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Hobby Lobby made themselves a target for scrutiny. Not just with the SCOTUS case itself, but with all their actions to the contrary of their stated ideals.

"We don't want to give money towards abortion." - contributes and invests in companies that make these drugs.

While that's a great zinger, that's really an unfair accusation as just about every large corporations who invests is susceptible.

With respect, this is just...wrong. If I told my stockbroker that I didn't want ANY investments in birth control manufacturers, or I'd take my money elsewhere, he would do it. I imagine that if I was a company buying products, I can choose not to buy anything at all directly from Chinese manufacturers. These folks were keen on paying their attorneys to get them out of a law they didn't like, but they won't pay their investment firms to get them out of investing in the manufacture of the very product to which they are opposed. Writing this off as "everybody does it" doesn't really strike me as a compelling defense, especially when they went to such great lenghts to wiggle out of the law.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Hobby Lobby made themselves a target for scrutiny. Not just with the SCOTUS case itself, but with all their actions to the contrary of their stated ideals.

"We don't want to give money towards abortion." - contributes and invests in companies that make these drugs.
"We don't believe in abortion." - almost all their inventory is made in China whose policies force over 13 million abortions a year, 5 times the US rate.
"Our Christian values are above all else." - sells religious everything made in China, manufactured by people under slave conditions under a regime that is extremely hostile to Christianity.

MMM yes much better if they treated their retail employees like Walmart or that big Democratic donor McDonalds.

Honestly, I have much more respect for McDonalds and Walmart. At least they have the common decency to be donkey-caves to everybody all the time. They are consistent and they are honest. You know what you get.

The Greens wrap themselves in the US flag and pages of the Bible, claiming that they love this country and Jesus while gaking on the very values that they pretend to care about.

Give me an honest donkey-cave over a hypocritical one any day of the week.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The US is gak when it comes to workers rights. Capitalism FTW!

Thats what happens when you have an open border.

As the old saying goes, elections matter.

Border here is pretty open (wide open for any EU resident). We still have the right to sue employers.

I'll reiterate: she didn't qualify for FMLA.

It's fun to make Hobby Lobby out to be the big bad wolf. I get that. But they're in the right here, legally.

Also, Jasper, if you didn't know Hobby Lobby was an organization that placed high value on the Christian faith prior to them being in the news, then you're willfully ignorant. They've never tried to hide it and it's pretty transparent when you walk in the store.

I'll continue to shop there because the store is about 10x better than Michaels from a hobby standpoint.

 cincydooley wrote:
I'll reiterate: she didn't qualify for FMLA.

It's fun to make Hobby Lobby out to be the big bad wolf. I get that. But they're in the right here, legally.

But they are in the wrong morally. Which should be even more meaningful considering that...

Hobby Lobby was an organization that placed high value on the Christian faith... They've never tried to hide it and it's pretty transparent when you walk in the store...

If they truly are, then they would do what is morally right, not just what is legally required.

Put yourself on a pedestal, and people will notice the dirt on your robe.

 cincydooley wrote:
I'll reiterate: she didn't qualify for FMLA.

It's fun to make Hobby Lobby out to be the big bad wolf. I get that. But they're in the right here, legally.

Also, Jasper, if you didn't know Hobby Lobby was an organization that placed high value on the Christian faith prior to them being in the news, then you're willfully ignorant. They've never tried to hide it and it's pretty transparent when you walk in the store.

I'll continue to shop there because the store is about 10x better than Michaels from a hobby standpoint.

Noone here is arguing (I think) that this lady qualified for FMLA. You gotta get past that.

I didn't even know Hobby Lobby existed until they put themselves in the spotlight. I was just plain ignorant, not willfully ignorant, if you please. Now I know there is one not far from my home, but it won't be getting my business, for reasons stated.

On what moral grounds do you have to support anyone and everyone that wants to be covered for their pregnancy?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, what is "morally right" here, and why?

 cincydooley wrote:
On what moral grounds do you have to support anyone and everyone that wants to be covered for their pregnancy?

We're talking about employees, not anyone and everyone.

 jasper76 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Hobby Lobby made themselves a target for scrutiny. Not just with the SCOTUS case itself, but with all their actions to the contrary of their stated ideals.

"We don't want to give money towards abortion." - contributes and invests in companies that make these drugs.

While that's a great zinger, that's really an unfair accusation as just about every large corporations who invests is susceptible.

With respect, this is just...wrong.

If I told my stockbroker that I didn't want ANY investments in birth control manufacturers, or I'd take my money elsewhere, he would do it. I imagine that if I was a company buying products, I can choose not to buy anything at all directly from Chinese manufacturers. These folks were keen on paying their attorneys to get them out of a law they didn't like, but they won't pay their investment firms to get them out of investing in the manufacture of the very product to which they are opposed. Writing this off as "everybody does it" doesn't really strike me as a compelling defense, especially when they went to such great lenghts to wiggle out of the law.

 cincydooley wrote:
I mean, what is "morally right" here, and why?

General Zeitgeist Morality: The woman should have gotten her job back, because propogation of the species depends on childbirth, and humans should not be be forced to choose between propogating and working.

(my understanding of) Christian Morality: The woman should have gotten her job back, because every human life is precious to God, and women should not be forced to choose between sin (abortion or birth control) vs. livelihood (work).

 jasper76 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
On what moral grounds do you have to support anyone and everyone that wants to be covered for their pregnancy?

We're talking about employees, not anyone and everyone.

So they should cover anyone, regardless of their time with the company?

 cincydooley wrote:
On what moral grounds do you have to support anyone and everyone that wants to be covered for their pregnancy?

Well, for step 1 we are going to change your question to a question that is actually applicable here:

On what moral grounds does an employer have to support an employee that wants to return to their job after taking unpaid leave to give birth to their child?

To which I will answer:

On the moral grounds that you claim that everything you do as a family and a business is based on Biblical teachings and that your business decisions and practices are based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Hobby Lobby made themselves a target for scrutiny. Not just with the SCOTUS case itself, but with all their actions to the contrary of their stated ideals.

"We don't want to give money towards abortion." - contributes and invests in companies that make these drugs.
"We don't believe in abortion." - almost all their inventory is made in China whose policies force over 13 million abortions a year, 5 times the US rate.
"Our Christian values are above all else." - sells religious everything made in China, manufactured by people under slave conditions under a regime that is extremely hostile to Christianity.

MMM yes much better if they treated their retail employees like Walmart or that big Democratic donor McDonalds.

Honestly, I have much more respect for McDonalds and Walmart. At least they have the common decency to be donkey-caves to everybody all the time. They are consistent and they are honest. You know what you get.

The Greens wrap themselves in the US flag and pages of the Bible, claiming that they love this country and Jesus while gaking on the very values that they pretend to care about.

Give me an honest donkey-cave over a hypocritical one any day of the week.

In Texas, pretty much all the line employees are illegal aliens, paid minimum wage, with no health benefits. Rememeber they were magically excluded from Obamacare requirements.

 cincydooley wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
On what moral grounds do you have to support anyone and everyone that wants to be covered for their pregnancy?

We're talking about employees, not anyone and everyone.

So they should cover anyone, regardless of their time with the company?

IMO, yes. They make the decision to hire people. They make money off the backs of the people they hire. They should treat those people with decency and respect, even if they get pregnant, even if they are new. Their employees should not view pregnancy as a pink slip.

But wait, other companies don't. Why should they?

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Hobby Lobby made themselves a target for scrutiny. Not just with the SCOTUS case itself, but with all their actions to the contrary of their stated ideals.

"We don't want to give money towards abortion." - contributes and invests in companies that make these drugs.
"We don't believe in abortion." - almost all their inventory is made in China whose policies force over 13 million abortions a year, 5 times the US rate.
"Our Christian values are above all else." - sells religious everything made in China, manufactured by people under slave conditions under a regime that is extremely hostile to Christianity.

MMM yes much better if they treated their retail employees like Walmart or that big Democratic donor McDonalds.

Honestly, I have much more respect for McDonalds and Walmart. At least they have the common decency to be donkey-caves to everybody all the time. They are consistent and they are honest. You know what you get.

The Greens wrap themselves in the US flag and pages of the Bible, claiming that they love this country and Jesus while gaking on the very values that they pretend to care about.

Give me an honest donkey-cave over a hypocritical one any day of the week.

In Texas, pretty much all the line employees are illegal aliens, paid minimum wage, with no health benefits. Rememeber they were magically excluded from Obamacare requirements.

Which addresses anything that I said how?

 jasper76 wrote:


IMO, yes. They make the decision to hire people. They make money off the backs of the people they hire. They should treat those people with decency and respect, even if they get pregnant, even if they are new. Their employees should not view pregnancy as a pink slip.

So just forget the law, yeah?

Cover anyone and everyone that you hire, regardless of how long they've been there before they need to take maternity leave, because to do otherwise, regardless of the law, would be non-Christian.

Gotcha.

It makes little sense to me, but that is the gist of your argument, yes.

 Frazzled wrote:
But wait, other companies don't. Why should they?

Because they're good Christians.

 Frazzled wrote:
But wait, other companies don't. Why should they?

If you are asking me this question, IMO every company should allow their employees time off for childbirth with a garuntee of employment after recovery. That, in essence, is why we have the FMLA. As CincyDooly has repeatedly pointed out, FMLA only protects people after a certain number of days of employment (I smell the stench of lobbyists hard at work in that particular caveat).

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
But wait, other companies don't. Why should they?

If you are asking me this question, IMO every company should allow their employees time off for childbirth with a garuntee of employment after recovery. That, in essence, is why we have the FMLA. As CincyDooly has repeatedly pointed out, FMLA only protects people after a certain number of days of employment (I smell the stench of lobbyists hard at work in that particular caveat).

It's basically a modern preexisting condition clause.

 cincydooley wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:


IMO, yes. They make the decision to hire people. They make money off the backs of the people they hire. They should treat those people with decency and respect, even if they get pregnant, even if they are new. Their employees should not view pregnancy as a pink slip.

So just forget the law, yeah?

Does the law prevent them from giving her a job back after she takes unpaid leave?

Cover anyone and everyone that you hire, regardless of how long they've been there before they need to take maternity leave, because to do otherwise, regardless of the law, would be non-Christian.

If you run to the SCOTUS screaming "NONONONONONONONO JESUS SAID I SHOULD DO THIS NONONONONO" then some people would expect you to not do things that would make Jesus do this:

Gotcha.

It makes little sense to me, but that is the gist of your argument, yes.

If it doesn't make sens to you that people expect a company to behave like A when claiming that being A is the most important thing in their entire existance, then nobody can help you there.

 cincydooley wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:


IMO, yes. They make the decision to hire people. They make money off the backs of the people they hire. They should treat those people with decency and respect, even if they get pregnant, even if they are new. Their employees should not view pregnancy as a pink slip.

So just forget the law, yeah?

Cover anyone and everyone that you hire, regardless of how long they've been there before they need to take maternity leave, because to do otherwise, regardless of the law, would be non-Christian.

Gotcha.

It makes little sense to me, but that is the gist of your argument, yes.

No reference to Christianity given in the quote. You still don't quite seem to understand the distinction between "illegal" and "immoral". There is no legal requirement for Hobby Lobby to keep employees who have been working under X # of days if they go off to have a kid. Similarly, there is absolutely no legal requirement for Hobby Lobby to terminate women who are below some arbitrary # of days of employment and give birth. That is an (immoral) personnel decision, not a legal requirement.

 d-usa wrote:
Give me an honest donkey-cave over a hypocritical one any day of the week.

I often think that while reading posts in threads like this.