HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Nothing Stops Hobby Lobby...

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:47 AM

Nothing Stops Hobby Lobby From Saying No Portion Of Salary Can Be used For Birth Control....

The employer no more provides the services insured than the employer provides anything an employee purchases with compensation received for working for the employer. The premium paid to the insurer is part of the employee's compensation; something the employee receives in exchange for labor. The matter is analogous to that of the 'employer's contribution' to Social Security: saying the payment under FICA is split between employee and employer is a mere cosmetic fiction, intended to disguise the full weight of the tax on the employee's salary --- the 'employer's contribution' is actually part of the wage paid, it simply is sent in payment of part of the tax on behalf of the employee by the employer. That the employer acts as the agent for the employees in purchasing health insurance for them does not alter this: the insurance is part of what the employee receives for labor, a portion of the compensation paid, and neither purchased by nor provided by the employer. One could, I suppose, have scruples about what one will do as the agent of another, and refuse to do something one is asked to do by another as her or his agent. But in a case where law directs a person acting as another's agent to do a thing, and one has scruples against it, the proper course is to decline the agency. Hobby Lobby, in short, would be free to not include health insurance as part of its compensation for employees, if doing so would require it to do something its owners had scruples over --- they would have to pay a fine, but what is a clear conscience without a price paid? What they do not have any right to do, cannot have any right to do, is require people to abide by their own religious beliefs as a condition of employment, which is what their exemption from a general requirement of law in structuring their compensation to employees amounts to. And if they can require employees to accept a compensation package that does not provide birth control as part of their health insurance, which is in fact stating that no portion of the compensation an employee receives as insurance can be spent on birth control, I fail to see any limiting principle in this decision which would prevent an employer from telling an employee no portion of the compensation you receive from me for your time and labor can be spent on something I personally find immoral. And you may be sure that sooner or later someone with sufficient gumption to try that will emerge, and the case be ram-rodded to the supreme Court....

30 replies, 4593 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply Nothing Stops Hobby Lobby From Saying No Portion Of Salary Can Be used For Birth Control.... (Original post)
The Magistrate Jul 2014 OP
tularetom Jul 2014 #1
The Magistrate Jul 2014 #2
tularetom Jul 2014 #3
Aerows Jul 2014 #14
Hekate Jul 2014 #18
calimary Jul 2014 #24
The Magistrate Jul 2014 #25
geek tragedy Jul 2014 #19
jeff47 Jul 2014 #4
BootinUp Jul 2014 #5
Lurker Deluxe Jul 2014 #6
The Magistrate Jul 2014 #8
leftstreet Jul 2014 #7
MohRokTah Jul 2014 #9
former9thward Jul 2014 #10
The Magistrate Jul 2014 #11
Aerows Jul 2014 #13
The Magistrate Jul 2014 #17
Aerows Jul 2014 #12
The Magistrate Jul 2014 #15
Aerows Jul 2014 #16
leftstreet Jul 2014 #20
The Magistrate Jul 2014 #21
truedelphi Jul 2014 #22
mac56 Jul 2014 #23
The Magistrate Jul 2014 #29
valerief Jul 2014 #26
HockeyMom Jul 2014 #27
The Magistrate Jul 2014 #28
GeorgeGist Jul 2014 #30

Response to The Magistrate (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:01 PM

1. There may indeed be fanatics who would wish to impose such a restriction

but unless they want to go back to paying their employees in company scrip, there'd be no practical way to enforce it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:06 PM

2. The Question, Sir, Is Whether The Door Has Been Opened To Attempt It

And given the recent push to pay by card, enforcement could be simpler than you might suppose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:18 PM

3. The door has definitely been at least cracked a bit

If we become a cashless economy, all manner of abuses and restrictions on personal freedoms will become possible. And likely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #3)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:18 PM

14. Yep.

 

I'm not being "hair on fire" as some have suggested with this ruling, just honestly looking at how it opens the door.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:25 PM

18. You are so right, Sir. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:18 PM

24. With these folks, ANY crack, even the tiniest, WILL be exploited.

Think termites. Think rats. Think bugs. How do they get in and take over? They find the tiniest opening and go for it. First a teeny weeny opening. Soon enough it's no longer teeny. It's become the Holland Tunnel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #24)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:27 PM

25. True, Ma'am

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:27 PM

19. it can be part of the terms of employment nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:21 PM

4. I wonder if an atheist CEO could forbid tithing.

Would it not qualify, since the CEO isn't religious, or would it qualify as a religious expense he disagrees with?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:25 PM

5. You always side with the weak instead of the powerful.



Put another way that this backwards court might understand, I think the decision is giving the corporation the power over how I exercise some of my free speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:45 PM

6. In this case

In Hobby Lobby's case, being self insured, they do in fact pay for the services insured. Comparing that to SS co payment is not really a good comparison in this case as HL simply does not pay for a service, they provide that service. In my understanding it is also above average coverage.

They are not forcing their employees to do anything, and they are preventing them from doing anything ... they are simply refusing to pay for it. They are also not disqualifying any form of birth control, just the 4. The court ruling has said they could, but there has been no news which has stated they will.

As I have stated before I think the court had an out here that would have made other companies take on more burden to impose these types of restriction. Simply, self insured along with the close control. Making the bar to climb to be able to allow the restriction very high. As it stands I do not agree with the ruling, but it will be some time before this will be challenged and in HL's case they could offer another case to disallow on the grounds of self insured.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurker Deluxe (Reply #6)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:58 PM

8. Even In 'Self-Insurance', Sir, The Analysis Remains Unchanged

The employer remains the agent of the employees, and the premiums paid into the pool part of the employees compensation. It is not the employer's money, but the employees money, which the employer administers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:50 PM

7. Why not Hobby Lobby Gift Cards in lieu of wages?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #7)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:02 PM

9. You can't eat foam crosses.

 

At least for now, that's not an option.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:02 PM

10. Totally false.

Compensation is personal property of the employee. A corporation can't dictate what you do with personal property.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #10)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:08 PM

11. Under This Decision, Sir, The Door Is Certainly Open For Just That

Health insurance is part of the employee's compensation, and if the employer can control a portion of that expenditure, there is no limiting principle walling off other portions of the compensation paid an employee. There might be some practical barriers to determining how an employee spends other portions of her or his pay, but not really any legal ones, if the employer asserts a religious objection to the employee's expenditure....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #11)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:16 PM

13. While I think that wouldn't happen without sharp countersuits

 

It is a troubling "not a precedent".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #13)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:22 PM

17. And That Is My Point, Ma'am

The argument is easily made on the grounds provided in the decision, and the decision provides no grounds to object.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:15 PM

12. So they could dictate how their employees

 

spend their lawfully earned pay?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #12)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:18 PM

15. If a religious objection Is claimed, Ma'am

It is hard to see any limiting principle in this decision that would prevent it. The decision allows the employer to dictate how a portion of the employee's compensation is spent, if the expenditure is objected to on religious grounds, and if this is allowed for one portion of compensation, how is it not allowed for others?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #15)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:21 PM

16. The five buttheads that opened the gate on this

 

should be ashamed of themselves, and no, I will not apologize for calling them buttheads. I probably should apologize to butts, though, they never did anything this fouled up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #12)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:28 PM

20. If you receive wages as a debit card, you already are

Companies like SprawlMart offer wages in the form of a debit card. The bank fees associated with that are the responsibility of the worker. So workers are essentially being told how they will spend some of their wages.

This is still optional. For now...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #20)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:33 PM

21. True, Sir --- And Without Even The Fig-Leaf Of Religious Devotion To Usury Being Claimed....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:40 PM

22. Well, Magistrate, if offered the position on SCOTUS

Would you be willing to accept?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:50 PM

23. Thoughtful and timely analysis, sir, as always.

May I quote you with attribution?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mac56 (Reply #23)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:16 PM

29. Thank You, Sir

Of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:30 PM

26. Excellent point. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:49 PM

27. I said that

They pay you wages which is indirectly their money. Can they say you cannot spend the money they give you on contraceptives, health care to cover it, or anything else they feel goes against their religion?

Can they even FIRE you for going against their religion in your private life when they are paying for your "immorality" indrectly through wages they give you? Same as Catholic organizations fire teachers for using IVF (not paid for by THEIR insurance), birth control, gay marriage (WHAT their money?), etc. Morality clauses for working for a private for profit employer?

Next?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #27)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:14 PM

28. I Claim No Particular Originality For The Thought, Ma'am

And I expect we will see instances of the sort you suggest in future....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:42 PM

30. Exactly.

kandr

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread