Hobby Lobby invests in abortion pill manufacturers - Page 3
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37
Like Tree13Likes

Thread: Hobby Lobby invests in abortion pill manufacturers

  1. #21
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,703

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spacers View Post
    I used to work for a company that was owned by Jews, and we couldn't even bring our own lunches if they weren't kosher, and because the owner closed shop for the week of Passover, we weren't paid. Those things were perfectly legal for him to do as a private owner; when he incorporated, which he decided to do after an incident that could have wiped him out financially if he hadn't been able to prove fraud, the company can't be Jewish, nor can it exercise religious rights, so he could no longer tell us not to bring ham sandwiches, and if he closed for Passover, he had to pay us. And that is the right way for the system to work. He got to separate his legal liability from the company, but he could no longer impose his own religious beliefs on his employees. Because a corporation CAN NOT have religious rights. Only people can.
    A corporation still has the option to open or close whatever days they choose. He may have chosen to include those as paid vacation days, but I disagree that he was forced to do so by incorporating.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  2. #22
    Posting Addict Spacers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    My avatar is the tai chi -- a symbol of the eternal cycle of life
    Posts
    16,568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    I agree with you. I just was in awe of the idea that a company should not be allowed to close for Passover. That is an unbelievable breach of freedom of religion.
    I didn't say the company wasn't allowed to close for Passover, only that he had to pay us if he chose to close because it wasn't our decision to not work or not be available for work. There was no violation of his religious freedom at all, but there was an enforcement of my legal right to work, or be paid if the company chooses to close for a religious holiday, when employed by a company that is legally separated from its owners -- and therefore from its owner's belief system.

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    A corporation still has the option to open or close whatever days they choose. He may have chosen to include those as paid vacation days, but I disagree that he was forced to do so by incorporating.
    Yes, it was a direct result of his incorporating the business. He told us that his lawyers and the state department of labor enforcement had told him that, if he chose to close for Passover, then he would have to pay all employees for the time we would have/could have worked. A corporation can not hold its own religious beliefs, and therefore can not force an employee to take unpaid time off to observe religious holidays that that employee does not observe. He decided to stay open the next Passover, and left the place in the care of a couple of us non-Jews; after Passover, he brought in a cleaning crew, and then a rabbi for a blessing, and then he came back to work.
    Last edited by Spacers; 04-08-2014 at 12:59 AM.
    The number of U.S. states in which a person can marry the person they love regardless of gender: 30 and counting!

  3. #23
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spacers View Post
    state department of labor
    Perhaps this is a State thing? Not all places of employment give paid time off or holiday pay. Most of the places I have worked I got paid by the hour and only got paid for the hours I worked. If the places was closed regardless if it was Christmas, just closing because the owner was out of town or because there just was not enough work to keep me there, I was only paid for the time worked. I do not believe there is a law (In any State although who knows) that states "If you close for Passover you must pay all of your employees". Now I can see stating that if you give paid time of for Christmas and Easter that you must also give paid time off for Passover. That is in my opinion a benefit to those who celebrate Passover and not to those who do not.

    ~Bonita~

  4. #24
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spacers View Post
    Those owners CHOSE to incorporate. They didn't have to, and if Hobby Lobby was held as a personal dba then I would completely agree with you that the owners would have a personal say in this. However, they chose to put up the legal shield of incorporation, which legally separates them from their company, and which protects them personally from liability incurred by the company and also saves them money in personal taxes. By doing so, they have to give up certain of their own personal rights over that business, such as exercising their own religious beliefs over their employees. They want their legal protections while acting like a dba, but they can't have it both ways. Here's an excellent example: I used to work for a company that was owned by Jews, and we couldn't even bring our own lunches if they weren't kosher, and because the owner closed shop for the week of Passover, we weren't paid. Those things were perfectly legal for him to do as a private owner; when he incorporated, which he decided to do after an incident that could have wiped him out financially if he hadn't been able to prove fraud, the company can't be Jewish, nor can it exercise religious rights, so he could no longer tell us not to bring ham sandwiches, and if he closed for Passover, he had to pay us. And that is the right way for the system to work. He got to separate his legal liability from the company, but he could no longer impose his own religious beliefs on his employees. Because a corporation CAN NOT have religious rights. Only people can.

    For the record, i don't think its really fair to paint this like its clearly defined....seeing as there are cases in the supreme court on this very subject that we are awaiting rulings on.

    ETA: I'm not saying that I think its a good thing for corporations to be able to skirt laws by claiming religion, just that we don't really have a definitive answer on that quite yet.
    Last edited by KimPossible; 04-08-2014 at 01:07 PM.

  5. #25
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,335

    Default

    Actually the more I think about the Passover thing, the less it makes sense to me and the more I agree with Bonita.

    I thought that the Fair Labor Standards Act states that you do not have to pay employees for time not worked such as vacations and holidays.

    And I don't understand why one could declare Christmas a company holiday unpaid but not Passover. Or any other day of the year for that matter.

    I would like to see this law that is being used to show that because it is a corporation it requires paid holidays, or that it can only partake in a certain set of pr-defined list of holidays. I cant' find reference to anything like this.

    Not saying it doesn't exist! Just saying i can't find info about it.
    Last edited by KimPossible; 04-08-2014 at 01:23 PM.
    AlyssaEimers likes this.
    Emma 08/31/01
    Aodhan 07/24/03
    Lillian 03/04/05
    Nathalie 07/01/07
    Cecilia Marie 1/10/10


    Photo By Anne Schmidt Photography

  6. #26
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,703

    Default

    The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not require employers to pay employees for time not worked, such as vacations or holidays. Paid holidays, paid vacation, and paid sick leave are determined by the employer, or in a represented workplace, by the employee's representative, often a union, in negotiation with an employer. Paid holidays may also be negotiated by employees who have a contract with employers; these are often senior level employees.
    What Are Paid Holidays?
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  7. #27
    Posting Addict Spacers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    My avatar is the tai chi -- a symbol of the eternal cycle of life
    Posts
    16,568

    Default

    The way I understand it, is if a *person* owns a business, and they choose to close for a religious holiday, they can do it because it's *their* religious holiday to celebrate. If a *corporation* owns a business and chooses to close the business for a religious holiday, the employees might not celebrate that holiday & might be willing & able to work, and since they don't have the chance, not paying them would be reverse religious discrimination, essentially penalizing them for not observing another religion's holiday. My DH reminded me the same thing happened for him years earlier. The restaurant he worked at was normally open on Sundays but "the owner" decided to close for Easter. A handful of employees filed a claim and got the day paid for everyone, and he says the state labor judge specifically said the restaurant is owned by a corporation that can not celebrate Easter as a religious holiday, so preventing employees from working a day they would normally work was religious discrimination.
    The number of U.S. states in which a person can marry the person they love regardless of gender: 30 and counting!

  8. #28
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spacers View Post
    The way I understand it, is if a *person* owns a business, and they choose to close for a religious holiday, they can do it because it's *their* religious holiday to celebrate. If a *corporation* owns a business and chooses to close the business for a religious holiday, the employees might not celebrate that holiday & might be willing & able to work, and since they don't have the chance, not paying them would be reverse religious discrimination, essentially penalizing them for not observing another religion's holiday. My DH reminded me the same thing happened for him years earlier. The restaurant he worked at was normally open on Sundays but "the owner" decided to close for Easter. A handful of employees filed a claim and got the day paid for everyone, and he says the state labor judge specifically said the restaurant is owned by a corporation that can not celebrate Easter as a religious holiday, so preventing employees from working a day they would normally work was religious discrimination.
    That has got to be a local thing. It is definitely not that way everywhere. Neither should it be. There are many reasons for a corporation to close. My dad works at a factory in NY. There are many times that a line shuts down for mechanical problems. They do not pay their employees each time they send them home. There might also not be enough employees willing to work so they close down a line. They are not paid for that time lost. They are only paid for time worked. They do get paid for holidays, but that is a benefit not a requirement. Where DH works his side job he is paid by the hour. If he happens to work a holiday he gets time and a half, but if he does not work he does not get paid. Both places are a corporation.

    ~Bonita~

  9. #29
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spacers View Post
    The way I understand it, is if a *person* owns a business, and they choose to close for a religious holiday, they can do it because it's *their* religious holiday to celebrate. If a *corporation* owns a business and chooses to close the business for a religious holiday, the employees might not celebrate that holiday & might be willing & able to work, and since they don't have the chance, not paying them would be reverse religious discrimination, essentially penalizing them for not observing another religion's holiday. My DH reminded me the same thing happened for him years earlier. The restaurant he worked at was normally open on Sundays but "the owner" decided to close for Easter. A handful of employees filed a claim and got the day paid for everyone, and he says the state labor judge specifically said the restaurant is owned by a corporation that can not celebrate Easter as a religious holiday, so preventing employees from working a day they would normally work was religious discrimination.
    I just have to add that this is one of the craziest things I have ever heard. Not that I do not believe you, just that it seems so very beyond the scope of reasonable.

    ~Bonita~

  10. #30
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,703

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spacers View Post
    The way I understand it, is if a *person* owns a business, and they choose to close for a religious holiday, they can do it because it's *their* religious holiday to celebrate. If a *corporation* owns a business and chooses to close the business for a religious holiday, the employees might not celebrate that holiday & might be willing & able to work, and since they don't have the chance, not paying them would be reverse religious discrimination, essentially penalizing them for not observing another religion's holiday. My DH reminded me the same thing happened for him years earlier. The restaurant he worked at was normally open on Sundays but "the owner" decided to close for Easter. A handful of employees filed a claim and got the day paid for everyone, and he says the state labor judge specifically said the restaurant is owned by a corporation that can not celebrate Easter as a religious holiday, so preventing employees from working a day they would normally work was religious discrimination.
    I'm really not sure what that judge based his decision on since that is not what the law says.

    Hours worked on holidays, Saturdays, and Sundays are treated like hours worked on any other day of the week. California law does not require that an employer provide its employees with paid holidays, that it close its business on any holiday, or that employees be given the day off for any particular holiday. If an employer closes its business on holidays and gives its employees time off from work with pay, such a circumstance exists pursuant to a policy or practice adopted by the employer, pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, or pursuant to the terms of an employment agreement between the employer and employee, as there is nothing in the law that requires such a practice. Additionally, there is nothing in the law that mandates an employer pay an employee a special premium for work performed on a holiday, Saturday, or Sunday, other than the overtime premium required for work performed in excess of eight hours in a workday or 40 hours in a workweek.
    FAQ
    2. Q. My employer is open for business on every holiday, some of which I have to work. Isn’t this against the law?

    A. No. There is nothing in state law that mandates that an employer must close its business on any particular day, if at all. It is up to your employer to select which days, if any, it chooses to be open and closed for business, and if your employer is open on a holiday and schedules you to work that day, there is nothing in the law that obligates your employer to pay you anything but your regular pay and any overtime premium for all overtime hours worked.
    FAQ
    4. Q. We get 11 holidays off each year without pay. My sister gets the same 11 holidays off, and she gets paid for all of them. Is my employer breaking the law because he’s not paying us for these holidays when he’s required to, even though we don’t work on any of them?

    A. No, your employer is not breaking the law. There is nothing in state law that mandates that employees be paid for holidays that are not worked.
    Holidays
    Last edited by GloriaInTX; 04-08-2014 at 05:20 PM.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions