Hobby Lobby invests in abortion pill manufacturers

37 posts / 0 new
Last post
Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4103
Hobby Lobby invests in abortion pill manufacturers

The owners of Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned craft supply chain, were so offended by the idea of having to include emergency contraceptives and intrauterine devices in their health insurance plans that they sued the Obama administration and took the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. But Mother Jones reported on Tuesday that the company's retirement plan has invested millions of dollars in the manufacturers of emergency contraception and drugs used to induce abortions.

Hobby Lobby's 401(k) employee retirement plan holds $73 million in mutual funds that invest in multiple pharmaceutical companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and abortion-inducing medications.

The companies Hobby Lobby invests in include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes the Plan B morning-after pill and ParaGard, a copper IUD, as well as Pfizer, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2. Hobby Lobby's mutual funds also invest in two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in their health care policies.

Hobby Lobby's attorneys argue that the provision in the Affordable Care Act that requires most employers to cover contraception in their health plans infringes on the company's right to exercise religious freedom because the company's owners believe that emergency contraception and IUDs are actually forms of abortion. Medical studies have debunked this claim.

Mother Jones reported that all nine of the mutual funds Hobby Lobby's retirement plan holds include investments that clash with the owners' religious beliefs about abortion.


Hobby Lobby Invests In Abortion Pill Manufacturers

Hypocritical or not? If these companies are good enough to invest Hobby Lobby employee retirement savings in, then why aren't their products & services good enough to provide to Hobby Lobby employees?

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

Super hypocritical.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4103

"Jessica80" wrote:

Super hypocritical.

Agreed. A quick Google search for "pro life mutual funds" shows that there are many, many options out there so it's not like they didn't have any other choice about where to put their money.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6568

I do not have a lot of information on this, but everything I have seen on this says that they were not aware of the situation. I know that I do not know of all the companies that DH' s 401k participates in.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3317

Put this in the "I don't care" category for me. Yep, technically its hypocritical, but i can totally see how a company might overlook that. Wouldn't be surprised if in the future they change it up.

Oops they made a mistake according to their beliefs. I wouldn't bother criticizing them for this.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

See, I think it's pretty huge since they were so invested in what their health insurance covered that they didn't feel the need to make sure that any money the put out there wasn't as fully researched to make sure it went towards their beliefs.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4103

There are definitely other things to criticize Hobby Lobby over, such as taking a ridiculous case to the Supreme Court (corporations are not people and therefore can not have religious rights) but the fact that their main argument in that case was that the owners' religious beliefs about abortion prevented them from providing legally-mandated health coverage to their employees says to me that these owners should have made very very sure to not have anything to do with anything abortion in any way.

And with all due respect, Bonita, I think if you don't know what you're investing in, then you shouldn't be investing in it. With the exception of blind trusts -- where the whole point is that you're *not* supposed to know what's in them, to prevent conflict of interest concerns -- everyone should know this information about their money.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6568

"Spacers" wrote:

(corporations are not people and therefore can not have religious rights)

But the owners of those corporations are. I strongly disagree that corporations do not have religious freedom. Whether or not the Hobby Lobby made a mistake in the investments, this is still an extremely important case to determine the religious freedoms of this country with other corporations besides the Hobby Lobby partisipating. The Hobby Lobby is just the most well known company partisipating.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

I am just not sure how I feel. My first gut reaction is that this is very hypocritical, but then I remember how many different ways that the PERS my husband's money is invested in is spread out.

Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 680

Super hypocritical and even more ignorant if they had no idea where their money was being invested. How can a business be run without having a close eye on investments??

Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 680

"mom3girls" wrote:

I am just not sure how I feel. My first gut reaction is that this is very hypocritical, but then I remember how many different ways that the PERS my husband's money is invested in is spread out.

We always choose where our money goes. Maybe some people don't have this option?

Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 680

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

But the owners of those corporations are. I strongly disagree that corporations do not have religious freedom. Whether or not the Hobby Lobby made a mistake in the investments, this is still an extremely important case to determine the religious freedoms of this country with other corporations besides the Hobby Lobby partisipating. The Hobby Lobby is just the most well known company partisipating.

Where or where were their employees' rights and freedoms before?

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4103

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

But the owners of those corporations are. I strongly disagree that corporations do not have religious freedom. Whether or not the Hobby Lobby made a mistake in the investments, this is still an extremely important case to determine the religious freedoms of this country with other corporations besides the Hobby Lobby partisipating. The Hobby Lobby is just the most well known company partisipating.

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.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

"myyams" wrote:

We always choose where our money goes. Maybe some people don't have this option?

We have a choice out of about 5 bundles. This is a retirement fund through the state as my Dh is a teacher. It is kind of a weird situation because it is not our money, but money invested for us by the school district that we cannot touch until DH is of retirement age. We are not counting on that money being there though so we are invested in other things that we keep a very close eye on and we can move around in order to make the most money from it. With that money we only invest in things that we support from a moral and political stand point.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6568

"Spacers" wrote:

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.

Near by hear is a factory that makes Little Debby Snacks. It is owned by the Southern Adventist Church. I am fairly confident that it is a corporation as it has hundreds of employees. They very much have rules based on their religion that effect their work. No one works on Saturday (Their Sabbath), any food they donate can not be for a function from sun down on Friday to sundown on Saturday and so on. Everyone that works there knows that it is that way before they take the job there.

Any company should be able to decide their own hours. If they want to be closed Sundays, that is there business for whatever reason they want to be closed. If they want to be closed for Passover that is also their business. It is no different to be closed on the week of Passover than it is to be closed on the week of Christmas. Or for whatever other reason. The factory my uncle worked in for many years always closed down the week of July 4th because that was the week the owner wished to take his vacation. The local meat market is closed Sundays and Wednesdays and random weeks out of the year that the owner is on vacation. It is no one else's business what weeks he closes other than you have every right not to shop there.

It is your opinion that a company can not have religious rights. I strongly disagree. That is why this is not a frivolous law suit. It is a very important case to determine who is right.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3317

"Jessica80" wrote:

See, I think it's pretty huge since they were so invested in what their health insurance covered that they didn't feel the need to make sure that any money the put out there wasn't as fully researched to make sure it went towards their beliefs.

I doubt its a case of "They didn't feel the need"

To me that implies that they were aware that it could be a possibility and they were like "Eh, why bother checking into it"

I'd much more believe that it didn't even occur to them that this could be the case, or that it occurred to them that there would be ways around the problem. One of those things in retrospect you think "oh yeah, we should have checked that...thats was really stupid of us"

But really, i don't think there was any deliberate or conscious hypocrisy going on here. I'm pretty sure they are the same company, with the same beliefs that we thought they were all along and they will probably want to fix this issue now that its been pointed out.

ETA: I could be convinced this is some sort of horrific hypocrisy if someone could prove to me that they had something to gain by not looking into alternatives. Because then that means they were conveniently not bothering because it benefited them. But I highly doubt there is some huge benefit to the company due to this oversight.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3317

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Near by hear is a factory that makes Little Debby Snacks. It is owned by the Southern Adventist Church. I am fairly confident that it is a corporation as it has hundreds of employees. They very much have rules based on their religion that effect their work. No one works on Saturday (Their Sabbath), any food they donate can not be for a function from sun down on Friday to sundown on Saturday and so on. Everyone that works there knows that it is that way before they take the job there.

Any company should be able to decide their own hours. If they want to be closed Sundays, that is there business for whatever reason they want to be closed. If they want to be closed for Passover that is also their business. It is no different to be closed on the week of Passover than it is to be closed on the week of Christmas. Or for whatever other reason. The factory my uncle worked in for many years always closed down the week of July 4th because that was the week the owner wished to take his vacation. The local meat market is closed Sundays and Wednesdays and random weeks out of the year that the owner is on vacation. It is no one else's business what weeks he closes other than you have every right not to shop there.

It is your opinion that a company can not have religious rights. I strongly disagree. That is why this is not a frivolous law suit. It is a very important case to determine who is right.

I think there are some things a company can decide for themselves and other things that they cannot. Hours you are open? Totally within your rights to decide as there are no laws that revolve around mandatory open days that would interfere with being closed on religious holidays.

But there are laws that companies have to work with and they don't get a free pass to ignore them just because they can claim religion. If a company has a religious belief that all mothers have a duty to stay home and raise their children, they can't just go and start firing everyone woman in their company who becomes pregnant.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

I think that it would be easy to accidentally overlook what a mutual fund invests in. Its not like they are actually investing in the company themselves it is through a 3rd party. I don't fault them for not knowing, but I do think that now that they do know that they will change their investments.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3317

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I think that it would be easy to accidentally overlook what a mutual fund invests in. Its not like they are actually investing in the company themselves it is through a 3rd party. I don't fault them for not knowing, but I do think that now that they do know that they will change their investments.

Right. Especially because the way it works is that the employees typically pick which funds out of the ones being offered that they will actually use. Its just so many steps removed. That coupled with how many different stocks a mutual fund covers. Some cover the entire stock exchange!

Who here has moral convictions? Who here honestly knows every single product/services offered by every company that they have invested in? Who wants to place all their investment money in a bet that their 401K investments DON"T conflict at all with their moral convictions.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6568

"KimPossible" wrote:

I think there are some things a company can decide for themselves and other things that they cannot. Hours you are open? Totally within your rights to decide as there are no laws that revolve around mandatory open days that would interfere with being closed on religious holidays.

But there are laws that companies have to work with and they don't get a free pass to ignore them just because they can claim religion. If a company has a religious belief that all mothers have a duty to stay home and raise their children, they can't just go and start firing everyone woman in their company who becomes pregnant.

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.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Spacers" wrote:

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.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4103

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

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.

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

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.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6568

"Spacers" wrote:

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.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3317

"Spacers" wrote:

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.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3317

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.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

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?

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4103

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.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6568

"Spacers" wrote:

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.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6568

"Spacers" wrote:

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.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Spacers" wrote:

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

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3317

"Spacers" wrote:

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.

All i'm saying is that i can't find any laws backing up your accounts. Maybe they are California specific, but i couldn't find anything on the California specific site either.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4103

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

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.

You're missing the point about it being a RELIGIOUS shutdown. And some of the things you've describe are NOT legal at all. If you show up for work, and are sent home, you are paid for at least two hours, or half your shift whichever is more, whether you actually work or not.

And maybe this is specific to California, IDK, but no one will ever convince me that any non-human legal entity has, or ever will have, religious rights. And when an owner incorporates, he is no longer "the owner." The corporation becomes the owner of the business, and he becomes an employee with the same religious rights as everyone else, including the right to not lose a day's pay for someone else's religious holiday.

ETA: Christmas is a federal holiday, and a state holiday in most (maybe all?) states. It's not a religious holiday for purposes of this debate.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3317

"Spacers" wrote:

You're missing the point about it being a RELIGIOUS shutdown.

Still don't see anything that says this. Are there a predefined set of days you are allowed to declare holidays? And you can't delcare the others because they coincide with religious holidays? Except christmas?

And maybe this is specific to California, IDK, but no one will ever convince me that any non-human legal entity has, or ever will have, religious rights. And when an owner incorporates, he is no longer "the owner." The corporation becomes the owner of the business, and he becomes an employee with the same religious rights as everyone else, including the right to not lose a day's pay for someone else's religious holiday.

Its losing a day's pay for having the day off as a holiday. I really don't see how you can say "This set of days is okay to take off as a holiday, this set of days is not"

Christmas is a federal holiday, and a state holiday in most (maybe all?) states. It's not a religious holiday for purposes of this debate.

Well it is...its rather hypocritical and unfair that those who celebrate Christmas have the protection of a federal holiday while everyone else does not.

Seriously, i would like to see these laws, state or otherwise, that defines which days of the year you are allowed to define as holidays and which ones are off the table. I would love to see the wording of this where it would actually make sense. Either you are allowed to pick holidays for your company or you aren't. If I declare July 24th an unpaid holiday at my company, it shouldn't matter if I declare it because I am some religion who finds that day sacred or if its because its my son's birthday or if I just generally find that day an appealing day to not have to think about corporate obligations. It effects you the same way.

So either it should be okay to do any of them, or none of them. Thats why I'm really interested in the wording of the laws that support your accounts

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

"Spacers" wrote:

You're missing the point about it being a RELIGIOUS shutdown. And some of the things you've describe are NOT legal at all. If you show up for work, and are sent home, you are paid for at least two hours, or half your shift whichever is more, whether you actually work or not.

And maybe this is specific to California, IDK, but no one will ever convince me that any non-human legal entity has, or ever will have, religious rights. And when an owner incorporates, he is no longer "the owner." The corporation becomes the owner of the business, and he becomes an employee with the same religious rights as everyone else, including the right to not lose a day's pay for someone else's religious holiday.

ETA: Christmas is a federal holiday, and a state holiday in most (maybe all?) states. It's not a religious holiday for purposes of this debate.

What about corporations that are still held under one name? We own a business that we have incorporated to protect our selves, but we are the only people that are owners (Dh and I)
There are different laws in every state for different corporations, and even different types of corporations. I do not believe there will ever be a time that one blanket federal law for corporations will be acceptable

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6568

"Spacers" wrote:

ETA: Christmas is a federal holiday, and a state holiday in most (maybe all?) states. It's not a religious holiday for purposes of this debate.

Christmas, Easter, and Good Friday are all just as much religious holidays as Passover. It is more likely to be discrimination of Jewish people to say that you can close for Christmas but not for Passover.

The rules you stated about having to be paid for half your shift are also possibly for your local area only. There are no such rules here for sure. I do not believe there are where my parents live either but I would have to ask. I know there are not here though.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Spacers" wrote:

You're missing the point about it being a RELIGIOUS shutdown.

My company (a corporation) has good Friday as a stated holiday in the handbook. It is a holiday that we are paid for, but if they did not give paid holidays I just don't see where that would be against the law for them to close on that day and not pay us. The rules I posted are from California by the way, from a California government site.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

I don't really get it either. When I worked at A&E, there were freelancers who worked year round, they were only freelance because they weren't on staff (with benefits and paid vacation) but they worked year-round and had steady permanent jobs. When the company was closed, they didn't get paid. That covered Christmas, Thanksgiving, Columbus Day, etc. Why should it matter what those days are? As long as it's stated up front, shouldn't a company be able to close on any specific day and if people get paid hourly or whatever, not pay them? If it's a store, and it closes for a religious holiday, why should the owner have to pay workers who aren't there?