Hobby Lobby business practices

[Wambo36]

Perhaps David Green should just do the John Galt thing: Pack up all his toys and go home . . . and/or move the human-based operation to Mexico or India. Online sales are fairly popular without all of the government interferrence in day-to-day operations.

He would certainly be closer to his manufacturing base.

[PennyQuilts]

Very hypothetical, but not impossible. What if tomorrow the Green family decided to convert to Christian Scientist. As such, they end all health care for their employees and, (according to their religious and moral convictions) offer to pray for them instead? Are these really the kind of decisions we want made according to an employers "religious and moral convictions" and not the employees, whatever they might be? I think not.

The likelihood that they would do that, IMO, is relatively low. And I am not even going to get off into the weeds on the notion of praying for their employees vs. providing health insurance (for the full timers only, of course). What is NOT uncommon is for people of conscience willing to try to do the right thing as they see it. And the "right thing," is almost invariably a plus for society. When, as a policy, we decide that people simply can't be trusted to do the right thing so they must be mandated, by law (the right thing is decided by the government, of course - and let's pretend politics and big money doesn't enter into it), we have a much bigger problem, if you ask me. It is one thing to mandate something based on a value in which society has reached a consensus. It is a completely different thing to mandate things concerning values that are in flux or there are competing values. Imposing something that is categorically opposite of a particular moral belief is begging for trouble and, IMO, shouldn't be attempted unless it is practically life or death. Forcing people to pay for a cheap morning after pill, to me, is imposing a value of little worth since the person could certainly get it and afford it (the insurance goes to full time employees) and allowing it to trump a closely held value that is nowhere near a consensus. This is, poor and simple, an ideological mindset that believes people shouldn't have to pay for certain medications. It was adopted without thought or concern about the moral or religious beliefs of anyone else. Mind you, HL isn't fighting Obamacare, overall. It was already providing health insurance for its people. It is disputing a particular, ideologically driven provision that doesn't amount to a hill of beans unless someone is trying to use the power of the government to advance their own particular values. No person eligible for insurance at Hobby Lobby will go without this drug if they want it. It simply isn't that expensive or hard to come by. This isn't a battle worth fighting.

[PennyQuilts]

That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is that the government is preventing an employer from forcing their employees to live according to the employer's religious values.

Since when is having to pay for your own cheap medication that is easy to get "forcing" someone to live according to their employer's religious values? Do you believe HL and other employers should be forced to provide condoms for its employees? If not, why not?

[PennyQuilts]

He would certainly be closer to his manufacturing base.

HL pays higher than most stores of this type, voluntarily. I wouldn't blame them for leaving but they won't do it over money - it would be because of conscience. What a shame that over something this idiotic, the government is willing to cause this much chaos.

[RadicalModerate]

He would certainly be closer to his manufacturing base.

True That!
(and he wouldn't have to be so concerned with shall-we-say . . . overly "sensitive" employees . . .? . . . or "one-size fits all" health care regulations from the Federal Prescription Compliance Gestapo =)

[Easy180]

HL pays higher than most stores of this type, voluntarily. I wouldn't blame them for leaving but they won't do it over money - it would be because of conscience. What a shame that over something this idiotic, the government is willing to cause this much chaos.

Yeah there are so many businesses raising a fuss over this

[Hawk405359]

That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is that the government is preventing an employer from forcing their employees to live according to the employer's religious values.

Saying "we're not going to cover this" isn't saying "you have to be our religion to work here" anymore than saying "You can't force kids to pray in school" is saying "Kids are not allowed to pray in school." It's just saying there are certain things that they will not cover, and if you don't like that, you don't have to work there.

No one is forced to work for a particular company, and if people just demand that cheap contraceptives are covered by insurance, they should certainly have the option to get insurance themselves that would provide it, but that doesn't mean that the company should be forced to provide it.

[bluedogok]

I worked at Horn Seed, and the Horn's were Christian Science Church members. They offered insurance for those employees after a year of employment, most of us youngsters didn't last more than a year there and were let go because of "seasonal declines", I think it had more to due with insurance expenses and that was 1985. I don't see the Green's trying to "force their beliefs on their employees", I see them as objecting to certain forms of birth control, not all birth control. I have known people who worked there that were on the pill on HL insurance. I still contend that if you object to Christianity so much to make an issue of it and you go to work at HL, you created your own contentious situation and are free to seek work elsewhere. HL isn't the draft era Army, you don't have to work there.

HL also has some manufacturing in OKC, not all of those buildings are warehouses. I just don't see why some forms of already inexpensive birth control should be mandated to be covered but lobbyists/special interests got it included in the bill to be read after you pass it.

[RadicalModerate]

Saying "we're not going to cover this" isn't saying "you have to be our religion to work here" anymore than saying "You can't force kids to pray in school" is saying "Kids are not allowed to pray in school." It's just saying there are certain things that they will not cover, and if you don't like that, you don't have to work there.

No one is forced to work for a particular company, and if people just demand that cheap contraceptives are covered by insurance, they should certainly have the option to get insurance themselves that would provide it, but that doesn't mean that the company should be forced to provide it.

Exactly.
(except, of course for the fact that all of us are forced to work for The Federal Government for at least 3 or 4 months a year . . . which is OK . . . especially compared to what is probably on down the road . . .)

( . . . "i hear him say . . . oof . . . da . . . oof . . . da . . . dat's de' the sound of de man . . . wukkin' on de' chain ga--a--ang" . . .---that was Swebonics btw, for the peace of mind of the easily offended. doncha know. ya' shure, yew betcha. =)

[Bunty]

So you believe both David Green and the people who think he is wrong should stand by their convictions?

Of course, they should at least stand by their convictions, but not be overly surprised if they are defeated. Employers shouldn't be offering health insurance in the first place. Shortages of labor and wage controls during WWII brought it on as a legal means to provide incentives to fulfill labor demands. But I guess some customs or ways of doing things just don't go away like 3.2% beer.

[RadicalModerate]

Of course, they should at least stand by their convictions, but not be overly surprised if they are defeated. Employers shouldn't be offering health insurance in the first place. Shortages of labor and wage controls during WWII brought it on as a legal means to provide incentives to fulfill labor demands. But I guess some customs or ways of doing things just don't go away like 3.2% beer.

That is an excellent argument for David Green doing the John Galt thing . . . (if his principles and convictions are overruled by The Feds).
This way there are no employees to worry about. It's sort of The Point of Diminishing Returns of The Federal Government Gone Wild.
(of course we will all have to pay more taxes to make up for the revenue shortfall caused by the lack of Hobby Lobby employee taxes.)
(btw: wasn't the personal income tax supposed to be one of those "temporary" things that somehow never went away?)

[adaniel]

Its easy to say "those folks should just work somewhere else," but that glosses over some pretty serious legal ramifications should Hobby Lobby get its way.

I am reminded of an old boss when I was still in college who was a total libertarian wacko. She believe most modern day medicine was mind control for the federal government. She frequently expressed her personal opinion towards workers who would take medication with their lunch. She preached oftentimes about why people didn't see the light in her messed up argument. It was nice to be able to get my Z-pack (covered partially by my insurance, which I probably wouldn't have been able to get since I was a broke college student) without worrying about how her views would affect me.

Mr. Green says that the Plan B pill causes abortion yet there isn't one reputable medical association that says that. Heck, the simple fact that lots of people have gotten pregnant despite taking it puts that theory to pasture. Yet he and his legal team suggests that his beliefs trump any sort of science or material fact, the kind that are needed in a court of law.

Should the feds grant my old boss an exemption? Should we grant companies who are guided by Jehova's Witnesses from covering any procedures involving blood transfusions? Because if you grant Hobby Lobby an exemption, one that is not based in any material fact, you have to grant them to all. That's the legal precedent in this. Its also why the Supreme Court didn't even bother to hear their case and that's why HL is going to lose.

Employees who may get/do medical procedures that the owners object to is the risk you take when you operate a for-profit business, especially one that chooses to fund its own insurance.

[Jim Kyle]

Tonight's news on Channel 9 reported about 26 nurses at a hospital back east who were fired for refusing to take flu shots, based on allergies or religious beliefs. That seems like a more extreme case of an employer forcing issues on (now ex-) employees than do any of the hypothetical extremes suggested in this thread!

The hospital's justification was that the shot was necessary to protect the general public. It seems that a case could be made either way, though.

And a federal judge has granted an injunction almost identical to what Hobby Lobby is requesting, in a case up north, as reported in today's Oklahoman.

It's not quite as simplistic as most of the discussion here seems to believe...

[Hawk405359]

Tonight's news on Channel 9 reported about 26 nurses at a hospital back east who were fired for refusing to take flu shots, based on allergies or religious beliefs. That seems like a more extreme case of an employer forcing issues on (now ex-) employees than do any of the hypothetical extremes suggested in this thread!

The hospital's justification was that the shot was necessary to protect the general public. It seems that a case could be made either way, though.

And a federal judge has granted an injunction almost identical to what Hobby Lobby is requesting, in a case up north, as reported in today's Oklahoman.

It's not quite as simplistic as most of the discussion here seems to believe...

The hospital thing makes total sense. Health professionals who are carriers are a serious risk for infecting patients, many of whom already have compromised immune systems or other issues that the flu could make much worse. . It's a major liability for a hospital for a nurse to work with the flu. Whereas the individual nurse really doesn't have any argument that them not taking it would improve the ability to do their job, the only options if they got sick would be to work sick (dangerous) or not work (costly and troublesome).

[mugofbeer]

That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is that the government is preventing an employer from forcing their employees to live according to the employer's religious values.

WRONG! No one is preventing any employee of his company from buyng truckloads of any sort of contraceptive they want. They simply have to buy that one drug themselves. Do you, honestly, live your life as dictated by your employer's health care plan??

[Bunty]

Tonight's news on Channel 9 reported about 26 nurses at a hospital back east who were fired for refusing to take flu shots, based on allergies or religious beliefs. That seems like a more extreme case of an employer forcing issues on (now ex-) employees than do any of the hypothetical extremes suggested in this thread!

The hospital's justification was that the shot was necessary to protect the general public. It seems that a case could be made either way, though.

And a federal judge has granted an injunction almost identical to what Hobby Lobby is requesting, in a case up north, as reported in today's Oklahoman.

It's not quite as simplistic as most of the discussion here seems to believe...

Vaccines really are not free from serious side effects, rare as they may be. Probably the nurses have also seen first hand what those side effects are like and so do not want to take a chance with vaccines. People should have the right to decide for themselves, if risks associated with vaccines are worse than not getting vaccines and getting the diseases. Of course, plenty of conservatives are going to insist that Hobby Lobby should have the right to decide if morning after drugs are too much like abortion or is the same as abortion and so not want anything to do with such drugs.

[Anonymous.]

So starting today Hobby Lobby spends ~$1.3 million each day until they come out of the dark ages.

Good stuff.

[Hawk405359]

Vaccines really are not free from serious side effects, rare as they may be. Probably the nurses have also seen first hand what those side effects are like and so do not want to take a chance with vaccines. People should have the right to decide for themselves, if risks associated with vaccines are worse than not getting vaccines and getting the diseases. Of course, plenty of conservatives are going to insist that Hobby Lobby should have the right to decide if morning after drugs are too much like abortion or is the same as abortion and so not want anything to do with such drugs.

Most people do have a choice, but nurses work around people who could actually die if they got the flu as well as people who have the flu and are highly contagious. The probability of getting it from an infected nurse is much higher than suffering from any major side effects from a flu vaccine.

If you're working in a hospital, getting a flu vaccine is more than a fair job requirement.

Yeah, there are risks to vaccines, but there are risks to everything. You're more likely to die in a car crash on the way to work, but being physically there is still a job demand.

[RadicalModerate]

So starting today Hobby Lobby spends ~$1.3 million each day until they come out of the dark ages.

Good stuff.

At that rate, how long will it take The Federal Leeches to bleed the company dry? (I really couldn't find any reference to a good estimate of the value of all of the company's assets). Maybe instead of struggling with all of this--or simply closing up shop--Mr. Green could just hand the government the keys and say, "Here. You deal with it." Instantly, 14,000 new government workers would have been created and the place would self-destruct anyway within a couple of years. Unless, of course, The Ministry of Arts and Crafts creates a Wicker Czar . . .

Good Stuff, indeed.

[Jim Kyle]

I agee fully that the hospital thing makes perfect sense. I only mentioned this because some folk in this thread seem to be arguing that an employer has no right whatsoever to "meddle" in an employee's healthcare decisions, although HL has never said a thing about forbidding use of the pills, just that they will not pay for them. Obviously, a nurse who happens to be allergic to the vaccination needs to find another line of work and avoid the problem altogether.

That other federal case, though, does raise some interesting points. One jurisdiction grants the injunction, another denies it, and the Supremes refuse to deal with the problem. Can you say "dysfunctional government" yet? Perhaps HL should simply move everything to that other jurisdiction...

[RadicalModerate]

How much of Hobby Lobby's (and Mardel's) net sales are derived from religious (that is, Christian, not Pagan, Druid or Wiccan) items? Once the Federal Government institutes ITS Business Practices, rather than the Business Practices that have made this a phenominally successful company, all of these items will have to go and this could have a negative effect on cash flow.

"Out of the dark ages"....?
More like into the dark ages: Turn out the lights. The party's over.

[OKCTalker]

Nurses at OU Medical Center are required to receive a flu vaccination or wear a mask when working with patients. No ifs, ands or buts. A small minority of nurses strangely oppose being vaccinated, but a few have serious side effects and accept the discomfort and inconvenience of wearing a mask in order to protect their patients.

[Snowman]

I agee fully that the hospital thing makes perfect sense. I only mentioned this because some folk in this thread seem to be arguing that an employer has no right whatsoever to "meddle" in an employee's healthcare decisions, although HL has never said a thing about forbidding use of the pills, just that they will not pay for them. Obviously, a nurse who happens to be allergic to the vaccination needs to find another line of work and avoid the problem altogether.

Flue shots do not seem as solid as most vaccinations, there are so many strains floating around that you are never protected from all of them and often not the most common type.

[RadicalModerate]

Same reason as a Firefighter/EMT we had required vaccines. Same reason as a Combat Medic in the Army, we had mandatory vaccines. Some requirements just come with the job.

100% with you on the "requirements" deal (for certain jobs . . . notably both examples, above, paid for by government funding).

Not so sure about how private sector job "benefits" align with that part of the equation.

If Hobby Lobby started marketing "religious themed" condoms as an alternative to "abortion pills" would it be possible to keep the ACLU out of this "controversy" regarding the "sweat shop conditions" under which the Hobby Lobby downtrodden are forced to labor?

After all . . . they already sell "Testamints" breath mints . . .

Perhaps get the "punitive fine" reduced to about a dollar?

[Dubya61]

What about a little less extreme example. What if they converted to Judaism or Islam and as such, because of their religious beliefs and convictions, refused to provide coverage for any medical procedures or products associated with swine? This would include, but not be limited to, skin grafts and tissue heart valve replacement. Imagine having a family member suffer severe burns to a large portion of their body and finding out that your employer, because of their religious convictions, had excluded from your coverage, the very skin grafts that your child or spouse needs to heal. Or a family member needing a heart valve replacement and, due to their reactions to blood thinners, only being able to accept a tissue heart valve? A tissue heart valve that your employer, due to their religious beliefs and convictions, exempted from your medical coverage. I'll ask again. Are those really the kind of decisions you want made according to your employers religious convictions and not your own? I think not.

In fact, the only Judaism prohibition on swine is the consumption of them as a food. Islam is very similar, but often the extreme versions go further.Are Xenotransplants Kosher? - My Jewish Learning