Judge allows religious company to reject Obamacare contraceptive coverage

[Trieste]

Just remember that judges are like tiny gods in their courtroom, and can do things like leverage fines above and beyond the minimum the law says. That's what it looks to be in this case.

[TheGlyphstone]

Or it's just like what Torch said, $2000/day * employees not covered...that would require 650 employees...though they have 13,000 employees, which would be far more than that...

[Torch]

Or it's just like what Torch said, $2000/day * employees not covered...that would require 650 employees...though they have 13,000 employees, which would be far more than that...

The penalty is $2000 annually, not per day. Not sure where that came from either.

And remember, these figures only apply to full-time employees. An employer can easily skirt the requirement by maintaining majority part-time work force.

[LunarSage]

Well it wasn't just Snopes that mentioned the potential 1.3 million dollar per day fines for Hobby Lobby.  If you'd like I can find other sources.

[Trieste]

I think the point is that it's not necessarily standard.

[LunarSage]

Ah, alright.  No worries.  The articles I read made it sound (to me at least) as though they may have been standard, but that's likely just how it got worded.

I was like "1.3 million a day?  Wow, just about any business would go under in a month or two".

[Torch]

Well it wasn't just Snopes that mentioned the potential 1.3 million dollar per day fines for Hobby Lobby.  If you'd like I can find other sources.

That's the potential fine for the Hobby Lobby Corp. for refusing to provide coverage for what they describe as "abortion-inducing" contraceptives. Hobby Lobby already provides health coverage for their employees, but they are refusing to cover specific drugs.

I'm referring to the fine to employers for not providing health coverage at all, which was my response to TaintedandDelish's question.

[loki]

And remember, these figures only apply to full-time employees. An employer can easily skirt the requirement by maintaining majority part-time work force.

And this is how the big companies will get out of paying healthcare, rather it is with or against their religion. It happened before when the last recession hit and will do so again. It is actually starting up again with a lot of big companies right now. While it is the easiest way to stop Obama care and stop all the "it's against my ...blah, blah, blah" it starts a new disturbing trend that will lead to many other problems down the road.

[Lux12]

And this is how the big companies will get out of paying healthcare, rather it is with or against their religion. It happened before when the last recession hit and will do so again. It is actually starting up again with a lot of big companies right now. While it is the easiest way to stop Obama care and stop all the "it's against my ...blah, blah, blah" it starts a new disturbing trend that will lead to many other problems down the road.

Gotta love those cheap ass millionaires.

The fruits of cheapness are to be blunt shitty results.

[Callie Del Noire]

You know I was listening to NPR today and they made a comment that stuck with me.. companies that invest in their people, and keep to the more tradition 30% gains versus the 400%+ of some CEOs.. and spread the gains down the chain to the people tend to do 15 times better comparable companies of similar size and market. (an example was Whole Grains vs some of their competitors.)

[Lux12]

You know I was listening to NPR today and they made a comment that stuck with me.. companies that invest in their people, and keep to the more tradition 30% gains versus the 400%+ of some CEOs.. and spread the gains down the chain to the people tend to do 15 times better comparable companies of similar size and market. (an example was Whole Grains vs some of their competitors.)

But the people at the top don't care at all about those below them and they're out to make as much money for themselves as possible.They do not think about these things let alone care about those below them.

[Callie Del Noire]

But the people at the top don't care at all about those below them and they're out to make as much money for themselves as possible.They do not think about these things let alone care about those below them.

But they DO notice that the company is doing 15 times better than it's peers.

[Torch]

But the people at the top don't care at all about those below them and they're out to make as much money for themselves as possible.They do not think about these things let alone care about those below them.

Actually, "the people at the top" (as you refer to them) are out to make money for the company's investors (assuming the company in question is a publicly held entity). If the executive board and other division directors were only out for themselves, no company would survive very long.

Just wanted to make that distinction clear.

[Callie Del Noire]

Actually, "the people at the top" (as you refer to them) are out to make money for the company's investors (assuming the company in question is a publicly held entity). If the executive board and other division directors were only out for themselves, no company would survive very long.

Just wanted to make that distinction clear.

It could be argued why some companies aren't thriving or growing as much as they should. If your executives are more concerned about 500% growth in their income when the company is doing like 40% worse.. I'd say that they are doing just that.. of course those tend to be the most extreme of the leeches out there.

I think it was things like that killed the Bally Pinball company in the mid to late 90s for example.

[Torch]

It could be argued why some companies aren't thriving or growing as much as they should. If your executives are more concerned about 500% growth in their income when the company is doing like 40% worse.. I'd say that they are doing just that.. of course those tend to be the most extreme of the leeches out there.

Unfortunately, the general public has the perception that the extreme examples are the norm. They aren't.

No CEO in his right mind wants his company to go out of business. They want to make money for their investors and shareholders. These guys went to Wharton and Harvard. While they may be greedy and soulless, they aren't stupid.

[Callie Del Noire]

Unfortunately, the general public has the perception that the extreme examples are the norm. They aren't.

No CEO in his right mind wants his company to go out of business. They want to make money for their investors and shareholders. These guys went to Wharton and Harvard. While they may be greedy and soulless, they aren't stupid.

Still you have to admit the bonuses have gone up radically over the years. From 45% to something like 300% of the workers levels.

A lot of it is stuff that came out of the 'golden parachute/poison pills' of the 80s and 90s. Still those big bonuses in the big companies have to be counter productive at times.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I've experienced two types of hyper-growth CEOs. 

One is the one who understands that you can only grow so big before there is not more room to grown and they work to develop new products and look for new uses for existing ones.  Their pay is mostly bonuses and the growth and sales figures determine the amount.

The other is the one who also understands the growth numbers and whose pay is based on growth and sales but they push the company to grow as fast and as much as possible so they can take the money and run to another CEO spot where they can do the same.

The best CEOs are the ones who go after moderate growth, work to develop new products and set up a profit sharing structure that rewards the share holders or owners as well as the people who generate the profits.

[Torch]

Still you have to admit the bonuses have gone up radically over the years. From 45% to something like 300% of the workers levels.

A lot of it is stuff that came out of the 'golden parachute/poison pills' of the 80s and 90s. Still those big bonuses in the big companies have to be counter productive at times.

If executive compensation is tied to profits (i.e. stock prices), then the bonuses are not out of line, not even at 300% of lowest paid employee's salary. Remember there are other components to executive compensation besides salary and bonuses, mainly equity options, deferred compensation, and long term incentives. If a company can't pay top executives on par with their peers, they will have a difficult time attracting top talent and this will be reflected in defecting investors.

Defecting investors (and their capital) is bad news for any company.

[Callie Del Noire]

If executive compensation is tied to profits (i.e. stock prices), then the bonuses are not out of line, not even at 300% of lowest paid employee's salary. Remember there are other components to executive compensation besides salary and bonuses, mainly equity options, deferred compensation, and long term incentives. If a company can't pay top executives on par with their peers, they will have a difficult time attracting top talent and this will be reflected in defecting investors.

Defecting investors (and their capital) is bad news for any company.

Interesting points.  Thanks for highlighting them. Something to think on.

[Serephino]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84226.html

Just as I thought, more challenges.  This is so completely stupid, but I hope they don't find in the college's favor.

[Serephino]

http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=-1&abbr=daily2_&page=NewsArticle&id=36053

Now this is what I like to see.