soot
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2013
- Messages
- 4,308
- Reaction score
- 2,530
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage
So it's every employer's responsibility to cater to the bottom-feeders in the employment pool who are "just happy to find a job".
Interesting notion...
Compounded by the fact that folks who believe it is our (the employee's) responsibility to actually prepare ourselves for the workforce by developing marketable skills apparently don't "need to pay the bills".
Slackers of the world, unite! I guess.
I'm being flippant, of course.
But just a little.
I doubt the employees of Hobby Lobby get a yearly bonus (calculated as a percentage of their gross yearly wages), as folks who work on higher rungs of the employment ladder might expect.
And I'm sure that the employees of Hobby Lobby would love to receive such a bonus check just before, or shortly after, the holidays.
It sure would help "just pay those bills".
Why should an employer be MANDATED to provide one form of compensation but not another?
I'll ask you: How would HL's responsibilities vis a vis the scenario you propose be any different in light of the ACA healthcare insurance angle than it would be in respect to any other work requirement/total compensation issue?
I don''t imagine Hobby Lobby compensates employees for transportation to and from work, or provides a stock option plan, or offers the option of working from home.
Is not including coverage of contraceptives in the group healthcare insurance plan really all that different than any of those things?
So explain to me how not offering stock options impacts the employee/employer relationship in the even of a catastrophic roof collapse.
At issue here is not only HL but the implications of such a policy and the facts that there are scores of people who are just happy to find employment because they do need to bay bills.
So it's every employer's responsibility to cater to the bottom-feeders in the employment pool who are "just happy to find a job".
Interesting notion...
Compounded by the fact that folks who believe it is our (the employee's) responsibility to actually prepare ourselves for the workforce by developing marketable skills apparently don't "need to pay the bills".
Slackers of the world, unite! I guess.
I'm being flippant, of course.
But just a little.
I doubt the employees of Hobby Lobby get a yearly bonus (calculated as a percentage of their gross yearly wages), as folks who work on higher rungs of the employment ladder might expect.
And I'm sure that the employees of Hobby Lobby would love to receive such a bonus check just before, or shortly after, the holidays.
It sure would help "just pay those bills".
Why should an employer be MANDATED to provide one form of compensation but not another?
Let me ask yo this: Do yo believe that if by some turn of fate the roof collapsed in a HL store and some people died or were seriously injured, would the owners sell all their personal belongings to compensate the victims and their families or they would take the benefit of personal separation, the corporation afforded them?
I'll ask you: How would HL's responsibilities vis a vis the scenario you propose be any different in light of the ACA healthcare insurance angle than it would be in respect to any other work requirement/total compensation issue?
I don''t imagine Hobby Lobby compensates employees for transportation to and from work, or provides a stock option plan, or offers the option of working from home.
Is not including coverage of contraceptives in the group healthcare insurance plan really all that different than any of those things?
So explain to me how not offering stock options impacts the employee/employer relationship in the even of a catastrophic roof collapse.