How Much does Hobby Lobby pay their employees?

a reply to: SM2

Wait? Where did you get that medical degree from again?

Who are you to decide that certain forms of contraception are not needed? There are women who can't use other forms of contraception and will suffer dire medical consequences should they fall pregnant, like cancer patients, for example.

Nuf said!

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

A man should have the right to run his personal business however he sees fit.

I fail to see how obsessing over how your female employees use or make personal decisions about contraception and family planning have any part of running a business.

But that's just me.........

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: SM2

Wait? Where did you get that medical degree from again?

Who are you to decide that certain forms of contraception are not needed? There are women who can't use other forms of contraception and will suffer dire medical consequences should they fall pregnant, like cancer patients, for example.

Nuf said!

in which case, Plan B one step and Elle are not going to be a viable form either, as they are the same hormone as regular oral birth control pills, just a tremendous amount more active ingredient. So again that particular argument is not valid. If the can not use a progesterone birth control pill they cant use a higher dose progesterone pill.

You do not need a medical degree to know that.

Furthermore this whole thing is moot, as no one has in any way restricted access to any thing in the hobby lobby ruling. Women can still go see their doctor, which is still covered. They can still get a prescription for birth control and it will still be covered, unless it is the 4 specific types they had issue with. Hobby Lobby has even said they will continue to cover the other 20 types.

You are just being obtuse in not seeing the actual facts. You are spewing out the same asinine arguments over and over regardless of facts.

a reply to: RancorXXX


A Hobby Lobby just opened up in our town. My minister just told me that his son's girlfriend was hired there starting at $15 an hour. She is full time, part time people start at $10. I've been working at our local college for 19 years and am getting $13.18 per hour, so I think HL is paying very well.

originally posted by: tattooedlunchlady
a reply to: RancorXXX


A Hobby Lobby just opened up in our town. My minister just told me that his son's girlfriend was hired there starting at $15 an hour. She is full time, part time people start at $10. I've been working at our local college for 19 years and am getting $13.18 per hour, so I think HL is paying very well.

Go Hobby Lobby !!

originally posted by: SpaDe_

originally posted by: RancorXXX
Xuechen, the problem with making posts like this is that they can so easily be fact checked. The ONLY web sites reporting that Hobby Lobby pays its employees "$14 an hour" are Christian evangelical web sites trying to make Hobby Lobby look like some sort of heroes.

You obviously didn't look very hard, or you were being dishonest about who was reporting about the Hobby Lobby pay increase that has happened more than once now.

Here is a Yahoo sourced from AP: Source
Here is Mlive's story from the first increase: Source
Here is a link from Business Journal: Source
Here is a link from Wall Street Journal: Source

I could go on and on, so yes Hobby Lobby did in fact raise their minimum pay. You should brush up on your fact checking.

I'll just add:
www.prnewswire.com...
www.demos.org...
www.democraticunderground.com...
thinkprogress.org...

Many of these are anti-Hobby Lobby sites - yet they don't deny the $14 minimum wage, they use it as part of their rebuttal, like:

obby Lobby pays its full-time employees $14 an hour, which works out to be $560 a week before taxes. Part-time employees make about $9 an hour. The company’s supporters could argue that the women making those salaries aren’t below the poverty line. But the issues with Monday’s ruling go deeper than that.

Of course, even while admitting the full-time wage of $14/hour, they still manage to carefully ignore that this is the *minimum* wage at HL, not the *only* wage.

It amazes me that on ATS, with the slogan "Deny Ignorance", the number of people that do this - if you simply Google "hobby Lobby Minimum Wage", there are thousands of results, certainly not exclusively or dominantly Christian evangelical sites - ignoring Reuters, AP, prnewsire, wsj, and instead citing "glassdoor", which uses a self-reporting mechanism, with no aging or verification of data.

I'm gonna go with "dishonest."

a reply to: SM2

Furthermore this whole thing is moot, as no one has in any way restricted access to any thing in the hobby lobby ruling. Women can still go see their doctor, which is still covered. They can still get a prescription for birth control and it will still be covered, unless it is the 4 specific types they had issue with. Hobby Lobby has even said they will continue to cover the other 20 types.

I don't think that you understand what's going on here. Let me break it down for you.

Hobby Lobby, et al, believe that women who use medical methods to alter the PH quality of their own uteri, so that they won't become pregnant, and any who enable them to alter the PH quality of their uteri, are immoral murderers. People who think this way and also own a closely held corporation have just been given the right to forbid their medical carriers from offering these methods to their employees. Now, these employees, who are paying for their health care insurance through hours worked, pay role premium deductions, deductibles and co-pays have to find another avenue to get access to those methods. The Supreme Court suggests that the tax payers pay for it, but HHS has not yet created that inroad, as the ruling was only published on Monday. Government, e.g. big wheels, move slow.

a reply to: windword

Hobby Lobby, et al, believe that women who use medical methods to alter the PH quality of their own uteri, so that they won't become pregnant, and any who enable them to alter the PH quality of their uteri, are immoral murderers.

Where did the legal argument by regulatory decree vs. Religious standing turn into as broad, vague and all encompassing an issue as you paint there?

You do realize the Court made a special and specific issue of narrowing this to apply specifically to the conditions this case related to, where they COULD have made it far broader than even you suggest.

I'm just not seeing in the written decision where there is support for any of these assumptions of grand changes and huge catastrophies so many declare is coming.

Is there ANOTHER decision as an appendix to this decision where all that is covered? The one they wrote doesn't have it where I can find anything?

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

The Supreme ruled on belief. Not science. Based upon the belief that certain forms of birth control are murder, and the belief that enabling their employees to make an immoral choice by offering it to them, in the way of health insurance is, in and of itself, is immoral and therefore against the owners personal religion.

From the SCOTUS Syllabus:

The Hahns and Greens believe that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulations is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage. This belief implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is wrong for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another.

Hobby Lobby, et al, are exempt from the entire contraception mandate based upon the personal beliefs of the company's owner. Hobby Lobby chooses to provide limited contraceptive coverage, but "they", et al, don't have to.

This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice. .................................

Here, there is an alternative to the contraceptive mandate. Pp. 45–49

That's a broad brush, in my opinion.

Here's a helpful link to all the court proceedings from day 1 up to the SCOTUS decision.

Note that it was HHS that sued to get a "reversal" that granted Hobby Lobby relief.

That's who got the case into the SCOTUS.

Legal Documents for Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius

Will Hobby Lobby actually pay less by not covering these four particular contraceptives? By paying premiums to whatever insurance company they choose to cover their employees, they are, in effect, paying for these medications. The insurance company doesn't have an account that they dump all of Hobby Lobby's premiums in and pay all their employees' claims from it. The premiums go into a giant pool and pay for every imaginable medication and procedure, including abortifacients and abortions. If Hobby Lobby was serious, they would not do business with an insurance company that facilitates abortions; I'm willing to bet that there isn't one that fits their needs.

a reply to: kabfighter

Good question.

Here's the HHS explanation for non-profit exempted.

It might apply to Hobby Lobby now.....

The final rules also lay out the accommodation for other non-profit religious organizations - such as non-profit religious hospitals and institutions of higher education - that object to contraceptive coverage. Under the accommodation these organizations will not have to contract, arrange, pay for or refer contraceptive coverage to which they object on religious grounds, but such coverage is separately provided to women enrolled in their health plans at no cost. The approach taken in the final rules is similar to, but simpler than, that taken in the proposed rules, and responds to comments made by many stakeholders.

With respect to an insured health plan, including a student health plan, the non-profit religious organization provides notice to its insurer that it objects to contraception coverage. The insurer then notifies enrollees in the health plan that it is providing them separate no-cost payments for contraceptive services for as long as they remain enrolled in the health plan.

Administration issues final rules on contraception coverage and religious organizations

a reply to: kabfighter

Exactly right! Hobby Lobby's logic that they have to "pay" for 4 kinds of birth control is so convoluted. They aren't technically paying for them, they're paying for every legal drug imaginable.

So now, the tax payer has to pick the extra cost of providing access to these women. What's next? Is Hobby Lobby going to refuse to pay taxes now?

a reply to: xuenchen

Right now a bunch of those organization are lined up, waiting to sue the administration because they say signing the form is against their religious freedom! Signing the form!!!???

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: kabfighter

What's next? Is Hobby Lobby going to refuse to pay taxes now?

"Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." -Matthew 22:21


God wants you to pay your taxes.

a reply to: windword

What's next? Is Hobby Lobby going to refuse to pay taxes now?

Shush !!!

Don't put ideas in their heads !!!