Political Cartoons

We all know what he did to the money lenders in the temple.

From:

hardblue.livejournal.com

Yeah, but they weren't religious corporations. :p

From:

Weren't they? They might have been. I have never seen a list of names of who got tossed out. They may have been Temple Exchange Ltd. Or Drachmas 4 Less. Or. Or. Or.

Using god in business is old, old. Shaman is the only job older than prostitution.

From:

farchivist.livejournal.com

Yup, when there's good money in it.

(decanonized, decanonized)
i sold you christ, as advertised
(decanonized, decanonized)
between the sheets, between the lies
(decanonized, decanonized)
the second coming is now televised
(decanonized, decanonized)
we're sick, we're sick, we're sick (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByNwESRUbco&feature=kp)
-- Kill Switch...Klick, "Decanonized"

From:

oslo.livejournal.com

Given that it's simply smarter to want your female workers to be able to control the timing of their reproduction, from a business perspective, I'm hoping that employers as a rule will not try to exploit the Hobby Lobby ruling opportunistically. I'm hoping that it'll just be employers with a "bona fide" religious objection - religious foundations, institutions, hospitals, closely-held companies - and then maybe some face-spiting Tea Party inspired employers.

From:

I am afraid, my friend, that you are bound for disappointment. There are woefully few companies that actually are more worried about their employees than their bottom line.

I know that I am cynical about this, I do try to compensate my cynicism with some unwarranted faith in humanity, but I also know I fail to do so. That being said, there are way too many businesses out there out to make a buck (or whatever appropriate monitory symbol) to NOT abuse something like this. This, to me, is just a grander scale version of the cake makers in Arizona and Colorado trying to get out of making cakes for gay/lesbian marriages.

I truly, honestly hope you are right. I fear - and am pretty sure - that you are not.

From:

We care about your well being as much as you care about our bottom line. -MGMT

From:

Not even true. - "human resource"

From:

Depends on the employee I suppose. It's quite possible for the value of both to be zero.

From:

Loyalty only goes upward. Your employer is not your family. I'm still learning this the hard way.

From:

I can speak with confidence: I have known people who have no loyalty upward.

But alas, you are all too correct. And for those of us who want to be optimistic it can be a rough ride. *wookie soft-punch of friendship on the shoulder*

From:

Some of those people tried to tell me I was being a fool/tool. I didn't listen. I try to always do a good job just to stay in the habit.

Awe, right back atcha, watch out for the carbonite.

From:

It also gets harder the better you know MGMT. You say to yourself: "Oh, I know Bob, he ain't so bad!"

And perhaps he is not. Perhaps he really *wants* to be a good guy, but circumstantially, he is not. Shit does only roll downhill, I suppose.

From:

I'm loyal right up until I ask for something and it doesn't get returned. A perfect example is a boss who docket me for leaving early but then expected me to stay late for meetings. He cracked when I walked out whilst he was talking one day and I said "you told me the day ends at 4:27".

From:

I have found that HR is there to protect the company, not you.

From:

moonshaz.livejournal.com

Absolutely true.

From:

That's why we have unions.

From:

There are no unions for call centers. (that I am aware of)

From:

When I worked in call centres I was at various times a member of the financial services union (bank call centre), hospitality and miscellaneous workers union and the australian services union. I know things are a lot different between our countries though (we can't have closed shops here anymore, for example, but we also can't have an employer refuse to work with a union or ban unions from the workplace).

From:

pacotelic.livejournal.com

Its smarter for a company to be able to retain employees and not have them go on disability or pregnancy leave. Family planning and employee health is better for a company's bottom line than sticking it to employees for abstract immoral reasons.

There's cynicism, and there's feckless skepticism. Both are useless, but the latter is even worse.

Very few companies will follow Hobby Lobby into the breach. Hobby Lobby itself may find its competitive position diminished, as they have staked their banner on limiting opportunities for women. From my limited experience, Hobby Lobby's main customer base is also women.

From:

better for a company's bottom line than sticking it to employees for abstract immoral reasons.
You are right - but the companies in question do not seem to agree/understand that.

Do you know what the main difference between a cynic and an optimist is? Cynics are, occasionally, pleasantly surprised.

I am thinking they other companies are waiting for the fall out to see if they want to OPENLY follow HL's footsteps. I am sure there are many who are already preparing to do so no matter what happens 'as a matter of principal'.

From:

moonshaz.livejournal.com

Very few companies will follow Hobby Lobby into the breach. Hobby Lobby itself may find its competitive position diminished, as they have staked their banner on limiting opportunities for women. From my limited experience, Hobby Lobby's main customer base is also women.

I hope the first 2 sentences turn out to be right. I really, REALLY hope so. It would be wonderful.

If my personal observations are accurate, the third statement is absolutely correct. I stopped shopping in there long ago, but when I did, I practically never saw a male in there except for employees.

From:

catlin.livejournal.com

The sad thing is, it's short sighted. Pregnancy is WAY more expensive to a business then birth control. When a woman is pregnant, law says you have to follow her doc's orders for light duty, then you have to cover maternity leave with a brand new trained replacement for however many weeks she is off. That costs bucks.

From:

The problem is you are thinking logically. These people/companies are thinking emotionally.

That and they are more concerned with making the fast buck, not the long term consequences. Why make multi-gernational customers out of your employees when they are disposable, replaceable now?

From:

fizzyland.livejournal.com

I'm hoping women will just start surrendering their unwanted children at corporate headquarters because asking employers to stop exploiting workers is unrealistic at best.

From:

Free staff!

From:

Talk about a devoted staff - if you are raised in a company run asylum, you owe your existence to The Company, you can brain wash into uber-loyal minions.

From:

icelore.livejournal.com

Nah, it's not smarter. You are operating under the assumption that workers are valued. If one gets pregnant at an inopportune time, she can be easily replaces. The timing of reproduction is no big deal.

From:

oslo.livejournal.com

I'm actually not operating under that assumption, at all.

You can't (legally) fire a woman for getting pregnant. You can't discriminate against women for having children. You can't replace a woman who has to stay home to take care of a sick child. Pregnant women require a lot of healthcare expenses, and problematic births much moreso. Basically - pregnant workers are expensive, and even where you can get away with "replacing" women who get pregnant, you're still looking at replacement and training costs, which could easily exceed whatever you're saving by denying them contraceptive coverage, as well as the uncertain timing of needing to incur them.

It just doesn't make sense, from a purely business perspective, to take on all of those costs and uncertainties just to possibly save some change.

From:

Good angle to use.

From:

lafinjack.livejournal.com

You can't (legally) fire a woman for getting pregnant.

There'll be a ruling for that.

From:

You can't (legally) fire a woman for getting pregnant.

They are not "firing' her - they are giving her extended medical leave to be with her children. It's all about the children, dontcha know. (Until they are born, that is)

From:

I would imagine that many of HL's staff are on an hourly rate. You don't have to fire those people, you just stop giving them hours. That's pretty much the main reason for the mass casualisation of the workforce in the last 30 years; a work around to unfair dismissal laws.

From:

It is much easier to dismiss a part-time worker than it is a full time worker. Which is why more of these kind of jobs get twitchy if you are there more than 32 hours a week.

From:

Part time here implies a permanent position of under 40 hours a week; they get all the same protections of a permanent full time worker. The other class we have is "casual" worker who can often work over 40 hours a week, in some circumstances without overtime (or at least, they won't get anything for working over their 40 hours, but if they work a sunday they'll still get sunday loading). Casual workers don't get sick leave or holiday leave. There's supposed to be a 30% loading on the hourly rate to cover that, but that doesn't always happen. That's become a massive part of the workforce here now. Then there's also a big move to contract work (teaching is full of contracts now). This you get sick leave, but you don't have any protections in terms of dismissal (contracts are easier to terminate than permanent work).

When you say part-time, do you mean like the casual I mention above, or is there something there where once you're under 32 hours you get less protection?

From:

Part time here is less than 40 hours, usually less than 32, no vacation, no holiday, zero protection.

From:

Let me get this straight, the only difference between a job that has holiday pay and unfair dismissal protection and one that doesn't is the amount of hours you do?

From:

Yup.

Sad, isn't it?

I work 40+ hours, have holiday time, sick time, vacation time, and the security of my position rests on my mot screwing up and if my boss likes me. I work in an At Will state. I can quit my job any time I like. Also, they can fire me with no cause.

From:

Sad, yeah. I'd go with fucked up, but I'm prone to profanity :P

You can't be fired without cause here. You can be made redundant, but that means they can't replace you for a period (3 or 6 months, can't remember). That's why we have over a third of our employment market as casual now, but the minimum wage is higher for a casual worker, so a company has an incentive to make some permanent and give them benefits and protections.

It bothers me that so many people here are apathetic towards unions. I expect a certain percentage of the population to be actively anti-union (they are, after all, a check on the power of capital), but there are so many working class here who think that all of these protections we have will just magically remain if we stop joining unions.

From:

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com

I hadn't considered this. I suppose employment numbers look great when you can't be let go easily.

From: