Hobby Lobby Case

Planned Parenthood says that contraceptives cost $15-50 a month. So for the price of one coffee latte per week, a woman could pay for her contraceptives. Since all women affected by the Hobby Lobby decision are employed, we can expect that all could afford this. Beyond that, we could assume that generous folks at Planned Parenthood would help any really poor woman.

The furor about this is NOT about contraceptives. Some of the Obama folks just want to boss everyone else around. The fact that insurance will not pay this particular bill will have practical effects on probably nobody. I know we like to pretend that some people are so poor that $15 a month will break them, but how often can this really be the case? How many people have really given up all the snack foods, sodas, coffee, beer and even movie tickets that the $15 will kill them?

What does $15 buy. You can go to McDonald's three or four times. You can buy coffee at Starbucks three or four times. You can buy three six-packs of beer, go to one movie or pay for contraceptives for a whole month.

Posted by Christine & John at July 1, 2014 6:38 PM
Comments
Comment #380415

Like I said, this is pandering to the woman vote. Pure and simple. The fact the Democratics are using this issue against Republicans, calling it a war on women, proves it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 1, 2014 11:02 PM
Comment #380416

These women have already paid for a comprehensive health benefit. Why does their employer get to force them to pay a second time for contraception? The health benefit is her compensation, let her spend it the way she wants to.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 2, 2014 12:19 AM
Comment #380418

Warren, the employer pays the bulk of the H.C. Coverage and he gets to decide what HE/SHE wants to cover. Most H.C. coverage does pay for regular everyday B.C. meds. In the case of H.L. they didn’t want to be forced to cover abortion inducing meds. If a person fully pays for HIS/HER’s own H.C. Coverage then HE/SHE gets to decide what they want covered then and only then an employer has no say so.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 2, 2014 12:40 AM
Comment #380420

With comments like these;

“In the case of H.L. they didn’t want to be forced to cover abortion inducing meds.”

It appears those on the right can’t deduce the difference between a chicken and an egg.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 2, 2014 6:02 AM
Comment #380421

Things are as they were before the ACA travesty was forced onto us. Employer offers benefits package, employee chooses whether to accept or not.

As usual, the whining isn’t about the country moving right, it’s about not going even further left.

Posted by: kctim at July 2, 2014 9:00 AM
Comment #380423

Rocky, Chicken or egg there were only 4 of the ACA mandated contraceptives H.L. objected to.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 2, 2014 9:42 AM
Comment #380426
Warren, the employer pays the bulk of the H.C. Coverage and he gets to decide what HE/SHE wants to cover.

No, the employer pays for none of it. The woman pays some of it wither her own money and the rest by providing labor and services to her employer. Employers don’t give employees health benefits because they feel charitable, they do so to compensate their employees for the value they bring to the employer.

If a person fully pays for HIS/HER’s own H.C. Coverage then HE/SHE gets to decide what they want covered then and only then an employer has no say so.
No, employers can force employees to spend their compensation only on items of which the employer approves. The essential dispute at stake in BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES was whether or not women have the freedom to spend their money the way they want. Apparently, the morals of one’s employer trumps the free market.
Things are as they were before the ACA travesty was forced onto us. Employer offers benefits package, employee chooses whether to accept or not.
The only reason employers compensate employees for health insurance in the first place is because the government incentivizes the transaction; this has been the case for about three quarters of a century and is not the result of the ACA. All the ACA did here was change the incentives involved. The freedom to decide whether or not to offer health benefits as compensation to employees remained unchanged after the ACA became law.

And before the ACA, life was a travesty because many health insurance plans failed to deliver necessary health care to enrollees. The rules/regulations pertinent to BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES sought to correct that by making sure that the only insurance plans that qualified for an exemption from mandate taxes/penalties were those that offered comprehensive preventative health care.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 2, 2014 11:21 AM
Comment #380427

Warren, Every company I ever worked for either paid all or the bulk of my H.C. If a person opts out of the employer provided H.C. and purchases His/her own policy then they can get whatever they want and the employer has no say so. The reason employers pay benefits is competition and they want to keep good employees. Contrary to your assumption that life was a travesty before ACA I had great coverage with any policy I ever had, now after ACA the problems have started.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 2, 2014 11:51 AM
Comment #380431
Every company I ever worked for either paid all or the bulk of my H.C.

Let’s try an experiment. Stop working and see if you continue to receive health benefits. If you continue to receive benefits, then you are right; your employer was paying for those benefits. If the benefits stop, then that means you were paying for that health care (not your employer). It only happens to be that you paid with labor and services rather than with cash.

The reason employers pay benefits is competition and they want to keep good employees.
Competition dictates the quantity of compensation, but not the form in which it takes. Most Americans receive health benefits as part of their compensation because it receives favorable tax treatment. The ACA penalizes employers who provide health plans as compensation, but fail to offer comprehensive preventative care as a benefit.
Contrary to your assumption that life was a travesty before ACA I had great coverage with any policy I ever had, now after ACA the problems have started.
Of course. I’m sorry that I forgot that your personal anecdote trumps all facts and reason. Posted by: Warren Porter at July 2, 2014 1:52 PM
Comment #380432

Warren, H.C. is a benefit the companies DO NOT have to provide you until now. Companies give benefits to keep good workers and that young man is the only reason. I take by your comments you haven’t been in the work force very long. Of course the benefits stop if you quit or get fired from a job. Why should a company keep paying for them if you don’t work for them? If you are paying for them then you can keep what you have as long as YOU pay for them. Try telling your boss what kind of H.C. you want and he/she will tell what to do to yourself. Companies PAY for the benefits you receive to keep you if you are a good worker.

Posted by: Rich KAPitanm at July 2, 2014 2:10 PM
Comment #380433
H.C. is a benefit the companies DO NOT have to provide you until now.

Companies are still free not to offer health benefits as compensation for their employees, they just need to consider the tax implications involved. Under the ACA, when an employer doesn’t offer a comprehensive health benefit, that employer pays taxes to help the employees find coverage on the exchange.

I take by your comments you haven’t been in the work force very long.
Excellent work, Sherlock. As if you hadn’t read the dozens of prior comments that I have made on WatchBlog that clearly identify me as a young adult. And you ought to be lauded for your original thinking when you decided to use my age to construct an ad hominen attack upon my credibility.
Of course the benefits stop if you quit or get fired from a job.
So, we are in agreement: Once the employee stops paying the bill the benefits will stop. The employer cannot unilaterally prevent the employee from receiving any health benefits without reducing the employee’s compensation. This means the employer isn’t paying for the benefit, the employee is the one paying.
Why should a company keep paying for them if you don’t work for them … Companies PAY for the benefits you receive to keep you if you are a good worker.
Pardon me, but begging the question isn’t going to get you anywhere.
Try telling your boss what kind of H.C. you want and he/she will tell what to do to yourself.
Not necessarily. Like any salary negotiation it all comes down to how much the employer values the employee. If the employee is valued more than the health benefit, the employer will offer the benefit to the employee as additional compensation. If the employee is not judged valuable enough to merit the compensation, the employer is free to refuse the request.

There may be adverse implications for the employers taxes if its employees aren’t compensated in the manner that the law incentivizes, but I see no reason why employers should have the right to qualify for a tax break when they have explicitly failed to adhere to the tax break’s requirements.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 2, 2014 3:09 PM
Comment #380434

warren

“These women have already paid for a comprehensive health benefit. Why does their employer get to force them to pay a second time for contraception? The health benefit is her compensation, let her spend it the way she wants to.”

As I tried to explain to speaks it doesn’t work that way. When you take a job there you know the health plan they purchase doesn’t cover plan b and several other drugs designed to induce abortion. Their plan does cover other contraceptives just not those used to abort a pregnancy.

This argument that they should be able to use the plan as they see fit is a non starter. They can use any service or benefit the plan covers. If it is not covered they will have to pay for it out of pocket. BTW if the employer subsidizes the plan by paying a portion of the cost, they are not actually paying the full cost of their coverage.

Posted by: dbs at July 2, 2014 3:21 PM
Comment #380435

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act forces employers to extend coverage to employees after they leave their job.
Continuation of Health Coverage — COBRA

COBRA generally requires that group health plans sponsored by employers with 20 or more employees in the prior year offer employees and their families the opportunity for a temporary extension of health coverage (called continuation coverage) in certain instances where coverage under the plan would otherwise end.


Warren Porter is only partially correct. An employee will not lose his health care when he leaves his position, however the subsidy garnered by the employer through the group rate offered because the employer is covering a group of employees will disappear. The employee will be responsible for the entire premium amount which could increase the premium amount.

So Warren Porter is incorrect to say the employee pays the entire amount for his health care. He only pays a fraction, if any, and the employer pays the balance.

Warren Porter, why can’t I make the same demands of the Social Security Administration? That is a benefit. Why can’t I demand the SSA provide me with an RV and free camping privilages when I retire?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 2, 2014 3:24 PM
Comment #380436

Warren

“No, the employer pays for none of it. The woman pays some of it wither her own money and the rest by providing labor and services to her employer.”

WRONG. She is compensated for her services in the form of wages. Health insurance is and always has been a perk. The fact that the employer subsidizes the cost in most cases is an added bonus.

Posted by: dbs at July 2, 2014 3:28 PM
Comment #380437

dbs, no you tried to explain your rationality, as I said then “thanks for trying”. The plan offered to employees was reduced to not include some forms of birth control therefore the contract was rewritten by the supreme courts decision. The employee up until that time was eligible for the birth control in question but after the ruling they were not.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 2, 2014 3:29 PM
Comment #380438

Warren, The EMPLOYER stops paying NOT the employee. If the employee paid he/she could continue to keep the H.C. after leaving the EMPLOYER.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 2, 2014 3:33 PM
Comment #380439

dbs and KAP, the employer pays part of the premium as part of the compensation of you working for them. Therefore part of your money you are being paid goes to your health care insurance premium but it is still part of the employee’s money just as much as their salary is. Would you say that the salary paid to an employee is still the employer’s money after they have paid the employee the salary?

Posted by: Speak4all at July 2, 2014 3:38 PM
Comment #380443

Speaks, While working my part of the H.C. I received through my EMPLOYER was $40.00 per week out of a premium of about $500. or so per month because I was married and included my wife. That is what I would have to pay for the same type policy. When I retired I tried to get a policy for my wife and just my wife and the premiums were upwards of $300. per month and that didn’t include scripts. So the EMPLOYER pays the bulk of the H.C. premiums.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 2, 2014 4:15 PM
Comment #380445

KAP, exactly right, just as they pay you a salary. At that point it is no longer the employers money since it is rendered to your health care premium as part of compensating you for working for them. I am not sure I can get you and dbs to understand this as there seems to be an impasse in either they way I am trying to explain it or your ability to understand what I am saying. That does not mean to intone that your abilities are less but perhaps my explanation is not sufficient.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 2, 2014 4:23 PM
Comment #380449

Speak4all, if what you say is true, that HC is also my wage, then I should be able to receive the $ amount of what my employer pays in my check every week.

I experienced a huge increase in my HC premium when I left my work. It went from 28$ to over 300$ a month for the cobra payment. I would love to receive an extra 300$ a month in my paycheck. If what you say is true I should be able to do that instead of getting health insurance.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 2, 2014 4:58 PM
Comment #380450

WW, that is not the way the payment is negotiated and I am pretty certain that you understand that. You get a health care premium paid for and at that point it is yours just as much as your salary is. You cannot however tell the employer that instead of the health care premium payment you want that to be included to your salary but it is still the compensation to you for working for them and is yours.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 2, 2014 5:01 PM
Comment #380452

Paid for by who?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 2, 2014 5:06 PM
Comment #380457

WW, the same entity that pays your salary. Once they pay you your salary is it still their money or is it now yours to use how you see fit?

Posted by: Speak4all at July 2, 2014 5:31 PM
Comment #380459

If what you say is true, that HC premiums are wages paid to the employee, then they would be taxed at the rate of their worth. That worth would also be subject to the workman’s comp taxes, the SS and FICA taxes, both employer and employee portions, and the other taxes that go along with payroll income.

I know your side would like to have it taxed as payroll, but now it is not payroll at all.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 2, 2014 5:38 PM
Comment #380461

WW, that is not how it works. If Warren doesn’t mind I will use part of his explanation above:

“The only reason employers compensate employees for health insurance in the first place is because the government incentivizes the transaction; this has been the case for about three quarters of a century and is not the result of the ACA. All the ACA did here was change the incentives involved.”

The incentive is to not have the premium taxed as you suggest, that won’t happen. The employer’s incentive is in the form of tax deferments for compensating the employee with a health care premium as part of their pay. That makes it just like your salary but unable to be taxed or given to you as salary.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 2, 2014 5:46 PM
Comment #380462

speaks

“the employer pays part of the premium as part of the compensation of you working for them. Therefore part of your money you are being paid goes to your health care insurance premium but it is still part of the employee’s money just as much as their salary is”

Nope…..it’s a perk or a bonus. If you opt out of the healthcare plan they don’t give you the money they would have contributed to you insurance premium. “thanks for trying”.

Posted by: dbs at July 2, 2014 5:56 PM
Comment #380463
You cannot however tell the employer that instead of the health care premium payment you want that to be included to your salary

Actually, you can. In a salary negotiation, everything is negotiable. However, you are not likely to receive a dollar of cash for every dollar that you could have received as a health benefit because you are losing out on tax subsidies that exist for compensating employees with health benefits rather than extra pay.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 2, 2014 6:05 PM
Comment #380465
If what you say is true, that HC premiums are wages paid to the employee, then they would be taxed at the rate of their worth. That worth would also be subject to the workman’s comp taxes, the SS and FICA taxes, both employer and employee portions, and the other taxes that go along with payroll income.

I know your side would like to have it taxed as payroll, but now it is not payroll at all.

For example, one common arrangement is for an employer to offer a 125 Cafeteria Plan. Here is the relevant regulation:

A § 125 cafeteria plan is a written plan that allows employees to elect between permitted taxable benefits (such as cash) and certain qualified benefits. Section 125(a), (d)(1). If an employee makes the election before the start of the plan year, and other § 125 requirements are satisfied, the employee’s election of one or more qualified benefits does not result in gross income to the employee.

In other words, the employer can give its employees a choice: enroll in a health insurance plan and receive tax savings (as the monies are spent pre-tax) or take a cash payment instead (which is taxed as gross income).

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 2, 2014 6:22 PM
Comment #380466

Personally, I think any woman who NEEDS to get a $15 payment for birth control should get it, since she obviously is too poor to support kids and should not have them. I am considering here the rights of people not to pay for what they find odious.

They bought whatever the contract with the employer says they bought. The introduction of the contraceptives was not part of the original contract but was put in by the ObamaCare law that the courts declared unconstitutional.

My point is that we really are talking about a small thing. Opponents make it sound like a terrible violation, but we are talking $15.

Posted by: CJ at July 2, 2014 6:46 PM
Comment #380467

Warren

“Actually, you can. In a salary negotiation, everything is negotiable. However, you are not likely to receive a dollar of cash for every dollar that you could have received as a health benefit because you are losing out on tax subsidies that exist for compensating employees with health benefits rather than extra pay.”

And you know this from what experience ? Also consider that this is not available to the majority of people. Most people take a job and unless you are corporate officer or high level manager you are going to get a standard benefit package. The same one 99% of their employees get, and it’s not negotiable.

Posted by: dbs at July 2, 2014 7:00 PM
Comment #380468

US Supreme Court ruling prompts city of Madison, Wisconsin to abandon anti-speech zones

Our liberal friends assure us that they consider our “rights” under the Constitution to be sacrosanct. This is not the case in Madison, WI.

“MADISON, Wis. – The city of Madison has again suspended enforcement of its law that creates hundreds of anti-speech zones throughout the city. The city’s decision, which City Attorney Michael May announced in an e-mail Tuesday, comes just days after ADF attorneys filed a supplemental brief in federal district court that explained the heightened problems with the ordinance in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision Thursday in McCullen v. Coakley, a case ADF attorneys and allied attorneys filed in 2008.”

http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/8906

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 2, 2014 7:55 PM
Comment #380469
it’s not negotiable

The ability to negotiate one’s compensation is the only way I know how to freemen from chattel slaves.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 2, 2014 8:20 PM
Comment #380470

distinguish freemen from chattel slaves

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 2, 2014 8:21 PM
Comment #380471

“The introduction of the contraceptives was not part of the original contract but was put in by the ObamaCare law that the courts declared unconstitutional.”

CJ,

The ACA mandate regarding employer contraception insurance coverage was not declared unconstitutional in Hobby Lobby. It remains the law of the land.

What the Court found is that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Hobby Lobby was entitled to an exemption to the law on the grounds that the compelling interest of the government in this issue could be met in a less restrictive manner rather than burdening the religious beliefs of Hobby Lobby. The Court cited the alternatives established by the Obama administration for religious organizations, etc.

As for your contention that “the introduction of the contraceptives was not part of the original contract but was put in by the ObamaCare law,” is simply not true. Hobby Lobby had previously provided coverage for the very drugs that they objected to under the Obamacare mandate. Perhaps they didn’t fully understand what they had been covering but it is a fact that they only became concerned upon the mandate.

The issue isn’t really about the modest cost of these drugs and you know that. The weird advancement of the Constitutional rights of corporate “personhood” and the ability of ostensibly secular commercial enterprises to impose their religious and moral beliefs on their employees and/or to evade generally applicable laws on obscure religious grounds is clearly an issue. It is not a minor issue either.

In Employment Division vs. Smith, the Supreme Court in 1992 rejected the argument of religious exemption from generally applicable law as a matter of Constitutional law. The Court in Hobby Lobby went to almost absurd lengths in their opinion to state that the opinion was controlled by statutory law subsequent to Smith, should only be construed narrowly, was only applicable to undefined “closely” held corporations and was limited to contraceptives. WTF are they thinking? It opens the door for a myriad of challenges under the RFRA. Why should sincerely held religious beliefs of a corporation be limited to contraceptives?

Their is irony in all this. After the Supreme Court knocked down the religious exemption argument in Smith, a Democratic Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which was signed into law by Clinton. It was that act that the plaintiffs in Hobby Lobby relied upon in their successful effort to obtain an exemption to the ACA. To be fair, nobody thought at the time that the act applied to corporations.

Posted by: Rich at July 2, 2014 8:31 PM
Comment #380472

Warren

A negotiation requires two willing parties. Don’t know how many jobs you’ve had, but every one I have had that offered health insurance, has offered a standard employee healthcare package. For most people there is nothing to negotiate. You either take it or you don’t. To imply that that would make someone a slave is preposterous.

Posted by: dbs at July 2, 2014 8:39 PM
Comment #380473

Warren

$15. It just is no big deal.

If the ability to negotiate is what separates free people from slaves, it is good that the Supreme Court restored the right to negotiate instead of just taking the ObamaCare diktat.

Posted by: CJ at July 2, 2014 8:56 PM
Comment #380474

dbs, I don’t think Warren realizes that the Hourly wage earners don’t have the luxury of negotiating wage and benefits packages and have to take or leave what the employer offers. Even Union shops the union does the negotiating for the workers and the workers get the luxury of voting to accept or deny but even that with Unions going down the tube may go by the wayside.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 2, 2014 8:59 PM
Comment #380475

CJ,
Your article, conflating birth control with spending money on MacDonald’s or a Starbucks Latte, is a veritable poster child for how conservatives just don’t get it. Classic War on Women stuff, and chances are, you do not even realize it. Keep up the bad work.

You know what. Check with your wife. Ask her to explain how a woman feels about birth control. See if she feels whether it is basically interchangeable with spending a few bucks on coffee. “Hmm, let’s see, should I spend my limited budget on a Quarter Pounder or birth control? Hmmm…”

Posted by: phx8 at July 3, 2014 12:11 AM
Comment #380476

Royal Flush,
I might be willing to go along with banning free-speech zones, as long as it applies to everybody. The SCOTUS rather conveniently saw zones around abortion clinics as an impingement of free speech, despite documented examples of violent attacks and shootings at such clinics; yet the SCOTUS maintains one for itself around its own building.

If we’re going to make life hell for women going to abortion clinics, as a matter of fairness, lets make it that way for everyone- politicians, judges, everyone, even if it means they might be subjected to intimidation or outright violence.

Posted by: phx8 at July 3, 2014 12:46 AM
Comment #380481

phx8, How many people spend money on UNNESSARY things and forget about the necessities of life? It’s my responsibility in life to provide for me and my wife and kids no one else. This is NOT a war on women like you and some of the others claim it to be. NO ONE is preventing a woman from getting B.C. or any other like med. If it’s a war on women I suggest you look at the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. where women get 13% less in pay then their male counterparts.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 3, 2014 10:29 AM
Comment #380483

phx8

Chrissy is more conservative than I am. As President Reagan jokes, sometimes my right hand doesn’t know what my farther right hand is doing.

I think that $15 a month is not too much. Maybe I am out of touch, but I notice how much “poor” people pay for fancy telephones etc and I am not impressed by the claim of poverty by most Americans.

Wars have evidently become much more benign, when the big cost is $15. We used to have real problems.

Posted by: CJ at July 3, 2014 4:35 PM
Comment #380494
A negotiation requires two willing parties.

When an employer hires an employee, is there any coercion involved? No, there isn’t, which is why there are two willing parties available for negotiation.

has offered a standard employee healthcare package
The key word here is offer. It’s not a law written in stone. The employee isn’t forced to accept the offer and is free to make a counteroffer if both sides are interested (and if the employee is valuable enough to the employer, the employer will definitely be interested in the employee’s counteroffer).
You either take it or you don’t.
If you have the option of walking away, then you certainly are in a negotiation. Both sides have something the other wants (employer has money/benefits and employee has labor/service skills). If the employee is to be hired, the two of them must arrive at a mutually agreed upon price for the employee’s labor/services.
To imply that that would make someone a slave is preposterous.
What is the defining feature of a slave? The fact that he doesn’t have the freedom to negotiate the price of his own labor (instead he is bound to accept whatever compensation his master offers, whether that be nothing more than food and housing or something else).
dbs, I don’t think Warren realizes that the Hourly wage earners don’t have the luxury of negotiating wage and benefits packages and have to take or leave what the employer offers.
If the employee doesn’t bring more value to the employer than the employer’s original offer, there is no denying that efforts to negotiate will be fruitless. But the right to make a counteroffer still remains (and the employer is within his rights to accept or decline such a counteroffer).

But… we are far beyond the original contention: Do some workers have the option to receive additional cash instead of receiving health benefits? The answer is yes; look in most employee handbooks and such an option can sometimes be found in the fine print. Google “in lieu of benefits” if you need to; you will find hundred’s of sites like this one:

Many employers give their employees the option to receive cash if they opt out of the employer’s health insurance coverage.
Many of these sites warn against improper implementation of the practice because it could lead to adverse taxation impacts.

$15. It just is no big deal.
The dispute is a matter of principle. Imagine if an employer had a policy of deducting $15/yr from the wages of every woman they hired. Although the amount is paltry, the violation on liberty is still quite apparent.

Ultimately, the fact remains that these women have already paid for a comprehensive preventative benefit, and they are entitled to use that benefit however they choose. They may choose to spend it on contraception or they may choose whatever else they want instead.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 4, 2014 12:40 PM
Comment #380497

As I said in as previous comment, you have very little experience in the work force, Warren. Hourly wage workers DO NOT have the option of negotiation. They are offered a benefits package after a 60 or 90 day probationary period if they don’t like what they are offered they are welcome to seek employment elsewhere, NO NEGOTIATING. High level management yes there is negotiating, but NOT and I repeat NOT for hourly employees

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 4, 2014 1:53 PM
Comment #380498

Part time employees don’t get either.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 4, 2014 3:02 PM
Comment #380513

KAP, there’s a difference between a worker who chooses not to negotiate because he doesn’t feel like he is worth more than what has been offered and a slave that doesn’t have the choice to begin with. Just because the worker chooses not to negotiate doesn’t mean the option wasn’t there.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 4, 2014 11:03 PM
Comment #380514

The only thing I can say now, Warren, is try to do what you say as an hourly worker and see how far you get negotiating.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 4, 2014 11:48 PM
Comment #380517
see how far you get negotiating
Please don’t shift the goalposts here. I never made any claims regarding how far anyone would go when negotiating. Posted by: Warren Porter at July 5, 2014 1:40 PM
Comment #380518

Not even employers get to negotiate with providers. They can only go to a different one.


Posted by: Weary Willie at July 5, 2014 3:01 PM
Comment #380519

Not changing the goal posts Warren, just stating fact with over 40 years experience, which is as hell of a lot more then you.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 5, 2014 4:00 PM
Comment #380520
just stating fact with over 40 years experience

And I bet you compensated at a rate that was mutually agreed upon by you and your employer (AKA the two of you negotiated). Nobody came along and forced you to work for a level of compensation you didn’t think was appropriate for the value you brought to your employer.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 5, 2014 4:19 PM
Comment #380521

It is very common for people to end salary negotiations in the very first round without even attempting to make an initial counteroffer. However, this not an indication that the compensation was not negotiated upon. The negotiation simply ended in the very first step; often this is because the worker doesn’t believe he or she is worth more than what has been made in the initial job offer. It would be foolish for me to generalize to all scenarios and situations, so I’m not going to comment as to whether or not these people are making an intelligent decision, but the option of making a counteroffer is always there.

High level management yes there is negotiating
You sound like C&J’s father. “Negotiation is only for those rich kids” would have been his attitude, but that perspective is wrong. Fortunately, the ambitious figure out that your attitude is wrong and they find the will and the way to succeed. Posted by: Warren Porter at July 5, 2014 4:33 PM
Comment #380522

No Warren, How many times have I told you, NO NEGOTIATING, But if you consider the employer telling me that I get so much compensation and that’s that, you may consider that negotiating but I sure as hell don’t. 99.999% of employers have a set rate that they go by when they hire hourly rate employees. You DO NOT and I repeat DO NOT have the luxury of negotiating, end of discussion.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 5, 2014 5:35 PM
Comment #380531


2014 comes,in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style,varieties, low price and good quality,and the low sale price.Thank everyone Welcome to ==== http://www.kkship4biz.net ==
Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35
Jordan (1-22)&2014 shoes $45
Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35
Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $30
T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $14
Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34
Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15
New era cap $16
Biki ni (Ed hardy, polo) $18
FREE SHIPPING
http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net
http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===
This is a shopping paradise
We need your support and trust

Posted by: futsgt at July 6, 2014 1:50 AM
Comment #380953

Physical watches for men ataxia might be characterized mulberry by chanel handbags just lowerlimb yoga pants along nfl jerseys with upperlimb oakleys incoordination involving deficiency of coach factory outlet proprioception. true religion outlet Healthcare montre homme warning mcm handbags signs soccer shoes involve reduced ray ban vibration kate spade good ray ban sunglasses sense, burberry outlet combined nike free with nike air max reduced balance shoes place along louis vuitton handbags with nike air kinaesthetic ray ban feel. Rich nike air tendons louis vuitton reflexes tend to jimmy choo be gone, though supra shoes eye true religion outlet ball actions along with spiel ordinarily vans are karen millen not infected. The louis vuitton initial appeared toms outlet to be gucci some schedule associated celine handbags with happenings adjoining sac longchamp any reebok outlet phase, michael kors outlet which often asics gel brought oakley sunglasses to you a description nike air of CAN HELP coach factory who hogan were converse observed hollister in the course prada shoes of oakley sunglasses each one of the several tiffany and co years, begining with it’s knowledge. nike air But not soccer jersey only p90x3 could louis vuitton outlet the north face outlet aid fabricate any mont blanc time on the take polo ralph lauren up, coach outlet store could louboutin awarded certain ghd in nike outlet the garden foundation herve leger facts marc jacobs about the ray ban sunglasses particular coach handbags progress with the true religion jeans trojan. No ralph lauren cost ray ban part birkin bag useful louboutin to valentino style a definite 1980’s specify nike air ended up louboutin being the trashcan longchamp that bottega your nike air max gal juicy couture outlet in oakley your Bronx nike air is kors outlet position nike air max around chi flat iron if Hannah Pritt lululemon required ralph lauren outlet online recommendations with coach outlet the louboutin place. insanity Motley Idiot nike air experts oakley lately culled tory burch outlet thru lancel numerous data ralph lauren pas cher files to air jordan help timberland you give

ferragamo shoes

Posted by: oakley sunglasses at July 18, 2014 10:18 PM
Comment #381018

where can i buy louis vuitton bags
louis vuitton tivoli
louis vuitton outlet stores online
coach outlet coach factory
flak jacket oakley
michael kors sale watches
where can you buy louis vuitton bags
oakley photochromic
coach tote outlet
bag louis vuitton
michael kors outlet livermore ca
mens christian louboutin
christian louboutin shoes sale outlet
where to buy red bottom heels
louboutin glitter
coach outlet stores online shopping
watches michael kors
original louis vuitton
loui vuitton outlet store online
coach factory outlet near me
small coach purse
where can i find red bottom shoes
loui vuitton outlet
michael kors uk
michael kors outlet store locations
coach america
christian louboutin wedding shoes outlet
red bottom shoe prices
louis vuitton evidence
designer of red bottom shoes
fake oakleys
coach outlet coupons
handbag louis vuitton
oakley gascan white
oakley jawbone sale
wholesale oakley sunglasses
oakley dangerous sunglasses
cheap louis vuitton sunglasses
louboutin bridal shoes
online life coach
coach outlet purse
oakley eyewear
shoes with the red bottoms
louis vuitton outlets
michael kors store
coach warranty
michael kors handbags outlet store
michael kors watches for sale
oakley optical
on sale oakley sunglasses
red bottom sale
louis vuitton bags cheap
coach outlet mebane nc
best price on michael kors handbags
oakley juliet sunglasses
louis vuitton online shopping
who is michael kors
loui vuitton bags for cheap
very cheap oakley sunglasses
coach outlet san marcos
where to buy michael kors
michael kors women watches
red bottoms on sale for women
find a life coach
michael kors backpack
affordable michael kors purses
cheap coach purses outlet
where to buy oakley sunglasses
michael kors hobo bag
oakley conduct
louis vuitton purses cheap
christian louboutin canada
louis vuitton pre owned
oakley jupiter lx
louis vuitton handbags online
coach factory outlets
christian louboutin pigalle plato
coach outlet coach outlet
louis vuitton galliera pm
louis vuitton hand bags
shoes red bottom heels
coach bag sale
michael kors fragrance
louis vuitton outlet locations
michael kors michael
men michael kors watch
oakley running sunglasses
louis vuitton outlet website
cheap red bottom
michael kors factory outlet sale
oakley sunglasses for sale
michael kors jet set
red bottom high heels
online coach outlet store
michael kors las vegas
michael kors handbags discount
michael kors york
oakley baseball glasses
michael kors watches men
coach bags discount
authentic louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton designer purses
red bottom black pumps
coach online outlets
oakley fast jacket
michael kors new watches
coach purses clearance
coach wristlet clearance
oakley website
red bottoms christian louboutin shoes
coach bags outlet sales
christian louboutin pigalle 120 patent pumps
red bottom pumps heels
is coach factory outlet online legit
red bottom womens shoes
authentic louis vuitton handbags
oakley dealers
oakley store coupons
louis vuitton galliera
michael kors watches outlet store
oakley sunglasses reviews
michael kors handbags for cheap
michael kors outlet 2014
coach clearance bags
oakley sports sunglasses
kors michael kors shoes
cheap michael kors watches for women
michael kors sandal
oakley coupons
michael kors online outlet
burlesque christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton speedy 40
coachfactoryoutlet
discount coach purses
discount coach handbags
coach outlet online store
oakley safety glasses
michael kors uk
coach purses sale
michael kors outlet watches sale
michael kors wallets on sale
coach online factory store
michael kors outlet sawgrass
oakley half x
shop michael kors outlet
personal coach
michael kors rain boots
oakley sunglasses for kids
red bottom flats for women
michael kors store outlet
louis vuitton cheap purses
coachhandbags
women michael kors watch
michael kors kors outlet
cheap michael kors watch
christian louboutin boulima
louis vuitton luggage set
coach repair
sale on michael kors watches
coach factory outlet near me
louis vuitton purses on sale authentic
oakley split jacket
oakley coupon
michael kors suits
girls oakley sunglasses
christian louboutin pink
coach outlet factory online sale
inexpensive michael kors handbags
oakley sunglasses half jacket
red bottoms louboutin
louis vuitton denim bags
cheap oakley sunglasses outlet review
louis vuitton where to buy
coach online outlet factory
louis vuitton portland
coach factory stores
michael kors handbags sale online
red bottom heels outlet
the coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton weekend bag
michael kors shoes online
replica red bottoms for men
christian life coach
luis vuitton
oakley ice pick
michael kors jewelry
michel kors
oakley half jacket sunglasses
coach factory store online sale
coach store locations
bluefly christian louboutin
louis vuitton outlets
red bottom heels for cheap
christian louboutin red bottoms for women
christian louboutin maggie
michael kors jewelry
oakley ski
monster dog oakley sunglasses
red bottomed heels
christian life coach
louis vuitton sale handbags
coach online factory store
christian louboutin blog
louboutin crystal shoes
factory coach outlet online
coach outlet store online official
oakley hoodies
christian louboutin miami
michael kors outlet store online shopping
louis vuitton buy online
louis vuitton boxers
coach handbags outlet
coach store outlet online
christian louboutin shoes mens
michael kors men watches
coach sunglasses outlet
coach o
coach outlet vicksburg ms
oakley frogskins
louis vuitton handbags cheap
louis vuitton tuxedo
louis vuitton accessories
michael kors shoes on sale
coach outlet ellenton
louboutin lady daf
coach factory
authentic michael kors
kors shoes
coach canada
louis vuitton keepall
oakley m frame sunglasses
michael kors boots
louis vuitton authentic handbags
louisvuitton.com
michael kors rose gold
michael kors new york city
kors michael kors shoes
louis vuitton speedy handbags
christian louboutin maralena
popular michael kors handbags
authentic louis vuitton bags outlet
michael kors palm beach
oakley wayfarer
louis vuitton watches for women
cheap loui vuitton bags
coach outlet store locations
louis vuitton designer purses
personal life coach
buy louis vuitton handbags
cheap michael kors watches for men
coach handbags outlet store
michael kors wallet clutch
oakley plank
michael kors green purse
genuine louis vuitton
where can i find red bottom shoes
red bottom black pumps
red bottom shoe designer
women michael kors watches
coach luggage
coach coach factory outlet
oakley custom
louis vuitton cheap handbags
coach clearance
louis vuitton handbags outlet usa
red bottom for men
louis vuitton for cheap
cheap real louis vuitton
michael kors accessories
coach outlet houston
online coach outlet
coach wholesale
michael kors outlet online cheap
coach premium outlet
louis vuitton vernis
oakley sunglasses repair
sunglasses oakley
is louis vuitton outlet authentic
michael by michael kors outlet
christian louboutin greissimo
michael kors flip flops
michael kors jumpsuit
michael kors red handbag
christian louboutin red bottom shoes
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet stores
oakley restless
does michael kors have an online outlet
michael kors jelly sandals
louis vuitton watches
oakley sunglass accessories
authentic coach
coach.com outlet online
michael kors wristlet
coach outlet coach factory
michael kors handbags on sale
michael kors jumpsuit
ioffer christian louboutin shoes
coach factory outlets online
coach outlet malls
where can i get christian louboutin shoes on sale
louis vuitton online shopping
coach free shipping
cheap louis vuitton handbags outlet
coach website
oakley radar range
pre owned louis vuitton bags
michael kors shoes outlet
louis vuitton purses outlet
where to buy red bottoms
michael kors bags cheap
louis vuitton purses cheap authentic
louis vuitton hobo
michael by michael kors
real louis vuitton
oakley snow pants
michael michael kors
michael kors pants
oakleys for cheap
coach outlet concord mills
discount michael kors handbags
louis vuitton.com usa
buy used louis vuitton
where can i buy red bottom shoes
red bottom heels louboutin
white coach purse
cheap oakley sunglasses for military
michael kors on sale outlet
the coach factory outlet online
coach handbags factory outlet
oakley outlet coupon
louis vuitton uk
oakley radar path
louis vuitton purse sale
cheap red bottoms for women
cheap oakley glasses
louis vuitton outlet online store authentic
coach handbags outlet
michael kors watches sale
red bottom heels for sale
michael kors handbags for sale
coach online outlet
coach outlet website
coach outlet williamsburg
christian louboutin usa
coach purse outlet stores
louis vuitton buy
coach outlet official website
louis vuitton flip flops
cheap louis vuitton wallets
oakley gascan polarized
louboutin pigalle 120
coach outlet leeds al
michael kors mk5055
coach outlets
coach diaper bags outlet
louis vuitton totally mm
michael kors bags discount
black high heels with red bottoms
affordable louis vuitton bags
shoes with the red bottom
louis vuitton overstock
michael kors watches
oakley kids sunglasses
louis vuitton weekend bag
coach outlet carlsbad
coach outlet online factory
michael kors premium outlet
louboutin pas cher
coach jewelry outlet
louis vuitton for cheap online
oakley aviator sunglasses
classic coach
michael kors las vegas
coach factory outlet clearance
louis vuitton coin purse
official michael kors factory outlet online
hijinx oakley sunglasses

Posted by: haokeai at July 21, 2014 1:40 AM
Post a comment