Just a short thought about closely held companies

[Trillo]

Since when has it ever been true that an employer doesn't seek to control their workers, even when the worker is not 'on the clock?'

For example, a dress code that for males specifies short hair. The male may want to have long hair, but since one can't regrow that much hair in a few minutes, you only have the practical ability, let's call it a 'right' to have short hair, even when you're not on the clock.

Or how about medical marijuana? So, you take it for your pain, having obtained the needed certificates, but your employer runs drug tests, which for marijuana, means the test is sensitive to usage 30 days back. This means you can't not just abstain while you're at work, but you must also abstain at home.

I've heard it said often enough to believe this is probably true, it is said that religious groups are a good way to provide networking to business folks. If you're a member of, say, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, no matter where you may move, there's a local church unit nearby to offer friendship, fellowship, and yes, even job opportunities or "leads". A quick search even shows they have so-called nondenominational job networking. You'll be surrounded by the religious.

So, this idea of a closely held corporation being able to carve out a special exemption to not cover contraception, an exception none of the rest of us can get, unless we're also a corporation, is really just business as usual.

Nothing has changed.

[Igel]

1. HLisn't requiring that a female employee not use an IUD or Plan B.

It just won't pay for it. That's different from morality clauses for teachers or drug tests for warehouse workers.

Moreover, HL won't provide the piece of paper--required by regulation, mind you, not by law--that triggers having somebody else pay for the things they don't want to pay for.

That doesn't mean that the woman can't use the stuff. Doesn't mean she can't buy the stuff. Doesn't mean that HL can't provide a 50 cent or $1 or $5 rebate (however much that bit costs) on the woman's insurance so she can send it to someplace to have a rider attached to her policy for that specific gap in coverage.

Doesn't mean the government can't find another way that doesn't involve having the company at issue trigger the coverage's being provided through some other mechanism. Regulations prescribed the practice that triggered the lawsuit; regulations can be written to get around it. Perhaps have the woman apply and HL simply confirm non-payment when asked--they don't trigger anything, they don't originate the form or paperwork, they're merely passive providers of information when asked.

[Trillo]

2. I never actually made my final point

but thank you for your thoughts. Yeah, everything is "different."

My final point was essentially, when you are working for a boss, if you don't think like them, talk like them, smell like them, even look like them, then it's been my experience, working in non-white collar situations, that you will shortly be fired. Perhaps it's different working in those higher-class places, places folks with fancy degrees may work, or maybe it's not. Generally, a lack of tolerance exists for anything you might do 24/7, even during times when you're not working.

I understand that today, employers even check your Facebook page for your "thoughts." This is not a system of equality or of freedom, but of compliance to what often seem like unreasonable concerns.