Showing posts with label employers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label employers. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 01, 2014

Imposing Religion on Workers

In addition to the presence of a well educated population, one of the reasons that religion has withered in Western Europe is because the memory of the excesses of religion in the past are still remembered.  Wars of religion, the special rights granted to the Church and general behavior that was the antithesis of true Christian conduct soured the populace on a political-religion merger that generally worked against the interest of the majority and favored a powerful elite.  As often seems to be the case, America - and conservatives in particular - never learn from history or the experiences of others.  A main editorial in the New York Times looks at yesterday's horrific Supreme Court ruling that now allows employers to impose their religious beliefs on workers, the majority of whom likely hold contrary beliefs.  One can only hope the blow back is swift and extreme.  Here are excerpts:
The Supreme Court’s deeply dismaying decision on Monday in the Hobby Lobby case swept aside accepted principles of corporate law and religious liberty to grant owners of closely held, for-profit companies an unprecedented right to impose their religious views on employees.

It was the first time the court has allowed commercial business owners to deny employees a federal benefit to which they are entitled by law based on the owners’ religious beliefs, and it was a radical departure from the court’s history of resisting claims for religious exemptions from neutral laws of general applicability when the exemptions would hurt other people.

[T]he immediate effect, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in a powerful dissent, was to deny many thousands of women contraceptive coverage vital to their well-being and reproductive freedom. It also invites, she said, other “for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faiths.” 

Nothing in the contraceptive coverage rule prevented the companies’ owners from worshiping as they choose or advocating against coverage and use of the contraceptives they don’t like.

Mr. Alito’s ruling and a concurrence by Justice Anthony Kennedy portray the decision as a narrow one without broader application, like denying vaccine coverage or job discrimination. But that is not reassuring coming from justices who missed the point that denying women access to full health benefits is discrimination.
Perhaps the owners of Hobby Lobby should recall what happened to high church clerics in the Place de la Concorde in Paris and those who demanded special rights based on religion.   Similar lessons come from the Spanish Civil War when many clerics suffered for the Church's abuse of the majority in favor of the few.  Demanding special rights sometimes leads to extreme consequences.

Tuesday, April 01, 2014

36 Oregon Employers File Amicus Brief Opposing Stae Marriage Ban


In an earlier post today I noted the backlash Mozilla has been experiencing as a result of the past anti-gay bigotry of the company's newly appointed CEO.  In sharp contrast to Mozilla are 36 Oregon employers who have filed a brief opposing that states same sex marriage ban.  True, there are companies like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties that are anti-modernity, but increasingly big business recognizes that diversity and religious neutrality are the most conducive to success.  The Register-Guard looks at the court filing and the list of companies joining in its filing.  Here are highlights:
A coalition of 36 Oregon employers — including Nike, the University of Oregon and the Portland Timbers — have weighed in on same sex marriage, urging a judge to overturn Oregon’s ban on it.
The employer coalition filed an “amicus curiae” or, “friend of the court” legal brief today in a case before the United States District Court in Eugene, saying that the ban on same sex marriage causes significant harm to Oregon businesses.

“To attract and retain the best talent, we believe we need laws that promote diversity and inclusion, that treat all Oregonians equally and that prevent discrimination,” Nike’s general counsel, Hilary Krane, said on behalf of the coalition.

The companies that signed the amicus brief said the ban forces them “to involuntarily become the face of discrimination based on sexual orientation when they are forced to administer benefits differently for employees with a same-sex spouse in order to comply with Oregon law (e.g., income tax law). That imposes additional confusion, costs, and administrative burdens, which further harm Oregon businesses and their employees.”

Nike has taken the lead in other states in filing similar amicus briefs, which are filed by businesses, organizations or individuals who aren’t a direct party in a lawsuit, but who have an interest in it.

Other employers who joined in filing the legal brief in Oregon are: Autodesk; Celilo Group Media, Inc.; Christopher David Experience Design; Columbia Sportswear Company; EDJE Consulting; Gard Communications; Gerding Edlen; HM3 Energy, Inc.; Intel Corporation; Jubitz Family Foundation; Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.; Medford Fabrication; Moda Health; Morel Ink; Neil Kelly Company; Northwest Evaluation Association; NW Natural; Oregon Business Association; Oregon Health & Science University; Oregon State University; PECI; Portland General Electric Company; Portland Public Schools; Portland State University; Powell’s Books; Russell Development Company; salesforce.com, Inc.; Standard Insurance Company; Starbucks Coffee Company; Portland Business Alliance; Tonkon Torp; Torpet LLC; and Weinstein PR.

Oral arguments are expected before the U.S. District Court on April 23.  U.S. District Judge Michael McShane has scheduled oral arguments for April 23 on two consolidated lawsuits challenging the gay marriage prohibition.