SCOTUS decides for Hobby Lobby

[garbon]

I would think healthcare coverage should be considered in some sort of dollar equivalent.

You would think tha if you actually believe that's a common business practice.

Well, of course. When evaluating my current job, I took into consideration the fact that they pay for most of my coverage.

You have that luxury.  "Most Americans", as Dorsey4LyingStankAssSociopath contended, don't always have that ability.

But, as we've seen before, this collection of overeducated, cynical snot-nosed assfucks called Languish doesn't qualify as "most Americans."

Edit--what Max said, only meaner.

Yeah but on the flipside, you always want to paint all Americans as one step away from living in the streets - so you are hardly an impartial observer. Maybe it is just something in the blood but even my very poor relatives seemed picky about what positions they would and would not apply for (not, of course, using healthcare coverage to make determination ).

[Berkut]

Most Americans are not going to accept a job without knowing about the benefits offered.

Most Americans are going to accept the best job they can get. Fucking dumbass.

Which isn't healthcare coverage part of that of that decision on what is "the best job they can get"?

No.  Particularly if it doesn't come with any.  The paycheck is.

I would think healthcare coverage should be considered in some sort of dollar equivalent.

It is, of course.

[alfred russel]

You have that luxury.  "Most Americans", as Dorsey4LyingStankAssSociopath contended, don't always have that ability.

But, as we've seen before, this collection of overeducated, cynical snot-nosed assfucks called Languish doesn't qualify as "most Americans."

Edit--what Max said, only meaner.

I think that even before obamacare most working americans got health insurance through their employer.

[CountDeMoney]

I would think healthcare coverage should be considered in some sort of dollar equivalent.

It is, of course.
[/quote]

For those employers with a sense of human morality, and are willing to pay .50 cents an hour more above the minimum wage to compensate the lack of benefits.  Those that don't, well, it's a free country:  keep looking for someone who does.  Of course.

[garbon]

It is, of course.

For those employers with a sense of human morality, and are willing to pay .50 cents an hour more above the minimum wage to compensate the lack of benefits.  Those that don't, well, it's a free country:  keep looking for someone who does.  Of course.

But most Americans don't make minimum wage.

[CountDeMoney]

But most Americans don't make minimum wage.

Most employers don't offer higher hourly wages on the subsistence level to offset a lack of benefits, either. 

[garbon]

But most Americans don't make minimum wage.

Most employers don't offer higher hourly wages on the subsistence level to offset a lack of benefits, either. 

I feel like you just keep changing the terms. What group of people are we talking about again?

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm sure the owners feel that way, it is always preferable to have your cake (strict separation for liability) and eat it to (no separation for speech rights)

The question is what recognized, neutral principle of law would permit that.  There aren't any.  Corporations are creatures of state law and every state's law provides that the corporation is separate from its owners.   So the owners can jump up and down about their personal views, but their personal views don't get attributed to the corporation anymore than the views of the employees that run it, the customers that sustain it, the creditors that fund it, or the Secretary of State who validates the corporate charter.  The rights of equity owners are clearly set forth in statute and common law and basically amount to the right to elect directors and collect whatever residual profits are left after payment to creditors.  Not included in those rights is the right to treat the abstract corporate entity as some sort of personal political doppelganger.

Really???  Shareholders have no rights to hire or fire staff, to set compensation, to dispose of assets, to contract, to assume debt, to liquidate the company, nothing other than those two you mentioned??

Other than liquidation for which the answer is only "maybe/partial yes", shareholders don't have any of those rights under any state law I am aware of.

Also none of those powers are pertinent in any way to the question addressed in Hobby Lobby.

[CountDeMoney]

But most Americans don't make minimum wage.

Most employers don't offer higher hourly wages on the subsistence level to offset a lack of benefits, either. 

I feel like you just keep changing the terms. What group of people are we talking about again?

Dorsey4PedestrianAutoStrike stated most Americans choose their employment based on the benefits offered; I disagreed;  most Americans choose their employment based on the best one they can get at the time, and worry more about whether or not the wages will pay the fucking rent that month, and worry if there's a dental plan later.

Now professionals like you, as well as the bevy of IT professionals that litter this board, are the outliers in that regard.  Picking a job based on the benefits package is a luxury.  For "most American", the only benefit that matters is a paycheck.

And the bullshit that employers compensate for a lack of benefits is exactly that:  bullshit.

[grumbler]

Really???  Shareholders have no rights to hire or fire staff, to set compensation, to dispose of assets, to contract, to assume debt, to liquidate the company, nothing other than those two you mentioned??

Other than liquidation for which the answer is only "maybe/partial yes", shareholders don't have any of those rights under any state law I am aware of.

Also none of those powers are pertinent in any way to the question addressed in Hobby Lobby.

Yeah, that's a weird argument, Yi.  Shareholders create corporations instead of partnerships explicitly so they don't do most of those things (and thus hold liability for doing them).  The owners of Hobby Lobby have no employees.  Only the Hobby Lobby Incorporated (or whatever the corporation is called) has employees.  If the corporation has religious rights, then clearly it has a religion.  I suppose it is some ways symmetrical to allow fictional entities to believe in fictional entities, but that creates all kinds of other problems.

[The Minsky Moment]

Aren't all of these things what the directors do? Not the shareholders? Except perhaps liquidating the company.

Is that a meaningful distinction?  Directors in theory are supposed to reflect the interests of shareholders.

It is a critical distinction; in fact the failure to understand that distinction can end up being a source of frustration for shareholders when disagreements arise . . .

State law and corporate charters typically vest the general powers to direct the company in a board of directors and day-to-day managing authority in officers. Not shareholders.  That includes things like dissolution which do require a shareholder vote but which (under Delaware law) is initially proposed by the Board.

Now most statutes and/or charters permit shareholders to take certain actions by written consent in lieu of a meeting.  That means as a practical matter that a unified shareholder group with enough voting power can, with enough time and effort, impose their will on the company, but there is a lot of devil in the details.  For example, under Delaware law shareholders can only remove a director "for cause" if it is a classified board.  Also, shareholder power is mostly limited to controlling who gets on and stays on the board - i.e. it is indirect.  Charters don't typically give shareholders direct power over officer appointments and certainly not things like hiring/firing line employees.

[Siege]

So, let me see:
If my employer does not buy lunch for me, if he gives me cash to buy food, it means I'm going to starve?

No, no, wrong analogy.

[alfred russel]

MM, what are your thoughts on LLCs and LLPs and similar organizations that aren't corporations but still have limited liability. Should they get to have their cake and eat it too?

[Admiral Yi]

It is a critical distinction; in fact the failure to understand that distinction can end up being a source of frustration for shareholders when disagreements arise . . .

State law and corporate charters typically vest the general powers to direct the company in a board of directors and day-to-day managing authority in officers. Not shareholders.  That includes things like dissolution which do require a shareholder vote but which (under Delaware law) is initially proposed by the Board.

Now most statutes and/or charters permit shareholders to take certain actions by written consent in lieu of a meeting.  That means as a practical matter that a unified shareholder group with enough voting power can, with enough time and effort, impose their will on the company, but there is a lot of devil in the details.  For example, under Delaware law shareholders can only remove a director "for cause" if it is a classified board.  Also, shareholder power is mostly limited to controlling who gets on and stays on the board - i.e. it is indirect.  Charters don't typically give shareholders direct power over officer appointments and certainly not things like hiring/firing line employees.

So presumably your objections would have been satisfied if the owners of Hobby Lobby had won the case as directors  and/or officers of the corporation rather than owners? 

[The Minsky Moment]

MM, what are your thoughts on LLCs and LLPs and similar organizations that aren't corporations but still have limited liability. Should they get to have their cake and eat it too?

Depends what you mean.
LLC members get to have the cake and eat it to in the sense that they get the benefits of an S Corps (limited liability + pass through tax treatment) without some of the restrictions on S Corps.  OTOH you can't really go public with an LLC.

The Hobby Lobby decision didn't give much consideration to the implication for alternative kinds of entities so it is hard to evaluate that question.