Friday, 10 February 2012

  •  on Barclays slashes 2011 bonus pool 19 minutes ago
    I am sure that every person who is "outraged" turned down any wage increase that they were due and asked their employers not to pay them the full amount that their contracts stipulated.
  • I worked at a catholic university with a comprehensive health-care policy, including birth control.  If this rule is overturned, they would be able to cut costs by dropping birth control from their policy.

    That would give them a competitive advantage over the neighboring protestant and secular universities that have no so-called religious reason for avoiding the law requiring comprehensive health care policies.    Thus, the opposition to this rule is really about catholic-run institutions gaining a big-government competitive-advantage hand-out.    Will companies headed by a catholic CEO also get this benefit?

    I do no understand why catholic institutions don’t simply offer their employees two policies – one with birth-control coverage and one without.  Shouldn’t the religious freedom of employees be respected?   Or is religious freedom just for employers?

    PS: Is it true that Jewish employers will also be forced to allow employees to use their wages to buy pork?
  • Too right!
    Any company that adds sugar to their products should be responsible for the healthcare costs of obesity.
    Arms manufacturers should have to pay the healthcare costs of gunshot wounds.
    Auto companies should have to pay the healthcare costs of traffic accidents.
    Candy and sugary drinks companies, including juices, should have to pay the costs of dental care

No comments:

Post a Comment