PSA: Hobby Lobby is awesome!

JCM285

I just wanted to share that I just stepped into Hobby Lobby since it opened up near me.  This wasn't planned.  It just happened to be next to Office Depot and I was shopping for school supplies.  It's so great!  I found an ultrasound picture frame (50% off so it was $4) which I have been looking for and there are other great things to buy like kids' room/nursery pictures.  I recommend going there if you need anything or ideas.  The only downside I could find was no discount for teachers, AAA, etc. (Michael's does offer that), but everything I bought was on sale anyway so I didn't run up a large bill.  I have provided a shot of my U/S frame to show you :-)

nopegoat

Hobby lobby is a dangerous store for me. It's a good thing I always have my kiddos with me or I would stay in that store for HOURS.

RobinettMomma

JCM285 said:

I just wanted to share that I just stepped into Hobby Lobby since it opened up near me.  This wasn't planned.  It just happened to be next to Office Depot and I was shopping for school supplies.  It's so great!  I found an ultrasound picture frame (50% off so it was $4) which I have been looking for and there are other great things to buy like kids' room/nursery pictures.  I recommend going there if you need anything or ideas.  The only downside I could find was no discount for teachers, AAA, etc. (Michael's does offer that), but everything I bought was on sale anyway so I didn't run up a large bill.  I have provided a shot of my U/S frame to show you :-)

I have that exact picture frame for my son it holds his ultrasound pic of him giving me the thumbs up!

drmh22

The only problem with hobby lobby is that everything is always on sale. When I feel like I'm getting a good deal I just want to buy all the things! I have to limit myself!

JunkieBrewster

I don't care how awesome their sales are, I won't ever step foot in there again until they stop shitting all over women's rights.

I have been driving an hour out of my way to go to Joann's, instead.

Eora3

Yep, I used to be a regular. Now I won't go near the place. I would rather spend more money to buy the same thing elsewhere.

soulcupcake

I have never shopped at HL, and never will. But I love me some Michael's.

hprice3467

FYI: if something is only 10%-30% off.  You can asked to purchase it at "regular price" and then use your 40% off coupon! 

PacoCat33

I am also on the Hobby Lobby boycott route. Luckily JoAnns and Michaels are closer to me anyways. Now, Chik-Fil-A that is right across the street from my work... but, haven't been in there in over 2 years and have no plans to ever go back in there. 

HorseFeathers3

Don't have a hobby lobby here and would never support them even if we did.

sarasarat

LOL I can't actually believe people would stop shopping at the store because they ONLY cover 14 different methods of birth control. I bet you carefully review the benefits package of all the stores you shop in, right?

I'm glad you all love women's rights so much that you threw out your iPhones after Apple bought Beats by Dre. Because anyone who pretends to give two shits about women's rights would never condone the purchase of a company run by a guy who beat up a woman and then continued to brag about how "bitch had it coming".

meanie3

JCM285!

soulcupcake

sarasarat said:

LOL I can't actually believe people would stop shopping at the store because they ONLY cover 14 different methods of birth control. I bet you carefully review the benefits package of all the stores you shop in, right?

I'm glad you all love women's rights so much that you threw out your iPhones after Apple bought Beats by Dre. Because anyone who pretends to give two shits about women's rights would never condone the purchase of a company run by a guy who beat up a woman and then continued to brag about how "bitch had it coming".

I detest a business, a corporation, when they seek to interject their religious ideology into matters of health care when it is no business of theirs being involved. It is between the patient and their provider. I also greatly dislike when groups of any kind misrepresent medical literature and data to advance their own religious agenda. So what if there are 14 other types of birth control available. There are some women who respond better to one type over another. Their understanding of how reproduction and the mechanism of birth control is false, due to their own ignorance, and their ignorance has led to the giant fiasco we've all been privy to these last couple months. 

If a business is openly prejudice and has a knack for spewing misinformation, ignorance and religious dogma, they receive zilch from me. 

And why do you assume people who advocate for women's rights own iPhones?

allonsyalonso

I advocate for women's rights, wouldn't shop at HL if it was an option for me, and have never owned an iPhone. Do I win?

Don't lump me in with the iPhone owning posers.

*eyeroll*

JunkieBrewster

sarasarat said:

LOL I can't actually believe people would stop shopping at the store because they ONLY cover 14 different methods of birth control. I bet you carefully review the benefits package of all the stores you shop in, right?

I'm glad you all love women's rights so much that you threw out your iPhones after Apple bought Beats by Dre. Because anyone who pretends to give two shits about women's rights would never condone the purchase of a company run by a guy who beat up a woman and then continued to brag about how "bitch had it coming".

I dont buy Apple products, period.

That said, no, I won't shop at a company that says "We will cover viagra, but not birth control methods we mistakenly think don't follow our bullshit religious beliefs, which aren't even the point, we just want to save money"

JunkieBrewster

Also, you can't say "We oppose birth control which we wrongly think causes abortions, but we will invest into our employee's 401K's including companies that... bankroll abortion drugs."

It was NEVER about their religious freedom.

drpayne

Oh FFS.  Be pissed at the Supreme Court if you have to be pissed at someone.  Almost every type of birth control is still covered.  There are FOUR that are not.  Four. 

Regardless, I'm sick of people referring to it as a right.  FREE birth control isn't a right.  You have the right to buy it.  Someone else has the right to not wish to pay for it.  Big difference.

nashamber

Hobby Lobby can suck it! We don't have a Hobby Lobby in my state, and if we did I'd avoid that place like the plague.

JunkieBrewster

drpayne said:

Oh FFS.  Be pissed at the Supreme Court if you have to be pissed at someone.  Almost every type of birth control is still covered.  There are FOUR that are not.  Four. 

Regardless, I'm sick of people referring to it as a right.  FREE birth control isn't a right.  You have the right to buy it.  Someone else has the right to not wish to pay for it.  Big difference.

The last I checked, insurance is not free. If you pay for insurance, you should not be told you can't use certain methods of birth control because your corporate office has a religious issue with it.

Also, why can't I be pissed at the SCOTUS AND HL?

I can't stop shopping at the SCOTUS, so theres always that.

aksue22

Not only do they oppose certain forms of BC (thus refusing to cover what your doctor may have decided is best for you, regardless of the fact that Health Insurance is part of your compensation and the other fact that part of your salary goes toward paying for that coverage), but their maternity policy is terrible. FMLA and that's it. The bare minimum.

sarasarat

You can believe that everyone has a right to a piping hot Egg McMuffin delivered to your door every morning, it doesn't make it the case.

soulcupcake

JunkieBrewster said:

Also, you can't say "We oppose birth control which we wrongly think causes abortions, but we will invest into our employee's 401K's including companies that... bankroll abortion drugs."

It was NEVER about their religious freedom.

+1.

ColeyCannoli

As soon as I saw the words Hobby Lobby:

brittandjp

HL is super dangerous! I always go in for ONE thing and end up with at least five. It's a bummer they don't offer things like teacher discounts, BUT pretty much everything is always on sale and you can use a 40% one regular priced item with each purchase as opposed to the 20% you get at Michael's. The selection is much better as well IMO. Most of the decorations in DD's room are from HL and the first piece of wall art I got for this babe's nursery is also from HL.

JunkieBrewster

I will shop at Walmart before I stop at Hobby Lobby. And that is saying a lot.

efgallarday

Poor OP! Cute frame, hun! Sorry for the political debate on your post. I'm glad you found something you love!

ColeyCannoli

I think love you @gradschoolmom1234, just needed you to know that. 

allonsyalonso

ashtonkitty1 said:

Can those who mentioned that HL denies FMLA or maternity leave elaborate?  If you're eligible for FMLA, it's between your doctor and your HR dept (at least where I work).    

I'm not jumping in to defend HL.  Just curious about this particular point.  @gradschoolmom1234 has pretty much covered the rest  I'm so grateful your hormones haven't inhibited your ability to be eloquent and thorough.

I was under the impression that they ONLY abide by FMLA and do not offer any other maternity leave package.

Though, to be fair, I don't think a lot of companies do offer any kind of paid maternity leave. I only got paid using accrued PTO and short term disability with my son.

caden1206

@JCM285‌ Just so you know, that is a cute frame.

I stopped shopping at Hobby Lobby a while ago at the request of my SO due to religious reasons. The recent events further confirmed why I should not support them. I am super impressed with the way you guys discussed this. I am also glad to see that there is an understanding that birth control is not free when provided for by insurance policies. We have some smart ladies here with some very noble principles.

efgallarday

danisgossipgirl said:

@efgallarday‌ oh, are politics bad to talk about? No one told me.

Nope, but maybe a separate thread? Idk maybe it's just me...

drpayne

aksue22 said:

Not only do they oppose certain forms of BC (thus refusing to cover what your doctor may have decided is best for you, regardless of the fact that Health Insurance is part of your compensation and the other fact that part of your salary goes toward paying for that coverage), but their maternity policy is terrible. FMLA and that's it. The bare minimum.

This also happens for life-threatening illnesses.  Coverage is denied for A LOT of medications, regardless of what the doctor prescribed.  Those people also pay for insurance - it's not a guarantee everything will be covered. 

allonsyalonso

ashtonkitty1 said:

allonsyalonso said:

ashtonkitty1 said:

Can those who mentioned that HL denies FMLA or maternity leave elaborate?  If you're eligible for FMLA, it's between your doctor and your HR dept (at least where I work).    

I'm not jumping in to defend HL.  Just curious about this particular point.  @gradschoolmom1234 has pretty much covered the rest  I'm so grateful your hormones haven't inhibited your ability to be eloquent and thorough.

I was under the impression that they ONLY abide by FMLA and do not offer any other maternity leave package.

Though, to be fair, I don't think a lot of companies do offer any kind of paid maternity leave. I only got paid using accrued PTO and short term disability with my son.

Yeah, I don't think that is that unusual.  I only have FMLA but I can use a combination of short term disability and paid time off concurrently.  I'd love to ask for more that 12 weeks off but I'm not sure they would allow it.  Fortunately, we at least qualify for FMLA now.  We had fewer than 50 employees until this year.  

I know my current company has maternity leave, but I haven't really looked into it yet. It's likely exactly what you said where I'll be able to use my PTO and disability like with my last company. It's hands down a better company than where I was and they're a lot more family oriented so I could be very wrong. Overall though, I think it's the US standard to offer crappy maternity leave.

JunkieBrewster

bluebird00 said:

Now that's pushing it!

I have gone far out of my way and paid way too much for things in order to avoid setting foot in Walmart. Blech.

Ha. Walmart is across the street from HL and the closest Joanns is 30 minutes each way WITHOUT mall traffic. So, if i need ribbon, thread etc, i will go to Walmart instead of driving to Joanns. Atlanta traffic is that awful.

My travel system will have to come from there too, theyre the only people who carry the Urbini Omni.

drpayne

JunkieBrewster said:

Also, you can't say "We oppose birth control which we wrongly think causes abortions, but we will invest into our employee's 401K's including companies that... bankroll abortion drugs."

It was NEVER about their religious freedom.

You have absolutely no idea how mutual funds work.  401ks are directed and invested by employees, not employers. 

LinziLoo09

@gradschoolmom1234 - I you! I knew any thread with HL in the title wasn't going to go anywhere pretty, and I'm still mentally exhausted from my arguments with people on FB. Thank you for jumping in with logic and fact to provide a more comprehensive explanation for my reasons of boycotting HL than I could ever possibly muster right now. I suggest you just copy that post and submit it as your dissertation now No edits needed!

Oh, and as I side note, there are plenty of Chickfila's where I live, and I've boycotted them for the past 2-3 years as well. You can't know about the policies of every company out there, but when they throw reprehensible policies in my face, I can't bring myself to continue to be their patron.

nashamber

drpayne said:

JunkieBrewster said:

Also, you can't say "We oppose birth control which we wrongly think causes abortions, but we will invest into our employee's 401K's including companies that... bankroll abortion drugs."

It was NEVER about their religious freedom.

You have absolutely no idea how mutual funds work.  401ks are directed and invested by employees, not employers. 

While 401(k)s are directed and invested by employees, it's the employer's obligation by law to know what their sponsored 401(k) is investing in. If the Hobby Lobby was so "religious" one would think that they would make every effort to invest  in mutual funds that are specifically screened to avoid "religiously offensive products". Seems contradictory that they are limiting their employees with contraceptive benefits, and yet their 401(k) is profiting from the very products.

drpayne

dtremel said:

sarasarat said:

You can believe that everyone has a right to a piping hot Egg McMuffin delivered to your door every morning, it doesn't make it the case.

Except for Health Insurance is part of your compensation as an employee and in addition to that you pay for it....so what right does an employer have to tell me what types of bc I can or can't use? Shouldn't that be between me and ohhh idk my Doctor? 

I am a doctor.  And I can tell you insurance companies don't cover shit right now.  I end up prescribing meds that are 15 years old because anything newer than that costs $200.  I get call backs from pharmacists daily because patients want something cheaper.  So, insurance doesn't not guarantee that everything your doctor prescribes is covered.  Not even close. 

JunkieBrewster

drpayne said:

JunkieBrewster said:

Also, you can't say "We oppose birth control which we wrongly think causes abortions, but we will invest into our employee's 401K's including companies that... bankroll abortion drugs."

It was NEVER about their religious freedom.

You have absolutely no idea how mutual funds work.  401ks are directed and invested by employees, not employers. 

Perhaps you don't know how 401k's work.

Hobby Lobby makes SIGNIFICANT matchings, almost $4 MILLION dollars last last year, to these companies.

These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis , which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella.

Thats only a fraction of the companies. Pfizer, Bayer, and Forrest are also included.

When added up, the nine funds holding the stated investments involve three-quarters of Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) assets.

They CAN screen which companies they allow investments to, as there are screen companies such as The Timothy Plan and the Ave Maria Fund, who exist SOLELY to screen out such funds.

Do you honestly think a company willing to fight the SCOTUS did not know these screening option exist?

Yeah, bullshit.

They are allowing their investments to go into these funds because THEY PROFIT FROM IT.

Perhaps before you go around telling people they have no clue how something works, you should know how it actually works.

drpayne

gradschoolmom1234 said:

drpayne said:

JunkieBrewster said:

Also, you can't say "We oppose birth control which we wrongly think causes abortions, but we will invest into our employee's 401K's including companies that... bankroll abortion drugs."

It was NEVER about their religious freedom.

You have absolutely no idea how mutual funds work.  401ks are directed and invested by employees, not employers. 

@drpayne because hobby lobby is a "closely held" corporation, they (i believe) choose which company their employees 401ks will be with (for instance, Washington mutual, or whatever). While I see what you're saying that mutual funds and 401ks are generally diversified and companies rarely pay attention to specifically which companies their 401ks are specifically invested in, if a company did feel passionately enough they could certainly avoid investing in particular companies. This happened, for instance, across the US when, in the 1980s many universities and companies divested from South Africa. Hobby Lobby, or at least it's owners, could have chosen to divest from companies that make those products they so strenuously object to.

Regardless, I would love to hear any response you have to my (perhaps too long) post regarding the legal principals contained in the case. It seems like you're responding to the easiest things, and arguing on technicalities, rather than addressing the heart of the matter. 

Lol, no... I'm at work, actually.  I've already spent too much time here.  I kick myself for getting into it to begin with because I do know arguments are not won on the internet.  I am a conservative Catholic who supports Hobby Lobby... that makes me pretty different from a lot of the ladies on here and I've learned that I'm not going to change minds (just like I'm not going to change mine.)  I looked into the 401K issue because it truly bothered me. 

I thought this was a decent explanation from Forbes. 
--------
Those who choose the investment options can be held personally liable for ensuring that the investment options on the 401(k) menu are selected in the exclusive best interest of the participant.   Although the owners of Hobby Lobby do have the ultimate responsibility to select investment options for their plan, they must select options based solely on a set of criteria that are related to the retirement outcomes of the participants.  They may not sacrifice returns or take on more risk, for example, just to pursue their personal religious preferences.  Although plan sponsors are permitted to include some investment options that “negatively screen” companies with certain characteristics, it would be nearly impossible to construct an entire plan menu in this way.  The Department of Labor, which is charged with policing compliance with fiduciary obligations of plan sponsors, ruled that:  “The plan’s fiduciaries may not simply consider investments solely in green companies. They must consider all investments that meet the plan’s prudent financial criteria.” Attorney Fred Reish, a national recognized expert on fiduciary law, has noted that, in practice, a plan can restrict investment choices based on social screens, but only after an investment has first met the criteria that “an investment alternative is prudent for participant direction based on an analysis of only the investment considerations.” Richard Wilberg, Vice President of Benefit Planning Consultants, notes that “in theory, one might be able to construct a limited investment menu that meets social goals and does not violate fiduciary standards, but I think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to ever do it in practice.”  Because adding additional filters to the investment menu could negatively affect returns, Wilberg says that “doing so could be a recipe for disaster.”  Envision 401(k) Advisors suggests on their website that “best practice” for firms that want to screen investments based on social or other factors is to offer a non-restricted choice in each asset class for which the plan is offering a restricted choice.  In short, even if Hobby Lobby were to offer employees the option to invest in mutual funds that did not include contraceptive companies, it seems nearly impossible for them to avoid offering at least some funds that include them.

Summary: 
Regardless of your personal views about the outcome of this week’s SCOTUS case, we should all at least acknowledge that the Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) plan does not reflect hypocrisy so much as it reflects the company’s efforts to comply with U.S. pension law.

------

JunkieBrewster

drpayne said:

gradschoolmom1234 said:

drpayne said:

JunkieBrewster said:

Also, you can't say "We oppose birth control which we wrongly think causes abortions, but we will invest into our employee's 401K's including companies that... bankroll abortion drugs."

It was NEVER about their religious freedom.

You have absolutely no idea how mutual funds work.  401ks are directed and invested by employees, not employers. 

@drpayne because hobby lobby is a "closely held" corporation, they (i believe) choose which company their employees 401ks will be with (for instance, Washington mutual, or whatever). While I see what you're saying that mutual funds and 401ks are generally diversified and companies rarely pay attention to specifically which companies their 401ks are specifically invested in, if a company did feel passionately enough they could certainly avoid investing in particular companies. This happened, for instance, across the US when, in the 1980s many universities and companies divested from South Africa. Hobby Lobby, or at least it's owners, could have chosen to divest from companies that make those products they so strenuously object to.

Regardless, I would love to hear any response you have to my (perhaps too long) post regarding the legal principals contained in the case. It seems like you're responding to the easiest things, and arguing on technicalities, rather than addressing the heart of the matter. 

Lol, no... I'm at work, actually.  I've already spent too much time here.  I kick myself for getting into it to begin with because I do know arguments are not won on the internet.  I am a conservative Catholic who supports Hobby Lobby... that makes me pretty different from a lot of the ladies on here and I've learned that I'm not going to change minds (just like I'm not going to change mine.)  I looked into the 401K issue because it truly bothered me. 

I thought this was a decent explanation from Forbes. 
--------
Those who choose the investment options can be held personally liable for ensuring that the investment options on the 401(k) menu are selected in the exclusive best interest of the participant.   Although the owners of Hobby Lobby do have the ultimate responsibility to select investment options for their plan, they must select options based solely on a set of criteria that are related to the retirement outcomes of the participants.  They may not sacrifice returns or take on more risk, for example, just to pursue their personal religious preferences.  Although plan sponsors are permitted to include some investment options that “negatively screen” companies with certain characteristics, it would be nearly impossible to construct an entire plan menu in this way.  The Department of Labor, which is charged with policing compliance with fiduciary obligations of plan sponsors, ruled that:  “The plan’s fiduciaries may not simply consider investments solely in green companies. They must consider all investments that meet the plan’s prudent financial criteria.” Attorney Fred Reish, a national recognized expert on fiduciary law, has noted that, in practice, a plan can restrict investment choices based on social screens, but only after an investment has first met the criteria that “an investment alternative is prudent for participant direction based on an analysis of only the investment considerations.” Richard Wilberg, Vice President of Benefit Planning Consultants, notes that “in theory, one might be able to construct a limited investment menu that meets social goals and does not violate fiduciary standards, but I think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to ever do it in practice.”  Because adding additional filters to the investment menu could negatively affect returns, Wilberg says that “doing so could be a recipe for disaster.”  Envision 401(k) Advisors suggests on their website that “best practice” for firms that want to screen investments based on social or other factors is to offer a non-restricted choice in each asset class for which the plan is offering a restricted choice.  In short, even if Hobby Lobby were to offer employees the option to invest in mutual funds that did not include contraceptive companies, it seems nearly impossible for them to avoid offering at least some funds that include them.

Summary: 
Regardless of your personal views about the outcome of this week’s SCOTUS case, we should all at least acknowledge that the Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) plan does not reflect hypocrisy so much as it reflects the company’s efforts to comply with U.S. pension law.

------

Let's be clear here - that guy has a skewed idea of how retirement plans work.

Aside from that - Hobby Lobby does not have to offer 401k. They can decide not to since it's against their "moral" code.

They do.

They do not have to match.

They do

Why?

They profit.

Now, lets forget the entire 401k thing.

They get many of their supplies and product from China who forces thousands of women to have abortions every year.

Do they have to?

No. But they do.

Why?

They profit.

This fight was never about their religious beliefs.

This fight was a corporate temper tantrum because they're pissed off about the ACA,