Hobby Lobby invests in abortion pills

[Pens1566]

a) The fund selection generally come from the administrator of the 401K (schwab,putnam, whoever), not the company
b) It's the employees money, not the company's.

It's the employee's healthcare, not the company's ... see how easy that is?

It wouldn't be Hobby Lobby, but rather their employees who you'd have to make divest. Hobby Lobby has no control over how the employee chooses to allocate their retirement money.

Hobby Lobby has no control over how the employee chooses to use their health benefits ... see a pattern?

 

[mchammer187]

It wouldn't be Hobby Lobby, but rather their employees who you'd have to make divest. Hobby Lobby has no control over how the employee chooses to allocate their retirement money.

If Hobby Lobby is like most employers they limit their employees to what mutual funds they can invest in. They can exclude whatever funds they like.

Also if there is a vesting period it really is Hobby Lobbies money until the funds are vested because they get that money back should the employee leave prior to the vesting period being up.

The also provide matching funds.

If they are denying an employee an option for a healthcare plan that provides birth control how is that any different?

By your logic the investments are entirely the choice of the employee but the health plans are not?

To mean the health plan and the funds are analogous because Hobby Lobby defines what funds you can invest in as well as what health plans you can sign up for.

At the very least they should select funds that divest from all companies that make money that way now that are aware.

 

[mchammer187]

Shhhhh. Don't ruin all the emo-rage with those pesky things called "reality" and "facts".

By that logic couldn't the insurance provider pick exactly what plans and benefits are available depending on how much the employee/company wants to spend?

 

[fskimospy]

By that logic couldn't the insurance provider pick exactly what plans and benefits are available depending on how much the employee/company wants to spend?

I really don't get the argument here. They think abortion is murder. Investing in companies that make drugs for abortion is definitely supporting abortion/mirder. It seems to be a remarkably weak argument that someone would say "Charles Schwab said I have to go with his picks so I guess we can't help but support murder"

 

[pcgeek11]

He can't/won't. That would take a lot of work for a list that is ever changing. A fund that has a stake today in a company that also has a birth control product could sell that stake tomorrow for a gain, or to prevent a loss...and that same fund could add it again months later.

Yes. There are a lot of "progressives" that just don't get it.

Anyone that thinks that their employer screens through all of the 401K plans for these types of things is a fool.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Yes. There are a lot of "progressives" that just don't get it.

Anyone that thinks that their employer screens through all of the 401K plans for these types of things is a fool.

While I agree, this information tells me at least three things:

1. Hobby Lobby's convinctions aren't are strong as they want us to believe.

2. They don't care about the abortions/birth control, just about making money.

3. Hobby Lobby is all up in arms about ACA, but their using it as a guise.

Instead, they're taking part in the proliferation of the same things they claim is against their beliefs. Disband 401k, give the company match directly to the employees and let them decide for themselves where to put it.

 

[mchammer187]

Yes. There are a lot of "progressives" that just don't get it.

Anyone that thinks that their employer screens through all of the 401K plans for these types of things is a fool.

I have about 25 health plans available to me and about 10 mutual funds.

If one thing is too complex to be bothered with it is not the mutual funds.

Also since it would be 100% legal to divest and you wouldn't have to pay millions to bring it to the Supreme Court. I suppose taking something to the Supreme Court court isn't too much trouble but telling your 401 K admin to make plans that divest is too much trouble.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Yes. There are a lot of "progressives" that just don't get it.

Anyone that thinks that their employer screens through all of the 401K plans for these types of things is a fool.

You know what is funny.

Remember the fuss over Bain Capital the private equity firm that Mitt Romney used to head. Remember all the mud that was flung but later it turned out that most public unions were themselves were to some degree invested in Bain Capital via their pension funds.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[sportage]

""ATTENTION HOBBY LOBBY SHOPPERS""
"Abortion's now being conducted on aisle eight."
"Buy one, get one free"

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

""ATTENTION HOBBY LOBBY SHOPPERS""
"Abortion's now being conducted on aisle eight."
"Buy one, get one free"

Run out of native Americans with real troubles? Oh, not enough voter potential. Carry on.

 

[DrPizza]

If I recall correctly, when I set up my 403B, I had a whole page or so full of companies that I was allowed to not invest in, if I had social concerns, etc. I had no such concerns, so ignored that part of it & left it to the manager to otherwise make the best choices. Though those choices were mine, I wonder if my employer would have had the ability to also eliminate some of those choices prior to me even seeing them. Though, technically speaking, my employer doesn't match funds - they invest in a pension for me, which is in addition to my 403B account.