This'll make ya fume!!!

[Angelus00]

I think that if they are upfront about what their plans include and why (for example, upon hiring, let the employee know that because this is a Catholic organization birth control is not covered, you don't have to be catholic, but we want to make sure you understand this is not something our company pays for).

I guess ultimately employees should be able to take it or leave it, and I don't think that the court's rulings about the nature of this organization were correct. If it is a Catholic charity, that is providing secular services, it doesn't change the fact that the charity is most likely being supported by people of the Catholic faith, I think the courts should have taken that into consideration when making their decision, but I also think that the organization should be upfront about the effect their beliefs have on their policies.

Sooooo, when Bob Secular goes to work for CATHOLIC Charities, he should be advised that HIS benefits do not include ABC, or are ya just singling out women? Hmmmmm can't win fer losin.

 

[PeterPaul]

I think the effect of this prosecution should have been a disclosure of specifics but not a disregard for Catholic restrictions. No one goes somewhere and gets a list of don'ts but a list of do's.

This is the problem with the law in the States. Everything is a demand for don'ts. Let me give some examples:

"Why didn't you tell me the coffee was hot at McDonald's?" -woman sues McDonald's for not telling her she might get burnt so they now have to advertise it with a sign - "Caution-coffee is hot"

"Why didn't you have sign telling me to mind my step?" -man sues because he fell in a store so stores across the country tell people to be careful when they walk.

"Why isn't there a sign not to tell me not to go on the left lane and enter the exit of a highway?" -person sues because he went against traffic onto a highway even though Americans don't drive on the left lane, prompting signs reading "Not an Entrance-Exit only!"

No accountability for one's actions. If you want to know what a benefit's package contents are, ask!

Nothing is more ridiculous than a Catholic administrator telling people with no reason, "listen, condoms and birth control is not included in your package. Also, you can not use the KY jelly for..."

I mean, c'mon.

 

[Angelus00]

Perhaps the BEST (not) thing would be to not offer prescription drug coverage at all. *shrug* Or is THAT mandated by the government, too?

I work for an employer that offers about a zillion benefits options and I understand that many employers only contract with one carrier. However, even one carrier provides different option packages. Neither in my interview NOR orientation were individual aspects of the benefits packages singled out. It was then and is now my responsibility to be aware of what is covered and what is not.

By SOMEONE'S logic, if my package doesn't cover for example, vision services, I should sue them for discrimination? Discrimination against those that wear spectacles? hhmmm

In any event, imo, if someone works for a religious organization, one should expect that organization to adhere to whatever the tenets of it's faith are, unless, of course, one assumes that the general populace is soooo ignorant of things that they cannot POSSIBLY understand that the word "catholic" in "Catholic Charities" refers to the Catholic Church. If that's the case, I don't think a good manager or personnel specialist would hire them anyway. Just my 2 cents worth.