Showing posts with label Businesses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Businesses. Show all posts

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries: Christian Businesses Must Follow Demands of Gay Customers


Townhall.com:

The owners of a Christian bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines after they were found guilty of violating the couple’s civil rights.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said they found “substantial evidence” that Sweet Cakes by Melissa discriminated against the lesbian couple and violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, a law that protects the rights of the LGBT community.


Last year, the bakery’s owners refused to make a wedding cake for Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, of Portland, citing their Christian beliefs. The couple then filed a complaint with the state.


“The investigation concludes that the bakery is not a religious institution under the law and that the business’ policy of refusing to make same-sex wedding cakes represents unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation,” said Charlie Burr, a spokesman for the Bureau of Labor and Industries.


The backlash against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of the bakery, was severe. Gay rights groups launched protests and pickets outside the family’s store. They threatened wedding vendors who did business with the bakery. And, Klein told me, the family’s children were the targets of death threats.


The family eventually had to close their retail shop and now operate the bakery out of their home. They posted a message vowing to stand firm in their faith. It read, in part:


“To all of you that have been praying for Aaron and I, I want to say thank you. I know that your prayers are being heard. I feel such a peace with all of this that is going on. Even though there are days that are hard and times of struggle we still feel that the Lord is in this. It is His fight and our situation is in His hands….Please continue to pray for our family. God is great, amazing and all powerful. I know He has a plan.”


Under state law, the complaint against the bakery now moves into a period of reconciliation. If they can’t reach an agreement, formal civil charges could be filed and the Kleins could face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.


Last August, Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian told The Oregonian, their desire is to rehabilitate businesses like the one owned by the Christian couple.


“Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.”


Aaron Klein told me there will be no reconciliation and there will be no rehabilitation. He and his wife will not back down from their Christian beliefs.


RELATED:  ‘Bachelor’ Juan Pablo Galavis-GLAAD Release New Apology for Anti-Gay Statements
Politik Ditto



Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries: Christian Businesses Must Follow Demands of Gay Customers

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

U.S. delays online health insurance enrollment for small businesses


A man looks over the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as Obamacare) signup page on the HealthCare.gov website in New York in this October 2, 2013 photo illustration.


Credit: Reuters/Mike Segar




Reuters: Politics



U.S. delays online health insurance enrollment for small businesses

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Analysis: U.S. businesses back Tea Party Republicans after shutdown




WASHINGTON Sat Nov 23, 2013 12:09pm EST



Tea party buttons are displayed before a campaign stop for republican presidential candidate and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum at the Historic Springdale House & Gardens West Columbia, South Carolina in this file photo taken January 11, 2012. REUTERS/Chris Keane

Tea party buttons are displayed before a campaign stop for republican presidential candidate and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum at the Historic Springdale House & Gardens West Columbia, South Carolina in this file photo taken January 11, 2012.


Credit: Reuters/Chris Keane




WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Business groups waged a fierce lobbying campaign last month to convince Republicans to re-open the government and raise the debt ceiling, but many of the most influential U.S. corporations have not cut off support to lawmakers who did not heed their appeal.


Eight of the most active business PACs wrote checks totaling $ 84,750 to 56 Republicans in the Senate and the House of Representatives after they voted against an October 16 deal to re-open the government that had been shut down since October 1 and avert an imminent debt default, according to a Reuters analysis.


They also gave $ 246,190 to Democrats and Republicans who voted for the deal.


Political action committees of companies like Honeywell Inc and Northrop Grumman contributed to Republican lawmakers who defied the wishes of the business community during last month’s government shutdown, according to disclosure documents filed with the Federal Election Commission.


Along with Honeywell Inc and Northrop Grumman, Reuters analyzed PACs at AT&T, General Electric, Deloitte & Touche LLP, New York Life Insurance Co, United Parcel Service Inc and the American Bankers Association.


Corporations are forbidden from contributing directly to federal candidates under U.S. law, but they can set up political action committees, so-called “PACs,” to direct contributions from employees and other individual donors to candidates supportive of the company’s interests as determined by a board that oversees the giving. Such boards typically are composed of company executives and government-relations staff. PACs can donate up to $ 5,000 per election to any candidate.


Last month’s fight widened a split between Republican lawmakers associated with the grassroots Tea Party movement and the party’s more pragmatic business allies.


Some business groups are now mulling an effort to push the most uncompromising Tea Partiers out of office in next year’s congressional elections.


But many of the PACs of the biggest corporate players appear reluctant to punish lawmakers who, if they had prevailed in the October 16 vote, could have pushed the United States into default. Many of those lawmakers are in a position to push regulations or new laws that could affect their operations.


“What you’re seeing is the natural tension between the interests of a publicly held company to its shareholders … and the desire of the people that may be running that company to want some kind of fundamental change in the way we do politics,” said Steve Bell, a former Republican staffer now with the Bipartisan Policy Center.


GOVERNANCE VS. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE


Last month’s confrontation pushed those tensions to the fore.


As Republicans said they would not raise the debt ceiling and keep the government open without concessions from the Obama administration, business leaders like Honeywell CEO David Cote urged them to step away from the fight.


“Don’t throw away a credit history that’s been built up since George Washington,” Cote said at a news conference at the end of September, three days before the shutdown took effect.


But Cote’s company, a sprawling conglomerate that makes everything from helicopter electronics to thermostats, has more practical concerns as well.


The company earned $ 2.4 billion from federal contracts in the 2012 fiscal year. It has spent $ 4.11 million on lobbying this year – not an unusual amount for a large company – on subjects as varied as nuclear power, corporate tax reform, and financial regulations.


Honeywell also runs the biggest PAC in the United States, contributing $ 1.17 million to federal candidates through the end of September, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Republicans have collected 58 percent of that money.


Those contributions at times undercut the message from Cote, who is a member of a group of business leaders and politicians called Fix the Debt that has campaigned in Washington for a long-term, bipartisan solution to the country’s debt.


Three days after he urged lawmakers to find common ground, Honeywell donated $ 2,500 to Georgia Representative Tom Graves, who had led a successful effort by rank-and-file Republicans to reject a compromise supported by party leaders.


Honeywell did not urge Graves to change his stance, a spokesman for the congressman said.


Honeywell did not significantly change its giving patterns after the crisis was resolved. At the end of October, the company contributed $ 43,000 to Democrats and Republicans who voted to end the shutdown, and $ 8,000 to Republicans who voted against the deal.


“Our political action committee supports those who support the policies that are most important to our business and that are good for the economic growth of the country,” the company said in a prepared statement.


The second-largest corporate PAC, operated by defense contractor Northrop Grumman, contributed $ 14,500 to Republicans who voted against the October 16 deal. Northrop spokesman Randy Beloite said it supports lawmakers who oversee national security and represent areas where the company operates or has a large number of employees. Political affiliation is not a factor, he said.


Lockheed Martin, another large defense contractor, donated $ 914,000 to federal candidates through September of this year but made no contributions in October. The company declined to comment.


UPS, which contributed $ 5,750 to lawmakers who opposed the deal and $ 20,690 to those who supported it, said the October 16 vote was not a factor.


The American Bankers Association gave $ 9,000 to those who opposed the deal and $ 17,000 to those who backed it. “When it comes time to determine whether to continue contributions to any incumbent, we’ll do so in a thoughtful and deliberative manner,” spokesman Jeff Sigmund said.


Of the other PACs analyzed:


- AT&T contributed $ 13,000 to lawmakers who voted against the deal, and $ 47,000 to those who backed it;


- Deloitte gave $ 23,000 to opponents and $ 30,500 to supporters;


- New York Life gave $ 2,000 to opponents and $ 16,000 to supporters;


- General Electric gave $ 9,500 to opponents and $ 23,500 to supporters.


None of those companies responded to a request for comment.


(Additional reporting by Fred Barbash and John Whitesides; Editing by Vicki Allen)






Reuters: Politics



Analysis: U.S. businesses back Tea Party Republicans after shutdown

Monday, October 7, 2013

Park rangers ordered to keep visitors out of privately run businesses...


The National Park Service has closed privately run marinas, restaurants and inns throughout the country and in some cases even posted guards to keep people from using them during the government shutdown, arguing that it doesn’t have the money, manpower or authority to let them operate.


But the moves, which likely have thrown thousands of people out of work, are drawing scrutiny from Congress and don’t rest well with many voters who believe the administration is making the effects of the shutdown worse than necessary.



SEE ALSO: Debt fight to escalate shutdown showdown; Boehner attaches Obamacare strings



On Friday, the Pisgah Inn on the Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina decided it would buck the Park Service’s order and remain open — only to find park rangers come and block the driveway to the inn to prevent anyone from entering. The parkway itself remained open, but the administration said all concessions in national parks must shut.


“I’m questioning their authority to shut me,” Pisgah Inn owner Bruce O’Connell told The Washington Times on Friday as he fought to stay open.


Several congressional committees have said they would look into the Park Service’s decisions, accusing the Obama administration of trying to make the shutdown as painful as possible for Americans.


In the meantime, Americans across the country have embraced the chance to flout the closures as a defiant act of civil disobedience.


The Internet has been flooded with photos of people going around traffic cones and vehicle barricades to get to parking lots, bicycle paths and hiking trails.


Still, campgrounds, ski areas and basic services have been closed at all parks, the monuments the Park Service runs in Washington have been barricaded, and rangers are doing their best to keep folks away.



SEE ALSO: Treasury Secretary Jack Lew: Obama can’t stop default if debt ceiling is hit



In Philadelphia, the park closures have shuttered the City Tavern.


On Cape Cod, the Nauset Knoll Motor Lodge is closed.


But not all private companies on park land have been shut down. Two high-profile places in San Francisco, the Argonaut Hotel in San Francisco Maritime National Park and Cavallo Point, a luxury hotel in Golden Gate National Park, are open.


The Park Service says those are operating under lease agreements rather than as concessions, which means they are allowed to stay open.


“Concessions operations are required to close; leases are permitted to remain open,” Mike Litterst, a spokesman for the parks, said in an email to The Washington Times.


The discrepancies are difficult for some to understand.


One man wondered why Skyline Drive, the road running through Shenandoah National Park, was closed but the Blue Ridge Parkway remained open.




Drudge Report Feed



Park rangers ordered to keep visitors out of privately run businesses...

Monday, September 30, 2013

How Obamacare affects businesses – large and small


This article is an excerpt from “Understanding Obamacare: POLITICO’s Guide to the Affordable Care Act,” a new, comprehensive guide to help POLITICO’s readers cut through the spin and learn how the law really works – and what may not work the way Congress planned. The complete series of articles will be available Tuesday.


When Congress was writing Obamacare, its biggest backers said the new law would help small businesses. Instead, they’re complaining about it.







It was also supposed to take the cost pressure off businesses in general. Instead, they say it’s just adding more pressure.


It’s one of the biggest political ironies of the health care law: Some of the loudest gripes are coming from the employers who were meant to benefit from it. But the reality is, from the smallest startups to the largest corporations, employers have a lot of new rules and reporting requirements to keep track of. And in some cases, there are new costs, too.


It’s the only way to make the law work — but it’s also a headache for many employers.


Obamacare was sold as a way to give small businesses new, cheaper sources of insurance through their own health exchanges. But most of those small-business exchanges won’t be able to offer workers a choice of health plans in 2014 — which undermines one of the main purposes of having them. And it’s harder for small-business owners to follow the new rules and requirements than it is for bigger businesses, since they don’t have big human resources departments to help them out.


“It’s very difficult for small-business owners to keep up when the rules of the game keep changing,” said Kevin Kuhlman, a lobbyist for the National Federation of Independent Business.


For large employers, Obamacare was sold as a way to rein in those runaway health care costs. But it also created compliance burdens for many employers — new reporting requirements, notices that all employers have to give to their workers and new costs through taxes and fees that help pay for different parts of the law. They’re also starting to worry about a big future penalty for especially generous health plans — the so-called Cadillac tax — that could have a far wider impact than the law’s authors originally thought.


By the time you factor it all in, business groups say, Obamacare will hurt their costs more than it will help.


“They are adding to employers’ costs. So the case can’t be made on money,” said Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, which represents large businesses and public-sector employers.


The Obama administration has won praise from employer groups for delaying the requirements for businesses to report the details of their coverage to the federal government, as well as the fines employers with 50 or more full-time workers will have to pay if they don’t provide health coverage. But they’ll still be an issue for businesses starting in 2015.


Obama administration officials say they’re doing their best to get the word out to businesses so they don’t run into any nasty surprises. There’s a new “health care changes wizard” website to walk all employers through the new requirements. And the Small Business Administration is holding Obamacare events with small-business owners across the country, conducting weekly webinars to teach them about upcoming requirements, and posting news and guides on its website.


“We know folks are busy,” an SBA official said — which is why the administration is conducting the educational events and trying to make the rules easier.


There are loud voices in the business community that depict Obamacare as the biggest threat employers face today — notably the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the NFIB, two of the most powerful interest groups in Washington.


But there are also employer groups that solidly back the law — like Small Business Majority, an advocacy group that’s conducting the webinars with the SBA to tout the law’s benefits, like the health exchanges and tax credits for small businesses.


“The benefits far outweigh the costs,” said John Arensmeyer, the group’s founder and CEO who previously was the founder of an international e-commerce company. “There’s been a lot of confusion. … There’s been more heat than light on the subject.”


And not all of the alleged dangers to businesses hold up to scrutiny. Is Obamacare a “job killer,” as many Republicans charge? Economists say it’s just not showing that kind of impact — at least so far. And is it going to cause employers everywhere to slash their workers’ benefits? Even UPS, which got national attention for cutting its health coverage for spouses who can get their coverage elsewhere, now says it can’t really blame Obamacare for that one.


“I wouldn’t characterize it as, ‘We did this because of Obamacare,’” UPS spokeswoman Kara Ross told POLITICO — even though its memo to employees was full of references to the law.


Other leading business groups say Obamacare is just part of a bigger picture of rising health care costs that has been going on for years. Yes, they say, employers are trying to find ways to trim their health benefits so their spending rises more slowly. But to pin it all on Obamacare, they say, misses the larger trends in businesses’ health care costs.


“Not at all. Everything that’s happening now was going to happen anyway, and it’s just a matter of how fast and how much,” Darling said.


The small-business exchanges


Supporters of the law insist that small-business owners may just not know enough about the law to realize the good things they can get out of it. Case in point: the small-business health exchanges.


They’re called “SHOP exchanges,” and like the ones for individuals, they’re supposed to provide a place to compare health plans and buy them at competitive prices. They’ll also designed to give small businesses with 50 or fewer workers an important advantage: the ability to spread their risk of big medical expenses, since they’ll be part of larger groups, and use their combined purchasing power to get better rates from insurers.


And like the health exchanges for individuals, open enrollment for the SHOP exchanges starts on Oct. 1 — although some enrollment is being delayed in the ones run by the feds.


“It’s giving small businesses the kind of bargaining clout that big businesses always had,” Arensmeyer said. “It creates one-stop shopping for the small-business owner.”


There’s just one problem: For the first year, employees won’t actually have choices in most of the SHOP exchanges.


In all of the ones run by the feds — and remember, these are the ones that are stretched pretty thin — the Obama administration delayed the feature where small-business workers will be able to choose their health plans. So if you’re a small-business worker and you live in one of those states in 2014, your employer will just say, “Here’s your health plan” — like they do now.


If you live in one of the states that are running their own health exchanges, you’re more likely to have a choice of health plans — most of them will have employee choice in 2014. And you may get that choice in the federally run exchanges starting in 2015, but only if the Obama administration is able to get those marketplaces running more smoothly. The Department of Health and Human Services has a website where you can look up what kind of exchange your state has.


There’s also another feature of the law that was supposed to help small businesses: a tax credit to help the smallest ones buy health insurance. It has been around since 2010 on a smaller scale, but starting in 2014, they’ll be able to get a credit for up to 50 percent of their health care premium costs if they buy insurance through one of the SHOP exchanges.


It’s only for really small businesses, though — those that have fewer than 25 employees (or their “equivalents,” again), pay less than $ 50,000 a year in average wages and pay for at least half of the premiums themselves. And they only get the full credit if they have 10 or fewer full-time workers and their average wages are less than $ 25,000 a year.


That’s why the tax credits haven’t gotten a lot of use so far — they just haven’t been very helpful to small businesses, and many of the businesses at that level don’t offer health coverage anyway (and they wouldn’t be required to under Obamacare). Kuhlman of the NFIB calls it “underwhelming.”


But even if small-business owners aren’t sure they would qualify for the credit, Arensmeyer says they should at least talk to their accountant to check it out.


Who has to cover their workers


The issue that most people know about is the “employer mandate” — a loose term for a set of fines for businesses that don’t cover their workers. That’s a big issue for small businesses that might be right on the edge of 50 workers.


Starting in 2015, any employer with the equivalent of 50 or more full-time workers will have to pay a $ 2,000 annual fine for each worker — not counting the first 30 — if they don’t offer health coverage.


And if they do offer health coverage, it has to meet the law’s “affordability test.” A worker shouldn’t have to pay more than 9.5 percent of his or her income for self-only coverage, and the plan shouldn’t cover less than 60 percent of the costs. If the coverage fails either of those tests, the employer will have to pay a $ 3,000 annual fine for each worker that goes to a health exchange for coverage and gets a subsidy for it.


The catch, though, is that it’s not just businesses with 50 actual full-time workers. It also applies to any business that has the equivalent of 50 full-time workers. In other words, when they add in their part-time or seasonal employees, their hours will add up to at least a few more full-time people.


Who counts as a full-timer? Anyone who worked at least 30 hours. That’s one of the biggest complaints restaurants and retailers have about the law — 30 hours just isn’t a standard anyone uses. But it’s in the law now, and it’s leading to the creation of complicated formulas — like the one the National Restaurant Association lays out in its own Obamacare primer — to help businesses figure out whether they meet the 50-worker threshold.


It’s a particular problem for the retail and restaurant industries, and that what’s leading to all the stories about pizza chains warning that they’ll have to charge more for their pizzas. But Neil Trautwein, vice president and employee benefits policy counsel at National Retail Federation, calls the employer penalty issue “a relatively discrete problem for a certain number of smaller employers.”


Obama administration officials say 96 percent of businesses in the United States are too small to be hit by the coverage requirements, and of the ones that are big enough to fall under the mandate, more than 90 percent already offer health coverage.


That doesn’t mean businesses won’t try to get that 30-hour standard changed, though — some lawmakers have introduced bills to raise the bar to 40 hours a week, and Trautwein says he “could see that issue catching legs.” The only problem, though, will be getting even such a small tweak through Congress, since many Republicans don’t want to do anything to help Obamacare work better.




POLITICO – TOP Stories



How Obamacare affects businesses – large and small