Obamacare and Health Insurance for Sea Org & Staff (USA)

[Purple Rain]

One thing that may be a distinction is that local "churches" are granted a charter to operate. Under this agreement certain rudiments have to be "in" and maintained as in Ron's pics and Ron's office and other Ronsense.

As such I'm thinking that their staff members are their employees and perhaps a separate autonomous entity legally. If that's the case virtually all Class V orgs are below 50 employees.

I have no idea how the SO is structured but if that holds true for AOs, Gold, CLOs, et al, then nobody has 50 employees or more.

Oh, my god! That means there are no Saint Hill size orgs!

 

[failboat]

I'm sorry.


His GoFundMe page has been taken down, but here is the Wayback Machine's[SUP]TM[/SUP] cache of it:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130315222200/http://www.gofundme.com/26nbpc

WWP thread:

https://whyweprotest.net/community/...n-kevitt-nearly-killed-in-hit-and-run.109431/

Regarding Damian Kevitt,

An Anon on WWP, in 3/2013 posted this: https://whyweprotest.net/community/...ly-killed-in-hit-and-run.109431/#post-2280704

So ... yesterday somebody posted a facebook comment on the GoFundMe page for Damian Kevitt, saying "why doesn't Miscavige pay for his medical care". The comment disappeared.
Then several critics donated money to Kevitt, leaving similar comments, saying things about how no Sea Org member should go without medical insurance. Scientologists are changing the name of each wog donor into "A Stranger" and removing the entheta comments that accompany the donation.

Another Anon, also 3/2013:

https://whyweprotest.net/community/...ly-killed-in-hit-and-run.109431/#post-2280705

I saw that the 100 dollars came from [former WWP moderator] TinyDancer. They changed her name and took down her comment. I wonder if they will send the money back.

WWP user MDKBOT posted this email he received from a CoS representative ("Denise"):
https://whyweprotest.net/community/...ly-killed-in-hit-and-run.109431/#post-2281857

This is an email sent to me

Dear Friends:

Damian Kevitt is a Sea Org Auditor who was a victim of a hit and run one week ago. He was riding his bike in Griffith Park when a van hit him and dragged him 1/4 mile and left him for dead. Fortunately a stranger found him and got him to the hospital where his right leg was immediately amputated. He may lose the other leg. 20 broken bones.

He is in good hands and in good spirits according to his mother. As members of his church I would like to encourage all of you to send him a message of theta or support.

A fund has been set up to help with what ever additional costs will be incurred at "gofundme". It is there that you can donate money OR simply send a message of support.

Find the site on the internet and type in his name. It is very simple.

Damian was an auditor in the HGC ASHO Day for years and promoted to a higher Org.

Thank you for your immediate attention to this.

Love,

Denise
​

 

[Purple Rain]

Regarding Damian Kevitt,

An Anon on WWP, in 3/2013 posted this: https://whyweprotest.net/community/...ly-killed-in-hit-and-run.109431/#post-2280704


Another Anon, also 3/2013:

https://whyweprotest.net/community/...ly-killed-in-hit-and-run.109431/#post-2280705


WWP user MDKBOT posted this email he received from a CoS officer ("Denise"):
https://whyweprotest.net/community/...ly-killed-in-hit-and-run.109431/#post-2281857

I wonder if he ever saw "one thin dime" of it, or if they paid it to the org for his next Bridge action or IAS status on his behalf.

 

[OTBT]

If the OP can tolerate a practical interpretation, rather than a legal interpretation, I'm game.

Here are the definitions, snipped a tiny bit, which originally appeared in FailShip's OP/Post #1 of this thread:






Here's one scenario for thought. As ever, YMMV.

Please forget about the "individual mandate" issue entirely for purposes of this post. Thanks, you'll see why in a moment.

Per the info provided above, and without using any other reference source (legal or otherwise) it's not too difficult to find a possible solution which would be favorable and attractive to Co$/scientology -- mostly because it involves shirking responsibility and avoiding the law.

See what's highlighted in purple above? All Co$ has to do is to claim that every person on Staff and in the Sea Org is a part-time employee. They may have to prepare time-sheets as an instrument of evidence to support such a claim, but that's easy enough to do. If they do this, the "individual mandate" issue goes right out the window. Poof. Big orgs, little orgs; over 50, under 50 -- it won't matter either way, whether under employer or individual mandate: no insurance paid for by Co$ for any employee at any org/entity so long as everyone's a part-time employee.

[Example 1: John Smith, a current sea org part-time employee works 27 hours each week and receives religious instruction/training for 13 hours, too. This is a perfectly reasonable 40-hour 'split-work week' scenario to proffer up to the appropriate government agency (-ies) -- specifically, that for only 27 of those 40 hours did John Smith work*. (*Yes, we know he actually works 150 hours per week and eats rice/beans.) Call him a part-time employee for purposes of PPACA and nothing changes within Co$.]

Turning to the employee vs. volunteer question -- it's moot because, among other reasons which aren't germane here, Co$ cannot claim for purposes of PPACA that they have volunteers (using the above-referenced definitions) as their current workers do not meet the criteria as described/required. (See the highlighted portion in green above.)

What?!

Yes, here's why: Suppose, in the year 2017, Co$ claims John Smith was a volunteer in the sea org during his 7-year recently-ended stint, then they cannot send him a freeloader bill. But they will, right? However, a volunteer, just as it says above, cannot have received anything of value in lieu of compensation which totals more than $500.00 (presumably within one year) -- and we all know that Co$ values the "tech" at mighty steep rates, so that's effectively off the table for purposes of PPACA.


[Example 2: Imagine if Co$ had always claimed staff and sea org people were volunteers for a moment. (Even before PPACA.) Now imagine if Jane Public, a 10-year member of Co$ who'd paid $50k for Co$ services, ran into John Smith, the ex-SO volunteer, at the local coffee shop. They chat. Jane Public walks into her local org that same day, demands to know why John Smith paid nothing for his services but she got hit for $50k. The org declares her an SP, she calls an attorney, and Co$ has to settle w/Jane or risk this info getting into the Court record**.

(**Meaning: A court would ask, "Hey, if Joe got the same services as Jane but he paid nothing, prove to me what Jane actually bought for $50k." And that would force Co$ to haul in boxes of service materials -- books, clay tables, check sheets, service packs, etc -- just to prove to the judge exactly what had an actual value of $50k. Wouldn't and didn't happen.)

That's one reason previous Co$ attorneys probably advised Co$ not to ever use employment contracts where the word volunteer figured prominently. It's a loaded word within the legal arena. "Staff" or "sea org member" and the like don't have the same long-established, legally-interpreted definitions...and whenever legal definitions attach to certain words/phrases...unambiguous consequences and responsibilities immediately follow.]

Is the 'guesstimate' above a legal opinion? Nope; it's just a bit of common and ordinary business sense put to a practical task on a social forum. It's here simply to show one way a tax-exempt, 'religious' organization can try to avoid the PPACA requirements -- so long as they don't mind filling-out false time-sheets and lying with a straight face to a government agency or two who make inquiry of the organization's management/staff structure.

Given their history of misadventures both big and small, Co$/scientology mgmt won't balk at doing anything untoward as I've described above -- but, and this is key -- when has Cap'n. Miscavige ever chosen a clear/easy + potentially-illegal strategic route - legal or otherwise - during his (overly) long tenure at the helm?

Yup - he'll screw this up, too. I just can't wait to see exactly how he does it...and which Court stops him cold.

Hope this helps, FailShip

JB

(Note: It's not uncommon for people to use the words 'volunteer' and 'employee' interchangeably within a work place, both verbally and in writing...and that includes Co$ orgs/missions/etc., too. Some here at ESMB who've actually worked at such a place might even have had the word 'volunteer' in a position title or contained in a staff contract -- but even if the word 'volunteer' was used, an entirely other legal definition might apply.)

Scientology Employment Policy Letters

Original megaupload link broken, Mary mirrored the dox here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19462743/Scientology-Employment-Policy-Letters-


Out Int Bot - another old sock I forgot about; I've lost count of old socks, dozens of them...

 

[failboat]

This is material from posts on WWP related to the Contraceptives exemption sought by/granted to(?) Christian/Catholic churches, but the authors use the CoS as a point of argument/analogy, considering their distaste for mental health services.

https://whyweprotest.net/community/...-org-workers-staff.112821/page-2#post-2359368

Here's some tangentially related material that I found ... Not really helpful, but interesting reading.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/millman/the-first-step-to-negotiating-a-conflict-of-values-is-recognizing-when-values-are-in-conflict/
The First Step To Negotiating a Conflict Of Values Is Recognizing When Values Are In Conflict

By Noah Millman • February 2, 2012, 4:30 PM

...I happen to think the Obama Administration got this one wrong – but that’s because while I disagree with the Catholic Church’s position on contraception, I recognize its moral logic. But I wouldn’t always make that judgment. Here’s an analogy that I think is quite strong: imagine that we live in a world where the Church of Scientology runs a substantial network of charter schools that do a remarkably good job educating poor students. Imagine that, in this world, employees pretty much have to get their health insurance from their employer (one of the things that the ACA is supposed to change, by the way, which is a non-trivial fact). And imagine that the Church of Scientology refuses to provide mental health coverage for employees in these schools. Should that be acceptable?
Clearly, if you don’t believe that there’s any kind of positive right to health insurance, it should be acceptable – employers should be allowed to do whatever they want. But assume you do believe that there should be such a positive right – that, in a wealthy enough society, nobody should be denied access to healthcare because of means. So: should it be okay to systematically disadvantage employees of Church of Scientology schools because that church has a weird hangup about mental health services?...
​

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2012/02/contraception-and-insurance.html
Contraceptives and religious freedom: A way forward

BY ERIC ZORN Wednesday, February 08, 2012

Noah Millman of the American Conservative asks us to perform a thought experiment: Pretend it’s not the Catholic Church at the center of the current controversy over the rights of religious institutions to exercise moral judgments regarding their employees’ health care plans.
Instead, Millman suggests in a recent commentary, pretend it’s the Church of Scientology.

And pretend that the flash point of controversy isn’t coverage of contraception, which violates Catholic teachings, but coverage of mental-health services — psychology, psychiatry and mood-stabilizing drugs, all of which violate the teachings of Scientology.
If the Scientologists operated a network of schools and hospitals, would the pundit classes be rushing to the ramparts bellowing about religious liberty in defense of the right of these schools and hospitals to deny mental-health coverage even to employees who don’t belong to their faith?
More likely, Millman suggests, the dispassionate public-policy question would be, “Should it be OK to systematically disadvantage employees of Church of Scientology schools because that church has a weird hang-up about mental-health services?”
We’d set aside the origins of this belief (“weird hang-up” is Millman’s phrase, not mine) and weigh the overall pros and cons, the social and medical outcomes, of mandating such coverage.
We’d recognize that our government is, thank goodness, in no position to referee the validity of particular moral claims of faith groups, and that participation in society sometimes requires people, for the greater good, to set aside their weird hang-ups/divinely ordained beliefs and get with the program.
The difference?
Slightly more than 25 percent of American adults are Catholic...
​

http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2012/02/08/instead-of-catholics-and-contraception-think-of-scientoligists-and-mental-health-services/

Instead of Catholics and contraception, think of Scientologists and mental-health services

Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:49 am by Pat Cunningham

If you think the ObamaCare rule requiring Catholic institutions (with some exceptions) to provide coverage for contraception in their health plans is an unconstitutional attack on religion, think again.
Imagine, if you will, that an institution run by Scientologists chose to deny its non-Scientologist employees coverage for mental-health services. Would the ObamaCare rule be unconstitutional in a case like that?
​

Moar stuff arguing re: the contraceptives exemption:


https://whyweprotest.net/community/threads/obamacare-and-health-insurance-for-sea-org-workers-staff.112821/page-2#post-2360282

More on this subject. Interesting reading. Scientology owned corporations should not be able to deny coverage for mental health care, unless you agree with all the other exemptions listed here.

http://www.skofirm.com/sites/default/files/publications/a-corporation-has-no-soul-business-entity-law-response-challenges-contraceptive-mandate-ppaca-4755_0.pdf
"A CORPORATION HAS NO SOUL - THE BUSINESS ENTITY LAW RESPONSE TO CHALLENGES TO THE CONTRACEPTIVE MANDATE OF THE PPACA"
Thomas E. Rutledge *
Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC
Louisville, Kentucky
© August 13, 2013 by the Author

This submission draft has been accepted for publication by the WILLIAM & MARY BUSINESS LAW REVIEW (forthcoming vol. 5, issue 1, 2014). This draft does not reflect the edits and revisions of the editors of that publication

Based upon the Free Exercise rights of the shareholders, may a corporation owned by those of the Scientology faith insist that any health insurance policy not cover psychiatric treatments? See,e.g., Katherine Mieszkowski, Scientology’s war on psychiatry, SALON (July 1, 2005), http://www.salon.com/2005/07/01/sci_psy/ (last visited June 21, 2013). May a corporation, owned by those of the Christian Scientist faith, insist that no insurance should be required? May a corporation owned by a fundamentalist snake handler insist that any policy exclude coverage for snake bites suffered in a religious ceremony, it being the shareholder’s belief that the snake bite evidences God’s displeasure with the person bitten and that there should be no medical intervention against that displeasure? May a corporation owned by a Mormon family require that any company sponsored insurance policy exclude coverage for illnesses that arise from either smoking or consumption of alcohol? May the corporation owned by Jehovah’s witnesses require that the employee health insurance policy not cover blood transfusions? See, e.g., Our View on Medical Care – Blood Transfusions – Why Don’t You Accept Blood Transfusions?, available at www.jw-meida.org/aboutjw/article01.htm. Based upon the religious belief that sexual relations outside of marriage are sinful, may the shareholders of a corporate employer insist that the health insurance policy not provide benefits for a delivery of a child conceived out of wedlock? Believing that pre-marital relations are sinful, and further believing that the vaccine against the human papilloma virus encourages pre-marital relations (see, e.g., Abiola, Colgrove and Mello, The Politics of HPV Vaccination Policy Formation in the United States, JOURNAL OF HEALTH POLITICS, POLICY AND LAW 2208567; published ahead of print May 3, 2013; Taylor, Robert S, Religious Conservatives and Safe Sex: Reconciliation by Nonpublic Reason (2012), APSA 2012 Annual Meeting Paper. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2105100), may the shareholders of a corporation insist that the plan it sponsors not cover the cost of this vaccination? The scope of the Mandate is only a small subset of the class of medical procedures to which a Free Exercise objection could be raised. A similar litany of exemptions was set forth by Senator Barbara Boxer in argument against The Blunt Amendment.
​

 

[guanoloco]

Oh, my god! That means there are no Saint Hill size orgs!

That's right! Straight up and vertical!

I wonder what the body count is at [STRIKE]Flunk[/STRIKE] Flag?

 

[JBWriter]

Scientology Employment Policy Letters

Original megaupload link broken, Mary mirrored the dox here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19462743/Scientology-Employment-Policy-Letters-


Out Int Bot - another old sock I forgot about; I've lost count of old socks, dozens of them...

Thanks for the great links/info, OTBT! I knew I'd seen them posted somewhere a few months ago, but couldn't recall if it was here, WWP, or elsewhere. These documents really help to show how confusing it can be to nail down a few simple words - employee, volunteer, wages, etc.

The word "employee", for example, has a definition assigned by and for use throughout IRS regulations, but the CIS (US immigration dept.) uses a different definition -- and that definition isn't the one used by PPACA.

"Religious worker", "employee", "part-/full-time employee", "employ", "essential employee v non-essential employee", "wages", "payment", "income", "revenue", "paid volunteer v unpaid volunteer" -- all of these words each have multiple definitions which originate in different laws/regulations.

Co$/scientology can draft and execute an 'employee/employer' contract with a willing individual who sees the word "employee" for example, who believes s/he knows what that word means.
Except, s/he doesn't know which definition(s) as provided for in the law(s) that one troublesome word represents. Such blameless ignorance on the part of the individual, leaves Co$/scientology free to ascribe whichever definition provides the organization with the most protection against any violation of law/regulation to come. In the Headley case, the definition of "volunteer" was hotly contested and the Court ultimately chose which definition to interpret. He chose wrong, imo, but there are other judges across the country who will be asked to interpret words and their meanings -- and they won't all favor Co$/scientology's view.

JB

 

[failboat]

https://whyweprotest.net/community/...-org-workers-staff.112821/page-2#post-2357070
Since we're talking about employment, here's what someone on WWP found regarding minimum wage and FLSA:

Here are some moar dox:

"The Fair Labor Standards Act and Religious Organizations" Center for the Study of Law and the Church, Samford University, Birmingham, Alabama Spring 1992 - http://cumberland.samford.edu/files/lc/LC_V3_N2.pdf



This seems specific about minimum wage requirements under FLSA, but maybe some lawfag can parse it for stuff that applies -
http://adamsnonprofitlaw.wordpress....-wage-requirements-as-they-apply-to-churches/
Minimum Wage Requirements as they Apply to Churches Saturday, Aug 1 2009

If these organizations are involved in interstate commerce, they are not exempt from the FLSA rules on the basis of their tax-free status...
But how do churches know whether they are engaging in “interstate commerce?”
One view comes from Kathleen Turpin, an expert in employment law and author of Working Together, A Guide to Employment Practices for Ministries. She recommends asking the following questions to help churches determine if the FLSA applies to them:

• Do we order teaching materials or other supplies from out of state?
• Do we send newsletters or other information to people out of state?
• Does anyone on staff travel out of state as part of their job?
• Does our ministry have a Website where people out of state order items?

According to Turpin if the answer to any one of these questions is in the affirmative, the organization is probably engaging in interstate commerce and needs to comply with the FLSA.
​

WWP Thread, Minimum Wage Requirements As They Apply To Churches:

https://whyweprotest.net/community/...requirements-as-they-apply-to-churches.56145/

 

[Dulloldfart]

Most of the years I made around $300.00. In the years that I worked at Celebrity Centre International, I really raked in the bucks and my highest was I think $2700.00. I was LOADED rich!

That happened to me when I started working in the SO in LA after 13 years at Saint Hill. I think I got about $2500 my first year in LA, and I felt really rich too. No joke.

Paul

 

[Dulloldfart]

Wait a minute, Bea, isn't SO on a recurring 5 year contract? Are you telling me they calculated your 5 year services at 200K?

From the late 70s how it worked when I was in was that one had signed an SO contract, yes, which clearly (even to a non-lawyer) had no legal validity. So one also signed a 5 year contract to whichever org one happened to be in. I considered my SO contract to be the "real" contract that I was operating on, and the other one a bit of legal flim-flam.

Freeloader bills were computed based on one's entire SO history. Then, for a few years, 91-93???? (very vague on the dates), some bright spark put in the system that cycled every 5 years. If you left in the first year you paid the total bill, at minimum $5000 "contract breakage fee." If you left after 1 year, you got a 20% discount on the total, 2 years 40%, 3 years 60%, 4 years 80%, 5 years 100% (i.e. started again at 0 + $5000). Maybe it changed every 6 months, but no more frequently. It was a very popular system, as it meant F/Ls got bills like $12,000 instead of $234,000 and could pay it off and get back "on the Bridge." So it was popular with (some) F/Ls as they could get back on with services that they wanted to do, and it was popular with orgs as they were able to collect the money from people they couldn't get any money from before.

The system got cancelled I heard "because it wasn't based on LRH policy," but probably because DM didn't want to reward those cocksuckers for deserting him and the Sea Org.

-----

My data is from 1996 latest. I don't know how either scheme works now.

Paul

 

[guanoloco]

From the late 70s how it worked when I was in was that one had signed an SO contract, yes, which clearly (even to a non-lawyer) had no legal validity. So one also signed a 5 year contract to whichever org one happened to be in. I considered my SO contract to be the "real" contract that I was operating on, and the other one a bit of legal flim-flam.

Freeloader bills were computed based on one's entire SO history. Then, for a few years, 91-93???? (very vague on the dates), some bright spark put in the system that cycled every 5 years. If you left in the first year you paid the total bill, at minimum $5000 "contract breakage fee." If you left after 1 year, you got a 20% discount on the total, 2 years 40%, 3 years 60%, 4 years 80%, 5 years 100% (i.e. started again at 0 + $5000). It was a very popular system, as it meant F/Ls got bills like $12,000 instead of $234,000 and could pay it off and get back "on the Bridge." So it was popular with (some) F/Ls as they could get back on with services that they wanted to do, and it was popular with orgs as they were able to collect the money from people they couldn't get any money from before.

The system got cancelled I heard "because it wasn't based on LRH policy," but probably because DM didn't want to reward those cocksuckers for deserting him and the Sea Org.

-----

My data is from 1996 latest. I don't know how either scheme works now.

Paul

Something like this was still extant in '06 or so...don't know now.

 

[Winston Smith]

It is crap like this that lead Mark Levin to write the Liberty Amendments. The first proposed amendment concerns term limits for all congress and the supreme court. Further it provides for the nullification of idiotic supreme court decisions by 2/3rds of the House and Senate, or 2/3rds of the states. Just because the supreme court upheld ACA does not mean it is constitutional. Neither is Roe v Wade either for that matter, but that is beside the point.

Levin detailed a few things in "Men in Black," his book on the supreme court. There have been literally blabbering fools serving on the court in the past. One had a stroke while a justice and was reduced to being a total fool; no one could understand him and he was beyond lunatic. But because of lifetime tenure, no one could get rid of him.

Why do you think Ted Cruz is doing what he is doing?

Ha, I never got so many dislikes I think this is the difference between conservatives and liberals. If a person bothers to READ the US Constitution, that person will discover that the vaunted SCOTUS has abused its power continuously over the lifetime of our republic. SO, you say ACA has been found to be constitutional by SCOTUS. What about the Taney decision circa 1855 which declared that slaves were property and therefore just remuneration must be given the owners, among other things. IS THIS CONSTITUTIONAL ALSO?

Give me a break. The justices on the court are every bit as human as you and I and therefore fallible. They still are fallible. Therefore there should be term limits for that all powerful job.

 

[failboat]

Derailing politicized off-topic sore loser faggotry about SCOTUS and judicial cases from 2 centuries ago

I think you have an MU or two from the OP. Allow me to repeat myself. Please look up any words that you don't understand in a dictionary before you post in this thread again.

This thread isn't meant to devolve into a constitutional debate or a political debate, so please don't derail it with either subject.

It's about fleshing out the law, AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS, and its effects on Sea Org, Staff, and Scientologists.

 

[Winston Smith]

I think you have an MU or two from the OP. Allow me to repeat myself. Please look up any words that you don't understand in a dictionary before you post in this thread again.

You misunderstand ESMB. There have been innumerable threads derailed here, and my derailment has a valid point. Additionally, I do not appreciate you making it seem I wrote things that I didn't.

"Derailing politicized off-topic sore loser faggotry about SCOTUS and judicial cases from 2 centuries ago"

were NOT my words. You wrote that. But that being as it is, the point I was making is that the supreme court makes unconsitutional decisions all the time. IF you are going to point to the court to support your argument, I equally say the court has been dead wrong innumerable times. The supreme court is the supreme court, and we have to live with its decision whether we like it or not. Every single pronouncement of the court, whether in 1803, Marbury v Madison, or 1973 Roe v Wade, or the 2012 decision upholding ACA has the force of law. NONE of these three cases have support from the US Constitution, if you care to read it.

Thus my posts.

 

[Winston Smith]

I think you have an MU or two from the OP. Allow me to repeat myself. Please look up any words that you don't understand in a dictionary before you post in this thread again.

By the way, I submit that study "tech" is pure bull shit.

 

[Winston Smith]

By the way, I submit that study "tech" is pure bull shit.

And Emma may chastise me but you are free to look at most of the threads here to see they have devolved from their intended subject. All that said, you are free to say whatever you wish to say. Me also.

 

[failboat]

Moar butthurt offtopic politicized derailing faggotry

Get over it. You even said, we all have to live with the decisions. The point you make, whatever its validity, is still off the topic.

By the way, I submit that study "tech" is pure bull shit.

I was making fun of Scientology with that MU dig.

And Emma may chastise me but you are free to look at most of the threads here to see they have devolved from their intended subject. All that said, you are free to say whatever you wish to say. Me also.

Indeed. I am free to say that your constant derailing is off topic sore loser politicized faggotry.

 

[Winston Smith]

I have derailed my own thread.

Isn't it lovely.

 

[failboat]

Gosh, it only took 5 derail posts from Winston Smith to get me to derail specifically because I needed to flame his ass for derailing a thread that seeks to bring health care to CoS workers and cost the CoS millions of dollars.

How proud he must be of his leet troll skills.

Getting back to topic, it looks like there won't be any fine or penalty for failing to inform employees of Health Insurance Marketplaces by October 1, even though the language used ("must provide a written notice") is basically a mandate.

http://www.sba.gov/community/blogs/...loyees-about-new-health-insurance-marketplace

Fact: If your company is covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, you must provide a written notice to your employees about the Health Insurance Marketplace by October 1, 2013. However, there is no fine or penalty under the law for failing to provide the notice.

 

[Purple Rain]

Gosh, it only took 5 derail posts from Winston Smith to get me to derail specifically because I needed to flame his ass for derailing a thread that seeks to bring health care to CoS workers and cost the CoS millions of dollars.

How proud he must be of his leet troll skills.

Getting back to topic, it looks like there won't be any fine or penalty for failing to inform employees of Health Insurance Marketplaces by October 1, even though the language used ("must provide a written notice") is basically a mandate.

http://www.sba.gov/community/blogs/...loyees-about-new-health-insurance-marketplace

I don't know why they even bother setting rules they can't be arsed to enforce. That's quite disappointing.