|
Author
|
Topic: Who Benefits? (October 2001)
|
Pattie Gillett
True Believer
|
posted 10-10-2001 01:01 AM
   
This month's Life in Practice update is now online. |
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 10-10-2001 01:01 AM
The thing that interests me most about the whole idea of domestic partner benefits is whether or not they should be extended to heterosexual couples who, for whatever reason, don’t get married. I can’t think of a principled reason not to, since in a way health benefits in this country are just another part of compensation to be negotiated. I’m not sure that’s the greatest system, but we’ll pick that up some other time. But unless the unmarried partner is a parent (biological or otherwise) to the employee’s kids, something seems wrong about it – if you’re in a committed enough relationship that you’re financially dependent on each other beyond the level of normal roommates, make it legal. If you don’t want to because you don’t believe in marriage or don’t want the hassles that come with it, I don’t know why you should get the perks, you know?I’m a little worried about the ‘equal pay for equal work’ argument. If I’m single, should I be able to demand more pay because the company isn’t paying health benefits for my nonexistent spouse and kids? If I have more kids than the company average, should my salary be reduced to make up for the added insurance costs? This may be one of those cases where equal and equitable aren’t the same things. That said, just on principle, and based solely on considerations like the hospital anecdote Pattie relates, I think it’s a matter of fairness and compassion to have some kind of official institution that recognizes these partnerships and relationships. If the government’s going to keep dropping the ball, I hope that corporate America will continue to pick it up. |
Kevin Ott
True Believer
|
posted 10-10-2001 01:02 AM
At the risk of sounding pessimistic, sometimes it seems as though many of the arguments against domestic partnerships are merely thinly disguised expressions of homophobia or fear of any threat to a perceived status quo. If Pattie's arguments here are any indication, compelling reasons against the implementation of DP benefit programs are more likely a manifestation of the unfortunately recurring corporate mantra, "That's just how we've always done it." It's heartening to see the stats provided by HRC, however, and it's even more heartening to see that major companies like American Airlines are moving to more common-sense -- and more employee-friendly -- methods of administrating benefits. Too bad they had to lay so many off, though. I had always wondered what the qualifications were when applying for such benefits, and I hope that, as more businesses inevitably join the movement toward implementing DP benefits (I mean, they'll have to, won't they?) they use the list that Pattie references here. It's a good acid test for a lasting relationship. Here's my question, though: What kinds of allowances do these policies make for the DP equivalent of divorce and remarriage? I would think that the likelihood of any given marriage breaking up and any given domestic partnership breaking up would be about the same, so how do policies deal with the second time around? Is it something companies routinely find themselves having to deal with at all? Or is the mindset one of fatalism, since DP benefits awarded once are the same as DP benefits awarded again, and at least the company gets a break from providing the benefits during the time the employee is single? Or do breakups hurt the credibility of domestic partnerships in general, given the conventional thought that an official marriage would be bound to last longer? |
slgorman
One of the Regulars
|
posted 10-10-2001 01:54 PM
Clarification regarding Pattie's mention of "a Silicon Valley software" company hosting beer and pizza parties. Oh Lord, if it had only been one! And if it had been limited to software geeks only! But that's another rant I'll have to stash for now...Regarding American Airlines signing on to DP benefits, let's not give them too much credit. San Francisco instituted a policy a year or so ago demanding that any company doing business with the city had to offer DP benefits. Hence, so many airlines on the list. Terminals at San Francisco International Airport are leased from the airport authority run by, you guessed it, the city of SF. Seeing as SF is the number one tourist destination in the western US, it wouldn't do any companies bottom line any good to lose their terminals. The cost-benefit analysis on this said they would not have to spend that much providing the actual benefits but keep their terminals and get some good PR. It seems to have worked for them so far. quote:
If you don’t want to because you don’t believe in marriage or don’t want the hassles that come with it, I don’t know why you should get the perks, you know?
Dave, don't forget the religious aspect of marriage. It's not just a civil status. If I'm a divorced, practicing Catholic I cannot get remarried--period. Not that I agree with that, but that's the way some religions function.Oh yeah, a big fat WORD to Kevin's mention that homophobia seems to be the biggest barrier. |
Pattie Gillett
True Believer
|
posted 10-10-2001 03:18 PM
I see where you guys are coming from on that, sl and Kev, in researching this I remember reading that one municipality that wanted to offer DP benefits faced a lawsuit from residents who said they feared it would make their taxes go up but when the case got to court, they had absolutely no evidence that this would actually happen. The judge eventually dismissed the case. It got me wondering that it was about not having their tax dollars spent, it was a matter of having their tax dollars spent on "those people." Of course, I could just be being overly suspicious.The fact is, many people have strong religiously-based convictions when it comes to homosexuality so offering DP benefits is like sending an invitation out for them to yell at you complete with RSVP card.
You need to be aware of that going in and be prepared for some legitimate concerns as well as some preposterous arguments. I am going to look for copy of UPENN's press release about its plan to offer DP benefits from a few years ago and see if I can link to it. It just addressed the cost questions. Nothing else. I suspect (there I go again) that was a conscious decision. [This message has been edited by Pattie Gillett (edited 10-10-2001).] |
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 10-10-2001 04:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by slgorman:
Dave, don't forget the religious aspect of marriage. It's not just a civil status. If I'm a divorced, practicing Catholic I cannot get remarried--period. Not that I agree with that, but that's the way some religions function.
Shoulda specified that I was talking about marriage as a civil institution, not a religious one, since I think that the civil institution is more relevant to a discussion of legal obligations of one partner to another and so on. I mean, if I get married by a justice of the peace, my spouse and I have all the legal obligations associated with marriage and my employer would confer benefits to my spouse, even if we decided to wait a little longer to have the marriage recognized by our church. So I don't see why a heterosexual couple unwilling to accept the legal responsibilities of the civic institution has any moral claim to any of the benefits attached to it. |
Kevin Ott
True Believer
|
posted 10-15-2001 12:07 AM
I'd have to go with Dave here, but I'm sure that couples who want to be together in the long term but don't want to get officially married are probably vastly in the minority. I mean, if you've already committed to each other in such a way that you're going to be sharing benefits and toothbrushes, there's no good reason not to take it as far as the law will allow. I mean, sure, marriage is more than just a piece of paper, and on some level, the fact that people have to have their love sanctioned by the state is kind of annoying, but it's not like it hurts to go through the motions for legal purposes. |
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 10-15-2001 12:33 AM
I agree with Kev, but there are folks who, probably with a jaundiced and/or realistic view of relationships, want to avoid messy legal entanglements. A relative of mine, I believe, once described his relationhip in those terms -- that if things didn't work out, he could pack up and move out without making his partner's life any more difficult. I can definitely respect that. |
Kevin Ott
True Believer
|
posted 12-04-2001 01:16 AM
With all the poison that's been pointed pointed in the direction of the Salvation Army lately, it stinks that problems like this one aren't making it to our front pages and TV screens.Did you know about this, Bill O'Reilly? I guess not. |
slgorman
One of the Regulars
|
posted 12-04-2001 12:45 PM
See, I forget all of you don't live here sometimes. This has been all over the local news and radio, mainly because of where I live and how directly it's affecting the western states. My bad. quote:
A relative of mine, I believe, once described his relationhip in those terms -- that if things didn't work out, he could pack up and move out without making his partner's life any more difficult. I can definitely respect that.
I'm finding that I now really, really wish I had taken this advice. Like seven years ago. There's nothing more embarrassing than buying this type of book at the bookstore and getting the "don't worry, girl, it's not as bad as it seems" pep talk from the cashier.But don't listen to me, I'm just bitter. [Even the UBB code is out to get me today.] [This message has been edited by slgorman (edited 12-04-2001).] |
Pattie Gillett
True Believer
|
posted 12-04-2001 01:01 PM
Your link does not appear to be working, sl. | |
This Is Not News Forums
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
