SkiTundra wrote:I'm a journalist, not an HR person so maybe someone who knows the HR world can chime in with more. The issues for the companies as I understand them:
- Any benefit or policy plan that veers from company standards requires custom programming for systems to be able to handle them as well as employee time (HR & Legal) to design the plans and oversee them.
Mostly BS and opinion. Any plan that covers a 'spouse' can be modified to cover a 'partner' by a simple HR memo. Do married people have to produce a marriage license before being covered under company X's benefit or policy? Neither should someone with a partner.
SkiTundra wrote:- If they offer a benefit to anyone's 'partner' they may be legally required to offer that same benefit or all benefits to any 'partner' anywhere. This creates a problem with what defines a 'partner'. Some companies that provide very comprehensive and expensive health plans have apparently also had problems with people naming a friend who does not have such a good plan as a 'partner' in order to provide their friend with benefits.
That's called fraud and there are already laws against it. Are you telling me because some people are killed with a car, that all cars are a 'problem'?
SkiTundra wrote:- Companies have experienced problems of 'partners' double-dipping by making claims with their own insurance and with their partners. Not sure why this is different from married people doing the same.
It's not, and it's already covered under fraud statutes. But nice try trying to smear gays with something that 'seems' specific to one group that really isn't.
SkiTundra wrote:- On average, costs (I believe just medical) for partners have been over five times as high as costs for 'spouses'. For whatever reason partners require more medical aid than married spouses, how much of this is intentional gaming of the system and how much is something else I have no idea.
Until you show me a study on this, I'm going to SCREAM bullshit on this one. As a 'journalist', do you just regurgitate what you hear, or do you actually do any research? This doesn't pass the smell test, and you oughta know better.
SkiTundra wrote:- Companies have experienced significant problems when conflicts arise over death benefits and 'partners' who may or may not be legally entitled to them. Apparently some similar problems when partners separate and one files suit against the other.
How about another link? This one smells like the "5 time medial cost" BS above. If 'partners' are covered exactly like married people, where is the problem???
SkiTundra wrote:- US and State codes do not yet have adequate protections in them to protect companies, investment companies, insurance companies and partners for issues around non-marital benefits. EG, there are codes that say how stuff is done within a marriage and on the dissolution of a marriage, not so for partners.
Hiding behind US and state codes isn't reason enough for a company to discriminate. But it was a nice try.
SkiTundra wrote:- When asked if they believed their company should provide partner benefits, over 60% of employees at one company agreed. When asked if they would still support that if the costs of their benefits increased by $37/mo (the cost of full partner benefits spread across all employees), support dropped to 6%.
Since when do companies provide benefits based on employee surveys and the associated costs? Of COURSE support would drop if people were told it would cost them more. But what would happen to support for "married benefits" if those costs were dropped and people saw actual raises based on that?? EVERY divorced or single person would say "HELL YES!". Should that be a reason to deny benefits to married people?? No, it's not a valid argument. If a company provides benefits for married people, they should provide benefits for domestic partners. Period.
SkiTundra wrote:It would seem the solution is to either expand the definition of marriage to include gays or get some kind of legal union laws implemented.
That is about the only part of your entire post that is factual and true.
Just like truly knowledgeable EVers bristle when they see FUD being spread about EV's, I do the same when it comes to domestic partner laws/policies/commentary. FUD is FUD, and in the case of myself and my partner, real legal and financial harm is foisted upon us that isn't levied against the married couple next door. It's not right, it's not fair, and when I see people spread complete FUD, I call them on it.