V. Confronting opposition

• Profession: 152581335
• Pages: #2005

Opposition to the implementation of domestic partnership benefits may appear in many forms, mostly dependent upon which route has been undertaken to obtain the benefits: private negotiations with employers, judicial means or legislative means. It is important to both expect and understand the concerns of opposition that inevitably arise when seeking to extend employment benefits to lesbians and gay men. An effective proactive approach will include prepared responses to those concerns and answers to questions. In addition, this may be an opportunity to counter myths and stereotypes through education and facts.

Some opposition will be based on hatred and homophobia. It may be more productive to ignore or work around this opposition than to waste energy addressing concerns that are in fact a smokescreen for underlying hatred. Nevertheless, education is the most effective way to neutralize hatred. The most important lesson learned by those who have worked on this issue is that before progress can be made, a basic understanding of lesbian and gay relationships and the needs of lesbian and gay employees and their partners is necessary. Employers may not understand the issues involved or may not at first perceive the discrimination that arises by only offering benefits to married couples.

1. Employer Concerns

   Most employers who are seriously considering the extension of benefits to domestic partners are immediately concerned with the additional cost and time involved. A cost/benefit analysis of the proposed benefits will help answer these questions. Cost depends on several factors, such as the additional beneficiaries, insurance premiums, taxes, the time to implement and administer the program, and any perceived disadvantages. Benefits to the employer arise from numerous sources. How the benefits outweigh the minimal cost should be stressed when approaching an employer.

   Incentives for the employer to provide domestic partnership benefits include greater employee job satisfaction, the promotion of family health and security, and lower turnover rates. Additional advantages include the reinforcement of an employer's policy of nondiscrimination, the protection of an employer from claims of sexual orientation discrimination and helping the employer attract and retain both customers and employees who support gay and lesbian rights. While it may be difficult to put an exact monetary value to the benefits, it may be helpful to organize and present the benefits in a quantifiable fashion.

   Initially, employers might view the cost of adopting domestic partnership benefits as oppressive and burdensome. Costs arise from the number of eligible participants multiplied by the cost of treating a domestic partnership. Enrollment of participants has tended to be low. A 1995 survey of employers by the International Society of Certificate Employee Benefits Specialists found that 75 percent of companies with domestic partnership polices reported an enrollment rate of 2 percent or less. (64)

   If the goal is to obtain insurance coverage, contacting one or more insurance carriers should help in obtaining the necessary financial information. A listing of insurance carriers that writes polices for domestic partnerships may be found via the Internet at www.hrc.org/issues/workplac/dp/index.html

   Insurance premiums for employers providing domestic partnership benefits either have not increased or have only minimally increased. For example, the City of Berkeley's insurance carrier, Kaiser, initially required a loading fee of 2% to cover any unexpected or additional costs of covering domestic partners. This loading fee was dropped after three years when there were no additional costs. In addition, employers have generally found that only a small percentage of their workers actually apply for domestic partnership benefits and the majority of those are member of opposite-sex couples. Because the majority of employees who generally apply for domestic partnership benefits are heterosexual, an employer may limit their costs by allowing only same-sex couples to qualify for those benefits. Employers have found that a preponderance of domestic partnerships are dual-income couples; that is the domestic partner has his or her own separate health care coverage, thereby reducing the actual number of "dependents" who enroll.

   Employers might cite their concern of the cost of administering the program, generated by the employer's need to confirm: 1) the identity of an employee's domestic partnership, 2) whether the relationship covered meets the stated eligibility criteria, and 3) when one relationship ends and another begins. All three can be accomplished by the use of a form filed with the office manager or other managerial personnel. In addition, numerous municipalities have a domestic partnership registry. An employer could accept an affidavit from the registry as confirmation of the...