Domestic Partnership - Essay Example

Domestic partner benefits Domestic partner benefits A domestic partnership is defined as an individual or legal relationship between two people who live together and share a traditional domestic life. They are neither joined together by marriage or a civil union. In some regions such as New Zealand and Australia, a domestic partnership is considered equivalent to marriage. In these regions, legally recognized same sex unions or different sex unions are also considered being domestic partnerships. Domestic partnership has been known to cover only opposite sex unions. Tom Brougham (1979), a gay rights activist, proposed a new type of relationship under domestic relationships. Two persons living in the same house and are allowed by the law to marry except that they were the same gender. Further requirements were then added for the partners to continue sharing financial obligations and that they are over eighteen (Badgett 2006).. A domestic partnership denotes a much that may be or may not be recognized by law as compared to marriage. According to Wikipedia, public and private employers in America provide health insurance and other benefits to spouses and same-sex partners of their employees. The employee receiving benefits for his or her spouse may sometimes be forced to pay tax for the benefits. The qualifications for benefits for domestic partners vary from one employer to the next. Different employers have different benchmarks for those that are suitable for these benefits and those that are not. Domestic partner benefits can be categorized into two: same sex partners and opposite sex partners. It is up to employers to determine which partnership to include. Some employers only recognize same-sex or different-sex couples, while others accept both categories. Employers ought to compensate their employees through more than salaries and wages. They should provide benefits such as health insurance. A growing number of employers are now offering domestic partner benefits to gay, lesbians, bisexual and transgender employees and the partner’s children. These benefits include health benefits (dental, sight and medical); retirement benefits (pension plans); bereavement leave; travel assistance; adoption assistance; education and tuition assistance and disability and life insurance. Employers are known to create their own definitions of domestic partners. This is to enable them to know who is eligible for benefits and who is not. Same sex unions were usually left out of this consideration. Employers have since begun offering benefits to same sex partners. Employers have traditionally offered benefits, such as health insurance, to the spouses and legal dependants of their employees. In 1982, the first employer to break ranks and offer domestic partner benefits to its lesbian and gay employees was a New York City weekly publication called the Village Voice. Today, the Human Rights Campaign (a nonprofit organization devoted to working for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender equal rights) claims that employees who offer these benefits stand at more than 2,500. In an effort to promote equality in the workplace, more and more employers are choosing to offer benefits to domestic partners. However, these efforts to bring more equality to the workplace are not without consequence. Before adopting policies that afford domestic partners the same benefits that are afforded spouses, employers must carefully consider the benefits and risks to such an approach (Badgett 2006).. Cost of domestic partner benefits According to Michael E. Hamrick (2009), lack of information has made it difficult to estimate the overall cost of domestic partner benefits. Some employers believe that the cost for providing benefits for domestic partners is much higher than providing benefits for married couples. An excellent example comes from a small group plan in California. It paid 17.1% more in the same year for same sex couples than for the opposite sex couples. Those who support domestic partner benefits argue that the cost of offering such benefits to cohabiting couples is the same as for married couples. A survey conducted by WellPoint (2001) to California employers found that the cost for same sex partners to be greater than the opposite sex couples. This fact discourages many employers from offering domestic partner benefits to same sex partners. A study by the Centre for American Progress (2008) shows that it would not cost the government much to extend domestic partner benefits to federal employees. The survey concluded that few employees would use domestic partner benefits, thus keeping the cost at minimal levels. The study proceeds to note that, in Iowa State, the domestic partner benefits were extended in 2003. Only 74 employees use these benefits. This proves that the cost of extending these benefits is negligible (Badgett 2006).. Notably, many employers, both in the public and private sector now realize the need for providing domestic partner benefits regardless of the cost. They view it as an inexpensive option which is meant to retain their best employees. They also consider it as a means of promoting fairness and equality in the work place. Many employers have cited the high cost as a reason for not offering domestic partner benefits. They perceive the cost of offering domestic partner benefits as being prohibitive. Recent surveys have compiled evidence from employers who offer domestic partner benefits. They show that these claims are baseless. An employer with over two decades experience in offering domestic partner benefits has proved that the overall cost is quite low. Studies and testimonials from human resource personnel who have implemented domestic partner benefits programs have also proved the cost to be quite low. In 1999, Seattle’s director of safety and benefits, Sally Fox, said to the Press that, after nine years of providing domestic partner benefits, it is one of the best things they did. There was no significant increase in cost. This proves that the overall cost of providing these benefits is quite low. It also shows that the advantages outweigh the cost (Badgett 2006).. Value of domestic partner benefits The advantages to offering certain benefits to domestic partners can be difficult to quantify, but that does not mean that there are no advantages. First and foremost, depending on the company, industry and market, offering these benefits promotes the companys reputation. Gap, Inc. is commonly referred to as a reputable and progressive firm. By providing domestic benefits, it is consistent with the corporate image that it promotes. On the other hand, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. enhances a very different public image. This is seen through the benefits it offers. Companies can use domestic partner benefits as a tool to attracting the best qualified employees. National unemployment rates have been running at historic lows since the 1990s. With unemployment at approximately 4%, employers are seeking ways to gain a hiring edge on their competitors. Also, domestic partner benefits could potentially improve a companys retention rate. Not offering such benefits could cause the employer to lose highly qualified employees to another company with more progressive policies. In addition to losing employees contributions, the costs of turnover can be surprisingly high (Badgett 2006).. It has been argued that increased employee productivity can be another windfall from offering domestic partner benefits. Workplace advocates argue that a domestic partner benefits program will help alleviate personal stress experienced by gay, lesbian, or unmarried employees that keep them from fully focusing on their work. The value of providing these benefits to employees cannot be overlooked. Domestic partner benefits will undoubtedly help in retaining productive employees. Employees will have a sense of peace while at work. It goes a long way in helping the dependents of employees when they die. Their education and health will be catered for. The employees will be much healthier, satisfied, and less likely to quit employment when they are given benefits. Domestic partner benefits are known to increase the ability and capacity of companies in hiring and retaining of qualified employees. Marriage equality would make it simpler for multinational businesses to transfer employees. It would create consistent benefit and salary policies and employees will ensure fairness and equality with regard to varied family concerns thus ensuring just treatment to all its employees. Employer and employee relations will also be enhanced and improved. They will be able to relate well (Badgett 2006).. Companies that offer domestic partner benefits are also known to be prestigious. They have excellent reputations than companies that do not offer domestic partner benefits.  Research also shows that these benefits decrease lesbian, bisexual and gay workers turnover thus improving workers commitment to companies. All employees should be entitled to the same benefits. These include health insurance for their partners or spouses. In a survey by the Williams Institute, 48% of gay, lesbian and bisexual workers noted that partner benefits are their most basic consideration when offered other jobs. 6% of heterosexual employees said that domestic partner benefits are the most significant factor in deciding to accept a new job. 7% of heterosexual employees who changed employment cited partner benefits as being the most crucial factor in that decision. The survey showed that 96 % of companies will have no additional costs as a result of extending benefits to same-sex couples (Badgett 2006). In conclusion, the advantages of offering domestic partner benefits have proven to outweigh the cost. The society is ever changing. The ways that a family may be defined are now many. This has forced companies to adjust the way they deliver domestic partner benefits packages. As society changes, it is essential that companies adjust to meet and satisfy the needs of their employees. Although domestic partnership benefits are a valuable investment to companies, they do not ensure total equality in the workplace. They do not address the many other aspects of inequality such as child custody, hospital visitation, inheritance, immigration among others. The values of a company are reflected through the diversity of benefits options offered through its various programs. Employers should not discriminate and exclude employees in order to reduce their health care costs. Employers cannot prevent employees from getting married or having kids. This raises the costs of offering these benefits. If an employer really cares for his employee’s welfare and for the values of fairness, nondiscrimination and equality, it should treat all employees fairly and equally, no matter the cost. The possibility of high cost is normally one of the main employer concerns about partner benefits. However, a consummate deal of evidence suggests that cost of these benefits is small. Employers that have policies which treat workers with same-sex spouses equally improve the health and well-being of their families. This ensures that the employee, his family and the employer realize a substantial gain. References Badgett, M.V.L. and Gates, G.J. (2006). The Effect of Marriage Equality and Domestic Partnership on Business and the Economy. U.S.A: The Williams Institute. Badgett, M. V. L. (2001). Money, Myths, and Change: The Economic lives of lesbians and gay men.Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Read More