Summer 2001 Issue

Domestic Partner Benefits for
Federal Workers Discussed by Panel

By Diane Herz

As part of the annual observance of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) awareness month, AFGE 12 and Labor GLOBE (Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Employees) co-sponsored a panel discussion on the extension:of employment benefits to the domestic partners of same and opposite sex unmarried Federal employees. Labor GLOBE Co-Chair Robert Sadler moderated the event. During his introduction, he emphasized the need for benefits for uninsured persons as well as the need for benefits as a tool to attract and retain high-caliber Federal workers in a tight labor market. AFGE 12 Executive Vice President Larry Drake gave welcoming remarks, reiterating the Local's long-standing support of equality for GLBT employees.

Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) delivered the keynote address. On February 14 of this year, he introduced legislation (The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, H.R. 638) that would give the same or opposite sex partner of a Federal employee access to benefits, such as health and life insurance, retirement benefits, and compensation for work injuries. He first addressed the issue of "gay pride." Many opponents complain that gay people boast about their sexual orientation, and they question why Pride observances exist. Frank explained that Pride observances are not about being gay, per se. Rather, they are about Pride at one's willingness to stand up against a long history of Persecution against GLBT persons. Many straight people participate in Pride observances because they, too, are proud to fight against bigotry.

Frank argued that social attitudes have changed and now strongly favor equal employment benefits for GLBT people. As a result, it's no longer acceptable to deny equal rights based simply on bigotry or hatred (as it was into the 1980s and earlier). He argued that opponents use other rationales, all of which are flawed.

One rationale against granting domestic partner benefits (DPBS) is that they cost too much to provide. (He also noted that had universal health care passed, this issue would not need to be addressed in separate legislation.) Frank stated that there are no studies by any organizations that have found the cost of domestic partner benefits to be prohibitive. A very small proportion of employees have domestic partners, particularly if benefits are only available to same,sex couples. And, a majority of partners are employed and have their own health coverage, thus not opting for the benefit.

A second argument against benefits is that they will unsettle marriage. Frank noted that this proposition can be tested empirically in a few years by examining Vermont's marriage statistics. That is, if the law in that state allowing same sex civil unions "unsettles marriage," there one should see a disproportionately high increase in divorces and decline in marriages in that state.

During questions and answers, Frank noted that a provision to the bill that should be added in committee would treat domestic partners who could lose insurance in a break-up the same way that divorced persons are treated when a marriage dissolves. He also suggested that no additional tax liability be home by those utilizing domestic partners benefits vis,a-vis those gaining insurance through marriage to a Federal employee.

Darryl Herrschaft from the Human Rights Campaign then discussed trends in domestic partnership coverage in the private sector. He told the group substantial gains had been made in DPB coverage in all sectors. The granting of DPBs was led by companies in technology, such as Hewlett Packard. It was often sparked by 1) competitive pressures, 2) the work of GLBT groups in those companies, or 3) a San Francisco statute requiring that companies with whom the city does business provide equal benefits to GLBT employees. Today, DPBs are offered by about 25% of Fortune 500 companies and another 35% are considering offering them within the next few years. The Human Rights Campaign watches the granting of DPBs closely. You can read their reports on www.hrc.org.

T Santora from the AFL-CIO's Pride At Work organization then spoke about labor's role in GLBT rights. Pride at Work was created out of labor's silence during the battle over the Defense of Marriage Act. Pride at Work approaches the issues of benefits as a simple economic equality issue-that is, all employees should have the same benefits for the same work. DPBs are always an item on the bargaining table when his union, the Communications Workers of America (CWA), negotiates labor contracts. You can read about or join Pride at Work at www.prideatwork.org.

Rob Sadler wrapped up by describing Federal GLOBE, the employee resource organization for GLBT employees of the Federal government and the general state of play of DPBs across the Executive Branch. He noted that passage of Frank's bill is essential to providing the legal basis for DPBs for Federal employees, but that agencies with greater control over their funds may have the flexibility to proceed without such legislation. He also noted instances where an agency had provided certain benefits to partners in same-sex relationships, normally accorded only to spouses, pursuant to the agency's discretionary authority. You can learn about or join Federal GLOBE at www.fedglobe.org.

Participants in the panel discussion on domestic partner benefits for Federal Employees included, from left to right, Rob Sadler, Co-Chair of Labor GLOBE; T Santora of Pride at Work; Daryl Herrschaft of the Human Rights Campaign; and Larry Drake, AFGE 12 Executive Vice-President.