Domestic partner benefits for state employees (quality of life, to live, vacation)

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by ILuvAZ

You want to do away with married partners benefits??? So I am married with four kids and I stay home to raise the kids... you're saying you don't think I should be covered by my husbands medical insurance??? Wow.

Does your husband work for the state or a government agency? I completely understand your concern, but does it seem right to you that state/city/federal employees AND their spouses are collecting benefits on the taxpayers' backs?

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

In the past the tradition has been to offer benefits to the family. In as much as people that are shacking up are not a family, then why offer them the benefit?

My question still remains unanswered: why should GOVERNMENT money be used to give benefits to certain people who fit a particular demographic ... such as married people or so called "domestic partners"? As far as I'm concerned, shacking up OR being married shouldn't automatically entitle anybody to special benefits, especially if it's paid for with gov't money. Certain choice lifestyles that are eligible for benefits, while other choice lifestyles aren't eligible isn't fair at all.

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

Marriage is something that a man and a woman do to raise a family and build a life together. Employers know that offering the benefit to there employees makes for a happyier employee and one that is inclined to stay with the employer. No employer has to offer any benefit to any employee. They do it so they don't lose a great employee.

You're absolutely correct that companies don't have to offer benefits to any employee ... but I'm confused about some of your other statements. It makes it sound like you're saying that only married couples have a right to be happy and receive benefits. What about those great employees who are single? I'm male, straight, divorced, employed full time, but a part time care giver for my parents who are in their late 70s. I'm not allowed to add my mother or father on any of my benefits ... but I could add a wife, a live in, or a kid. Fair??? I think not!

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

Whatever you call it, it is not about compassion or understanding or unchained liberalism. It is about competition for increasingly scarce employees. The draw of good benefits for unmarried pairs is very important in recruiting the best talent - regardless of their lifestyles outside the office.

That's about the most sensible explanation yet ... especially the part about "regardless of their lifestyles outside the office". Kudos! Being married, engaged, a domestic partner, a single parent, or whatever shouldn't be an instant entitlement to anything. A person's lifestyle is none of anybody's business!

[wehotex]

Originally Posted by ILuvAZ

You want to do away with married partners benefits??? So I am married with four kids and I stay home to raise the kids... you're saying you don't think I should be covered by my husbands medical insurance??? Wow.

I worked for a co. for several years that offered medical insurance for domestic partners. There were requirements they had to meet although I'm not sure what they were. It seemed to work just fine. I would think that people who have a moral problem with the gay thing would have huge issues with this as it's like saying the state is approving.

i don't think it's fair when employers award married couples more benefits than a single employee. in the socialist company that i work for, it results in married employees earning more compensation than single folk. when i noticed this when applying for the job, i was vocal about it and upped my base salary request by $5k. even then , the married people that i work with are making $4-9k more/yr in healthcare compensation. if we have to have this insidious way of doing things, i applaud that it is available to all working people.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Why should they offer unmarried people more? They are unmarried. Somone quoted that they should be given more to take care of there parents. Your parents are allready on the government tit, by way of social security, that we will never see, Medicare that we will also never see.

Why should people that are not married be able to have the same benefit as someone that is married? If you want the benefit, get married. Employers favor people that are married because in most cases they offer a more stable employee. The employer sees a benefit to offering the incentive. If you were an employer what would you do?

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

Somone quoted that they should be given more to take care of there parents. Your parents are allready on the government tit, by way of social security, that we will never see, Medicare that we will also never see.

Since I believe in as little government as necessary, that's EXACTLY the reason why parents should be allowed to be included on employees' benefits programs. Since I have excellent benefits at my workplace, I'd like for my parents to be less reliant on Medicare. It would cost me more out of my wages, but I can afford it (if only it were allowed).

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

Employers favor people that are married because in most cases they offer a more stable employee. The employer sees a benefit to offering the incentive. If you were an employer what would you do?

That is such a crock of b.s.! I've been with my company for nearly 15 years. Matter of fact, when I started with the firm, I was married and nothing more than a lowly phone rep. Now I'm a QC manager, happily single, and probably more stable than the average employee. Your classifications of married vs. single are merely ASSumptions.

[wehotex]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

Why should they offer unmarried people more? They are unmarried. Somone quoted that they should be given more to take care of there parents. Your parents are allready on the government tit, by way of social security, that we will never see, Medicare that we will also never see.

Why should people that are not married be able to have the same benefit as someone that is married? If you want the benefit, get married. Employers favor people that are married because in most cases they offer a more stable employee. The employer sees a benefit to offering the incentive. If you were an employer what would you do?

i strongly disagree with your statement that married employees offer more stability. married employees are usually the first to say that they can't work due to the "children". they may also not devote their after 5 hours due to those same familial pressures. since single employees don't have those, there may be more hours devoted to work.

why should married people receive higher compensation just b/c they're married? why doesn't the wifey go out and get a job too? it's socialistic to make others pay for YOUR benefits. if i was an employer, i'd offer every employee the SAME amount of dollars to spend on benefits regardless of their status.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by wehotex

i strongly disagree with your statement that married employees offer more stability. married employees are usually the first to say that they can't work due to the "children". they may also not devote their after 5 hours due to those same familial pressures. since single employees don't have those, there may be more hours devoted to work.

why should married people receive higher compensation just b/c they're married? why doesn't the wifey go out and get a job too? it's socialistic to make others pay for YOUR benefits. if i was an employer, i'd offer every employee the SAME amount of dollars to spend on benefits regardless of their status.

Couldn't agree more! In my experience, it's the married people and the single mothers who are constantly tardy and absent ... which is excused more now because of the FMLA law. Those who aren't married & not burdened with children are usually more productive because they're the ones taking on the extra work and even doing overtime to cover for the absent employees.

Being married, having children, or shacking up with someone & calling him/her a "domestic partner" shouldn't automatically entitle anyone to special benefits. Choice lifestyles shouldn't be rewarded just because they're favored by certain segments of the population ... especially not via taxpayer money!

[Bummer]

FMLA, Valley?

From my limited experience, the biggest SCAM to come down the pike!

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by Bummer

FMLA, Valley?

From my limited experience, the biggest SCAM to come down the pike!

Actually, Bummer, I am highly in favor of the CONCEPT of FMLA because it gives everyone (not just the people with kids) a certain amount of time off to care for family members. It has benefitted me to a certain extent when my father first became sick & unable to care for himself. He lived with me for a while before I broke down & had to put him in a care center. My mother currently lives with me part time, and has a lot of health problems of her own as well.

My only problem with FMLA is how it became mandated via the federal government! A good share of companies already had similar family medical leave policies of their own before Clinton signed the bill into law in 1993. I'd much rather have something like this through my employer (even if I had to pay for part of it) instead of through the stinking gov't. Spare us socialized health care!

[wit-nit]

This is the biggest scam to come down the pike in years, worse than the Alternative Vehicle fiasco.
What is to prevent anyone from saying that they are a partner of anyone they choose and milk the State for benefits they don't deserve or qualify for.

[Bummer]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Actually, Bummer, I am highly in favor of the CONCEPT of FMLA because it gives everyone (not just the people with kids) a certain amount of time off to care for family members. It has benefitted me to a certain extent when my father first became sick & unable to care for himself. He lived with me for a while before I broke down & had to put him in a care center. My mother currently lives with me part time, and has a lot of health problems of her own as well.

My only problem with FMLA is how it became mandated via the federal government! A good share of companies already had similar family medical leave policies of their own before Clinton signed the bill into law in 1993. I'd much rather have something like this through my employer (even if I had to pay for part of it) instead of through the stinking gov't. Spare us socialized health care!

The actual concept is fine, Valley . . . the ABUSE is out of control.

Unfortunately, many unethical employees use it to in order to "beat the system" similar to the Handicap Parking Sticker fiasco but that is another thread subject altogether.