Rate this article:
Average rating:
Total votes: 2
"Gay marriage" sounds sexier than "workplace conditions for homosexual employees," but in the struggle for acceptance and equality, a safe, comfortable office environment may be more important than the right to say "I do."
Corporations agree: According to the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, more than 10 percent of 250 American companies scored perfectly in a survey measuring seven factors, including health insurance coverage for employees' same-sex partners. Yet corporate edicts do not always filter down to every office cubicle.
Wayne Hopkins, a sales manager in Allentown, Pennsylvania, joined The Hartford Financial Services Group specifically because of its long history of diversity and inclusion. On the first day, he enrolled his lover for domestic-partner benefits. "I can't imagine working anywhere else," Hopkins says.
But two states away in Southington, Connecticut, Sharon (not her real name) tells a different story.
"My partner works here too, and every year we say we'll make the leap and take advantage of benefits. But every year we don't," Sharon says.
The women are out to trusted colleagues but not everyone, because for years, they have heard whispers, snide remarks and homophobic jokes belying the corporate policy of inclusion. One manager demeaned a man who took bereavement leave when his partner died. "That's supposed to be private," Sharon says. "We need those benefits, but I don't trust people here. There's no confidentiality. I know the human resources people talk behind everyone's back. I've heard other offices are better, but around here there's just no way I'd put myself in that situation. If I were out on this campus, it would hurt my career." Sharon and her partner cannot even take advantage of their company's automobile insurance discount, fearing repercussions if they applied.
That does not surprise John, a Florida-based programmer, who asked that his last name not be used. His company also draws praise for its domestic-partner benefits, but, "like everywhere, there's a privacy issue,” he says. “Your team or boss might not have an issue with your being gay, but who knows what happens later? I know complete homophobes who could make it hard. You never know who will work for you or who you'll work for down the line."
"Humans are humans, and even with confidentiality, people don't always trust other people," says Mark Porter of Madison, Wisconsin, who is active in CUNA Mutual's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees' group. "This is a really progressive organization, and outing is not an issue, but I still think it's easier for long-term employees. It takes a while to get established, and feel comfortable both personally and within the company."
Porter makes an analogy with mental health coverage. Though mental health is part of most benefits, some employees are reluctant to apply for reimbursement or talk about treatment. "It can still be seen as 'what's wrong with you?'" Porter says, referring to both mental health and domestic-partner benefits. "Are you willing to put yourself out, to be human, to have people possibly question you or your place in the company?"
According to Porter, domestic-partner benefits are often economically unviable as well. "Because of 'imputed income' issues with the IRS, unless your partner is unemployed or has extremely poor benefits, they may not be worth taking after all," he says.
Peter Vincent, vice president of human resources at Time Inc., admits that the actual number of employees who take advantage of domestic-partner benefits is "a small percentage of our gay employees, who are probably only 5 to 8 percent of the company to begin with." However, he points out, offering those benefits "says a lot about a company, and where it stands."
Michael Martin Mills, editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer's Currents section, puts it another way. He and his self-employed partner fought for domestic-partner benefits -- and won -- for two reasons: "Our household needed them. Plus, I thought the married person next to me was getting Cadillac-level benefits, while mine were more like a Ford. So he was being compensated better than I was for the same work, just because he was straight and could get married."
