CORPORATE AMERICA AND "SPOUSAL EQUIVALENT" BENEFITS: From Fortune

When Massachusetts and local governments like the city of San Francisco began offering marriage licenses to gay couples recently, experts predicted legal and taxation nightmares for benefits managers, who would be left to figure out whose marriage is legal and in what jurisdiction. Although Massachusetts recognizes gay unions, the federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, does not. But for many companies in Massachusetts, May 17--the day the Bay State began allowing gay couples to wed--wasn't exactly a watershed moment. That's because this is one issue in which corporate America has been ahead of the curve. At Boston-based Gillette Corp., "We had already been treating gay partners as spousal equivalents," says spokesman Eric Kraus. At Fidelity Investments, HR officials notified employees that all domestic partners would receive the same benefits as married spouses. Crisis averted. ...

But make no mistake: There's no socially progressive agenda at work here. Most companies that offer partner benefits simply think it gives them a competitive edge in recruiting and retaining workers. ...Indeed, the plans engender good will at a relatively low cost since, on average, only about 1% to 2% of employees enroll.

Though many business leaders are loath to say it, they are dreading the possible passage of President Bush's proposed Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. It could mean, for instance, that existing benefits plans for same-sex couples could be legally challenged as unconstitutional. Says Gail Morse, a corporate tax lawyer who's with Chicago's Jenner & Block: "Companies don't want to be put in the position of being a referee. They want simplicity. Just check the box. Do you have a committed partner or not?"

more
posted by Eve at 12:40 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home