Delta To Provide Same-Sex Benefits
By SHERRI CHUNN
Associated Press Writer
ATLANTA (AP) -- Delta Air Lines said Thursday it will offer health-care coverage and other benefits to same-sex partners of its U.S. employees beginning July 1.
Bereavement leave and family medical leave benefits will be available to partners of gay employees immediately, spokesman John Kennedy said. The airline has been studying ways to extend benefits to employees' same-sex partners for more than a year, he said.
``It's a business decision,'' Kennedy said. ``Delta is committed to attracting and retaining a diverse work force, and our goal is to ensure Delta provides an inclusive environment for all people to work in.''
Delta's announcement follows a recent decision by another Atlanta-based company, Coca-Cola, to provide benefits for homosexual partners of its U.S. employees beginning Jan. 1.
Several other airlines also have agreed to extend such benefits. United, the nation's largest airline, changed its benefits policies more than a year ago, and was followed quickly by American Airlines and US Airways.
The Georgia Equality Project praised the decision.
``Delta has joined those Georgia and U.S. companies who recognize that domestic-partner benefits are simply equal pay for the equal work of gay and lesbian employees,'' said Harry Knox, executive director of the advocacy group.
A recent report by the Washington-based Human Rights Campaign found that 3,572 companies, colleges and states and local governments offered or have announced they will offer health insurance covering their employees' domestic partners.
Fortune 500 companies offering or planning to offer domestic benefits increased from 70 in August 1999 to 102 in August 2000.
Surf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1428 times:
As far as saying it would be "the most fair thing to do" to offer domestic partner benefits to opposite-sex couples, you forget one MAJOR point: opposite-sex couples have the option of getting married, and same-sex couples don't. So, it's either allow same-sex marriage, or give same-sex benefits. If opposite sex -couples want to get benefits, they can get married. Otherwise let same-sex couples get married, so they can have benefits that way too.
CPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4759 posts, RR: 27 Reply 6, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1418 times:
I agree with Mls515...to be fair they should give benefits to opposite sex "common-law" partners. Actually, I'm surprised that they don't offer these benefits...here in Canada most companies offered common law benefits before offering same-sex benefits...not the other way around.
Anyways, its a good sign...another major organization realizing that the can no longer discriminate against gays in these times.
Hypermike From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1001 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1417 times:
I understand that some people think its wrong to offer SSDPB (same sex domestic partner benefits). However, it does make business sense. Airlines seem to be a company that hire large numbers of gay men and women.
In a tight job market, employers must take the necessary steps to keep their employees happy in order to just keep their employees. Studies have shown that the cost of recruiting and training a new employee total between three and six months of an employee's salary. That means that it becomes much cheaper to keep employees by offering benefits like these than to replace them.
If a company needs to offer same sex benefits to keep their employees from going somewhere else, that's what they have to do. That's why companies like IBM, Microsoft, ABC/Disney, and American Airlines have been doing this for years.
When San Francisco passed an ordinance requiring SSDPB, United went to court. What they didn't realize was that they'd be faced with a serious boycot from the gay and lesbian community. Gay couples tend to have more disposable income, meaning they can travel more often, and they do. United started offering SSDPB system-wide the following year.
I know that US Airways has some benefits for their flight attendants. That was a big win in this contract. American offers them too, and for that reason, they lost their status as the official carrier of the southern baptist convention a few years ago. American's response was that they didn't offer them because of pressure from gay groups, they did it to keep their employees from leaving.
Ilyushin96M From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2609 posts, RR: 14 Reply 8, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1409 times:
YEAH!!! Way to go, DL! We'll be seeing more and more companies here in the US offering same-sex domestic partner benefits, which is a good thing, and long overdue!
Truth of the matter is, not only airlines hire large numbers of gays and lesbians. We are employed in all areas of the workforce. Our unions should be recognised and we should be allowed the same benefits as opposite-sex couples. We should take a stand for this to the extent that gays and lesbians would refuse to work for companies that don't provide those benefits.
Surf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1409 times:
If opposite sex couples want benefits, let them get married, OR let same sex couples marry...opposite sex couples should not be allowed to have it both ways!!!!! Otherwise it becomes too expensive. "Oh yeah she's my domestic partner" when "she" is just a female friend roommate you are trying to help out with health insurance.
I feel same sex couples should only be allowed benefits becuase they DONT have the option of getting married, and the benefits make up for that.
And to play devils advocate:
Actually, same sex couples who want benefits should probably be required to register as domestic partners with the state, or otherwise be entered into some sort of civil union like in Vermont or the city of San Francisco...othewise, it could be left open to abuse, "oh yeah he's my bf" (gay man says) when it's just a gay roommate you are trying to help out with health insurance. Don't think people wouldn't do this.
Surf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1390 times:
I'm saying umarried same sex couples can and SHOULD recieve benefits, BUT the reason they get them is becuase they can't marry. Look, if same sex couples were allowed to be married, then they would be able to obtain benefits that way, just like married opposite sex couples BUT THEY CAN'T GET MARRIED. That is why same sex couples are allowed the benefits without marriage! HOWEVER, I DO NOT BELIEVE that unmarried opposite sex couples should be able to get benefits as THEY HAVE THE OPTION OF GETTING MARRIED. In addition, same sex benefits can be ABUSED, and it could be expensive for the company so that is why, I feel that same sex partners who get benefites should have to register as domestic partners or enter in to legal civil unions, so the abuse doesn't take place. Now of course, every state in the union would have to make allowances for legal civil unions of same sex couples.
Who am I discrediting? No one. I am a gay male. I am saying that same sex couples SHOULD be allowed benefits. HOWEVER, I am also saying that there needs to be some ACCOUNTABILITY FOR IT! This is very important.
For instance. I believe people should be allowed to smoke marijauana for medicinal purposes however I voted against the proposition to make it legal in California NOT becuase I felt people shouldn't be allowed this but becuase it was a POORLY WRITTEN LAW that left open the doors for MAJOR ABUSE, and it already has.......this is the way i see things....and it is logical.....
Mx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1385 times:
Are you a bit tethered this morning? When you use capitals and look like your yelling at people they will not take you seriously. More um, hysterical. Calm down.
And remember anyone can rort systems. It's up to the system to weed them out, but there will always be a minority that try and ruin it for everyone else. Big companies know this and try to stamp it out, but they also realise that they must give equally. (at least over here they do)
Ilyushin96M From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2609 posts, RR: 14 Reply 16, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1353 times:
It would be nice if this version of the thread could stay clean, with no Matt D or Jetdude spouting their crap, wouldn't it? But we've all read what they had to say, anyway. Not that it matters, domestic partner benefits are here to stay and the number of companies offering them is going to be increasing exponentially, you just wait!!!
Jetdude From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 81 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1328 times:
Hey Gay men. when the 5% turn into 51% you guy's might get more pull. this is a great country I'm very happy to be born here in the USA!!!!!!!!!!
Don't like what you see VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
or have a Gay revolution.
p.s. I hope this won't get me booted off .I will be more Civil
Surf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1312 times:
Personally I think it's more than 10%, becuase it doesn't take into account the married men who are really gay, and the men who never have come out of the closet (or gay women for that matter). I've met straight people who think this is true too. We will never know for sure...BUT..it's ALOT more than you think!