Business Government Relations

The first brief as stated in the article says that the Federal Law puts employers to unnecessary cost and administrative complexity. The motive behind this for major companies is cutting costs. This reason seems like it wouldn’t have much of an impact but the article mentions some of the big companies who hire thousands of employees through out the year. These costs add up to thousands and thousands of dollars in expenses as the companies will need to hire the necessary staff to deal with the administration, human resources and the complexity of the same sex couples. These are expenses that can be reduced should the Federal Defense of Marriage Act be overturned. The second brief mentioned in the article states that the law forces companies to treat one class of lawfully married employees differently than another. The motive behind this reason is that people want to work in companies and firms that are diverse in nature and that embrace all types of culture, religion, race, ethnicity etc. Therefore, sexual orientation could cost these firms the skill and the manpower and resources that they need. On the reverse side, the main motives perhaps are the expenses that these firms encounter with having the dual systems of tax withholding and payroll. Bernadette Harrigan, an assistant vice president in law department of the Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance made a statement that in 2013, the face of the nation would be changing and to be competitive, to win in business today, companies needed to change with the demographics of the nation. As an insurance company, the costs associated with maintaining a dual system for claims are perhaps high which could be the main reason why they are in support of this venture. This law entails extra complications for the claims that same sex marriages do and these are costs that can be avoided. Johnson and Johnson made a statement too supporting this view and that all lawfully married employees should be treated the same way. The