Domestic Partner Benefits

Domestic Partner Benefits:
A Report on the Cost and Value of Providing Benefits to Employees
To: The Board of Directors
From: Human Resources Department
Subject: The Cost and Value of Providing Domestic Partner Benefits Many of the employees at _____, have been requesting benefits for their families. These employees are those who are not married, but still have partners and families to care for. We, at Human Resources, have researched this issue, and developed a report and presentation. In this report we have included guidelines for determining a domestic partner relationship, reasons for this type of relationship, the financial cost for offering benefits to partners, the negative cost to the company, the view of the public, and employee values. We hope that you will take our report into consideration when making you decision about this issue.
What Constitutes a Domestic Partnership When considering a domestic partnership, the employee must be able to provide proof. The Oregon Public Employees ' Benefit Board requires that both parties declare the following:
Are at least 18 years of age
Are each other 's sole domestic partner
Are not married to anyone and have not had another domestic partner within the prior six months
Are not related by blood closer than would bar marriage
Have jointly shared the same regular and permanent residence for at least six months
Are jointly financially responsible for basic living expenses and any other expenses of maintaining a household. Domestic partners need not contribute equally as long as they agree that both are responsible for the cost. If requested, both would be able to provide at least three of the following as verification of their joint responsibility
(a) Joint mortgage or lease
(b) Designation of the domestic partner as primary beneficiary for a life insurance or a retirement contract
(c) Designation of the domestic partner as primary beneficiary in the employee 's will
(d)Power of attorney for health care or financial management
(e) Joint ownership of a motor vehicle, joint checking account, or joint credit account
(f) A cohabitation contract which obligates each of the parties to provide support for the other party(PEBB)
Reasons for a Domestic Partnership There are many reasons why people choose a domestic partnership over marriage. These include philosophical, political, economical, religious and personal reasons.
Philosophical:
Many feminists believe that marriage is an establishment that has oppressed women throughout history. They prefer bonding in a non-marital family.
Political:
Women who have divorced due to violence or abuse often are reluctant to re-marry once they find another mate. They see domestic partnership as a way of establishing a family without surrendering themselves to a spouse through marriage.
Some people are making a political stand as a show of support for same- sex couples who do not have the option of marriage.
Economical:
People of all ages who are widowed or have disabilities do not marry because they may loose pension survivor benefits or government aid. Many seniors are fearful that a new marriage might upset estate plans for their adult children.
Religious:
Some people whose spouses have died or have been divorced against their own will have vowed to never marry again. To many, marriage is a religious experience that they will only have once in life.
Personal:
Widows or divorcees may want a domestic partnership for companionship and security without sexual overtones.
Financial Cost for Offering Benefits According to a Human Rights Campaign paper, a 2005 Hewitt Associates study revealed that the majority of employers, 64%, experience a total financial impact of less than 1% of total benefits cost, while only 5% of employers experience financial impacts of 3% or greater of total benefits cost. Furthermore, according to the Society for Human Resource Management, employers that have offered domestic partner benefits report that coverage for domestic partners is no more expensive than coverage for other dependents. Although some people assume that HIV/AIDS will increase the number of catastrophic claims, those diagnoses have proven similar in cost and incident rate to most other life-threatening illnesses. A 1997 Hewitt Associates study revealed that the impact on companies ' costs "has been minimal, with the addition of domestic partners, regardless of whether coverage was extended to same-sex or opposite-sex domestic partners. Companies report increases in medical claims of less than 1% after domestic partner coverage was introduced." A 2000 Hewitt Associates survey confirmed that adding health benefits for domestic partners is no more expensive than insuring spouses. Similarly, rates of enrollment have not been particularly high. Possible explanations most commonly cited for this are that same-sex domestic partners are likely already covered by their own employer, or that the employee is simply unwilling to disclose their sexual orientation for fear of discrimination.(Human Rights Campaign, 2006) According to information provided by the San Francisco Human Rights Commission 's website, health insurance providers do not have a surcharge on policies written to include domestic partner benefits. Each state regulates whether or not an employer can provide such benefits.(San Francisco Human Rights Commission, 2006) Stated several times in the Helgeland v. Wisconsin case - The True Cost of Providing DP Health Benefits (2005), the financial costs are less than a 1% increase. If the figures are looked as being distributed over the entire work force, the cost involved amounts to pennies on the dollar.(American Civil Liberties Union, 2005) Negative Cost to Company The rights of individuals seem to take main stage in this argument. When it comes to the core of the subject, it is the company that is the true victim. To give well deserved employee benefits comes at a cost. That cost is dependent on the insurance company that the business deals with. As an illustration, we will use the example of the Company Car Insurance that fictional company UOP offers to its employees and spouses. UOP does not really care about your living arrangements, but the Car Insurance Company does. The following is an excerpt from a court case from Cole verses State Farm Insurance.
"Alaska has other statutes that specifically protect insurance customers from discrimination. These statutes forbid unfair discrimination between insured or property having like insuring or risk characteristics in any. . . of the terms and conditions of the insurance. But as State Farm argues, the costs of providing insurance would, other factors being equal, likely be higher for unmarried couples than for married couples. The insurer would have the difficult and expensive task of determining who is and who is not in a sufficiently marriage-like relationship." (TouchnGo.com) This is but one of many examples that could be shown here. It is not the companies that hire people that determine who qualifies for this or that benefit, but the insurance companies that make that call. Marriage is a legal contract between two persons. That is all it is, a contract. A marriage document keeps the insurance parties responsible to the company and the people involved. Without that legal marriage document, the insurance company holds no obligations to the parent company. This holds the company at a finical loss for un-married couples that are not recognized by state and national laws.
Public Value Only 1 in 10 employers offer domestic partner benefits today, while 75% of all family 's are not considered the traditional family unit. Many opposite sex couples are not married yet they live together with children and are responsible for the financial welfare of each other. Same sex couples also share a family unit some with children, yet are unable to marry because of laws. One family is the same as the other; the choice to marry is just not an option for same sex couples. Some states offer a registration process for domestic partners. The value of employers to offer domestic partner benefits to its employees is that employees are more likely to stay with a company that offers their partner benefits. With diversity in the family structure, the traditional married couples are only about 25% of the population today, meaning that employers are not having to spend as much on benefits as they did in 1970. "Domestic partnership benefits are one way to increase access to healthcare while recognizing diversity of families and treating them with equality and fairness." (The Task Force) Benefits consist of about 40% of an employee 's compensation. Since the enrollment is low in such programs the cost to an employer is only about 1% higher if that employer offers same sex domestic benefits and only about 2% higher if that same employer offers opposite sex domestic benefits. Several cities also have programs for domestic partners that are registered with their city as domestic partners. More employers today are taking into consideration that the family unit has changed to a less traditional roll and considering offering domestic benefits. While it seems that it is up to the employee to push for the benefit, the answer is not the traditional no we have become accustom to in the past.
Employees Demand For Equality
Couples who choose a domestic partnership over a marriage, feel that they should be treated as a married couple and receive the same benefits. Individuals are looking for equality, and do not like the feeling of being discriminated against by an employer that does not offer these benefits. Providing equal treatment to these couples can boost the reputation of a company by displaying commitment to diversity and equality. If one believes in the principle of equality, equal pay for equal work, then it should not matter whether employees are married, single, divorced, widowed, or whether their partner is a man or a woman.
"For a long time, gay employees have not been paid equally for the same work. If you have two employees, one straight and one gay, and they 're both paid $40,000 a year, but one gets health insurance for a spouse and children, and the other doesn 't, the gay person is not being paid the same," Marquardt said. "It 's a matter of workplace equity to allow the unmarried person to also have health insurance available for their partner and children." (Thomson) Providing equal benefits will create a feeling of respect and acceptance, improving the attitude of the employees. Having domestic partner benefits will produce quality, image and morale. This could also increase customer loyalty, and more revenue to the company by persuading consumers that this an ethical company to do business with. Employees will be likely to share their commitment and interest of their place of employment. Employees will know that their company is looking out for them.
Conclusion
There will always be a counterpoint and challenge to any idea presented. As such, there are several factors to reflect on when making a decision to grant unmarried heterosexual and homosexual employees domestic partner benefits. The negative possibilities of attrition by certain employees who do not personally agree with domestic partner benefits, legal issues surrounding local, state and federal laws and regulations, seeking out an insurance provider who offers such coverage and the potential for backlash from outside entities whose views are not in line with the sentiment are all strong factors to consider. Conversely, the positive factors outweigh the potential negative aspects of adopting a domestic partner benefits policy. Implementation will provide all employees with equal accesses and the overall cost increase would be less than 2%. The bottom line is that by providing domestic partnership benefits, we as a company will not see our profit margin shrink and we will be a pillar of equality within our community.
References
American Civil Liberties Union. (2005). Helgeland v. Wisconsin - The True Cost of Providing DP Health Benefits. Retrieved on May 31, 2006, from http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/20306res20050713.html
Human Rights Campaign. (2006). Domestic Partner Benefits. Retrieved May 30, 2006, from http://www.hrc.org/content/NavigationMenu/Work_Life/Get_Informed2/ The_Issues/DomesticPartnerBenefits-March2006-Final.PDF
Public Employees ' Benefit Board. (n.d.). Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://egov.oregon.gov/DAS/PEBB/DPFAQ.shtml
San Francisco Human Rights Commission. (2006). Domestic Partner Insurance Provider Search. Retrieved May 30, 2006, from http://mission.sfgov.org/hrcdpip/
The Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual. (n.d.). Retrieved May 30, 2006, from http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/dp/dp_99.pdf
Thomson, Linda (2006,May 13). S.L. Can Offer Benefits to More Than Spouses. Deseret News, p. A1
TouchnGo.com (2006). Cole v. State Farm Insurance Co. Retrieved May 26, 2006, from http://touchngo.com/sp/html/sp-5978.html

References: American Civil Liberties Union. (2005). Helgeland v. Wisconsin - The True Cost of Providing DP Health Benefits. Retrieved on May 31, 2006, from http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/20306res20050713.html Human Rights Campaign. (2006). Domestic Partner Benefits. Retrieved May 30, 2006, from http://www.hrc.org/content/NavigationMenu/Work_Life/Get_Informed2/ The_Issues/DomesticPartnerBenefits-March2006-Final.PDF Public Employees ' Benefit Board. (n.d.). Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://egov.oregon.gov/DAS/PEBB/DPFAQ.shtml San Francisco Human Rights Commission. (2006). Domestic Partner Insurance Provider Search. Retrieved May 30, 2006, from http://mission.sfgov.org/hrcdpip/ The Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual. (n.d.). Retrieved May 30, 2006, from http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/dp/dp_99.pdf Thomson, Linda (2006,May 13). S.L. Can Offer Benefits to More Than Spouses. Deseret News, p. A1 TouchnGo.com (2006). Cole v. State Farm Insurance Co. Retrieved May 26, 2006, from http://touchngo.com/sp/html/sp-5978.html