07/31/2007
UPS Decides to Deliver Civil Union Benefits to NJ Same-sex Couples
The United Parcel Service, which , has announced that upon a second review of the state's laws they determined that the company had erred.
UPS announced that it would reverse its policy and extend health benefits to partners of those employees registered in civil unions. Of course the public outcry may also have had something to do with it.
Said UPS' senior vice president for human resources Allen Hill: "Based on an initial legal review when New Jersey's law was enacted, it did not appear that a 'civil union' and 'marriage' were equivalent. Over the past week, however, we have received clear guidance that at least in New Jersey, the state truly views civil union partners as married. We've heard that loud and clear from state officials and we're happy to make this change."
New Jersey's Governor Jon Corzine last week made a personal request to the company to change its policy and Lambda Legal had been assisting couples requesting the benefits.
Said Lambda Legal's David Buckel: "The problem, of course, is that it's going to happen one family and one company at a time, when the Legislature could take care of all families in one fell swoop. If the Legislature opened up access to marriage to same-sex couples, the invitation to discriminate wouldn't be there anymore."
Recently...
New Jersey Governor Corzine Asks UPS to Observe Civil Union Laws [tr]
UPS Policy Demonstrates Inequality of New Jersey's Civil Unions [tr]
Posted 8:06 AM EST by Andy in Discrimination, Gay Marriage, New Jersey, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Well that's one step in the right direction.
...and UPS guy is adorable.
Posted by: Rob (lrdarystar) | Jul 31, 2007 8:26:27 AM
The UPS reversal is great news for same sex couples in long-term relationships.
It re-enforces the idea - and makes it a reality - that corporations will grant the same benefits to these couples as they do to married couples if within that state there is a civil union or domestic partnership law that's been enacted.
Now if the federal government - in the form of its legislature - would get down to business on this, laws could be written that would provide the benefits currently enjoyed by married couples to all same sex couples in a civil union throughout the country.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 31, 2007 8:34:23 AM
They realized how easy it is for the state government, a huge client, and gays and their supporters in the state to switch to fed ex or some other package delivery service.
Posted by: anon | Jul 31, 2007 8:38:32 AM
I wish UPS hadn't given coverage.
UPS hasn't had an issue with granting same-sex couples coverage in the one state that bestows "marriage." It's not the company's fault but the fallacy of the state of NJ to believe that separate but equal exists. UPS refusing coverage for "civil unions" would have forced the NJ legislature to revisit the issue as it wouldn't comply with the NJ judicial ruling about creating equal status for same-sex couples. Now that's all pushed to the back-burner.
This could have not only taught NJ what equality is about but other states who think they can sidestep the marriage issue by creating "civil unions" and registries... which really just amounts to second-classing citizens.
Posted by: bscout | Jul 31, 2007 9:10:45 AM
Bscout:
I disagree. Same sex couples are not second-class citizens. UPS is now providing the SAME benfits as they do to married couples.
As I noted, IF the federal gov't. got off their collective asses, they could write laws that would provide virtually all the SAME (read: first class) benefits to long-term same-sex couples that married couples are provided.
If militant gays and lesbians would acquiesce on the 'marriage' misnomer, they be across the bridge, so to speak.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 31, 2007 9:39:18 AM
Politicians in the state were worried that the UPS policy would give cause for the state SC to rule that the CU law was not the equivalent of marriage and thus require a rewrite that was politically unpopular. Thus, they basically told UPS to change their policy. Great for UPS employees, not as great for full marriage rights.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Jul 31, 2007 10:45:29 AM
I used to work for UPS, and they are very opposed to change. It's just the way they work, and it can be a long process. When I worked there, men could not grow beards, and couple could not work at the company. If your husband mopped floors at UPS in New Jersey, your wife couldn't wash trucks in Pennsylvania. So, I don't think it's just the law, it's their intractability and complete unwillingness to change with the times.
Posted by: jake | Jul 31, 2007 11:28:40 AM
No matter what, corporate america sucks. Grow a pair and start your own business. Then have your company insurance cover your partner. Problem fucking solved.
Posted by: Crandall McKinney | Jul 31, 2007 7:24:59 PM
Don't they realize how many porn movies have the UPS guy coming to the door for more?
Posted by: Br!on | Jul 31, 2007 8:35:04 PM
I got this from their "Director of Reputation Management"
Dear Mr. xxxxxxx:
I wanted to personally respond to your email to us about same-sex benefits.
After consulting with state officials and others, we have determined that we can now legally offer same-sex benefits to our Teamster union employees in N.J. This extends the benefits we already offer our management and administrative employees there. Attached is a press release announcing this development.
http://pressroom.ups.com/pressreleases/current/0,1088,4913,00.html
Lynnette McIntire
UPS Public Relations
-----Original Message-----
From: Public Relations (d10prlaa)
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:01 AM
To: Public Relations (d10prlaa)
Subject: Media Request
First Name: Theodore
Last Name:xxxxx
Email address: xxxxxxxx
Comments:
Based on UPS' decision to withhold from same-sex domestic partners benefits and rights identical to those offered to married couples, I resolve to:
-do everything in my power to discourage my company from using UPS. This includes, in lieu of using UPS: faxing and emailing all documents, using snail mail, and asking vendors not to send samples, or other materials via UPS
Personally, I resolve to
- choose other options for delivery when making purchases via catalog, online store, direct TV, etc. This means using regular mail, FexEx or other carrier, or actually visiting a store.
This personal embargo against UPS will remain in effect until UPS rescinds its decision not to accord its workers in same-sex domestic partnerships the same rights and respect as their married colleagues.
Yours Truly,
xxxxxxxxx
Posted by: Theodore | Aug 1, 2007 12:45:24 AM
Stephen, you're being terribly disingenuous here. It takes two to tango. Legislative action is only one part of the lawmaking process.
You know full well that this President would toss any federal DP/CU legislation into the trash bin... faster than you can put up the "Veto Accomplished" banner. This is the man that threatened to veto this year's DC appropriations bill over the inclusion of funding for domestic partners benefits. He claimed it violates the DOMA to use federal money on gay couples.
Nancy and Harry backed down, as usual. And the Democrats should be held accountable for their cowardice. However, that doesn't mean Bush should be let off the hook. Were it not for his very public anti-gay stance, they could've quietly slipped that provision into the bill.
Posted by: John | Aug 1, 2007 1:54:00 AM
JOHN:
Idiot Bush's veto is a rubber stamp, no doubt. But I wouldn't write off the ability for Democrats (who SHOULD be held accountable for their cowardice, as you say) and a handful of moderate Republicans to get this through. If it doesn't happen before the November '08 election, it has even a better chance post-election.
Bide your time.
Posted by: Stephen | Aug 1, 2007 4:15:33 AM