07/09/2007
UPS Policy Demonstrates Inequality of New Jersey's Civil Unions
The "separate but not equal" status of New Jersey's civil unions has been reinforced once again, this time by the United Parcel Service, who says it won't offer benefits to the same-sex partner of one of its employees, even though they are registered in a civil union in the state.
Why? Because the language does not recognize the partner as a "spouse".
The Star Ledger reports: "In its letter denying coverage, UPS said it does provide health benefits to its employees' spouses, including spouses of the same sex who are married in Massachusetts. But it said New Jersey's decision to recognize same-sex relationships as civil unions rather than marriages tied its hands. Gay rights activists called it the starkest proof to date that New Jersey's civil union law has failed to deliver on its promise to provide all the benefits of marriage, but by a different name."
New Jersey gay rights group Garden State Equality says it has received 176 complaints of civil unions not being recognized.
Chairman Steven Goldstein told the paper: "This is a problem the Legislature created. Civil unions are never in our lifetime going to be respected by employers like marriage. We've heard from many legislators that this is something they want to deal with in 2008. They know it's a disaster. In the real world, civil unions are to marriage what artificial sweetener is to sugar. It's not the same thing and it leaves a bad aftertaste."
In dneying benefits, firm says civil union not marriage's equal [star ledger]
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 5:00 PM EST by Andy in Gay Marriage, New Jersey, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
I'm not sure that's a fair metaphor. Artificial sweetner is delicious.
Posted by: Aaron | Jul 9, 2007 5:15:18 PM
Considering the NJ Supreme Court's initial interpretation...UPS might lose if their "not equal" position were appealed to the NJ Courts. As CU are new, some case law needs to establish new precedents in how NJ's CU law is applied.
Posted by: Ted B. (Charging Rhino) | Jul 9, 2007 5:22:50 PM
I do not think the UPS policy can hold up under judicial review. It is only a matter of time until the state supreme court either forces the "marriage" name or forces the companies that do business within the state to comply with the original intent of the law; EQUALITY! Either way, it will be a win for the LGBT community. And since we have waited this long for our rights, what is a few more years right?!
Posted by: RB | Jul 9, 2007 6:29:08 PM
This is so backwards. As a married gay man in Canada I have health and other benefits through my husbands employer ... however, we only got married last September and I've benefited from benefits as a common-law partner for almost 15 years. Companies should not rely on legeslation to offer benefits ... they should use more inclusive language. Unfortunatly, if corporations use more inclusive language then the legeslature has no reason to legalize equal marriage.
Posted by: Joseph | Jul 9, 2007 7:04:25 PM
Below is a link to my comments at Joe.My.God
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/joemygod/714741279048626070/#836838
Even in the US, common-law partnerships are not the same as marriages and those who do not see marriage as a necessary "sealing" of their commitment to each other are "discriminated" against. It could be said that in order to get the benefits you have to jump through some hoops sometimes. I don't agree in the long run, but until we have a significant turn-around in this country, that is the unfortunate and devastating reality.
And, re: the comment about what is a few more years? Just that, a few more years. As vague as the status of civil unions. A few more years could see the death of a partner due to limited access to healthcare. It could see a host of things. I don't want to wait for that to happen.
Posted by: Lucas | Jul 9, 2007 9:55:21 PM
I bugs the crap out of me that the newspaper keeps saying that UPS offers benefits to its Massachusetts employees. That's great, but it's not a useful comparison.
The question I want to know is
What does UPS do for its CU'd Vermont and Connecticut employees, and its DP'd California employees? Also, what WILL it do w/ its CU'd New Hampshire employees starting January 1, 2008?
I know full-well that CU != marriage. I have had my husband's employer deny my him (and me) spousal health benefits here IN MASSACHUSETTS. Because they are based in Florida and are covered by ERISA (they're self-insured), they don't HAVE to offer the benefits, but they CAN DO SO if they choose.
They choose not to.
Posted by: tjc | Jul 9, 2007 9:56:47 PM
Dammit and my normaly infallable proffredng skilz.
*IT* bugs the crap out of me....
Posted by: tjc | Jul 9, 2007 9:58:28 PM
With those legs?!?
Oh, Brown, how could you? After all, you keep sending out so many tasty looking morsels to deliver your packages. How could you NOT recognize civil unions?
All sarcasm aside, maybe I'll do more shipping with FedEx
Posted by: Will Brady | Jul 9, 2007 11:55:51 PM
Hi Friends,
I Find Absolutely FREE PlayBoy & Penthouse:
http://www.oxpe.net/playboy/
If I find something else I'll inform you.
Best Regards,
Vera
Posted by: vera | Jul 10, 2007 6:37:21 AM
Fedex doesn't offer partner benefits either, so there's no good karma their.
The problem is that UPS is lying when they say they can't offer benefits because NJ has civil unions. They can offer partner benefits if they choose to; they don't.
Half the Fortune 500 have DP benefits for employees. This doesn't show the limits of the CU law, it shows the ability to spin of UPS's PR people.
Posted by: John | Jul 10, 2007 10:44:12 AM
Um, Vera - are you lost or something? lol
Posted by: Gregg | Jul 10, 2007 10:49:35 AM
Remember, UPS voluntarily offers DP benefits (not just health care but others as well) to all its non-union employees (unlike FedEx!) and it requested and won DP benefits in its last union contract with its pilots. UPS has said that the NJ law doesn't allow it to extend benefits to employees covered under its contract with the Teamsters; MA law allowed them to under that contract, so they did.
Posted by: eatruneat | Jul 14, 2007 9:58:11 AM