Some Indianapolis City-County Councilors are apparently “insulted” by introduction of an ordinance allowing City employees to obtain health insurance for cohabiting (i.e. unmarried) partners.
Some Indianapolis City-County Councilors are apparently “insulted” by introduction of an ordinance allowing City employees to obtain health insurance for cohabiting (i.e. unmarried) partners.
Proponents of extended coverage believe it is more than just a matter of fairness. The availability of health insurance is an important element of competitiveness. There is a reason that Cummins, Bank One, IBM and other major employers offer partner benefits—nondiscrimination is good business. It is even harder to get good people to work for city government, where salaries are lower than in the private sector. Partner benefits help bridge that gap, and at comparatively minor cost. In most cities where partner benefits are available, relatively few employees have taken advantage of them and the fiscal impact has been minimal.
Opponents make noise about the extra cost, but that is a smokescreen for their real belief—that the extension of benefits to unmarried couples legitimizes sin. They believe it rewards behaviors they consider harmful to society.
In one sense, I tend to agree with the opponents. If good public policies are those that encourage formation of stable, committed relationships, extending benefits to heterosexual couples who could marry but choose not to undermines that legitimate policy goal. (Of course, so does denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. But that is another column entirely.) At any rate, this objection loses force when the couple involved is homosexual. So long as we refuse to allow same-sex partners to marry, simple fairness demands that we not further penalize them by refusing to give them the same compensation and fringe benefits that others enjoy as a matter of course.
Opponents’ arguments against equal treatment rest on a belief that homosexual relationships are sinful. But acceptance of that justification for unequal treatment takes us down a very slippery slope. Which sins are reason enough to deny an employee access to health insurance? Adultery? Wife-beating? We currently insure a number of city employees who fail to meet my standards for purity—why single out one class of sin but not others?
If the thought of public employers rating workers on some sort of “sin index” to determine if their moral purity justifies health insurance coverage sounds ludicrous, that’s because it is. Employers—government or private—ought to confine their workplace concerns to employee productivity. What people do off the job should be irrelevant unless it has a demonstrably negative effect on job performance.
Imagine the outcry if city government decided not to extend benefits to women employees, because doing so would “reward” them for working outside the home. Benefits are an important part of total employment compensation. Most of us give at least lip service to the phrase “Equal pay for equal work.” We no longer pay men more than women for doing a particular job. We don’t pay white people more than black people. To do so would be illegal.
If a job should pay $35,000 plus health insurance, that’s what it should pay. No matter who holds it.