No, seriously. UPS says it will offer health care benefits to all civil union partners of its Teamster-represented hourly workers in New Jersey. According to a statement from UPS:
We are taking this step based on discussions and input over the last few days from several state officials, including the attorney general and governor."
Our policy in this regard has been clear from the start: UPS offers same-sex benefits to all non-union employees now and our intent is to offer these same benefits to all unionized workers. In the case of union workers, however, we cannot unilaterally extend these benefits without going through the collective bargaining process.
The only exception to collective bargaining is when an individual state recognizes same-sex partners as married spouses. New Jersey has enacted a law recognizing the right of same-sex partners to join in civil unions. Based on an initial legal review when this law was enacted, it did not appear that a "civil union" and "marriage" were equivalent.
Over the past week, however, we 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.
In other words, state officials put the screws on UPS to treat civil unions like marriage when it comes to benefits for employees' spousal-equivalents. Fine for UPS's gay and coupled Teamsters (an unknown number, apparently). But many other Garden State employers still don't see the equivalence, or at least choose not to.
More. The New York Times chimes in:
The couples now eligible for benefits may celebrate, but their success is seen in some circles as evidence that the civil union law can be leveraged to force equality, undercutting at least some of the argument that nothing short of marriage is adequate.
But it looks like a confusing hodge-podge among employers, many of whom are not offering spousal benefits to their civil unionized employees.
In our comments, questions are raised about why, if UPS was offering partner benefits to nonunionized workers, the Teamsters failed to press for the same treatment for their dues-payers during contract negotiations (and why pro-union gay activists aren't mentioning this).
5 Comments for “Good News for Gay Teamsters in the Garden State”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
This makes far more sense.
Our policy in this regard has been clear from the start: UPS offers same-sex benefits to all non-union employees now and our intent is to offer these same benefits to all unionized workers.
Gee, and who approved that contract?
The union.
Notice that UPS was already offering DP benefits to all of its non-union employees. Only the unionized employees didn’t have it — because the contract that their leadership negotiated and approved didn’t include it.
But of course, Lambda Legal glossed over that part and said that UPS was denying benefits to its lgbt employees, without mentioning that nonunion employees WERE getting them (and had been since 2004) — because doing so would protect the unions who screwed gays over in the first place and, at their behest, punish UPS instead.
Furthermore, Lambda is upset that the law doesn’t prevent a binding union contract that excludes same-sex partnerships from excluding same-sex partnerships. Perhaps they should talk to their Democrat and union allies first, rather than arguing that the law should override the union contract.
posted by Rhywun on
Is anyone really surprised about this “separate but equal” business? Anyone could have seen that coming. If it wasn’t for “separate but equal”, and if these unions were actually considered marriages in NJ, the law would in fact override the union contract. I don’t know that the contract in question specifically excludes civil unions (but I do doubt it). It probably specifies merely “marriage”, and thereby confers separate-but-equal (actually, not equal) status on gays.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Gay Leftists!!
posted by ETJB on
Do you know that the Teamsters were not pushing for same-sex benifits? Have you spoken with the Teamsters or LGBT labor supporters?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Really, ETJB; if the union supported such benefits, do you think they would have approved a contract that excluded them? Why on earth, if the union was demanding partner benefits, would they have taken a contract that didn’t include them?
Furthermore, why did the LGBT labor supporters lie and say that UPS didn’t offer partner benefits to ANY employees, when in fact they did? Can you explain why Lambda told such a blatant falsehood?