With companies like Exxon Mobil stripping away obligations to and protections for gay employees (and year after year, refusing to reinstate them), perhaps it’s time for a primer on why corporations should offer benefits to GLBTs and protect them with non-discrimination policies. And given Exxon Mobil sits at the bottom of Queerty‘s list of “10 Companies That Hate the Gays,” perhaps they should be the first to take notice.
The notion of offering gay employees the same benefits — like health care for partners and surviving pension plans — as heteros began in 1982, when New York City’s Village Voice newspaper became what’s believed to be the first company to extend benefits to domestic partners of its staff. Since then, major firms including Kaiser Permanente, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Oracle, Cisco, General Mills, and Home Depot have joined the fray; Levi-Strauss became the first Fortune 500 company to offer benefits. (Then there’s a whole other class of employers, like the University of Iowa, which offers benefits.)
And yet some market shakers, like Exxon, continue to look the other way. Is it because of the flawed economics that folks like GOP Chairman Michael Steele point to?
Often, yes. All of that added cost that comes with paying more insurance benefits isn’t worth the burden to implement equality, they claim. Except that’s not true. As DiversityInc.com notes: “A 2005 Hewitt Associates study of large U.S. employers found that 88 percent of the respondents that introduced same-sex domestic-partner benefits experienced a financial impact of 2 percent or less. What’s more, only 5 percent of the companies surveyed experienced a financial impact of more than 3 percent. The payoff of such programs clearly outweighs the costs. These companies report lower attrition rates and reduced turnover costs and are able to recruit from a greater pool of candidates. Employers that understand the financial burdens of LGBT people also understand the financial burdens of all employees–and offer group benefits to retain them.”
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Indeed, all those costs about recruiting, training, and retaining talented gay employees never seems to factor in to the minds of execs who worry more about what an Excel spreadsheet shows them in additional insurance costs. (Not so surprisingly, the U.S. military also — stupidly — thinks this way.)
And then there’s the ethical argument, which goes like this: Companies should offer same-sex benefits because it’s simply the right thing to do. Some firms shoot this down because of their morals, like Rockstar Energy, a company run by bigot Michael Savage’s son Russell Weiner. (NB: Check out this funny-slash-disturbing legal threat from Rockstar against anyone who criticizes them.)
But as firms who treat gay employees as equals, the payoffs are clear. “We have a long-standing commitment to fostering a workplace environment of inclusiveness,” said Liz Christopher, the spokeswoman for Nationwide Insurance, a company based in Iowa that already offered gay employees domestic partnership benefits before the Iowa Supreme Court all but mandated it. “It also affects associate performance. If you’re worried about your loved one’s health care, then you’re probably not focused on your job.”
Look at that: Morality can be good for efficiency.
We’re well aware that companies are not charities. They are in the business of generating profits and pleasing shareholders. But even if we ignore a company’s ethical obligation to the people who make it run — and the consumers and clients it serves that, undoubtedly, include GLBTs — and stick only to the financials, it may actually cost some companies more to endorse discrimination than abolish it.
KPC
Kaiser Permanente may offer benefits to an employee’s domestic partner, but here in Hawaii Kaiser will not cover subscriber’s domestic partners — at least in their small business plans. They will happily take my employer’s $375/mo to cover my wife (if I had one), but they refuse to take my employer’s $375 to cover my boyfriend. Hardly progressive.
Dennis
You know, credit where credit is due…Thank you Queerty, this is an excellent article/post. Sorry that the comment count is low…maybe if you put a nude guy wearing a tie, or a stud in a home depot employee smock to up the eye candy factor.
C’mon people…you can’t just bitch about Obama ALL the time, check out the other posts as well!
LarryPDX
Don’t forget the HRC puts our an annual Corporate Equality Index and Buyer’s Guide for consumers interested in supporting companies that support equal rights.
I think these annual publications are one of the best things HRC does. If you just remember a few companies to support and few not to then it’s progress in the right direction.
Paul
Personally, I will never work for any company again that does not offer the same exact benefits to me and my partner as it does to opposite sex marriage partners. Any self respecting person would do nothing less. I know, I know, times are hard. But why make them even harder by paying double the price for health care and other benefits, not to mention the incalcable damagae it does to ones core self by accepting 2nd class discriminatory treatment every day of your working existance?
galefan2004
This was a well thought out argument on why big corporations should give their gay employees benefits. Looking at a cost of operation raise of 2-3% (as it seems) seems to make no difference (except when you realize a great deal of these companies are already operating at a loss). The argument makes sense. However, unfortunately, no matter what you will never end bigotry, so the better approach is to pass a law that gives gays and lesbians the same employment rights as heterosexuals.