Foreign Policy Workers Ask for Benefits for Partners

[Marcia]

From today's Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012602039.html

Nearly 2,200 government employees involved in foreign policy issues signed a letter delivered to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday calling on the government to give equal benefits to same-sex partners.

The Bush administration had eased some rules, opening up some training to same-sex partners, but had resisted efforts to treat homosexual partners the same as married couples. But Clinton, during her confirmation hearings, indicated a greater willingness to explore the issue.

"I think that we should take a hard look at the existing policy," Clinton said in response to a question from Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.). "My understanding is other nations have moved to extend that partnership benefit."

The issue achieved prominence in 2007 when a respected ambassador, Michael Guest, resigned after 26 years in the Foreign Service to protest the rules and regulations that he argued gave same-sex partners fewer benefits than family pets. Guest said he was forced to choose "between obligations to my partner, who is my family, and service to my country," which he called "a shame for this institution and our country."

Guest was a member of Obama's State Department transition team.

They are asking for partners to be given the same funds for travel abroad and accommodations as a spouse. This means that US diplomats in foreign posts could be hosting a dinner for foreign diplomats and others with their "partner" as a sort of spouse. This is totally unacceptable, imo.

My father was a U.S. Foreign Service Officer (diplomat) with the State Dept. I cannot imagine the scenario proposed above - no matter how liberal other nations may be, this would lower the dignity and moral face of the U.S., imo.

 

[Marcia]

Well, I guess no one cares about this.

 

[windcatcher]

I read this report.
I think it is both disgusting and selfish request.

These people are not the product of discrimination. They have affluence and hold positions of prestige and privilege already........ under an umbrella which used to be considered "public service".

At a time when many people in our country are loosing their jobs through no fault of their own; many people are living without benefits; many employers have cut back workers hours to prevent them qualifying for benefits: single 'straights' are having to make it in an economy which makes it difficult to make it on one income without some sharing of living arrangement..... and then a group of deviants expects special privileges and competes for funds from the taxpayers pockets to pay for the cost of their sport..... Disgusting and selfish..... and bizarre that they find support of some legislatures willing to champion their special interest cause above the needs and problems in our country.

There is a cheaper alternative: Pink slip all of them as the first of many needed government cut backs!

 

[billwald]

I care about this. It is a matter of equal pay for equal work now that medical benefits are a large part of one's total compensation package.

I have a wife and 5 kids. A single guy I worked with lived with his mother. When she became senile he had to put her on welfare. He worked much harder than I did but I was probably paid 20% in benefits.

Every employee should get the same dollar payment in medical benefits. If someone wants to split his benefits with the next door neighbor, no business of mine.

 

[windcatcher]

I care about this. It is a matter of equal pay for equal work now that medical benefits are a large part of one's total compensation package.

I have a wife and 5 kids. A single guy I worked with lived with his mother. When she became senile he had to put her on welfare. He worked much harder than I did but I was probably paid 20% in benefits.

Every employee should get the same dollar payment in medical benefits. If someone wants to split his benefits with the next door neighbor, no business of mine.

Hey, billwald, I'm all for family benefits....... and I've been single most of my life and not in a life style which would have given me the benefits of the style this suggests and you suggest you agree with.

While I was willing to advocate for reducing the cost of your family insurance package but I only got a single person's benefits and my wages are held back due to employer overhead.... you were also beneficary of my labors which brought income to my employer which financed your benefit package for a family and mine for a single person.

But now you think a homosexual partnership should have equal share to the benefit overhead which also helps to cover you and your family? .........Why don't we make this equiable for all and do away with government, civil service, corporate, or private...... employer funded benefits and let each worker fend for himself.

5 children, huh? You'd better rethink your position, keep your benefits and my support for them ...... unless you really believe you can equate your lifestyle as the same of a homosexual couple!..... In that case, I will lobby, I will advocate, any employer I get a chance to talk to...... suggest that in lieu of offering benefits...that they offer increase in pay and lets all of us fend for ourselves in the open market for health insurance, life insurance... and any other 'security' items we want to buy. Eventually, some employer will come along and understand the reduction of grief this plan gives them.....unless they work in a state which regulates that health and life packages must be offered.

 

[Marcia]

I care about this. It is a matter of equal pay for equal work now that medical benefits are a large part of one's total compensation package.

I have a wife and 5 kids. A single guy I worked with lived with his mother. When she became senile he had to put her on welfare. He worked much harder than I did but I was probably paid 20% in benefits.

Every employee should get the same dollar payment in medical benefits. If someone wants to split his benefits with the next door neighbor, no business of mine.

I think help with immediate family members is a good thing, such as a parent. However, I do not think a same sex partner should qualify as an immediate family member or spouse.

Even in decadent Greece and other cultures where it was acceptable for men to be with men (or boys), it never took the place of marriage. Only in the late 20th century -- for the first time ever --have some countries advocated marriage or marriage benefits for same sex partners.

 

[billwald]

But now you think a homosexual partnership should have equal share to the benefit overhead which also helps to cover you and your family?

Yes, Every employee should have the same cap for medical benefits in dollars per hour.


>.........Why don't we make this equiable for all and do away with government, civil service, corporate, or private...... employer funded benefits and let each worker fend for himself.

OK. Cancel the benefits for every person and recalculate the average cost as a pay increase for each employee. Medical benefits were invented to get around a war time wage freeze.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

The answer? Universal healthcare for all.

 

[Marcia]

The answer? Universal healthcare for all.

But this isn't really about that so much as it is U.S. diplomats going overseas with partners and expecting/wanting that they will be treated as a married couple by our government. It's how we present ourselves abroad to other diplomats and governments.

 

[windcatcher]

But now you think a homosexual partnership should have equal share to the benefit overhead which also helps to cover you and your family?

Yes, Every employee should have the same cap for medical benefits in dollars per hour.

OK. Cancel the benefits for every person and recalculate the average cost as a pay increase for each employee. Medical benefits were invented to get around a war time wage freeze.

Okay..... Let's get realistic here: We both do the same job, you with family hospitalization benefits and me with hospitalization benefits for one. The employer pays more for your package even with you having to kick in a portion ($150/month or $1,800 annually)towards its cost than the same employer pays for mine: However, when benefits are removed from employers overhead and distributed as wages..... he can't pay you any more than he pays me because he's purchasing our labor and not our lifestyle.

So we both get $4-5 dollars more an hour..... but have to buy our own health insurance out of our wages, aproximately $640/month more in wages, all taxable income before deductions. For your family size health insurance you now pay $1,200, and mine runs $350/month. At the end of the year we both earned about $8,000 more in gross income from which we have deductions and taxes: But you had health insurance costs for your family amounting to $14,400, and my health insurance cost $4,200.

Before, with the purchasing/negotiating powers of group plan purchasing... you and your family benefited by employer provided insurance and you got the same wages as me for the same work and had health insurance for yourself and all your mouths for $1800 more a year: Without the employer benefit, we both now make $8,000 more a year.... but you and your mouths health insurance now cost you more than you gained by $4,400..... so you lose, while I have gained income of $3,800 over and above the cost of health care insurance.

Being so smart, the ignorant don't realize how much benefit overhead really cost their employer, sometimes as little as 15% above hourly wages..... but more often 25% or more above hourly wages. The added benefit, frequently not considered, is that reported wages for income taxes do not include the employer provided benefit..... which is reportable if received as wages and subject to the limitations of percentages before taking deductions as health care expenses. The more inclusive of benefit 'extras' like family plans, spouse provisions, same sex couples..... the less the employer has remaining of the funds to divide as wages among those whos labors actually produce the income distributed among all.
So you are not content that the employer provides health benefits for singles and married couples and families with children..... you think it proper that they cover the burden of lifestyle choices like same sex or unrelated couples?

 

[billwald]

The company could still offer group insurance but the copay would be 100% with the company only paying for the paperwork. Under current law I think medical insurance is deductible if paid for out of a medical savings account.