Three of the bills relate to "domestic partnership benefits," which means that gay and lesbian workers, like their straight co-workers, would be able to insure partners and children and have access to family sick leave and bereavement leave. As I said when I testified before the Committee for Public Service, I'm happy for my full-time co-workers who can provide insurance for their loved ones, but I would like that privilege too. My partner hasn't had health insurance for five years and for people who pay for insurance as individuals, the cost is thousands of dollars more than what individuals pay when they can contribute to a group plan. Because domestic partnership benefits span the complexities of insurance and the very personal side of relationships, it is tricky terrain. Anyone who has had to petition their program coordinator, executive director, and board members, to secure benefits for their partners or for anything else out of the ordinary knows the feeling of vulnerability first-hand.
The three domestic partner benefit bills are: 1) A bill filed by the Massachusetts Teachers' Association (House 347) changing the definition of "dependent" to include domestic partners of the same gender.
2) A bill drafted by Rep. Byron Rushing and Sen. Diane Wilkerson (Senate 1222) which would also guarantee domestic partnership benefits for all full-time gay and lesbian public sector employees. (In this bill "domestic partners" can also include straight non-married couples.)
3) A home rule petition submitted by the City of Boston which would allow it to give domestic partnership benefits to all full-time and part-time (if they work more than 20 hours per week) gay and straight city employees. In testimony before the public service committee, Mark McGrath, the Lesbian and Gay Liaison from the Mayor's Office, said that these benefits might cost the city approximately $300,000. While this figure sounds like a lot of money to most of us in the literacy world, it compares with the $12 million price tag per year the city currently budgets for benefits. The city has a pilot program which is in place pending legislative approval of this petition.
The fourth bill, sponsored by Rep. Pat Jehlen, would prevent discrimination against part-time and contingent workers in the area of pay and benefits. As one teacher ironically pointed out, though her agency offers domestic partnership benefits, she is part-time and so couldn't take advantage of them. (See the FYI section for more information on this bill.)
Boston-area ABE programs operate under a variety of structures and their salary and benefits policies vary considerably. To look into these policies, we chose to survey a small number of Boston-area programs that represent a variety of types of programs, including programs whose staff are in unions, programs that are part of larger, multi-service non-profit agencies, tiny non-profits that only do literacy, and a small program that is affiliated with a national organization.
We tried to understand under what circumstances part-timers receive benefits and if there is consistency or inconsistency in the benefits that straight and gay/lesbian/bisexual staff members receive. We wanted to know if part-timers receive health insurance. We wanted to know if they have access to health insurance for their families. We wanted to know if straight and lesbian/gay full-time employees have the same benefits. Because we care both about part-timers' benefits and about domestic partnership benefits, we decided not to focus on one to the exclusion of the other.
Not every program was reachable or returned calls in the two weeks we attempted to conduct the survey. Nonetheless, some of what we found was news to us, and we decided to report some of the patterns that are emerging.
1) Regarding gay or lesbian full-time employees seeking health coverage for partners, we heard several comments that expressed the same idea: "It's never come up." In other words, lesbians and gays aren't on staff or haven't asked. The message here is, you can't get what you don't ask for. Agencies such as Mujeres Unidas en Accion and Catholic Charities haven't said an outright "No." Here's a chance for straight allies to raise the issue and work toward a benefits package that would be the same for all employees regardless of sexual orientation and marital status.
2) Large multi-service agencies which are progressive, private non-profits seem to be on the cutting edge. If you are working for the benefits, here's where to look. For example, Dimock Community Health Center and Jewish Vocational Service both have domestic partnership benefits included in their personnel policies.
3) Programs are pretty consistently offering pro-rated benefits to employees who work 20 hours a week or more. But they are also pretty consistently offering nothing to employees who work six, eight, or twelve hours a week.
4) Another theme that emerged is that insurance companies are dictating what benefits small programs can offer. They decline to offer certain benefits, stating "your pool is too small." For example, Just-A-Start considered offering domestic partnership benefits when the City of Cambridge took the same step. But they didn't follow through when the insurance carrier claimed the pool wasn't big enough. In this situation, we as individuals, groups, and agencies have to challenge the insurance carriers. This answer isn't acceptable.
Until now the burden's been on individuals to raise the issue of domestic partnership benefits. In effect, the people who had the most at stake have fought for the benefits and, though the situation is better at some agencies, the overall picture has not changed substantially. The situation for part-timers has been simply one of disempowerment with little possibility for change. So we need to raise this issue to the field as a whole. MATSOL and MCAE should continue to advocate for better benefits. Program coordinators can ask for benefits to be on the agenda at directors' meetings. And it's time to push the state legislators. Regarding domestic partnership legislation, call the co-chairs of the Committee on Public Service, Sen. Richard Moore or Rep. Timothy Toomey.