Abstract For many years, domestic partnerships are not recognized by employers. Healthcare benefits are available to those who are married and not to those in domestic partnerships. The comparison of the medical cost from what is considered common marriage to domestic partnership, the cost of benefits to domestic partnerships, and how these elements are both supported and explored will show the need to Sarcastically change recruitment efforts.
Various writings of benefits packages, federal benefits of being in a domestic partnership will help advocate the ease and will be beneficial to both employers and employees. The Cost and Value of Offering Domestic Partner Benefits to BBC Inc entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law (Farley. 2013). Men and women have fought and continue to fight for human rights since the early recordings of time.
The right to choose one’s destiny is the most widely sought out movement in the world. Over the years, the benefits/rights offered to individuals, couples, and families have changed cause of the increasingly modification of what was initially and historically thought of as a family unit. Many businesses offer domestic partner benefits because it provides more competitive advantages for talented individuals when recruiting, and it can also drive the retention of dedicated employees.
Order it from experienced writers now!
For Only $13.90/page $19.90
The concern is not only to maintain a safety net for a group of employees and their families, but for entire workforce. Offering domestic partners the opportunity to obtain the same benefits, gives many businesses the edge to reinforce diversity and non-discrimination to there policies and initiatives. With this in mind, we will examine Domestic Partnerships and the cost/value of offering benefits to these types of family units. Background The definition of family has evolved for employers, from the traditional meaning to different types of domestic partnership. A domestic partnership is a legal or interpersonal relationship between two individuals who live together and share a common domestic life but are neither Joined by marriage nor a civil union” (Google Books, David Knox 2012). For quite some time, these types of unions were not recognized by the legal system leaving many who opted to engage in this type of ion without a meaner of supplying their partner the same benefits that would be offered to a spouse.
Therefore, some companies choose to offer benefits to all types. Companies that recognize domestic partnerships, which are opposite and same-sex couples, define these relationships according to state or local laws, federal tax law, or their own policies. Either way, there is a certain amount of accountability, minimum age requirement, mental competence, exclusiveness between employee and partner. The company will specify if it recognizes same-sex couples that do have the right to e married according to state law.
Cost The cost to the company would have little to no effect to the yearly budget according to Cynthia L. Corded an Instructor at University of Miami. This is conveyed though her research paper “Benefits Planning and Management” which is about offering Domestic Partner Benefits (DB). The paper breaks down the annual budget increase in percentages for five states and three organizations in support of domestic rights benefits. The results of her investigation lead to the conclusion of the company budget increase less than one percent annually.
The Williams Institute, a leading think tank in California, Los Angles School of Law, focusing on sexual orientation and gender identity-related law and public policy, estimates that, nationwide, 14,436 same-sex partners would enroll, at a cost of $60. 4 million the first year, which would be a small percentage (0. 006%) of the $3 trillion annual budget” (Mongo! , 2009, Para. 8). Surprisingly the cost of benefits is typically lower for employees engaged in same-sex partnerships because the second partner is as successful therefore, he/she will have the same or higher benefits.
The cost will also be lower because same-sex partners do not usually have children. For example, lesbians will not have to take maternity leave and obviously, gay males would not need this time out of work. What is considered normal heterosexual marriages, one partner would be a homemaker if they have children. On the other hand, homosexual partnerships typically would not have a reason for a party to be a homemaker. Same- sex partnerships will have a limited dependent responsibility. This meaner the company will not have the expense of paying health care for employee dependents.
Also, the company will not have to take on the burden of absent employees during possible, crucial work hours. Medical Cost (Opposed Point of View) The entities that oppose DB will advocate to the cost increase of the companies insurance. Those in opposition to DB argue that 53% of male homosexuals contract and spread HIVE/AIDS. Corded’ research also states the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention reports an increase of HIVE/AIDS contraction in heterosexual and homosexual African Americans through intercourse and drugs. This group of people which are heterosexual is not denied benefits because of racial representation.
Tax Benefits Under Section 119 of the Internal Revenue Code and Sections 105 and 106 covers health insurance and tax benefits to the employer and employee. These benefits allow the company and their employees to qualify for certain tax deductions. These deductions decrease their annual income which will in turn increase their deductible. This ultimately meaner a higher return for both parties (Allen & Hill, 2009, p. 34). HER 638, the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2001 was introduced in the House on February 14. It proposes domestic partners of federal employees would have the same benefits as employee spouses.