Tuesday, June 17, 2003
Will Columbus adopt household benefits for city employees at a
discriminatory price?
The Joint
Committee on Household Benefits, established last year by the Mayor and
City Council President of Columbus, Ohio, has just released a draft of
its final report. In it, the committee is recommending that the city
expand its health benefits program so that city employees may designate up
to two adults living with them to participate in the benefits
program.
Dr. Phil Cass, CEO of the Columbus Medical Association, is chair of the Household Benefits Committee. (See photo.)
Under the proposal, each employee could designate up to two adult household members to receive health benefits, which could include a domestic partner, an adult child or parent, a sibling, or other relatives. Employees would have to contribute a portion of the cost of this benefit, and the committee is suggesting that employees should pay 50 percent.
If this recommendation is adopted by the City Council and Mayor, then an employee would have to pay considerably more for a household participant than for a spouse. Coverage for an employee and spouse would cost an employee about $36.50 per month, while coverage for an employee and adult household member would cost an employee $161.50 per month. As a result, a married employee with spousal coverage would take home about $1,500 more per year in income than an unmarried employee with coverage for an unmarried adult household member.
By its own admission, the report states that the committee "chose a plan design for extended coverage that does not challenge the preferred status of the traditional family in public policy." By doing so, the draft report has violated the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and is reinforcing and perpetuating marital status discrimination in the area of employee compensation.
Thomas F. Coleman, Executive Director of the American Association for Single People, has reviewed this report and points out that it does not address some troubling questions such as:
-
Why should a single parent with an adult child at home have to pay more for health coverage for this adult than a married employee pays for a spouse?
-
Why should an employee living with a domestic partner for 10 years have to pay more than an employee who has lived for six months with a spouse?
-
What is so special about a third, fourth, or fifth marriage that employees in such relationships are given preferred status, and more pay, than domestic partners in their first long term relationship or a never-married single parent with an adult child at home?
