NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/motss/54475

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-31 | 5.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!bu.edu!news.bbn.com!hsdndev!spdcc!rdonahue
From: [e-mail] (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: EE statements (was: Re: Attention Skiers Boycotting Colorado)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 1 Jan 93 04:18:39 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: insert anything here
Lines: 122

[e-mail] (Walter Smith) writes:
>[e-mail] (Bob Donahue) writes:
>>     Well no sane person would come on here telling us what
>> we should or should not do without having done *some* legwork on
>> their own.  No one who wasn't a hypocrite would come on here
>> and bray about how things ought to be without actually practicing
>> what he preached...

>Oh, I see..."you don't do things my way; so you must be insane."
>Who's the one trying to push back towards a flame fest, and away
>from talking to each other as a human being?

    Not me --- you are in the GAY group WAlter --- this isn't
a heterocentric venue --- you are a guest.  I live here.  Stop
treating my home like your playground and you might get a LOT
less flak.

>Bob, I talk to people
>I know and tell them my views on these things, that I don't think
>people should be discriminated against for their sexual orientation.

    Yeah, you've done SO well here.....  Talk is cheap.
DO something.

>I have not seen a viable wording of policies (that would help make
>benefits more equitable) that I would give to my HR department.
>If you want to call me a hypocrite because I do only as much
>as I do and not as much as you want me to do, that is *your* problem.
>If you want to say that I am not sane because I dont do things *your*
>way, THAT is *your* problem.  I try my best to practice what
>I preach; if i don't do it well enough to satisfy your idea of
>what I should do, I apologize to you.

    No apology needed --- just stop talking and start doing.
I'll say it again - talk is cheap.  Talk isn't going to get equality,
talk isn't going to push the people who need to be pushed.

>>     Fine, then let's write that letter shall we?
>Sounds good to me.  What have we got to work with so far?

OK --- here, I'll write it FOR you... (dumb question - does your wife
dress you in the morning?)

[begin included text]

To whom it may concern:

    It has been brought to my attention recently that many
companies, including ours does not offer equal benefits packages
to employees to committed heterosexual unions as well as
committed homosexual unions.  While at this time marriage is legally
restricted to couples of opposite sex, committed couples no matter
what their sexual orientation share the same responsibilities,
the same duties and deserve to enjoy the same quality of life.
However, despite our efforts on paper to state we are an equal-
opportunity company in marital status and sexual orientation,
in practice we are severely lacking when it comes to actively
pursuing visible equality in all of the ways we interact with
our employees and their spouses and families.

    This issue is gaining more and more attention nationally.
A few companies have started to expand their scope in terms of
recognizing non-traditional families, and have found little or
no adverse reactions in making this bold move.  I would like to
think that HP is a forward-thinking company, both in the
technology and products we provide to our customers, but also in
the way we treat our own.  Therefore I urge you to consider making the
following changes in the employee benefits package:

    1) The definition of "spouse" be elevated beyond the realm
of the traditional heterosexist definition and expanded to include
long-term same-sex unions.  As there is no legal framework for
same-sex couples to formally declare their union, I expect that
HP will have to arrive at a preliminary definition until such time
that such a proceedure becomes widespread in the mainstream community.
Other companies routinely use some evidence that the couple has
lived together for a specified period of time - others in areas
that have local domestic partnership laws utilize the framework
provided to them by the local community.

    2) The definition of "family" be inclusive of the children
of same-sex union spouses.

    3) That policies regarding bereavement leave, serious family
crisis leave, insurance cash-out options, day-care or other
company facilities used by the families of employees be expanded
to fit the definitions of 1) and 2).

    4) Health insurance rates and eligibility shall be set to be
inclusive of the definitions in items 1) and 2).

    While this might seem like an enormous expense and a lot of trouble
to go through for a minority of workers, I must remind you that these
are very real issues for them and their families.  To deny them these
things when they are offered to other employees in the face of our EE
statement is hypocritical.  Frequently, expense is listed as the primary
reason for not implementing these changes.  Nearly all companies that
have made these changes have reported that the actual cost was very
very low, in fact much lower than the initial estimates.  Some
people argue that making what to them are controversial changes
might hurt productivity or customer relations.  No company that has
made these changes have reported any unpleasant after-effects.

    In time I believe that these changes will occur.  My hope is
that HP will be play a leader's role in equal opportunity and
other companies will follow our lead.

                    Yours sincerely,
                    Walter Smith


[end included text]

    Now see, that wasn't hard was it?  I mean it's so logical,
and I didn't even have to confuse them by mentioning your
heterosexuality in the process...

    I'm sure someone can refine this a bit --- I think that
items 3) and 4) can be expanded quite a bit, but I've been working
most of the day writing --- I'm typed out.

Bob