I got married to my husband (we are a same sex couple) and we go through select health at the company I work for. We just had open enrollment last month and I asked to wait to apply for my insurance because I will have to re do it since I’m getting married December 6th (last week now) and our payroll person, and the insurance lady who goes over the details, said that same-sex couples spouses are not covered under their health insurance. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who have their spouse covered. Is this illegal discrimination. I don’t want to rock the boat for no reason.
Cat facts: cats will not deny your spouse's insurance benefits.
Cats will absolutely deny your spouse insurance benefits if they're feeling like dicks. But they'll do it regardless of your spouse's gender. They're assholes, not homophobes.
Cat facts: cats will not deny your spouse's insurance benefits.
They’re total scam artists though. Collapsing in front of you when you’re walking. Then make air biscuits all innocently like they didn’t nearly trip you down the stairs. You end up giving them treats because you’re happy to be alive & they’re cute. Total extortion.
So is this just one homophobic HR person who is soon to be smacked down by the company lawyer or a company issue that's about to pay out the nose for discrimination?
The right wing is gearing up to try and overturn Obergfell v Hodges (gay marriage's legality) and probably Loving v Virginia (interracial marriage). There's also increasing noises about repealing the 19th amendment (women's suffrage).
How exactly do they propose to repeal an amendment? It would never pass a constitutional convention, and an amendment can’t be unconstitutional by definition.
The thing is, laws and amendments and all that jazz carry no inherent weight. It's all just words. The law only carries weight because we collectively agree it does.
You can say "They can't just nullify an amendment without doing x, y, z" all you want but at the end of the day if you install enough sycophants in enough places along the way who simply ignore the law, then that law isn't worth the paper it's written on.
A lot of these discussions assume that people are acting in good faith, and this entire year has been a nonstop slideshow of examples that they're not.
This year is also a slideshow of the people in question perverting all meaning. To assume that their definition of "repeal" and the understood legal definition of "repeal" are the same is foolish, frankly.
You know they'd try to put out an EO to "repeal" it if they thought they could get away with it. Let's not pretend like any of the known rules or definitions are relevant when it comes to the current administration.
So is this just one homophobic HR person who is soon to be smacked down by the company lawyer or a company issue that's about to pay out the nose for discrimination?
Or the unpleasant tinfoil hat option: a way to get the matter in front of the current Supreme Court...
Unlikely. The MO for the Alliance Defending Freedom is to fabricate an ideal plaintiff and hope the District Court doesn't call them on it. Worst case, the case gets dismissed and they can create another one elsewhere.
Based on LAOP's comments, this sounds like a one-person HR department who is out of touch (and perhaps low-key homophobic) and doesn't realize that a same-sex marriage is not a domestic partnership.
Taking LAOP at face value, all we know for sure is that they're (apparently willingly) ignorant of the fact that a bona fide same-sex marriage is different from an domestic partnership. If this were part of a pattern of behavior it would be odd of him not to mention it.
"Old person who is vaguely uncomfortable around gay people" fits the fact pattern. It's definitely not a good look, but it's a far cry from "We are willing to spend four years and seven figures to try to avoid indirectly subsidizing this one very specific sin."
If they weren't homophobic, they'd be working to get coverage for the employee's spouse, whether explicitly covered by existing policy or not. That's their job and the obvious right thing to do for anyone's spouse not being covered.
They're under the mistaken belief that LAOP is in a domestic partnership, and it's not unreasonable for an employer to not want to extend coverage to non-spouses. That said, they should have accepted that it's a bona fide marriage after being repeatedly corrected.
Remaining deliberately ignorant of the difference requires being at least a little homophobic. But nothing from LAOP's comments suggests (so far) that their company is bad enough that they're willing to die on this hill.
Imagine dedicating your life to American law and having a very in depth, important understanding of the system, just for it to be thrown out like this. Every situation now is a « maybe, who knows? » when it comes to the Supreme Court and the constitution,
It’s pretty mind blowing that the very few employment laws that WILL get you into trouble in the US are still not able to be avoided even by HR teams. Like what the heck…
Some HR departments are just that dumb. I had one at a large government contractor try to cut my wages retroactively because the CFO suddenly thought I was being paid too much and wanted to give me a 40% pay cut dating back to my first day. I told her that wasn't legal and she basically said she had to do whatever he wanted. I ended up negotiating for 33% cut and no changes to my hours already worked. Yay. The kicker was I got ZERO benefits so they weren't exactly paying me a ton.
The mods cut the bad advice down pretty thoroughly; luckily there was plenty of accurate and helpful advice. There isn't much wiggle room on this one.
I'm a little surprised they left in the one comment telling OOP to put his spouse on ACA coverage, though. While not illegal, it's pretty unhelpful and irrelevant. With subsidies in limbo, it's also not the easiest way out.
Still so strange to me that USA people have to rely on their work for health care and insurance. It's just ripe for abuse and discrimination. Not to mention the insane costs they're paying for that just to still potentially end up with massive debts if they dare use their insurance.
The only link between my health care and work is that that's how I pay for my doctor appointments (if it's not bulk billed to Medicare), medications and (optional/not required) Extras Health Insurance.
My employer has no say, knowledge or influence over my health care, unless I've been injured at work, and even then their influence is restricted by the Australian and state laws surrounding Workers Compensation.
That and to prop up military enlistment. How many fewer people would join up if the promised benefits of healthcare and higher education were just given to everyone?
You (and many others) seem to think that employers want to deal with that insanity. I've seen what goes into benefits administration at a medium-sized company. It's staggeringly expensive and a massive pain in the ass.
I'm fully willing to believe a lot of employers and managers and such would rather not deal with any of it.
But enough higher ups and political donors want to keep people dependent on maintaining a job to not be ruined healthwise (either for themself or a family member) that the system is maintained, even though it's a net negative for the vast majority of people.
Still so strange to me that USA people have to rely on their work for health care and insurance
It's an artefact of WWII wage and price controls. Employers were forbidden by FDR's administration from competing on wages, so they offered other benefits like health care. It then became an entrenched system, in part because of union benefits and in part because of tax code incentives.
Now, 80 years later, we're dealing with an outdated system with entrenched interests that skew the market and increase costs for everyone.
This is, of course, an oversimplification and a flattening of a lot of factors, but is a 50k foot view of the root cause of the problem.
I am curious: Does your work offer additional insurance like short-term and long-term disability, life, accident, etc? Or are those provided by the government as well?
UK, rather than Australia, but they are usually quite similar. Here in the UK employers provide sick pay, and in some cases health insurance for private care, over and above state provision. Sick pay in particular is valuable: statutory sick pay is quite limited. The health insurance is less of a perk than than people think, as full private health care is for most people significantly less than a thousand pounds a year, and the things for which you end uo using it are quite limited.
No. I can get insurances via my Superannuation (money for when I retire), which work is required to pay into as part of my income. Currently 12% of what I make each week. I have Death, Total and Permanent Disablement and Income Protection through Super. Again, work has no say or knowledge about that. I could also pay for those separately if I wanted to.
Australia has health care which either completely or partially covers most medical costs. ie. I wouldn't pay anything if I went to hospital for an accident, my current GP bulk bills all appointments, and my medications are subsidised via PBS (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme). I had a colonoscopy earlier in the year and paid nothing.
If I can't work due to disability I'd apply for the Disability Support Pension and search Services Australia website to find any other financial or medical support I was eligible for. Unfortunately, DSP and all other support payments are still far too low so I'd likely end up moving in with my Mum.
So all up, no, work doesn't offer anything like that.
No. I can get insurances via my Superannuation (money for when I retire), which work is required to pay into as part of my income. Currently 12% of what I make each week.
Most IRA/401k matches companies provide here are like, contribute 2-4% of your paycheck, and we'll match it (up to a certain limit). I'm not sure I've seen above 6% ever. And you don't generally see matching like that until you start getting into white collar (or unionized blue collar) professions.
12% is the legal minimum, though some companies may offer higher or match your extra contributions. How good a deal it is does depend on who you work for, if you’re salary AND how it’s calculated. For me, that’s 12% on top my actual take home pay. But a salary employee could have super included in their annual income or on top of it.
If I switched to salary at my current company, their standard is to have to annual salary offer include super. So $60k salary contract is a lower take home pay than if I earned $60k as a part time worker as 12% is sent directly to your Super account.
It can also cause issues if the minimum required super percentage is increased. It did over the past few years and resulted in some people losing take home pay as a higher percentage was paid into super instead.
German guy here. I tell my HR person which health insurance I am enrolled with, so they can take the premiums out of my wages. My employer has to pay for the first 6 weeks of sickness, afterwards my insurance takes over, although only at 70% for up to 3 years. Afterwards, I would drop into the normal social safety nets (which would be enough for a home and food).
Additional insurances can cover the gaps in that coverage, e.g. by covering the missing 30% after 6 weeks, paying until retirement if I can't work anymore or by giving me benefits when sick (single bed hospital room instead of shared, lump sum payouts, ...). Those insurances are completely separate from my employer, the same as my general liability insurance, travel insurance or car insurance.
My employer has some benefits in case of illness, but nothing major. I would lose those if I change employers, but I could get them via separate insurance if I felt the need. They feel like an education stipend: Nice to have, part of the equation when choosing an employer, but nothing that I would see as a compelling sole argument for an employer.
UK here - for sick leave, you can get Statutory Sick Pay which is paid by your employer, at a rate set by the government. Some employers chose to pay more than this.
Some, but not all, employers also offer additional insurance, like "Death in Service" which is a life insurance, but can also sometimes cover critical illness too. Apart from that life insurance is usually something you arrange and pay for yourself and nothing to do with your employers.
Interesting. I'm American and I have health, dental, vision, short and long term disability, life, critical illness, accident, and accidental dismemberment and death insurances through my work. It's scary how much I stand to lose if I lose my job.
We (Australian's) also have minimum required personal/sick leave, annual leave, long service leave, superannuation, parental leave, and I think some others.
For example, I get 10 days worth of personal leave each year paid at my base rate. I'm part time so it's pro rata rate, which I can estimate as accumulating at Hours / 26.0714 hrs per week.
I try not to use it though as when I work I earn 25%-80% penalty rates so sick leave is a pay cut for me. If I take a full week off, I lose over $200. I currently have over a month's worth of sick leave saved up as it doesn't expire, and that's in spite of using 2 weeks this year.
My boss is in a domestic partnership [not a same sex couple] and she uses his insurance coverage, because the insurance where we work isn't great. People repeatedly asking if OP is actually going to get married, or just be in a domestic partnership - despite LAOP saying in their post that they will get married, seems really dense.
Or they're intentionally saying that because to them same gender couples can't be married.
Yes yes don't assume malice when it might be ignorance, but knowing what I do about the state, I'm not inclined to give anyone there the benefit of the doubt.
Hickland Bot
Insurance won’t cover husband
Cat facts: cats will not deny your spouse's insurance benefits.
Cats will absolutely deny your spouse insurance benefits if they're feeling like dicks. But they'll do it regardless of your spouse's gender. They're assholes, not homophobes.
Our cat would 100% deny my insurance benefits unless I'm holding a churu
You wanna live? Bring me a treat and some scritches!
r/CatsWithHomophobia would disagree...
No see, they have heterophobia in their eyes!
A likely story!
Here's my "homophobic" girl, Friday. Aka Kitten.
https://preview.redd.it/d0jzem9ogu7g1.jpeg?width=2590&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cb01353bf91c61f7e1e61509bb9e5b4c6712a67e
So they hate straight people!
They’re total scam artists though. Collapsing in front of you when you’re walking. Then make air biscuits all innocently like they didn’t nearly trip you down the stairs. You end up giving them treats because you’re happy to be alive & they’re cute. Total extortion.
So is this just one homophobic HR person who is soon to be smacked down by the company lawyer or a company issue that's about to pay out the nose for discrimination?
It's Idaho, it's probably a lot more than just one HR person.
Hey, we may be witnessing the origins of a test case that overturns some precedents!
Witnessing history is not all it's cracked up to be.
I’m not at all read in on this but incredibly interested, is that a good overturning of bad precedent or the inverse?
The right wing is gearing up to try and overturn Obergfell v Hodges (gay marriage's legality) and probably Loving v Virginia (interracial marriage). There's also increasing noises about repealing the 19th amendment (women's suffrage).
It’s sad that that isn’t just hyperbole or pisstaking
How exactly do they propose to repeal an amendment? It would never pass a constitutional convention, and an amendment can’t be unconstitutional by definition.
They've already been fighting the 14th.
The thing is, laws and amendments and all that jazz carry no inherent weight. It's all just words. The law only carries weight because we collectively agree it does.
You can say "They can't just nullify an amendment without doing x, y, z" all you want but at the end of the day if you install enough sycophants in enough places along the way who simply ignore the law, then that law isn't worth the paper it's written on.
A lot of these discussions assume that people are acting in good faith, and this entire year has been a nonstop slideshow of examples that they're not.
I’m aware of their proclivity for ignoring laws they don’t like. When the word “repeal” is used, that implies a specific process.
when the word "deport" is used, it also implies a specific process, but hey,
This year is also a slideshow of the people in question perverting all meaning. To assume that their definition of "repeal" and the understood legal definition of "repeal" are the same is foolish, frankly.
You know they'd try to put out an EO to "repeal" it if they thought they could get away with it. Let's not pretend like any of the known rules or definitions are relevant when it comes to the current administration.
Fortunately some of the U.S. courts still seem to hold some weight.
The 18th Amendment, prohibition of alcohol, was repealed by the 21st Amendment. It's not unprecedented.
And a constitutional convention isn't actually limited in scope by the current constitution. They can throw it out entirely and write a new one.
In the current political climate, probably by the supreme court creatively re-interpreting it into something worthless.
Circa 2000 they dropped "as part of a well regulated militia" from 2a, in practice.
Entirely coincidental that they were not using that language to keep guns out of the hands of the Black Panthers any more
Inverse.
The current Supreme Court is highly unlikely to rule in LAOP’s favor.
No words except people need to understand different people exist
Yeah see, they view that as a challenge to bring everyone to heel, not as something to accept.
Ugh. Unfortunately you're probably right.
Or the unpleasant tinfoil hat option: a way to get the matter in front of the current Supreme Court...
Unlikely. The MO for the Alliance Defending Freedom is to fabricate an ideal plaintiff and hope the District Court doesn't call them on it. Worst case, the case gets dismissed and they can create another one elsewhere.
Based on LAOP's comments, this sounds like a one-person HR department who is out of touch (and perhaps low-key homophobic) and doesn't realize that a same-sex marriage is not a domestic partnership.
Low-key?!
Taking LAOP at face value, all we know for sure is that they're (apparently willingly) ignorant of the fact that a bona fide same-sex marriage is different from an domestic partnership. If this were part of a pattern of behavior it would be odd of him not to mention it.
"Old person who is vaguely uncomfortable around gay people" fits the fact pattern. It's definitely not a good look, but it's a far cry from "We are willing to spend four years and seven figures to try to avoid indirectly subsidizing this one very specific sin."
Ugh. That's terrifying.
Depending on the size of the employer, there very well could be only 1 or a few HR people and no in-house lawyer.
It might also be an HR person with wrong information.
Good for you, not automatically thinking people are prejudiced. I should be better.
There isn’t really a non-prejudiced way to think that you should support opposite-sex marriages differently than same-sex ones.
This is a delightful way to set up a discrimination suit.
The way this Supreme Court is going, who even knows anymore.
Right? My immediate thought was “this is a slam dunk” followed by “except probably not under any federal judge appointed in the last 1-2 or 5-9 years”
There's one Trump appointee sitting in the District of Idaho. He was originally nominated by Obama, then confirmed 100-0 after Trump reappointed him.
But this sounds a lot more like a clueless HR person than a set up for a test case.
I agree, but at the same time am I really hopeful that LAOP will be getting a ton of help from the Idaho AG? No.
Clueless or homophobic?
They "don't think" same-sex spouses are covered, and don't seem to understand that a same-sex marriage is not the same as a domestic partnership.
Definitely clueless. Level of homophobia is open to interpretation.
If they weren't homophobic, they'd be working to get coverage for the employee's spouse, whether explicitly covered by existing policy or not. That's their job and the obvious right thing to do for anyone's spouse not being covered.
They're under the mistaken belief that LAOP is in a domestic partnership, and it's not unreasonable for an employer to not want to extend coverage to non-spouses. That said, they should have accepted that it's a bona fide marriage after being repeatedly corrected.
Remaining deliberately ignorant of the difference requires being at least a little homophobic. But nothing from LAOP's comments suggests (so far) that their company is bad enough that they're willing to die on this hill.
LAOP said they told HR they have a marriage license.
Imagine dedicating your life to American law and having a very in depth, important understanding of the system, just for it to be thrown out like this. Every situation now is a « maybe, who knows? » when it comes to the Supreme Court and the constitution,
Kim Davis went into the vending machine business?
It’s pretty mind blowing that the very few employment laws that WILL get you into trouble in the US are still not able to be avoided even by HR teams. Like what the heck…
Some HR departments are just that dumb. I had one at a large government contractor try to cut my wages retroactively because the CFO suddenly thought I was being paid too much and wanted to give me a 40% pay cut dating back to my first day. I told her that wasn't legal and she basically said she had to do whatever he wanted. I ended up negotiating for 33% cut and no changes to my hours already worked. Yay. The kicker was I got ZERO benefits so they weren't exactly paying me a ton.
The mods cut the bad advice down pretty thoroughly; luckily there was plenty of accurate and helpful advice. There isn't much wiggle room on this one.
I'm a little surprised they left in the one comment telling OOP to put his spouse on ACA coverage, though. While not illegal, it's pretty unhelpful and irrelevant. With subsidies in limbo, it's also not the easiest way out.
I'm glad OP's older heterosexual colleagues are standing up for him. Even if he can't get it in writing, he has multiple witnesses.
Still so strange to me that USA people have to rely on their work for health care and insurance. It's just ripe for abuse and discrimination. Not to mention the insane costs they're paying for that just to still potentially end up with massive debts if they dare use their insurance.
The only link between my health care and work is that that's how I pay for my doctor appointments (if it's not bulk billed to Medicare), medications and (optional/not required) Extras Health Insurance.
My employer has no say, knowledge or influence over my health care, unless I've been injured at work, and even then their influence is restricted by the Australian and state laws surrounding Workers Compensation.
That's exactly why we still have it.
That and to prop up military enlistment. How many fewer people would join up if the promised benefits of healthcare and higher education were just given to everyone?
Yeah, that's still abuse as far as I'm concerned.
Ironic joining up and getting that evil, evil socialized healthcare they condemn
You (and many others) seem to think that employers want to deal with that insanity. I've seen what goes into benefits administration at a medium-sized company. It's staggeringly expensive and a massive pain in the ass.
I'm fully willing to believe a lot of employers and managers and such would rather not deal with any of it.
But enough higher ups and political donors want to keep people dependent on maintaining a job to not be ruined healthwise (either for themself or a family member) that the system is maintained, even though it's a net negative for the vast majority of people.
It's yet another control mechanism.
It's an artefact of WWII wage and price controls. Employers were forbidden by FDR's administration from competing on wages, so they offered other benefits like health care. It then became an entrenched system, in part because of union benefits and in part because of tax code incentives.
Now, 80 years later, we're dealing with an outdated system with entrenched interests that skew the market and increase costs for everyone.
This is, of course, an oversimplification and a flattening of a lot of factors, but is a 50k foot view of the root cause of the problem.
A useful addendum to this is Richard Nixon deregulating the health insurance industry in the early 70s.
I am curious: Does your work offer additional insurance like short-term and long-term disability, life, accident, etc? Or are those provided by the government as well?
UK, rather than Australia, but they are usually quite similar. Here in the UK employers provide sick pay, and in some cases health insurance for private care, over and above state provision. Sick pay in particular is valuable: statutory sick pay is quite limited. The health insurance is less of a perk than than people think, as full private health care is for most people significantly less than a thousand pounds a year, and the things for which you end uo using it are quite limited.
No. I can get insurances via my Superannuation (money for when I retire), which work is required to pay into as part of my income. Currently 12% of what I make each week. I have Death, Total and Permanent Disablement and Income Protection through Super. Again, work has no say or knowledge about that. I could also pay for those separately if I wanted to.
Australia has health care which either completely or partially covers most medical costs. ie. I wouldn't pay anything if I went to hospital for an accident, my current GP bulk bills all appointments, and my medications are subsidised via PBS (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme). I had a colonoscopy earlier in the year and paid nothing.
If I can't work due to disability I'd apply for the Disability Support Pension and search Services Australia website to find any other financial or medical support I was eligible for. Unfortunately, DSP and all other support payments are still far too low so I'd likely end up moving in with my Mum.
So all up, no, work doesn't offer anything like that.
Most IRA/401k matches companies provide here are like, contribute 2-4% of your paycheck, and we'll match it (up to a certain limit). I'm not sure I've seen above 6% ever. And you don't generally see matching like that until you start getting into white collar (or unionized blue collar) professions.
12% is the legal minimum, though some companies may offer higher or match your extra contributions. How good a deal it is does depend on who you work for, if you’re salary AND how it’s calculated. For me, that’s 12% on top my actual take home pay. But a salary employee could have super included in their annual income or on top of it.
If I switched to salary at my current company, their standard is to have to annual salary offer include super. So $60k salary contract is a lower take home pay than if I earned $60k as a part time worker as 12% is sent directly to your Super account.
It can also cause issues if the minimum required super percentage is increased. It did over the past few years and resulted in some people losing take home pay as a higher percentage was paid into super instead.
German guy here. I tell my HR person which health insurance I am enrolled with, so they can take the premiums out of my wages. My employer has to pay for the first 6 weeks of sickness, afterwards my insurance takes over, although only at 70% for up to 3 years. Afterwards, I would drop into the normal social safety nets (which would be enough for a home and food).
Additional insurances can cover the gaps in that coverage, e.g. by covering the missing 30% after 6 weeks, paying until retirement if I can't work anymore or by giving me benefits when sick (single bed hospital room instead of shared, lump sum payouts, ...). Those insurances are completely separate from my employer, the same as my general liability insurance, travel insurance or car insurance.
My employer has some benefits in case of illness, but nothing major. I would lose those if I change employers, but I could get them via separate insurance if I felt the need. They feel like an education stipend: Nice to have, part of the equation when choosing an employer, but nothing that I would see as a compelling sole argument for an employer.
UK here - for sick leave, you can get Statutory Sick Pay which is paid by your employer, at a rate set by the government. Some employers chose to pay more than this.
Some, but not all, employers also offer additional insurance, like "Death in Service" which is a life insurance, but can also sometimes cover critical illness too. Apart from that life insurance is usually something you arrange and pay for yourself and nothing to do with your employers.
Interesting. I'm American and I have health, dental, vision, short and long term disability, life, critical illness, accident, and accidental dismemberment and death insurances through my work. It's scary how much I stand to lose if I lose my job.
We (Australian's) also have minimum required personal/sick leave, annual leave, long service leave, superannuation, parental leave, and I think some others.
For example, I get 10 days worth of personal leave each year paid at my base rate. I'm part time so it's pro rata rate, which I can estimate as accumulating at Hours / 26.0714 hrs per week.
I try not to use it though as when I work I earn 25%-80% penalty rates so sick leave is a pay cut for me. If I take a full week off, I lose over $200. I currently have over a month's worth of sick leave saved up as it doesn't expire, and that's in spite of using 2 weeks this year.
My boss is in a domestic partnership [not a same sex couple] and she uses his insurance coverage, because the insurance where we work isn't great. People repeatedly asking if OP is actually going to get married, or just be in a domestic partnership - despite LAOP saying in their post that they will get married, seems really dense.
Or they're intentionally saying that because to them same gender couples can't be married.
Yes yes don't assume malice when it might be ignorance, but knowing what I do about the state, I'm not inclined to give anyone there the benefit of the doubt.
Well, fortunately everything went well. I thought it would be one of those religious healthcare insurance that aren't actually health insurance.