Again. But hey, it’s just the queers, right, so why not use them to get your name in the paper? I really thought Rep. Duwayne Bridges’ (R-of course) bleating about UAB’s decision to offer domestic partner benefits would be a flash in the pan. UAB boasts one of the country’s premier medical schools, and top applicants for employment have come to expect those benefits. Don’t we want the best and the brightest teaching our medical students?
Well, apparently not, if it means offering insurance coverage to those icky gays. We can’t have that. It might look like we’re sanctioning their stable, monogamous relationships. Bridges says he’s picking up Republican support for a bill (one he hasn’t prefiled or even drafted, BTW) that would prohibit the use of tax dollars for domestic partner benefits.
“I don’t think the university should waste money by making a liberal or politically correct statement,” he said Thursday.
Yeah, it’s such a waste of money to allow domestic partners to buy into UAB’s insurance pool so they don’t have to run up huge bills in the Cooper Green emergency room. And of course publicity-hungry gubernatorial candidate Tim James is jumping on the bandwagon:
“I will vigorously oppose this measure and will enforce the spirit of Alabama law defining marriage as a sacred union between a woman and a man,” James said in a prepared statement.
Great! Let’s make sure Alabama stays behind the rest of the country. While you’re at it, Tim, be sure to outlaw divorce, bring back stoning as punishment for adultery, and demand that wives submit to their husbands. That would be a real boost for economic development.
I love Patricia Todd’s response, although the reporter’s wording leaves something to be desired:
State Rep. Patricia Todd, D-Birmingham, said many companies and universities are offering domestic partner benefits because they’re expected by many top wageearners. “They’re only going to go someplace that has that kind of benefit.”
Todd, who says she is Alabama’s “first openly gay legislator,” noted that domestic partner benefits at UAB would cover unmarried male-female partners as well as same-sex partners.
“We don’t know how many gay, lesbian and transgender people there are in the country or even in Alabama, but we know that we’re present and we make a contribution and we’re not asking for any more or less than any other group of folks,” Todd said. “We just want equality.”
“Like it or not, Rep. Bridges, the world is changing and people are accepting more diversity,” Todd said.
Todd, who says she is Alabama’s “first openly gay legislator”? Really, Stan Diehl? Did you just move back to the state or wake from a three-year sleep? She is Alabama’s first openly gay legislator. A little fact-checking would have allowed you to remove those quotation marks. But I digress.
Rep. Bridges, I know this is cheap publicity for you, but the Alabama legislature has a lot more important things to worry about than domestic partner benefits at UAB. Let’s get on with it and stop scapegoating the LGBT community for campaign contributions.
(I don’t know what portion of the premium for family coverage is paid by UAB and what portion by the employee, but I bet the total increased cost for adding domestic partners will be a drop in the bucket in terms of overall spending by the university. If anyone out there has good estimates, please let me know.)
17 employees of UAB took advantage of the benefit at open enrollment this year. For family coverage, UAB’s annual cost per employee is about $10,000 so the total cost is about $170,000.
Compare this to the cost of a failed recruit for a top level scientist, administrator or faculty (which cost about $50,000 each). If only four people you want choose to go elsewhere, you’ve wasted more than the cost. What about the cost of the departure of an entire research team elsewhere (which recently happened when a group left for Massachussets and the lack of support for GLBT issues was a major factor in that). That was a loss to UAB of between $2-4 million a year.
I should add that UAB has 18,000 employees so fewer than 0.1% took advantage of the offer.
Thanks, Andy! That cost is substantially lower than I would have guessed.
Darn good point about the cost of recruitment.
Anyway, can’t they just pay for the domestic partner benefits with monies other than what they get from the state? Problem solved. Just like when you give to United Way you can say you don’t want your “fair share” going to that evil Planned Parenthood.