Unions concerned about proposed domestic partner ordinance

Jessica VanEgeren  —  9/10/2008 10:30 am

Dane County Board Supervisor Chuck Erickson has put his faith and hope in the state and its residents before. A supporter of domestic partner rights, he was disappointed when the "discrimination amendment," as he refers to it, was approved by state voters in 2006, banning the recognition of gay marriages across the state. Then he watched and waited to see if the issue would be resurrected in the Capitol. It wasn't.

Now, about a week before County Board members are set to vote on a proposal Sept. 18 that would require companies that do business with the county to offer domestic partner benefits to their employees, Erickson said he is cautiously optimistic. He has been let down before.

"The old saying, 'Don't count your chickens before they hatch,' certainly applies in this case," Erickson said. "I've been disappointed and disgusted with how this issue has been handled in the past."

With the 37-member board set to vote shortly, not everyone is lining up to support the idea. Organized labor unions and their representatives continue to voice two main concerns with the proposal. They say that if the proposal passes, union contractors will be put at a competitive disadvantage with non-union contractors. Additionally, a primary union function -- negotiating benefits and wages for its employees -- will be superseded by what could become a mandatory rather than a negotiable benefit.

"Dane County wants to be a leader, and we applaud that," said Scott Vaughn, executive director of the Building and Construction Trades Council of South-Central Wisconsin, a trade organization that represents the interests of roughly 4,000 construction union families. "But due to certain circumstances, we can't support it. We are not against partner benefits. We would just like to see it on a statewide basis so we (union contractors) are on a level playing field."

Under the county proposal, two things would occur, making the proposal similar to those enacted in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle and Minneapolis. The city of Madison does not have a comparable ordinance.

First, a domestic partner registry would be created, allowing employers and Dane County to verify eligible couples. Second, the proposal would require contractors who bid on projects to prove they provide domestic partner benefits to their employees. The proposal would apply to all companies that provide a service to the county, but not companies from whom the county purchases goods. Companies that bid on contracts under $5,000 would be excluded from the requirement, while all other companies, no matter their size, would have to comply, said County Board Chairman Scott McDonell. Companies caught lying about such information could risk having payment for a job withheld or could be prohibited from bidding on a county job for up to three years.

Given these requirements, union representatives said the cost associated with providing domestic partner benefits would disproportionately affect them compared to their non-union counterparts because they would not be able to apply the policy only to contracts awarded in Dane County. That means if the proposal passes, union contractors would have to provide domestic partner benefits to all their employees, not just those working or bidding on jobs in Dane County.

"Again, we are not against the concept of partner benefits," Vaughn said. "We just don't have single-county contracts. If this proposal passes, it would dictate the same benefits paid on Dane County jobs would be paid on any job, including anywhere else in the state and on private-sector jobs."

McDonell said this concern has been addressed through the cash-equivalency option. It would allow companies that do not offer domestic partner benefits to bid on Dane County jobs by reimbursing an employee for the cost of partner benefits on their paycheck.

"This would combat any unforeseen situations, especially for companies that may do more business outside Dane County," McDonell said. "Offering the cash equivalent of the benefits would be acceptable."

Still, unions are not wholeheartedly jumping on board to voice support for the proposal.

Jim Cavanaugh, president of the South Central Federation of Labor, said the proposal would directly affect any union's collective bargaining process. A main strength of a union, he said, is to negotiate competitive wages and benefits for its members. The county's proposal would change that, stripping the unions of some of their collective-bargaining power, he said.

"The union legally can't have a benefit that applies to only one group of people, such as only workers in Dane County," Cavanaugh said. "If you have a union contract, everyone has to be treated the same. All the unions feel the real way to address this is through universal health care, at least in terms of cost."

Erickson said this rationale, which holds that all people should be treated the same across the state, is intentionally biased against one group of people.

"Cost is a legitimate concern but not a legitimate argument," Erickson said. "It goes back to treating everybody the same. It's great they (the unions) have built up their membership to include members across the state. But when they are out there negotiating, they are still excluding a certain group of people."

According to Fair Wisconsin, an advocacy group for gays and lesbians, costs incurred once domestic partner benefits are offered tend to be minimal, hovering between 1 and 2 percent increases. Statewide, more than 150 employers offer domestic partner benefits, including big-name corporations such as Procter & Gamble in Green Bay and Verona-based Epic Systems, according to Fair Wisconsin.

In 2004, two years after American Family Insurance began offering domestic partner benefits, the insurance company reported a 1 percent cost increase, a figure similar to the cost increase reported by other private and public entities including the cities of Madison and Milwaukee.

As for the union argument that the best remedy for the situation is universal health care, Erickson said those who truly feel that way should keep that in mind when voting Republican this fall.

But in the meantime, "we are trying to get this done, now," he said about the domestic partner requirement. "We are not waiting for the state again."

The proposal already has received approval from three county committees. The topic will be before the Dane County Executive Committee for consideration Thursday. McDonell said he believed the idea has the momentum to pass the full board.

"This is a significant vote," McDonell said. "It's a way for us to push back on some of the efforts to make it harder for gays and lesbians in Wisconsin. I think it's time for somebody to stick up for them."

Jessica VanEgeren  —  9/10/2008 10:30 am