A task force at Kansas University is examining ways that benefits could be extended to employees with domestic partners.
Lori Messinger, associate professor of social welfare, has conducted research into the area, and says that not offering the benefits can affect hiring and retention of staff members.
“We have lost people, even in my own department, who have had to go elsewhere because they couldn’t have benefits for domestic partners,” said Messinger, who is working on KU’s task force.
About 30 states offer the benefit to their employees, she said.
The benefits would likely extend not only just to health insurance, but also to other benefits like bereavement leave and faculty housing.
“All of those are using a definition of family that’s restricted to spouses,” Messinger said.
Though specific recommendations have not yet been created, Messinger said that any proposal would likely not use state funds to support health benefits, instead relying on private donations to support the costs.
KU’s university senate will likely consider the issue in the coming months, said Lisa Wolf-Wendel, faculty senate president. If a policy is approved there, it would be sent to university administrators for final approval.
One potential challenge to offering health insurance benefits has been that, in Kansas, all university employees are compelled to use the plan offered by the state, which does not cover domestic partners, Messinger said.
She said a policy like the one under consideration would be in keeping with the university’s statement of support for all of its employees, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
“If we’ve got a statement of non-discrimination, we should be supporting that,” Messinger said.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
mr_right_wing (anonymous) says…
We're talking KU here; I'm sure they'll end up giving BETTER benefits to 'domestic partners' vs. lawfully married couples.
There was a time where 'benefits' and 'bonuses' were looked upon as something extra from the employer and appreciated; now they're just automatically expected, with very little to no appreciation (and in fact resulting in anger when not received.)
FREESTATEFAN (anonymous) says…
Messinger,
If you offer these benefits, it will cost KU something to provide this. So when you decide to " give" someone something, who is going to pay for it? This is not the economic climate to start " giving" someone something. Our kids have been hit with huge tuition and " associated costs" to attend Kansas University. So figure out how you're going to pay for this cost before you start seriously looking at this added benefit!
leedavid (anonymous) says…
Some gay professors have left KU and found jobs elsewhere? What's the downside with that?
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) says…
leedavid (Anonymous) says…
Some gay professors have left KU and found jobs elsewhere? What's the downside with that?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypothetically- if they are great professors for their field then them leaving is the downside. I know I'd prefer to be taught by the best and the brightest over just some warm body only doing it for a paycheck.
OutlawJHawk (anonymous) says…
Let them leave and move to California (a state more broke than Kansas because of this type of entitlement-for-everyone thinking). Gays knew what they were getting when they took the job at KU. There are plenty of other Kansas people, straight and gay, more than willing to take their jobs…without domestic partner benies.
I do not believe the ruse of private funding and that there will be NO cost to the State of Kansas and ultimately me as a taxpayer for these expanded benefits. Another way to think of this is to close a Lawrence public school so the state can allocate money for KU employees partners to have benefits. Or layoff several professors and a number of classified staff in order to provide these NEW benefits. When put that way, let's see what kind of support this proposal would have.
This is not a time with our extreme budget situations where new and expanded benefits should be explored. Your task force should change its focus to finding cuts or cease to exist
RogueThrill (anonymous) says…
With the budget cuts, I believe KU should be looking for ways to deny straight couples benefits.
oneeye_wilbur (anonymous) says…
social welfare, of course, who woulda thought?
akuna (anonymous) says…
It is sad that we can't live up to our forefathers dream of being a nation and society where everyone is treated equally.
Curing the hatred that is target toward gay people is the next step in human rights in our country. Good job KU for hopefully taking on a stance to realize our forefathers' dreams. This makes me proud to be an American.
mkierl (anonymous) says…
It's fascinating to hear people complain about gay people trying to get the same benefits they receive.
Who do they think is helping to pay for their spouses' and kids' benefits?
lindseydoyle (anonymous) says…
akuna "taking on a stance to realize our forefathers' dreams." ?!?! Our forefathers' dream was about Adam and Steve? I don't think so. KU employees are State of Kansas employees. Good luck with that.
youarewhatyoueat (anonymous) says…
mrrightwing,
that was back when health care was actually somewhat affordable even without insurance, and you weren't directed to a "specialist" after a 10-15 minute exam costing 80 bucks itself.
besides, even now, most insurance policies are a scam for us working folk and not even worth it. $1,000-$2,500 deductibles, no doctor visits included, crappy rx coverage, etc, with $200-$400 coming out each month (in addition to rent/mortgage, utilities, car insurance, etc). Why even bother? Think of the savings that could amount to instead.
parrothead8 (anonymous) says…
leedavid (Anonymous) says…
Some gay professors have left KU and found jobs elsewhere? What's the downside with that?
I didn't think it was that difficult to figure out. The downside is that good, qualified professionals who wanted to be at KU were forced to go elsewhere for jobs that would sustain their families.
Why do you even bring up the fact that they are gay? Do you think that somebody's sexual orientation has a bearing on their qualifications to do a job?
parrothead8 (anonymous) says…
lindseydoyle (Anonymous) says…
akuna “taking on a stance to realize our forefathers' dreams.” ?!?! Our forefathers' dream was about Adam and Steve? I don't think so.
The Declaration of Independence included the phrase "all men are created equal," and said that they regarded that as a "self-evident" truth. Nowhere in the DOI does it say "except for homosexuals." I think the DOI speaks more clearly to our forefathers' dreams than you do.