City of Omaha won't offer some benefits to employees' same-sex spouses (will bargain with unions)

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.omaha.com/article/20131120/NEWS/131129801/1685#city-won-t-offer-some-benefits-to-employees-same-sex-spouses

Published Wednesday, November 20, 2013 at 4:35 pm / Updated at 5:29 pm

By Erin Golden

The City of Omaha will not offer health care and dental benefits to same-sex spouses of city employees, despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that extended a variety of federal benefits to married, same-sex couples.

In a press release issued Wednesday, Mayor Jean Stothert said the city’s legal department has reviewed its policies following the ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act — and after a request from the city’s police union.

In that review, officials “determined the city’s health insurance summary plan descriptions make clear that the definition of ‘spouse’ does not include same-sex married spouses.” Those spouses, however, are entitled to pension and flexible spending benefits as a result of the ruling.

Stothert said health and dental benefits could be provided only through negotiations with the city’s unions.

FULL story at link.

[madashelltoo]

1. These fuckers don't EVER quit!

Shit!

[Ms. Toad]

3. They are city benefits -

in a state that doesn't recognize marriage. Why would you expect a ruling that the Federal Government is required to recognize valid state marriages to change the fact Nebraska does not recognize them?

[Ms. Toad]

2. The city of Omaha is not a Federal entity.

Until same gender marriage is recognized at the state level, I am not sure why anyone expected a different result. Frankly, I'm impressed they even reviewed them - and that they did a thorough enough review to separate out the federal tax benefits (pension and FSAs)

(Just to be clear, I am not approving the state's decision not to recognize same gender marriage - or the city's decision not to extend benefits to same gender partners - only that the language "despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling" implies that they are somehow defying the ruling, rather than acting consistently with it.)

[Omaha Steve]

4. But many City of Omaha jobs...

Last edited Fri Nov 22, 2013, 04:39 AM - Edit history (1)

Are from federal grants etc. Public Works come to mind. So IF a job is federally funded, shouldn't they expect Federal benefits????

Quoting what precedent for cases?

[Ms. Toad]

5. No. Regardless of where the city revenue comes from

the employer is the city, and in Nebraska the city is prohibited from recognizing a same gender marriage. If the employer is the Federal Government, that would be a different story (and this decision wouldn't apply to those employees).

[Omaha Steve]

6. IF the city is prohibited from this...

Why is the city willing to bargain with the unions for something it is prohibited from???

[Ms. Toad]

7. Sometimes governmental entities can be creative when they want to.

We have the same (or perhaps worse) law in Ohio, and I have domestic partner benefits from the state employer I work for. The first reaction was that all those would have to vanish when the marriage discrimination was passed. For these particular entities to stop offering benefits would put them at a competitive disadvantage for the national employment pool they draw from, so they put their legal minds together to figure out how they could circumvent the law.

I am not privy to their reasoning, and the benefits might vanish if someone challenges it - but so far, no one has.

And - finally - just because they say they are willing to bargain doesn't necessarily mean they will grant the request (although since they did at least go to the trouble of figuring out benefits they could easily argue they were required to argue, they may be inclined to figure out a way to circumvent the law, if pushed).

[Omaha Steve]

8. The city and the Police Dept had agreed to same sex benefits several years ago

Citizens and straight union members shouted it down and it was dropped.

[Ms. Toad]

9. I haven't looked at Nebraska's law -

Ohio's amendment is one of the most restrictive - and a few state entities which wanted to find a way around it did - at least until they are challenged.

Which may be the reason they are suggesting it needs to be bargained for - less chance of a legal challenge if the union, at least, is for it.

[Omaha Steve]

10. Conservatives got 70% of the vote in 2000 to put it in the NE Constitution

It didn't pass in Omaha, but state wide was a landslide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Initiative_Measure_416_

Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska.

[Ms. Toad]

11. Not quite as bad as Ohio's

the "valid or recognized in Nebraska" could be pretty easily interpreted in a number of ways - many of which (IMHO) unconstitutionally interfere with the rights of businesses, churches, etc. which choose to recognize same sex unions.

Ohio's is specific to state/legal recognition(which makes it harder to challenge) and makes the impact of that broader and more specific: "Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."

It is one of the worst.

Not surprised about the split in Nebraska - growing up in small town Nebraska, we always knew Omaha wasn't really part of Nebraska.