Comments | cincycub: Progress on DPBs

cincycub

Progress on DPBs

Sep 28, 2006 08:21

Ohio has been a big battleground for the domestic partner benefit fight. The Board of Trustees at my employer, the University of Cincinnati, has been notoriously conservative in refusing to discuss the issue. However, things may be changing, assuming there is no outright statewide ban legislated ( Read more... )

dpb, politics, gay

Comments 13

mississippicub September 28 2006, 12:25:22 UTC

I hope it passes... as you say... a good start... its too bad no institution in the South will ever do this...

cincycub September 28 2006, 13:03:08 UTC

Give it 30 years? ;)

mississippicub September 28 2006, 13:07:05 UTC

LMAO! umm... well considering it took nearly 100 years to allow African-Americans rights... It might take a bit longer than 30.

cmhcub4u September 28 2006, 12:53:57 UTC

Is it considered a State School? if so there is a ban. OSU has been offereing benefits against the new state laws for a couple years now. They said they would continue until they are sued or legilation is passed to stop our state funding.

cincycub September 28 2006, 13:02:52 UTC

Yep, we're a state school, so I guess they're just proceeding until they get sued - lol.

epeolatry September 28 2006, 17:39:45 UTC

only to members of the AAUP....what about the rest of us?!?

cincycub September 28 2006, 17:52:38 UTC

Well the unions rarely get anything that isn't cascaded down to the rest of the university soon after.

epeolatry September 28 2006, 18:26:01 UTC

i'm not union...are you?

cincycub September 28 2006, 18:27:54 UTC

Haha, right. No IT unions here. Just keep your head up. This is the first year in a LONG time that the non-union employees did not get the same across-the-board raises that were negotiated in the contracts for the unions. They seem to try to keep things equal with each other.

Thread 5

teddyb September 29 2006, 05:54:46 UTC

Cool! Always good to see progress.

When I first came to Canada to take a job with Bank of Montreal, I remember receiving a notice of some changes in our employee benefits. One of the changes was in the definition of spouse, which was expanded to cover common law partners.

Only, the specific language didn't make any distinction about the partner being of the opposite sex. I called the BMO human resources department to ask about that, and was told the lack of such a distinction was intentional.

That was BMO's very understated way of introducing same-sex benefits, and it wasn't long before all the major banks, Bell Canada and most big Canadian organizations began making same-sex partner benefit coverage standard.

In these troubled times in the 'States, I'm glad to see the university taking steps to do the right thing, even if it means having a fight over it at some point.

(The comment has been removed)

teddyb October 2 2006, 21:35:08 UTC

Glad you asked those questions. I'm happy to answer the ones I can ( ... )

popicn September 29 2006, 14:32:07 UTC

It is a good start and gives a glimmer of hope.