E-mail
Print
MPS Benefits Provided to Domestic Partners
Provision recognizes the district’s recruiting benefits of equality
By Timothy Sienko
“This is not a topic of homosexual or religious rights but of attracting the best teachers to benefit the education of Milwaukee students”
The Milwaukee Public Schools finance committee voted 4-1 on Tuesday, November 20 to provide benefits to the domestic partners of employees. MPS is now the fifth district in Wisconsin to provide benefits for unmarried families; the districts already providing these benefits are Madison, Middleton, Sun Prairie and La Crosse.
The committee’s decision moves the resolution to be voted on by the MPS board of Education. Expected to pass the school board, the resolution would include the benefits in teachers’ contracts that have domestic partners; the next step will be implementing the resolution.
Dennis Oulahan, president of the Milwaukee Teachers’ Education Association, stated in a press release, “If we are to continue to attract and retain the best educators for our children, we must make sure they are well-compensated, respected, valued, and treated fairly. Fair treatment includes benefits that cover a domestic partner.”
He cited the necessity of the resolution stemming from requests made by “hundreds” of the union’s membership. The equality shown to all students regardless of any class, religious, or sexual differences, Oulahan argues, must likewise be shown to all employees.
Current contracts allow for benefits provided to the legal spouses of MPS teachers. These provisions recognize the financial stresses of a family life that range from medical expenses to pension plans.
Any family structure, recognized by government and religious organizations or not, face the same the financial stresses. It is not an employee’s right to receive benefits for their domestic partners, but the responsibility of MPS to provide benefits equally, providing students with a strong and diverse education. This is not a topic of homosexual or religious rights but of attracting the best teachers to benefit the education of Milwaukee students.
The district, should they not provide benefits to domestic partners, would sacrifice the quality and diversity of education provided by precluding all candidates by choice or prohibited by law from attaining marital status.
One current teacher testified at the meeting that the provision of benefits for his husband would be a major factor in their decision of staying in Milwaukee. Oulahan said, “Our students deserve a great education provided by high quality teachers and other school staff. Our members are a diverse group of people who represent different religions, ethnicities, races, and sexual orientations.”
Those opposing the resolution cite the budgetary problems such a provision might cause, estimating the change costing millions of dollars. However, an independent source suggested that a small percentage of employees request their partners be added, approximating the change costing under one million dollars. This seems a small price for maintaining and improving the level of education that is provided MPS students.
Another argument against the resolution comes from a recent ABC news and Washington Post poll that found 55 percent of Americans support civil unions for homosexual couples, which would require employers to offer benefits to the spouses of homosexual employees.
But, Wisconsin voters recently passed a disambiguation of a constitutional clause that already precluded gay and lesbian couples from formal recognition by the state, contradicting the poll and requiring the provision of benefits to domestic partners in the mean time.
Even if the state did recognize marriages and civil unions of homosexual couples, those couples, gay or straight, who chose a family life with out a formal union, would still face the same financial needs.
By not recognizing those financial stresses of a non-traditional family structure, many candidates may be forced to not accept positions or current teachers be driven to leave in favor of a district that would provide benefits for their partners.
This, while saving the district money, presents costs to the district and community with out a monetary label: education. Risking the level of education seems a great deal more expensive than providing benefits equally.
> Comments