A   C o m p r e h e n s i v e   M a n u a l
The case you make to the
ment and retention of outstanding fac 
appropriate college or university offi 
ulty (based on benefits offered by like
cials regarding health benefits for
institutions competing for the same
domestic partners will ideally be based
pool of faculty) and staff (based on
on solid, well presented information,
benefits offered by other employers in
the local area). 
1) an analysis of current campus bene 
Anticipating Arguments Against
fits and related policies; 
DP Benefits
2) documentation of instances of dis 
crimination on the campus; 
3) testimonials by individuals nega 
1) Cost   Won t it be expensive?
tively affected by current benefits poli 
a.  Cost should not be considered.  An
underlying principal is that the denial of
4) benefits policies at other, similar
DP benefits constitutes a denial of equal
higher education institutions; and 
pay for equal work; cost is no defense to
5) a cost analysis
such discrimination.
Successful strategies have often been
b.  The cost is very little.  In cases where
built around studies (ideally commis 
DP benefits have been offered, the cost
sioned by the Chancellor or President) on
has been less than anticipated.  Accord 
the general quality of life for lgbts on the
ing to Lambda Legal Defense and Educa 
campus.  The University of Minnesota
tion Fund, virtually all cost analyses
report, Breaking the Silence, is an excel 
undertaken   by the federal government,
lent example of such a report, which con 
Stanford, University,  the City of West
cluded with a series of recommendations,
Hollywood, and Levi Strauss   have
including a call for domestic partner
shown costs of including DPs in their
health benefits (See Appendix B, pp. 277 
benefits plans to be minuscule (between
278).  This recommendation, along with
0.5% and 3% of total benefits costs).
several others, was adopted by university
officials.  A similar report was produced
The primary reason for these low costs is
by The University of Colorado, Boulder
low enrollment due to the fact that statis 
(Report of the Chancellor s Task Force on
tically there are relatively few employees
LGB Issues).  (Contact information for
with domestic partners and fewer still
obtaining copies of these reports is listed
with partners who do not have their own
in Appendix C, p. 279.)
benefits.  Another explanation for low
enrollment is the closet.  In order to apply
for benefits, one naturally must reveal
The Competitive Argument.
In order
himself or herself to be gay or lesbian,
to recruit and retain outstanding
which, due to the still prevalent social
employees, the college or university
stigma surrounding homosexuality, many
must provide a competitive package of
are unwilling to do, particularly in the
salary and benefits.  The key is to
develop a case that demonstrates vari 
ous ways in which the institution, by
c. Finally with regard to cost, there is a
not offering DP benefits, is at a com 
case to be made that offering DP benefits
petitive disadvantage in the recruit 
D P   H e a l t h   B e n e f i t s     M     2 7 3


10.000+ Web Templates | 1000+ Webmaster Tools | 100+ CGI/PHP Scripts | FAQ | Testimonials | Template Previews | Order Now!Sitemap |

| Contact Us | Terms Of Use

best web templates


Our partners: PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor Best Web Hosting Java Web Hosting Inexpensive Web Hosting  Jsp Web Hosting

Cheapest Web Hosting Jsp Hosting Cheap Hosting Best Web Templates Quality Web Templates Web Design Templates

JSP Web Hosting Cheap Web Hosting Cheapest Web Hosting Java Web Hosting Tomcat Web Hosting

Best Web Hosting Quality Web Hosting Java Hosting

2005 Best-web-templates.net web design division of Best Web Templates Inc.