My question is the following: Shouldn't a union be trying to extend benefits to workers, not trying to take them away just because of who they are or who they love?

"Union Denies Benefits to Gay Couples," by Donovan Slack, Boston Globe 05/11/04

quote:

---

A Boston labor union representing some 6,000 members has amended its benefit plans to exclude gay married couples from receiving health and pension benefits, evoking fear in some labor unions in Massachusetts that the move will set a dangerous precedent for other unions and employers throughout the state.

Anticipating the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts next week, trustees and administrators of the benefit plans of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 103 issued a clarification of the phrase "dependent spouse" to mean "a person of the opposite sex." The clarification was announced in a letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Globe, sent Friday to union members throughout Eastern Massachusetts.

"In light of all the changes that are coming, we just wanted to be ahead of the curve and make the clarification," administrator Russell F. Sheehan said in an interview yesterday.

One lawyer said the union's move effectively denying married couples of the same sex the same benefits as married couples of the opposite sex is legal. All employers and unions whose benefit plans are covered under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 can choose whether to extend benefits to spouses of the same sex, said Matt Giuliani, a Boston lawyer specializing in employee benefits. That includes self-insured employers and unions, as opposed to those who buy insurance and benefit plans for their members, he said.

"Federal law allows the union to decide who's covered and who's not," said Giuliani, who has conducted seminars for local employers on how to deal with the Supreme Judicial Court's decision.

The Retirement Income Security Act preempts state law, including antidiscrimination statutes and the SJC decision legalizing gay marriage, Giuliani said. But federal law does not prohibit employers and unions from offering benefits to married couples of the same-sex. Sheehan said the six trustees of the Local 103 benefit plans unanimously approved the measure clarifying definitions of dependent spouses at a meeting last month. The definitions cover the union's pension plan, health plan, and deferred income benefits, he said. Sheehan said he did not know whether life and accident insurance offered by the union also would be affected.

He said the trustees did not consider amending the benefit plans to include spouses of the same sex.

"We could have, but we didn't," Sheehan said. "I'm sure we have plenty of gay members, and that's OK. They shouldn't have expected benefits if they knew their plan."

---

quote:

---

Calling my vast knowledge of trade union politics to the forefront of my brain, I believe this union, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, was explicitly formed as an answer to the Communist-controlled UE.

---

You are mistaken brother!

You are thinking of the IUE which was formed in 1949 during the cold war anti-communist hysteria.

The IBEW is the craft union that has historically represented electricians. Although nowadays like most unions they represent other folks too.

In the US, the IUE has merged with the CWA (Communications Workers of America). In Canada the former IUE members are part of CEP.

The members of UE in Canada merged into the CAW.

In the U.S. the UE is still an independent union outside of the AFL-CIO.

And back to the topic at hand, yes this is a reprehensible thing for a union local to do. Unions are supposed to be about advancing workers rights, not denying them.

Bear in mind that this is a decision made by a single IBEW local and not the entire union. The article mentions that another IBEW local has denounced the move by the Boston local.

[ 12 May 2004: Message edited by: radiorahim ]