OPINION & EDITORIAL
Partner benefits easily outweigh costs
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Sarah Howard:
- Public TV rejects Greens (October 13, 2006)
- Hosty decision affects student papers (September 7, 2005)
- Grant boosts language (October 20, 2006)
- Drop in oil supply demands action (September 13, 2005)
- UW aid looms over race (October 27, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Significant benefits (April 12, 2007)
- Suicide bombing inherently ineffective, not representative of Islam (December 13, 2007)
- Where should your rebate check go? (August 30, 2001)
- Pony up, partner (November 30, 2006)
- 11th out of 10 (February 14, 2005)
by Sarah Howard
Monday, April 18, 2005
Anyone with a basic knowledge of politics can recognize that an issue deemed “plain and simple” never actually is. For some unapparent reason, politicians remain loyal to this failed rhetorical tactic, as if its cliché justification will elicit public acceptance. However, this pathetic excuse for an explanation never works and there is no reason to think this time will be an exception as Republicans use it in an attempt to shoot down the current proposal to extend partner benefits to University of Wisconsin employees.
State Republicans are apparently limited not only in the political language they use, but also in what they understand. In an effort to deny UW employees the partner benefits provided by every other Big Ten university, these joint-committee members are invoking the stale language of budget shortfalls. These representatives would like UW students and faculty to believe that their discriminatory denial of employment benefits to a small group of UW staff is all in the name of fiscal responsibility, but Wisconsin students and residents know better.
Here is the evidence to prove it in language that everyone can speak and understand: money.
The UW System’s budget has created a large stir at the Capitol and caught the attention of the press and public alike. The budget’s components are often of astronomical proportion and cause taxpayer eyes to roll and tuition-payer eyes to widen. With Gov. Jim Doyle’s recent budget demanding almost $150 million ($49 million from state funding and $100 million from tuition increases), this year is no exception. In light of these daunting figures, any rational individual would seek to shave off unnecessary expenditures where possible, but this tiny piece of the budget is too modest and too integral to consider cutting. The partner-benefit budget addition is perfectly reasonable. The governor claims that the entire program will cost only $1 million. That constitutes about a meager 1 percent of Doyle’s two-year budget increase. Although only a small portion of the budget, these partner benefits constitute a large part of the university’s employment appeal, or lack thereof.
The commitment to academic quality is one on which politicians, taxpayers and students agree regardless of whether they trumpet the state institution of same-sex marriage or proclaim the necessity of a constitutional amendment against it. Wisconsin graduates, students and residents all brag about the academic superiority of our beloved university, so we should all be concerned that our bragging rights can easily be stripped if we allow this subtle discrimination to continue.
UW chancellors have increasingly been complaining that they are having a hard time retaining faculty because salaries lag behind those at comparable universities. UW-Madison is especially feeling this strain as it has seen the largest increase in outside offers to its professors. In 2004, UW-Madison professors received 98 offers from other universities and colleges. Almost half of these offers were accepted. As any employer knows, one way to guarantee employee loyalty in the face of larger salary opportunities is to offer great benefits packages that show faculty they are valued and guaranteed good health care and financially stable retirements.
These benefits must be guaranteed to all employees in order to retain faculty and a bigger-picture commitment to UW’s non-discriminatory practices. There are some politicians like Joint Finance Committee chair Dean Kaufert who justify the continued denial of benefits by pointing out that only a few UW-Madison staff members vacated their positions explicitly citing a lack of domestic-partner benefits as their primary reason. However, the draw to other institutions will diminish for homosexual employees and sympathetic co-workers if UW-Madison can adhere to the long-standing Equal Opportunity Employment statement, which promises that “the administration, faculty and staff of UW-Madison are committed to and reaffirm support of the principle of equal employment.” If this is to remain true, partner benefits should be extended as soon as possible.
Clearly the debate concerning the extension of partner benefits is neither plain, nor simple. Wisconsin politicians, UW faculty, the Board of Regents and even students must take a complicated budget, confusing faculty retention considerations and moral dilemmas all into account when deciding whether or not these benefits should assume a place in the school’s employment practices. My hope is that they will realize this is a small price to pay for ensuring the academic quality of which UW is so proud. Extending partner benefits is the right thing to do and for once, it is also a financially easy option — a win-win possibility on which we would be foolish not to capitalize.
Sarah Howard (smhoward@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in political science.
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 7:04am):
This headline is rediculous. Where did you establish that the benefits outweight the costs?
Are you really going to sit there with a straight face and tell me this is going to somehow insure academic quality? what a joke.
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 7:18am):
Troll: learn to spell, read the article...
Capitalism is about competition--in order to get the best people you need competitive packages. Big business offers partner benefits because it helps them ensure they don't lose gay talent to other firms. Are you saying they're dumb to do so? You can try to make an empirical argument about cost-benefit, but to say the principle doesn't make sense reveals more about you than the author.
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 7:22am):
This is a good reason to support same-sex marriage. Then there would be parity in benefits, but only in similar situations.
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 7:37am):
For the one millionth time readers, the author of the article does not name them. That is up to the editorial board.
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 8:22am):
One of the biggest reasons state spending is out of control is because of skyrocketing healthcare costs.
This debate is incredibly frustrating. You know what? I'd gladly trade domestic partner benefits for TAA healthcare benefits. Highly recruited professors can have benefits for their mistresses for all I care, just get the TAA off the public teat.
That way, everyone is happy. We get DP benefits, plus the costs go through the floor.
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 9:23am):
The only reason your papers get graded and your classes taught is that the university exploits TA's. Imagine if every Spanish class was taught by a full profssor or every intro class could only be 20 students. The university would have to hire hundreds more professors resulting in a massive rise in costs.
Wisconsin is already only a mediocre institution. Yes I know a lot fo you think it is som great Mecca of higher learning, but it's not. It's a craphole with professors that are overworked and underpaid. Profs here make less than other schools of similar research level, there are not partner benefits etc. The TA's here only come here becasue of the quality of the professors, the benefits at Wisconisn are terrible compared to even other state schools. Not to mention that it makes you Wisconsin folks look like a bunch of rural hicks with lots of prejudice and not much inteelect to be against partner benefits when even conservative corporations have them. In short, if Wisconsin wants to stay at all competitive it needs to start thinking about the caliber of teachers it hires. I know of at least 3 professors that have already left because of a lack of partner benefits. There will be more. Wisconsin has a liberal reputation from the 60's, but it can only attract people on that basis for so long before people start to realize what a hole of rascism and backwater provinciality it is.
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 9:39am):
One other thing: Anyone who tells me that the Uw isn't loaded with prejudice is an idiot. Just read the antisemetic comments posted her e the other day or go to any bar and here the meathead baseball cap wearing types call things "gay". Most of you are a bunch of ignorant hicks. It makes me sick and I am sorry I came here. I should have gone to Minnesota.
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 10:14am):
I don't think the argument that not having partner benefits will make homosexuals leave the University is going to convince many state Republicans.
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 10:36am):
Another thing we could do would be to cut back on worthless departments like sociology and use that money to recruit faculty in other, more useful fields. I mean really, who cares whether your school was #1 in sociology or not? Laa-di friggin' da. Guess what - You still won't get a job. We don't need to spend more money so that you can make less and contribute less in return for this education that the state has to pay for.
How about increasing the rankings of programs where it actually might make a difference to graduates? Increase engineering, business, medicine, law etc... Employers actually do look at those numbers, and more spending would make all the difference in the world.
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 10:38am):
It's not just homosexuals that will leave. Academics of all sexual persuasions want to work somewhere where they feel others are supported. The very nature of the type of person that becomes an academic is one that likes helping others and doesn't always put themselves first. Why else would someone work at a university when they could make 2-3 times as much in the private sector? The overall prejudiced, education slashing, John Gard loving image that the state is getting will only hurt the UW.
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 11:55am):
So gays leave the university? Oh No! Please not that!
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 12:02pm):
Ms. Howard states that UW officials have a "hard time retaining faculty because salaries lag behind those at comparable universities." If this is the #1 complaint, including domestic partner benefits will NOT solve the problem.
Use the domestic partner benefit money as an increase in monetary salary for all employment offers. If the employee decides to use the money for domestic partner healthcare, so be it. If not, you have helped to recruit more talent. Why would this be an unfair proposal?
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 12:13pm):
I have a new recruiting pitch for the UW:
Hate gays? Like to shoot cats? Come to Wisconsin where ignorance is bliss!
UW-Madison: Not just for progressives anymore*
*(Now with free bigotry and right wing propaganda in every class because after all, thinking is for liberals)
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 12:14pm):
"So gays leave the university? Oh No! Please not that!"
Above points (re: prejudice)proven.
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 12:19pm):
To those of you who somehow view Madison as this veritable Mecca of injustice, I suggest moving to a real city for a while.
Some random guy recklessly throwing around 'gay' in everyday conversation?
A conservative columnist speaking out against the LGBT's funding?
Pretty weak, even for anecdotal evidence. Republicans in Madison, at least among students, face more tangible "oppression" than that.
Anyway, a real burg. Head to the Twin Cities, as you suggested; enroll at Minnesota. We'll see you in about three weeks.
-klemz
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 12:22pm):
Oooooh The old "Real World" I am so much more experienced than you line of argument. I grew up in St. Paul you dumb fuck.
Not including same sex benefits is real discrimination not anecdotal.
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 12:36pm):
"Why else would someone work at a university when they could make 2-3 times as much in the private sector?"
More likely, they couldn't get a job in the private sector. This doesn't preclude the possibility that they could make more at some other university.
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 12:57pm):
"Anyway, a real burg. Head to the Twin Cities, as you suggested; enroll at Minnesota. We'll see you in about three weeks.
-klemz"
In the "real" city of Minneapolis, the University of Minnesota offers domestic partner benefits. So what's your point?
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 12:58pm):
At least it's legal to shoot cats in Minnesota.
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 1:06pm):
Who the hell was hating on sociology up there? Obviously someone in a "real" field like business or engineering. Here's a quick hint, sociology classes fucking rock. onyl head up their ass idiots don't care what society looks like, how it works, or who does what in it. You'll learn more in sociology than the accumulated knowledge Grainger has put together (the majority of it, is predictive economic behavior, which is all sociology, retard).
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 1:28pm):
It comes down to this: do we want the best people available to work at our school. I think we would all agree that the answer is yes, so it just makes good capitalistic sense to keep up with the other Big 10 schools.
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 1:30pm):
To the dumb asses calling for more funding to "real programs": why don't you go to a specialty school then. Around these parts liberal arts colleges are founded on the idea of a well rounded curriculum. There are such things are engineering and medical schools.
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 2:09pm):
"You'll learn more in sociology than the accumulated knowledge Grainger has put together ..."
This is an applicable Dilbert.
Dilberts Mom: Your cousin Laurin just got her degree in sociology. Can you give her some career advice?
Dilbert: Laurin, would you enjoy scratching out a meager living in a frustrating work environment?
Laurin: I've never thought about it.
Dilbert: Obviously
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 2:49pm):
Here's a little secret kids: it doesn't matter what you study in college. If you work hard at finding a job in a field you like and you know your shit it doesn't matter if you studied botony or basket weaving. I got a great job out of college, and I got to take really fun classes while in school. The way I see it my Com Arts degree worked out great for me.
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 2:51pm):
I have news for anyone who thinks that some majors are better than others. Unless you are an engineering major it does not make a fiddlers fuck what your major was. Take it from me. I am 27 and majored in marketing. No one cares. All a college degree is is a piece of paper assuring your employer of a cretain skill set. The exeption are engineers and perhaps accounting. So unless you think that everyone should be an engineering or accounting major, your argument makes no sense. An employer is equally as likely to hire a comm arts, or woman's studies major as a business or history major. A liberal arts degree is a liberal arts degree as far as they are concerned-especially since almost all jobs after college involve skills that you could have done in Junior High.
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 2:59pm):
Good points above. One other thing:
If you really believe that sociology and woman's studies majors are worthless, you should be HAPPY other people are majoring in them, after all that makes for fewer candidates in the job pool when you are out there, right?
So you "x major is worthless and waste of my tax dollar"types should actually be happy as-at least theoretically- you will make back many times the small amount you pay in taxes to fund these majors with the massive million dollar salary you will get with you political science degrees...(pfftt! yeah right)
A better skill that 6 poli sci courses would be learning how to appreciate other people's interests, that will serve you better in just about any job I can think of.
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 3:00pm):
"Hate gays? Like to shoot cats? Come to Wisconsin where ignorance is bliss!"
Hold on. Shooting cats is a good thing. Just ask someone who works for the DNR in the western part of this state- feral cats are problematic. Making decisions based on evidence and sound policy, NOT IDEOLOGY, is a sign of good government. Don't you get upset with conservatives when THEY make decisions based on ideology, not facts (example: sex education)? Why the hypocrisy?
I'm reminded of what John Stewart said in reference to how moderates should help debate, not extremists: "Let's all be reasonable!"
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 3:07pm):
If it doesn't matter which major you've got, why should it matter if we've got the best professors? Why don't we just get the cheaper entertaining ones?
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 3:11pm):
"If it doesn't matter which major you've got, why should it matter if we've got the best professors? Why don't we just get the cheaper entertaining ones?"
That makes no sense. The professors matter as they contribute to the overall reputation of the school. Major doesn't matter, what school you went to does as employers think that it tells them something about what kind of worker you will be and your general level of apitude.
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 3:17pm):
LOL LIBERALS SUCK
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 3:43pm):
"LOL LIBERALS SUCK"
College Republican logic at its best
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 3:44pm):
specially those hot and easy hippie chicks!!
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 4:26pm):
For all the sociology haters:
If you eliminate liberal arts departments like sociology, your tuition will increase.
Why?
It costs the university far more to teach students in classes like engineering and chemistry (ever notice how much lab expenses are? -- it's far more than the lab fees they charge students), and business too (where the faculty are paid much more than in other departments). Sociology, English, political science, and other such departments are the cash cows that fund every other department because their costs for teaching students are far lower.
Now, in fairness, a lot of that is due to having TA's do a lot of the instruction. So really, your tuition would probably go up by 500% or more if you didn't have liberal arts departments and the TA's. So next time you decide to whine about how poor you are and how the UW and especially the TAA are trying to rip you off, maybe you should get down on your knees and thank the liberal arts departments and the TAA for keeping our tuition lower than Harvard's.
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 5:13pm):
I killed at cat for dinner last night.
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 5:34pm):
My roommate is a state employee. That makes us domestic partners. I demand partner benefits because my health plan sucks.
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 5:44pm):
"My roommate is a state employee. That makes us domestic partners. I demand partner benefits because my health plan sucks."
Domestic partnership means more than being roomies, and you know it.
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 6:53pm):
So if he makes out with his roommate then he should get health insurance, right?
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 7:21pm):
Yes
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 7:21pm):
stupid mongolians
(South Park)
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 7:25pm):
Extremists/Activists are feeling what they have started.. You pushed too hard and now the majority Moderates (Liberals+Conservatives) are just sick of your bitching and refusing to cooperate with you.. Honestly, I support partner benefits to an extent (not roommates).. but when you call UW-Madison "racist/bigot/etc" you alienate many of your supporters who love the UW.. (P.S. it's no different from when I went to NYU for my undergrad, UW is actually more laidback and friendlier except for the occasional stupid protest..
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 8:12pm):
Its nat all bad - although Chem Engr is ave of $54K
***
Even liberal arts grads as a group -- those notoriously low-paid first-timers in the workforce -- are enjoying a bump in pay of 4.2 percent, albeit to what is still one of the lowest starting salaries out there -- $30,337.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/15/pf/college/starting_salaries/index.htm?cnn=yes#stfugbtw
Anonymous (April 18, 2005 @ 9:33pm):
You want to close the loophole of people claiming to be domestic partners in order to get insurance? Let them get married so there is official documentation of their partnership.
