Hartford Courant (Connecticut), December 19, 2004, Sunday

Copyright 2004 The Hartford Courant Company
Hartford Courant (Connecticut)

December 19, 2004 Sunday
3 STARS/FINAL EDITION

SECTION: CONNECTICUT; Pg. B1

HEADLINE: TEACHER PACT RAISES IRE;
OBJECTIONS VOICED OVER TWO BENEFITS

BYLINE: MARYELLEN FILLO; Courant Staff Writer

DATELINE: NEWINGTON --

BODY:
Most contractual health benefits are far from controversial or cutting-edge. But two newly negotiated additions to this town's teachers contract are both.
Effective July 1, 2005, school district employees covered by a new three-year pact will be eligible for medical insurance for same-sex partners and contraceptives coverage.
The addition of those benefits -- especially the same-sex medical insurance coverage -- drew public opposition after the school board and union approved the contract and the details were publicized in late October. "I still can't believe that the school board would agree to a benefit that is morally questionable," said Helen Swiatek, president of the Newington Seniors Club.
Swiatek is one of dozens of residents who signed a petition and attended town meetings to oppose the contract's new provisions, especially the benefits for same-sex partners.
School board members, pleased to cap yearly raises at 2.5 percent and happy about co-pay concessions they say would save taxpayers $270,000, were taken aback by criticism of the new benefits, estimated to cost $80,000.
"This is the best deal we could get," said Councilman Thomas Bowen, who served as the town council's liaison on the school board's negotiating committee. "The teachers came into negotiations wanting two things, contraceptive coverage and same-sex health benefits. The lower wage increases and the increased insurance payments they agreed to in return offer taxpayers dramatic savings. There were no winners or losers. It was not groundbreaking legislation."
As of this month, the district will become one of 22 school districts out of 166 in the state to offer same-sex insurance coverage to teachers. State and national teachers' organizations say the addition of domestic partner benefits, while becoming more common in private business, is still the exception rather than the rule in teachers' contracts.
One reason might be that most teachers' unions try to keep the status quo rather than relinquishing anything that affects all members in exchange for new perks that benefit only a few.
"This is not something that is common as far as we can see," said Janet Bass, spokesperson for the American Federation of Teachers. "Insurance is so expensive and most boards are trying to get unions to pay more. We don't see it as any kind of trend. We see our members just trying to preserve what they have.''
William Perkins, a New York City labor and employment attorney and professor at Cornell University, said the addition of such benefits at a school district level raises interesting questions about the union, especially as bargaining groups fight to keep the benefits they already have.
"It is unusual that a bargaining unit would take on higher costs that are going to affect all of its membership in order to obtain a benefit that will be used by so few," he said. "It is contrary to every trend and may become an issue in the future for the union itself."
Gay and lesbian advocacy organizations agree there is still no overwhelming trend in terms of school districts providing such health coverage, but hail the gains that have been made over the past several years.
"It's low cost, high return," said Daryl Herrschaft, deputy director for Worknet, Workplace Project at the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, which advocates equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. "These districts are creating an atmosphere where people feel welcome and productive and have a reputation as a diverse employer. Those benefits far outweigh the cost.
Neil Bomberg, public policy director for The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), added that while his agency focuses primarily on student issues, school districts that offer such benefits to their teachers and other employees should be applauded for making "a positive statement."
"It is positive for all, not only because of what it affords those teachers and other school employees who can take advantage of such benefits, but because of the positive message it sends to students about fairness and equality," Bomberg said.
Officials both for and against the contract have played down any subjectivity regarding same-sex relationships, instead focusing on other aspects of the benefit they feel are not right. Town council member Rick Carbray, the sole town official to vote against the contract, argues that it was not "the time" for the town to offer such benefits.
"I still have a moral issue with it, concerns over discrimination," he said. "Why isn't [medical insurance] being offered to heterosexual couples who are not married?"
Carbray criticized those council members who did not agree with the contract but instead support it because they did not want to go to binding arbitration, the next step in the contract process, if the council did not back the school board proposal.
"Stratford went to binding arbitration, Branford is going and in both cases the same-sex insurance was part of the package," said Carbray.
In August, an arbitration panel upheld the Stratford council's decision to reject a contract for municipal workers that would have extended health and other benefits to domestic partners of gay and lesbian employees. In Branford, officials are waiting for a decision from an arbitration panel considering a wage increase for teachers and whether health-care benefits should be provided for same-sex domestic partners.
"The board says it isn't going to cost much, but they don't know how much the domestic partner insurance is going to be. I'm not comfortable with taxpayers paying for a benefit that you can't put a number on," said Carbray. "I surmise they truly felt that because there were already some school districts with this in place, that they were not trendsetters and weren't expecting any concerns."
School board Chairman Brian Giantonio said he has had many comments supporting the board's decision to add the new benefit. He emphasized that as a group, the board felt it was in the best financial interest of the community. He stressed the board was limited in what could be shared with the community because the negotiating process forbids any public discussion. He'd like to see some kind of bargaining process that provided the public with more immediate information.
Union officials have said little about the two demands they introduced and stuck to through the deliberations.
Teachers' union President Joan Mastrocola called the inclusion of the benefits "the right thing to do," but declined further comment. Board members maintain the approved teachers' contract, also supported by the town council, is a solid one that was objectively negotiated and will ultimately benefit taxpayers.
Teachers have said little since the contract was approved, although some have privately shared concerns that the union may have gone too far in terms of trading off one benefit for another. Others, including teachers from other districts where such benefits are not offered, are encouraged, saying the time has come to provide for all.
"It the fair thing to do," said one gay teacher from a nearby school district. "It's just what's right. And years from now as more and more gays and lesbians come out, we'll all look back and say 'What was the fuss all about?'"