From: Scott Safier Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 11:09:33 EST Subject: IBM from soc.motss Reply-To: an73892@anon.penet.fi Subject: IBM's POSITION ON LESBIGAY BENEFITS I am posting this anonymously for many reasons, not the least of which is that I am _not_ the recipient of this (my lover works for IBM). In addition to the North Carolina address, those wanting to respond might like to know that Louis Gerstner (CEO of IBM) can be faxed at 914-765-6007. Other motssers, esp. IBMers, might wish to post suggestions, etc. on how to respond to this 'position.' While I'm sure there will be more than a few 'but it is so expensive' responses, I'd like to try and quell them - I am TIRED of having to beg for the same rights - and, yes, PRIVILEGES - that everyone else has. IBM P. O. Box 12195 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 February 7, 1994 Dear Speak Up Writer: Thank you for using the IBM Speak Up program to address your concerns regarding the eligibility of domestic partners under the IBM benefits programs. Following is IBM's position regarding this issue. IBM believes that medical coverage for all of our citizens is important, particularly those for whom our employees have full or shared financial responsibilities. The importance of the medical coverage issue for all citizens is one of the reasons that President Clinton has made this topic a national public policy debate. IBM frequently reviews its benefits plans in light of the chang- ing needs of employees and business conditions. We often receive requests to extend benefits coverage to a variety of people important to our employees. These include children who are not currently covered under the IBM plans, parents, grandparents, siblings, and non-spouse partners -- both heterosexual and homo- sexual. As you know, our tradition of leadership in human resources man- agement and the current focus on medical coverage, benefits costs, and indeed, other companies in our industry implementing same-sex partner benefits, has created the need for a thoughtful review of this issue at IBM. Our conclusion is that implementing this change is not a prudent decision for the following reasons: 1. The IBM medical and dental plans cover an employee's spouse as determined by the law of the state in which the employee resides. If states were to expand their legal definition of spouse to include same-sex partners, these individuals would be eligible under our current medical plans. 2. IBM does not believe that it would be fair to grant coverage to the partners of our gay and lesbian employees and exclude the needs of other employees seeking the security of benefits pro- tection for opposite sex partners and other uncovered family members. The hundreds of employee requests for coverage of rejected family members following the completion of our recent benefits enrollment validates this conclusion. 3. The expansion of coverage to include non-spouse partners is an expense that IBM cannot afford at this time. In addition to the cost of benefits coverage, the tax laws do not allow the same employer deductions for medical coverage of non-spouse partners as they do for spouses, and it would require separate adminis- tration. 4. The current national health care debate is focusing on medical coverage for all citizens. The results of this debate may very well resolve this issue in the near future. I do want to emphasize that our unmarried employees are currently able to recognize important relationships by naming the persons of their choice as their beneficiaries under the Tax Deferred Savings Plan and the Personal Retirement Provision of the IBM Retirement Plan; at the time of retirement, the Joint and Survi- vor Annuity Option is available as well. There is also free choice of beneficiary under the IBM Travel Accident Insurance and Group Life Insurance Plans. I realize this is not the answer you hoped for. I do appreciate your taking the time to express your opinion. Sincerely, Jeannine A. Koytek Program Manager IBM National Benefits Service Center