Discrimination of single employees?

Newcomer · March 2004

We are planning a cruise vacation for all of our employees that have been with our firm for over 3 years. We want to pay for the spouse to go also, but we don't want to pay for an unmarried girlfriend or boyfriend. I wanted to know if this could result in a discrimination law suit because we're giving an additional benefit to the married employees. Let me know what you think.

Gillian3 · March 2004

Probably depends on whether or not Arizona has a domestic partner disscrimination regulation.

Pork · March 2004

NEWCOMER: Welcome to the forum with a very interesting idea for recognition of employees. There can not be any discrimination if you treat all employees equally. I would think it would be difficult to allow one's spouse, a non-employee, the opportunity to travel as a company guest without allowing the single employee to bring his "significant Other". The best way to stay clear of such, would be to take care of your employee and let the married and single person choose to pay their guest's cost. Personally, I am surprised your insurance carrier would have a "Hissy Fit" over the potential risk associated with such an adventure. It is wonderful that your company had such a great year, that they feel comfortable in spending that kind of money on a "vacation trip abroad on a cruise".

I do not recommend you paying for "spousal guest nor significant other guest".

PORK

System · March 2004

You are assuredly discriminating based on marital status, but whether or not you'll be sued depends on your state law. It doesn't seem to be a financial burden since the company would pay if all eligible cruisers were married. Is it a moral issue?

Why don't you want to pay for the DP or SO?

Newcomer · March 2004

The issue is definately a moral based. On our normal "Company Parties", the employees are encouraged to invite friends and family. But because this is an "over-nighter", the moral issue has come up. My suggestion will be to simply pay for the employee and if they want to bring a spouse or guest, it's on their dime. Thanks for your comment!

Rob S · March 2004

I am in Arizona too.

I don't know of any Arizona laws that would prohibit this, but then again, I am not a lawer.

We do pay a portion of our employees group health benefits for family, and we do not give the single employees anything back for not putting family members on our plan.

I know that this is not quite an apples to apples comparison, but in the end, it is a situation where where we give something to employees with families, and do not offer anything of equil value to single employees.

Good luck with this. Sounds like kind of a "good" problem to have.

In the end, there is always one group that feels that someone else got a little bit better deal than someone else.

Rob

mwild31 · March 2004

Let me get this straight - your company wants to have a cruise as a way of saying "Thank you" to all of your employees, but only those ee's that are married get to bring a guest? This is bad news & will wipe out the good you're trying to do in the form of morale. Don't worry about the discrimination issue, worry about the morale issue. If you can't afford to let everyone bring a guest, then don't do it - have them pay for their own guests - or keep it to strictly an ee only event.

HRGddss · March 2004

This is a recipe for some pissed off single employees. I don't have a spouse or an SO, but if everyone who's married gets to bring someone, why not me?

Why not make it a "plus one" trip for everyone- my friends would love to go and maybe some of the spouses could not make it but would feel obliged to make every effort to for a "company trip".

Just an idea.

Leslie · March 2004

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-01-04 AT 12:08PM (CST)[/font][br][br]I agree with the above. For morale, either pay for employee plus one, or go employee only. Depends on what you can afford.

There is no law in AZ that will make trouble for you. But the attitude that will eminate from your single employees will!

lynn2008 · March 2004

Oh for goodness, sakes, cry me a river!

An employee gets a free trip, the company wants to believe in some level of family values, and every single employee thinks they are getting shortchanged and in your words "pissed off".

For a bunch of HR pro's none seem to want to defend the company line.

Recommend they can take a child, take a parent, take a grand parent, but where on earth did everyone think because they choose one lifestyle the rest of the world should kiss their liberal lifestyles behind and accept it.

Contrary to what you are thinking if you read this far, I respect personal choice BUT it does not mean a company or anyone must make you feel right about your choice.

Ask employees who think unmarried people shouldn't have these relationships and what they would think about the company, maybe they would be "pissed off".

Pork · March 2004

WHOA LYNN 2008: Sorry if we stepped on your Kentucky toes, but we professional HRs want all newcomers to include yourself to reap the benefit of lots of years of dedicated service to company and HR professionals, alike. Read my lines and you'll see it is, specifically, the company that I and most of our commrads are talking about. If you have not feed at these plates before, then read a little longer before you jump in with a doubt on your mind about our intentions. I personally could care less whether co-habitation amongst all participatants is the company rule or intent, but I sure want this NEWCOMER to have the information I have on these experiences.

PORK

Cinderella · March 2004

Kentucky toes - I'm killing myself laughing over that one. xclap

lynn2008 · March 2004

I have been reading your lines for a long time, and reaped loads of good advice, and some ill-informed advice from these comments. My toes are step-proof after 25+ years of packing house unions, autoworkers, teamsters, etc. I rarely respond, but I see many relatively new professionals in HR during the SPHR/PHR certification classes my wife (she's an HR Director,also) and I teach that have difficulty in separating "social superstitions" and political commentary from the actual rule of law.

I personnally have no problem with anyone's lifestyle, but making business legal assummptions with good research and knowledge of laws is difficult (even though it does work for leftist polictical parties).

And to think you all thought my toes were tender, look at the responses to my comments.

Happy beer, brats, and a merry paradigm shift to all!

System · March 2004

I'm glad you're not the HR Head Honcho here. No one said the company couldn't believe in some level of family values, you just can't show preference to that standard by discriminating against other styles if the law says you can't.

The company wants to be very generous to it's employees by planning a cruise. The best and overwhelming advice is to pay for the employee only and allow them to bring one guest.

Pork · March 2004

S MOLL: That makes two of us that is glad I'm not the Head HR Honcho there, I would not like to work where I'm not heard!!! No one believes the company is not trying to do good by its employees. In this day and time the company can not make a mistake and ride the center line for surely someone (an employee) is going to be attached to the "Gang house lawyer type" and all the good the employer was trying to do goes for nothing but more headaches.

I believe I was the first on this tread to recommend the same thing you did, Pay for the employee and let the guest be paid for by the ee or the guest.

May you back off just a little bit and accept a Blessed day for yourself and your company.

PORK

HRratrace · March 2004

I disagree with your take, lynn2008.

I am engaged to be married in 2 months. So because it is not official yet and he is not legally my spouse, I have to pay for my fiance to attend...whereas my coworker who just got married last week does not?

I believe I'd be an unhappy camper if put in that situation.

Very bad for morale...

HRGddss · March 2004

Just because I don't have a husband does not mean I am not for family values!

Holy cow. So Bob on his fourth marriage has more right to bring a friend than I do? Are you drunk?

lynn2008 · March 2004

Now you want people to bring religious idols along, and holy cows couldn't make it through customs for the cruise.

Haven't been drunk since I sent my son to Iraq in February.

Bob has four wives, I only on my second (but this time for 20 years)

I said nothing about your family values - but every Company does have the right to make that determination.

Sorry I wasn't more politically correct in expressing myself in a forum designed for different viewpoints.

Got to go, hic!, time for my AA meeting.

Parabeagle · March 2004

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-01-04 AT 12:03PM (CST)[/font][br][br]I'm not sure what AZ law is regarding discrimination based on marital status, but as a single HR manager if I were in your shoes I'd be hopping mad about this kind of disparate treatment. Perhaps no law would be broken (not even sure if it would be in Oregon where discrimination based on marital status is illegal) but I agree with the other posters - you could have a real morale problem on your hands if you pay for spouses but not guests of single ee's. My suggestion would be to not pay for spouses or SO/DP's and have the employee decide whether to pay to bring them.

Rockie · March 2004

I would agree for you not to pay for spouses. This way you will not get "dinged" for not paying for significant others, friends, life partners, pets, children, etc.

Keep your neck out of the noose!

deniseE · March 2004

Our company does a picnic every year....all employees are given 2 tickets....the guest you bring is up to you.

lnelson · March 2004

I think you would have a problem on this but I would suggest paying for all ee's and then have them contribute for any other person they want to attend be it spouse, girlfriend, boyfriend, etc. but with a limit of 1 extra person. Most cruise lines offer group discounts and they could be affordable for the ee if they want to have their spouse, girlfriend, etc. with them.

It is like getting the cruise for 1/2 off.
That's a good deal.

Just a suggestion,
Lisa

Don D · March 2004

Here's another slant on this one. In the long run, the whole group will be happier if the single ones are allowed to bring a guest, since if you don't allow it, then the single ones will spend the whole trip trying to romance the spouse of someone who does have one. Then half the cruise will be pissed off.

I think you guys should allow a guest nomatter who it is. The dilemma will be one room or two. Bring a guest and pay for one room only. Everybody's happy.

Pork · March 2004

NEWCOMER:
All of the above is good information, but,please check with your insurance carrier to discover company liability for other person's on a company sponsored trip. Another consideration is "wage and hour" issues, if any portion of the ee's business day is included while on this company sponsored trip, it is especially important for you to understand for the non-exempt hourly workers. Once when we brought store managers into the homeoffice for merchandising training a three day week-end of training. a few of the exempt managers could not make it and they sent their assistant managers, a non-exempt position. No one thought of the situation until well after the fact and a disgrunteled asst. manager ask for her hours and O/T to be paid. Once we realized the substitution had happened we checked and the employee had to be paid for the hours as worked plus hours driving as hours worked.

What a mess and all you want to do is to do good by your employees!

PORK

Newcomer · March 2004

Pork:
Thanks for your info. I appreciate you perspective on the matter. We hadn't realized that might be a problem. The cruise is over a Friday and a Monday. We were planning on paying them for those days, but maybe I'll have to check on whether or not we have to pay them for Saturday and Sunday. Thanks!

lynn2008 · March 2004

After doing a little internet research, and being around long enough to know some history of "marital status" discrimination, the theory was to protect people who were "married" so married people would not be excluded from hiring to reduce benefit costs (singles are cheaper); discriminate against a married person because of their spouse's race, religion, national origin, (stick with the original Title VII concepts).

These regs were in place to protect married people, not single folks (unless you annouced you were getting married, and this decision caused negative employment ramifications.)

Crout · March 2004

Personally, I think if you want to see morale go WAY up, tell all the married guys they CAN'T bring their wives. Just a thought.

Balloonman · March 2004

Remember Crout,
What happens on the cruise, stays on the cruise. You might be on to something!!!!!
My $0.02 worth.
DJ The Balloonman

lnelson · March 2004

Crout -
That goes for the married ladies who don't want their husbands attending.

Lisa /:)

Pork · March 2004

WHOA: THIS THING IS LEAPING INTO THE GUTTERS, SPINNING TOTALLY OUT OF CONTROL. James pull my plug so I can loose my self in more important endeavors!

PORK

SandiF · March 2004

>Personally, I think if you want to see morale go
>WAY up, tell all the married guys they CAN'T
>bring their wives. Just a thought.

That's funny. I don't think Newcomer could handle that at all.

Newcomer, as someone mentioned, you are a business; what right do you have to decide what is moral? I vote for paying for employee and letting them bring someone at their expense - that's the only fair way.

Discrimination of single employees?

Comments