"An injury to one is an injury to all."  This slogan from the labor movement suggests, in a nutshell, why Domestic Partners Benefits are an issue for the AAUP in the up-coming contract negotiations.  In the last two contracts our negotiators have sought to gain fair treatment for our members by making the demand that the university honor the concept of domestic partners and extend full benefits to our members with domestic partners and their families. 

The provision of full benefits to all faculty is in keeping with the University of Cincinnati 's call for a Just Community, one which does not practice discrimination.  It is in keeping with the policy of the University of Cincinnati Board of Trustees.  University Rule 3361:10-13-01states:  "The University of Cincinnati reaffirms its policy that discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sex orientation, disability, status as disabled veteran or veteran of the Vietnam Era, or age shall not be practiced in any of its activities."    And it is in keeping with the current contract which states: "The University will not discriminate or tolerate discrimination against any Bargaining Unit member of applicant in matters of wages, hours, terms and other conditions of employment on the basis of sexual orientation or any characteristic prohibited by Federal or Ohio Law." Doesn't the failure to provide equitable benefits constitute discrimination?

Providing Domestic Partner Benefits will help UC attract and retain quality faculty.  Today, for many faculty, not only those individuals who might be eligible for such benefits, a university's willingness to provide for domestic partners serves as an important indicator of the campus climate.  More than 120 public and private universities and colleges in the United States offer such benefits.  Many of the leading universities in the country are on the list:  Harvard, Brown, Columbia , Duke, Johns Hopkins, MIT, Princeton , Stanford, University of Chicago and the University of California System .  Of the "Big 10' universities, eight offer some form of domestic partner benefit.  Of our peers among Ohio's four year public colleges and universities, Ohio State provides its faculty with DPB sick/bereavement leave and Cleveland State's recent contract includes a "me too" clause which stipulates that if any public institution of higher learning in Ohio receives Domestic Partner Benefits for Health Care, Cleveland State will automatically receive such benefits. Case Western Reserve is among Ohio 's private colleges and universities offering benefits.  A large and growing list of institutions of higher education have chosen to treat their faculty equitably.  Doesn't UC belong on the list?

Among America 's leading corporations, the provision of domestic partner benefits is rapidly becoming the standard practice.  More than 3,400 employers provide DPBs.  All of the Big Five accounting firms offer DPBs, so do 116 of the Fortune 500 companies provide DPBs; 49 of the top 100 offer DPBs.  The San Francisco 49ers and the Oakland Raiders provide their employees and players with DPB coverage.  At least 34 municipalities, including New York and Los Angeles offer health care benefits to domestic partners.  In Ohio the STRS system allows faculty members, once they have retired, to include domestic partners in their benefits.  Here in Cincinnati Federated Department Stores, the Health Alliance, and Delta Airlines, Humana Choice-Care, DHL Worldwide Express,  are among the local businesses which provide DPBs.  As a major employer shouldn't UC do so as well?

So, Domestic Partner Benefits would fit well with the university's non-discrimination policies, with the Just Community and with the current contract.  The provision of DPBs would place the University of Cincinnati among the leading institutions of higher learning in the country and the state,  and would be an asset in recruiting and retaining talented faculty.  The University of Cincinnati is a significant employer in Cincinnati , and the provision of DPBs would place UC among the top employers in the country and among the forward-thinking corporations in the city.  Last, but not least, the cost of Domestic Partner Benefits is insignificant. A 1998 study of cities and states which provide DPBs found that the increase to total benefits costs after the introduction of DPBs was 0.96%-1.06%.

We know of no rationale for the administration to continue any longer to exclude members of our faculty from the full benefits to which they are entitled.  The continued denial of benefits hurts not only those directly involved, but the entire institution.  An injury to one is an injury to all.