Session 2003 Budget and Taxes Business Environment Higher Education K-12 Education Health and Welfare Public Safety Stadium Transportation Photos State employee Mark Iezek House Speaker Steve Sviggum Your Voice Join the conversation with other MPR listeners in the News Forum.

	E-mail this page			Print this page

State workers likely to lose domestic-partner benefits
by Laura McCallum, Minnesota Public Radio
February 17, 2003

State employee Mark Iezek says his partner has been receiving the state health benefits since last year. He says eliminating them tells him that the state values some employees more than others. To his right is House Speaker Steve Sviggum. (MPR Photo/Laura McCallum)

Bills that ratify contracts for state workers cleared legislative hurdles on Monday. The bills include pay and benefit provisions agreed to by state employee unions and the Ventura administration. But they're missing another provision -- health benefits for same-sex domestic partners. Gay and lesbian groups say removing the benefits is a slap in the face.

St. Paul, Minn. — The state worker contracts have a long and tangled history. They were negotiated in the fall of 2001, after a two week strike by the state's two largest unions. But House Republican leaders opposed the inclusion of benefits for domestic partners of same-sex couples, and the Legislature failed to ratify the contracts last year.

After the Legislature adjourned, the state and unions re-signed the agreements, with the domestic partner benefits. If the 2003 Legislature doesn't ratify the contracts, state employees will revert to the same contracts that were in place two years ago.

	House Speaker Steve Sviggum

Republican House Speaker Steve Sviggum of Kenyon says the issue has dragged on too long. "We need to do it now; we should get these current two years off the table, and get them decided and get those increases in salary that were negotiated appropriately, get 'em ratified before we get on to the next two years of negotiations."

Sviggum says House Republicans won't accept the domestic partner provisions. Supporters of the same-sex benefits acknowledge they don't have the votes in either the House or Senate.

State employee Mark Iezek says his partner has been receiving the state health benefits since last year. He says eliminating them tells him that the state values some employees more than others.

"Now that the state has a year of experience with domestic partner benefits, most of the arguments heard in the past have been discredited. The cost has been minimal, as was advertised, there has been no fraud, no one has signed on their ex-mother-in-law. There've been no lawsuits, the only remaining argument is that some Minnesotans believe same-sex partnerships should be discriminated against," he said.

Iezek says domestic partner benefits are common in the private sector.

Speaker Sviggum says the benefits discriminate against opposite-sex domestic partners, who don't qualify for the state benefits. Sviggum says he also objects to them on moral grounds. When pressed on the matter, he told the story of bumping into the daughter of his former Sunday school teacher, who had a strict moral code.

"I just remember referring back to the daughter today that her mother was a hard Sunday school teacher, but I appreciated it and she would always tell me there's right and wrong in life," Sviggum said.

Supporters of domestic partner benefits say some lawmakers don't want to accept the fact that there are gay and lesbian couples in Minnesota. Sviggum's bill removes all benefits for same-sex domestic partners, while the bill moving through the Senate leaves intact bereavement leave and use of sick leave to care for a domestic partner.

The bill's Senate sponsor, DFL Majority Leader John Hottinger of St. Peter, says the provisions don't cost anything. "I am puzzled why the fixation on domestic partners would include taking some time off for sick leave and for bereavement that's already been earned by the employee for someone in their immediate family."

Speaker Sviggum says the bereavement and sick leave could be problematic when lawmakers try to reconcile the House and Senate bills. The bills cleared the House and Senate Government Operations Committees, but still have several more stops before they get to conference committee.

Peter Benner, executive director of one of the affected unions, AFSCME Council 6, says the bills set a dangerous precedent by taking out the domestic partner benefits.

"Now that it's been done once, the temptation is clearly going to come up to do it again. And who knows what the issue will be next time. The Legislature for 20 years effectively honored the collective bargaining process, even when they did not necessarily agree with some of the outcomes," he said.

Benner says the unions will begin negotiating their next two-year contract later this month.

News Headlines

Related Subjects