Google to pay homosexuals more money

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Full of Win, Jul 1, 2010.

  1. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #2
    Meh

    Its completely understandable, but to be completely "right" with it, they should really reconsider this part:

    "Heterosexual employees with long-term partners won't get the raise, because they could marry and therefore get the tax break if they wished."

    Picking and choosing = Bad

    But overall, I applaud the move. As long as the pay differences do not result in wages surpassing the net benefits of the heterosexuals.

    After all, they are Google's employees. Google ought to be able to pay them how it sees fit :D
     
  2. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #3
    And you conveniently leave out the details....

    In the end, the pay will be equal. Maybe if we legalized gay marriage, companies wouldn't have to do that. Would you rather have that? I would, but I somehow doubt you would.

    I'm glad Google is stepping up to the plate to do their best to make things right when our own government can't.
     
  3. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #4
    In place of actual equality in tax Google are compensating for the tax break that the gay couples will not receive. I think it's a rather nice thing to do. It shows they value their employees, and happy employees are more productive employees.
     
  4. Full of Win thread starter macrumors 68030

    Full of Win

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Location:
    Ask Apple
    #5
    The flaw here with your logic, is that it assumes all homosexuals living together would get married if given the opportunity; something that I doubt would happen in all cases.
     
  5. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #6
    Well they don't really have that choice right now, do they. :rolleyes:
     
  6. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #7
    The flaw with your logic is that Google is only giving benefits to gay employees who enter into a domestic partnership, which is about as close to getting married as you can get without actually getting married.

    Try reading the article next time.
     
  7. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #8
    That is why

    That is why they should rethink this part:

    "Heterosexual employees with long-term partners won't get the raise, because they could marry and therefore get the tax break if they wished."

    They really ought to give them the same benefit as well. What if they just don't want to get married because they don't believe it, or whatever?

    When any sort of authority position, be it government or your employer, starts picking and choosing who has to (or gets to) follow which rules and why, things could get messy.
     
  8. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    And our choices are?

    I'm glad to see this. It's about time we got compensated for subsidizing other people's "lifestyles".

    You go ahead and be mad. But I say this is only fair. And it's Google's choice. BTW- change your thread title. It's not accurate.
     
  9. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #10
    Misleading title. Google is reimbursing same-sex domestic partners for a federal tax on partner benefits. It does not reward someone more for being gay. Quite the reverse, it offsets a penalty.

    Honestly I do wonder about the rationale for excluding opposite sex partner benefits, though. It is not clear at all that it would be any sort of drain on the company to do so. I don't think I've ever met a straight couple claiming partner benefits without being married.
     
  10. supercaliber macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2007
    #11
    Due to this:

    "Heterosexual employees with long-term partners won't get the raise"

    A reasonable qualifying question to gay couples would be: "Would you get married if you could?"

    If they answer yes, sure give them a bonus.

    If they say no, then they should give them the same benefits as heterosexual long-term couples that aren't married.
     
  11. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #12
    I think if a gay couple is entering a domestic partnership, the answer to that question is yes.
     
  12. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #13
    While I applaud Google for trying equalise benefits for employees it begs the question,why are non-married couples of whatever sexuality excluded. I wish gays well at getting partnerships more widely legally recognised,but fear state bribery to control behaviour is a double edged sword.
     
  13. Full of Win thread starter macrumors 68030

    Full of Win

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Location:
    Ask Apple
    #14
    There is nothing misleading about it. The headline, per the NBC affiliate was

    My thread title was

    How are they substantially different? If you have an issue with it, take it up with the NBC station an San Francisco.


    And here is screenshot to prove my point
     

    Attached Files:

  14. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #15
    I never said it was YOUR misleading title. It is still misleading. You did actually come up with your own misleading title, though, different from the one the article used.
     
  15. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #16
    Meh. Its Google's money. If they want to pay more to a select group that is their concern. If you don't like it, don't work for them or use their products.
     
  16. Full of Win thread starter macrumors 68030

    Full of Win

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Location:
    Ask Apple
    #17
    Fair enough. You can address your complaints here

    http://www.nbcbayarea.com/contact-us/
     
  17. supercaliber macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2007
    #18
    I will agree with you if there are no straight people that have domestic partnerships, and there may be... no idea how California defines a Domestic Partnership
     
  18. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #19
    And now that the facts have been laid out in front of you, I assume you still have a problem with this?
     
  19. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #20
    But we are agreed it is misleading, then, right? Is there some rule that requires you to repeat their error?
     
  20. supercaliber macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2007
    #21
    Just read this about Domestic Partnership rules in Cali:

    The eligibility criteria for registration of a domestic partnership was set by the California State Legislature and signed by the Governor in 1999. During the legislative process, eligibility of opposite sex couples was limited to senior citizens. This agency has no authority to change the criteria set by the legislature.

    http://www.sos.ca.gov/dpregistry/faqs.htm#question3

    On the surface, I find the limited eligibility surprising.
     
  21. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #22
    Well if the USA wants to keep a bunch of stupid outdated religious-based rules that prevent tax and legal equality for all citizens in long-term domestic relationships this sort of ridiculous workaround is going to happen.

    Whinge and mither all you like, but if Prop 8 had been rejected this wouldn't be happening.

    So in short, this is me playing a tiny violin.
     
  22. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #23
    Not really. If marriage was able to legally be obtain Google would do what a hospital did in the NE when one of the states up there allowed gay marriage. That was gay people living in the state that allowed it and work at the hospital were told you have X number of days/weeks to get married because they were no longer going to offer benefits to domestic partners because the reason they were offering the benefits to begin with was there was no way for 2 people to get married.

    Google would do the same thing. They would state with in so many weeks pay raises would be cut and the pay would go back to the normal level.

    End of the day it is no pay raise for them. Google is just currently paying the extra taxes on it.

    Now if google was paying homosexuals more take home pay I would have an issue with it but all they are doing is paying the difference in taxes.
     
  23. Full of Win thread starter macrumors 68030

    Full of Win

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Location:
    Ask Apple
    #24
    One mans misleading is another mans concise. The title tells the actions of Google, not the motivations.
     
  24. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #25
    Get rid of subsidies for married couples. Problem solved.
     

Share This Page