Town Hall on Equal Benefits
Jesse Beason
Sam is holding a Town Hall to answer questions and get further input on our proposed Equal Benefits Ordinance.
Adding accountability to Portland’s non-discrimination policies, the Equal Benefits Ordinance would require city contractors to provide access to partner benefits equally. If a contractor offers benefits to the spouses of their employees, the ordinance would ensure they also offer benefits to the domestic partners of their employees.
If a contractor is working on behalf of city government, they currently affirm they do not discriminate on the basis of marital status, sexual orientation or gender identity. The Equal Benefits Ordinance gives this affirmation teeth.
For more background on the ordiance, check out this post.
Town Hall on Equal Benefits
WHEN: 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm, March 23, 2006
WHERE: 1900 SW Fourth Ave, Room 2500A
Posted by Jesse Beason on March 22, 2006
(9) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Equality, Events, Front Page
Comments by site visitors
I think you gloss over the point, mmarvel. The City allows a contractor to make the decision to "give" or not "give" benefits to families.
This change ensures that what a contractor decides to "give," to employee families, they must give equally to every employee family. If this isn't of importance to you, then I would see how you would be opposed.
While the City is a market participant, and price and quality are paramount, we should not act without principles.
The City values equality and fairness. I think we would be negligent if we put blinders on to these goals when we employ local and national businesses to do City work.
Posted by: Jesse Beason | Mar 15, 2006 8:42:47 AM
Dear Sam,
Myself and a lot of other business people have given our opinions on your blog and I feel that you are going to do what you want no matter how the business community feels. What I don't understand is if our opinion don't count why ask for it to begin with?
Posted by: Ray Rochè | Mar 16, 2006 5:19:54 PM
Ray,
This was your opinion expressed in December on this blog:
"I grew up and was taught that marrage was between a man and a woman, all you liberal bleeding hearts are changing our way of life and beliefs, you are changing Christmas to Holiday, you are taking our rights away inch by inch.
You married gays without any input from the citizens and you are going to continue doing what you want, I think we should fire all of you politicians and start again."
While this is a hard opinion to respond to, I do think that out city has shown a commitment to familiy equality. I hope to carry that commitment forward.
Our county's majority did not agree with the rest of the state in enacting Measure 36. Our city, while disappointed in the lack of public process, supported the families who sought legal rights and benefits through marriage.
As far as the business community, I think my record attests to my commitment to their success. I have also been solidly behind the importance of family prosperity.
I think the principles behind both do not need to be at odds.
Posted by: Sam Adams | Mar 17, 2006 10:47:15 AM
I just have to say that I think it's funny that conservatives control every branch of the federal government, AND that they control the house of reps here in Oregon, but nonetheless conservatives still feel victimized!
Somehow, by being inclusive, we are "taking their rights away." I mean, it's funny.
That they can complain about not being heard or represented by the government is laughable. Conservatives used to make fun of liberal constituencies for "whining" about not being heard or catered to, and now they have the gall to do it when they are represented in every branch of government. Geesh!
The sad truth of it is that conservatives have learned that it is easier to do really mean things to already disadvantaged groups under the guise of self-defense, rather than admitting that you are going out of your way to make life harder for people just because you want to and you can.
Do you see how others saying "Happy Holidays" has nothing to do with whether or not you say it?
Do you see that two women getting married doesn't affect your marriage at all?
Do you see that when the city says it only wants to contract with companies with certain practices, it doesn't force your company to act any way at all?
Posted by: LevelHead | Mar 22, 2006 12:53:28 PM
Sam,
I usually stick to transportation and taxes issues (my interests) when I post here on your blog, I do however have one request to make regarding any anti-discrimination ordinance. Add “age’ to the list for which the companies/contractors can not discriminate. Age discrimination is often very subtle and hard to prove, but it takes place everyday in workplaces on the job and with employment hiring practices.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Mar 22, 2006 1:10:34 PM
Terry,
I have definitely seen this in watching my mother's job search. But, the city and state currently do outlaw age discrimination.
Posted by: Jesse Beason | Mar 22, 2006 1:18:40 PM
Sam, just like to pledge my support for what you are doing in office. Makes me very glad, as an Oregonian and Portlander, to have voted for you.
I don't know how you handle all the vitriolic comments, however - good luck with it!
-Justin
a normal person
Posted by: Justin | Mar 26, 2006 6:24:09 PM
Just for the record, to suggest that State efforts have any major impact on age discrimination is at best pathetic. BOLI does little more than spin their wheels as if they are stuck in the sand. That allows big corporations like a well known electric utility that everybody loves to hate to be anything but professional in their hiring practices.
To provide justice to all, “age” should be added to the non-discrimination list for the companies the City has contracts with.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Mar 30, 2006 10:48:17 AM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
"If a contractor is working on behalf of city government, they currently affirm they do not discriminate on the basis of marital status, sexual orientation or gender identity. The Equal Benefits Ordinance gives this affirmation teeth."
No it doesn't "give this affirmation teeth" - what it does is says, if you don't do this, then we won't throw any business your way regardless of how good you are and what price you give us. You ARE required to GIVE certain things to people regardless of how you wish to run your company or we won't do business with you. So one employer can have the best record of doing things well and on time and on budget. Their bid can come in several thousand dollars under another company who has a lousy reputation for work, doesn't meet schedule and constantly is over budget (in addition to having a higher bid) - and this stupid ordinance would have us go with the second company. Yeah, that's real responsible - NOT!
No - THAT is discrimination!!!! The ordinance doesn't allow the city to go with the best contractor, it forces certain conditions on a company and discriminates against them if they don't adhere to those conditions. Thanks for making sure discrimination is carried out Sam!
This is not a life/safety issue. It is not a civil rights issue (read race issue), it's not an equal employment issue, it's not a labor issue. It IS discrimination!
Posted by: Mmmarvel | Mar 14, 2006 5:12:34 PM