 |
|
As a current board member of United with Pride, United Airline's gay, lesbian, transgendered, employee and supporters group, I was distressed to hear about HRC's decision to boycott United.
Like the prejudice HRC battles, the decision to boycott seems based on a misunderstanding of the facts, because it unfairly targets United. In 1996, the city of San Francisco passed an ordinance that required all companies doing business with the city to offer benefits to all domestic partners of all American employees.
The following year, the Air Transport Association — an organization representing more than two dozen air carriers — filed a lawsuit against the city. Its contention was that San Francisco was trying to enforce a local ordinance on a national industry.
In April, 1998, a federal district court judge decided the domestic partner benefits ordinance was largely invalid, at least in relation to airlines. She reserved judgment on issues such as travel benefits, bereavement leave, and family and medical leave.
Last August, United and the ATA asked a federal district court for a preliminary injunction to keep the city from interfering with United's lease rights on facilities at San Francisco International Airport. The injunction was granted.
On January 22 of this year, there was another hearing before the court on the case; a decision has not yet been made.
"I believe much of the backlash against United is due to misunderstanding about the company's position. As hard as we try to make our point clear, it seems to get lost in the midst of this emotional issue. In fact, our own employees, particularly those 20 thousand employees living and working in the Bay Area, still may be confused about United's position on the matter.
"It remains our position that a local government cannot tell a national industry what to do at all its locations, and that's really what our legal interest in contesting the ordinance is all about — not about whether a company should offer domestic partner benefits to its employees. We believe that the City of San Francisco is asking us to comply with a local ordinance that has national implications, and we are not willing to set that precedent.
"Other US carriers aren't either. The ATA, which represents 25 air carriers, including United, filed the lawsuit challenging the city's attempt to enforce the local ordinance on a national industry. It is an industry-wide action. People who tell us that they plan to take their business to a carrier that offers domestic-partner benefits and is not part of the ATA will find that no US airline currently provides these benefits and that all major US carriers are parties to the same lawsuit. United, as well as Federal Express, only became named plaintiffs when we filed a preliminary injunction against the city's attempt to interfere with our lease rights at San Francisco International Airport.
"None of the US carriers serving San Francisco is in compliance with the domestic partner ordinance, but United is being singled out by certain members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors — even though we have several policies and practices in place regarding gay and lesbian employees, such as our zero tolerance for harassment and discrimination, our extensive employee training on that issue and our companion pass travel program. Also, United supports more than 80 charitable causes and organizations of interest to the gay and lesbian community and was the first airline to advertise in gay and lesbian media.
"The decision to offer partner benefits needs to be made by the company, not the courts. That decision needs to consider the interests of all our union and non-union employees across the system — not just in San Francisco; therefore, it deserves careful consideration."
By choosing to fly an airline other than United, you will be supporting another airline fighting the very same ordinance — and perhaps an airline that doesn't treat its LGBT employees as well as United. I know that United has been very supportive of my efforts in the LGBT community — whether it has been sponsoring film festivals, gay and lesbian choruses, the RBA, Vermont Cares and many other organizations.
The company has heard from the radical right regarding its support of LGBT organizations and events. I was proud to read its strongly worded response that clearly stated its support for diversity and its disdain for discrimination in society.
Will United be the first US airline to offer domestic partner benefits? I hope so. Can the boycott spur the company to do it? Perhaps. But then again, what effect did the Baptist boycott of Disney have? Not much, as far as I can tell.
I think the best way to encourage United to offer domestic partner benefits is to write to senior management of the company and let them know that, as a customer, you feel better supporting an airline that provides fair benefits to all employees.
Should you support the boycott? That's your call. Just be sure you have all the facts before you make it.
