Last week, CBC reported the story of Della Wolf, a BC child whose birth certificate lists three parents: her two mothers and their male friend. The story of Della’s birth certificate made the news because hers was the first birth certificate in British Columbia to list more than two parents, something made possible by the province’s new Family Law Act, which allows up to four parents to be listed on a child’s birth certificate.
This news story got me to thinking about something that I came across in my research. In 1990, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) published a series of reports titled Employment Benefits for Lesbian and Gay Workers and Their Families. The reports outlined a number of potential measures that the labour movement could adopt to help with efforts being made by lesbian and gay activists to obtain greater recognition for same-sex relationships. The reports dealt with issues such as bargaining, insurance policies, legal decision, and discrimination. Although they could at times make for some dry reading, some of the arguments made within the reports provide a fascinating insight into a time when the fight for relationship recognition was beginning to heat up.
One particular section in the report about ending discrimination stood out. The section dealt with the manner in which eligibility for benefits was determined by employers and insurance carriers. The report argued that, although the term “dependent” was often used to describe those who could be included on a worker’s benefit plan, actual dependence had very little to do with it. As the report stated, a “dependent” was not defined by actual dependency, but by their relationship with the worker. More specifically, someone was defined as a dependent one if they were a child or spouse of the recipient of a benefits package. In other words, someone could only be a dependent and therefore eligible to access a worker’s workplace benefits, if they were that worker’s child or spouse. The report continued by pointing out an obvious flaw in this manner of determining eligibility, stating that using biological and spousal relationships as the determining criteria did very little to meet the needs of many workers, gay or straight. Rather, it argued, this system was “devised to answer the needs of the traditional, one-income nuclear family.” In other words, it was tailored to meet the needs of a very particular family model, one in which one adult, usually the man, worked outside of the home, while his wife and children (dependents) stayed at home. The system, the report argued, was therefore not designed to meet the needs of a majority of workers, regardless of their sexual orientation, whose families and intimate relationships did not fit this model.
(Our Times, December 1989)
Despite these flaws, CUPE nevertheless admitted that the “most immediately attainable” approach to obtaining recognition of same-sex relationships and expanding benefits to same-sex partners was to simply expand on the current definitions of ‘dependent’ to have them include same-sex partners. Although there was recognition by the report’s authors that the current method of determining eligibility was limited, and that there was a desire to challenge these limits, they nevertheless recognized that doing so would be an uphill battle. The decision to move forward by redefining spouse to include a same-sex partner instead of attempting to challenge the limits inherent in this model of sharing workplace benefits and insurance coverage was therefore a deliberate strategic decision.
What does this have to do with the recent story of Della and her three parents? When I read the story, it reminded me of CUPE’s report and their criticism of the system of eligibility used by employers and insurance carriers, often with the consent of unions, to grant coverage based on criteria rooted in familial relationships.* Despite the advances made in the areas of women’s rights, as well as lesbian and gay rights, many of the benefits outlined in collective agreements still rely on an outdated system of criteria and use language, such as ‘dependent,’ that do not reflect the reality and relationships of an increasing number of people. This is the case with my own employer and union, whose insurance provider continues to define a “dependent” as a spouse or child.
Almost a quarter of a century has passed since CUPE issued the report critiquing this model of granting benefits. With the legal recognition that families often assume different shapes, it would be to the labour movement’s benefit to push for benefits packages and insurance coverage that also reflected this. One way of doing this, as suggested by CUPE’s report, would be to allow workers to designate one or more people as recipients of their coverage, regardless of the nature of their relationship, or what the report referred to as a “designated beneficiary” system.
In addition to allowing the labour movement to provide greater recognition of different relationship and family models, a designated beneficiary system would also provide those who are not married or in a common-law relationship to grant coverage to other members of their communities who may be in need of greater health care. This was something that was brought up by a number of people I interviewed for my research. One interviewee stated that he currently cares for a neighbour dealing with hepatitis C. The interviewee does not have any children, nor is he in married or in a common-law relationship, yet he would like nothing more than to be able to provide his neighbour, with whom he has a close friendship, with the type of coverage that could greatly improve his access to health care. A similar argument was made by another interviewee who stated that his inability to include friends who had been diagnosed with HIV/AIDS in his insurance plan meant that he was unable to help and care for them as much as he otherwise would have liked to.
So, while redefining the definition of ‘dependent’ to include same-sex relationships was a much needed and important step forward in terms of allowing lesbian and gay couples access the same benefits as their straight counterparts, doing so under the same set of criteria that relied on parental or spousal relationships to determine eligibility to employer insurance programs and union benefit packages unfortunately perpetuated the exclusion of certain workers whose relationships did not fit the mold of the nuclear family model. Unions are in a position to lead the charge on this. If the province of British Columbia can recognize that families come in various shapes and sizes, surely organized labour can help workers whose relationship models currently exclude them from accessing and providing the benefits to their own loved ones, however they may be defined.
*Those familial relationships that are recognized by most insurance providers are limited, as parents, siblings, and extended relatives are often excluded from insurance coverage and benefit plans.