Google to Pay Heterosexuals Less Than Homosexuals
**Written by guest-blogger Doug Powers
I’m a little punchy after a day of listening to Elena Kagan doing her best impression of the love child of Betty Friedan and Nathan Thurm, so I hope I’m reading this story wrong, but knowing Google, I highly doubt it:
Google plans to pay gay employees more
Google is set to begin covering a cost that gay and lesbian employees must pay when their partners receive domestic partner health benefits, according to a report in the New York Times.
The cost is largely to compensate these workers for an extra tax that heterosexual married couples do not pay. The increase will be retroactive to the beginning of the year, the newspaper said.
Google is not the first large company to make up for the extra tax, the Times reported, adding that Google’s move could inspire its Silicon Valley competitors to follow suit, as they compete for the same talent.
If that doesn’t seem like discrimination, let’s flip it on its ear: I own a company that employs both caucasians and minorities. I put out a memo announcing that I’ve discovered that my white employees are paying higher property taxes, so in order to make it “fair” to everyone, I’m going to start paying white employees more so they can cover their extra property taxes.
Jesse Jackson would be knocking on my door in 3…2…1…
Since it’s illegal to ask an employee (or interviewee) to divulge his or her sexual preference, how exactly is Google finding out who’s straight and who’s gay so they know who to pay more?
The only remaining question is this: How many straight Google employees will go all “Chuck & Larry” just to make Google pay them a little extra money? Hopefully all of them.
**Written by guest-blogger Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Obama headlines Google fat cat fundraiser; crickets chirp over Google’s $3.1 bil tax avoidance
October 21, 2010 01:18 PM by Michelle Malkin
35 Comments
Helpful Tip for Obamaniacs: Turn Off Google’s ‘Auto Complete’ Feature Before Searching For Info About Your Hero
August 14, 2010 01:35 PM by Doug Powers
62 CommentsIt’s June 6th — Isn’t Google Forgetting Something Again?
June 6, 2010 11:03 AM by Doug Powers
76 CommentsShhhh: Gmail is down, but don’t tell the White House
September 1, 2009 05:14 PM by Michelle Malkin
24 CommentsChina blocks YouTube. Will Google bend again?
March 24, 2009 01:46 PM by Michelle Malkin
27 Comments
Dying old media demands affirmative action on Google
March 24, 2009 11:31 AM by Michelle Malkin
68 CommentsWhat’s black, green, and eco-ridiculous all over?
March 31, 2008 07:58 PM by Michelle Malkin
62 Comments
Google and “Miserable failure”
January 29, 2007 01:26 PM by Michelle Malkin
0 Comments
Categories: Google
Riehl World View
» Whitney Houston: If I should stay I would only be in your wayPatterico
» Rick Santorum and the two playbooksRiehl World View
» Romney's Blood Is Blue, Not ConservativePundit & Pundette
» King Barack vs. the NonconformistsJustOneMinute
» Cat Blogging In A Harsh New Light
NB4 obvious derision and AIDS remarks.
hahahahahahaha
that is one of the funniest ‘headlines’ I’ve ever read.
Thanks, Doug.
I would be suing under Equal Protection Clause immediately!
Also: I cant claim this, but I don’t know which Elena Kagan you were watching, but that was the single best Jon Lovitz impression since Jon Lovitz played Jon Lovitz on SNL.
To paraphrase Patsy from ‘AbFab’: ‘I want a map and a list’
I guess it pays to be Cheeky at Google
Real Google alternatives, please.
James Greenidge
Queens NY
Doug: but first you will have to figure in bail bond fees minus Obama Stash Cash. I think you can Google a program to do that- fairydancerC++
I think it is.
Always glad to be of help.
That is BLATANT discrimination against hetrosexuals.
They are just BEGGING for a lawsuit.
No, really. I want to know who.
In the world of libtards, it is impossible to discriminate against heterosexuals, since heterosexuals are the SOURCE of discrimination.
As a capitalist, I have no problem whatsoever with this…provided it is actually a means of competing for talent.
If that were my place of employment, I would file suit immediately for discrimination…not only because as a hetero person I would not get this extra money, but because it discriminates against SINGLE people, straight or gay!
Singletons at Google: Unite and Take Over!
greenfairie–singles are one thing yet again. The singles need to unite with me: ‘married w/out kids’
you would not believe what I’ve been asked, you know, since I ‘don’t have kids’.
Many companies pay part of an employee’s spouse’s health care plan. Which is essentially paying married couples more. I don’t hear anyone screaming about that, and in fact I’ll bet many of you take advantage of such.
Gee…I don’t know…maybe when the employee voluntarily offers up that information when they apply for benefits for their partner, which is a necessary prerequisite to that partner being able to receive them?
Oh. my gosh, I’ve been trying to figure out who she looks like. It’s John Lovitz!!
At least he’s funny.
Once again, the socialists show their concept of “fairness”.
Either that, or that “private interview” with Bruce, from HR.
Everyday I surf the net and get more and more upset. Now, I got only one word to say:
A T T I C A
ATTICA the link
I suspect the same sex partner plan is a distinct insurance plan code from whatever the regular one is. That’s how they would know, because people would you know be signing up for it.
Obviously this is the same overeducated moron who thought up the laws whereby people couldn’t be executed if they tested below stupid on an IQ test. If one is on death row, I guarantee they will all test below stupid. The retarded naturally, the others on purpose.
Nanny Google.
Whatever……….
If Homosexuals were all right-wing conservative, I could probably tolerate them.
Naaaah……
Are they going to do this for hetero domestic partner benefits?
I don’t think domestic partner benefits should be taxed. I didn’t even know that they WERE taxed until I read this article. It undercuts the argument that gay couples have equal rights to now learn that they are taxed at rates greater than are married couple benefits.
Having said that, Google should pay the tax for heterosexual domestic partnership benefits, too. THAT part is patently discriminatory.
I suspect they probably would, and would have to, if they had any. But in CA opposite sex couples can only apply for domestic partner status (as opposed to marriage) if one of the persons is over 62 years old. A good bet they don’t have a single hetero employee in one of those.
Sadly, I must work for conservative companies, because none of my employers paid any portion of my families insurance.
However, as Google is a private corporation, I say they can pay anybody as much as they want for any reason they choose.
Which certainly isn’t your position, I would imagine.
If homosexuals were conservative, they’d keep their sexual preferences to themselves.
Ditto Republicans.
OK. I and several male friends at GOOGLE are heteros but we decide to declare as homos to get the cash and throw a wrench. GOOGLE grants the pay raise then subequently finds out we are lying. They want to fire us for lying. Can they do that? On what basis? We lied to get more pay, so what? If we did not lie about our credentials for the job or any legal right to work in the US, does their argument have any merit? Simply put, i believe the deception is irrelevant because GOOGLE used race/gender/sexual orientation/religion to discriminate between it’s employees. Is that not illegal on it’s face?
What I am saying is that there is no way GOOGLE could accomplish their objective without violating EEOC or IRS tax regulations (hiding the payments as an administrative expense). I would think a class action suit is a guarantee if they follow through with this. They need to wait for the law to catch up with their sense of “social justice”.
My wife’s pay 50% of mine. I am pretty sure this is not uncommon.
Is it?
But in CA opposite sex couples can only apply for domestic partner status (as opposed to marriage) if one of the persons is over 62 years old. A good bet they don’t have a single hetero employee in one of those.What about singles living together who consider themselves “a couple” Seems discriminatory to deny them whatever benefits go to gays and lesbians. If a company really wants to compete for the best talent and think is a way to do it, it would make sense to be completely blind about whether the other person in your household was same or different sex, or registered somewhere or not.
Yikes! Did it again. Strike out the strike out!
You can’t just go in one day dressing !!!FABULOUS!!! and speaking with a lisp. I am quite certain, you and your buddies would have to register with the state, which would involve making certain statements under oath. So lying would be a crime. Also, I suspect google has it in the benefits package that you are also making affirmative statements that you are in fact a bona fide domestic partnership under state law. Lying in making that statement would clearly be a for cause grounds for termination.
In other words, your plan sucks.
We need Chap on this one, but I was working for a firm that was acquired by another corporation. Within a year our benefits package changed, actually slightly for the worse.
When we asked why the explanation was Federal Law required that benefits had to be comparable within our coporation.
Why? Both heteros and same sex couples have to do more than just “live together” to get the benefits. they either have to get married or go through the functional equivalent of registering as a domestic partnership. If you want to claim that ANY benefits offered to a couple (whether straight or gay) is discriminatory against unmarried employees, then that is a separate issue.
>>However, as Google is a private corporation, I say they can pay anybody as much as they want for any reason they choose.
That is certainly true. And, as private citizens or participants in private enterprises ourselves, we can criticize them loudly and publicly for their love of sodomites.
If history is any indicator, when most businesses adopt this policy, the federal government will swoop in, make it a law that all businesses must do this and drive another round of small businesses into the ground.
And the new textbooks will indicate that all workers were subjected to this blatant discrimination until the federal government saved the day across the land.
It works like this: if you have a domestic partner getting benefits from Google, you are taxed on the value of those benefits by the feds. It’s right there on your check. You take home less than someone who is married for doing the same job. What Google is doing is supplementing the check of the person with the domestic partnership to make up for the extra federal taxation, so that the takehome pay is the same for everyone.
Lots of businesses here in CA do this already.
So lefties like Chappy now support wage differentials based on sexual preference. Would it be okay for another company to pay hetero works more than others? How about wage differentials based on gender or ethnicity?
Soon, Google will have separate lunch counters, water fountains and restrooms for different kinds of people and Chappy will be right there to support Google as it rushes over the cliff.
Nothing new here. Just more left-wing moonbats behaving like left-wing moonbats…
So fascists like you support interfering with a company’s right to pay its employees whatever the hell it feels like?
I’ve gone full Darth Vader. I root for the Yankees, use Bing, and vote Republican.
I must say, though WE82, I am impressed that you think sexual orientation should be a protected class, subject to the same constitutional protections as race, gender and religion.
That is very progressive of you!
Do you know this for a fact, or are you making an assumption to support your argument?
The only way to be in a domestic partnership in CA is to register with the state, and google’s policy applies to domestic partnerships. The same way two people couldn’t just declare themselves “married” without going through the process and try to claim the benefits.
And there is no such thing as a “common law” marriage or domestic partnership in CA.
So it compensates them for governmental discrimination (which, under equal-protection, should be illegal). Good for them.
And it’s their company. They can pay people whatever they want. None of the government’s business.
I must tell the group-I am coming out and annoucing my real sexual orientation.
Yes, I am straight, gun loving, and go to temple twice a week. So now give me the extra money for my live in LP intimate slave.
/max sarc
GSP
I guess you don’t live in Hollywood, Bel Air, Beverly Hills, or New York City.
What Chappy overlooks completely as he slavers over the idiotic implementation of his policy is that the 14th amendment pretty much makes this unconstitutional. Not that Chappy cares what the constitution says or means or stuff like that.
Just call him Elana Kagan Junior except that he isn’t quite as attractive as she is though he is obviously less butch…
Ummmm…stupid. My point is that conservatives have worked really really hard to make sure that sexual orientation is something that is specifically NOT covered by equal protection laws. So sorry that, in this one example, your hypocrisy and bigotry has been exposed. I take it what you want is for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to be illegal only when it adversely affects heterosexuals.
Maybe you haven’t kept up with local news, WarEagle, but your very own AG made this exact point recently:
Forgot the link.
My point was that if one company could pay certain people more then other companies could pay certain people less on the same basis.
“Sexual orientation” or, in this case, “Sexual disorientation” is not a protected class in Virginia. And nowhere in my post did I state that it was or ought to be. Of course, Chappy is too busy with his “tingling leg syndrome” to comprehend anything said to him.
But this is nothing new for Chappy…
I acutally don’t know what the big deal is.
Google is going to reimburse same-sex couples for a tax they pay on domestic partner benefits that hetero couples don’t have to pay.
The discrimination in this case is that the same-sex benefits are not taxed in the same way that hetero benefits are.
Guess I don’t find this to be that outrageous. Google is free to do as it wishes, and if it’s to compensate for an “added tax” that gays have to pay, sounds like it’s more the government’s fault (surprise, surprise) than Google practicing discrimination.
That sounds very similar to what Lil’ Timmy Geithner got at the World Bank. Didn’t he receive extra money to pay a tax, that he spent on camping or something?
No, you suck!
Damn you poutier, I knew you would be lurking somewhere. I shall devise another plan to defeat your vapid assumptive logic. We shall also employ manicures and pheromone-laced perfumes. In a close decision, that may make all the difference.
I am also not keen on you “swearing under oath” and registering nonsense. There are other options to circumvent the man. In any event, if things go south in a hurry, we could always resort to handcuffing ourselves to the president’s unisex porn bathroom handrails. Wait. I’ll give that some more thought. I hate lawyers.
Does your Rabbi care if you pack heat?
As long as it’s made by IMI I think it’s kosher.
is that the one that Kal Penn escaped from?
I believe he has a garage full of soap-on-a-rope.
This is an entirely self evident point, which is all you seem capable of making. The question is whether or not this is a violation of equal protection, which many here are claiming.
Nor is it a protected class under federal law. You said this was illegal under the 14th Amendment. How do you get to that without saying that sexual orientation is a protected class?
Answer: You can’t.
Now run along and stop trying to play armchair Constitutional expert.
WarEagle you dummass. Remember, the Constitution is a living document, constantly evolving, devolving, shapshifting, to represent what we need it to represent. Why are you always trying to bring us down man?
I’m personally hoping for the commerce clause to allow me to stage cross-border raids into Mexico to steal horses and women. It’s a great business model in case anyone is interested in investing. Let me know.
Yes, I agree chapmeister. There are many on this site who seem to have an astute grasp of the obvious. But please be kind, one day you may fall and bump your head and return to normal. And wouldn’t you feel bad then?
Brit Milah and all?
1) Google is a private company. None of the government’s business. If I hate it that much, I can use something other than Google.
2) This appears to have to do with benefits, not wages. It appears that due to federal regs, giving the same benefit to some employees costs the company more, but in order to give the same benefit to all employees, the company is paying the difference. It appears to have more to do with financial wrangling than an actual political stance.
Of course, the issue is that left-wing moonbats like you and Elena and Obama want us to believe homosexuality ought to be protected! (Homosexuality is a behavior and not an immutable attribute). And to a large extent, homosexual orientation is a de facto protected class in America today.
Any homosexual in America today can get married and enjoy the same legal treatment regarding benefits as any married heterosexual.
Leftists like you have cried that we should treat everyone “equally” but that is not what you mean. What you mean is that you want us to pay for you giving preferential treatment to certain groups that change over time.
Next, gays will be demanding gay-only clubs, lunch counters, water fountains and restrooms all while protesting that Christian-only or straight-male-only private organizations are immoral, illegal and discriminatory.
Leftist moon-bats like you want everyone to live their lives as YOU see fit and limit everyone to the choices YOU approve.
No thanks. Social engineer with your own dime and not mine!
Great rant, WarEagle!
Might I also add that, IMHO, most “gays” (I grew up saying “queers”) discover they are gay in College, as soon as they get away from the clutches of mommy and daddy.
I daresay that most kids out on their own for the first time are going to try drugs, hard liquor, leftist politics, and sodomy if they fall into the wrong sphere of influence. And our universities are full of spheres.
When we take back our country, the professors have to go.
Profound. It’s almost like eighteen, nineteen, and twenty-somethings start having sex at that age.
Coincidentally, I, too, started engaging in sex when I left a small Colorado town of 1,500 and moved to a college town of 125,000. HAHAHHA TAKE THAT, MA & PA!
Same here, and I was never once tempted to try switching sides.
Creepy, I have the exact same story!
Yeah, but I was too dumb to go to college.
So I joined the Navy and handled nuclear weapons. Ha
My my, WarEagle, you DO get angry when you have been shown to be the fool.
I disagree, but you know what I am certain is not an immutable attribute? Religion.
Do you think we should drop that from the list of classes as well?
And once gay marriage is adopted (and it will be), any straight person will be able to marry any person of the same sex they want as well. So how is that “preferential treatment” under your definition?
I’ll be watching with interest to see if the Democrats demand the ouster of any politician who is foolish enough to say something nice about Byrd, the way they did with Lott.
OOps, how did I get on this thread??? Never mind!!
Chappy,
The only thing demonstrated here today is your own hypocrisy. But that is not news to anyone here…
Oh do tell…how am I hypocritical? Is it because I believe that equalizing benefits for people necessitated by a discriminatory federal policy is not discrimination on the part of an employer? Or is it because I actually know what I am talking about wrt the 14th Amendment and know that, despite my feelings about whether it SHOULD cover sexual orientation, it does not and therefore is not a violation of equal protection, like you have claimed?
>>When we take back our country, the professors have to go.
Oh yea…now you’re talking!
The fact that there is a federal policy is the problem.
The only benefits I want from the government is protection from invasion, and to leave me alone. That’s it.
This is against the EEO laws.
This really is a non-story.
*IF* the employer pays any part of the premium for a domestic parter, the value of that employer-paid premium is imputed income. If the employer pays none of the DP’s premium then there is no imputed income to tax.
The practice of paying additional salary to cover taxes on a benefit is called “grossing up”. So if an employer pays for, say, gym membership then the value of said membership is taxable. The employer may increase cash compensation to make up for the value of the benefit.
In California, the imputed value of my DP’s benefit was about $75/week. The tax on that $75 was about $20. So, my employer could increase my pay by, say, $30 (taxable) to cover the $20.
My company’s policy on DP benefits require a notarized affidavit and applies only when the partners are engaged in an “intimate relationship” (and some other legal yada yada) AND that they cannot otherwise be legally married.
For most employers, covering DPs is optional. There are examples of companies that provide DP benefits in order to bid on RFPs from some government agencies (so it’s arguable not optional if they make a living selling to the gubmint).
As far as Doug’s assertion that this is discrimination against straights… how? Married couples already enjoy tax-free status on the value of health insurance (at least until Obamacare starts taking effect).
There are far bigger problems in the world than Google’s decision to pay the tax on imputed value of DP benefits.
WarEagle is convinced that homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic? How does he(?) know? Does that mean that heterosexuality is not immutable; that heterosexuality is a choice? Does that mean that WarEagle can head on down to the gay pick-up bar for a good time if the fancy strikes? When did he decided that he was straight (I’m assuming that he’s not in the closet)?
Why not just rename the company Gaygle then?
Your writers would be funnier if they were gay.
You watch! Pretty soon every God fearing, gun toting, breeding, small business owner will be forced to hire gay writers! And pay them more! Cause Obama or Pelosi said so!
Or something like that.
Is “DP” a domestic partner, or does it mean double penetration?
Help me out here!
I don’t watch much TV, but what I do watch tends to be “crime” type shows. And I saw the episode of Law & Order where Chevy Chase portrayed
Mel Gibsona drunken, white supremacist, C-list celebrity who blamed his failed show biz career on “teh j00z”.It occurred to me that maybe it’s not a vast Zionist conspiracy – rather, maybe “teh j00z” are just funnier/wittier than, well… y’know.
(cant say I enjoyed the episode too much as it was just so so so so contrived)
Everyone knows that Google, if they do this, is engaging in discrimination. Right?
As the (not so) old saying goes, “Youtube Myspace and I’ll Google your Yahoo”
It’s a non-issue. Google is a private company and this doesn’t break any laws that I’m aware of.
The real story will be when Google drops all health coverage for employees, gives each employee extra salary so they can buy their own health insurance, and the federal and state governments give tax breaks to inviduals for purchasing a health insurance plan.
Oh myyyyy!!!!!!
No, I live in Tennessee near Graceland and the problems with the Midsouth is more than enough to carry my “Master Card” in the 9mm hollow point and multiple 15-rd clip variety.
Lets see; I go to a Hindu temple twice a week, the occasional Messianc syngogue service, and my Christian church as well. The priests or my pastor don’t know what I am carrying, they won’t know until the wolves attack the sanctuary and then I will defend them with my life. (John 15:13)
GSP
“Dissent is Patriotic”
I’m gay and I don’t want preferential treatment! That’s the whole point, is to be treated like everyone else, so disappointed in Google and very, very
angrydisappointed in gays who don’t see the issue here…I wonder what tax they are talking about? Since with regards to income tax, there is a marriage penalty if both parties work.
Wait!! I thought the DOJ has told us that the Equal Protection Clause does not apply to “majority” groups. (See Black Panther lawsuit dismissal). Gosh, Im so confused.