unions? Is this a topic that is dealt with in any public context?
-Alec >>
Well hell, everything else is dealt with in a public context....... However, as with any form of tolerance, there seems to be the least tolerance and the greatest amount of hypocricy with sexual preference. But this isn't just unions, this is in companies, in the working class, and throughout our whole society -- and unions tend to mirror the prejudices of the community. So, for a few observations:
**union members in groups tend to have pretty prejudicial views on homosexuality and lesbianism, but individually display far more tolerance (at least where I work).
**union leaders claim to be tolerant in public but refuse to actually help homosexuals and lesbians in trouble as individuals (this has been my experience).
** Bell Atlantic officially recognizes company formed gay and lesbian groups and puts out literature preaching tolerance. However, upper level management routinely turns a blind eye towards lower management prejudice -- I recently helped one person file an eeoc suit against the company after trying for TWO YEARS to get management to stop an ongoing, personal harrasment situation at their work location. One of the six persons named was a union steward who refused to file grievances or help the person being harrassed.
Further, the company now advertises that they provide medical coverage for non-married couples. However, a little investigation reveals the following: the first time I called benefits to get a package for medical coverage for non-married couples I was told the company did not provide coverage by a clerk who clearly disapproved of my request (i.e., she gasped, said NEVER, and slammed the phone down in my ear). The second time I called I was told that non-married couples are not entitled to receive what we call the Medical Expense Plan available to union members, but can only join HMOs. So, as a union member, I could not cover a significant other under what is considered the "best" option which is old fashioned assignment insurance where I choose all the health providers, but must cover myself and a partner with "second" best option, choosing an HMO. When I questioned this position, the clerk told me that the company was doing this as a favor to people with alternative life styles and didn't HAVE to provide any medical coverage. When I pointed out to her that the company actually doesn't have to provide medical coverage to anyone at all, and that this is bargained for in the most part by the union, she asked me what address to mail the information to. I didn't bother to call the union and ask why they didn't see to it that their dues paying members with 'alternative' life styles didn't receive the same benefits as 'other' union members, supposedly with 'non-alternative' lifestyles. maggie coleman mscoleman at aol.com