gaygroups
01-29-2007, 04:24 PM
New York City is the birthplace of the gay rights movement. It also happens to be the capital of the media business, which, as industries go, is about as homo-friendly as Broadway.
So why is it that New York magazine—a purportedly progressive publication with an openly gay editor, a deep-pocketed liberal owner, and an abiding interest in all things queer—refuses to extend health benefits to the domestic partners of its employees?
In the past, Adam Moss, New York's openly gay editor in chief, has been a vocal advocate (http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=105001772) of gay issues in the newsroom. But on this particular issue, he's been surprisingly silent. Instead, he referred our calls to New York spokeswoman Serena Torrey, who dashed off a robotic statement blaming the magazine's regressive health insurance policies on the government.
"Because of the complexity of the laws governing corporate benefits, and the difficulty of complying with changing domestic partnership regulations, New York Magazine Holdings LLC has not, in the past, been able to offer benefits to unmarried partners of our employees," Torrey explained. "As the applicable state and federal regulations change and as our company grows, we will definitely look into expanding our benefits offerings."
Despite this incredibly daunting thicket of complex laws and regulations, however, most of the nation's top media companies, including such conservative outlets as Fox and Dow Jones, have found a way to accommodate their gay and unmarried employees. In New York, according to the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (http://www.nlgja.org/workplace/dp_newsmedia.html), the New York Post, the New York Daily News, the New York Times, Newsday , Time Out, and the Village Voice all allow unmarried employees to include their long-term partners on their health care and dental plans.
So do ABC, NBC, CBS, the Associated Press, Reuters, Condé Nast, Hearst, Meredith, Bloomberg, Knight-Ridder, McGraw-Hill, the Tribune Co., the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, National Geographic, Spin , Vibe, and, yes, Radar.
Even Primedia, which sold New York to billionaire Bruce Wasserstein in 2005, now offers domestic partnership benefits to employees of its 90 remaining publications, including Truckin', Dirt Rider, Practical Horseman, and Shotgun News.
Still, New York remains a stubborn hold-out, even though owner Wasserstein, the brother of the late playwright Wendy Wasserstein, has long been active in liberal causes. "New York should be leading the charge on this issue," says a frustrated staff member. "It's disgraceful that we're less progressive than the New York Post."
Torrey did not explain why New York has been so uniquely hobbled by government red tape. But another staff member wryly notes that even though long-time partners of gay and single staffers don't qualify for health care, the magazine does offer its employees "bereavement leave" for the death of "significant others."
In other words, if your partner drops dead because he or she couldn't afford to see a doctor, you won't be docked for taking the day off to attend the funeral. Now that's progressive!
So why is it that New York magazine—a purportedly progressive publication with an openly gay editor, a deep-pocketed liberal owner, and an abiding interest in all things queer—refuses to extend health benefits to the domestic partners of its employees?
In the past, Adam Moss, New York's openly gay editor in chief, has been a vocal advocate (http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=105001772) of gay issues in the newsroom. But on this particular issue, he's been surprisingly silent. Instead, he referred our calls to New York spokeswoman Serena Torrey, who dashed off a robotic statement blaming the magazine's regressive health insurance policies on the government.
"Because of the complexity of the laws governing corporate benefits, and the difficulty of complying with changing domestic partnership regulations, New York Magazine Holdings LLC has not, in the past, been able to offer benefits to unmarried partners of our employees," Torrey explained. "As the applicable state and federal regulations change and as our company grows, we will definitely look into expanding our benefits offerings."
Despite this incredibly daunting thicket of complex laws and regulations, however, most of the nation's top media companies, including such conservative outlets as Fox and Dow Jones, have found a way to accommodate their gay and unmarried employees. In New York, according to the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (http://www.nlgja.org/workplace/dp_newsmedia.html), the New York Post, the New York Daily News, the New York Times, Newsday , Time Out, and the Village Voice all allow unmarried employees to include their long-term partners on their health care and dental plans.
So do ABC, NBC, CBS, the Associated Press, Reuters, Condé Nast, Hearst, Meredith, Bloomberg, Knight-Ridder, McGraw-Hill, the Tribune Co., the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, National Geographic, Spin , Vibe, and, yes, Radar.
Even Primedia, which sold New York to billionaire Bruce Wasserstein in 2005, now offers domestic partnership benefits to employees of its 90 remaining publications, including Truckin', Dirt Rider, Practical Horseman, and Shotgun News.
Still, New York remains a stubborn hold-out, even though owner Wasserstein, the brother of the late playwright Wendy Wasserstein, has long been active in liberal causes. "New York should be leading the charge on this issue," says a frustrated staff member. "It's disgraceful that we're less progressive than the New York Post."
Torrey did not explain why New York has been so uniquely hobbled by government red tape. But another staff member wryly notes that even though long-time partners of gay and single staffers don't qualify for health care, the magazine does offer its employees "bereavement leave" for the death of "significant others."
In other words, if your partner drops dead because he or she couldn't afford to see a doctor, you won't be docked for taking the day off to attend the funeral. Now that's progressive!