News Tips?
-- tips@phblend.com

PHB Mobile


About
-- The Blog
-- Pam | My home page
-- Autumn
-- Daimeon
-- Julien
-- "Radical" Russ
-- Terrance

Contact the Baristas

The Blend Blogrolls

Activism


Best of the Blend
Blog Posts

Special Events and Interviews

Blend-o-licious endorsements...



The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."

He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior." (CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)


Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).

"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008



Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:

A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)

"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)


Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush


who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"

Content © 2004-2008
Pam Spaulding

House Blend logo © 2005
Melissa McEwan

Photo of Pam Spaulding
© Judy G. Rolfe
All Rights Reserved.


SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Support the Blend




An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.



HRC strengthens criteria for its Corporate Equality Index

by: Pam Spaulding

Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 17:00:00 PM EST


HRC outlined changes to its Corporate Equality Index during a press call with Marti Abernathey, Bil Browning, and HRC staffers Daryl Herrschaft, director of the HRC Foundation Workplace Project, Meghan Stabler, transgender activist and member of the HRC Business Council,  Trevor Thomas,  and Samir Luther.  Chris Johnson of HRC Back Story also participated, along with your blogmistress.

The changes will recalibrate what it means when a company scores a 100 on the Index, most notably by raising the bar regarding transgender rights and benefits.

The new criteria will require that all employees have access to at least one insurance plan that contains no exclusions for transgender-specific care and recognizes internationally-accepted medical standards of care. The current criteria, announced in 2004 and implemented in 2006, require insurance plans to cover at least one out of five categories of treatment and were designed to educate employers and their insurance carriers about the insurance needs of transgender people. Employers have been required to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity to achieve a 100 percent rating since the CEI began in 2002.

"These new criteria get right to the core issues of how insurance plans exclude transgender employees. By aligning the new requirements to 'medically necessary' coverage defined by recognized standards of care and removing transgender-related exclusions from healthcare plans, we have significantly raised the bar allowing businesses to enhance their commitment to all employees," said Meghan Stabler, national transgender activist and HRC Business Council member. "Right now, hundreds of businesses will begin working to expand coverage to transgender employees. With this powerful new tool, our community must set out to educate human resource and benefits professionals about why these benefits are needed, not just for individual employees and their dependents, but to secure employer-of-choice status in the LGBT community."

..."With these new standards, the CEI will continue to be a powerful incentive for businesses to make real change that will impact the everyday lives of LGBT Americans in every corner of our country," said Daryl Herrschaft, Director of the HRC Foundation Workplace Project. "But it will not happen by itself. Between now and 2011, it will take the coordinated effort of employees and LGBT advocates to make these policy changes reality."

Rating Criteria 3.0

Underlined text indicates new or revised criteria.  
  1. Equal employment opportunity policy includes:  
    1. Gender identity or expression
    2. Sexual orientation
  2. Employment benefits  
    1. Equivalent spousal and partner benefitsand
      Spousal benefits encompass state-recognized same-sex spouses, partners and civil unions (more info)
    2. Transgender-inclusive health insurance coverage following WPATH Standards of Care (more info)
  3. Organizational LGBT competency  
    1. Competency training, resources or accountability measures (more info)
    2. Employee group –or
      Diversity council
    3. Engagement and diversity metrics (more info)
  4. Public commitment
    External LGBT-specific efforts, including at least three of the following: recruiting, supplier diversity, marketing or advertising, philanthropy or public support for legal LGBT equality (more info)
  5. Responsible citizenship
    No known activity that would undermine LGBT equality
Businesses will be rewarded for demonstrated, ongoing supplier diversity programs that include LGBT-owned suppliers, public support for equal rights legislation and sustained sponsorship and philanthropy. The new system also enhances requirements for diversity training, resources and accountability.

The new points allocation will be announced by March 2010, with, as Herrschaft noted, the full criteria applied in 2011. The timeline is below the fold.

Pam Spaulding :: HRC strengthens criteria for its Corporate Equality Index
Key Dates
2009: Mar. 31: 2010 CEI Survey released to participants (includes clearly marked questions that will count toward the current and/or the new criteria).

2010:  Mar. 31: 2011 CEI Survey released to participants (includes clearly marked questions that will count toward the current and/or the new criteria).  Point allocations for new criteria will be announced. Participants will receive preliminary rating evaluations under the current and new criteria upon survey submission.

2011:    * Mar.31: 2012 CEI Survey released to participants (includes clearly marked questions that will count toward the new criteria only).
     Participants will receive preliminary rating evaluations using new criteria only.
   * Jun. 30: 2012 CEI Survey must be submitted to HRC Foundation by the end of June.
   * Jul. 29: Participants must demonstrate that all new non-benefits criteria have been met and that all new benefits criteria will be met by Jan. 1, 2012.
   * Sep. 1: 2012 CEI Report released to public with new criteria only.

2012:  Jan. 1: Because benefits typically operate on an annual cycle, all benefits changes must be effective by Jan. 1, 2012.

The logical reason for the rollout as described above, Daryl Herrschaft noted, was  that the changes require renegotiations of insurance contracts (usually renewed annually). However, the reality is many companies that previously received a 100 and will not under the new criteria will start working now to maintain their ranking. Many of the 500 companies in response to changes in the Index  have already contacted HRC to find out how they could best comply and modify internal policies. Meghan Stabler underscored that the benefits organizations and HR departments will take some time to work out details in those new health insurance contracts -- for instance, the definition of "medically necessary" is quite broad, and that in itself will raise questions that corporations have to consider. An example that was cited -- rhinoplasty for MTFs, supported by the WPATH standards of care, should not be restricted in an insurance policy offered by a company if it is to receive at 100% score. That's one of many items to be negotiated, and many insurance companies are not yet well-versed in T issues to write an inclusive policy.

While this news is positive, there are concerns. The CEI would display a 100 rating for multi-national companies that may have progressive LGBT policies stateside, but an overseas operations in a country that is allowed to discriminate against LGBT employees. We were told that the Index only rates operations based in the U.S.but that the inequity would be noted. Bil Browning:

Daryl Herrschaft responded to my question by stating the CEI is "one indicator and people should look at others that are important to them." HRC currently questions respondents about their policies overseas, and make the occasional note on their website but abuses of LGBT people in other countries will not affect the company's score on the CEI because it only focuses on the US.

Speaking of the inordinate amount of research and follow-up that an international scale would necessarily require, Herrschaft told me, "HRC doesn't have the level of competency to do a good job of that. We're not set up like that."

He continued, "If there was a company that was firing people at will in Brazil we would raise that and it would be a huge deal. The CEI has enormous influence - especially for human resources officials (most of them straight) who are dedicated to educating themselves and their companies. But the CEI is not the end-all-be-all of how a company should be viewed."

This is obviously a step forward in terms of transparancy and accountability for corporations participating in the CEI. Do you think it will result in a more accurate assessment tool?

Also: Samir Luther has a column on the Index up at Bilerico.

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
It's about time
I am glad HRC is tightening up the scoring for TS issues. The existing scoring is extremely misleading. My previous employer got credit for offering TS procedures just by not automatically kicking t-people off their policies. There was a clear, Sex change surgery" exclusion but HRC still gave them credit. There is no justification for keeping this exclusion except for the simple reason that they can. The costs of the surgery are relatively low and the numbers of people wanting the surgery is so low, the cost impact is negligible.

Re: It's about time
@Pam - thanks so much for sharing this with your readers! I look forward to hearing what people think.

@CarbonGirl I'm glad we're doing this, too. To be clear about the current criteria: they require that at least one category of benefit is not excluded. This has proven to be an important step to educate employers (and their insurers) about what transgender exclusions are and why they're discriminatory. We've developed resources on trans-inclusive benefits in the process -- http://www.hrc.org/issues/tran... -- and we'll continue to improve these and push employers in the months to come. Please stay in touch if you have any further thoughts!

Samir Luther ( workplace [at] hrc [dot] org )


[ Parent ]
Taking wagers now...
So should I just bet money that HRC backpedals or is that so absolutely certain that we should have an office pool about when they do so?

My money is on backpedals,
  To have my trust is an easy thing to have once, as I like to believe the best in people.  Once that is broken, my trust is very difficult to gain back.  The ENDA debacle wound is still their as it was very deep and IMO HRC is not a trustable organization.  Not once has HRC apologized for throwing me and my sisters and brothers under the bus and running us over.  ENDA without the Ts went nowhere as many said it would with Bush at the helm.  It was proven that we could be tossed aside, and the LGBT community could be divided.  DIVIDED is all that came out of ENDA the last go around.

 I thank my LGB sisters and brothers who stood with us Ts and stood firm ground that the LGBT is better united then divided.  I know us straight Ts stood with you and are still there with you fighting strong against the H8 amendments, becayse it is the right thing to do.

 I applaud HRC for attempting to do the right thing now, it will be a wait-and-see for me if they stand strong for us Ts in the future.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.


[ Parent ]
I have hope.

The HRC is quite aware of the work they have to do with the LGBT community because of their key role in the top down, badly ran campaign that failed to stop Proposition 8 from passing in California, and especially for the T subcommunity because of the loss of credibility on T issues -- highlighted to the entire LGBT comminity in their ENDA position for the 110th Congress.

I believe we're going to see a lot of backpeddling over the next two years by the HRC, especially on T issues, because it's cost them in ways I don't believe they anticipated. They are going to go overboard on T issues because they need to regain that lost credibility.

That said, it doesn't mean I trust the HRC; I believe the conversion on T issues is potentially very shallow because that's been their history with the T community going back to at least the 90's. If in 2009 the HRC said that they would only support a gender identity and expression inclusive ENDA, I'd remember they said in 2004 that they'd only support gender identity and expression inclusive ENDA, and backed away from that position in 2007. That says it's hard to put faith in what the HRC says on T issues.

They will have to show me five or more years of solid support for all T issues for me to begin trusting them again.

But, I think they get this -- finally. I think they understand that they've lost a whole generation of T folk who will never trust them again after ENDA 2007/2008, and will badmouth the organization for years to come no matter what they do. And, I think the HRC understands now that the perception that their organization is anti-trans costs them now in ways it didn't cost them in previous years -- LGBT activists have changed to become more fully inclusive than the HRC currently is, and so newer activists aren't embracing the HRC because the organization isn't seen as being fully inclusive. That means that as long as the HRC is perceived to be anti-trans by newer activists, every year into the future the HRC will lose more and more relevance to each year's group of activists.

So, I believe the HRC is going to follow through with the CEI change because it's a rebuilding step for their relations to the T subcommunity, as well as with the broader LGBT community. Failure to follow through with CEI changes after announcing these changes would feed into the meme that 1) the HRC is anti-trans, and 2) you can't believe a word from the organization -- and again, the organization can't afford to be seen as anti-trans or as liers by the broader LGBT community if they want to be a credible organization into the future. And, I believe the organization wants to be seen as a credible organization into the future.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?




Join the Blend Chat Room



Report TOS Violations

Premium Sponsors



BlogAds






Search the Blend
Current site


PHB 2.0 Web
Search Blend 1.0 Archives
Ad Networks


BlogSheroes BlogAds


Miscellany

RSS Feeds

Subscribe with Bloglines

Visit NCBlogs


frontpage hit counter

Stats

Powered by: SoapBlox