Internet giant Google is an equal opportunity employer; though, to paraphrase George Orwell’s classic dystopian novel Animal Farm, some employees are more equal than others.
Specifically, the tech company will begin paying certain homosexual employees more than their heterosexual counterparts. The extra pay is earmarked to cover the cost of adding a gay partner to a health care plan.
The average wage increase, which is retroactive to the beginning of the year, is reportedly $1,069 per year, which studies show will put gay and straight employees on equal footing with the IRS. Since federal tax law considers employer health coverage for domestic partners taxable income, those individuals are responsible for that additional burden.
While I can appreciate that gay couples might consider this an unfair tax, I must also contend that they aren’t the only ones. This nation’s tax system is so convoluted and unnecessarily complex, segments of the population are paying all sorts of taxes not levied on other groups.
Though the disparity exists, employers should not use that as an excuse to impose post-tax parity among staff members based on lifestyle choices.
As an example, a Google employee who rents his home won’t be impacted by the same property taxes that his colleague might have to pay. No one would expect his co-worker to demand a raise to compensate for taxes related to his property ownership, though.
An employer’s only responsibility is to provide equal access to positions and provide a wage commensurate with the duties performed. Any extraneous efforts to make every employee’s life fair outside of the workplace is not only an overreach but actually acheives an opposite result.
Instead of creating fairness on behalf of its gay employees, Google actually treated its straight workers unfairly by denying them a $1,000 per year raise.
B. Christopher Agee founded The Informed Conservative in 2011. Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.