Anti-LGBT Discrimination Increases Business Costs

One of the mantra's the GOP likes to chant is that anti-discrimination protections increase businesses costs. The truth - of course - is actually just the opposite as a new report demonstrates. Just like the reality of Europe and how it is described by the GOP presidential nominee candidates are very different things. The GOP demagogues also conveniently ignore the fact that anti-LGBT discrimination also often adds to the ranks of those who are unemployed. Yet another inconvenient fact. The Center for American Progress (CAP) documents these inefficiencies and costs in its groundbreaking new report entitled, “The Costly Business of Discrimination: The Economic Costs of Discrimination and the Financial Benefits of LGBT Equality in the workplace.” Here are some excerpts of the findings:

This report examines five core ways in which discrimination imposes significant financial harm on businesses:

• RECRUITMENT: When employers hire individuals based on job-irrelevant characteristics such as sexual orientation and gender identity, businesses are left with a substandard workforce that diminishes their ability to generate healthy profits.
• RETENTION: Discrimination forces otherwise qualified gay and transgender employees out of a job and into the ranks of the unemployed and introduces numerous turnover-related costs. According to a recent study, to replace a departing employee costs somewhere between $5,000 and $10,000 for an hourly worker, and between $75,000 and $211,000 for an executive making $100,000 a year.
• JOB PERFORMANCE AND PRODUCTIVITY: Sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in the workplace needlessly compromise maximum labor productivity and workforce output. Moreover, it introduces unnecessary costs by increasing absenteeism, lowering productivity, and fostering a less motivated, less entrepreneurial, and less committed workforce.
• MARKETING TO CONSUMERS: When companies discriminate and allow unfairness to go unchecked in the workplace, consumers increasingly react by actively choosing to do business elsewhere.
• LITIGATION: Businesses are increasingly liable for discrimination lawsuits even in states that have not outlawed gay and transgender discrimination, making discrimination economically unwise for companies in all 50 states. In 2010 the top 10 private plaintiff employment discrimination lawsuits cost firms more than $346 million.

Alternatively, the report unearths how policies that level the playing field for LGBT workers can bring a substantial amount of cash into company coffers. This is why America’s largest and most successful companies have implemented a range of policies that ensure the fair and equal treatment of LGBT workers. Of Fortune 100 companies, 93 percent have nondiscrimination policies that include sexual orientation, 74 percent for gender identity, and 86 percent provide equal partner health insurance benefits.

Despite these facts, the GOP stridently opposes ENDA which would address many of these issues.

LGBT Employment Protections Remain Few And Far Between in Virginia

The Boston Edge has a story on the City of Arlington, Virginia's move to adopt a resolution calling for statewide employment non-discrimination legislation that would protect LGBT employees. While I welcome every baby step that brings Virginia into the modern age - kicking and fighting progress all the way, typically - the current patchwork of protections in a relatively small number of municipalities just doesn't cut it. Governor Kaine's Executive Order 1 (2006) appears worthless, although an appeal may reverse a circuit court ruling that found the Executive Order gave no protections to a fired gay employee, so government employees at the moment can only look for protection on a city by city basis. Norfolk STILL has no city ordinance that protects LGBT city employees. Virginia Beach and Williamsburg do have such policies, but again they only protect city employees. Most Virginians continue to have NO protection. One things is interesting to note, however: municipalities with such protections are more attractive sites for progressive businesses to relocate than backward municipalities such as Martinsville which has a 20% unemployment rate. Here are some highlights from the story:

*
In an unanimous vote on June 23, Alexandria became the latest Virginia municipality to pass a resolution to urge state lawmakers to pass ban anti-LGBT discrimination in the workplace. Jeanne Niebauer, director of the Alexandria Office of Human Rights, notes her city passed its Human Rights Code in 1975 that included protections against workplace discrimination. Sexual orientation was added in 1988. Neighboring Arlington and Blacksburg in the southwestern part of the state have passed similar resolutions
*
A July 28 email sent by Equality Virginia called for other local state governments to "sign a resolution supporting workplace non-discrimination." The group further noted "there are still many municipalities and cities in Virginia that we need to have formally state that they value being a diverse and inclusive community." Noting he feels the lack of a statewide non-discrimination law impacts everyone, Equality Virginia chief operating officer John Blair pointed out the state’s patchwork of non-discrimination laws protect different people in different ways.
*
"Some are protected a little, some not at all," he said. "The important thing about non discrimination legislation is it needs to be comprehensive." Niebauer pointed out her city’s action was taken specifically to help facilitate the codification of statewide law in 2010. "The resolution was brought about by the mayor and the city council mainly because Adam Ebbin (a member of the Virginia legislature) introduced a non discrimination bill pertaining to all state and local workers in Virginia," she said. "The bill did not pass, so jurisdictions like Alexandria approved resolutions to show their support."
*
Of course even if such a bill passes the General Assembly next year, private sector workers will continue to have absolutely no employment protections.