Legislature considers workplace discrimination

Earlier this week, the Idaho Senate State Affairs Committee voted 6-2 to print a bill that would prohibit employment and housing discrimination based on sexual orientation. It seeks to protect people from being fired because of their sexual orientation. Current statute outlaws discrimination based on race, sex, religion, color, or national origin. Twenty other states have enacted discrimination bans based on sexual orientation; 11 other states have executive orders protecting public employees from such discrimination.

Many companies already explicitly prohibit such discrimination in their employee handbooks or manuals, including HP, Washington Group International, Supervalu (Albertson’s), Potlatch, and Boise Cascade. Micron, you may recall, attracted national attention last spring, after the Board of Directors chose to disregard an unprecedented vote by shareholders in favor of including sexual orientation in their discrimination policies, only to acquiesce to investors shortly thereafter.

Over 80 percent of the Fortune 500 prohibits discrimination based on sexual identity. So why is the business world so far ahead of lawmakers on this one? Might it be because they understand that no business competing in a global economy can afford to put itself at a potential disadvantage by alienating an entire class of people (which is effectively what you do when you refuse to offer protection against a type of discrimination that is longstanding, prevalent, and well documented)? It’s a productivity issue: companies want their LGBT employees, like all employees, to focus on work, rather than the stress and distractions that come with discrimination and harassment.

It can also be a recruiting issue, as HP-Boise well knows. HP has been one of the largest benefactors of all things related to diversity and tolerance in this state. I’m sure they do it because they believe that combating discrimination and fostering understanding is an important mission, but there are likely selfish reasons as well. When recruiting top talent and trying to lure people from all over the world to work at their facility in Boise, they’re fighting the perception (right or wrong) that Idaho lacks diversity and tolerance.

Sen. Tim Corder (R-Mountain Home), one of the bills co-sponsors (along with Sen. Chuck Coiner (R-Twin Falls), Sen. David Langhorst (D-Boise), Rep. Les Bock (D-Boise), and Rep. Nicole LeFavour (D-Boise), noted “I hope that hearing stays on the subject of discrimination, and doesn’t go to the subject of homosexuality, because it really is not about that,” he said.

Corder may have spoken to soon. It appears that Committee Chair Sen. Curt McKenzie (R-Nampa) simply voted in favor of printing the bill as a courtesy to Republican colleagues Corder and Coiner. But the sponsors likely won’t get any hearing on this bill. McKenzie told the Idaho Press-Tribune, “I don’t see that it has the support to get passed,” and thus is likely not going to schedule a hearing, effectively killing the bill before the public or any other legislator gets to say anything.

So, here’s a bill that has bipartisan support, as evidenced by its sponsorship. The bill presumably has the support of much of the business community, based on the fact that so many companies have passed similar internal policies. And 63 percent of Idahoans recently responded in Boise State University’s annual public policy survey that they thought it should be illegal to fire someone because they are or are perceived to be gay or lesbian. As Leslie Goddard, Executive Director of the Idaho Human Rights Commission put it, “Idaho has a long tradition of respect for individuality and freedom.”

Unfortunately, Idaho’s Legislature, with its current make-up, has no such tradition. Say what you will about the merits of such a bill (and as you might imagine, I side with the sponsors and with the overwhelming majority of Fortune 500 companies who have taken a stand against discrimination based on sexual orientation), when proposed legislation that has significant public support across party lines never even gets a hearing or a vote, something is clearly broken. Single-party rule has bred arrogance and contempt for the democratic process. The only way the outcome might be different and this bill might be debated in public is if many people contact the members of the Senate State Affairs Committee and insist on a hearing. In particular, I suggest calling Senators Geddes, Stegner, Little, and Davis. They make up the Republican Senate leadership team and all happen to sit on the State Affairs Committee.

Brian Cronin owns two businesses (a PR/marketing firm and a preschool), sits on several non-profit boards, was the Chairman of the Ada County Democrats from 2005 to 2008, and is the proud father of five-year old twin girls.

***

The Idaho Business Review has opened it site to guest bloggers for the 2008 Idaho Legislature. Opposing viewpoints of similar length will be considered. If you are interested in contributing, please contact Managing Editor Robb Hicken.