ExxonMobil Will Offer Long-Denied Benefits to Legally Married Same-Sex Couples in U.S.

Categories: Biz

rextillerson.jpeg
premier.gov.ru
ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson at a meeting with Vladimir Putin
It ain't the state of Texas, but same-sex couples just got their legal marriages recognized by an entity that wields more influence at home and abroad than Governor Rick Perry ever will -- that's Irving-based oil giant ExxonMobil.

The company, known for its insular, white-bread corporate culture, changes course about as agilely as cruise ship. It was slow to acknowledge the existence of climate change while it bankrolled efforts to sew doubt where overwhelming scientific consensus exits. Not exactly a bastion of forward thought.

And if you look at the announcement, heartening though it is, we aren't witnessing ExxonMobil's evolution into the more enlightened ranks of its Fortune 500 brethren, which have long offered domestic-partner benefits. "We haven't changed our eligibility criteria. It has always been to follow the federal definition and it will continue to follow the federal definition," a spokesman told The Associated Press, clearly referring to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

If a country Exxon operates in mandates marriage benefits and anti-discrimination policies, the company provides them. If it isn't required, Exxon hews only to what it must do, and not to what it should. When it acquired Fort Worth-based XTO in 2009, Exxon rescinded the protections and benefits the company previously offered to its gay employees. It did the same when it bought Mobil in 1999.

The oil major says its policies prohibit all forms of discrimination, and that there's no need to single out gays. Yet it's fighting a lawsuit in Illinois from gay advocacy organization that sent fictitious résumés for a job opening. The more highly qualified candidate identified as gay and never received a call from Exxon. The less-qualified candidate, however, did, the lawsuit claims.


Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
13 comments
everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

 The more highly qualified candidate identified as gay and never received a call from Exxon. The less-qualified candidate, however, did, the lawsuit claims.

Actually, having looked at the methodology, it's, "The more highly qualified candidate identified as working for an incredibly militant and litigious organization never received a call."

P1Gunter
P1Gunter

Well that is fantastic for them. Way to treat your employees with a modicum of respect and pretend you don't believe they are subhuman and you simply worship the almighty dollar. So progressive.  Fucking socialists.

Now how about explaining to the rest of us, the heterosexuals, why a gallon of gasoline is the cost of two beers at 7-11? And not regular beers, we are talking 24oz beers. Outside of their own greed, is there any explanation for a shitty Steel Reserve driven here by a truck powered on gasoline being more expensive than the gas that got it here?

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

Frankly, it's a smart business decision. providing the highest amount of benefits to the broadest range of employees means they will have a better pool of candidates.

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

@P1Gunter  

Hmm, interesting comment as I rarely hear any comments about the eeevil, greeedy, money sucking, selfish beer companies who are only in it to screw the average beer drinker.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

 @mavdog Yup.  I've never understood this belief that corporations hate (insert group here: women, blacks, gays, etc) more than they love money.  When there is a profit to embracing gay people, no one will embrace them faster than Exxon.  

By the same token, if gay people were really being discriminated against, Exxon would run to hire them, because they would be able to hire them for a lower wage.  Similarly, if women really were being paid 70% of what men were for the same work, everyone at Exxon would be a woman and the stockholders would be pocketing that 30%.

(Also, keep in mind that this all goes back to the stockholders.  They are the ones voting down the LGBT resolutions every year at the annual meeting.)

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

@mavdog  

Not really, ExxonMobil focuses on its business, that it who purchases their products and services.  Two things are at play, one is the SCOTUS striking down significant parts of DOMA, and the effect that a boycott by LGBT people may have on their business.  ExxonMobil recently (within the past few years) did several focus groups with various LGBT organizations.  Many of them said that if they had run out of gas, they would pass up an open EM station and walk another twenty miles to the next open non EM gas station.  This last perception probably had more to do with EM changing its policy than anything else.


EM did indeed lose a number of highly qualified employees when Mobil was bought out and the benefits for LGBT employees were cut.

ruddski
ruddski

Be careful with Sanders "bvckvs" Kaufman, he's real big in slander and threats. Mean sumbitch.

P1Gunter
P1Gunter

@ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul Holmes, I used to work for Glazer's and in liquor stores. I know the insanity of the beer business. The racket that is beer prices blows my mind. How there has never been a collusion lawsuit against the beer companies makes my head explode.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul 

Exxon is pretty much out of the retail gas business. They have sold most all of their stations. By the end of 14 they won't operate any at all.

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

@P1Gunter @ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul  

Yes, it is a racket.  Having an alcohol distributorship is nothing more than a license to print money.  I like the Andrews warehouse out in Terrel that is served by rail.  That is because Texas' alcohol laws allow lateral monopolies but the hammer comes down on any sort of vertical integration.

For example, when Campbell Taggart acquired the El Chico chain of restaurants, primarily for the frozen foods business, they had to sell the restaurants because many of them had liquor by the drink licenses and Campbell Taggart was at the time owned by Anheuser Busch.  Heaven forbid that there be such a thing!   As a result, we ended up with the El Charro line of TexMex frozen dinners which suspiciously looked like meals off of the El Chico menu.

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

@mavdog @ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul  

EM is pretty schizoid when it comes to retail marketing.  Wait a few years and EM will become jealous of the retailers and will step back in and take them back into the corporate fold.  This is not the first time that EM has done this.  They are very much interested as to how the brand is perceived even though they no longer own and operate the retail locations in the US.

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...