Extension of married couple benefits would raise competiveness
I write in response to two letters published recently, from Priscilla Lau and Carman Ng, opposing the extension of married couple benefits to non-married couples ("Limit benefits for unmarried couples", September 12) and ("Benefits law would hurt small firms", September 13).
At a time when many studies show the large benefits to organisations in having policies of diversity and inclusion, it is rather shortsighted to propose that businesses might be more successful if they provide certain benefits to only one sector of their workforce, based on an arbitrary categorisation (their marital status) unrelated to their ability to contribute to their employer's success.
Companies whose workforces reflect the diverse nature of the society to which they provide products and services are likely to be far more in tune with their customer base and consequently do better in the long term.
I reject Ms Lau's vision of administrative chaos: it is actually relatively easy to prove you are in a common law relationship, and I would suggest relatively unlikely that people would abuse this. If this is really such a problem, then the introduction of some sort of civil registration for couples who do not wish to, or cannot, marry would solve this.
Ms Ng suggests that small and medium-sized enterprises might need to reduce benefits with the extension of beneficiaries.
If really necessary temporarily, then so be it, to introduce fairness in the workplace. But she is ignoring the real economic benefits of inclusion; her suggestion that cuts in benefits might lead to reduced productivity is nonsensical. For cuts to be necessary for existing married beneficiaries, a significant unmarried proportion of the workforce would need to be receiving the benefits at the new lower rate for the first time and those people, under Ms Ng's economic theory, would be likely to work harder.