Passenger Trains > Amtrak Human Resources/Payroll/Benefits issues with Mar

I'm just wondering if there are other recently married same sex couples who are having problems with Amtrak HR/Payroll/Benefits depts concerning proper listing of marital status and improper benefits taxation/imputed income on spousal benefits.

The problem extends across a number of national payroll systems, both company specific and vendor systems. Legacy systems, in particular, may not have the capacity to have different marital status blocks for federal and state identification. Several medical insurance companies are scrambling to create that status and resolve the issue.

There's a related issue tied to state taxation of benefits when the state doesn't recognize same sex legal relationships. That should go away, but it's likely to require state by state litigation, unfortunately.

I wouldn't be too hard on Amtrak on this one. It's likely the company uses an older system and it doesn't have the capability of recognizing dynamic change. I would hope they establish a unit to process / administer claims and status requests as they update or junk their system.

Until the states come around on the issue of marriage equality, the dual status issue will continue to be a problem. Many benefit laws are driven by state status and the tax aspect by federal status.

Yes I have been assured that they are "working on it." I just want make sure it doesn't drag on forever and that the fix, when it happens, is satisfactory. Thus the search for other couples who may be in the same place.

Not unusual, unfortunately, and not unlike the Y2K issues in another message. I was working in the late 70s and early 80s on a payroll system, and we were trying to figure out just how to handle these issues. Though it wasn't an official policy, there were a considerable number (this was in the SF bay Area, just before the Aids epidemic came full bloom, and just post-bath house scene) of same sex (or trans-sex) couples.

There were a lot of expensive treatments, and, as we were one of the largest (if not THE largest) plasma and blood products company, it hit home as well. The data center was hard by the SP main in the East Bay, and we'd have a lot of vibration from trains and earthquakes - trying to determine one from the other could be difficult. One of the managers didn't want to deal with it, as it was "against my ideals". However, every time he said it, a train went by, shaking the whole building - wasn't his decision to make in any case. Which somewhat gives an idea of the frequency of trains too.

But it was decided, we'd cover (some of) them, unofficially. The programming was a little ridiculous, but that was the era. Had to go through, get a tub file, go through the reproducing punch (somewhat ironic) with a column dropped, then do another. God I hated punched cards and the SP. We had more 3350 issues, and the poor 1401 wasn't all solid state. Two jobs after that, it was at One Market Plaza, overlooking the SP HQ building. I loved working there, a great location, great commute, and a lot better weather.

Apparently the legal department is trying to figure out how to set things up in order to deal with the different States. In my view, the system should simply recognize married as married. There is already a separate designation in the system to accommodate civil unions and domestic partnerships for those who have them, both in states with and without marriage. No new category is needed. In fact, creating "married" and "same sex married" would be discriminatory. I intend to make that an issue.

JimT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In my view, the system should simply recognize married
> as married.

Maybe they're waiting for the issue to still be hashed out in the courts. I don't believe it is a totally resolved, "dead" issue just yet.

CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JimT Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > In my view, the system should simply recognize
> married
> > as married.
>
> Maybe they're waiting for the issue to still be
> hashed out in the courts. I don't believe it is a
> totally resolved, "dead" issue just yet.


depends on the state

Well its a state by state issue, yes, but in those states where it has been resolved, its been resolved. Couples in those states shoud not be having problems with employer's ability to accommodate the change. I understand it takes time, but somehow Ill bet that the most successful companies, such as google, apple, and others, were prepared and had solutions in place ahead of time.

JimT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well its a state by state issue, yes, but in those
> states where it has been resolved, its been
> resolved. Couples in those states shoud not be
> having problems with employer's ability to
> accommodate the change. I understand it takes
> time, but somehow Ill bet that the most
> successful companies, such as google, apple, and
> others, were prepared and had solutions in place
> ahead of time.

Many companies had plans in place prior to the legal decisions. Since some states have had marriage equality for five plus years, it's not a new systems issue. The tax reporting issue (state versus federal) has been an issue for each state that's taken the step.

Realistically, yes - but a lot of companies had it on the books as an internal policy for years. The problem is not necessarily with Amtrak. I know that we would wait for ever for updates from the IRS or other offices - sometimes they didn't come until the day after (or week after) the 1099s were (legally) due to be printed.

I'm curious as to how the laws of individual states impact on Amtrak in employment matters generally, and this matter specifically?

I would have thought that as a federal agency, Amtrak would have to apply federal law, period. The recent Supreme Court ruling on this issue leaves state issues undecided, but I thought the ruling would apply to Amtrak, hands-down?

- Paul

I would have expected that Amtrak be in the loop right away too. In any case, we'll see how long it takes.

As a recently married same sex couple living in California I have been told by the benefits dept. that I will no longer be taxed (Amtrak word is "imputed income") on my health benefits but that they are still working with the legal dept. on how to define our marriage. Sounds crazy but having worked for Amtrak for 40 years I am used to them moving at a snails pace. I think eventually they will be fair but it is still frustrating that they can't come up with a definitive answer. I was also told that I will get the federal tax benefit of a married couple but that's about it so far.

amsnoop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As a recently married same sex couple living in
> California I have been told by the benefits dept.
> that I will no longer be taxed (Amtrak word is
> "imputed income") on my health benefits but that
> they are still working with the legal dept. on how
> to define our marriage. Sounds crazy but having
> worked for Amtrak for 40 years I am used to them
> moving at a snails pace. I think eventually they
> will be fair but it is still frustrating that they
> can't come up with a definitive answer. I was also
> told that I will get the federal tax benefit of a
> married couple but that's about it so far.

Imputed income is used by the federal tax people to describe the cost of a benefit provided by the employer, usually as part of a qualified employee benefit plan. If Amtrak provided spousal health insurance to an opposite sex married partner, the amount of the employer paid premium would be tax free to the employee. The same amount of premium paid for a same sex spouse would be treated as if it was paid in cash to the employee, and would be taxable under federal law.

Social Security, as a federal benefit plan, was also subject to the overturned "Defense of Marriage Act".

My partner and I recently married, having been together for 42 years. We're both retired from Amtrak after 35 and 37 years of service. We're applying to the Railroad Retirement Board for spousal benefits. Right now we're waiting for their decision as to how they will proceed. They said this is new ground for them and I understand.

This is what I wanted to find out.. if there were other couples in cali, where one person works for Amtrak, and who has contacted them. I see you got the same answer that I got. Personally I'm not satisfied with the answer "the lawyers are working on it"
Its not complicated. People who are married are married and are to be treated as such. period. There isn't anything to figure out. My patience on this will be very short. i expect the imputed income taxation to cease immediately and I expect the benefits language to be changed just after immediately. I'm looking into legal assistance in the meantime.

FWIW, I don't think the railroad retirement board will implement a definitive fix on same sex marriage payments until the social security administration comes up with a fix. The administrative complexity is pretty extensive, starting with people who were denied survivor benefits and now qualify for retroactive adjustments. Backing out what they received under their own plan, and replacing it with the survivor payment is a huge job on its own. As another poster mentioned earlier, just managing the data is a huge task. Especially if the fields aren't populated with the necessary information.

I'm guessing that the UTU already has a benefits task force considering the issue, same with the BLET and the crafts. That would probably be a good place to start.

JimT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is what I wanted to find out.. if there were
> other couples in cali, where one person works for
> Amtrak, and who has contacted them. I see you got
> the same answer that I got. Personally I'm not
> satisfied with the answer "the lawyers are working
> on it"
> Its not complicated. People who are married are
> married and are to be treated as such. period.
> There isn't anything to figure out. My patience
> on this will be very short. i expect the imputed
> income taxation to cease immediately and I expect
> the benefits language to be changed just after
> immediately. I'm looking into legal assistance in
> the meantime.

it took us 7 years to get the last contract ... and now we're into years on the present one ... do you really expect an expeditious response ... if you do you're in LA LA LAND !!!!!!!!!!!

Well yeh I feel ya there. Which is why Im so concerned. However for those in the same boat, I can tell you this. First, if you married your partner and one of you works for Amtrak, what they did in order to get my partner benefits started right away, was to approve them by listing my husband as domestic partner... just for the purpose of benefits.. a temporary fix. Meanwhile that resulted in the tax - imputed income status occurring. But I managed to reach the right people in DC, who expedited the reversal of the imputed income. One I made contact, they fixed the problem in a few days. I heard back from payroll today. The imputed income has been removed, and the overpayment of tax will be refunded on this weeks check.
So if you are having this problem, just know that it can and will be fixed right away so long as you reach the right people back east. Keep in mind there is payroll, HR, and Benefits, and the challenge is get them all on the same page.

Step one, getting benefits in place was resolved in about 3 weeks after my marriage. Step two, imputed income, resolved two weeks after that. What remains is
same sex couples are unable to accurately alter and display correct status via the benefits website. The official language (spouse/married etc) need to be changed systemwide. My w4 tax status, while I submitted a change to married from single, still reflects single until mid sept, then married thereafter. ( Not sure why the delay there)

So if anyone is having a similar problem you don't want to deal with your local payroll and hr. You have contact DC and Delaware.

From Amtrak's standpoint, are they subject to any legal restraints because they also operate in the more socially conservative parts of the US? IN other words, do they HAVE to discriminate in some places in order to comply with state and local laws?

If I understand it correctly, some states not only do not recognize same sex marriage, they actually prohibit their own agencies from recognizing such status from other states. The recent DOMA ruling would seem to block the Feds from doing this, but maybe not the individual states?

Anybody have any real legal background on this issue? Is it really simpler than this?

The scenario I have in mind is someone who transfers from, say, California or New York to Louisiana or Mississippi. What would seem simple on the coasts (a marriage is a marriage is a marriage) might get more complicated upon transfer.

Waiting for the issue to resolve seems unwise to me. I doubt same sex marriage is coming to the Confederacy any time soon. From a purely legislative standpoint, Mississippi only banned slavery in 1995.