My company, which is a city government rather than a private company, pays more for couples and pays more for families. I have a price sheet from 2008 (the one easiest to find right now). For a single person, the employer pays $496.33 a month. For a couple or a single parent with one child, the employer pays $756.98 a month. Meaning that a married person or a parent basically gets an extra $260.65 a month in tax free pay than a single co-worker doing the same job.

For a family, the employer pays $849.92 a month, giving a person with a family $353.59 in tax-free income.

But don't expect the people getting the subsidies to care about fairness. They have childrearing expenses, after all, and it is only right for you to have to chip in to help them.

i.e., does your agency pay the same percentage for both families and individuals?

If the company pays 90% of my grocery bill for one person, and also 90% of the grocery bill for my co-worker with 5 kids and a spouse. Would you consider that fair, since we are both getting 90% of our grocery expenses covered? What about auto insurance? If the company paid for basic liability for my own auto, and then also basic liability for my sister, with an auto for her, one for her spouse, and one for their teenage daughter. Would that be fair because we are all getting 100% of our auto insurance expense covered?

Why should health care be any different? Why isn't the fact that health care IS different been seen as massively unfair?

I can tell you why. Because married people and people with children have far more political power than single and childless people, and the majority could care less about how unfair it is that they are subsidized by a minority.

regardless of family size.

Even though the employer is paying more in actual dollars for the family coverage, the family is still paying more as well.

If an employer is paying 90% for families and 75% for singles, then yes, I would see that as unfair. Paying the same percentage for all employees? I see no problem with that at all, and I'm of the opinion that it's completely fair.

But every job I have had here and for the company I ran, there were two rates. Single and family coverage, the rate did not change with the number of children, no children was the same price as 4.

All of my employers offered a higher match for single than they did for family coverage. Where I work now, the difference between single coverage and family coverage is roughly a 5 times larger per paycheck deduction for family coverage than single coverage.

They are paying more for groceries too. And for water. And for electricity. And for housing. And for auto insurance. Etc. Because there are more of them.

Why should that translate into a married person getting paid more than a single person for doing the same job? It's somehow fair for me to get paid $12 an hour (including benefits) and for my married co-worker doing the exact same job to get paid $14 an hour? So some pay gaps are fair?

No doubt you see something that either does or will benefit you as completely fair.

My employer (a privately owned company) paid the same percentage of premiums for all employees. I thought that was fair.

When I got married and had kids, my employer (private company and federal government) paid (and still pays) the same percentage of premiums for all employees. I still think it's fair.

You're using the fact that the hourly rate of pay and benefits is higher for couples/families than for singles and saying that's unfair. While it's true that the total hourly package is better for couples/families, the fact is that the wage compensation is the same, and the families will still have less disposable income due to the fact that the they have to pay higher premiums. I see no problem with that, and I don't see it as unfair to either side.

Truth be told, I've never heard of any company that pays one percentage of premiums for one group of employees and a different percentage for a different group of employees. Not saying it doesn't happen or even that it isn't common, I've just never heard of it. I've also never been employed under a union contract, so I'm not sure how they work, in general - do union contracts normally stipulate that employers pay a different percentage of health insurance benefits for the different groups of employees?

As to the OP, if the premiums for the different groups went up at different rates, and your employer is still paying an equal percentage of the premiums for each group (50% for all groups or 75% for all groups), then I don't think that is unfair. If all groups went up the same, but the employer is now saying that the company is going to pay different percentages for the groups, then I agree that is unfair.

my employer pays to insure the employee only and the full cost of adding others in on the employee. Frankly as long as marriage is not offered on an equal basis I think that is the fairest way to go.

.. to recruit and retain the employees that they feel offer the most to their company. I don't think health coverage should have to be part of this (I support universal healthcare) ... as it stands now, healthcare is part of the benefits package.

Companies/corporations do not extend benefits (there are always exceptions, of course) due to their altruistic nature or a desire for the common good. Benefit packages are designed to recruit and retain the talent within their staff pool. An employer will design it as they see fit (meeting their goals as they identify them), the packages are not necessarily meant (or designed) to be fair ... just to meet the company needs (again, as they identify them).