It is bringing UPS to equal pay for equal work—instead of paying married employees, via their spouse’s healthcare—far more than single employees.
But I would be upset if they took my spouse off the healthcare, but not the stay-at-home spouse of someone else. Seems like they could continue to cover the spouses but charge the full premium (no subsidy from UPS), and then it would be more of a “choice” to the employees, rather than seemingly a penalty.
I disagree with that thought process.
I say this as a married man with no children. The same mindset could describe employees who have no children versus those who do as feeling they are discriminated against because they somehow get less than those with children.
I do not begrudge any “extra” benefits given to a worker who has children in the same way I never begrudged any benefits to married couples when I was single.
If a company offers benefits to attract quality workers, it is up to them to decide how they want to do it.