Paid Time Off MattersA (slow) progress report

Starbucks still has to deal with its discriminatory approach to paid family leave

The best post I have found so far about the Starbucks saga after their annual shareholder meeting is by Emily Peck for the Huffington Post. The tough question remains: what's next? We'd say more push and pressure, publicly and behind the scene. Where were/are the faith groups when so many own stock? Afraid to stand up for new parents and families? 

Working Washington: Sorry Starbucks, but that’s not ok.

Starbucks new paid parental leave policy

	Corporate employees (i.e. public relations, executives)	Store employees (i.e. baristas, shift supervisors)
Birth mother	18 weeks paid	6 weeks paid
Other new parent	12 weeks paid	0 weeks paid

Source: History of Partner Benefits, news.starbucks.com (at the very end).

 

Starbucks recently announced a new paid parental leave policy that provides 18 weeks paid time off for birth moms who are corporate employees... but only 6 weeks paid for birth moms who are baristas. Other new parents would get 12 weeks paid time off if they work in corporate... but no paid time at all if they work in a store. Tell Starbucks you love that they’re providing parental leave — but they need to explain why their policy seems to say that baristas' kids are worth less. >>>

---

Sorry Starbucks, but that’s not ok.

Do baristas need less time at home with a new child? Are their kids worth less than the children of corporate executives?

We're not sure how Starbucks can possibly explain this policy — so we figured we should ask. Click to send a letter to the Starbucks public relations department asking them to explain why baristas deserve less parental leave than corporate employees get.

The thought counts for a lot. So does the policy.

Thanks,

Working Washington