The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Social Clubs / Last RoundUp


Subject:  good news! Date:  3/26/2018  9:12 AM
Author:  GreenMartianX Number:  2581 of 3782

Starbucks Commits to 100 Percent Gender Pay Equity Globally and Achieves 100 Percent Pay Equity in the U.S.

From the beginning, Starbucks has made it a priority to put partners first. From recent investments including parental leave to a comprehensive Family and Partner Sick Time Benefit, Starbucks has listened to its partners and invested in ways that promote equality and career development. Now, that investment includes both gender and race pay equity.

Announced today, Starbucks has committed to achieving and maintaining 100 percent gender pay equity for partners in all company-operated markets globally, setting a new bar for multinational companies. This is an effort supported by equal rights champion Billie Jean King and her Leadership Initiative (BJKLI) and leading national women’s organizations, the National Partnership for Women & Families and the American Association of University Women.

Further, Starbucks announced it has achieved 100 percent pay equity for women and men, and for people of all races, performing similar work in the United States.

“This milestone is the result of years of work and commitment, and we believe it is important, as a company of our scale, to help bring more attention to this critical issue,” said Helm. “Starbucks has consistently outperformed our industry in terms of pay equity, but it is incumbent upon us to do more.”

Starbucks has also formulated Pay Equity Principles that led to the successful closure of the pay gap at Starbucks in the United States. Recognizing the importance of this issue for women all around the world, Starbucks is sharing these principles so other companies can follow suit, and address known systemic barriers to global pay equity.

the cynical person in me would suggest that what this means is if I'm a woman in the same job as a man and i do a better job then I get paid the same...but clearly that isn't a cycnical viewpoint, it must actually be true, right? You can 'perform' similar work all you want, but the results are by no means identical. While I understand the objective, this seems - don't know - weird.
Copyright 1996-2021 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us