Starbucks has a reputation for taking good care of its store employees (or “partners” as it likes to call them), but it has nonetheless drawn some controversy this year regarding its paid parental leave program. Under a new policy announced earlier this year, new mothers who work at the coffee chain’s corporate offices are entitled to as much as 18 weeks of leave at full pay after giving birth, while fathers and adoptive parents get 12 weeks. Store employees working more than 20 hours a week and who have been with the company more than 90 days are allowed six weeks of paid medical leave upon giving birth, while those who adopt are eligible for a six-week adoption allowance, both at 100 percent of their average weekly pay.
Even though these benefits are much better than what most hourly retail and service employees in the US enjoy, the policy raised questions about why corporate employees were entitled to so much more. In August, the Guardian’s Molly Redden highlighted the impact of this disparity on store employees, noting that Starbucks is not alone among major US companies in offering more generous parental leave benefits to their corporate employees than to their front-line staff. Now, Redden reports, a group of investors led by Zevin Asset Management is pressuring Starbucks to tell its shareholders whether this discrepancy might constitute employment discrimination:
“Paid family leave is a huge factor in how well women can stay involved in the workforce after having a baby, or how much time out they have to take in their careers,” said Pat Tomaino, Zevin’s associate director of socially responsible investing. “Women and their families benefit from equal and generous paid family leave – but companies do too.”