Starbucks

[PeakPants]

Apologies if there is already a thread on this. I came across this:

www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/06/26/starbucks-to-pay-for-all-transgender-staffs-surgeries/

Starbucks have apparently vowed to pay for the gender reassignment surgery of staff who identify as trans.

I just find it very ironic that an organisation that cannot be arsed to pay tax properly (which would raise billions) is going to fund extensive surgery. My other issue is that surgery is presented as a one-off BAM!, now you're a woman. In fact, any such surgery is going to require extensive aftercare on a lifelong basis. Are Starbucks just going to fund some surgery and then expect the staff to pay for future aftercare themselves.

I think this is just USA but wherever it surely a good thing that an employer is increasing a staff benefit?

What other benefits do they offer?
Is it part of a bigger picture eg cosmetic dentistry, fertility treatments etc being funded?

Either way, I wonder if they'll be sued in future years by people who regret having irreversible surgery. Seems risky.

They should look at paying the right amount of tax first.

I think in America your employer does pay your medical insurance for the duration of your employment there. So they will just pay the amount for your insurance and probably has a package that includes surgery and hormones etc if you need them for being trans, but this will also be the same for women who need medical care too.
One you leave you'll have to pay your own or your meet employer will pay it.

As long as Starbucks are paying for their staff to have immediate medical treatment for the breast cancers, lung cancers, ovarian cancers brain tumours, open heart surgery etc and all the other horrendous illnesses that can blight their employee's lives, I would have no problem with them funding surgery for this group as well.

I presume the fact they don't pay any tax contributes to being able to provide generous health insurance. But staff still aren't paid enough to afford normal living expenses.

I believe that they do not pay sick pay in many instances- probably a more urgent and immediate issue for staff than for a tiny number to get surgery. I think they are simply jumping on the LGBTQ bandwagon to make themselves look great, while at the same time treating the remainder of their staff like shit. The kind of employment conditions that Starbucks offers (precarious, few real benefits) are particularly onerous for female staff members.

It’s a bit different in the US as companies pay medical insurance as part of their contract.

I don’t object to this. I object to some of the reasons I believe people may transition but not to the employer paying for what is a medical service for their staff as I’m sure they do do other things.

But. As a PP says if they are not paying for other aspects of medical care/cover it by insurance then that is unfair.

This is actually really interesting. As it’s in the US I wonder if the person having the surgery sues them. How many trans are now coming forward and saying they wish they hadn’t had it? Would this be seen as encouragement?

Can you imagine the uproar if Victoria secrets started offering free boob jobs to all new employees ...

Also would the employee have to work the surgery payment off in reduced wages with interest?

You don’t get a free lunch for nothing ...

There's not enough information in the article to know whether this is a general upgrade to employees' terms and conditions; whether it's jsut something they are doing to try to help counter the law suits being brought against them; and if other medical procedures not normally covered by insurance (such as IVF, facial electrolysis for women with women with PCOS) are going to be included in the new medical coverage

But one reason I hate the Pink News is its sheer hypocrisy - right under that article they have the click bait-y link to "Celebrities you didn't know are gay!". If any other paper had that, it would be seen (rightly) as a gross invasion of privacy to "out" celebs who didn't want to make a big deal of their sexuality

But one reason I hate the Pink News is its sheer hypocrisy - right under that article they have the click bait-y link to "Celebrities you didn't know are gay!". If any other paper had that, it would be seen (rightly) as a gross invasion of privacy to "out" celebs who didn't want to make a big deal of their sexuality hmm

Fair criticism I think.