• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Starbucks, abortion benefits, and unions

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Starbucks is getting some criticism - IMO well-deserved - for the fine print on its public pledge to reimburse employees for travel expenses related to having to go out-of-state to get an abortion:

'Some forced birth with your venti latte?': Starbucks boasts it will provide reimbursement for workers to get abortions—unless they are a union shop

Turns out that this may only apply to non-unionized stores:

However, the company said it could not “make promises or guarantees about any benefits” for unionized stores, angering labor advocates and Twitter users.

Also, they're only extending the offer to workers on Starbucks' health benefits plan, which most of their part-time staff are not on.

I think this sort of behaviour just underscores how important it is not to tie health coverage - including access to abortion - to employment, since companies are tempted to dangle it like a carrot to achieve their own ends.

Thoughts?
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I agree. Corporations shouldn't be involved in any decisions about who gets what care. Employment corps or insurances.
But neither should a state be able to deny healthcare based on its religious views, as we're seeing with abortion as well as trans healthcare access (took them 8 days after Roe v wade falling to go after trans people.)
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
Starbucks is getting some criticism - IMO well-deserved - for the fine print on its public pledge to reimburse employees for travel expenses related to having to go out-of-state to get an abortion:

'Some forced birth with your venti latte?': Starbucks boasts it will provide reimbursement for workers to get abortions—unless they are a union shop

Turns out that this may only apply to non-unionized stores:



Also, they're only extending the offer to workers on Starbucks' health benefits plan, which most of their part-time staff are not on.

I think this sort of behaviour just underscores how important it is not to tie health coverage - including access to abortion - to employment, since companies are tempted to dangle it like a carrot to achieve their own ends.

Thoughts?
Disgusting discrimination.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Starbucks is getting some criticism - IMO well-deserved - for the fine print on its public pledge to reimburse employees for travel expenses related to having to go out-of-state to get an abortion:

'Some forced birth with your venti latte?': Starbucks boasts it will provide reimbursement for workers to get abortions—unless they are a union shop

Turns out that this may only apply to non-unionized stores:



Also, they're only extending the offer to workers on Starbucks' health benefits plan, which most of their part-time staff are not on.

I think this sort of behaviour just underscores how important it is not to tie health coverage - including access to abortion - to employment, since companies are tempted to dangle it like a carrot to achieve their own ends.

Thoughts?
It is a disgusting thing to brag about. Why can't companies stay out of controversial debates? Luckily I don't use Starbucks anyway, but them supporting abortions is another reason not to.
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
I agree. Corporations shouldn't be involved in any decisions about who gets what care. Employment corps or insurances.
But neither should a state be able to deny healthcare based on its religious views, as we're seeing with abortion as well as trans healthcare access (took them 8 days after Roe v wade falling to go after trans people.)

I guess what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If conservative companies can boast they won't open on Sundays or give women employees birth control options in insurance, then these companies can boast that they will help pregnant women in dire situations.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
It is a disgusting thing to brag about. Why can't companies stay out of controversial debates?
I trust that you also oppose companies getting into controversial debates by, say, refusing services for a same-sex wedding, right?

Anyhow, the only way a company could avoid getting into this debate is by getting out of the healthcare business. Every company that provides medical benefits is either including or omitting access to abortion services in that benefit package; there is no neutral position.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Wouldn't it have been much more logical to promote a reimbursement for contraception?
Prevention is better than cure. It's an idiom we always apply to our lives here.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I can see it form Starbucks point of view. One problem with people not on their health plan is that a desperate person looking for an abortion could get a Starbucks job take advantage of their abortion deal and then immediately leave. Companies do not want to be dupes for people that do not have health insurance which is why it always takes at least a month or two for it to kick in.

I am less comfortable about them using it as a weapon in their union battles. It is a way of saying "Don't force us and we will be nice to you." I am pro-union but from a business point of view they often see the union as an adversary.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
Wouldn't it have been much more logical to promote a reimbursement for contraception?
Prevention is better than cure. It's an idiom we always apply to our lives here.

No, because they are going after contraception next. Also, Planned Parenthood has free condoms no questions asked. Walk in grab a handful and leave.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
No, because they are going after contraception next. Also, Planned Parenthood has free condoms no questions asked. Walk in grab a handful and leave.
I guess it is very unlikely.
I read that the state of Oklahoma will allow any kind of contraception, including the morning after pill :)
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
I guess what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If conservative companies can boast they won't open on Sundays or give women employees birth control options in insurance, then these companies can boast that they will help pregnant women in dire situations.
Maybe Starbucks should offer to make wedding cakes for gay couples.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Starbucks is getting some criticism - IMO well-deserved - for the fine print on its public pledge to reimburse employees for travel expenses related to having to go out-of-state to get an abortion:

'Some forced birth with your venti latte?': Starbucks boasts it will provide reimbursement for workers to get abortions—unless they are a union shop

Turns out that this may only apply to non-unionized stores:



Also, they're only extending the offer to workers on Starbucks' health benefits plan, which most of their part-time staff are not on.

I think this sort of behaviour just underscores how important it is not to tie health coverage - including access to abortion - to employment, since companies are tempted to dangle it like a carrot to achieve their own ends.

Thoughts?
Maybe there is some weird legality dealing with unions.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I guess it is very unlikely.
I read that the state of Oklahoma will allow any kind of contraception, including the morning after pill :)
OK is interesting....in a train wreck kind of way.
It makes whatever you post about them likely wrong.
Oklahoma lawmakers passed 5 contradictory abortion bans. No one knows which laws will be enforced.

Also interesting in the linked article....
"The newest law, which bans abortion starting at fertilization, has exemptions for pregnancies that result from rape or incest that are reported to law enforcement."

The fetus has a right to life....unless the father was
a rapist or relative, & whether a police report about
it was made. Multiple circumstances of conception
determine whether a "person" may live or die?
Oh....
The above law would also make artificial conception
very tricky, since every fertilized egg becomes a person.
They've a real mess in OK.
 
Last edited:

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
No, because they are going after contraception next.
And masterbation ban will also follow...potential human life wasted, would be such a waste, esp. if it were a genius or would that be discrimination
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
And masterbation ban will also follow...potential human life wasted, would be such a waste, esp. if it were a genius or would that be discrimination
All this talk lately about "spilling seed" &
"sodomy" is changing the legal lexicon.
I just might have to start reading the Bible
to see where constitutional law is heading.
 
Top