Starbucks will pay expenses for employees forced to travel for abortion or gender-affirming treatment

Starbucks announced that it will pay for employees’ travel expenses in the US if they are forced to leave the state to receive abortion or gender confirmation treatments.

According to the seattle timesthe company made the announcement Monday, saying employees are eligible if services aren’t available within 100 miles of a worker’s home.

The travel benefit will also reportedly be offered to dependents of employees using Starbucks’ health care plan.

The company’s official position supports women’s right to choose abortion, even in the face of possible repeal of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court.

“Regardless of what the Supreme Court ends up deciding, we will always make sure our members have access to quality health care,” Sara Kelly, interim executive vice president of member resources for Starbucks, wrote in a letter to employees.

Although most companies have remained silent on the revelation that the Supreme Court likely intends to overturn Roe v Wade, some have enacted initiatives similar to Starbucks.

Amazon announced it would cover up to $4,000 in travel and hotel expenses for employees who are forced to travel for non-life-threatening medical treatment, including abortion and gender confirmation procedures.

The company has been offering that benefit since the beginning of the year and, like Starbucks, it applies if an employee is more than 100 miles from the nearest facility offering the treatments.

Tesla also offers to pay its employees to travel out of state for abortions.

The move is likely to give the coffee giant some good faith with customers after several weeks of critical coverage over the company’s attempts to thwart an effort to unionize its workers. It’s unclear if the travel offer will be extended to unionized stores.

Starbucks announced it would pay workers in non-union stores more and offer better benefits, further upsetting labor organizers and the public. Company CEO Howard Schultz said he couldn’t legally offer benefits to unionized workers because they had to negotiate their own contract.

Leave a Comment