START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good

If Starbucks Is Allowed to Bypass the Law This One Time, It Will Set a Dangerous Precedent PETITION - PLEASE SIGN

Business  (tags: corporate, business, abuse, ethics, society, Starbucks, Unethical business practices )

- 626 days ago -
Starbucks has just filed a request with the San Jose City Council to pay its employees less than the current law permits -- all so the multi-billion dollar company can pump up its profits even more. Tell Starbucks: withdraw your request to underpay

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Kristen H. (25)
Thursday January 23, 2014, 9:22 am
So what happened? The article about this is dated mid-December and the petition says the council will vote "very soon". So what happened? Did the council vote yet? I signed the petition, but will it do any good if the council has already voted?

Esther Z. (96)
Thursday January 23, 2014, 9:38 am
Noted and signed. Thanks, Evelyn.

Evelyn B. (59)
Thursday January 23, 2014, 9:52 am
In answer to Kristen H's query :
San Jose City Council puts clarification of prevailing wage policy on agenda

By Carol Rosen, Correspondent
Posted: 01/22/2014 06:02:14 PM PST | Updated: a day ago
Council members hope to clarify policies for the city's living wage at a meeting on Jan. 28. This follows a staff proposal discussed in November questioning the prevailing living wage policy that suggested that businesses renting space from the city--on city property--don't need to pay living wages.

Living wage is different from the minimum wage. The city's minimum wage is $10.15 an hour, while the living wage is $15.78 for companies that pay for health care or $17.03 for those that don't. The minimum wage is an ordinance voted into city law by residents. The living wage is a policy that is updated every year and applies to companies doing business with the city.

A recent online rumor states that Starbucks has requested the city allow it to pay its employees less than the law permits. While many may assume the discussion is about minimum wage, it's actually about the living wage. Starbucks expressed concerns over paying a living wage to all of its employees, although it would be paid to those hired to construct a kiosk at the Convention Center Plaza.

Starbucks would have a lease agreement with the city.

Kim Walesh, economic development director, and Dave Sykes, public works director, suggested in a Nov. 25 memo that the council clarify the city landlord/tenant relationships and whether the living wage policy should apply to leases, property agreements, operating agreements and concession agreements in which the companies provide their own funds for construction.

While the memo writers hope to facilitate consistency in the policy application, it's more likely to allow a freer business atmosphere for companies looking to lease space city-owned spaces, says a city source who asked not to be named.

"The staff is looking for clarification as to how the living wage policy fits into leases where the company is paying for its own construction," says David Vossbrink, communications director for the city.

Council members first adopted a living wage policy in October 1988. It was set for contracts in construction, alteration, demolition or repair work for public works construction projects. It was expanded months later to include city services such as street sweeping, convention center food services, parking lot management service, janitorial services, city maintenance contracts and city housing projects.

According to Walesh and Syke's memo, the city hasn't always been consistent applying the policy. Some agreements--for example, those regarding private funds to pay for 100 percent of the cost of construction that the developer dedicates to the city--don't have prevailing wage requirements.

Staff hopes to get the council to agree to allow any city-landlord lease where the city provides no funds or subsidies and the lease holder doesn't supply direct services to the city or residents to be free from living wage requirements. According to staff, that would eliminate ambiguities and inconsistencies in interpreting the policy. It also would remove private sector objections, which might very well lead to increased private investment.

Starbucks is the only coffee company expressing interest in opening a kiosk in the convention center's plaza. The agreement includes no city funds or subsidies.

Roseann d. (178)
Thursday January 23, 2014, 10:06 am
Who can live in that area on such cheapo wages? BOOOooooo Starbucks! Get real! Their coffee tastes crappy anyway.

AniMae C. (473)
Thursday January 23, 2014, 2:28 pm

Natasha Salgado (662)
Thursday January 23, 2014, 6:13 pm

Carol H. (32)
Friday January 24, 2014, 3:42 pm
SIGNED. This is CRAZY! Most people are fighting to RAISE minimum wages, NOT LOWER THEM! Another greedy company! I will not give Starbucks my hard-earned money. Vote with your wallet!

Penny C. (90)
Friday January 24, 2014, 4:41 pm

Andrew C. (6)
Friday January 24, 2014, 7:27 pm

krysta Ice (23)
Friday January 24, 2014, 8:02 pm
Signed and noted.

Ondine J. (130)
Friday January 24, 2014, 8:07 pm
Noted and signed,thanks

Christine Stewart (133)
Friday January 24, 2014, 8:13 pm

catherine g. (18)
Friday January 24, 2014, 11:36 pm
I am sick of these big companies who think the law doesn't apply to them. Why bother trying to overthrow totalitarian regimes, they are the ones who run this world, not governments.
Starbucks is an easy one to boycott though, make you own coffee at home. It is better for everyone. And if you need to take coffee with you somewhere, buy yourself a flask.

Evelyn B. (59)
Friday January 24, 2014, 11:52 pm
So right, Catherine!
And if you don't have your thermos - well, there are other places you can buy your coffee!

Dogan Ozkan (5)
Saturday January 25, 2014, 12:10 am
noted and signed

Julie Botsch (12)
Saturday January 25, 2014, 5:09 am
Thank You. Signed and Noted.

Jessica Grieshaber (7)
Saturday January 25, 2014, 6:21 am
Just because you're the biggest coffee chain in america doesn't mean that the law doesn't apply to you. Noted....Thank you

LynnCarin LadySeastar (436)
Sunday January 26, 2014, 12:31 am
Noted. One of the best ways to make sure that Starbucks does not do this to its employees - STOP buying their overrated and overpriced coffee and products. Hit them where it counts - financially!

Evelyn B. (59)
Sunday January 26, 2014, 1:58 am
So true, Lynn - that's what I'm doing already .... and so are my friends! Boycotting a company for their policies & ethics is more effective than just signing a petition ....
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Business

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.
site feedback


Problem on this page? Briefly let us know what isn't working for you and we'll try to make it right!