business news in context, analysis with attitude

Bloomberg reports that Starbucks has disclosed for the first time how much less women in the company make compared to male employees.

Zero. Almost.

That's right. Starbucks says that there is virtual gender pay parity in its organization, as opposed to "the nation’s workforce overall, in which women make on average 19% less than men."

Furthermore, Starbucks says, it has no racial pay gap.

The company says that this demonstrates that this "parity shows not only that women get 'equal pay for equal work' but also that they have achieved as many high-paying roles as men."

The story says that "Starbucks joins Citigroup Inc. in reporting figures for median pay, a rarity among U.S. companies, which are not required to release diversity data publicly. The U.K. has required organizations to report such data for workers since 2018. There, women at Starbucks make 5% less than men. Globally, its female employees make 98.3% of what men do."

The Citibank revelations are nor quite so heartening, as it "reported that women at the bank earn 29% less than men, its peers chose not to follow. In the U.S., the bank also pays people of color 7% less than their white co-workers."
KC's View:
I'd be perfectly comfortable with a regulation in the US saying that public companies would be required to report on gender and racial pay parity. I think it is a perfectly legitimate piece of information that would help investors decide where to put their money. But I'd also be comfortable with a regulation requiring public companies to report on the disparity of pay between people at the top of the executive ladder and those at the bottom of the food chain. Again, a legitimate piece of investment information, I think.

But companies don't like such rules. Can't imagine why.