Did See’s Candies Choose Workplace Discrimination Over Equality?
We enjoy the taste of See’s Candies. Do not get us started on the peanut brittle, because OMFG, it’s good. But do we have to cancel our bi-weekly orders from the sweets shop because the company would rather shut down its store in San Francisco’s Union Square than comply with anti-discrimination laws?
The evidence isn’t fully fleshed out, but it appears See’s failed to comply or refused to show proof of compliance with San Fran’s Equal Benefits Ordinance — which requires lease-holders provide the same benefits to married employees as it does employees in domestic partnerships — and then chose not to renew its Union Square lease.
See’s, meanwhile, denies any workplace discrimination. In a letter addressing the allegations, the company insists: “For years See’s Candies has provided domestic partner benefits including health insurance, with some of these benefits negotiated in labor agreements with unions representing See’s workers. These benefits continue to be offered today to union and non-union employees of See’s. Recently, our Union Square location lease was taken over by the City of San Francisco who has additional requirements for benefits beyond those offered by See’s. As any change to the benefits offered would require opening all related union contracts for negotiation, and the added benefits required were relatively minor and not consistent with our overall benefit plan, See’s attempted to seek a compromise with the City on its required benefit package. Unable to agree, and not wishing to renegotiate the union benefits offered to a single store in San Francisco, we elected to not renew our Union Square lease when it expired.”
Either way, See’s aficionados will have to get their stock at another location.
(Photos: Yelp, Cable Car Guy)
sounds more like corporate/political complications than it does discrimination.
@AlanInSLC:
yep, exactly!
See’s sterile environment always creeped me out just a little bit. I discovered that Baked at 18th between Connecticut and Missouri has yummy peanut brittle.
@AlanInSLC: Or, they have a flak who released a statement that puts See’s in the best possible light – regardless of the company’s actual motivations behind the closure.
I imagine, at some point, some gay, former employee from the location will come forward and address the issue.
It would be interesting to see if any more of Warren Buffet’s other companies treat gays fairly.
honestly, if they cite union negotiations, I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. Union negotiations take FOREVER, are contentious, and can often add a lot of complexity
@CTC: I agree
the candy company is correct.
Sees is right, on this. They have a good policy, and the overly prescribed legislation would cost them way too much. Also, a lot of Sees are closing anyway. My favorite one was on Polk St, and it’s gone. :( probably for the best. Money is tight and people aren’t going to buy as much junk like this. (hopefully).
pretty sad because man candy is so sweet!!..
Queerty, why not just pull this story? I don’t think it is fair to See’s. It doesn’t sound like they are hard-core discriminators.
I agree with the sentiments above — it really doesn’t seem like there’s sufficient evidence to condemn See’s Candies as discriminators. So unless other demonstrable facts come to light, this post is misleading at best and should be pulled.
Agree with all the posters above. This was just another example of when good intentions go awry.
I’m with See’s on this one.
This is half a story. How about the rest of the facts?
What are the benefits that the City are demanding be made available? When are See’s next scheduled contract talks to occur?
Some simple facts would be enlightening and could go a long way to help folks make up their minds on this issue.
Just another business that San Francisco’s city government has chased out of that town. It has very few major corporate headquarters left — it’s become a trendy bedroom community for the Silicon Valley elite.