No doubt, the decision by the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) to overturn a nearly 50-year precedent banning abortion has caused a national hue and cry unlike anything we have seen recently — with the possible exception of the brouhaha surrounding the January 6 insurrection investigation.

I am not going to discuss the merits, pro or con, of the SCOTUS decision itself. Rather, let’s explore a possible course of action for our meat and poultry businesses.

Consider that the labor force at most major meat and poultry processing plants has, over the decades, come to include more workers who are generally considered unskilled and lower on the socio-economic scale than their predecessors of the 60s and 70s. Among other demographic shifts, meat plant employees include more women. It is a population with fewer resources overall, but with equal rights and needs.

My question is, where should companies draw a line on whether to support — or not support — social justice-type issues, such as those raised by the SCOTUS decision, through employee policy? In this case, the question is particularly acute with regard to many female employees.

Speaking directly to the abortion issue, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said that, “denying women access to abortion increases their odds of living in poverty or need for public assistance,” implying the need for governments to pay later.

Additionally, the National Bureau of Economic Research, comparing economic outcomes for women who were able to access abortions with those who weren’t, found those without access experience “a large increase in financial distress that is sustained for several years.”

As a footnote, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business has said that “at some point in the pandemic, women crossed the 50% threshold of the work force.” This is not an issue germane to only a few of the people we rely on to keep our companies running.

To frame my question more directly for our meat and poultry companies who may be considering policy adjustments as a result of the SCOTUS decision, I rhetorically ask: What do Starbucks, Airbnb, Amazon, Apple, Yelp, JP Morgan Chase and Co., the Walt Disney Company, Lévi Straus & Co., Dick’s Sporting Goods, Netflix, Clif Bar and IKEA — among a growing list of others — have in common? The answer is, they have all announced that they will financially support female employee travel from a state that restricts access to abortion to the nearest location where that care is legally available.

Should meat and poultry companies follow suit? Or, with such policy decisions made in reaction to the SCOTUS ruling be just a "bridge too far" for any company’s social justice activism? Are such pronouncements by Starbucks, Airbnb etc. amount to just so much perfidious hype, an attempt to cater to the current whims of consumers?

No matter which side of the SCOTUS abortion decision you may be on, for businesses to turn a blind eye toward such decisions — which could affect so many of their employees — is disingenuous in my opinion. Unfortunately, an employee’s private life does not stop upon entering the business’s front gate nor resume when the employee leaves the premises.

But just where do companies draw the line? Clearly, the ones that have quickly and publicly stated they will finance the travel for women who seek an abortion and cannot get one in their state of residence could be construed as intruding into the private lives of employees beyond any “duty” to those employees.

Or, should such actionable support be viewed as positive, enlightened and responsive to employee’s needs?

For those who feel such a discussion, while important, has no place in this meat industry blogging forum, I say: What better place for such a discussion than amongst those whose lives and finances are directly and intimately impacted? I am referring to all who have an abiding interest in the health of our industry, and am specifically including both the women workers and the companies that employ them.

I hope that there will be a thoughtful response to the question I am putting forth — should our industry participants consider recognizing their female employees’ abortion decisions with measurable financial and actionable support, and why, or why not? Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks!

A bridge too far?

Join for free* to continue reading.