Raw, abraded bellies. Broken legs. Overcrowding. Filthy trays and manure-covered ground. This is what life looks like for a chicken being raised as food. These conditions are the result of industry-wide growing practices that prioritize profits over chicken welfare and human health. The practices are mandated by Big Poultry companies, called integrators, like Perdue and Tyson. 

Around 90% of chicken produced in the United States comes from contract farms. While lawsuits have focused on the relationship between contract farmers and integrators, the employment status of the farmworkers hired by contract farmers to raise the flocks is worth investigating. At first glance, it may seem that the farmworkers are employees of the contract farmer who hired them, but a closer look reveals that integrators exert extensive control over their working conditions. 

This blog post argues that farmworkers on poultry contract farms are jointly employed by the integrator and the contract farmer. Though the National Labor Relations Act excludes agricultural workers, including farmworkers raising poultry, fourteen states extend unionization rights to agricultural workers. Of those states, eight are major poultry producers. Recognition of the joint-employment relationship would give the farmworkers in those states the right to collectively bargain with both the contract farmer and the integrator over working conditions. 

Collective bargaining rights would be a win for farmworkers and for chicken welfare. Farmworkers witness the horrific conditions in which chickens are kept, while being exposed to unhealthy working conditions themselves. The ability to collectively bargain would empower farmworkers to push for better working conditions for themselves, and better care of the chickens they raise. 

Integrators are Joint Employers of Farmworkers

The contract growing model places poultry farmworkers under control of both the farmer who directly hires them and the integrator who controls virtually every aspect of the growing process. After a contract farmer enters an agreement with an integrator, the integrator maintains ownership over the birds it provides to the farmer, decides which feed and other supplies the farmer can use, chooses the breed of chickens to be raised, the number of chickens within each flock, and sets the timeline for each flock. 

These integrator decisions directly shape the tasks and working conditions of farmworkers. The breed of chicken determines how many sick and dying birds workers must handle. The number of birds per flock affects how crowded and ammonia-filled the work environment is. Detailed protocols from the integrator dictate how often facilities must be cleaned, how often chickens must be inspected and culled, how often workers must alter the temperature in the facility, and more. Employees of the integrator are responsible for “overseeing the people, poultry, and daily operations” at farms on their routes, and visit farms weekly. Integrators prohibit farmworkers from caring for birds anywhere else without express permission.  

This comprehensive control over the working conditions on farms makes integrators joint employers of the farmworkers. In another context, a court held that an integrator was the employer of workers hired by its contractor where the integrator exerted similar levels of control. In Heath v. Perdue Farms, the District Court for the District of Maryland held that Perdue was the employer of chicken catchers (workers who catch and transport chickens) for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The chicken catchers were hired by independent contractor “crew leaders,” but because Perdue “controls every significant aspect of the chicken catching operation,” Perdue is their employer too. 

The same conclusion should apply to poultry farmworkers. They, too, are hired by contractors, but integrators control “every significant aspect” of their work. The National Labor Relations Board test, followed by states with agricultural labor relations laws, provides a framework for this analysis. An entity is a joint employer if it exercises “substantial direct and immediate control over one or more essential terms or conditions” of employment, such as wages, benefits, hours of work, hiring, discharge, discipline, supervision, and direction. 

Integrators exert substantial direct and immediate control over hours of work. Mandatory guidelines determine feeding schedules, monitoring requirements, and the frequency and duration of other daily tasks farmworkers must complete. Integrators also exert significant control over supervision: Integrator employees oversee the daily operations at farms, and detailed guidelines from the integrators “actually instruct” the farmworkers “how to perform their work.” Additionally, at least one lawsuit, which ultimately settled, alleged that integrators directly control the hiring of farmworkers. Importantly, an integrator need only exercise sufficient control over one term or condition to qualify as a joint employer under this test. The relationship between integrators and farmworkers clears that bar with ease. 

Joint Employment Helps Chickens

Recognition of joint employment would enable farmworkers to collectively bargain over the brutal conditions chickens endure. Under state labor laws, as joint employers, both the integrators and contract farmers would be required to bargain with farmworkers over wages, hours, and other conditions of employment. Many conditions of employment, which include issues like workplace safety and health, are directly tied to how chickens are raised. And workers care about these issues: Some have quit over poor air quality that impacts their health, and unions have taken action in response to these conditions. Farmworkers’ interests in better working conditions align with chickens’ interests in more humane treatment, making collective bargaining a win-win situation.

Consider one example: The number of birds in each flock. Though integrators benefit from overcrowding, workers and chickens do not. A worker dealing with an overcrowded flock has to handle a higher number of sick birds, inspect more times per day, and is more exposed to ammonia and its negative health effects in the process. Overcrowded birds are more stressed, at higher risk for disease, have a harder time accessing food and water, and are also exposed to higher levels of ammonia. Flock size seems clearly to be a condition of employment for the farmworkers, as it implicates health and safety issues in the workplace. And collectively bargaining for a smaller flock size would benefit the birds in the end.

Flock size isn’t the only area in which collective bargaining would benefit chickens. Consider breed selection. The breeds typically raised for food have been selectively bred to grow unnaturally quickly, which causes various health problems, including the inability of a chicken’s legs to support it. Because these breeds have more health issues, grow faster, and have higher mortality rates, breed selection is likely a condition of employment. Health issues and higher mortality rates mean workers must handle more sick and dead birds. Because the birds cannot stand due to their leg issues, they sit in the litter, which creates more ammonia in the air. Faster growth requires more frequent inspections, veterinary care, and quicker turnaround of flocks. These directly implicate conditions of employment—farmworkers are exposed to health risks because of the breed of chicken selected. A slower growing breed would alleviate or lessen many of these risks. Meanwhile, the birds will benefit from functioning legs, better health, and more comfortable lives. 

More than nine billion chickens are raised as food every year in the United States. Recognizing integrators as joint employers would transform conditions for millions of these birds and the workers who raise them.