Fred Wang is a student at Harvard Law School.
In today’s news and commentary, employers react to Dobbs with criticism, internal policy change, or silence.
Employers — in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to overrule Roe v. Wade — are offering to reimburse travel expenses for employees who cross state lines to access safe, legal abortions. Companies such as Disney and Dick’s Sporting Goods have promised to cover travel expenses to obtain abortions as part of their employment health-benefits plans. The decision surely provides some relief for many, many workers whose lives are now troublingly complicated by the Court’s decision in Dobbs.
But even pro-choice advocates have raised hesitations with these initiatives. Some have voiced privacy concerns with having to let your employer know that you are even getting an abortion. Some have discussed the problem of further tying the average American’s access to basic health care to their employer. And some are worried that employers will leverage these benefits in anti-worker ways, such as to discourage union activity. For example, Starbucks — which has offered to help pay for employee abortion-travel expenses — has said that it could not “make promises of guarantees about any benefits” for unionized stores. Of course, there is no compelling reason for Starbucks to deny these benefits to workers at its unionized stores. The real motivation, some suggest, is to “sabotage the union effort.”
Most of these employers, however, have offered little in the way of actual criticism of Dobbs’s holding. Likely because abortion is such a uniquely politically charged issue, large companies have approached the merits of the decision with abundant caution. Some have not even mentioned whether the decision would trigger further changes in company policy.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
December 5
Netflix set to acquire Warner Bros., Gen Z men are the most pro-union generation in history, and lawmakers introduce the “No Robot Bosses Act.”
December 4
Unionized journalists win arbitration concerning AI, Starbucks challenges two NLRB rulings in the Fifth Circuit, and Philadelphia transit workers resume contract negotiations.
December 3
The Trump administration seeks to appeal a federal judge’s order that protects the CBAs of employees within the federal workforce; the U.S. Department of Labor launches an initiative to investigate violations of the H-1B visa program; and a union files a petition to form a bargaining unit for employees at the Met.
December 2
Fourth Circuit rejects broad reading of NLRA’s managerial exception; OPM cancels reduced tuition program for federal employees; Starbucks will pay $39 million for violating New York City’s Fair Workweek law; Mamdani and Sanders join striking baristas outside a Brooklyn Starbucks.
December 1
California farmworkers defend state labor law, cities consider requiring companies to hire delivery drivers, Supreme Court takes FAA last-mile drivers case.
November 30
In today’s news and commentary, the MSPB issues its first precedential ruling since regaining a quorum; Amazon workers lead strikes and demonstrations in multiple countries; and Starbucks workers expand their indefinite strike to additional locations. Last week, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) released its first precedential decision in eight months. The MSPB had been […]