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
July 15
U.S. labor productivity is climbing at its fastest pace in decades; a federal judge grants a preliminary injunction to anti-abortion groups challenging Michigan’s civil rights law; and Jackson, Mississippi’s bus workers walk off the job.
July 14
DOJ opens investigation of UAW president; LIUNA protests Pfizer building collapse; national park workers unionize
July 13
New York Times files retaliation suit against the EEOC; US government pushes back TPS designation termination for Haiti; federal judge grants preliminary injunction to federal workers seeking reasonable telework accommodations.
July 12
Postal workers demand investigation into Atlanta distribution center conditions following deaths; University of Chicago Press Workers vote to unionize.
July 10
Brigham and Women’s Hospital locks out 4,000 nurses after one-day strike; appeal filed challenging agency-shop agreements.
July 9
The Second Circuit declines to vacate an arbitration award over a nursing union dispute; federal workers sue the Department of Defense for termination of union contracts; New York City announces settlement with companies for violating New York work laws.