Abuse of Intellectually Disabled Workers at Iowa Meatpacking Plant

Note: There are a number of links to news stories in this post. All of them have problematic language.

A horrifying story out of Iowa has been getting some press attention over the last few days, if you know where to look1. An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) report detailed the abuse of workers with intellectual disabilities in a meat packing plant and it looks like the labour contractor responsible, Henry’s Turkey Service, is going to be brought up on charges. I can find stories on this dating back to early 2009; the uptick in interest appears to be the result of news that more federal charges are going to be filed.

The labour contractor, based in Texas, provides crews that go all over the country and has done so since the 1970s. This particular group of 21 men was sent to a plant in Iowa, West Liberty Foods. They were kept in a bunkhouse with boarded up windows and space heaters for heat; Iowa gets mighty cold in the winter and space heaters are unlikely to cut it. These men were getting up at three in the morning seven days a week to work in a meatpacking plant, and some of them were ’employed2for decades.

Here’s a description of the conditions:

“The living conditions were worse than squalor,” she said. “There were fire hazards, no heat, their rooms were crawling with cockroaches. It was just filth, a nightmare.” (source)

West Liberty was paying Henry’s Turkey Service around $11,000 United States Dollars a month for the men’s labour, and they were making, literally, pennies on the dollar:

The report found that West Liberty Foods paid Henry’s Turkey Service as much as $11,000 per week for the disabled men’s labor. Henry’s Turkey Service then paid the men a combined total of between $340 and $500 per week, or about 41 cents an hour, The Des Moines Register reported.

Compared to the pay the men would have gotten at minimum wage, the report found that the company underpaid them by more than $1 million during the last three years of the company’s operation. But the underpaid amount could climb because other workers doing the same job earned between $9 and $12 per hour. (source)

How was this justified?

…to justify lower wages the lawyer explained how by using a Department of Labor formula the company then calculated how much to pay based on how many disabled men it takes to equal the amount of work done any one man. His example was three-to-one. (source)

This story is primarily being reported as a case of employment discrimination and much of the litigation surrounds the back wages and pay these men are owed. This is definitely an issue and I’m glad to see it being addressed. But this is also a very clear case of abuse of people with disabilities. And I am deeply disturbed to learn how the EEOC deals with abuse of disabled workers:

Under federal law, once the EEOC determines that the rights of disabled workers have been violated, it must attempt to halt the violations through an informal process of “conference, conciliation and persuasion.” The commission plans to send a proposed conciliation agreement – a settlement of sorts – to Henry’s owners. If the owners reject the proposed settlement and refuse to negotiate, the EEOC has the option of taking the company to court. (source)

Evidently, if you are a disabled worker and you are being abused by an employer, including abuse like being kept in squalid conditions and being taunted and name-called by coworkers, attempts to work the situation out amicably must fail before more aggressive measures can be pursued.

This is a labour rights issue, but it is also an abuse issue. And it illustrates the critical need to get tougher protections in place for workers with disabilities. These conditions should never have happened in the first place and they definitely should not have been allowed to persist for decades. There would be widespread outrage if nondisabled people were involved in the case, but as it is, most of the reporting and attention seems to be happening in Iowa itself. This is being treated as a local news story, instead of what it is, which is a heinous outrage and a grave violation of human rights and all reasonable decency.

And it’s being treated as a one time event, rather than evidence of a systemic problem. Certainly, the news says, this case is awful and it’s good that charges are being filed. But there’s not a lot of exploration into how and why this happened. Some advocates are quoted in the articles, as well as family members, and they are righteously infuriated, but I don’t see any quotes from people with disabilities, including any of the workers involved; once they were removed from the bunkhouse, they were apparently whisked into group homes.

Henry’s Turkey Service is not the only agency that provides contract labour like this. West Liberty is not the only employer which tries to cut costs by using contract labour. This is a structural problem, not a local news issue. Workers with disabilities and workers with nebulous immigration status endure horrific abuses in this country; the situation at West Liberty is repeated over and over again all over the United States because of the attitude that these individuals are a cheap source of disposable labour, to be used up and thrown away.

And the people ‘in charge,’ the people who might be empowered to investigate and take action? Well:

Muscatine County Sheriff David White said recently that he is confident the people who ran Henry’s Turkey Service treated the bunkhouse residents well.

“Our take on it was, you know, that they were doing some pretty good things with these guys,” he said. (source)

The reason no one did anything about the hostile working environment, atrocious living conditions, and economic abuses of these men is that they were regarded as something less than human. And employment law appears to reinforce that idea by suggesting that the first step in abuse cases like this is not filing charges, but ‘conciliation and persuasion.’

  1. Which is to say, ‘if you have the time to search for news stories that are falling through the cracks.’
  2. I use scare quotes here because from what I understand of this case, this was more like servitude than employment.

By 17 May, 2010.    events, work  , ,  



5 Comments

  1. This is nightmarish. I’m appalled that this kind of thing happens, and I suspect it’s a lot more prevalent than even people who watch out for it realize (though right now I’m in Doomsayer Mode, so I’d like to at least think that I’m being too pessimistic on that score).

    Thank you (and the other FWD-ers) for finding these things and bringing them to our attention. I feel like it’s important they not be overlooked, which the mainstream media certainly tends to do.

  2. Where is the disability community’s Cesar Chavez?

    What will happen to them now?

  3. This makes me ashamed to be from Iowa.

    Those poor men.

  4. That’s it? This is federal law? Everyone has to sit around and drink tea and play nice? I can’t believe it. After the egregious way these men have been treated, they deserve a better response than this.

  5. It’s not just for disability discrimination – that’s how the employment discrimination process works generally, but I think the way they wrote it is a bit misleading. You cannot sue in federal court until you exhaust your administrative remedies, which means filing a charge with the EEOC and letting them do their investigation first. If EEOC finds there is reasonable cause to believe you were discriminated against, then it is required to go through that conciliation process. That’s not necessarily a bad thing – if the employers will settle, you can get your remedy much faster than going to court, which can take years. You also get more say in the terms of your remedy.

    If the employer won’t play ball, then the EEOC can either sue on your behalf, or give you a right-to-sue letter so you can go file suit on your own. If the EEOC investigation returns a “no cause” finding, you still get your right-to-sue letter, and that doesn’t mean you won’t win in court. So while technically true that the EEOC has the option of taking the employer to court, the employees themselves (or in a case like this, more likely a civil rights organization) will always have the right to sue the employer too. If this employer isn’t smart enough to settle and give the employees what they want after what they’ve done, then they’d better be ready to go to court. I can’t imagine a jury will be sympathetic to them.