Refugees Make Your Dinner. Literally.

Where else are you going to find people desperate enough to work in a modern slaughterhouse?

<a href="http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/cutting-meat-slaughterhouse-workers-in-the-factory-gm510798688-86399811">21597185 </a>/iStock

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Of all the outrage generated by President Donald Trump’s ban on refugees entering the country, the most surprising critic might be the US meat industry.

Refugees are a group just as desperate for work as undocumented migrants, but legally eligible to hold jobs.

Turns out, people fleeing desperate conditions in violence-ravaged countries have emerged as a key labor source for the nation’s vast and dangerous slaughterhouses. Because meat-packing is such a high-turnover occupation, precise numbers on the makeup of its labor pool are hard to come by. The Journal reports that about a third of meat-packing workers are foreign-born, and that industry has increasingly turned to refugee populations to fill jobs. 

The head of the industry’s main trade association, the North American Meat Institute, put it delicately in a statement to The Wall Street Journal: “As the administration pursues changes to the nation’s refugee policies, we hope it will give careful consideration to the ramifications policy changes like these can have on our businesses and on foreign born workers who are eager to build new lives in America through the jobs our companies can offer.”

But it’s unlikely that the handful of companies that dominate US meat production hires refugees based mainly on altruistic motives. As Eric Schlosser noted in an excellent 2001 Mother Jones article, way back in the early 1960s, US meatpacking companies began to flee cities, where workers were largely unionized, for rural areas. Once they set up shop far from union strongholds, they began “recruiting immigrant workers from Mexico, introducing a new division of labor that eliminated the need for skilled butchers, and ruthlessly battling unions,” Schlosser writes. Before, “meatpacking jobs were dangerous and unpleasant, but provided enough income for a solid, middle-class life;” by the 1990s, with the unions busted, meatpacking became “one of the nation’s lowest-paid industrial jobs, with one of the highest turnover rates.”

Also, as Ted Genoways showed in his searing 2011 Mother Jones expose of conditions at a Hormel plant in small-town Minnesota, the jobs remained incredibly dangerous, and became highly reliant on immigrant labor, mainly from Mexico and points south. 

In more recent years, migration from Mexico has slowed dramatically. Meanwhile, the federal government launched high-profile raids at meatpacking plants to root out undocumented migrants, making the industry skittish about its reliance on them. Enter refugees, a group just as desperate for work as undocumented migrants, but legally eligible to hold jobs.

In an excellent 2016 feature, Washington Post writer Chico Harlan documented the meat industry’s increasing reliance on refugees. Since the meatpacking raids of the 2000s, Harlan writes, “‘Little Somalia’ neighborhoods are sprouting up in dozens of towns across the Great Plains, and slaughterhouses are hiring Somali translators for the cutting floors and installing Muslim prayer rooms for employees.”

People fleeing the chaos of Somalia, of course, are two-time losers under Trump’s executive order. Not only are all refugees now being denied entry, but Somalia is also one of the seven Muslim-majority nations whose citizens are barred from entering the United States, refugee status or not.

Harlan’s piece traces the experience of a young Somali man named Ahmed, who found gainful employment in Liberal, Kansas, at a beef slaughterhouse run by National Beef, one of the nation’s big-four beefpackers:

For Ahmed, the job at National Beef meant butchering parts of 3,000 cows per eight-hour shift, a supervisor standing right behind him, using the knife so furiously he would sometimes feel like his ribs were shaking loose. But the job was also a test of the limits in America for a largely destitute, unskilled and growing influx of Somali refugees, a group that was now prevailing in the competition for grueling jobs because of the very desperation they were trying to escape.

“Go there, come back, go to sleep,” Ahmed would say months later about his factory life, when he began to worry that there’d be no school, no better America to find, no reprieve from meat. “Go there, come back, go to sleep.”

Eventually, Amhed developed “some sharp pain in his wrist—tendonitis maybe,” reports Harlan.

And he’s not alone. According to a 2015 report from the US Government Accountability Office, while injury and illness rates for meat-packing workers have declined in recent years, “hazardous conditions remain,” including repetitive motions that trigger musculoskeletal trouble like carpal tunnel syndrome, “exposure to chemicals and pathogens, and traumatic injuries from machines and tools.”

Worse still, the GAO found, many injuries may be significantly under-reported, for a variety of reasons: Much of the labor force works for third-party contractors and their injuries aren’t necessarily counted in meat-packing data; companies have an incentive to discourage trips to the doctor for workers suffering pain, instead offering “over- the-counter painkillers and ointments”; and finally, “vulnerable workers such as immigrants and noncitizens may fear for their livelihoods and feel pressured not to report injuries.”

Refugee workers fit that bill. Trump’s efforts to demonize them will only make life harder for some of the world’s most vulnerable people.

For the meat industry—which supported Trump over Hillary Clinton in the presidential election, in terms of campaign donations—Trump’s crackdown marks the second disappointment in a week. The industry also cried foul over Trump’s recent moves against high-profile trade deals. Just as meat companies rely on foreign workers to do their dirty work, they rely on foreign markets to maintain profit growth.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate