Upon the reversal of Roe v. Wade, many companies pandered to the abortion lobby and began to offer paid abortion benefits — however, recent research shows that such corporate virtue-signaling may hold consequences down the road for human resource departments. Apparently, male employees aren’t too happy about these policies. Could this be grounds for legal discrimination suits in the future? Let’s discuss these findings and why men may feel this way:
According to a recent research paper released by Indeed.com (a worldwide employment website) in collaboration with the University of Southern California, the University of Maryland, and IZA Institute of Labor Economics, when companies publicly announced an abortion benefit following the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, it didn’t sit too well with some current male employees.
The researchers looked at 317 companies, 2.5 million postings with wage information, and 6.5 million company reviews to compare pre-Dobbs and post-Dobbs data. To establish ‘unhappiness’ with executive leadership decisions such as paid abortion benefits, they examined how leadership was reviewed.
The study found that the companies which announced abortion benefits saw a nearly 10% drop in reviews of senior management in comparison with companies that did not offer such policies. This is despite the fact that these same companies actually raised employee salaries by 4% on average — so why are the men unhappy?
There are multiple explanations to consider, including that these men may feel uncomfortable with their employer supporting something they find morally wrong. One of the studies’ authors, Svenja Gudell who is the chief economist at the Indeed Hiring Lab, explained this by saying, “You don’t think of yourself as clocking in and out of work anymore; you want to bring your whole self to work.” It can certainly be hard to be happy with an employer if you feel that they are violating your deeply held personal beliefs and making you contribute to a vision with which you disagree.
(Click HERE to read another SFLA blog on this topic entitled “Corporate Attacks on Motherhood: Erasing Moms & Discouraging Future Families.”)
Putting individual views on abortion aside, Fortune magazine also brought up another poignant answer to why these men may be unhappy, writing:
“There’s also the likelihood that male employees are less likely than female ones to directly use a reproductive health care benefit and may feel resentful that others might be getting a generous benefit they can’t use. (The average worth of an abortion-care benefit was pegged at $4,500, based on Indeed’s analysis of corporate announcements.)”
HR departments may need to seriously ask themselves whether it is legally sustainable to offer legal benefits to one person and not another as men may feel these policies are discriminatory. Why is it okay to offer travel benefits (among other perks) for one procedure and not another? Especially when it’s a near $5,000 disparity.
Students for Life of America Documentarian Kevin Feliciano said, “As a pro-life man, I would be absolutely unhappy with my company financially supporting abortion regardless of the circumstances. However, I would be really annoyed if there was a financial preference for abortionwhere my life-affirming healthcare expense was denied coverage while another employee made money off killing a child through abortion.”
Indeed, much has been written about employers “facing hurdles” and “scrambling over abortion travel policies” as the overall logistics of this demoralizing “benefit” (who decided it was beneficial for an employee to kill their child?) seem to pose a serious legal risk.
And men aren’t the only ones unhappy with these policies, either. The executive director of Business for Impact at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business Leslie Crutchfield added to the discussion that women may also feel this is unfair.
She said, “Women may ask, ‘Why will you give me 4,000 bucks to get an abortion, but I can’t get paid maternity leave?’ It may be another reason why companies right now are being mute and slow. Once you start saying the company is for women’s rights, then [people will ask], ‘Why aren’t you doing anything about equal pay or giving family leave?’”
If this trend of dissatisfaction continues, companies should be beware of these policies backfiring. Their pearl-clutching attempt to appease the abortion lobby may end in legal proceedings from employees who protest discrimination.
Virtue (signaling) rewarded.
Share this post