• This discussion board will be less rigid than our other discussion boards, but you still should post your best writing.
• In this discussion board we are going to focus on content, meaning the ideas and how developed and supported they are.
• Content is not related to grammar, punctuation, or style.
  • Do not mentionthose things in your post or responses.
• Please base your answers on this sample essay .,

Where Responsibility Lies Throughout the past century, meatpacking has proven to be a job that provides countless hardships and injustices to its workers. Employees in the industry are faced with high rates of injury and illness, fast-paced work, and often disrespect and racism from their employers. Although conditions have significantly improved since the early twentieth century, there is much to be changed for the job to be considered a safe one. There are many methods that have been proposed as to how to create a positive change among the meatpacking industry. Some say that change lies in the hands of the government; author Eric Schlosser, however, asserts that if the McDonald's company were to insist that meatpacking plant owners change the treatment of their workers, they would comply instantly because not doing so would not be worth losing McDonald's as a customer and thus losing most of their income. Because of this, the responsibility for changing the working conditions of meatpacking workers lies in the hands of the major corporations that are customers to the meatpacking plants. To begin, one needs to understand exactly how bad conditions are in meatpacking plants, and why there needs to be change because of these conditions. First of all, meatpacking is dangerous work across the board. According to Karen Olsson, "America's 150,000 meatpacking workers perform the most dangerous job in the country. . .the official illness and injury rate for

2 meatpacking workers [as of 2000] was 25 percent" (12). This percentage shows that out of every four meatpacking employees, one will be injured on the job -- and this was found only using injuries and illnesses that have been reported. Even more troubling than this is the fact that this proportion is actually "higher than that in any other U.S. industry. The rate of serious injuries in meat-packing...is also the highest: more than five times the national average in private industry" (Schlosser 35). Meatpacking workers are therefore in constant danger, and risk their health every time they are on the job. In addition to having an already dangerous job, meatpacking workers are usually treated inhumanely, with poor sanitation and cruel restrictions from their employers. As Olsson related, "People [workers] were crying, talking about being covered in diarrhea the entire shift because the supervisor wouldn't let them go to the bathroom" (13). These conditions are not just uncomfortable; they are dangerous and cruel, and leave workers miserable and in poor health. No person should be treated this way, which is why someone -- namely, large corporations like McDonald's -- needs to make a difference and stand up for those who desperately need help. One major reason as to why these awful practices have been able to continue for so long is because meatpacking plant workers are often immigrants, so plant owners can take advantage of this; they know that the workers will not take the risk of losing their jobs by complaining about their conditions. As Maggie Jones stated, "meatpacking is bloody, exhausting and dangerous work. It draws the desperate: undocumented immigrants." Because these immigrants know they have

3 limited work options and can get in serious trouble for being in America while undocumented, they end up letting employers treat them with miserable conditions. It is now time for the cycle to stop, and for change to happen for all meatpacking workers. One may still wonder why exactly this responsibility should be up to McDonald's; after all, just because it happens to have a major influence, why should that necessarily be its responsibility to use it? Because McDonald's and other large corporations have their own customers to worry about, one may claim that it is the government's job to make a change and to make sure people are being treated correctly in the workplace. This is a valid argument, as it really should be up to the government to make changes for workers' safety as necessary. However, even though this is the way it should be, in reality, the government just hasn't shown that it cares enough. As Schlosser claimed, "Last year's vote in Congress to rescind OSHA's new ergonomics standard, designed to reduce cumulative trauma injuries, suggests that the federal government has little real interest in the nation's most dangerous job" (35). The harsh reality of the situation is that although the government should be changing the standards in meatpacking plants, it is not. Plant owners do not have much motivation or reason to obey the will of the government because they do not enforce their standards. On the other hand, there is plenty of reason for them to comply with the large corporations that serve as their major customers and thus means of income, such as McDonald's, who has already proved that it can make these changes.

4 As a leader in their industry, it can be seen as McDonald's duty to care about how its supplies are handled and in what conditions people working for its suppliers are treated. Schlosser compared this responsibility to the responsibility Nike has in their industry; "The company [McDonald's] should be held accountable for the behavior of the firms that supply the ground beef. . .just as Nike has been held accountable for the behavior of the overseas companies that manufacture its sneakers" (35). One can even view this like the relationship a boss has with his employees; even though the boss is not in direct control of an employee and any mistakes an employee makes is his own doing, the boss can still be held accountable because he has that position of authority over the employee. It is in this way that even though McDonald's does not have direct control over its suppliers, it is a leader in its industry and simply because of that fact people will hold it accountable. Now that it has been established that major customers of the meat suppliers should make a difference for the workers, it is important to understand exactly how we know that these large corporations have the power that they do. In the past, McDonald's insisted that its meat suppliers handle animals humanely, and the suppliers instantly reformed. Eric Schlosser stated that "demanded by McDonald's, [the program] received the enthusiastic support of the meat-packing industry and the American Meat Institute" (35). If McDonald's could create such a quick impact for the animals, it certainly can make a change for the lives of the workers, too, if it is compelled to

5 do so. This change, then, solely belongs to the corporations because those are the voices the plant owners will actually listen to. Meatpacking plant owners will gain virtually nothing from obeying unions and consumers, but keeping the business of their major customers is definitely worth the cost of slowing down the speed lines and thus making the job less dangerous. As Schlosser noted, "the threat that McDonald's would stop buying meat from suppliers that mistreat animals changed many of the industry's practices within a year" (34-35). Through that example we can see that McDonald's has the power to make changes very quickly, and that it has direct influence over its suppliers. If large corporations that are customers to the plants such as McDonald's would show concern and use the power that they have, they could instantly make a change for these workers across the nation. Just as they made a difference for the animals in those slaughterhouses, they can now take up the same responsibility for the fellow human beings there, too. Although meatpacking has been a dangerous job for over a century, it is possible for conditions to change and for the lives of these workers to be improved. Change can only happen in this industry if those in power use that authority to insist that work is made safer and treatment made better for meatpacking plant workers. In this situation, that power lies in the hands of the major corporations that buy the meat. It is up to them to choose to be humane and to demand that reform is made in the meatpacking plants. If they use their power for this cause, the lives of meatpacking plant workers everywhere will be improved. Just one simple demand can make a

6 change, and if these corporations do not step up, who will? The lives of meatpacking workers in

Compose one 200-wordpost that addresses any three of the following questions.

• What is the writer's argument?
• How effectively does the writer make the argument?
• Where in the essay do you first know what the argument is?
• How does the writer manage to fill four pages without just repeating herself?
• How effectively does the writer incorporate sources?
• Would the essay be weaker without these quotations?
• How does the writer differentiate her argument from her sources?