Health and Safety at Meatpacking Industries in USA



Health and Safety at MeatpackingIndustries in USA

Author’s Argument

The author clearly places ajudgment on the ills that occur in the thriving meat processingbusiness in the US. He/she specifically point out the abuses thatoccur in IBP, one of the leaders in the business. In page 681,his/her opinion suggests that there should be serious legislativeamendments that should be done to stop the inhuman working conditionsthat the employees are subjected to, specifically in the case of IBP.

Persuasive Strategies Used

The main persuasion emanates fromthe conviction that the author is knowledgeable about the theme ofdiscussion. The author has shown mastery of both sides of an argumentand presenting each of them perfectly.

In addition, the writer has adeep understanding of the audience he/she is communicating. By havingthis set knowledge, the writer did research their subject matteraudience.

Lastly, citing plausible sourceswas an ultimate conviction. The writer has used relevant and the mostaffected companies like IBP to reference the theme. The selection iscomplemented with actual occurrences in the industry using real casesof interviewed (former) employees who have gone through the punitiveabusive system.

The Persuasion of the Author’sScript

The author exemplifies thepractices that take place in the business environment, and goes asfar as interviewing actual employees about their experience in theworking environment. The introduction of OSHA reports v. Governmentreport helps connect the dots in the meat processing business puzzle.At the end, the author achieves the intended message conveyance aboutthe business by convincing readers that something must be done soonenough to stop the social decadences occurring in the business.

Secondly, the author useslegislative machinery as a way of reinforcing the opinion in thereader’s belief. In page 677, the writer expounds on the WorkersCompensation Law that was conceived because of public outcry. In 676,the companies insist that their employee health and safety remainstheir primary concern, contrary to the actual occurrences in theirfacilities whereby most of the injured employees feel shortchanged bytheir (former) employers.

Lastly, the use of several actualsubject references further authenticate the findings of the research,enabling the reader visualize the abuses that the meat processingemployees undergo. Furthermore, the mention of several medicalcomplications that result from the work-related injuries evokesinstant reaction from the audience, thereby building the urge to turntables in favor of the meat processing plant workers.

Assumptions of the Argument

The first assumption castigatesthe ineffectiveness of the labor laws to intervene in the appallinghealth and safety conditions at workplaces, specifically in the meatindustries. This is based on the idea that the 20thcentury labor law was primarily formulated to improveemployee-working conditions (277).

The next assumption is based onthe fact that it is the responsibility of the employer is to ensurethat the employees are in the right working environment, the rightprotection, medical cover, and compensation. In the case of IBP, dueto the fast chain process, employees are highly predisposed toaccidents and fatalities the loads lead to permanent back injuries,not to mention laceration that is the leading accident in the plants(675).

Evaluation of Context

The context is very convincing,especially when the writer cites credible sources of reference tosupport his/her argument. The ills performed by the leading meatprocessing plants (IBP) have consistently gained use in the currenttrade environment. Furthermore, more companies have taken theoperation fashion of IBP, further worsening the situation. As theauthor reiterates (672), most businesses had to adopt IBP’s methodof operation in order to compete with it.

The use of powerful referenceslike the respected Attorney, Rod Rehm (680), who comes out strong tocondemn the current practices in the industry, hence proceeding tooffer two remedies that can improve the working conditions. Hesuggests that the employees should be permitted to select their ownphysicians to eliminate the biases of the company`s medicalapparatus, and again points out that the companies should not beallowed to insure themselves. This move will likely reduce thefatalities and improve compensation terms of the employees.

In summary, the author allowsthe reader to make judgment based on his/her understanding of theauthor’s opinions and research. In other words, the decision isbiased, and is designed to support the writer’s opinion anddislikes to the treatments at the processing facilities.


David, M. (2009). NavigatingAmerica: InformationCompetency and Research for the Twenty- First Century. McGraw-HillHigher Education.