When it comes to the divisive abortion debate, United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby is taking the cautious approach.
United Airlines CEO Asked About Abortion…Dodges Question
Appearing on CBS Mornings, Kirby was asked about whether United had an obligation to weigh in on abortion and the expected overturning of Roe v Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court, as it has with other social issues. Kirby responded:
“My obligation, I think, is to the do the right thing for our employees. Our recent adverting campaign is “Good Leads the Way” and we’ve tried to do the right thing throughout. My preference is to lead by example. The work United has done on sustainability, on diversity, even what we did with vaccine requirements (that was controversial), but we took action instead of talking. Let action lead the way and do the right thing for our employees and our customers.”
The appropriate follow-up would be to ask what “doing the right thing” means. Public opinion on abortion in the United States is deeply divided and “doing the right thing” means different things to different people. Were Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to overturn Roe and abortion to become severely restricted in Texas, where United has a major hub, Kirby could “do the right thing” by helping employees access abortion over state lines. But other United employees would consider that aiding and abetting murder. United could “do the right thing” by saying nothing at all, a bid to avoid stirring the boat. But we saw that didn’t work well for Disney in Florida and airlines like United have not been shy about addressing other social issues.
A follow-up occurred, with Kirby again asked if he would speak up publicly on issues in the news. Kirby said:
“When we need to we will. We’ve tried, however, to really focus on letting action lead the way. You know one of the frustrations I think we all have with politics, it’s become divisive. People are against the other side as opposed to for things. We can do things like the Aviate Academy, which is training the next generation of pilots but it’s also effecting diversity. That’s inspirational to people. It’s positive. Lead by positive example. And there’s a lot of opportunities for us in corporate leadership to lead by positive example instead of just be putting out a corporate statement opposed to something.”
View From The Wing wonders why airlines get involved in affirmative action, gun control, and voting rights, but not on abortion. I think Kirby’s answer says it all – there is no winning answer. Support for same-sex marriage has rapidly increased over the last decade. A huge majority now support it, marking a revolution. As for abortion, public opinion hasn’t changed all that much since abortion became a nationwide right in 1973. It’s the sort of issue that will deeply divide customers and employees, just as it deeply divides the nation. Knowing when to speak up and when to remain silent is not an easy task.
CONCLUSION
Messr. Kirby and other airline CEOs find themselves in a difficult position over abortion. While Kirby’s language above is perfectly appropriate out of context, it is more difficult to justify when United has gone on the record for other deeply divisive social issues. But perhaps this latest diplomatic tap dance is a realization that abortion is a unique beast in American politics that requires even greater special handling.
image: CBS News (fair use)
Sorry, but you are just wrong to say that abortion is a deeply divisive issue and state that a huge majority support same sex marriage and imply the same isn’t true for abortion. Though you are right that views haven’t changed significantly on abortion in 50 years. Polling shows that support for abortion is actually exactly the same as that for same sex marriage, with 61% supporting it. See https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ and https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
It’s not that simple. I’d like to engage right now, but don’t have the time—but the way the question is asked greatly influences response, especially in the abortion debate.
There’s also a difference between support for something and whether it should be legal…as well as the trajectory of public opinion.
Most polls will show that a higher percentage of people support women having a constitutional right to abortion than support abortion on a personal level (aka obtaining an abortion for themselves or their spouses). More Americans support at least some amount of access to abortion than not.
The problem is lack of education and caring among the “compassionate” conservatives. Abortion is so much more complicated than getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy. It’s removing a non viable embryo to protect the mother from bleeding to death after miscarriage. It’s removing a disfigured embryo that is only going to have short painful life outside the womb. It’s protecting a woman from having her fallopian tubes burst and bleeding to death. It allowing a woman to terminate a pregnancy that her pervert father caused.
It’s only divisive because people heads are up their asses, and nobody should be catering to them. This should be slam dunk for Kirby but looks like he is going to blow it.
Exactly. I frankly do not care whether or not someone thinks abortion is murder or not. Those people don’t have to get an abortion if they think that way.
The left demands abortion up until (and sometimes AFTER) the moment of birth. Is that “the right thing to do?”
Not even close to the truth.
Former Virginia governor Ralph Northam would disagree with you. Its not fake news. Just keep them comfortable after the birth, until the mother and doctor have had time to confir.
I live in VA. I remember Dr, Death AKA Gov Northam well.
You are lying. Abortion is legal in Virginia up to the 25th week.
I live in VA. Women can have abortions in the third trimester if three dcotors agree a woman would be “substantially and irremediably” harmed by continuing the pregnancy. That’s loose language – it goes beyond physical health to mental health. Of course abortions are rare during this final trimester, but they are allowed – even during child birth.
What you listed are extremely rare circumstances when (and if) that happens.
RJB and david are making it sound like any woman can walk into a clinic at any time and demand an abortion no matter how far along her pregnancy is, for whatever reason.
Source?
And the Trumpanzees and other radical right wingers seem to care about “babies” only until the time they are born. What’s your point?
#fakenews
I hope this is the beginning of a shift back toward corporations staying out of politics. United Airlines exists to make a profit for their shareholders by providing a quality service at a marketable price. Beyond that, their shareholders, employees and customers are going to hold a wide range of opinions about all manner of political and societal issues. Each of those individuals can and should make their voice heard, while the corporation needs to avoid picking sides and simply do their job.
Abortion isn’t some abstract political issue. It actually affects the lives and health of a corporation’s employees. “Staying out of politics” and doing nothing to help those employees who want to be able to obtain an abortion if needed would be just as much “picking sides” as providing support for employees in red states to obtain abortions in a state where they are still allowed.
You are correct that a corporation’s main job is to make a profit for its shareholders, but once again how a corporation decides to address the abortion issue once the constitutional right is taken away will affect those profits as well. Corporations need to be able to attract top talent when it comes to hiring it’s employees, particularly skilled, white-collar employees. In a competitive labor market like we have now, that type of employee has more flexibility and control of where they live than other employees and corporations know that. All other things being equal, why would someone who wants to know they or their spouse can obtain an abortion choose to take a job in a state that has banned abortions with a corporation doing nothing to help employees obtain the reproductive healthcare they need over a job in a state where abortion is protected and insurance providers can cover it? Given that the white collar talent pool tends to be more pro-choice than the average American, any corporation that does nothing to make their positions competitive on reproductive health care is going to be shooting itself in the foot when it comes to recruiting too talent. To me that seems like something shareholders might be concerned with, regardless of whether they are pro-choice or not.
The way you frame the debate makes it clear that you are pro-choice. Someone who is pro-life would frame the debate very differently. That is the entire point. To your argument regarding attracting talent, that is almost always going to be a losing game. You are correct that the highly educated, white-collar population tends to skew left, meaning they will likely be disproportionately pro-choice. Pilots, on the other hand, skew right, indicating that they are likely to be disproportionately pro-life. Does a company benefit from taking a stand that one group will appreciate at the expense of potentially angering another group (of which there is an extreme shortage right now)? Besides the fact that it is pathetic pandering, the reality is that corporate America has time and time again had to apologise for trying to support a cause but doing it in a way that offended the very people that they were trying to pander to. It is almost always a losing game and will inevitably lead to angering employees and customers. In addition, when United Airlines speaks, it does so on behalf of its shareholders, who are not being consulted on their political views or desire for UA to support them. We live in a free society with nearly unlimited ways for people to make their voices heard on any issue about which they feel passionately. Corporations should keep their mouths shut and let their shareholders, customers and employees exercise their free speech rights apart from the corporate umbrella.
The simple fact is the most valuable and desired employees at most companies tend to be pro-choice (pilots at airlines are an exception) and also more socially liberal. If the non-skilled workers are more pro-life, so what? They are easily replaced. A successful company has to be responsive to its most valuable employees and retaining them is crucial to any company’s success. Abortion is probably going to be the biggest issue in corporate HR policies for the next few years.
Also, yes I am pro-choice and proud of it. If you don’t want an abortion don’t get one. I don’t believe that life begins at conception and just because other people do, that doesn’t mean they have the right to force their beliefs on others. I get that for some people abortion is a profound moral choice, but for many others, its not and it doesn’t have to be. Abortion is healthcare and we can’t have a just healthcare system if women can’t access it easily and safely.
“If the non-skilled workers are more pro-life, so what? They are easily replaced.”
So much diversity and inclusion in that statement….you really are a person of the people.
This has nothing to do with politics. The whole pro-life, pro-choice is just framed wrong. Maybe if we start with a discussion as to whether or not you believe that the Government has a right to force under threat of jail/punishment someone to remain pregnant (with a non-viable lifeform) even if it would cause serious harm to their career/living situation/wealth prospects for the rest of their life, it would be a very different conversation.
Regardless of your feelings about abortion, it is going to be a huge issue for major corporations from an employment perspective. While some people see abortion as wrong from a moral perspective, more people want to know they could get one if necessary. Corporations with major operations in red states are going to have trouble recruiting and retaining talent if they don’t do something like giving paid medical leave and covering travel costs for employees to go out of state to obtain reproductive health care. It might not be as much of an issue for lower level employees like ground staff, but for the white collar employees (and frankly pilots and FAs) who have more flexibility about where they live, many people won’t be willing to take a job in a state that has outlawed abortion (or even worse has passed Fugitive Slave Act style laws making it a crime to get an abortion in another state) unless their employer guarantees they or their family members on their insurance will be able to get an abortion (or have doctors not afraid to perform necessary medical care in the case of a later term miscarriage) if they choose to. This isn’t just a matter of corporations being “woke.” Corporations are going to be sucked into the abortion issue from a management perspective as this will be an issue that effects the lives and health of many employees. Unlike Disney and the Florida “Don’t Say Gay” bill where the law itself didn’t effect the employer-employee relationship, banning abortion is going to force corporations to make a choice as to whether they will do what they can to ensure their employees abortion access no matter where they live or to do nothing and let employees in red states fend for themselves. Corporations don’t have the choice to just “stay out of it” because even if they do and say nothing about abortion, they will be effectively endorsing abortion bans.
Also, while some might say what about the employees who are anti-choice, I would argue that they have been working at companies that provide full reproductive healthcare services for employees for over 50 years now so things wouldn’t really be that different for them. Even if that’s not satisfying to those employees I would argue that no one is forcing them to get an abortion and that they shouldn’t be allowed to impose their own religious beliefs on their co-workers (this should arguably be a 1st amendment freedom of religion claim as to why banning abortion is unconstitutional in addition to other claims based on equal protection and even a 13th amendment claim that the state cannot impose forced labor on people, but that’s beside the point). The other thing is that it’s almost certain that a majority of the skilled white collar work force that has more flexibility as to where they work, particularly those who are of child-bearing age and their spouses, are pro-choice. From a management and shareholder perspective, most corporations are likely to be more concerned about doing what they need to do to remain competitive in hiring the best talent, than what their anti-choice constituents want.
Corporations will not be sucked into this abortion issue, most corporations are not involved in it now. There are states right now that have very strict abortion laws on the books. Some states like North Dakota only have one abortion clinic, and states like Louisiana have 3 or 4 clinics. These are just examples and United has employees in both the states I’ve mentioned not to mention the Mississippi and Texas laws that were passed over the past few years that severely restricts abortion access, and yet corporations like United have not been sucked into this abortion issue. United isn’t flying employees from Texas to Illinois or New York for abortions now so why would they do it should the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade? Nearly half the States in the United States already have some type of severe restriction on abortions right now, your argument that companies will been drawn into this debate is ridiculous.
And for the record I’m not some ultra-right conservative Republican, I’m an independent and I think companies like United need to stay far away from this issue.
There’s a big difference between making it difficult to get an abortion and making abortions illegal, if not criminal. Despite the restrictions, abortion is still legal in those states and mostly covered by insurance. It’s going to be different when neither is possible in some states. I used to work in the New York City office of a Texas based big law firm and I remember when Texas passed a law requiring women to pay an extra premium to fully cover reproductive healthcare, including abortions. Like most companies our firm covered those additional costs, but even then, many of the female attorneys in my office were mad that this Texas law affected them and that they had to actively opt in to obtain the necessary coverage and we had to have an office wide meeting about it. I knew a couple of attorneys for whom this was the last straw that pushed them to start looking for a new job, which they easily got. These attorneys were not snowflakes, but they took the job at the firm with the understanding that they were still working in the New York office and none of the nonsense out of Texas limiting their reproductive rights would affect them and when it did they felt they were lied to.
The above is just one small anecdote, although when I told law school friends at similarly prestigious law firms about that incident they reacted with shock. Also, admittedly, law firms are more top heavy with highly skilled employees that tend to be pro-choice. At the same time, if merely having to opt in caused such concern with every female attorney at my old firm, imagine how a company doing nothing to protect its employees when abortion rights are stripped away is going to go over, especially when they can get a job in a state that protects abortion rights and insurance can cover the procedure. The quality of medical coverage is something that many white collar employees consider when looking at job offers because it’s effectively a different form of compensation. If a company does nothing to make up the difference on abortion in states that ban it while other companies do (we already have heard from many companies who plan to do so) they will effectively be offering a worse compensation package than those companies and companies in states where abortion remains protected. There’s no way any major company can remain competitive and recruit top talent if they sit by and do nothing to protect and support access to abortion for employees in states that ban it or make it a criminal act.
That isn’t a companies responsibility that is up to each individual citizen. Should Roe v. Wade be overturned companies will have no impact on what states do or don’t do. United, Delta, American, Southwest all waded into the voting rights act when the media made it appear as though some Southern States were passing laws to restricted voting rights. Look at Georgia which just held it first primary election after the State passed sweeping new voting laws that was supposed to “limit” voter access. As it turns out Georgia broke all sorts of election turnout records for a primary in their state. If people want to change the laws around abortion then it is up to the people NOT corporations to change things by voting for candidates who’s views align with their own. All these airlines and corporations that wade into the voting debate of 2021 had no impact. United and every other airline and Corporation needs to stay out of the abortion debate. Abortion is a divisive issue no good can come from any corporation getting involved. Your assertion that perspective employees at top corporations will make a decision on whether or not to work for a specific corporation based on their public stance on abortion is not supported by any facts. Case in point Disney waded into the Florida’s so called Don’t Say Gay law what impact did it have NONE. The law still passed, Disney lost its special tax status as a result and as a result of them wading into political issues their brand image has taken a major hit. Disney had no impact on the law but you know who could have an impact the PEOPLE of Florida during the next election cycle period. Corporations don’t make laws, corporations don’t change laws voters do. And why stop at abortion, should companies wade into the battle over guns in America? Another hot button issue in this country. Where do you draw the line and say these issues are the responsibility of the VOTERS not Corporate America. If the people in livening in States where abortions would become illegal should Roe be overturned want to change things then they need to vote for pro-choice candidates during their next election cycle and United Airlines needs to stay out of this very divisive issue.
You failed to understand my point. This isn’t about a company’s public stance on abortion or them trying to effect change on the laws. I’m saying that people will make decisions on where they work based on access to abortion in that state and whether it’s covered by their company’s insurance policy. Medical insurance is part of an employee’s overall compensation package and currently, most major companies have insurance policies that cover abortion. If states ban abortion, those employees will essentially being getting a compensation cut.
I’m not saying corporations are going to start lobbying for abortion rights, but by virtue of providing things like medical insurance and paid medical leave, they are going to have to address the issue internally from an HR/benefits perspective. In my example from my former law firm, the attorneys weren’t mad that the law firm wasn’t speaking out against anti-choice laws, they were mad that the firm told them Texas laws wouldn’t apply to them in NY and then they found themselves having to opt in to receive abortion coverage. The Don’t Say Gay situation is irrelevant here, because that bill had nothing to do with the relationship between Disney and its employees. Abortion access is currently baked into the relationship between a company and its employees because most companies currently cover abortion services through insurance policies.
When I say a company is going to have trouble recruiting employees, I’m not saying that potential employees are going to turn down a company because of its public stance on abortion. I’m saying they are going to have trouble recruiting employees based on their internal policies on abortion coverage. This isn’t about the political debate on abortion, but about the real world consequences of banning abortion. When I say potential white-collar employees are pro-choice I mean that they want to make sure they and/or their spouse have access to abortion services should they need it. Companies trying to fill open positions in states that ban abortion or insurance coverage of abortion are going to be offering worse compensation, all other things being equal, than employers in states that do/employees in red states that make up the difference.
I know it’s hard for anti-choice people to see pregnant women as human, or at least as human as the unborn fetus inside them, but many women who currently have access to abortion services through their employer are suddenly going to lose that and to pretend like that won’t be an HR issue going forward is inane.
Kirby is well paid to run an airline. Period!!! He is to paid to give his opinion on guns, abortion, etc… He should stick to what was written on his job description.
I think that is exactly what he did given his response and follow up to the questions he got while on CBS. I think the better question is why was CBS asking an airline CEO about abortion instead of things related to the airline industry. Kirby can’t control the questions he was asked but I think he did a great job not taking the bate.
He could have also just said…”that is not an aviation related issue and is a personal issue for all of our employees so out of respect for their privacy it’s not appropriate for me to comment.”
what is same same-sex?
all he cares about is money so whatever he says is
not near what he thinks
We must protect fetuses at all costs so that when they are born, they become fair game, literally.
RJB you are correct some states allow Abortion till 40 weeks.. INSANE! Why ask an Airline Ceo ABOUT ABORTION TOTally INAPPROPRIATE… bUT that is the Left politics..I am sure the United health plans PAY for the PLAN B morning after and then some PILL
What’s the harm in a health plan paying for plan B? It temporary stops the release of an egg, preventing fertilization.
Do any states allow elective abortions until 40 weeks, or is it only for abortions under certain medical exceptions, ie, the health of the mother is at risk?
New York, Virginia for starters
False. There are states that do, but not these two. How many people do you think are actually getting 40 week abortions anyway?
While I don’t love the idea of a 40 week abortion for no health reason, is the solution to get rid of all abortions and let mothers that do need one die?
Wrong. Abortion in Virginia is legal until the 25th week of pregnancy. 24th week in New York. Nice try with the fake news though.
New York definitely does not.
Also people seeking late term abortions aren’t doing so because they just couldn’t be bothered to do it sooner. The vast majority of families who seek a late term abortion wanted to have a baby, but something went drastically wrong in the pregnancy and the fetus is either already dead, will potentially kill the mother, or will die shortly after being born.
Read this pretty harrowing account of a woman from New York who wanted to have a baby and instead ultimately had to have an abortion 32 weeks into her pregnancy: https://jezebel.com/interview-with-a-woman-who-recently-had-an-abortion-at-1781972395/amp . She kept holding on past the viability threshold despite increasingly bad news until her doctors told her that her baby wouldn’t be able to breathe upon birth and it was “incompatible with life” 31 weeks into her pregnancy. Because her doctors were in New York and it was past 24 weeks, they couldn’t do anything and this woman had to go to Colorado to get the procedure done. The people making the hard choices to get late term abortions are typically doing so because of their personal moral convictions and also personal health circumstances. In the case of the woman in the interview, giving birth was already a risky proposition because she had recently had brain surgery, but more importantly she didn’t want to give birth to a baby that would only know horrific pain in the few hours it was alive.
The title of this article is 100% FALSE. The title makes it seem as though Kirby waded into the abortion debate but when you read the article it becomes clear Kirby was ambushed with questions about abortion, questions that he dodged and avoided answering. Dodging the question is NOT wading into the issue.
Not trying to mislead—but his evasion is itself an answer and I thunk “wading in” (even if unwillingly) is a fair characterization.
Despite my other disagreements with you elsewhere, I do agree with this. Kirby was put in a position where he had to do something and I think being evasive on the topic was completely fine. He knows United’s HR department is already dealing with this issue internally, but there’s no reason for him to address what he/United has to say on the topic from an abstract perspective. United and other companies will ultimately have to decide how they handle providing or ensuring abortion access to their employees, but they shouldn’t have to talk about it or make a big deal about it regardless of what they do.
I am pro choice, so a woman can have an abortion, or not, it’s their choice. An angle to this that I have not seen discussed is the anti abortionists think they can tell a woman to have the baby, then “walk away” from there decision on another person’s body. If they also committed to provide the $1 to $2 Million to raise the child, I would have more respect for them and their view.
pro choice for WHO???
you cant decide for someone else, being the fetus
where does this stop can parents “ABORT” 5 year old if he is not good at sports
People do not even know what Roe v Wade is, or the fact that it was overturned. Casey is the only governing precedent.
Most are unaware that Roe prohibited ALL regulations of abortion in the first trimester, even those to protect the mother. The second trimester there could be regulations, but only to protect the mother. Abortions can only be banned in the 3rd trimester.
Casey overturned entirely the no first trimester regulations, as long as there is no undue burden to obtaining an abortion prior to viability. The time when abortions could be banned was moved up several weeks to the point of viability.
Now, while polls show that Americans support the right to be able to have an abortion, a majority recently polled in favor of the Texas law banning abortions after 6 weeks, and an overwhelming majority favor the Mississippi 15 week ban. Thus, Americans are overwhelmingly against Roe v Wade (which again, is not the law of the land anyways, despite the media lies that indicate otherwise), and support a clarification of Casey by saying that 6-15 week bans do not constitute an undue burden
“a majority recently polled in favor of the Texas law banning abortions after 6 weeks, and an overwhelming majority favor the Mississippi 15 week ban. Thus, Americans are overwhelmingly against Roe v Wade”
Any sources for these polls? Or is this all made up like your inaccurate facts about Virginia and New York allowing elective abortions being allowed 40 weeks into a pregnancy when in fact neither state does?
Could it be these CEO’s are finally wising up and realizing it’s best to stay out of this. Knowing what we know now about BLM and their finances or, all the charges about Georgia’s voter law turning out to be totally without merit serves to prove their wokness is nothing but stupidity and they need to stick to their core business.
Yea, wouldnt want the republican snowflakes to melt
I’m guessing you are all for Elon musks recent politization
“Knowing what we know now about BLM and their finances”
What exactly do we know?
We know that Patrice Cullors used BLM donations for her (and her friends/family’s) personal benefit.
A simple Google search should provide you with enough sources to confirm that statement,
Which doesn’t make the movement itself any less legitimate. Nice try though.
Transportation is not usually a benefit for health coverage. Therefore, United shouldn’t try. United doesn’t drive people to pancreas surgery so transportation for abortions is not right. United employees can pay for it.
In the past, airlines were subject to Civil Aeronautics Board (pre-FAA) whims so airlines did align themselves to political parties. I believe American Airlines was Democratic and Continental Airlines was Republicans. When Eisenhower was President, Continental probably got favors and when JFK was President, AA got favors.