Ronn TorossianRonn Torossian
While half of the country is busy arguing about who should be able to use the restroom, certain Tyson chicken employees are now claiming they can’t go to the bathroom at all. According to a report from poverty activist group Oxfam America, poultry workers are “routinely denied basic needs” including bathroom breaks. Some have gone to the extreme of wearing diapers in order to work the line without a break.

Other charges include employees who are refusing liquids or “restrict intake … to a dangerous degree” in order to avoid the embarrassment of wetting themselves. The report paints an even more dire scenario for women who are pregnant or menstruating. The report blames the conditions on harsh work consequences if employees don’t meet their quotas in a specific timeframe. This lead to long waits at the bathroom, where employees risk losing their jobs if they don’t get back on the line and get their work done.

According to NBC News coverage of the report, “what would be shocking in most workplaces happens far too often in poultry plants … Workers relieving themselves while standing at their workstations … many workers tell stories about urinating on themselves or witnessing coworkers urinating on themselves.” The report got very specific in pointing fingers at accused chicken companies including Tyson Foods, Perdue Farms, Pilgrim’s Pride and Sanderson Farms. In the NBC report, the company said all but Sanderson Farms responded by denying allegations. Sanderson CFO Mike Cockrell said the company had no comment.

Tyson came out swinging, flatly denying the allegations: “We’re concerned about these anonymous claims, and while we currently have no evidence they're true, are checking to make sure our position on restroom breaks is being followed, and our Team Members’ needs are being met…” Perdue Farms said employees are allowed two 30-minute breaks during each eight-hour shift. “If an associate has a health or other reason why they need more frequent restroom breaks, they can visit the onsite Wellness Center for support services or talk with Human Resources to request an accommodation for their condition…”

From a PR perspective, these flat denials create a “he said, she said” scenario where viewers of the news program or online readers are expected to make a split second decision regarding who to trust based on little to no evidence. Depending on how the media is presented, users are likely to choose one or the other. Based on typical approaches, it’s likely most viewers would side with the beleaguered employees no matter what the actual facts may be.

In any scenario such as this one, the brand being castigated must make a cost-benefit analysis before responding. If they ignore the charges, as Sanderson did, how quick will they disappear from consumers’ minds? And, if they respond with a flat denial, as Tyson did, what will consumers believe?

Perdue had perhaps the best response. While the company didn’t specifically deny that some employees may choose to wait to use the restroom, they specifically said employees get designated breaks each shift. These specifics give consumers quick and easy data points to grab onto when trying to remember the story later. The emotional energy is more positive here too. The takeaway from these responses is likely to be: Tyson is “guilty,” Perdue is giving at least minimal care, and Sanderson is hiding something or just doesn’t care.

Now, none of these allegations may be remotely true, but that will be the tendency of responses based on these replies being shoehorned into a quick two-minute TV segment.

* * *

Ronn Torossian is CEO of 5WPR, a leading NY PR firm. Follow 5WPR on Instagram.