Dobbs Decision Will Cause Worker Retention Challenges For CFOs
The Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson decision is likely to lead to sprawling logistical and worker retention challenges for CFOs and employers operating across state lines as they vie for talent in an already competitive labor market — adding more uncertainty to company books that will reverberate across the national economy, said Maurice Schweitzer, a professor at the Wharton School for the University of Pennsylvania.
Schweitzer in an interview pointed to such industries as the tech space, where competition for talent is particularly intense as companies in hubs such as Austin, Texas and those in California’s Silicon Valley seek out top talent.
“I think we’re going to see intense competition for workers, particularly for states that are going to pass legislation that makes it more difficult for women to access abortion,” he said.
With unemployment nationally at a record low, providing abortion access or covering travel expenses for employees to do so could be a key factor that influences the job decisions of potential workers, he said. With November 2020 Federal Reserve data showing 35% of Americans are unable to pay for a $400 emergency expense, covering travel expenses could also be a significant benefit for those unable to meet the costs of such care out of pocket.
Navigating differing state laws as they emerge could also lead companies into an expensive tug-of-war between employee wants and Republican ire, Schweitzer said. The legal burden could ultimately prove prohibitive for companies, Schweitzer said.
“If it becomes illegal for these companies to provide that type of care, and companies are getting sued, or Lyft or Uber are getting sued for providing transportation once we see the lawsuits escalate, then it may be practically untenable for some of these companies to provide that access,” he said.
Widespread abortion bans may also have an impact on remote work, potentially nudging companies to allow workers to work remote if they are not willing to relocate to states restricting abortion.
Sometimes “being face to face is important. And this may limit that, and I think it’s going to have broad repercussions that clearly wasn’t part of the Supreme Court’s [decision],” Schweitzer said. “It isn’t their purview to figure out the economic implications, but there definitely will be economic costs to this.”
Schweitzer in an interview pointed to such industries as the tech space, where competition for talent is particularly intense as companies in hubs such as Austin, Texas and those in California’s Silicon Valley seek out top talent.
“I think we’re going to see intense competition for workers, particularly for states that are going to pass legislation that makes it more difficult for women to access abortion,” he said.
With unemployment nationally at a record low, providing abortion access or covering travel expenses for employees to do so could be a key factor that influences the job decisions of potential workers, he said. With November 2020 Federal Reserve data showing 35% of Americans are unable to pay for a $400 emergency expense, covering travel expenses could also be a significant benefit for those unable to meet the costs of such care out of pocket.
Navigating differing state laws as they emerge could also lead companies into an expensive tug-of-war between employee wants and Republican ire, Schweitzer said. The legal burden could ultimately prove prohibitive for companies, Schweitzer said.
“If it becomes illegal for these companies to provide that type of care, and companies are getting sued, or Lyft or Uber are getting sued for providing transportation once we see the lawsuits escalate, then it may be practically untenable for some of these companies to provide that access,” he said.
Widespread abortion bans may also have an impact on remote work, potentially nudging companies to allow workers to work remote if they are not willing to relocate to states restricting abortion.
Sometimes “being face to face is important. And this may limit that, and I think it’s going to have broad repercussions that clearly wasn’t part of the Supreme Court’s [decision],” Schweitzer said. “It isn’t their purview to figure out the economic implications, but there definitely will be economic costs to this.”
