by Michel Reising
Is the meatpacking industry a positive or negative force in the town of Storm Lake? This was a recurring question this week, emerging in collaborative revisions of our profile pieces and in an interview with Steve and Willis Hamilton, lawyers with roots in Storm Lake deeper than 150 years.
Throughout the duration of this research project, meatpacking has made its way into every aspect of our research, whether in interviews or the archives. In our SourceNotes database, out of 682 current entries, 262 have been tagged with keywords relating to the subject of meatpacking. For a town that appears to be ever-changing, the one constant in its story is the main source of employment at its meatpacking plants. Names may change every couple of decades–Hygrade, IBP, Tyson–but the work remains constant.
Within the research I have conducted, and the interviews I have witnessed, the meatpacking industry is always championed as what caused Storm Lake to evolve into what it is today. Almost every interviewee from Storm Lake will have worked at the plants, known someone who has worked at the plants, and will most likely have an opinion on the plants. Within my inquiry into Storm Lake newspapers from the years 1986, 2000, and 2014, IBP and later Tyson Foods are praised for their trustworthiness and the commerce that their respective plants attracted to the town. To really drive a point home, according to an article I read from the Storm Lake Times from 2014, Tyson Foods was praised by Forbes as the “sixth most trustworthy company” out of the 8000 companies the magazine reviewed. On the surface, the meatpacking industry seems like the savior of Storm Lake, and a pillar of the community.
However, within the various interviews we have conducted, most interviewees from town associate a negative connotation to the local plants. There have been negative remarks regarding employee wages, working conditions, high turnover rates, and scandals related to IBP and later Tyson. All of these anecdotal stories and complaints against the plants were supplemented by our interview with the Hamiltons this week, legal experts engaged for decades with and against the meatpacking industry.
The Hamilton brothers, Steve and Willis, together with Mary and Molly now, have been practicing attorneys for around 40 years. Their family has been practicing law since shortly after the American Civil War. They certainly have strong ties to the community. One example: when Buena Vista faced a major financial crisis years ago, the Hamiltons’ grandfather, Willis Edson, mortgaged the family farm and donated the funds to the college. Edson Hall stands in his honor.
Both brothers spent a few summers working at Hygrade. Its operation as a union shop secured them higher wages than most other blue-collar jobs in the area. Willis stated that he stopped working at Hygrade after a few summers because he moved onto law school, and Steve jokingly added that he would have done so himself had Hygrade not fired him. The Hamilton brothers praised Hygrade, noting that they did not hear of injuries as often as they do now, that the workers were paid and treated well, and that the workforce was generally retained.
…When IBP took over the plant from Hygrade, IBP ensured that the workers were not able to unionize. Steve added that IBP’s doubling the speed of the production line, and decreasing safety features, sparked a flurry of new injuries. This resulted in an extremely high turnover rate. Steve said that a former client, previously a production line manager, spoke under deposition that during one year in the 1990s, IBP’s turnover was 7,500 workers, and this for a workforce (then) around 2,000!
By the time that IBP took over, the brothers were practicing law, and they have represented hundreds, if not thousands, of plant workers who have sued for damages, whether that be categorized as workers compensation or worse. The Hamilton brothers listed case after case in which IBP was brought to court over injuries. They stated that when IBP took over the plant from Hygrade, IBP ensured that the workers were not able to unionize. Steve added that IBP’s doubling the speed of the production line, and decreasing safety features, sparked a flurry of new injuries. This resulted in an extremely high turnover rate. Steve said that a former client, previously a production line manager, spoke under deposition that during one year in the 1990s, IBP’s turnover was 7,500 workers, and this for a workforce (then) around 2,000! Due to this high turnover rate, training was not as well emphasized, which Steve stated resulted in “a lot of injuries, a lot of minor, a lot of major injuries.” Steve further emphasized that IBP “would just fire the worker and make them fight for the money.” The Hamiltons noted that, especially under Tyson, the corporation would be willing to settle on minor injuries, but they generally would resist major claims.
Willis and Steve were especially critical of IBP. At one point in the 1980s, they said, the company was called to testify to Congress regarding major OSHA violations. During these hearings, the Hamilton brothers stated that the IBP representative basically lied to Congress about the working conditions of their plants and were forced to pay major fines. The brothers consistently represent workers from the plant (now a Tyson property) in which they still see the same major and minor work-related injuries that they witnessed under IBP’s ownership.
Currently, the Hamilton brothers are in a legal battle with Tyson over the alleged wrongful death of their client, Michael Everhard, by COVID-19, which they attribute to Tyson’s failure to adhere to safety protocols. The lawsuit is pending due to an appeal by Tyson to Iowa’s Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, in which Tyson claims the trial should be held in Federal District Court on the grounds that the plant was operating under Executive Order. The Hamilton brothers argued, with us, that Tyson is entirely responsible for their client’s death because of their blatant disregard for employee safety. Willis claimed that instead of slowing down production to allow for proper social distancing, “…they just did the opposite, they sped it up, so you couldn’t spread them out, in fact, they probably jammed them a little closer together.” The Hamiltons also stated that Tyson employees were not provided proper personal protective equipment. In the end, the brothers do not expect the lawsuit to be resolved any time soon.
The interview with the Hamiltons this week really displayed why so many of our interviewees have had negative experiences or opinions related to the meatpacking plants in Storm Lake. With past interviews, one could say that the experiences presented were anecdotal at best, but the Hamilton brothers have represented hundreds if not thousands of clients who have had legal battles with the meatpacking plant under multiple companies. The experiences shared with us by the Hamiltons furthered our understanding of the darker side of the industry.
That said, there are always two sides to every story. As historians, we strive to provide objectivity within every study, and hopefully our scheduled interview with Tyson representatives next week will provide the perspective that our project is missing.
Michel Reising is majoring in business at the Farmer School of Business. He is also majoring in history, with a specific interest in American history and the World Wars. After graduation, Michel plans to attend law school with interest in constitutional law.
