后roe案件世界的组织堕胎支持利益:雇员和雇主的观点

Caren B. Goldberg, Ho Kwan Cheung
{"title":"后roe案件世界的组织堕胎支持利益:雇员和雇主的观点","authors":"Caren B. Goldberg, Ho Kwan Cheung","doi":"10.1108/edi-08-2022-0209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe authors discuss the implications of the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson and its impact on employees and employers. Although several employers issued public statements regarding the provision of abortion-related benefits, the authors highlight some of the obstacles to their implementation.Design/methodology/approachWith a focus on employee wellbeing, the authors discuss the obstacles in implementing abortion care benefits.FindingsWhile it is encouraging to see many organizations make public statements in support of abortion rights, the authors temper their enthusiam with questions about practicality.Research limitations/implicationsBased on the research on hidden stigmas and the job demands-resources model, the authors argue that employees who need to use abortion-related benefits may be unlikely to seek them.Practical implicationsThe authors highlight some unanswered questions relating to the requesting and granting of abortion healthcare benefits.Social implicationsThe Dobbs decision takes away rights. While the authors applaud organizations’ efforts to restore them, facilitating access to an abortion in other states is quite complicated.Originality/valueAlthough abortions are very common, very little organizational research has addressed the topic. In light of the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, the paper raises some timely questions about employer-sponsored abortion healthcare.","PeriodicalId":72949,"journal":{"name":"Equality, diversity and inclusion : an international journal","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Organizational abortion support benefits in the post-Roe world: employee and employer perspectives\",\"authors\":\"Caren B. Goldberg, Ho Kwan Cheung\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/edi-08-2022-0209\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeThe authors discuss the implications of the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson and its impact on employees and employers. Although several employers issued public statements regarding the provision of abortion-related benefits, the authors highlight some of the obstacles to their implementation.Design/methodology/approachWith a focus on employee wellbeing, the authors discuss the obstacles in implementing abortion care benefits.FindingsWhile it is encouraging to see many organizations make public statements in support of abortion rights, the authors temper their enthusiam with questions about practicality.Research limitations/implicationsBased on the research on hidden stigmas and the job demands-resources model, the authors argue that employees who need to use abortion-related benefits may be unlikely to seek them.Practical implicationsThe authors highlight some unanswered questions relating to the requesting and granting of abortion healthcare benefits.Social implicationsThe Dobbs decision takes away rights. While the authors applaud organizations’ efforts to restore them, facilitating access to an abortion in other states is quite complicated.Originality/valueAlthough abortions are very common, very little organizational research has addressed the topic. In light of the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, the paper raises some timely questions about employer-sponsored abortion healthcare.\",\"PeriodicalId\":72949,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Equality, diversity and inclusion : an international journal\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Equality, diversity and inclusion : an international journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/edi-08-2022-0209\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Equality, diversity and inclusion : an international journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/edi-08-2022-0209","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

作者讨论了最近美国最高法院在多布斯诉杰克逊案中判决的含义及其对雇员和雇主的影响。虽然一些雇主就提供与堕胎有关的福利发表了公开声明,但作者强调了实施这些声明的一些障碍。设计/方法/途径以员工福利为重点,作者讨论了实施堕胎护理福利的障碍。虽然看到许多组织发表公开声明支持堕胎权令人鼓舞,但作者们对实用性的质疑缓和了他们的热情。研究局限/启示基于对隐性耻辱和工作需求-资源模型的研究,作者认为,需要使用堕胎相关福利的员工可能不太可能寻求这些福利。实际意义作者强调了与请求和给予堕胎保健福利有关的一些悬而未决的问题。社会影响多布斯案的判决剥夺了权利。虽然作者赞扬组织为恢复堕胎所做的努力,但在其他州,方便堕胎是相当复杂的。原创性/价值虽然堕胎很常见,但很少有组织的研究涉及这个话题。鉴于多布斯诉杰克逊案的判决,这篇论文提出了一些关于雇主赞助的堕胎医疗保健的及时问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Organizational abortion support benefits in the post-Roe world: employee and employer perspectives
PurposeThe authors discuss the implications of the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson and its impact on employees and employers. Although several employers issued public statements regarding the provision of abortion-related benefits, the authors highlight some of the obstacles to their implementation.Design/methodology/approachWith a focus on employee wellbeing, the authors discuss the obstacles in implementing abortion care benefits.FindingsWhile it is encouraging to see many organizations make public statements in support of abortion rights, the authors temper their enthusiam with questions about practicality.Research limitations/implicationsBased on the research on hidden stigmas and the job demands-resources model, the authors argue that employees who need to use abortion-related benefits may be unlikely to seek them.Practical implicationsThe authors highlight some unanswered questions relating to the requesting and granting of abortion healthcare benefits.Social implicationsThe Dobbs decision takes away rights. While the authors applaud organizations’ efforts to restore them, facilitating access to an abortion in other states is quite complicated.Originality/valueAlthough abortions are very common, very little organizational research has addressed the topic. In light of the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, the paper raises some timely questions about employer-sponsored abortion healthcare.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Who gets to choose: a global perspective on gender, work and choice in the post-pandemic workplace What is there to be happy about? The impact of race and resilience in the United States A key to recovery for working mothers? Psychological detachment and the roles of relaxation, mastery and control on boundary violations Investigating the gender pay gap in the Maltese financial and insurance sector: a macro and micro approach The effects of national and international tourism on income inequality: evidence from Asia-Pacific economies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1