In an August 15 editorial the Forward attempts to apply to the Rubashkin family the talmudic principle of mu’ad — the proclivity of an animal to follow previous behavior — claiming that Agriprocessors has a checkered past and therefore cannot be trusted in the future (“Judging Character — And Kashrut”). The editorialist uses the argument to discredit the Orthodox rabbis and community leaders, myself included, who earlier this month inspected the Agriprocessors slaughterhouse in Postville, Iowa, and deemed its operations to be satisfactory.
The Rubashkins do indeed have a history of past behavior, but it is far from the checkered one portrayed by the Forward. Aaron Rubashkin and his wife are famed for treating everyone with dignity. They dispensed food and charity to Jew and gentile for more than four decades. Anyone who grew up in the Boro Park section of Brooklyn surely remembers the Rubashkins’ restaurant, which has fed more non-paying customers than real patrons.
Postville’s mayor and the local Presbyterian minister reported that Aaron Rubashkin is still up to his old tricks: He helps with the local food bank and the families of the workers who have been detained still live in Rubashkin housing, many paying discounted rent. He contributed to the construction of a non-Jewish community center in Postville. As the Presbyterian minister told us, “everyone knows if they have an event in the community you call Agri and they are willing to help.”
But no matter. The past is no indication of the present, and so I and two dozen other rabbis and community leaders went to see for ourselves.
Contrary to media reports, we discovered a clean, modern facility. The factory could not have been prepared or constructed for our visit; it was there before we arrived, and before the media tumult began. We found a state-of-the-art quality control lab with experienced American lab techs. The control lab was four years old.
We found a remarkably large and clean cafeteria with free bottled water available for the employees. Curious, we inquired of the employees how long they have had the bottled water. The response was that it had been made available since they first started working.
We also found happy workers who worked hard but were paid fairly for their efforts. And they welcomed the overtime.
“Where else can you get an overtime rate of $15 per hour, starting?” we were told by one of the workers.
In the August 15 editorial, the Forward pejoratively references the “three hours” that we spent touring the Postville plant. “Three hours,” the editorialist writes, “could not uncover the extensive, egregious child labor violations. Three hours wouldn’t turn up the voluminous evidence of abuse gathered by the Forward in sexual harassment, shorted wages, favoritism and bribery in work assignments, inadequate safety training and horrific work accidents.”
Since when are allegations and accusations considered voluminous evidence?
Let’s get some perspective here. The “three hours” was merely the time that a large number of us actually spent in the plant itself. We also met with the department heads for human resources, safety and compliance, as well as with local leaders — even those historically critical of the plant.
We witnessed conditions firsthand. We roamed the plant without restrictions. We randomly pulled employees out of the processing lines and interviewed them. Some of the rabbis spoke Spanish, something the management could not have expected. We dug, asking probing questions. The people were real; Hispanic, white and black.
Yet according to the Forward, the findings from our visit to the Agriprocessors slaughterhouse ought to be questioned.
Does the Forward believe that those of us who went to Postville simply lied about what we saw? Maybe the thinking is that we can’t be trusted because we are Orthodox — never mind, of course, that the Rubashkins are Lubavitch Hasidim, while most of the rabbis who recently inspected Agriprocessors are mitnagdim.
We did not see any people working there who appeared to be under-aged. To be sure, we questioned the on-site USDA inspector. “If there were kids working here,” the inspector told us, “don’t you think we would have noticed? It’s ridiculous.”
Did Agriprocessors ever employ minors? Federal records say yes.
But can the company’s human resources department be faulted for being duped by false identifications? On our visit we discovered that Agriprocessors has instituted the federal E-Verification system in order to insure that false IDs will no longer be accepted for employment.
What, then, has thrust Agriprocessors into the news? Is it not possible that there is a link to the United Food and Commercial Worker’s union failed bid in 2005 to unionize the Postville plant? The union, after all, has by its own admission embarked upon a full frontal campaign against Agriprocessors.
Why are there Google ads — paid for by the United Food and Commercial Worker — pointing to negative articles and comments about Agriprocessors whenever the word “Rubashkin” is searched for? Why were there ads placed by the union in Jewish newspapers impugning the kashrut of Agriprocessors? Why have there been computerized phone calls in Yiddish to Hasidic neighborhoods — initiated by the union — impugning the kashrut of Rubashkin Kosher Meats? What sudden expertise has the United Food and Commercial Worker union gained in the laws of “Shulkhan Arukh,” the repository of the Jewish dietary laws?
There are, of course, a number of other companies that have been on the receiving end of the United Food and Commercial Worker’s campaign. Smithfield Foods has initiated a lawsuit against them for racketeering, claiming that the union used religious groups to accuse the company of being racist. Basha’s Supermarket in Arizona, which resisted the union organizing, has claimed in court they were the subject of “defamation, extortion and trespass.” Shouldn’t all of this have made the Forward just a bit suspicious of the union and its claims?
In the editorial the Forward impugns our findings, arguing that its body of critical reporting on Agriprocessors is backed up by government investigators. “If the rabbis didn’t want to believe us,” the editorialist writes, “they could have consulted the public record.”
Well, we did. “Source #7,” the informant planted at Agriprocessors by the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, was repeatedly denied employment at the slaughterhouse because the forged papers the agency created for this individual were not accepted. True, there were other sources for the allegations against Agriprocessors — but accusations are not evidence. And never mind the ludicrous assertions of there being a “meth lab” and weapons manufacturing in the plant.
Let us not confuse accusations with facts, nor discard the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Those of us who made the journey to Postville may have not been to the plant before and cannot vouch for what took place in the past, but on our recent visit there we most certainly saw strong management procedures in place and owners in full cooperation with authorities and in compliance with the law.
Rabbi Pinchos Lipschutz is editor and publisher of Yated Neeman, the leading national Orthodox Jewish newspaper.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Claims Conference Chief Knew of $57M Holocaust Fraud Probe Earlier 
Top Dog: Who Makes the Best Kosher Hot Dog in America?
Rama Burshtein Offers Rare Glimpse of Orthodox World
Why Do Jews Intermarry at a Much Higher Rate Than Others?
What We Can Learn From Mel Brooks About Racism
You've successfully signed up!
Why does the Forward give space to this kosherized Stalinist spin? Rabbi Lipschutz and others like him remind me of the kind of naive visitors to the Soviet Union the late Malcolm Muggeridge described in his novel "Winter in Moscow" who had nothing but praise for Stalin's regime even as its offenses were in plain sight for everyone to view! What would Abraham Cahan have said of this mess?
We owe it to the kosher consumer We in the field of Kashrus have accepted a fiduciary responsibility on behalf of the kosher consumer. Therefore, we owe our fidelity to the kosher consumer to uphold and maintain that fiduciary responsibility. Executives who face troubling decisions are often confused about how to arrive at the right, moral and ethical course of action. This is not surprising since by definition a “moral dilemma” is one where there is no clear right and wrong, only positives and negatives. We should be guided in our moral reasoning by the insight that comes from respecting the moral rights of the kosher consumer; justice to colleagues and peers; consequences and outcomes; explaining and defending to others as well as to ourselves the decisions we make. Have I searched for all alternatives? Are there other ways I could look at the situation? Have I listened and considered all points of view of my colleagues and peers, while still maintaining high ethical standards? Even if there is sound rationality for this decision, and even if I could defend it publicly, does my inner sense tell me this is right? Will my colleagues, peers, and the educated kosher consumer agree with my rationality? Does this decision agree with my religious beliefs and with my personal principles and sense of responsibility to the kosher consumer? Would I want others in kashrus to make the same decision and to take the same action if faced with the same circumstances? What are my true motives for this action? Would this action infringe on the moral rights and dignity of others? Would this action involve deceiving others in any way? Would I feel this action was just (ethical or fair) if I were on the other side of the decision? Am I being unduly influenced by others who may not be as sensitive to these ethical standards? How would I feel (or how will I feel) if (or when) this action becomes known to the educated Kosher consumer? Would others feel that my action or decision is ethically and morally justifiable to the educated kosher consumer? Can I justify my action as directly beneficial to the kosher consumer and to kashrus in general? We can stretch and expand our moral reasoning and ethical judgment, and sharpen our ethical sensitivity and moral awareness by thinking through particular dilemmas in light of the above. If we consider all the questions discussed above with real intent and pure motives, then we can be confident that we will come with G-D’s help, to sound and ethical decisions. When we achieve clarity as to the issues of the dilemma, we are better prepared to make a decision that is both right and defensible. We must remember that our goal is to achieve an ethical course of action in all areas of kashrus, not to find a way to construct a rational argument in support of an unethical decision. Our daily decisions do (at times indirectly) impact the kosher consumer. We live in a world where other concerns e.g. profits etc., often come into conflict with the concern for ethics and principles; and where society is demanding a higher standard of kashrus, and a higher ethic of social responsibility to the kosher consumer. We must be willing and able to give the kosher consumer in fact, that which the kosher consumer believes he / she is getting in theory. We owe it to ourselves…..we are all “kosher-consumers”. Yudel Shain Kosher Consumers Union
Some of these comments are truly embarrasing. Kudos to The Forward for printing this alternative perspective. And the silly comment drawing parallels to Malcolm Muggeridge either doesn't know his history or prefers not to be confused with the facts.
I am pleasently surprized that the Forward has allowed a response from the "opposition." After the mission of the 25 Orthodox Rabbis and their reports, we may assume that Rubashkin is presently in compliance. Presumably, they have finally "learned their lesson." Nevertheless, we owe it to ourselves and to the Kosher consumer to know what, in fact, did happen at Rubashkin's AgriProcessors. Yes, at the moment it is all allegations. But, let me ask, would Rabbi Pinchos Lipshutz, the self appointed judge of Rubashkin, eat meat that is "allegedly" not kosher? The good rabbi would rather jump out of a window. How dare he reprimand those who reserve judgment while waiting for a disposition of those legitimate allegations.
R Lipscutz's article is a long overdue response to the lynch mob and conspiracy logic that has marked discussions of this issue. I especially commend the author for reminding us that we should never confuse a contemporary political agenda, liberal or conservative, with the views of Halacha. The notion that Halacha is either a purely liberal or conservative perspective should be seen as a proposition that would bend the Torah and Halacha to the wind of the prevailing secular political philosophy.
<p>Kudos to reb Yudel for his answer. as for Pinny's article, I think it's largely disingenous. Sure, it's a bad thing to join the lynch mob, but to pretend that everything is kosher veyosher in Agri is beyond ridiculous.</p> <p>Even Rockland kosher, a hassidic supermarket, dropped Agri 3 years ago and switched to Alle. Now when the hassidim throw one of their own under the bus, you know something is seriously worng.</p> <p>Besides, Lipshitz and the delegation were expected, and the Rubashkins made sure to give the best impression possible - on people who are experts in neither kashrus, meat koshering/processing or work safety & workers' rights. And why does he get a free pass on employing illegal immigrants? It's grand time the frum community stands up against illegal immigration and defrauding the welfare programs instead of employing our own people and be self sufficient. </p>
No Sandy it's you who doesn't know what you are talking about. Rubashkin is a cancer on the Jewish community and those who defend it only encourage what my wife so brilliantly describes as the "New York Jewish mentality" that somehow American law doesn't apply to religious Jews. Malcolm Muggeridge would have been appalled!
Living in Brooklyn, I have seen many instances of so-called observant Jews doing disgraceful acts. I for one am glad that this episode of "kosher" meat has shown light on these low moral standards. Here is one example from Rabbie Lischutz's statement that show he lacks humanity that I expect from upstanding citizens: "But can the company’s human resources department be faulted for being duped by false identifications? On our visit we discovered that Agriprocessors has instituted the federal E-Verification system in order to insure that false IDs will no longer be accepted for employment." The employees at the plant did not speak English, nor did they speak Spanish. They had no idea that their papers were not legal. This statement suggests that the employees were duping the innocent Agriprocessors,
Oops! I accidentally posted my comments. "But can the company’s human resources department be faulted for being duped by false identifications?" To continue my point, this suggests that these recent immigrants who didn't speak English or Spanish somehow fooled these modern business people. Those nasty Guatemalan Indians! They sure pulled something over these "Cadillac" operators, these fine men of upstanding values, who had nothing in their hearts but the desire to help their fellow human being. C'mon. You really think that these fearful immigrants were so well versed in the the intricacies of the federal E-Verification system? No. The employees had no idea they were doing anything illegal, and from what I can guess, the people providing the false IDs were part of the process that screwed over the humans trying to make an honest buck. From what little I have seen, these immigrants were more willing to make an honest buck than Rabbi Pichos Lipschutz, who is more interested in white-washing the truth than in a real dialogue. He says "Let us not confuse accusations with facts, nor discard the presumption of innocence until proven guilty." Then maybe he would like to presume the innocence of the immigrants for one second. Maybe he should share his huge reserve of humanity for the victims in this case, not just for the generous owners who shower their employees with bottled water.
The Rubashkins are friends to their employees the way, lehavdil, Colonel Sanders is a friend to his chickens. Nu, shoyn gezukt!
While we all have faults the objective is to weigh the benefits derived from the rubashkins. The liberals have an agenda that they are trying to impose on the rest of us. The unions under the guise of helping the downtrodden workers have created an inflation by demanding increases in wages raising the costs of the products, only to have those increases granted to the workers placing the workers into a higher tax bracket. Each group seeks what is beneficial to themselves disregarding the fact that the company that is providing jobs has to make a profit otherwise there is no reason for it to exist.