[Avodah] Glatt Yosher?

[Jacob Farkas]

R' Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote:
> : If I eat meat from a plant that doesn't pay its workers on time or
> : transgresses Tza'ar Baalei Chaim, the plant owner goes to Gehenom. If 
> I eat meat that isn't kosher, _I_ go to Gehenom. Hence, no discussion vis-?-vis
> : the plant owner's responsibility.

As we are not the arbiters deciding who goes to Geihinom and for what, I 
think it would be best to stick to the Issurim involved rather than 
supposing the Oneshim for their transgressions.

There is nothing Mehadrin to buy food from a cruel company, one known to 
be abusive to its workers. Not paying on time is not the real issue 
(albeit an important one), failing to provide adequate safety training, 
coupled with unsafe working conditions, leading to accidental 
amputations is more along the lines of the discussion of companies who 
are not Yosher.

Furthermore, does not your argument invalidate the reasoning behind the 
El-Al boycott?

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> If we as a kehillah refused to buy from someone who didn't follow
> choshein mishpat or caused tza'ar ba'alei chaim, he would have the
> financial insentive to stop. As individuals, are we not mesayei'ah
> lidevar aveirah by not participating in such boycotts?

The company only has incentive to stop if there are other options. The 
lure of lower prices and lack of other options can only be challenged by 
religious incentive, loss of Hekhsher, or boycotts led by Rabannim.

> BTW, it's very hard for a plant to violate tza'ar ba'alei chaim. It takes
> very little benefit to people for tza'ar to be technically permissable.

Not so difficult to violate either actual TZBH or akhzariyos...

In http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol17/v17n079.shtml#08 I quoted the 
Trumas Hadeshen (most lenient position regarding TZBH and profit)

"Trumas HaDeshen [Volume 2 siman 105] has a different approach
altogether. He considers animals to be created for man's use, D'lo 
nivre'u kol habrios raq l'shameish es haAdam, and therefore, should 
there be a profit involved in a process that could be detrimental to the 
animal, it would still be permitted, as the needs of the person outweigh 
the condition of the animal. TZBH, in his view, is limited to needless 
pain and suffering that have no bearing on human benefit (profit being 
human benefit in his view).

Nevertheless, Trumas HaDeshen does conclude, that although there is no
Issur of TZBH, there are reasons to avoid cruel practices as they are
nonetheless considered Akhzorios. He brings as an example the story of
Rabbee and the calf, where Rabbee suffered for years as a result of his
behavior towards the calf, although Shehitah is permitted."

--Jacob