Wal-Mart’s sweetheart deal did not go unnoticed
Following up on the New York Times’ revelation that Wal-Mart benefited from a secret, sweetheart deal with the Labor Department, widespread talk of investigating the arrangement has already begun.
Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) and the Education & the Workforce Committee Dems have already contacted the Labor Department about the need for an internal review of the Wal-Mart deal.
Representative George Miller of California, the senior Democrat on the House Education and Workforce Committee, called on the Labor Department’s inspector general to investigate a $135,540 agreement the department reached with Wal-Mart Stores on Jan. 6 to settle accusations of 24 child labor violations. Mr. Miller said the investigation should consider why the settlement was kept secret for five weeks and why the department agreed to give Wal-Mart 15 days’ notice before conducting wage-and-hour investigations in many cases.
Miller also sent a letter to Labor Secretary Elaine Chao yesterday asking for more information about the arrangement.
The deal is not just generating attention at the federal level; state officials in Connecticut, where the most recent round of Wal-Mart’s child-labor law violations occurred, are also none too pleased.
Wal-Mart allowed nearly 70 teenage employees in Connecticut to operate dangerous machinery over a four-year period, federal Labor Department officials said Monday.
State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal called for a state investigation after federal authorities reported 16- and 17-year-old children operated chain saws, forklifts and paper balers at Connecticut stores. Federal labor law prohibits children under 18 from operating such machinery.
The number of youths involved was disclosed Monday after a weekend announcement that Wal-Mart and the federal Department of Labor had reached an unusual, out of court settlement in January regarding 25 violations of child labor laws — 21 of which took place in Connecticut stores between 1998 and 2002.
Blumenthal indicated that it will fall to the state to look out for its workers if the federal government is prepared to strike these kinds of deals with companies like Wal-Mart.
“In effect [the sweetheart deal] gives the company an unusual, if not unique, amount of time to avoid or even cover up evidence in the future,” Blumenthal said. “And it certainly diminishes the usefulness of any future federal investigation, which is why the state has an obligation to undertake a more proactive and aggressive role.”
Maybe this won’t get swept under the rug after all.