Wal-Mart’s curious sweetheart deal

Back in February, we learned about Wal-Mart agreeing to pay a fine as part of a federal investigation into a series of child-labor law violations. It was a ridiculously good deal for the corporate behemoth — Wal-Mart had allegedly run afoul of 24 violations in several states, including having minors operating dangerous heavy machinery

The agreement between the Labor Department and the company, however, went well beyond the norm. Not only was the agreement kept secret for weeks, but it also included a provision that promised to give Wal-Mart 15 days’ notice before the Labor Department investigates any other “wage and hour” accusations. In other words, Bush’s Labor Department found a company violating child-labor laws, then promised to give the company lots of warning before they check again in the future. A Labor Department investigator asked at the time, “With child labor cases involving the use of hazardous machinery, why give 15 days’ notice before we can do an investigation? What’s the rationale?”

After pressure from congressional Dems, the Labor Department looked into the sweetheart deal. It turns out the “arrangement” was even worse than originally thought.

The Labor Department’s inspector general strongly criticized department officials yesterday for “serious breakdowns” in procedures involving an agreement promising Wal-Mart Stores 15 days’ notice before labor investigators would inspect its stores for child labor violations.

The report by the inspector general faulted department officials for making “significant concessions” to Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest retailer, without obtaining anything in return. The report also criticized department officials for letting Wal-Mart lawyers write substantial parts of the settlement and for leaving the department’s own legal division out of the settlement process.

The report said that in granting Wal-Mart the 15-day notice, the Wage and Hour Division violated its own handbook. It added that agreeing to let Wal-Mart jointly develop news releases about the settlement with the department violated Labor Department policies.

Bush’s Labor Department was doing special favors for a company that contributed heavily to Republicans, even after it’s caught repeatedly violating child-labor laws? Who would have guessed?

Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), who requested the inspector general’s investigation in the first place, said, “The sweetheart deal put Wal-Mart employees at risk, undermined government effectiveness, and further undermined public confidence that the government is acting on its behalf.” Sounds right to me.

Lax enforcement of child labor laws– is it inappropriate to recall that Karl Rove’s favorite era of American history is the Gilded Age?

Gimme a shovel– I’m going to go dig up Ida Tarbell.

  • Two short poems come to mind:

    The Golf Links
    Sarah N. Cleghorn (1876-1959)

    The golf links lie so near the mill
    That almost every day
    The laboring children can look out
    And see the men at play.

    Child Labor
    Charlotte Perkins Gilman (1860-1935)

    No fledgling feeds the fatherbird,
    No chicken feeds the hen,
    No kitten mouses for the cat —
    This glory is for men.

    We are the wisest, strongest race:
    Long may our praise be sung —
    The only animal alive
    That lives upon its young!

  • Slightly off-topic, but I’d love to know what Scalito thinks of this. I’d wager that he’d have no problem with Wal-Mart employing 5-year-olds for pennies a day.

    If someone can point out a record of Scalito being anti-union and pro-management on a consistent basis, I suspect a bunch of Italian-Americans– particularly those whose parents or grandparents put their lives on the line for union and labour rights– would immediately agree that Scalito is a cretin. As if that’s not obvious enough anyway.

    We Italian-Americans have a very proud heritage in standing up to oppressive management, and struggling valiantly on behalf of our fellow working men and women. I see a resurgence in interest in labour rights and backlash against the Wal-Marts of the world, and I sense that many interesting court cases will start cropping up over the next generation. I have to wonder where Scalito stands on this kind of stuff.

  • You know, I’ve always suspected this, but now it’s been proven. GoatChowder, ahem, you are a secret plant from England. Please keep your non-american assetions to yourself.
    🙂 🙂 hee, hee. I mean, re your spelling of labor: “…see a resurgence…in labour…”

    Snark, snark…

  • As a fellow Italian-American (among other things), I agree with you, goatchowder – no matter how you spell “labor”.

    At least these guys are consistent. They let energy company execs write our energy policy, so it’s only fair that Wal-Mart write its own settlement agreement. I mean, that’s pretty much what their campaign contributions paid for, right?

    So what’s the upshot of all this? Is the settlement agreement now null and void? Is anyone at Labor going to be fired, demoted, reprimanded? (she asked hopelessly).

  • In Italy, they use the European spelling of English words. So where’s the inconsistency 🙂

    Actually, I was born and raised in Noo Yawk. But after seeing it everywhere on the Internets, I’ve come to prefer the UK-ish spelling. It just looks more “correct” to me for some reason. In forums and lists including people from many countries, I tend to defer to the European-style spelling.

    But if I need to “represent” da Bronx, I can let loose a string of foul-mouthed attitude– in bastardised American spelling– that’d do Joe Pesci proud.

  • Comments are closed.