The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“CHILD LABOR” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Labor was published in the Senate section on pages S3195-S3196 on April 5, 2005.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
CHILD LABOR
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, it is with extreme disappointment that I come to the floor today. This week the New York Times ran a story detailing a recent agreement signed between Wal-Mart Stores and the Department of Labor. Wal-Mart was fined just over $135,000 for 24 child labor violations that occurred in New Hampshire, Arkansas, and Connecticut. One of the most egregious violations involved a boy who injured his thumb while using a chain saw to cut Christmas trees. Others were operating cardboard balers and chain saws, which are illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to work on. The $135,000 figure is a paltry figure that demonstrates DOL's lax enforcement policy. A
$135,000 penalty against a company the size of Wal-Mart has the same financial impact as a 40-cent penalty for a million-dollar company. DOL has sent American companies a message with this settlement: violators of child labor laws needn't worry about child labor, even if they are caught.
Beyond this minimal fining of Wal-Mart, the Labor Department recently released new regulations that place young workers at greater risk of serious injuries. The new regulations are the first since the May 2002 release of a report detailing dozens of deficiencies in our Nation's child labor laws. The report, published by NIOSH, recommended over 40 changes in child labor laws to better protect America's employed youth from dangerous jobs and equipment. Since the 2002 release, it is estimated that more than 600,000 child workers have been injured in the United States. Among the disappointments in the new regulations, fast food restaurants can now employ 14- and 15-year-olds to operate deep fryers and grills that are cooled to 100 degrees Fahrenheit. According to NIOSH, however, half of all burn injuries among child laborers occur in fast food restaurants. In another regulatory change, 16- and 17-
year-olds are now allowed to load paper balers and compactors that meet specified safety standards. Since 1954, children under the age of 18 have been prohibited from any contact with these machines. As with cooking, compliance with this standard will require vigilance by employers who put youth in contact with these machines. Unfortunately, the Labor Department requires no specific training for young workers under these new regulations. Issuing regulations that sometimes allow exposure to certain machines, equipment, and hot surfaces, but not to others, is confusing both to workers and employers. It is bound to result in young workers being exposed to greater dangers. Additionally, young workers still work at dangerous heights, on tractors, in pesticide handling, and in exposure to lead and silica. These hazards and more are recognized in the NIOSH report but have yet to be addressed by the Labor Department.
Sadly, this is not the first instance of Wal-Mart employing dangerous and illegal child labor. In March 2000, the State of Maine fined the company $205,650 for violations of child labor laws in every one of its 20 stores in the State. In January 2004, a weeklong internal audit of 128 stores found 1,371 instances in which minors worked too late at night, during school hours, or for too many hours in a day. In the most recent fine levied against Wal-Mart, the average fine per violation is approximately just $5,600. This is about half of DOL's maximum penalty of $11,000 per violation. Wal-Mart banks $285 billion in annual sales. This is not what one would classify a financial hardship.
The most disturbing part of Wal-Mart's settlement with the Labor Department is not even the small and insignificant fines, however. The distressing part of the agreement are the special favors handed out to Wal-Mart. The agreement, which was signed on January 6, was not even made public until now. It took a reporter to question officials about concerns raised by several DOL employees that the agreement gave Wal-
Mart special favors. Those employees have remained anonymous, however, due to their fear of retaliation.
What special favors were given to Wal-Mart? First off, DOL promises to give the retailer 15 days' notice prior to any ``wage and hour'' investigation, like failure to pay minimum wage or overtime. As my colleagues will recall, I have tried for the past year to get the Department of Labor to reverse their damning new overtime provisions which stripped overtime pay benefits from thousands of American workers. This administration's Labor Department continues to stand opposed to respecting worker rights, child labor rights, and overtime rights. But Wal-Mart is really their perfect ally, since they do not allow their workers to unionize. DOL's cozying up to Wal-Mart is outrageous and completely unacceptable. By doling out these special privileges, worker rights in America are taking a giant leap backwards.
The degree to which the current administration has relaxed worker rights should not be seen in a partisan light. Elizabeth Dole, U.S. Secretary of Labor in the first President Bush administration, launched a crackdown amidst record levels of reported child labor law violations in America in 1990. She reminded all Americans that ``the children of America are our future. The Department of Labor will do everything within its power to protect children against those who violate our child labor laws. The first step in this process is to reassess our fine structure and take immediate action to step up enforcement.'' This was the view of a previous Republican Department of Labor. Sadly, we have regressed.
According to John R. Fraser, who was our Government's top wage official under the first President Bush and President Clinton, said the advance-notice provision was unusual. Quoting Mr. Fraser from the New York Times article:
Giving the company 15 days' notice of any investigation is very unusual. The language appears to go beyond child labor allegations and cover all wage and hour allegations. It appears to put Wal-Mart in a privileged positions that to my knowledge no other employ has.
And an anonymous DOL employee, who is a 20-year veteran of the Department's Wage and Hour Division, said ``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?''
I don't know what the rationale is, Mr. President. There is no viable excuse for this agreement. It flies in the face of our labor laws. It seems more than coincidental that this Labor Department which has taken away overtime pay is now coming close to rewarding a corporation for doing the same. Is it mere coincidence also, then, that Wal-Mart gives more money to the Republican Party than any other corporation in America? Wal-Mart's political action committee, the biggest company PAC in America, gave Republicans 81 percent of its $1.3 million in donations in the past 2 years, the highest proportion of any of the top 25 corporate PACs, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, a nonpartisan Washington-based group.
Wal-Mart's top three managers each gave the maximum individual contribution of $2,000 to President Bush's campaign last year and Jay Allen, vice president for corporate affairs went one step further. He raised at least $100,000 to reelect the President, earning him the Bush campaign's designation of ``Pioneer.'' I bet he had to work some overtime to fit that into his busy schedule.
It is often said that money buys influence in Washington, DC. I certainly hope that is not the case here. I would hope that just because Wal-Mart gives so heavily to the Republican Party they are not given special favors by our Republican President. So Mr. President, I urge the Department of Labor to rethink this agreement. How can child labor be investigated if companies are given 2 weeks' advance notice? Of course they will clean up their act temporarily, but what is to stop them from again regressing into their illegal ways? Nothing. There is no incentive. This agreement was completely unwarranted and should be reversed at the earliest possible time.
____________________
