I'm about to go off on one of my "we South Dakotans think we are so much better than everyone rants."

You are hereby warned.

Apparently screwing regular, hard-working South Dakotans isn't enough for some in our business "community."  We've grown so used to low pay, poor working conditions, and no unions that it seems only natural that business owners would wonder, "Gee, could I pay people even less and essentially enslave them?"

The answer, for a while here in South Dakota, was "yes."

Check out this press release from the U.S. Department of Justice about that little family operation down Chamberlain way and their unique way of doing business.  Even underpaid South Dakotans making beds for this bunch wasn't enough (Hat tip to South Dakota 123 for finding this):

Robert John Farrell and his wife, Angelita Magat Farrell, owners of a Comfort Inn & Suites hotel in Oacoma, S.D., were sentenced on Friday, Feb. 22, in federal court in Pierre, S.D., for peonage, document servitude, visa fraud, making false statements and conspiracy, the Justice Department announced. Robert John Farrell was sentenced to 50 months of imprisonment. Angelita Magat Farrellwas sentenced to 36 months of imprisonment. Each defendant also wasordered to pay a $15,000 fine and will be placed on three years ofsupervised release following their respective prison terms. Peonage isa condition of involuntary servitude imposed to extract repayment of anindebtedness.

In November 2007, a federal jury convicted the Farrells afterhearing from four victims who had been held in involuntary servitude bythe Farrells. After committing visa fraud to bring Philippine workersinto the United States,the Farrells then enslaved the workers to perform cleaning and frontdesk duties at their hotel. During the trial, the victims described howthe Farrells controlled every aspect of the victims lives, includingwhat they ate, where they lived, and the hours they worked.

The victims described regularly working 16- to 18-hour days. When they finished their duties at the defendants hotel, the victims were then expected to work a second job at local fast food restaurants. One victim testified that she tried to join a Christmas choir,but the defendants told her that her first duty was to pay them backand that she could not spare two hours a week for choir practice. TheFarrells hid their activities by issuing the victims paychecks, whichthe Farrells then required the victims to endorse and return to theFarrells. The victims testified that they had hoped to send money backto their children and families in the Philippines...

Fortunately, U.S. Attorney Marty Jackley--yes, I'll admit, appointed by my favorite crony capitalist Republican, President George W. Bush--felt that this type of exploitation needed to end. 

At least one Republican in South Dakota understands human dignity and where to draw capitalism's bright line here in the land of "family values."  Fortunately, these despicable "business practices" now have less of a chance of catching on in our state where workers are essentially treated as meat.

Photo: "Meat" South Dakota's workers.

Technorati Tags: meat, workers, indentured servitude, slavery, Oacoma, South Dakota, Comfort Innn & Suites, dignity Angelita Magat Farrell, Robert John Farrell

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal Law Blog (subscription required you big cheapskate!) has a review of the book See You in Court that posits that the boom in litigation is the conservatives’ fault.

An excerpt:

Over the weekend the New York Times reviewed “See You in Court,” a new book by Thomas Geoghegan, a Chicago labor lawyer. The book, which the Times describes as a charming rant, serves as a counterpoint to “The Death of Common Sense,” the 1995 bestseller by Philip Howard,now of Covington & Burling, that blamed our litigation-crazed society and massive jury verdicts in tort cases on the plaintiffs bar and over regulation. (Here are more reviews from the Washington Monthly and the Chicago Reader.)

Geohegan’s book, says the Times, places the blame at the feet of the conservative revolution and big business. How so? He argues thatworkers and others no longer have contracts they can enforce. In theold days, a big chunk of the workforce was covered under collectivebargaining agreements, which provided for arbitration. Now, “lacking contracts, they are reduced to making wild allegations and asking forextravagant damages in suits that mostly fail but that sometimes payoff like a lottery ticket.” …

I come to a similar conclusion as Mr. Geoghegan based on my own experience as a litigator here in South Dakota but for different reasons.  (So, this is not very scientific but rather observational.)  I think if you check the lawsuit filings in the Sioux Falls Business News, you’ll see that many of them are either business v. business or business v. consumer/debtor.  Believe me, most lawyers, even lawyers who bill themselves as personal injury lawyers, are careful about what cases actually make it to litigation because of costs involved and the possibility of being “poured out” as my Texas colleagues say—a zero dollar verdict.

Perhaps some USD Law professor could write an article about litigation trends in South Dakota; i.e., who is litigating for how much and if this is an increase over previous years.  I am also a member of the Kansas Bar Association and one of their recent KBA Journal lead articles noted that litigation in Kansas state courts was actually DECREASING because of mediation and other ADR.

Anyway, it’s all just something that makes you want legally go “hmmm.”

(Cross-posted to SDW @ KELOLAND.com) 

Technorati Tags: litigation, conservatives, employment law, torts, contract law, litigation boom, South Dakota, South Dakota courts, Kansas, Kansas courts, Kansas Bar Association

Powered by ScribeFire.

Bonnie Russell, one of the backers of last fall’s ill-fated Amendment E that would have destroyed our system of government in South Dakota, is back in the press but on a completely different note—what employers can’t ask prospective employees in job interviews.

She’s featured in none other than the Christian Science Monitor in a very good story on employment discrimination.

Some excerpts:

Over the course of a long career in public relations, Bonnie Russell has been interviewed for numerous jobs. But not all companies have made the process easy – or legally correct.

As a college student, Ms. Russell applied to a public relations firm where Barry Goldwater was a client. “Are you a Republican or Democrat?” the interviewer asked her. “I was so brand-new I answered the question,” she says. “And no, I didn’t get the job.”

Later, when Russell lived in Utah, religion came up in indirect ways in interviews. She learned to answer vaguely.

Then, as years passed, what she calls “the age question” became a factor. She says, “I answered first with a laugh before sweetly adding, ‘You should know I’m old enough to know that questions alluding to age shouldn’t be asked.’ ”

I know some of my colleagues in the SDBlogOSphere had a rather rocky relationship with Bonnie, but while the two of us disagreed on “E”, she was always friendly and polite to me.  And, the employment discrimination lawyer in me suggests you read the article about what is allowed and not allowed in job interviews.  

Click here to read the full posting: http://thunewatch.squarespace.com/the-epp-law-report/2005/12/8/beware-the-office-christmas-party.html

Workers of the world unite, er, read! Understand what you are signing when you start a new job.One of the things I see regularly in my employment law practice is a company using an acknowledgment form that the employee has received, and sometimes even said they have read, the employee handbook.

This makes it difficult for the employee to later say that they didn't know about certain policies or that the handbook did not create any type of employment contract.

What I am now seeing are some local companies, primarily larger companies, including a waiver of litigation rights and that any legal dispute the employee has must go through first an internal dispute resolution  process then binding arbitration.

The ones I have seen are quite clear about this, so I don't believe it is always an underhanded tactic.  However, many workers, happy to have a new job, simply sign the forms.

If you don't understand what you are signing, talk to your human resources person or retain an attorney to review the documents for you.

Obviously, if you want to work for the company and you don't have a separate employment agreement, the company is probably not going to retain you if you don't sign the acknowledgement and the waiver. (Whether it is an adhesive contract is a question for another day.)

Larger corporations based on the Coasts often face long state and federal court dockets.  That is not really the case here in South Dakota in my experience.

Also, I don't necessarily have a philosophical problem with alternative dispute resolution or arbitration.  It can be a cheaper and quicker means for hearing disputes.  I also believe most arbitrators are fair.  Many are former judges and experienced trial lawyers and have a good sense of the law, the issues, and the value of a case.

The worker needs to understand, however, that if things go south in the employment relationship and there is a need to sue for discrimination, breach of contract, etc., the employee may be faced with arbitration and barred from litigation in the courts.

So, read what you sign carefully when you start that new job!

Disclaimer: This is not intended as legal advice.  Your situation may be different, based on the facts of your case and the jurisdiction you live in.  If you believe you have a legal issue, contact a competent attorney in your jurisdiction or contact your state or local bar association for a referral.

Workers won a victory from the United States Supreme Court this week.

The high court said that workers' time spent walking from the dressing room to their work location if they have to change into special clothing so they can do their jobs is compensable.

An excerpt from Lexis Nexis:

U.S. High Court: Time Spent Walking To, From Production Area Is Compensable

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Employees who must don protective clothing before engaging in their work must be compensated under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for the time spent walking between the changing and production area, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled today (IBP, Inc. v. Gabriel Alvarez, et al., No. 03-1238, Abdela Tum, et al. v. Barber Foods Inc. d/b/a Barber Foods, No. 04-66, U.S. Sup.; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 8373).