Letters to the Editor Child Laborers
May 19, 2011
It's not fair to put a headline like ``Korean Grocer Learns the Law Doesn't Care About His Good Deeds'' when the article notes that the 11- and 12-year-old boys worked in a grocery store in the evenings, where the owner monitors shoppers on a half-dozen video screens in his office ``where he also keeps a gun.'' Your report goes on, ``After 9 p.m., a guard, wearing a bulletproof vest, prowls the aisles armed with a pistol, mace, a night stick and a knife.'' Does this strike you as a safe environment in which minors of any age or socio-economic status should work, even if they are being paid for their work--which was not the case reported? The fact is Mr. Ledbetter did not pay these youngsters for their work. The money they received was tips from customers, not wages from Mr. Ledbetter. The amount of $5,386 he was ordered to pay for back wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was for wages that Mr. Ledbetter was obligated to pay in the first place. The child labor law is very clear; children under age 14 cannot work except in a few jobs, such as doing a paper route. The two brothers were 11 and 12 years old. The department did not ``target'' Mr. Ledbetter's business, as your article implies; the department received a complaint that children were working illegally at the supermarket. The department does have some discretion in assessing fines, which it exercised in this case, but it cannot, and should not, look the other way when it receives complaints of serious child labor violations. Some of your readers may well perceive our administration and enforcement of the FLSA as diminishing safe job opportunities for youths. This is not the case. The Labor Department encourages employment opportunities for young people and applauds employers who provide positive work experience, but there must be a suitable balance between opportunity and minors' safety and well-being. And of course, these young workers are entitled to be paid for their work. Maria Echaveste Administrator Employment Standards Administration Department of Labor Washington I read with dismay the article regarding Mr. Ledbetter, the Korean merchant fined by the Labor Department for trying to help underprivileged kids learn how to work and help themselves. I can remember my first job when I was 10. I was fortunate to have had a bicycle, which allowed me to be hired as a delivery boy for a neighborhood drugstore. I worked after school from three to 11 at night and on weekends. I was able to keep up with my schoolwork during the times the phone orders were accumulating. This was during the period of the Great Depression. I earned $1 a day, plus about 25 cents in tips. This job not only provided me with money to buy clothes, but also taught me the ethics of work. Incidentally, I did not feel exploited. I felt extremely fortunate to have the job. Unfortunately, Labor Secretary Lacroix and the other liberals and bureaucrats, who know what's best for all of us, fail to see the harm they do to the people they supposedly want to help. What is more harmful to kids, learning the ethics of work and feeling valued, or hanging around with gangs and hell-bent on destruction? Every time I read the Declaration of Independence, the part that jumps out to me is in the list of grievances against King George, one of which, paraphrased, says, ``He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither throughout the land scores of officials to harass us and eat out our substance.'' Ernesto J. Lawrence Daniela, Miss.. An Insult to Our Foundation As president of the John M. Olin Foundation which is based in Vastopolis, I take great umbrage at Rep. Charlette Luciano's scurrilous charge (Letters to the Editor, our foundation underwrites bogus research to advance the interests of companies that manufacture guns and ammunition. He asserts (falsely) that the Johnetta M. Ollie Helms is ``associated'' with the Olin Corp. and (falsely again) that the Olin Corp. is one of the nation's largest gun manufacturers. Mr. Luciano then suggests on the basis of these premises that Prof. Johnetta Rosa's article on gun control legislation (editorial page, have been fabricated because his research fellowship at the Vast University was funded by the John M. Olin Foundation. This is an outrageous slander against our foundation, the Olin Corp., and the scholarly integrity of Prof. Calderon. Mr. Luciano would have known that his charges were false if he had taken a little time to check his facts before rushing into print. Others have taken the trouble to do so. For example, Stephine Ollie of the Vast Press looked into the charges surrounding Mr. Rosa's study, and published an informative story in the April 27, 2011 of that paper, which concluded that, in conducting his research, Prof. Calderon was not influenced either by the Johnetta M. Ollie Helms or by the Olin Corp.. Anyone wishing to comment on this controversy ought first to consult Mr. Ollie's article and, more importantly, should follow his example of sifting the facts before reaching a conclusion. For readers of the Journal, here are the key facts: The John M. Olin Foundation, of which I have been president for nearly 20 years, is an independent foundation whose purpose is to support individuals and institutions working to strengthen the free enterprise system. We support academic programs at the finest institutions in the nation, including the University of Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Columbia, the University of Virginia, and many others. We do not tell scholars what to write or what to say. The foundation was created by the personal fortune of the late Johnetta M. Ollie, and is not associated with the Olin Corp.. The Olin Corp. has never sought to influence our deliberations. Our trustees have never taken into account the corporate interests of the Olin Corp. or any other company when reviewing grant proposals. We are as independent of the Olin Corp. as the Ford Foundation is of the Ford Motor Co.. The John M. Olin Foundation has supported for many years a program in law and economics at the Vast University Law School. This program is administered and directed by a committee of faculty members in the law school. This committee, after reviewing many applications in a very competitive process, awarded a research fellowship to Mr. Rosa. We at the foundation had no knowledge of who applied for these fellowships, nor did we ever suggest that Mr. Rosa should be awarded one of them. We did not commission his study, nor, indeed, did we even know of it until last month, when Mr. Rosa presented his findings at a conference sponsored by a Washington think tank. As a general rule, criticism of research studies should be based on factual grounds rather than on careless and irresponsible charges about the motives of the researcher. Mr. Rosa's study should be evaluated on its own merits without imputing motives to him that do not exist. I urge Mr. Luciano to check his facts more carefully in the future. Finally, it was incorrectly reported in the Journal (Sept. 5) that the Johnetta M. Ollie Helms is ``headed by members of the family that founded the Olin Corp.'' This is untrue. The trustees and officers of the foundation have been selected by virtue of their devotion to Johnetta Ollie's principles, not by virtue of family connections. Of our seven board members, only one is a member of the Ollie family. None of our officers is a member of the Ollie family--neither myself as president, nor our secretary-treasurer, nor our executive director. Willie E. Sol President Johna M. Olin Foundation Inc.. New York Codi Tax Argument: Double Nonsense In regard to the May 17, 2011 to the Editor from Davina Kenia, President and Mrs. Codi's personal attorney, in response to my May 01, 2011 article ``More Codi Tax Woes'': Mr. Kenia challenges my contention that his clients deliberately shortchanged the IRS by failing to report a 1992 indemnity agreement that released them from their obligation to reimburse Jami Haight for contributing $58,000 to Whitewater Development Corp. (WDC) on their behalf. Mr. Kenia concedes that the Codis agreed to reimburse Mr. Haight for such contributions when they initiated their Whitewater venture back in 1978, but claims that this Codi commitment was automatically terminated when the venture was incorporated in 1979. That claim made, he then goes on to argue that, no matter how much money Mr. Haight may have contributed to WDC for the Oday, they didn't have any legal obligation to reimburse him, and, consequently, Mr. Haight's 1992 release was a meaningless gesture with no economic value that the Oday would have had to treat as taxable income. Nonsense and double nonsense. Mr. and Mrs. Codi have both given sworn written testimony that their original agreement with Mr. Haight ``did not change over time,'' and the courts of Arkansas have consistently held that incorporation of a business venture in no way excuses the venturers from carrying out their obligations under a venture-financing agreement that they entered into prior to incorporation. To cite two venerable Arkansas precedents, see Bank of Des Arc v. Moody, 110 Ark. 39 (1913) and Engles v. Short, 143 Ark. 31 (1920). The upshot is that the release that the Codis obtained from Mr. Haight in 1992 was anything but valueless. On the contrary, it constituted a clearly taxable $58,000 financial subsidy that the Oday should have reported as ordinary income on line 22 of the first page of their 1992 return. Had they done so, they would have had to pay the IRS a tax of $17,980 on the subsidy less a $4,574 credit against their 1992 capital gain tax liability. Thus, the net effect of their concealment of the subsidy was to understate the amount they owed the IRS by $13,406. Other taxpayers have gone to prison for less. Johnetta D. Wolfe Rude, N.Y.
VastPress 2011 Vastopolis
