Employment

Antitrust in the Workplace

Seeking to end one of the last remaining forms of indentured servitude in the United States, the Federal Trade Commission has issued a final rule that would largely ban the ability of companies to prevent employees from taking a job with a competing firm. The change would remove shackles from an estimated 30 million workers.

This is a bold move by the FTC, which normally handles cases involving anti-competitive practices by individual companies and which has traditionally focused on consumer protection rather than worker rights. The agency argues that eliminating non-competition clauses will not only help workers but will indirectly benefit consumers by stimulating business formation and reducing market concentration.

There appears to be broad support for the FTC action. The agency said that, of the 26,000 comments it received on the proposed rule on non-competes issued last year, over 25,000 endorsed the change. Corporations, on the other hand, are outraged at the rule. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce issued a statement calling it “another attempt at aggressive regulatory proliferation.” The Chamber, which vowed to bring a legal challenge, also argued that the issue should be left up to the states, most of which currently allow non-competes.

Non-competition restrictions are fundamentally a form of wage suppression. Workers barred from taking a job with a rival company are in a weaker bargaining position when it comes to pay. As such, non-competes serve the same function for employers as two other anti-competitive practices: non-poaching agreements and wage-fixing arrangements.

The first of those are agreements among companies not to hire people from one another. Workers, whether or not they are subject to a non-competition agreement, are thus in effect blacklisted if they apply for a position at another firm. The Justice Department has brought several cases as criminal matters and has faced a series of setbacks in court.

Private plaintiffs’ lawyers, on the other hand, have won a few dozen settlements in civil class actions. The largest no-poach settlement occurred in 2015, when Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe Systems agreed to pay a total of $415 million to class action plaintiffs. Cases have also involved blue-collar occupations such as truck drivers and railcar assembly workers.

Wage-fixing, analogous to price-fixing, occurs when employers in a specific labor market agree not to pay wages above a certain level. DOJ has had limited success in its prosecutions in this area as well, but here too there have been some substantial civil settlements. The most significant of these have occurred in the poultry processing industry, where companies including Pilgrim’s Pride have paid over $40 million in settlements. Several other settlements, including a $60 million agreement with Perdue Farms, are awaiting final court approval. Groups of hospitals in Michigan and upstate New York have paid over $70 million to resolve allegations they conspired to depress the wages of nurses.

The FTC’s regulatory initiatives, along with these court cases, constitute an aggressive use of antitrust law to address employer abuses. They offer significant hope for reducing the severe imbalance of power between employers and workers in U.S. labor markets.

A Challenge to Intrusive Workplace Monitoring

One of the drawbacks of the growing presence of electronic technology in the labor process is the ability of managers to conduct continuous surveillance of workers. Those who toil at computers have their keystrokes measured and evaluated, while others are monitored via handheld scanners or other devices.

U.S. corporations think they have every right to use these techniques in the pursuit of maximum output and higher profits. As Amazon.com has just learned, that may not be so easy when it comes to their European operations. The e-commerce giant was just fined the equivalent of $35 million for employing an “excessively intrusive” system of electronic monitoring of employee performance at its warehouses in France.

The French Data Protection Authority (CNIL) said it was illegal for Amazon to measure movements of workers to such an extent that they would have to justify every moment of inactivity. CNIL condemned Amazon not only for using what it called “continuous pressure” but also for retaining the monitoring data for too long.

CNIL’s case was based on the European law known as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which includes a principle largely unknown in the United States: data minimization. Americans are used to giving up vast amounts of personal information to corporations. In Europe, companies are supposed to restrain their data appetites.

That message has not gotten through to American firms operating in the EU, especially the tech giants. Meta Platforms, the parent of Facebook, has been fined more than $5 billion for GDPR penalties—far more than any other company. Alphabet Inc., parent of Google, has racked up over $900 million in fines. Even Amazon has previously run afoul of the law. In 2021 it was fined over $800 million for misusing the personal data of customers. An appeal is pending.

What is relatively unusual about the latest fine against Amazon is that it involves GDPR violations in the relationship between employers and workers, as opposed to companies and their customers. Employment-based cases are not unheard of. In fact, Amazon itself was fined over $2 million for improperly doing criminal background checks on freelance drivers.

What makes the new case even more remarkable is that it concerns not only personal information but also the labor process. The CNIL’s challenge to Amazon’s monitoring is a challenge to its ability to control what workers do every moment they are on the job.

By restricting intrusive employee monitoring, the GDPR is being used to shield workers from the worst forms of exploitation. And because excessive monitoring pressures workers to do their job in an unsafe manner, the law also protects against occupational injuries. In other words, it is challenging management domination of the workplace.

It remains to be seen whether the CNIL and the other agencies enforcing the GDPR in Europe go after other employers engaged in intensive monitoring or if they treat Amazon as an outlier requiring a unique form of enforcement. For now, at least, the CNIL has shown the possibility of using privacy regulation to enhance the liberty and well-being of workers.

A Harebrained Response to Labor Shortages

At a time of widespread labor shortages, one might expect policymakers to welcome asylum seekers and economic migrants eager for an opportunity to make a living in the United States. Instead, as the Washington Post reports, legislators in some states have come up with a harebrained proposal for filling those jobs: loosening the restrictions on child labor.

Lawmakers in Wisconsin lifted restrictions on working hours during the school year, but the measure was vetoed by the governor. The Ohio Senate passed a similar bill but it died in the House. Even worse are bills introduced in Iowa and Minnesota that would allow teens as young as 14 to work in dangerous occupations such as meatpacking and construction.

It is unclear whether these legislators are aware that labor activists and social reformers fought for many years in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries to restrict the exploitation of children in factories, mines, mills and other workplaces. They eventually made progress at the state level, leading to the passage of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938. The FLSA barred young workers from some occupations and limited the hours they could work in others, both for safety reasons and to prevent adverse effects on educational attainment. Adoption of strong child labor laws came to be viewed as one of the hallmarks of a humane society.

While the FLSA and state regulations eliminated the worst forms of child labor, they did not end abuses entirely. Violation Tracker documents more than 4,000 cases over the past two decades in which an employer paid a penalty for breaking the rules. The fines imposed in these cases amount to $99 million, or an average of about $24,000 per case—a reflection of the fact that penalty levels are far from harsh.

Most child labor violators are small firms, but some large corporations have also committed the offense. Chipotle Mexican Grill has the highest penalty total, mainly due to a $7.75 million settlement the company reached in 2022 with the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development. An audit conducted by the agency of Chipotle outlets had found over 30,000 violations across the state. Two years earlier, Chipotle reached a $1.87 million settlement with the Massachusetts Attorney General over child labor and other wage and hour violations.

Among the other big companies with substantial child labor penalties from multiple cases are: CVS Health ($464,099), Albertsons ($337,790) and Walmart ($317,378).

Most child labor violations are related to potential harm to young workers, but there are also cases in which the harm is real and even deadly. A 2018 report by the Government Accountability Office cited estimates that workers aged 17 and under sustain thousands of injuries each year. That same report included data showing that work-related fatalities for that same age group totaled 452 for the period from 2003 to 2016. The largest numbers of deaths were in agriculture, followed by construction and mining.

The sensible response to all these statistics would be to tighten the rules regarding child labor, not to weaken them. There are better ways to address labor shortages.

Toxic Corporate Culture

Most large companies like to brag about their corporate culture, seeing it as a key factor in their success. Yet when an independent assessment is done, the results may tell a very different story.

The latest example of this is taking place at the Anglo-Australian mining giant Rio Tinto Group, which has operations in more than 30 countries. A report commissioned by the company from an outside expert paints a dismal picture of workplace culture in its mines and other facilities around the world.

Elizabeth Broderick, Australia’s former sex discrimination commissioner, conducted an investigation that included a survey completed by more than 10,000 employees as well as more than 100 group listening sessions, 85 confidential individual interviews, and 138 written submissions.

Based on all this, Broderick found that Rio Tinto’s workplace culture is marked by widespread bullying, sexual harassment and racism. She found that the harmful behavior was not limited to the male-dominated manual workforce. Managers, including those at senior levels, often tolerated the behavior or even demonstrated it themselves.

Among the most disturbing findings was that 21 female employees reported experiencing actual or attempted rape or sexual assault during the past five years.

High percentages of the employees had not reported the various forms of mistreatment, believing either that their concerns would not be taken seriously or that they might face repercussions for filing a complaint. Broderick writes: “Employees believe that there is little accountability, particularly for senior leaders and so called ‘high performers’, who are perceived to avoid significant consequences for harmful behaviour.”

In a company press release about the report, CEO Jakob Stausholm stated: “I feel shame and enormous regret to have learned the extent to which bullying, sexual harassment and racism are happening at Rio Tinto.” The implication was that the revelations came as a surprise, thus making management somewhat less culpable.

Yet Stausholm and other senior executives must have been well aware of the problems for some time. The Broderick report was commissioned in response to previous revelations, such as those that emerged from a West Australia parliamentary inquiry last year.

Moreover, Rio Tinto does not exactly have an unblemished track record when it comes to the treatment of employees or the communities in which it operates. Mining industry critic Danny Kennedy once called the company—a frequent target of criticism over its policies relating to the environment, labor relations, and human rights—“a poster child for corporate malfeasance.”

In the area of human rights, Rio Tinto’s sins include having operated a uranium mine in Namibia, in violation of United Nations decrees, during a period in which apartheid-era South Africa still occupied the country. It has also been accused of abuses at mines in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. A lawsuit was filed against Rio Tinto in the United States under the Alien Tort Claims Act, alleging that the company colluded with local authorities in Papua New Guinea to violently suppress protests. It was ultimately dismissed.

In 2020 Rio Tinto’s then-CEO Jean-Sebastian Jacques was pushed out after shareholders demanded he face more serious consequences in the wake of a decision to destroy ancient rock shelters in Australia’s Juukan Gorge that were sacred to two Aboriginal groups.

The question now surrounding Rio Tinto is whether it will see the Broderick report as more than a public relations problem to overcome and make meaningful changes throughout its operations, including the policies adopted by those at the top.

Striking Back

The media these days is full of what amounts to employer propaganda. The setbacks in the organizing drives at Amazon are called signs that unions are obsolete. The difficulties that low-wage companies are having in refilling positions are presented as justification for terminating enhanced unemployment compensation. The long-overdue upward movement in wages is depicted as part of a dangerous trend toward inflation.

The Washington Post has just bucked this trend by publishing an account of a labor conflict in Kansas that reminds us that certain unpleasant realities persist in the workplace and that some old-fashioned ways of responding to them are still suitable.

Hundreds of workers at a Frito-Lay snack food plant in Topeka went on strike earlier this month to protest work schedules that sound like something out of the 19^th Century. Many of the employees were being forced to work seven days a week and up to 12 hours per shift, creating workweeks that could reach 84 hours.

The reason for this is that demand for Cheetos and Doritos has been robust, and Frito-Lay wants to make the most of it. Fortunately, the workers are represented by the Bakery union (BCTGM), so they are not completely at the mercy of management. Yet the company is said to have rebuffed calls from the union to hire more workers and is taking a hard line in contract renewal negotiations.

Frito-Lay’s retrograde management style started long before the current dispute. The company, a division of the soft drink giant PepsiCo, has a record of workplace abuses dating back at least two decades. This can be seen in Violation Tracker, which documents 29 cases since 2000.

These include seven cases in which Frito-Lay had to provide back-pay to workers to settle unfair labor practice charges as well as 13 cases in which it was penalized by OSHA for health and safety violations.

But perhaps what is most remarkable about Frito-Lay is that it has been sued repeatedly for wage and hour abuses and has paid out more than $23 million to settle five different collective action lawsuits. The largest of these was an $11.9 million settlement back in 2001 involving driver-salespersons. In 2018 the company paid $6.5 million to settle allegations that it did not provide proper pay to long-haul drivers, including a failure to comply with California law concerning meal and rest breaks.

Frito-Lay’s workplace practices are in keeping with those of its parent. PepsiCo has paid millions more to settle similar lawsuits relating to its Pepsi operations. These include a $5 million settlement in 2018 and a $3 million settlement in 2015. It has also paid fines to the U.S. Labor Department for Fair Labor Standards Act violations.

While some of the circumstances of the Kansas strike stem from the current economy, at its core is the age-old struggle by workers to be treated fairly. Let’s hope that the time-honored tactic of withholding labor is sufficient to get Frito-Lay to do the right thing.

The Infrastructure of Workplace Protection

Republicans are having limited success turning the public against the Biden Administration’s $2 trillion infrastructure plan by claiming the proposal is too wide-ranging. A new NPR poll shows solid support not only for the provisions relating to roads and bridges but also for spending on modernizing the electric grid, achieving universal broadband coverage and even expanding long-term healthcare.

Given the sweeping scope of the proposal, it is not possible for pollsters to ask about every component. I suspect there would also be high numbers for a portion of the plan that has received little attention. That is the provision that would strengthen the capacity of federal departments responsible for enforcing workplace protections.

Biden is proposing that $10 billion be spent to beef up agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Wage and Hour Division. The plan states: “President Biden is calling on Congress to provide the federal government with the tools it needs to ensure employers are providing workers with good jobs – including jobs with fair and equal pay, safe and healthy workplaces, and workplaces free from racial, gender, and other forms of discrimination and harassment.”

It makes sense to push for improvements in job quality at the same time the country is striving to bring the quantity of jobs back to the levels seen before the arrival of Covid-19. Workplace abuses predated the pandemic, in some ways got worse during the past year—especially with regard to job safety in industries such as meatpacking—and will be with us long after the health crisis abates.

Congress has perennially failed to fund these agencies adequately, leaving them with insufficient numbers of inspectors and investigators. For example, the most recent edition of the AFL-CIO’s Death on the Job report notes that the number of workplace safety inspectors declined steadily during the Trump years both at the federal and state levels. These staffing shortages create a form of de factor deregulation as many workplace abuses go undetected and unprosecuted.

Biden’s plan also briefly addresses another problem with workplace enforcement: artificially low penalty structures, especially at OSHA. The Administration calls for increasing these penalties but does not provide specifics.

The penalty situation at OSHA is not as bad as it used to be. Changes made during the Obama Administration, including 2015 legislation that extended inflation adjustments to workplace safety fines, helped raise penalty rates. The maximum for a serious violation is now $13,653 and the maximum for a willful or repeated violation is $136,532.

These maximum amounts do not tell the full story. As Death on the Job points out, the average penalty for a serious violation in fiscal year 2019 was only $3,717. The average for willful violations was $59,373 and for repeat violations it was $14,109. Even in cases involving fatalities, the median penalty was just $9,282.

The cumulative effect of low OSHA penalties can be seen in the data in Violation Tracker, which only includes fines of $5,000 or more. OSHA accounts for 37 percent of the cases in the database but less than 1 percent of the total penalty dollars. Numbers such as these cause too many employers to conclude that their bottom line is best served by skimping on workplace safety and paying the meager fines that may or may not be imposed by OSHA.

The Biden infrastructure plan could begin to change that.

Poverty Wages and Large Corporations

There was a time when landing a job with a large corporation was, even for blue collar workers, a ticket to a comfortable life—good wages, generous benefits and a secure retirement. Women and workers of color did not share fully in this bounty, but they generally did better at big firms than small ones.

All this began to unravel in the 1980s, when big business used the excuse of global competition to chip away at the living standards of the domestic workforce. This took the form of an assault on unions, which had played a key role in bringing about the improvements in the terms of employment. In meatpacking, for instance, what had been a high-wage, high-union-density industry turned into a bastion of precarious labor.

When large corporations off-loaded a substantial portion of their employment costs, they created a higher burden for the public sector. As their pay and benefits shrank, workers turned to the social safety net to fill the gap. Programs such as Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) that were originally designed for employees of small firms and for the unemployed became a lifeline for the workforce at some Fortune 500 companies.

From a social point of view, this was a good thing—but it also created a situation in which taxpayers were in effect subsidizing the labor costs of mega-corporations. This became an issue in the early 2000s with regard to Walmart, and there were unsuccessful efforts in states such as Maryland to require large firms to spend more on employee healthcare.

Although the issue receded from public attention, figures such as Sen. Bernie Sanders have sought to keep it alive, putting the main focus on the employment practices of Amazon.com. In 2018 Sanders helped pressure the giant e-commerce firm to raise its wage rates by introducing legislation that would have taxed large companies to recoup the cost of government benefits given to their employees.

Now the chair of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Sanders is continuing his effort from a position of even greater influence. He just held a hearing on whether taxpayers are subsidizing poverty wages at large corporations. As in 2018, just highlighting the issue had a concrete impact. At the hearing the chief executive of Costco announced that his company would raise its minimum pay rate to $16 an hour. This came a week after Walmart hiked its rate to $15 but only for a portion of its workforce.

After years of wage stagnation, it is heartening to see that large companies are beginning to feel some pressure to boost their wage rates. Yet rises of only a few dollars an hour will not do the trick. Pay needs to be substantially higher than $15 an hour. That’s why the real solution to the problem is not voluntary corporate action but rather collective bargaining. Amazon and Walmart could assist their workers much more by dropping their opposition to unionization.

Having a voice at work would solve not only the pay problem but also the crisis in healthcare coverage and other benefits. The scope of that crisis was made plain by another speaker at the Senate Budget Committee hearing. Cindy Brown Barnes of the Government Accountability Office summarized research showing that an estimated 12 million adults enrolled in Medicaid and 9 million adults living in households receiving food stamp benefits earned wages at some point in 2018.

The GAO had more difficulty determining the portion of these populations employed at large corporations. That is because only a limited number of the state agencies administering Medicaid and food stamps collect and update employer information on recipients.

The partial data is still revealing. Among the six states providing employer information for Medicaid recipients, Walmart was in the top ten in all, while McDonald’s and Amazon were in five. Among the nine states providing employer information for food stamp recipients, Walmart was in the top ten in all, while McDonald’s was in eight and Amazon was in four.

These findings provide valuable information for the Sanders campaign against poverty wages. Companies such as Amazon—which recently reported that its annual revenues in 2020 were up 38 percent and its profits nearly doubled to $21 billion—can well afford to pay employees a living wage and provide the benefits necessary for a decent standard of living.

Public safety net programs are essential to society, but those who are employed by mega-corporations should not have to make use of them.

Solving the Corporate Identity Crisis

Like the Republican Party, Corporate America is embroiled in a battle between its evil impulses and its better angels. Nowhere is this clearer than with regard to environmental policy.

On one side are the ESG proponents such as BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink, who according to the New York Times, is using his firm’s role as a massive institutional investor to pressure corporations to embrace sustainable practices. In his annual letter to companies, he called not just for vague aspirations but specific plans that are incorporated in long-term strategies and reviewed by boards of directors.

General Motors has just announced that it will phase out gasoline-powered cars and trucks and will sell only zero-emissions vehicles by 2035. The company will spend $27 billion developing about 30 types of electric vehicles.

At the same time, fossil fuel companies are going ballistic over the Biden Administration’s plan to suspend oil and gas leasing on federal lands, despite the fact that some 90 percent of exploration occurs on private property and is not affected by the executive order. Biden has also not called for a ban on fracking, despite allegations during the presidential campaign that this was his real plan.

The conflict within the business world was epitomized by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which issued a press release that welcomed the Biden Administration’s focus on climate change while rejecting the leasing action.

There is also a corporate identity crisis with regard to employment practices, especially those in the high-tech sector. For many years, Silicon Valley companies had reputations as great places to work and were even accused of coddling their employees.

Now companies such as Amazon have replaced Walmart as the exemplars of bad employers. That image has intensified as groups of workers have begun to turn to collective action to address their concerns. Rather than embracing the right of employees to have a real voice at work, high-tech employers are adopting old-fashioned union-busting tactics. Amazon has even taken a move from the Donald Trump playbook by opposing mail-in voting during a representation election in Alabama.

The one clear lesson from the corporate inconsistencies is that ESG and other voluntary business practices are no substitute for strong government oversight. We should not have to wait until big business decides whether it really wants to help save the planet or will cling to fossil fuels as long as possible.

We should also not have to wait until giant companies decide whether they will treat their workers with respect or continue to regard them as little more than vassals.

It is thus encouraging that the Biden Administration is taking decisive action to restore effective regulation of both the environment and the workplace as well as areas such as consumer protection. Once agencies such as the EPA, the NLRB and the CFPB go back to enforcing the law in an aggressive manor, corporate ambivalence will become much less relevant and we can be confident that the entire private sector will feel pressured to do the right thing.

The Many Sins of the Tech Giants

The 400-page report just published by the Democratic leadership of the House Judiciary Committee is a damning review of the anti-competitive practices of the big tech companies—Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google’s parent Alphabet.

The report finds that in various portions of the digital world these companies have amassed what amounts to monopoly control and have not hesitated to use it crush or absorb competitors. Comparing the tech giants to the oil barons and railroad tycoons of the late 19^th century, the report calls for aggressive measures such as breaking up the companies and doing more rigorous reviews of proposed mergers and acquisitions in the future.

Among the broader consequences of the rising power of the tech giants are, the report argues: a weakening of innovation and entrepreneurship, a decline in the number of trustworthy sources of news, and an erosion of safeguards for the privacy of personal information.

One aspect of the report that has not received much coverage is the brief discussion of the power of the tech giants in the labor market. This is especially relevant for Amazon, which as the report notes has become one of the largest employers in the country and is exercising monopsony power in sectors such as warehousing and “has wage-setting power through its ability to set route fees and other fixed costs for independent contractors in localities in which it dominates the delivery labor market. These entities are dependent on Amazon for a large majority—or even 100%—of their delivery business.”

Amazon has moved into the position previously held by Walmart—a shamelessly exploitative employer that depresses wages and worsens working conditions not only for its own workers but also for the entire sector in which it operates—and to some extent for the economy as a whole.

The report’s wide-ranging recommendations do not include any remedies for these labor issues, perhaps because they are outside the scope of the Judiciary Committee.

It is worth noting that there are already efforts underway to address the labor practices of the tech giants. Several unions as well as other groups are working with Amazon employees to agitate for better conditions, a process made more difficult by Amazon’s brazen anti-union practices and its widespread use of staffing services to evade its employer responsibilities.

There are also class-action lawsuits challenging unfair employment practices by Amazon and other tech giants. For example, Facebook recently agreed to pay $1.65 million to resolve litigation alleging that it misclassified workers to deprive them of overtime pay. A few years ago, Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe Systems together agreed to pay $415 million to resolve allegations that they conspired not to hire each other’s employees, thus suppressing salary levels.

Taking on the tech giants will require many lines of attack to address the harms they cause to users and employees alike.

The Corporate Marauder Undermining the Postal Service

Donald Trump got elected in part by selling the idea that his business experience would enable him to do a great job of running the government. We see how that turned out. And now we have another veteran of the private sector wreaking havoc on the United States Postal Service.

Louis DeJoy was named postmaster general after spending four decades in the trucking and logistics business, becoming wealthy enough in the process to join the ranks of Republican megadonors. He made his name and his fortune through the creation of a company called New Breed Logistics, which grew to prominence by securing contracts with large corporations such as Boeing as well as the Postal Service.

In 2014 he sold New Breed to the Fortune 500 company XPO Logistics, staying on to run the New Breed operation and serve as a director of XPO until 2018. If we want to get a sense of the management approach DeJoy is bringing to the USPS, we can look at the track record of New Breed and XPO.

As shown in Violation Tracker, XPO and its subsidiaries have racked up a total of $65 million in fines and settlements in more than 70 misconduct cases over the past two decades. Nearly two-thirds of that total comes from wage theft. Last year XPO paid $16.5 million to resolve allegations that for years it misclassified drivers as independent contractors to deny them overtime pay and paid breaks.

This year XPO paid another $5.5 million for wage and hour violations relating to workers at its Last Mile operations. Altogether, XPO and its subsidiaries have had to pay out some $40 million in wage theft lawsuits. Another $3.5 million settlement in a misclassification case brought against an XPO unit and the retailer Macy’s is awaiting final court approval.

Another problem area for XPO is employment discrimination. Two of the cases in this category relate to New Breed Logistics. In 2015 a federal appeals court upheld a $1.5 million jury verdict in a sexual harassment and retaliation case originally filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2010. Also in 2015, New Breed had to pay $90,000 to resolve allegations by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs that it engaged in discriminatory practices at a facility in Texas.

XPO has also been called out for workplace safety and health deficiencies. It has been cited more than 20 times by OSHA for serious, willful and repeated violations.

Along with the mistreatment of workers, the rap sheet of XPO and its businesses includes allegations of cheating the federal government. This comes by way of Emery Worldwide, an air freight company that became part of Con-Way Inc., which was purchased by XPO in 2015.

In 2006 Emery paid $10 million to settle a False Claims Act lawsuit brought by the Justice Department concerning the submission of inflated bills to the Postal Service for the handling of Priority Mail at mail processing facilities during a multi-year contract.

Leave it to the Trump Administration to choose someone to head the Postal Service who was associated with a company linked to fraud committed against that same agency.

XPO continues to do business with the Postal Service, and DeJoy has continued to receive income from the company through leasing agreements at buildings he owns. Even if XPO had a spotless record, DeJoy’s ongoing dealings with it create a glaring conflict of interest.

DeJoy claims to be retreating, at least through the election, from the measures that threatened to create chaos for mail-in ballots. Nonetheless, his corporate marauder’s approach to the management of the Postal Service still poses a grave threat to the future of a vital American institution.