[CSM]

I have negotiated many "contract labor" contracts and the bottom line is that the benefits of dealing with contract labor is the flexibility that comes with it. The hiring, firing, personnell record management, tax management, etc. are all part of the package deal. A company hires contract labor by paying a contract company to perform all functions of providing that labor. It has to be assumed that the company you pay for that service is at minimum obeying the laws of the appropriate levels of government. Why should any company be blamed for the practices that the management of a hired company undertake? The whole point of the agreement is that that contract company would undertake this responsibility and receive compensation for those activities.

[Bonaparte]

" The whole point of the agreement is that that contract company would undertake this responsibility and receive compensation for those activities."

In general, that's true. The problem arises when the client company knew or should have known that the contractor was in violation of the law, but went ahead anyway. At that point, they become complicit.

[tsomer]

...The whole point of the agreement is that that contract company would undertake this responsibility and receive compensation for those activities.

Suppose the contract company is in effect a shell corporation set up by the client company in order to insulate itself from these liabilities? Suppose company memos are found that establish this?

I'm sure the whole story hasn't been told, but the fact that Walmart's name is featured raises this suspicion.