Penalty doesn’t match the foul

By The Gazette Editorial Board

The owners of Henry's Turkey Service have gotten off relatively easy so far.

We're disappointed that accountability for the company, accused of mistreating and exploiting dozens of cognitively disabled men which it had housed in a dilapidated bunkhouse in Atalissa, has so far been lacking.

Last week, a state administrative law judge dramatically reduced the amount the company was fined for violating state labor laws. The status of

investigations into other of the company's alleged abuses is unclear.

What is clear is that all angles of this case should be thoroughly pursued. The men from Atalissa deserve justice, and officials must send a strong message to other would-be exploitative companies.

Henry's Turkey Service

brokered the employment of dozens of cognitively disabled workers at West Liberty Foods, housing them in a schoolhouse-turned-bunkhouse with boarded-up windows and insufficient heat.

After the state fire marshal declared the building uninhabitable, and the workers were removed from Henry's care, several were found to be malnourished.

News reports show the meat processing plant paid Henry's Turkey service as much as $11,000 per week for the men's labor, yet the men received only $65 per month.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has estimated the company, which operated labor camps all over the country, shorted the men in Atalissa at least $1 million in wages in three years.

Iowa Workforce Development had recommended a $1.1 million fine for Henry's Turkey Service's more than 9,000 violations of state labor laws between 2007 and 2009 - making illegal pay deductions, failing to provide pay stubs and failing to pay the workers minimum wage.

A state administrative law judge reduced that fine to just $174,660 last week, throwing out the violations relating to payroll stubs and combining the remaining two types of violations before further reducing the fine.

Sylvia Piper, Iowa Protection and Advocacy Services Executive director, called the decision disappointing, confusing.

“I think it's extremely odd that nobody is basically spanking them because they did not provide the payroll stubs, because they did not operate in an acceptable businesslike fashion,” she told us this week.

“This was a very strange and different manner of operating, and the fact that it was accepted is - I guess unconscionable to me.”

To us, as well.

It's not over - either side can appeal the recent ruling. A similar federal lawsuit against the company still is pending. Other action could come from the EEOC, the Social Security Administration or criminal investigators.

We hope that last week's ruling is an anomaly. Employers must be held accountable for serious violations, especially when they concern vulnerable populations.