十一月的某一天黎明拂曉之際，我去沃爾瑪超市(Wal-Mart)觀察一下美國夢的陰暗面，回家的時候，帶回了圣誕節的彩燈。節儉戰勝了我的使命。最近有關沃爾瑪的訴訟讓人覺得，沃爾瑪的職工正身處一種獨特的美國式的農奴制中。這是我沃爾瑪之行的目的，就是想要去看看那里職工的辛苦工作。

I went to Wal-Mart the other day to gaze on the dark side of the American dream - and I came home with Christmas lights. Frugality got the better of my philosophy. I went to the store, at the crack of a November dawn, determined to feel the pain of the Wal-Mart workforce, which - if lawsuits are any guide - are held in a peculiarly American form of serfdom.

    據稱被壓低的工資、超常的工作時間、社保的不足和不公平的提升機制，這些待遇把沃爾瑪的工人推向一個老話題：美國是怎樣掙錢的？

Allegedly underpaid, overworked, under-insured and unfairly promoted, Wal-Mart workers have been thrustsintosthe centre of a very old argument about how America makes its money.

    剝削那些移民的勞動對不對？即便說他們甘愿冒貧困之險，希冀這是登往富裕殿堂的奠腳石----其實可能永遠實現不了，剝削那些移民的勞動到底對不對？這一切是否都只是資本主義的運行規律而已——最廉價者生存(survival of the cheapest)？

Is it right to exploit the labour of immigrants willing to risk penury as a stepping-stone to a prosperity that may never materialise? Is that just the way capitalism works: survival of the cheapest?

    或者，我們已然超越了那個叢林法則階段，而進入了一個新的世界？在這個世界里，移民也是人，并且理應享受工會要求的工資底線。沃爾瑪突然變成美國舉國上下，一場關于公正和資本主義辯論的導火線。

Or have we moved beyond that state of nature, to a worldswheresimmigrants are people too, and deserve a union wage? Wal-Mart has suddenly become a lightning-rod for a new national debate about justice and capitalism.

    然而，當我一駛進當地那家沃爾瑪巨大的停車場，穿過特大型的商店大門的時候，我就忘了還有什么文化之爭，忘了《商業周刊》(Business Week)起的“本頓維爾怪獸” 的綽號。(Beast of Bentonville，以沃爾瑪在阿肯色州的總部所在地，本頓維爾市命名。)

But as soon as I entered the vast car park of the local Wal-Mart, and walked through its oversized door, I forgot there was a cultural debate waging around what Business Week calls the "Beast of Bentonville" (after Wal-Mart's backwaters headquarters in Arkansas).

    我注意到那些面容疲憊的移民工作人員，和同樣疲憊的移民顧客。但真正攫住我的目光的，是那些30美元都不到的玩具廚，它們同真的廚具一般大小；還有那些一大盒的圣誕卡，都不到一杯星巴克拿鐵咖啡的價錢。

I noticed the apparently weary immigrant staff (and the equally weary immigrant clientele) but what really caught my eye was the full- sized toy kitchen for less than (£18), and the huge box of Christmas cards for less than a Starbucks latte.

    我的兩個剛會走路的孩子坐在手推車里，吵著要降價的芭比娃娃和印著《海底總動員》的包裝紙，我的重要使命也就轉眼被拋在了腦后。況且，那位接待我們的服務員也絲毫沒讓我想起此行的使命，她神采奕奕，滔滔不絕。她說她是從多哥來的，卻沒有提她的醫療保險花多少錢。

With two toddlers in the trolley clamouring for cut-price Barbies and Finding Nemo wrapping paper, I quickly forgot the big picture. And there was no reminder from the cheerful and chatty lady who served us: she mentioned that she was from Togo; she did not mention the cost of her health insurance.

    目前，由于我的櫥柜已經裝滿了格子呢桌布和圣誕節裝飾品，我不得不正視這樣一種可能性，即在某些境況下，節儉可能并不是一種美德，而是種罪惡。

But now that my cupboard is full of tartan tablecloths and Santa centrepieces for the holidays, I can no longer ignore the possibility that frugality could - in certain circumstances - be not a virtue but a crime.

    想象一下由一樁樁罪惡的節儉導致的情景吧：一個零售業巨擘把店面清洗工作承包了出去，但承包價是如此之低，以至于承包人只有靠雇用非法移民，不為他們繳納稅金和保險，才能將這樁生意做下來。零售商將省下的費用讓利給了消費者，這個交易似乎令人皆大歡喜：公司的生意興隆了，消費者省了錢，雇員也在這里掙到了更多的錢，比他自己一貧如洗的國家強多了。這樣雙贏的交易怎么可能違法呢？

Consider this scenario for a scheme of criminal frugality: a giant retailer contracts out the cleaning of its stores, at rates that could be satisfied only by contractors who hire illegal immigrants and pay no taxes or insurance for them. The retailer passes the cost savings along to consumers, and all appear pleased with the bargain: the company prospers, consumers save and employees earn more than they would in their own impoverished nations. Surely such a win-win deal cannot be illegal?

    移民勞動法專家認為，就沃爾瑪及其移民問題，法庭會怎么判根本無從得知。但他們同意，該判決會對沃爾瑪產生巨大的影響，而任何對這一全球最大的私營企業雇主的傷害，都可能傷害到全球最大的經濟體。

Experts in immigrant employment law say it is not at all clear how courts will rule, in the matter of Wal-Mart and its immigrants. But they agree that the ruling could have a big impact on Wal-Mart: and what hurts the world's biggest private sector employer could hurt the world's biggest economy.

    所有和沃爾瑪有關的東西都非常大，它所涉及的訴訟案也不例外。目前，它面臨一宗由其女雇員提起的性別歧視案，如果此案發展成為集體訴訟的話，那可能成為美國有史以來最大的一起雇傭訴訟案。此外它還面臨一系列聲稱未付加班工資的起訴。

Everything about Wal-Mart is big, and its lawsuits are no exception: it faces a sex discrimination lawsuit from female employees that, if allowed to go forward as a class action, could be the largest employment lawsuit in American history; and it faces a range of suits alleging unpaid overtime.

    但真正把沃爾瑪推進文化之戰的，是美國聯邦政府關于其如何清洗店面的調查。

But what has really catapulted Wal-Martsintosthe culture wars is a federal investigation of how it cleans its stores.

    上個月，美國聯邦調查人員突擊抽查了60家分布美國各州的沃爾瑪超市，帶走了250名值全夜班的看門人和大量文件。他們希望以違反移民法為由，對該零售商立案調查。雖然至今還沒有任何起訴被提出，但訴訟的可能性很大。屆時案件的爭議點會是：沃爾瑪是否知道，其清洗承包商雇用了非法移民來擦地板？它能否合理地聲稱，自己沒有注意到？

Last month federal agents raided 60-odd Wal-Marts across the nation and picked up 250 all-night janitors and many documents, hoping to make a case against the retailer for immigration violations. No charges have yet been brought, but they probably will be. And then the issue will be: did Wal-Mart know its cleaning subcontractors were hiring illegal aliens to mop the floors? Can it plausibly claim not to have noticed?

    常識表明，沃爾瑪的經理們一定已經意識到，如果看門人既不會說英語，又愿意為了每小時6美元不到的工錢，每天每夜不休息地工作，那他很可能是非法移民。但常識不是法定的證據標準。沃爾瑪說，它想過這些人是非法移民，但不管怎樣，核實每一個在龐大帝國工作的人（沃爾瑪承包商和供應商）的合法性，這不是它的責任。

Common sense suggests that Wal-Mart managers must have realised that if janitors did not speak English and were willing to work every night without a break, for less than an hour, they were probably illegal. But common sense is not a legal standard of proof. Wal-Mart says it thought they were legal - but that in any case it is not its responsibility to verify the legality of every person in the vast empire of Wal-Mart contractors and suppliers.

    在關于沃爾瑪的責任這一關鍵問題上，法律并不明確。美利堅大學華盛頓法學院 (American University's Washington College of Law) 研究移民權利的律師，薩拉•保萊蒂(Sarah Paoletti)認為，沃爾瑪為該工作設定這么低的工錢，可能就足以證明，它推定知道(constructive knowledge)承包商雇用非法外裔的情況。但她對這一點也并不肯定。而蕭•皮特曼律師事務所(Shaw Pittman)的利茲•斯特恩(Liz Stern)則說，如果沃爾瑪基于這一點被定罪的話，她會相當“震驚”。斯特恩女士為企業雇用移民提供咨詢意見。

The law is not clear on the crucial matter of Wal-Mart's responsibility. Sarah Paoletti, an immigrants' rights lawyer at American University's Washington College of Law, says the cheap rate set for such work by Wal-Mart may be enough to prove "constructive knowledge" that contractors were hiring illegal aliens. But she is not sure. And Liz Stern of the law firm Shaw Pittman, who advises businesses on immigrant employment, says she would be "shocked" if Wal-Mart were convicted on such a basis.

    她認為，按照那樣的標準，沒有人會是安全的：沒有一個公民能放心讓一個合同工女傭來打掃房間；每一個家庭主婦都必須檢查來者的簽證。這樣的責任鏈把我們都拴死了。

By that standard, nobody would be safe, she suggests: no citizen could rely on a contract maid to clean the house; every visa would have to be checked by every matron. The web of liability would ensnare us all.

    然而不管沃爾瑪發生了什么，聯邦起訴也好，還是一些看門人趁此一起提出的民事訴訟，這一案件很可能在移民勞動領域，創立新的法律。

But whatever happens to Wal-Mart - either in the federal prosecution, or in the civil lawsuit filed by some of the janitors to piggyback on the federal action - the case is likely to make new law in the area of immigrant employment.

    不過，這將僅僅回答沃爾瑪是否違反了現行法律這一問題。它不能解決一個更大的矛盾，即如何才能將公正和資本主義調和？這不是法官，而是立法者應當解決的問題，因為這不僅僅關系到沃爾瑪商店，更重要的是，關系到沃爾瑪這一文化和經濟現象。

However, that will answer only the question of whether Wal-Mart broke the law as currently written. It will not solve the bigger dilemma: how can justice and capitalism be reconciled? That is a matter not for judges but for legislators, for it is a matter that affects not just Wal-Mart the store but Wal-Mart the cultural and economic phenomenon.

    本文得到FT研究員巴弗納•帕特爾(Bhavna Patel)的幫助。

FT researcher Bhavna Patel contributed to this article

    作者簡介：帕提•沃德米爾（Patti Waldmeir）是««金融時報»»法律和社會問題專欄作家，。尤其關注專門論及聚焦于知識產權、就業法和其他涉及商業及大眾關注的法律問題。讀者群主要為工商業界人士和一般讀者。在移居華盛頓之前，她曾長期在非洲工作。，在1989年至1996年期間，作為駐約翰內斯堡記者站負責人她任«金融時報»駐約翰內斯堡記者站負責人，報道了南非向向民主化轉型的過程邁進的過程。

Patti Waldmeir writes a column about law and society [for the Financial Times], focusing on intellectual property,employment law and other legal topics of interest to the business and general reader. Before moving to Washington D.C., she worked extensively in Africa, covering the transition to democracy in South Africa as Johannesburg bureau chief from 1989 to 1996.

譯者/方志燕