This one’s a labor case, and it looks ugly. As you recall, last time Carrefour got into hot water, it was because of France’s pre-Olympic rhetoric regarding China’s policy towards certain, uh, how should I phrase this? . . . Western provinces. Boycotts and ultranationalistic silliness ensued.

And now there’s this:

French supermarket chain Carrefour is facing a lawsuit in Beijing for allegedly exploiting their suppliers’ saleswomen.

Sheng Yucang, a 34-year-old saleswoman from Shandong province, filed the lawsuit against Carrefour in Fengtai District People’s Court, asking for social security compensation and overtime pay.

“I am not doing this for myself, I am doing it for all the saleswomen exploited by these foreign-owned supermarkets,” said Sheng, who is back in her hometown in Shandong and asked her lawyer to submit the lawsuit to the court on her behalf yesterday.

I’m already not liking this woman. I understand she is advocating her case in the press and all, but to pull out the nationalism card like that — for shame. You realize that if this case were simple and straightforward (i.e. Carrefour owing overtime and benefits payments to Ms. Sheng), this would not be in the news at all.

No, of course there’s more.

Sheng was hired by daily-use chemical brand Walch in early 2008 to promote products in a Carrefour branch in Beijing’s Fengtai district, but actually spent a large amount of her time loading goods and cleaning up for Carrefour.

She was paid 1,600 yuan ($235) a month.

Sheng said she did not sign a contract with Walch or Carrefour until last December.

She was fired this April, when she was six months pregnant.

“I heard a Carrefour official tell a Walch director that I am not suited to working there as I am pregnant,” Sheng told China Daily via phone.

“Then the director sumoned me and asked me to leave. She said if you want to stay you have to get an abortion,” Sheng said.

My goodness. Such monstrous treatment. No written contract for a long time (violation of the Labor Contract Law), termination while pregnant (also a violation of the Labor Law), possible irregularities regarding who the employer actually was. I’ve seen foreign companies do all sorts of really stupid things over the years, including labor-related idiocy. But this would win the booby prize (if it is true).

It’s almost hard to believe that any employer would be so heartless, not to mention stupid, to fire someone when they’re pregnant and then mention to her face that she could keep working there if she had an abortion. In fact, it’s so hard to believe that I don’t believe it at all. And the nationalism rhetoric? Perfect catnip for the media.

To add more fuel to the nationalism fire:

Beijing Zhicheng law firm, a government-funded migrant workers’ legal assistance and research center, acted for her, and they discovered Sheng’s experience was not an isolated case, but shows the “hidden rule” of the supermarket industry.

“Many supermarkets do not sign contracts with these saleswomen, not to mention paying social insurance or overtime. They just push the responsibility to the suppliers like Walch, but work these saleswomen like horses,” said Tong Lihua, head of the law firm, noting that it is a disguised employment relationship introduced from overseas.

Gee, I don’t know, is this sort of thing common in France? {He said, sarcastically.} And so what? Some entity is responsible for paying these workers overtime and benefits. If, in the case of Ms. Sheng, it is Walch, why didn’t she sue them and demand compensation? Did she do so and lose? Apparently she already tried to go against Carrefour in Labor Arbitration and lost due to lack of evidence of an employment relationship. (No mention of any action against Walch from our friends at China Daily.)

Not only has she already had one bite at the judicial apple, but proving her case is going to be an uphill battle at best. Evidence of an employment relationship with Carrefour is probably nonexistent. In addition to everything else, she has an employment contract with, and received payment from, Walch! I’m not the only pessimist:

Dong Baohua, a law professor of East China University of Politics and Law, said there is still a slim chance for Sheng to win the lawsuit.

“The disguised employment relationship is still an academic term,” he said. “And since Sheng has a clear labor relationship with Walch, which hired her, paid her and fired her, there is hardly a legal rule that would count Carrefour in.”

OK, one last point. I’m not an ogre, and I don’t know all the facts. I’m sure that these women have very difficult jobs and are paid very little. But that’s not the basis of a lawsuit. You can complain to the government about the minimum wage, or the level of mandatory social insurance, but if you sign an employment contract, you’re kind of stuck with the terms of that agreement. Bemoaning your treatment at the hands of that nasty foreign company after the fact is pretty lame.

I have the same position with the labor practices of Wal-mart (and other employers) in the U.S., who have some very questionable policies. If there are legal infractions, by all means go after the company. But if the issue is that they just pay too little or do not offer health insurance to staff, too bad. Minimum salaries/benefits are regulated by the government, and private industry will very often provide only the bare minimum.

To the extent that these product promotion folks are paid by one company but are actually working for another is problematic and should be looked at by regulators. But that’s between these companies and the labor bureau, or perhaps AIC. Resolution of any regulatory problem would not result in Ms. Sheng getting any additional salary or benefits — the responsibility for that lies with Walch.

On the whole, this case stinks, and as Big Daddy Pollitt said, “There ain’t nothin’ more powerful than the smell of mendacity.” I find the facts hard to take seriously, the legal arguments laughable, and the nationalistic overtones offensive.