The supermarket chain Aldi, in Australia, is suing the truck drivers' union to silence its complaints that Aldi pressures drivers to drive unsafe long hours (which is illegal as well).
Aldi's statement appears intended to mislead. It said, "We value our employees and pride ourselves on paying our staff well." But even supposing that is true (I won't take Aldi's word for that), it has nothing to do with the truck drivers; they are not employees of Aldi.
Aldi demands "specific information" about the abuses. Would that mean the names of drivers as witnesses? We can guess what Aldi would do to any drivers that come forward as Aldi demands.
It appears that Aldi doesn't directly impose this violation of drivers' rights and public safety. Rather, it subcontracts the driving through companies, and pays the companies so little that they are effectively compelled to do this to the drivers.
So subcontracting facilitates this wrong and makes it deniable.
I think there should be legal limits on the amount of work of any particular kind that a company can subcontract. Subcontracting should be limited to the amount of work that needs to vary from week to week during any particular month. For the base load of any kind of work, a company should be required to hire full-time employees to do it.