-
NLRB ruling: Businesses responsible violations by contractors
[url=http://thehill.com/regulation/labor/252124-obama-administration-issues-controversial-labor-ruling]NLRB rules against business in pivotal joint-employer decision[/url]
The Obama administration is redefining what it means to be an employer. The National Labor Relations Board on Thursday handed down one of the biggest decisions of the Obama presidency, ruling that companies can be held equally responsible for labor violations committed by their contractors.
…
This is a sharp departure from previous labor laws that hold companies responsible only for employees who are under their direct control by setting their hours, wages, or job responsibilities. Companies could avoid those requirements by hiring staffing agencies and subcontractors that deal more closely with the workers.
…
Its the latest in a string of major victories for labor groups under President Obama’s administration, which has already issued several sweeping executive actions on worker protections and wages. The ruling seeks to redefine what constitutes an employer in the United States and could potentially upend entire industries. Restaurants could see the biggest changes. Fast food chains such as McDonalds and Burger King will likely assert more authority over or even cut ties altogether with local franchise owners, businesses say. -
16 Replies
-
The war on business continues.
-
Business’s argument against the ruling has been what sounds like a mea culpa admission, that US competitiveness is here only because business has kept down the cost of labor.
So that explains work with no benefits at non-liveable wages. Sounds like part of the argument is the admission that US taxpayers do subsidize sub-standard wages paid to employees by these businesses.
-
-
I think it’s a great ruling, adjusting for decades of business practices that attempted to skirt the intent of labor laws. Whole industries have been built entirely based on trying to keep employers from their responsibilities.
I think this ruling will lead to greater worker protections and, importantly, increased wages that will be a net economic benefit.
-
In a service economy, it doesn’t matter.
This is where Trump shines.-
Quote from Cigar
In a service economy, it doesn’t matter.
This is where Trump shines.
I really have no idea what that response means.
-
Yup
I was trying to hold back on saying something about that
I think its just argue for the sake of argue-
I’ll tell you one part of the service economy that thinks it matters …. food [i]service[/i].
Anyway — here’s a good summary of the effects, the ruling, and the likely future: [link=http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-shift/2015/08/nlrb-edition-whats-next-for-joint-employer-210028]http://www.politico.com/t…-joint-employer-210028[/link]
-
-
-
-
-
On the magnitude of the ruling:
[url=http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-labor-ruling-20150829-story.html]NLRB ruling on third-party employers could be a game changer for unions[/url]The decision could spark huge aftershocks in the American workforce, where companies scalded by the recession have increasingly turned to temporary workers, who often lack health benefits and can be shed at a moment’s notice. Nationwide, there were about 3.4 million so-called staffing-agency jobs, or 2.25% of total national employment, according to the National Employment Law Project, which advocates for low-wage workers. The sector grew 41% from 2008 to 2012. The numbers probably are much higher, but the government doesn’t keep track of workers at subcontractors, which are common in a wide variety of industries.
Worker advocates say the ruling could have a profound effect on organizing movements, changing which workers are recruited, what tactics are deployed and even the broader goals to be reached.”It’s happening in hotels, in hospitals,” Ruckelshaus said. “Wherever there are a lot of workers in a business, there is a lot of this contracting out.”
The decision will bolster future lawsuits brought by warehouse workers, making it easier to prove that both a staffing firm and its client companies are responsible for unsafe working conditions, wage theft or other violations, Kaoosji said.
-
Quote from dergon
On the magnitude of the ruling:
[link=http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-labor-ruling-20150829-story.html]NLRB ruling on third-party employers could be a game changer for unions[/link]
A couple of modifications on the contracts between service providers and larger companies and this thing will go nowhere. The reason companies use staffing agencies is because dealing with the state and feds is such a pain. No need to take on nonessential workers as permanent employees if you can hire them through an agency.-
NLRB = National Liberal Retard Board
-
Quote from aldadoc
NLRB = National Liberal Retard Board
Whew! That’s witty.
-
Not humor. Clarification.
These guys are just the unelected government arm of the labor unions. Rulings like these will assure that NLRB will become one of the first casualties of the Democrats losing the White House.-
[url=http://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/253116-gop-legislation-targets-joint-employer-ruling]Republicans take aim at NLRB’s ‘joint employer’ ruling[/url]
The “Protecting Local Business Opportunity Act”, introduced Wednesday by Republicans, would roll back a policy that holds companies liable for labor violations committed by their business partners.
The legislation introduced by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.) would draw a distinction between an employee’s direct employer and any other companies they work alongside.
The NLRBs new joint employer standard would make big businesses bigger and the middle class smaller by discouraging companies from franchising and contracting work to small businesses, the lawmakers said in a joint statement.
-
[h1][link=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/biden-moves-to-oust-top-labor-board-attorney-robb]Biden Fires NLRB General Counsel After He Refuses to Resign[/link][/h1]
The White House notified Robb of his dismissal by lettersent minutes after Biden was sworn in Wednesdaywhich specified he had until 5 p.m. to voluntarily resign or be fired, two people with knowledge of the correspondence said.
In a rebuke to the new chief executive, [link=https://aboutblaw.com/VaB]Robb said in a letter[/link] he wouldnt voluntarily resign and that his removal would permanently undermine the work of the independent agency. A White House spokesperson Wednesday confirmed that Robb refused to resign and was fired.
I respectfully decline to resign from my Senate-confirmed four-year term appointment as General Counsel of the NLRB less than 10 months before the expiration of my term, the labor boards top lawyer wrote.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
xxxxxx
[link=https://www.law360.com/articles/1520787]https://www.law360.com/articles/1520787[/link]
[h1]NLRB Proposes New Joint Employer Standard[/h1]
-
[link=https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article277860958.html]https://www.sacbee.com/ne…/article277860958.html[/link]
[b]Fast food spent millions fighting California bill holding them accountable for employee abuse[/b]
Fast food chains have spent millions this year on lobbying and advertising campaigns to stave off a bill that would hold corporate owners responsible for abuses that occur at franchise restaurants, according to a Sacramento Bee analysis.
Their target, Assembly Bill 1228, would hold companies and their franchisees jointly liable for accusations of harassment, wage theft or other forms of mistreatment. Opponents of the measure have spent more than $3.9 million from Jan. 1 through June 30 to fight the bill, records show. That number is likely higher, but lobbying reports frequently do not differentiate the sums restaurants and industry groups have spent fighting individual bills.
Currently, employees of McDonalds, Wendys and other fast food outlets deal solely with individual franchise owners over such allegations. The bill, authored by Assemblyman Chris Holden, D-Pasadena, would force parent corporations to assume a portion of accountability.
[/QUOTE]
