Posted on 08/13/2015 2:31:18 PM PDT by robowombat
(AP Photo) A forthcoming ruling from federal labor officials could dramatically alter the status of employees in a wide range of industries.
According to a report in The Hill, experts believe that the National Labor Relations Board will issue a ruling this month stipulating that workers provided by a staffing company are also jointly employed by the contracting company.
The decision specifically applies to Houston waste disposal company Browning-Ferris Industries, which hired a company in Phoenix to provide workers for a California recycling plant. The expected NLRB order would make Browning-Ferris responsible for any labor violations at the plant and would require the company to bargain collectively with those workers.
Analysts, however, expect thousands of companies that rely on temporary workers or independent contractors to be affected by the ruling.
The decision could particularly damage the restaurant industry — which relies on thousands of individual franchises to operate chains — but the manufacturing, construction and financial sectors could also be impacted.
“It has the potential to change the entire way businesses operate in this country,” Rob Green of the National Council of Chain Restaurants told The Hill.
Supporters of the prospective ruling believe that the order would provide additional security for temporary workers and contractors that frequently deal with reduced pay and fewer workplace protections. The Obama administration last month vowed to crack down on workers improperly classified as contractors.
Critics, however, said that the ruling could completely redefine an employee in the U.S. and would potentially force businesses to cut ties with staffing agencies and subcontractors, including for janitorial work or security.
The order would be just the latest in a string of controversial NLRB decisions to draw the ire of the business community and congressional Republicans.
The board last year voted to tighten the window between union certification bids and the start of voting by workers, while Republicans also took steps to curb a joint employer standard for franchises and the authorization of small groups of organized workers, or "micro-unions."
Now they’ll just offshore more and more work, why deal with all the red tape.
This seems reasonable.
Where I’d like to see this applied is to companies that use unethical contract firms to skirt the law and hire illegal aliens instead of hiring US citizens and legal immigrants.
Where I’d like to see this applied is to companies that use unethical contract firms to skirt the law and hire illegal aliens instead of hiring US citizens and legal immigrants.
*********************************************************************
Those companies will be exempt.
” reasonable”
That is what the R stands for in NLRB.
California? Recycling pickers? I didn’t know there was a staffing agency for illegals, but I’m not surprised though... Hopey Changey thing, ya know.
Yes companies that make their timely payments to the DNC will be exempt.
If someone contracts with a baker for a cake would that person be responsible to ensure that the baker’s employee’s have proper accommodation for their religion?
I have too many friends who have worked at places like Intel and who lost their jobs only to have some contract firm like Siemens or CompuCom offer to hire them to do that same job at less pay and then arguing they’re exempt from California overtime because Siemens runs out of Washington State. Intel would not bother with this artifice if they could not get away with it.
This is another 17th Amendment-related issue. More about the 17th Amendment shortly.
A forthcoming ruling from federal [emphasis added] labor officials could dramatically alter the status of employees in a wide range of industries.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
The first thing that patriots need to do any time the corrupt federal government makes a noise is to check if the feds can justify their action under Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
In the case of federal regulations for intrastate labor, regardless what FDR’s activist justices wanted everybody to believe about the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate labor. This is evidenced by the following excerpt.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
The reason that the feds are unconstitutionally regulating intrastate labor is the following imo. The Founding States had established the federal Senate to protect the voices of state legislatures in Congress. In other words, the Founders had expected senators to kill legislation which steals unique, 10th Amendment-protected state powers, such as the power to regulate intrastate labor.
The problem is that the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Senate is not doing its to protect the states by killing vote-winning bills which establish unconstitutional federal regulatory control of many things, intrastate labor in this example.
The ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt, Constitution-ignoring senators and unconstitutional federal laws that regulate things like intrastate labor along with it.
It’s all about getting illegals signed up with the SEIU: more money for the Party, Comrades!
Well, we saw this one coming...
I’ve been working via contracts for the last 20 years or so. Some on W2, some on 1099, some on corp-to-corp. Each one has its rate. Each one has its strengths and drawbacks.
The most open and free economic engagement in a professional capacity is the basic “I’ll do this work for this much money” and no other BS. That has worked out well for me in many short term contracts. Longer term engagements will be ‘flavored’ by details and such. Each one negotiated in and of itself.
This potential ruling, though, is just more liberal claptrap, taken from the perspective of ‘victims’.
Silly. And, just another straw on the camel’s back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.