Posted on 09/02/2014 2:47:51 AM PDT by markomalley
Several key Labor Department regulators participated in a liberal conference focused on unionizing subcontractors and franchise employees.
Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division Administrator David Weil delivered opening remarks to a room full of union organizers and activists from the National Employment Law Project, a pro-union group partnered with the liberal millionaires and billionaires from the Democracy Alliance, in May.
“I view my task as helping to work with the people in the agency and in concert with worker advocates,” he said.
Weil told the gathering that the department has “undertaken a bunch of specific initiatives in particular industries,” in order to crack down on employers. The department, he said, has focused specifically on “the hotel industry, the restaurant industry, construction, the agricultural sector, [and] healthcare.”
Weil’s enforcement strategy will focus not just on specific complaints from employees of wage theft and workplace violations, but in tackling the structural nature of workplace regulation, he said.
“We’ve developed over time specific approaches to dealing with that and approaches to dealing with that and again approaches that are not just informed by saying ‘industry X has a lot of problems,’ but also ‘here’s how industry X is structured and here is how we can really affect change—how we can really make sure that when we go in the effects of that investigation ripple outward,” he said.
The attack on business structures has manifested itself in the current battle over joint employment standards and fast food franchising, which is undergoing extensive scrutiny at the department, as well as the National Labor Relations Board. Labor watchdogs and industry groups slammed Weil’s participation at the conference.
“This further proves what we’ve been saying all along: these things aren’t isolated incidents, but concerted actions by the administration, the NLRB, the Department of Labor to promote the union agenda,” said Angelo Amador, VP of Labor and Workforce Policy at the National Restaurant Association.
Labor groups have campaigned for years to unionize fast food workers, who would add hundreds of thousands of dues-paying members to their ranks. These efforts have met little success: Many fast food workers are young and there is high turnover.
However, the biggest obstacle has been the franchising system, in which small business owners pay parent companies like McDonalds to operate under the company trademark. While the corporation controls issues like menu options, the franchisees handle hiring, firing, and setting wages. Labor law has traditionally considered franchisees as separate entities from parent companies, which means that unions would have to organize restaurants piecemeal.
This system, as a NELP white paper reports, is difficult for unions to crack. Franchise owners earn low margins on their investments and increasing labor costs through collective bargaining could prove disastrous for the business owner and union member alike.
“Fast food franchisees themselves are in many cases unprofitable,” the report says. The ultimate goal, according to these activists, is to bypass individual franchisees and bring multi-billion dollar parent companies to the bargaining table. Unions could leverage individual worker grievances against franchise owners to bargain with parent corporations directly. They also could more easily organize the entire fast food labor force at once, rather than just individual restaurants.
“By breaking down the joint-employment barrier what unions are hoping to do is spend a lot of time and money to organize one franchise, then demand that McDonalds’ corporate headquarters come to the bargaining table,” said Glenn Spencer of the Workforce Freedom Initiative. “That makes it worth the time and money. They’ll ratchet up pressure on the corporate brand.”
Labor groups have received a huge boost from the Obama administration in eliminating that last obstacle. In July, National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Richard Griffin, a former union attorney, said in a legal brief that McDonalds could be held liable for the actions of its franchisees even if the parent company had nothing to do with the employment policies at issue.
The NLRB, the federal labor arbiter that oversees unionization, could decide on whether to preserve the firewall between franchisees, subcontractors, and corporations later this year in the Browning Ferris case.
“It’s a big change in labor law and could undermine standards in place for 30 years, standards that have formed basis of entire business models,” Spencer said.
While the standards have not yet been revised, labor watchdogs are concerned that regulators are already planning to further undermine them through enforcement. Amador said that the franchising structure extends far beyond the restaurant industry. Many large companies in all sectors use subcontractors and independent contractors to perform tasks outside of the company’s mission, such as janitorial services.
“[Labor regulators] are starting with a conclusion about joint employers and working outward. They already have their mind made up to change the law without congressional approval,” Amador said. “How can we trust in a system when they’re already applying law that doesn’t exist yet?”
Three labor regulators participated in the May conference sponsored by the National Employment Law Project (NELP), a pro-union group partnered with the liberal millionaires and billionaires from the Democracy Alliance. Weil was joined at the conference by Michael Hancock of the Wage & Hour Division and David Michaels from the department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The department defended its presence at the conference as educational.
“The department routinely engages in education and outreach events with everyone from NELP to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to improve understanding and compliance with labor laws, and to improve our knowledge of an ever-changing workplace,” a department spokesman said in an email. “Understanding modern business practices such as outsourcing is a critical part of our mission to ensure workers are paid the wages they’ve earned and that they’re safe and healthy on the job.”
Ryan Williams, spokesman for labor watchdog Worker Center Watch, said the regulators’ presence at the conference calls into question their credibility to serve as unbiased arbiters, rather than an extension of the unions themselves.
“The unethical and incestuous relationship between top Obama Administration officials and union front groups undermines public confidence in our government,” Williams said. “It is impossible for franchise owners to have any confidence in the Department of Labor and view them as a fair and impartial agency when they are actively colluding with the same union bosses that are trying to destroy their businesses.”
Union front groups are preparing disruptive protests against fast food restaurants to celebrate Labor Day.
Fast Food Forward, a SEIU-funded worker center, coordinated about 50 protests for higher wages at McDonalds and other franchises across the country in 2013. The group is stepping up those efforts next week, encouraging agitators to engage in “civil disobedience” rather than simple picketing in more than 100 cities.
“They’re picketing at companies that have big brand recognition because that comes with a lot of media attention. Attacking the start-ups and franchisees that will be impacted by this won’t get national media attention,” Amador said.
Protests are scheduled to begin September 4.
The pilot automated fast food in a box systems are already being tested. If the Regime continues, they could find that the local burger chain outlet could be replaced by a full automated outlet with no people on site and supply personnel showing up periodically to fill the bins.
Perhaps then we will get what we ordered.
Elections are just around the corner and now is the time to get the labor movement rolling towards the polls. Timing is everything!
The automation of fast-food is a done deal, the only question is when.
The more interesting question, involves the automation of designer coffee. What will unemployable Liberal Arts grads do when even being a Starbucks Barista gets automated. . .
We have a small auto-gourmet coffee machine in my office. . .
And then there are these:
Because ensuring that a DQ burger flipper in Queens makes the exact same amount as a DQ worker in Iowa makes a lot of sense for both.
Yes, they will both wind up being paid the same wage--zero, when the automated burger cooking machine is installed.
True equality.
By Tom DiLorenzo:
According to the Web site of the U.S. Dept. of Labor, “Labor Day” became a national holiday in 1894 in order to celebrate “the union movement.” Not workers, or the work that they have done, or the wealth and prosperity they helped American capitalists to create. By “the movement” is meant, specifically, union bosses, the political impetus behind the creation of labor day in the first place. They sought and got a national holiday to celebrate themselves. So, in the spirit of American unionism, go ahead out and celebrate by setting off a “nail bomb” in the parking lot of a non-union construction site; sabotage the non-union oil refinery in the area; vandalize all the cars of the “scab” workers at the local non-union grocery store; threaten to rape the wives and girlfriends of the hated “scabs”; or maybe just go out with your union brothers and beat the living daylights out of a random non-union “rat” or “scab.”
And don’t worry about the cops. According to the 1973 US. Supreme Court case, U.S. versus Enmons, violence, property damage, and extortion are allowable if they are done in pursuit of “legitimate union objectives.” That’s why professors Armond Thieblot and Thomas Haggard were able to publish a 540-page book under the auspices of the University of Pennsylvania entitled Union Violence: The Record and the Response by the Courts, Legislatures, and the NLRB. The book, write the authors, “is full of examples of murder, assault with intent to kill, destruction of property, arson, sabotage, mayhem, shooting, stabbing, beating, stoning, dynamiting, intimidating, threatening . . .” All in pursuit of “legitimate union objectives.”
Violence is an inherent feature of American unionism because, as economist Morgan Reynolds explained in is book, Power and Privilege: Labor Unions in America: “A union’s problem is painfully obvious: organized strikers must shut down the enterprise, close the market to everyone else . . . in order to force wages and working conditions above free-market rates. If too many individuals defy the strikers . . . then unionists often resort to force . . . . Unions must actively interfere with freedom of trade in labor markets in order to deliver on their promises.”
And “interfere” they do. According to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NLIRR), since 1975 ,203 deaths, 5,868 incidents of personal injury, 6,435 incidents of vandalism, and tens of millions of dollars in property damage inflicted by unions has been reported by police to the media. About 90 percent of all such incidents go unreported to the media, however, according to the NLIRR.
While the White House appears incompetent, disorganized and disconnected, most federal agencies are organizing liberal supporters behind the scenes....DOJ organized Ferguson and Trayvon protests....EPA organizes environmental protests.....etcetera.
This past Sunday the Pittsburgh Post-Gazelle ran a lengthy op-ed piece, from someone purporting to be an economist of some note, that the key to solving our region’s problems would be to require UPMC to pay a minimum $15/hr. wage to all employees as a condition of maintaining their nonprofit status.
The author quoted the oft-debunked Thomas Piketty at least a dozen times.
The apparatus of government is NOT politically neutral. They are highly biased and in favor of those businesses, organizations, and political groups that spread their ideology.
Impressive, but the design is very 1950ies Jetsons. Maybe their test marketing showed that to be the most appealing facade?
And it should be pointed out that, regardless of the person sitting in the White House, the ideology of the bureaucracy is what it is and doesn't change.
Yes. And its gotten much worse during Obama. they don't even bother to pay lip-service to neutral government any longer. The US Government's apparatchiks will openly oppose a future conservative Presidents.
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.