USA Today reporter Paul Davidson apparently doesn't understand that policies which help workers get hired and keep their jobs are more "worker-friendly" than those designed to line trial lawyers' pockets and help labor unions coerce companies into dealing with them.
At least twice this year, Davidson, in his headlines and his content, has characterized moves by the federal government's National Labor Relations Board which have restored predictable economic order as "overturning" Obama-era regulations which were supposedly "worker-friendly," but really weren't.
On Thursday, the NLRB restored the standard for determining who is and isn't a "joint employer" under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to what it had been for decades before the Obama-era NLRB's arbitrary, unilateral August 2015 redefinition of the term.
Here is an excerpt from the first paragraph of the NRLB's Thursday press release (bolds are mine throughout this post):
... In all future and pending cases, two or more entities will be deemed joint employers under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) if there is proof that one entity has exercised control over essential employment terms of another entity’s employees (rather than merely having reserved the right to exercise control) and has done so directly and immediately (rather than indirectly) in a manner that is not limited and routine. ... The Board majority concluded that the reinstated standard adheres to the common law and is supported by the NLRA’s policy of promoting stability and predictability in bargaining relationships.
At American Thinker on Friday, Rick Moran explained the impact:
(The 2015) Obama-era decision ... would have made companies like McDonald's liable for the labor practices of their franchises.
... The previous ruling was a boon to labor unions, who would have been able to go after large corporations like McDonald's and make them pay for the bad labor practices of some of their franchise-owners.
The issue of "joint control" has always been a bone of contention with unions, who claim that McDonald's and other companies have more say-so in how their franchises operate than they actually do. Individual franchise-owners hire and fire their own workers, pay them, and manage their schedules. If they violate the law by illegally withholding wages – a practice that unions claim is widespread in the industry – the onus is on the franchise-owners themselves.
This is how franchises have operated since they came into being.
(The 2015 Obama-era rule) would have destroyed the franchise model and put hundreds of companies running franchises out of business.
The 2015 rule, if it had survived legal challenges which had been pending, would also have been a boon to employment lawyers, who could include deep-pocketed franchisors in their lawsuits instead of being restricted to the allegedly offending, relatively small franchisee.
USA Today's Davidson, as he decried the end of the supposedly "worker-friendly" 2015 rule, also gave away another key element of the Obama NRLB's strategy:
Worker-friendly rule overturned by NLRB
The National Labor Relations Board on Thursday overturned a controversial Obama-era rule that held large companies liable for labor law violations by franchisees and subcontractors.
The decision marked the latest move by federal regulators to roll back worker-friendly rules that were passed during the Obama administration and opposed by businesses.
Under the joint employer rule, a company such as McDonald’s could be sued by workers employed by the chain’s franchisees for violating safety or other regulations even though the larger corporation had only indirect control over the employees.
The rule also could allow striking fast-food workers to negotiate with McDonald’s to form a union rather than with thousands of franchisees across the country. Similarly, temporary workers could sue the owner of a factory for better pay or conditions rather than the staffing agency that technically employs those workers.
... Cicely Simpson, executive vice president of the National Restaurant Association said in a statement. “Today’s decision restores years of established law and brings back clarity for restaurants and small businesses across the country.”
But Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, a worker advocacy group, said the decision "is just one more example of the Trump administration favoring corporations over working people."
Davidson's writeup and a photo promoting his story at his author home page indicate that the Obama NLRB rule was framed in a way to help organized labor unionize fast-food workplaces and impose its long-sought $15-per-hour minimum wage on the industry:
Neither Davidson nor "worker advocate" Christine Owens explained how putting franchises out of business, exposing current and potential franchisors to liability for actions for which they aren't responsible, or reducing overall industry employment by imposing an artificially high wage structure could possibly be "worker-friendly." That's because they can't.
In a June story, Davidson also characterized Obama-era labor-related regulations as "worker-friendly." Much of his writeup related to the NLRB pulling guidance on how to implement the 2015 redefinition of "joint employer," because by that time it was clear they intended to eventually withdraw it.
But Davidson's final sentence in that June dispatch described how Obama's NLRB intended to redefine the very concept of employment:
A long-held standard to determine if a worker is an employee focuses on whether the employer has control over the worker's activities. But the Obama guidance expanded the criteria to include any worker who is economically dependent on the company ...
The "economically dependent" element of the Obama guidance would have caused companies to consider almost anyone walking onto their property and providing a significant service to be treated as an employee.
That's not "worker-friendly." It's employer-hostile, and ultimately hostile to employment and economic growth.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
