Pro-labor Democrats have been struggling to prevent fellow party members from backing the Save Local Business Act. The Act would limit the number of businesses that can be deemed “joint employers” with other businesses, said Sean Higgins in The Washington Examiner.
The legislation would clarify that joint employer applies only when one business has direct control over another. Lead author of the bill Rep. Bradley Byrne, (R-Ala.), said at a House Education and the Workforce Committee hearing “We are determined to provide…clarity once and for all and protect jobs and small businesses in our communities. I’m proud to say three of our Democrat colleagues, Reps. [Luis] Correa, [Henry] Cuellar, D-Texas, and [Colin] Peterson, D-Minn., are co-sponsors of the Save Local Business Act, and we hope to continue to build bipartisan support so we can restore commonsense to the joint employer issue.”
Democrats sought to present the legislation as both anti-worker and anti-business, arguing that it would let off large companies off the hook while leaving subcontractors holding the bag, Higgins said. “This bill is simply an excuse for top corporations to remove any responsibility to their workers. They are subcontracting their consciences to put profits over people,” said Rep. Donald Norcross, D-N.J. Clarity and predictability are what pro- legislation lobbyists say the Act will provide.
“Joint employer” refers to when one business can be held legally liable for workplace violations at another business. Traditionally, the standard applied when one business had “direct control” of another business’ workplace policies, such as a subsidiary. In its 2015 decision in the case of Browning-Ferris Industries, the National Labor Relations Board, the nation’s top labor law enforcement agency, changed that standard to the much vaguer “indirect control,” which potentially could cover every company that franchises its brand. The NLRB has used it to pursue a major labor rights case against McDonald’s Corp., among others.
