NLRB announces new rule making it harder to challenge franchises for labor-law violations

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | Latest Breaking News | NLRB announces new rule making it harder to challenge franchises for labor-law violations

Viewing 5 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #275751
      Ohio Barbarian
      Moderator
      • Total Posts: 17,981

      (The Hill) A newly-introduced National Labor Relations Board regulation, set to take effect in April, would make it more difficult for workers to hold companies responsible for labor violations by individual franchises.

      The rule reverses an Obama-era NLRB policy that deemed companies like McDonald’s to be “joint employers” and thus responsible for franchise-level violations such as retaliatory firings for union organizing, the New York Times reported.

      The new regulation also applies to employees of contractors such as cleaning services or staffing agencies, according to the newspaper.“This final rule gives our joint-employer standard the clarity, stability and predictability that is essential to any successful labor-management relationship and vital to our national economy,” John F. Ring, the board’s chairman, said in a statement.

      Full story here.

      It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

      Show me a man that gets rich by being a politician, and I'll show you a crook.--Harry Truman

    • #275763
      Cold Mountain Trail
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 10,353

      “The new NLRB joint employer rule is just the latest example of the Trump Administration doing McDonald’s bidding…” Jennifer Berry, a Milwaukee McDonald’s worker involved in attempts to organize a union in her workplace said in a statement from the group.  “But workers like me know who our boss is: McDonald’s. We wear the company’s uniform, serve its Big Macs and fries and help make its billions in profits possible,” she added. “We’ll continue joining together and speaking out until McDonald’s acknowledges its responsibility for workers like me instead of hiding behind the fiction of a franchise system it pioneered to screw us over.”

    • #275887
      David the Gnome
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,748

      Can undo the work of generations in less than four years – here is further proof.  The EPA, FDA, hell even the labor protections that generations of brave union organizers fought for.  We all have a lot of work to do… I can’t even begin to fathom how to deal with the damage done by the Trump administration and address healthcare, economic reform, climate change and so much else.

      Some times I really wonder if it can be done at all.

    • #275895
      D503
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 274

      The damage was started under *. His administration decimated the laws meant to protect workers. The Investment Groups were buying and selling companies right and left, they couldn’t let a few laws get in their way. My states labor protections were bought off by big $$$ years ago. Now, as the lies about low unemployment circulate, the people here now pay 75%+ of the taxes. The R’s have even broken their own promises in order to get more tax breaks for the rich. It’s mind-boggling.

      On edit, forgot to mention how Obama changed all that back to the good. Oh. That’s right. He did NOTHING.

      "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." - Asimov; "If you push something hard enough, it will fall over." - Fud's First Law of Opposition

      • #275929
        Jim Lane
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 627

        From your post: “On edit, forgot to mention how Obama changed all that back to the good. Oh. That’s right. He did NOTHING.”

        From the OP: “The rule reverses an Obama-era NLRB policy that deemed companies like McDonald’s to be ‘joint employers’ and thus responsible for franchise-level violations such as retaliatory firings for union organizing….” (emphasis added)

        Gee, it’s almost as if… could it be… that there’s a difference in regulatory policy between a Democrat like Obama (i.e., one to the right of Bernie) and an outright corporate stooge like Trump?  I know this conclusion would require someone to manage more than just two categories (Good and Evil).  One would need at least one more category, for people who aren’t as good as Bernie but who are a whole lot better than Trump.

    • #276048
      David the Gnome
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,748

      @jimlane

      There is plenty of in between, I’m sure, but Obama isnt part of it.  As President, he led one of the greatest mass deportations in history.  He continued most of the policies of the Bush administration, even signed into law a new program to assassinate people via algorithm and drone.

      That does not seem good to me, nor does it seem less than evil.  The black lives matter movement formed during the term of the first black President.  Winning a Nobel peace prize for well… not actually ending a war?

      Plenty of people think Obama was a decent man and President – he was not particularly decent in either regard.  He was a mediocre man of above average intelligence and charisma.  As President, he did not try to change the status quo, to create justice, to even honestly face the many issues of our time.

      Perhaps of he had had friends and advisors that weren’t among the super rich and the third way… perhaps if he had really had the audacity to hope – and believe.

      He got the Presidency on the lie of hope and change.  If anything, his two terms helped deplete any hope of change.  His lukewarm, half assed policies made it very easy for people like Trump to undo them – on the rare occasion that he actually did do something useful.

      He, like Bush, went along with the bank bailouts, insane military spending for illegal war and more.

      Sorry, as a President, he was nothing special.  If anything, he was a continuation of the third way corruption and greed.

       

      • #276097
        Jim Lane
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 627

        then you must believe that Obama was just as bad as Trump.

        Yes, you can list many reasons for unhappiness with Obama.  Those arguments do not, however, establish that Kagan and Sotomayor are just as bad as Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, or that pulling out of the agreements on climate change and Iranian nukes made no difference, or etc. etc. a host of other things I could mention.

        This thread is just the latest example.  There are real people, trying to make a living through miserable jobs at McDonald’s and other franchise operations, whose lives will now be made that much more difficult because Trump’s appointees overturned a policy of Obama’s appointees.  Believing that fairly obvious point doesn’t require you to condone Obama’s use of drones.

    • #276126
      David the Gnome
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,748

      @jimlane

      And Clinton – but that is setting the bar terribly low, my friend.  Yes, there are differences that are genuine – but that grow smaller and less meaningful with every passing year.  Obama had something few leaders in history ever had – the momentum and the mandate to do big things, to make great changes.

      I was one of those starry eyed idealists who believed his promises when he was a candidate.  I saw him as young, passionate, brave.  Then we all got to see – and live with the results of his Presidency.

      The arguement cannot be “we suck less”, or, “our candidate is somewhat less of a terrible human being”.  We’ve got to stop voting for terrible human beings – and in my book, someone who did the things Obama did qualifies.

      I think that Bernie could be the start of something very new for this time period.  Political leaders who manage to be decent human beings.  Perhaps I am still a bit of a starry eyed idealist.  Obama talked about hope and change – but Bernie knows how to actually make it happen.

      Less terrible than Trump can still be quite terrible.

      No more nose holding for me… and not because of any purity test, but because I believe that there are genuinely good people out there to vote for.  Now if we can just convince enough of them to run for office..

Viewing 5 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.