NLRB on "Joint Employers"

[Belsnickel]

So this came across my newsfeed today:

http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/08/27/us-usa-labor-idINKCN0QW2CZ20150827

Quote:A major ruling handed down on Thursday by the U.S. National Labor Relations Board could give unions greater bargaining power by enabling them to negotiate directly with large parent companies like McDonald’s that rely heavily on franchisees and contractors.

The board in a 3-2 decision ruled that an existing standard that said companies only qualify as “joint employers” of workers hired by another business if they had “direct and immediate” control over employment matters was outdated and did not reflect the realities of the 21st century workforce.

The ruling said parent companies can be held liable for labor violations committed by franchisees and contractors even when they have only indirect control. It is expected to impact a broad range of U.S. industries built on franchising and contract labor, from fast food and hospitality to security and construction.

and because I like to give varying perspectives: http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/the-labor-ruling-mcdonalds-has-been-dreading-just-became-a-reality/ar-BBmaHzB

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-federal-ruling-mcdonalds-has-dreaded-just-became-a-reality_55df39a1e4b029b3f1b1db3b

http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/blog/morning-edition/2015/08/nlrb-rewrites-joint-employer-rule-upends-business.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2015/08/27/nlrb-declares-browning-ferris-a-joint-employer-whos-next/

So what do you all think? Good, bad, indifferent? Does this make sense to you or none at all?

[xxlt]

(08-28-2015, 09:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So this came across my newsfeed today:

http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/08/27/us-usa-labor-idINKCN0QW2CZ20150827


and because I like to give varying perspectives: http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/the-labor-ruling-mcdonalds-has-been-dreading-just-became-a-reality/ar-BBmaHzB

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-federal-ruling-mcdonalds-has-dreaded-just-became-a-reality_55df39a1e4b029b3f1b1db3b

http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/blog/morning-edition/2015/08/nlrb-rewrites-joint-employer-rule-upends-business.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2015/08/27/nlrb-declares-browning-ferris-a-joint-employer-whos-next/

So what do you all think? Good, bad, indifferent? Does this make sense to you or none at all?

In a classic example of why America sucks, working people have turned against unions. So, the only reason workers have anything is now something they routinely villify. The folks at Faux News and the WSJ couldn't be happier, and they keep the beat as poor people sing "death to unions." But, nothing lasts forever, not even ignorance, and the collective consciousness raising of the last few years along with rulings like this bode well for unions, and in turn workers.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-28-2015, 10:51 AM)xxlt Wrote: In a classic example of why America sucks, working people have turned against unions. So, the only reason workers have anything is now something they routinely villify. The folks at Faux News and the WSJ couldn't be happier, and they keep the beat as poor people sing "death to unions." But, nothing lasts forever, not even ignorance, and the collective consciousness raising of the last few years along with rulings like this bode well for unions, and in turn workers.

I don't know a person in a union who thinks their union does anything for them.  the concepts of unions is fine, but their execution of their duties suck now.  

[jakefromstatefarm]

This ruling is pure nonsense. Corporations like McDonald's don't even have indirect control over employees at the franchise level....they have zero control. Hopefully they'll unionize and get that $15 minimum wage put into place so I can completely laugh at the idiots that support this nonsense when the employees are replaced with automation and touch screen kiosks.

[Benton]

(08-28-2015, 11:00 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't know a person in a union who thinks their union does anything for them.  the concepts of unions is fine, but their execution of their duties suck now.  

Do you know any laborers, or are you talking about teachers unions and public unions?

[*michaelsean*]

(08-28-2015, 11:12 AM)Benton Wrote: Do you know any laborers, or are you talking about teachers unions and public unions?

Post office, police, fire mostly.  

[xxlt]

(08-28-2015, 11:00 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't know a person in a union who thinks their union does anything for them.  the concepts of unions is fine, but their execution of their duties suck now.  

^ Exhibit A.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-28-2015, 11:24 AM)xxlt Wrote: ^ Exhibit A.

Feel free to keep your head in the sand.  

[Benton]

(08-28-2015, 11:21 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Post office, police, fire mostly.  

Learn something every day, I didn't know postal workers had a union.



Public employee unions and blue collar unions tend to differ as the jobs aren't really comparable. Police and fire fighter definitions of unsafe working conditions tend to come from what they're paid to deal with, not because their employer ignored safety reports or bought shoddy equipment, like what coal miners, chemical engineers and heavy equipment operators have to deal with. And since typically those public employees can't strike, they don't have the financial support that's there from labor unions who keep their employees afloat during strikes.

Generally, I'm against public employee unions. Governmental agencies have protocols and standards in place that don't have to exist in private business. But that's not the same as labor or unions at private businesses.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-28-2015, 11:58 AM)Benton Wrote: Learn something every day, I didn't know postal workers had a union.



Public employee unions and blue collar unions tend to differ as the jobs aren't really comparable. Police and fire fighter definitions of unsafe working conditions tend to come from what they're paid to deal with, not because their employer ignored safety reports or bought shoddy equipment, like what coal miners, chemical engineers and heavy equipment operators have to deal with. And since typically those public employees can't strike, they don't have the financial support that's there from labor unions who keep their employees afloat during strikes.

Generally, I'm against public employee unions. Governmental agencies have protocols and standards in place that don't have to exist in private business. But that's not the same as labor or unions at private businesses.

Like I said, I have no problem with the existence of unions. If people want to form a group and use the power of the group, that is fine by me. What I don't like are special laws for unions. You are a group of people who came together for a common cause. Nothing more.

[Benton]

(08-28-2015, 12:22 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Like I said, I have no problem with the existence of unions.  If people want to form a group and use the power of the group, that is fine by me.  What I don't like are special laws for unions.  You are a group of people who came together for a common cause.  Nothing more.

In regards to practices, there are laws protecting and penalizing employers, I don't see why there wouldn't be laws protecting and penalizing employees. Most of those would be covered by laws protecting an individual, but not all.

[Belsnickel]

(08-28-2015, 11:58 AM)Benton Wrote: Generally, I'm against public employee unions. Governmental agencies have protocols and standards in place that don't have to exist in private business. But that's not the same as labor or unions at private businesses.

As a public employee, I am against unions for public employees and I live in a state without them. That being said public employee unions do still do things for their members to their benefit. There is a reason Virginia's public employees are the worst compensated out of all 50 states, DC, and the federal government.

[fredtoast]

(08-28-2015, 12:22 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Like I said, I have no problem with the existence of unions.  If people want to form a group and use the power of the group, that is fine by me.  What I don't like are special laws for unions.  You are a group of people who came together for a common cause.  Nothing more.

What special treatment do unions receive?

Most of the special laws are AGAINST labor unions.  Many states have passed "right-to-work" laws that severely limit labor unions.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-30-2015, 12:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What special treatment do unions receive?

Most of the special laws are AGAINST labor unions.  Many states have passed "right-to-work" laws that severely limit labor unions.

"Right to work" laws don't severely limit labor unions. 

It gives employees a choice of whether to join the union or not, and rightfully so.  

[fredtoast]

(08-30-2015, 12:39 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: "Right to work" laws don't severely limit labor unions. 

It gives employees a choice of whether to join the union or not, and rightfully so.  

I don't think it is fair for non-union workers to get the benefits of a union without paying the dues.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-30-2015, 01:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't think it is fair for non-union workers to get the benefits of a union without paying the dues.

Amazing that you don't apply that same logic to Americans who don't pay income taxes, or receive more back than what they pay in.