Democrats hate the gig economy, since they can’t force independent contractors to join unions (and thus rake off their union dues). So Biden’s NLRB issued a “joint-employer standard” to force companies to treat gig employees and subcontractors as subject to union representation. Well, a federal judge in Texas squashed that rule.
Last week, a federal judge in Texas issued a ruling that struck down a new joint-employer standard by the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that would have classified numerous companies as “employers” of specific contract and franchise employees, obligating them to negotiate with unions representing those workers.
U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker in Tyler decided in Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. National Labor Relations Board that the NLRB’s new “joint employers” rule is too broad and violates federal labor law.
The new NLRB rule would have expanded the standard for finding a joint employment relationship under the National Labor Relations Act, which states and defines the rights of employees to organize and bargain collectively with their employers through representatives.
“This ruling is a major win for employers and workers who don’t want their business decisions micromanaged by the NLRB,” said the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “It will prevent businesses from facing new liabilities related to workplaces they don’t control, and workers they don’t actually employ. The U.S. Chamber will continue to fight back against the NLRB and its campaign to promote unionization at all costs.”
The initial Chamber of Commerce complaint was filed jointly with a variety of other business organizations that asked the court to “vacate” the rule because it is based on a “flawed premise that it is contrary to common-law principles.” The complaint goes on to state that if the new rule were to go into effect, it would force companies to “face business-altering decisions.”
“The new Rule imposes joint-and-several liability on virtually every entity that hires contractors subject to routine parameters, defines the terms of those contracts, or collaborates with a third party of any kind in achieving common goals that have an incidental or indirect effect on the third party’s employees,” the complaint states.
In the opinion, Barker wrote that the rule “would treat virtually every entity that contracts for labor as a joint employer because virtually every contract for third-party labor has terms that impact, at least indirectly, at least one of the specified ‘essential terms and conditions of employment.’”
Barker stated that the rule is not valid because it would classify certain companies as the employers of contract or franchise workers, even when they had no significant control over the workers’ employment conditions, stating that “reach exceeds the bounds of the common law and is thus contrary to law.”
There are extensive reams of labor relations laws and rulings, but that’s not good enough for Democrats. They had to issue a transparently illegal ruling because workers and businesses continue to flee unions and closed shop states for right to work states, which is why union membership continues to decline and there’s nothing they can do about it.
The best way to shore up American worker wages is to stem the flood of illegal aliens across our border, but the Biden Administration will never do that.
Tags: Chamber of Commerce vs. NLRB, Democrats, National Labor Relations Board, Texas, unions
The new NLRB joint-employer standard will have its most pernicious affect upon hospitals and other health care providers. The American Hospital Association (AHA):
“Because hospitals have both a legal and professional duty to control health and safety conditions for everyone working in the hospital environment, the [NLRB] Final Rule could result in virtually every outside contract worker being classified as part of a “joint employment” relationship with the hospital,”
“By expanding the definition of joint employment in such a far-reaching fashion, the Final Rule will penalize hospitals for adopting responsible workplace policies. It will throw a wrench into the complex federal funding schemes that currently pay for patient care. And it will disrupt hospitals’ staffing arrangements, forcing hospitals and contractors into impractical, unnecessary, and costly bargaining. In imposing these burdens, the Final Rule departs from the Board’s longstanding recognition of the unique labor issues that hospitals face, which require tailored regulatory solutions instead of the Final Rule’s one-size-fits-all approach.”
Hospitals are already in desperate financial straits now that COVID subsidies have ended. Health care is 17% of the U.S. economy, much larger than the gig economy.
[…] GOOD: Federal Judge Squashes NLRB’s Attempt To Destroy Gig Economy. “There are extensive reams of labor relations laws and rulings, but that’s not good enough […]
Great news, as a gig employee myself, who currently gets Social Security, but needs my part-time job as a 1099 employee this is a great ruling too bad the Biden administration continues to try to push these things through the back door continue to fight
Fortunately, this will work its way up out of the septic pit of Texas courts and ultimately be implemented.
Gig work saved me in the late 80s, plus I met my wife through that job. Just one more example of hating individual behavior.
Doesn’t California already have this in place? Will this affect that state?
I am a freelance writer, but the organizations that hire me do not hire me. They hire Seawriter Services, a sole-proprietorship established in the county where I live. At present, it has one employee (me). They use my business EIN number instead of my SSN. Set this up years ago when I saw this kind of horse puckey coming down the road.
“Doesn’t California already have this in place? Will this affect that state?”
Not unless the California statute specifically invokes the NLRB rule as its basis. California rarely does that, so in all likelihood the state law in CA will not be affected by this Federal law ruling.