SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
The low-wage worker movement has grown dramatically over recent years. (Photo: Steve Rhodes/flickr/cc)
Fast Food-Loving Trump's Labor Board 'Pulls Rug Out' From Under Fast Food Workers
"While working people struggle to make ends meet, Trump's NLRB is making it harder for those who hold real power in workplaces to be held accountable."
Dec 15, 2017
In a "shocking and brazen" move to advance the Trump administration's "aggressive anti-worker agenda," Republicans on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) voted along party lines to overturn a rule that helped hotel and fast food workers bring labor rights lawsuits against major companies like McDonald's and other chains.
The decision restores a policy that legal experts warn lets "joint employers evade liability" and "makes it easier for a big-pocketed [corporations] to outsource parts of their operations without taking responsibility for the outsourced workers' working conditions."
In 2014, labor unions and workers had celebrated a decision by the NLRB's general council that chains such as McDonald's--which primarily relies on franchise owners to handle daily operations at the vast majority of restaurants--could be treated as joint employers for the sake of settling labor disputes. While another ruling a year later expanded the joint-employer classification, McDonald's and its contemporaries have continued to fight against it.
"And once again, this administration pulls the rug out from under working people."
--Rebecca Smith, National Employment Law ProjectFollowing the vote on Thursday, "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," according to a statement by the NLRB, which settles labor disputes between workers and employers.
Because the reversion to the old rules applies to "all future and pending cases," Thursday's ruling is expected to have significant and rather immediate consequences for workers.
As Huffington Post labor reporter Dave Jamieson noted: "Earlier this year, McDonald's was put on trial as a potential joint employer so that it might be held responsible for violating the rights of workers employed by its franchisees. That case has not been ruled on yet, and the change in precedent Thursday could knock a hole in the workers' argument."
The NLRB's decision Thursday infuriated workers, labor unions, and Democrats--including the two Democrats on the NLRB who voted against the proposal--who said this was just the latest boost to the pro-corporate agenda of President Donald Trump, a fast food enthusiast who earlier this year tried to appoint the chief executive of Hardee's and Carl's Jr.--despite a long anti-worker record--to lead the Labor Department.
"This shocking and brazen decision to overturn pro-worker precedent is further proof the Trump administration will stop at nothing to line the pockets of corporations--no matter what price workers and their families are forced to pay," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate's labor committee, told Huff Post.
Other Democrats in Congress and workers' advocates turned to Twitter to call out the Trump administration's NLRB for putting "corporate interests/wealthy donors before working families."
Although, as the New York Times noted Thursday, "the joint-employer decision was arguably the highest priority" on the NLRB's chopping block, the Republican-majority board is expected to continue attacking worker-friendly rules that were established under Obama.
In addition to the joint-employer classification, the Times reports that major employers have also targeted "rulings that made it easier for smaller groups of workers within a company to unionize, that gave workers access to a company's email network for organizing purposes, and that conferred a federally protected right to unionize on graduate students at private universities."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
In a "shocking and brazen" move to advance the Trump administration's "aggressive anti-worker agenda," Republicans on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) voted along party lines to overturn a rule that helped hotel and fast food workers bring labor rights lawsuits against major companies like McDonald's and other chains.
The decision restores a policy that legal experts warn lets "joint employers evade liability" and "makes it easier for a big-pocketed [corporations] to outsource parts of their operations without taking responsibility for the outsourced workers' working conditions."
In 2014, labor unions and workers had celebrated a decision by the NLRB's general council that chains such as McDonald's--which primarily relies on franchise owners to handle daily operations at the vast majority of restaurants--could be treated as joint employers for the sake of settling labor disputes. While another ruling a year later expanded the joint-employer classification, McDonald's and its contemporaries have continued to fight against it.
"And once again, this administration pulls the rug out from under working people."
--Rebecca Smith, National Employment Law ProjectFollowing the vote on Thursday, "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," according to a statement by the NLRB, which settles labor disputes between workers and employers.
Because the reversion to the old rules applies to "all future and pending cases," Thursday's ruling is expected to have significant and rather immediate consequences for workers.
As Huffington Post labor reporter Dave Jamieson noted: "Earlier this year, McDonald's was put on trial as a potential joint employer so that it might be held responsible for violating the rights of workers employed by its franchisees. That case has not been ruled on yet, and the change in precedent Thursday could knock a hole in the workers' argument."
The NLRB's decision Thursday infuriated workers, labor unions, and Democrats--including the two Democrats on the NLRB who voted against the proposal--who said this was just the latest boost to the pro-corporate agenda of President Donald Trump, a fast food enthusiast who earlier this year tried to appoint the chief executive of Hardee's and Carl's Jr.--despite a long anti-worker record--to lead the Labor Department.
"This shocking and brazen decision to overturn pro-worker precedent is further proof the Trump administration will stop at nothing to line the pockets of corporations--no matter what price workers and their families are forced to pay," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate's labor committee, told Huff Post.
Other Democrats in Congress and workers' advocates turned to Twitter to call out the Trump administration's NLRB for putting "corporate interests/wealthy donors before working families."
Although, as the New York Times noted Thursday, "the joint-employer decision was arguably the highest priority" on the NLRB's chopping block, the Republican-majority board is expected to continue attacking worker-friendly rules that were established under Obama.
In addition to the joint-employer classification, the Times reports that major employers have also targeted "rulings that made it easier for smaller groups of workers within a company to unionize, that gave workers access to a company's email network for organizing purposes, and that conferred a federally protected right to unionize on graduate students at private universities."
In a "shocking and brazen" move to advance the Trump administration's "aggressive anti-worker agenda," Republicans on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) voted along party lines to overturn a rule that helped hotel and fast food workers bring labor rights lawsuits against major companies like McDonald's and other chains.
The decision restores a policy that legal experts warn lets "joint employers evade liability" and "makes it easier for a big-pocketed [corporations] to outsource parts of their operations without taking responsibility for the outsourced workers' working conditions."
In 2014, labor unions and workers had celebrated a decision by the NLRB's general council that chains such as McDonald's--which primarily relies on franchise owners to handle daily operations at the vast majority of restaurants--could be treated as joint employers for the sake of settling labor disputes. While another ruling a year later expanded the joint-employer classification, McDonald's and its contemporaries have continued to fight against it.
"And once again, this administration pulls the rug out from under working people."
--Rebecca Smith, National Employment Law ProjectFollowing the vote on Thursday, "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," according to a statement by the NLRB, which settles labor disputes between workers and employers.
Because the reversion to the old rules applies to "all future and pending cases," Thursday's ruling is expected to have significant and rather immediate consequences for workers.
As Huffington Post labor reporter Dave Jamieson noted: "Earlier this year, McDonald's was put on trial as a potential joint employer so that it might be held responsible for violating the rights of workers employed by its franchisees. That case has not been ruled on yet, and the change in precedent Thursday could knock a hole in the workers' argument."
The NLRB's decision Thursday infuriated workers, labor unions, and Democrats--including the two Democrats on the NLRB who voted against the proposal--who said this was just the latest boost to the pro-corporate agenda of President Donald Trump, a fast food enthusiast who earlier this year tried to appoint the chief executive of Hardee's and Carl's Jr.--despite a long anti-worker record--to lead the Labor Department.
"This shocking and brazen decision to overturn pro-worker precedent is further proof the Trump administration will stop at nothing to line the pockets of corporations--no matter what price workers and their families are forced to pay," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate's labor committee, told Huff Post.
Other Democrats in Congress and workers' advocates turned to Twitter to call out the Trump administration's NLRB for putting "corporate interests/wealthy donors before working families."
Although, as the New York Times noted Thursday, "the joint-employer decision was arguably the highest priority" on the NLRB's chopping block, the Republican-majority board is expected to continue attacking worker-friendly rules that were established under Obama.
In addition to the joint-employer classification, the Times reports that major employers have also targeted "rulings that made it easier for smaller groups of workers within a company to unionize, that gave workers access to a company's email network for organizing purposes, and that conferred a federally protected right to unionize on graduate students at private universities."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.