The National Labor Board has ruled that companies that subcontract parts of their operation or sell franchises to private operators are to be considered “joint employers.” That means they may have to engage in collective bargaining with the unions that represent employees of the subcontractors or franchisees.
But many subcontractors offer services to scores of companies! Must all of them have a say in what the smaller businesses pay their employees?
From Labor board more than willing to carry out Obama’s agenda | Oklahoman.com:
The NLRB’s five-member panel includes three Democrats, a majority that has produced a number of blatantly pro-union decisions during Obama’s six-plus years in office. Perhaps that shouldn’t be surprising, considering that roughly 90 percent of labor’s political contributions have gone to Democratic candidates the past many years. But the board may have outdone itself with its “joint employer” decision handed down late last month.
In that case, the NLRB opened the door for companies that use subcontractors or have franchises to have to bargain with the unions representing the subcontractors’ and franchisees’ employees.
Unions contend that employers rely increasingly on subcontractors and temp agencies in order not to have to collectively bargain. But as The Wall Street Journal noted in an editorial, “many employers would be contracting out work anyway. Why would a tech company want to manage its janitors?”
Good question. Under this new rule, businesses with only “indirect” control over workers could potentially be called to the negotiating table, which is a nightmare waiting to happen.
The Journal noted that Apple, eBay and Yahoo have contracts with the same private bus service, whose employees are members of the Teamsters union. “Would all these companies have to bargain individually with the Teamsters?” the Journal wrote. “What if they disagree? Could eBay’s labor agreement override Apple’s bus contract?”
In short, this ruling is sure to hobble business and will only add to the sort of uncertainty that has kept the economy coughing along at such a slow pace.
The International Business Times said this ruling “increases the likelihood that parent companies can be held liable for labor violations committed by their partners further down the contracting chain.” That’s exactly what unions want, of course, and Obama’s NLRB was only too happy to do their bidding.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In