Go Forth and Temp No More

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Go Forth and Temp No More

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

http://thehill.com/regulation/labor/250880-businesses-brace-for-game-changing-labor-decision

quote:

Business leaders in Washington are bracing for a labor ruling that they warn would redefine what constitutes an �employer� in the United States, exposing thousands of companies to new liabilities and potentially upending entire industries.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is widely expected to rule by month�s end that Browning-Ferris Industries, a Houston-based waste-disposal company, is a joint employer of workers provided to the firm by a staffing agency, experts say. As a result, the company would be forced to collectively bargain with those employees and could be held liable for any labor violations committed against them.

Such a decision could hit companies from a host of industries, including hospitality, retail, manufacturing, construction, financial service providers, cleaning services and security.

The expected action would be the latest in a string of major wins for labor groups under the Obama administration, which has already issued several sweeping executive actions on worker protections and wages.

Backers say it is a necessary step to protect a vulnerable class of temporary workers and independent contractors. But business groups fear the decision will wreak havoc throughout the private sector.

�It has the potential to change the entire way businesses operate in this country,� said Rob Green, executive director of the National Council of Chain Restaurants.

�There are so many business relationships in the economy that rely on companies providing services to other companies,� he added. �So you can imagine that any business sector could be impacted by the decision."

At issue is whether Browning-Ferris is responsible for the treatment of its contractor�s employees. The company hired Phoenix-based Leadpoint Business Services to staff a recycling facility in California.

�Whenever this issue comes up, I always think of that old television show, �Who�s the Boss?� because that�s the question we have here,� quipped Doug Bloch, political director of a California branch of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

A regional NLRB director initially ruled in favor of Browning-Ferris, which opposes the joint-employer designation. But the Teamsters union, which is representing the workers, is appealing the case to the National Labor Relations Board.

The Democratic-controlled NLRB, which has a history of ruling against business during the Obama administration, is expected to overturn the decision and side with the workers.

Observers believe the decision is likely to come before Republican board member Harry Johnson�s term runs out at the end of the month. While Democrats on the five-seat board could push through the decision on a 3-1 vote following the end of Johnson's run, doing so could open up the agency to criticism over issuing such a sweeping ruling when it is not at full strength.

The decision would carry more weight if it came from a full board, explained former board member Brian Hayes.

Businesses say they are bracing for the worst. Some warn they will cut ties with staffing agencies that help recruit temporary workers, and subcontractors that provide janitorial and security services. They say they will bring those jobs in-house so they have more control over the situation.

�Every company will have to reexamine their business relationships,� said Michael J. Lotito, an employment and labor attorney. �I�d rather be responsible for my own company than someone else�s.�

Restaurants could suffer the biggest hit from the ruling.

Franchise owners who take on the risks of opening up local branches of restaurants, like McDonald�s and Burger King, could go from �being their own boss to being a glorified manager,� said Angelo Amador, senior vice president of the National Restaurant Association.

Currently, corporations like McDonald�s take care of the marketing, but leave decisions about wages, hours and hiring to the local franchise owners, business groups contend.

�This is the model franchises have been based on in our country since the time of Benjamin Franklin, who was the first franchisor,� said Robert Cresanti, executive vice president of government relations at the International Franchise Association.

But the NLRB�s ruling could turn the franchise model �on its head,� Green said.

The Browning-Ferris decision could also be a �roadmap� for another case before the labor board that will determine whether McDonald�s Corp. is a joint employer, Lotito said.

In the McDonald�s case, the labor board will determine whether the restaurant should be responsible for labor violations committed by independent franchise owners.

The NLRB�s top lawyer filed charges against McDonald�s last December, accusing the burger joint of illegally retaliating against employees who participated in union-related activities.

Though many of these alleged labor violations were committed by franchise owners, NLRB General Counsel Richard Griffin contends that McDonald�s Corp. should be equally liable as a joint employer.

An NLRB administrative law judge is currently weighing the McDonald�s case, but the decision will almost certainly be appealed.

If the pending cases put companies on the hook for labor violations committed by franchise owners, they will likely insist on asserting more control over local restaurants, experts say.

�All of the sudden, a local business person who has built a franchise up for 20 years is a middle manager,� said Dan Martini, manager of legislative affairs at the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB).

This could discourage many entrepreneurs from opening a franchise, for fear of too much corporate interference.

�Some people like being their own boss and don�t want to be told how to run their own business,� Amador said. �They want to be able to make the decisions about pricing, when they open, when they close, who they hire, who they fire.�

The implications of the Browning-Ferris decision would extend far beyond the golden arches, potentially impacting all manner of arrangements between businesses, experts say.

Labor groups argue that the joint-employer designations are needed to tamp down on the practice of using staffing agencies to provide �permanent temps.� Companies exploit these relationships so they can shirk their responsibilities as employers, they allege.

Under current labor law, companies are only liable for employees over whom they exert direct control by setting their hours, wages and job responsibilities. They can get around this requirement by working with staffing agencies to recruit temporary workers or hiring subcontractors to complete a job.

Oftentimes, the staffing agencies and subcontractors provide little to no supervision of these employees, so they argue they shouldn�t be considered their primary employer either, labor advocates say.

Many workers, they argue, get caught in the middle.

�When companies are pointing fingers at each other, the workers feel like they have no recourse,� Bloch said.

�The understanding used to be, �If you work for me, I will take care of you,�� he explained. �Now, it has changed so you don�t even know who you work for, and if something happens, �Sorry.��

Good. Get hosed, employers.

# ? Aug 14, 2015 21:07

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 8, 2024 16:30

How are u: May 19, 2005; by Azathoth

Good. Temp workers and freelancers get hosed over by companies every day.

# ? Aug 14, 2015 21:08

Woof Blitzer: Dec 29, 2012; [-]

I am a supervisor for a security company. 100% of my time has been spent on a single site contracted by a single company. So while I show up to work at one company, I have zero contact with the company that actually hired me and pays me. Additionally, 3 of 4 of my managers are employees of the company that contracted our services. So what is all this ruckus going to mean?

# ? Aug 14, 2015 21:34

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

Wow, that's a huge loving deal. Are they going after unpaid interns as well or is this only going to be about employees?

# ? Aug 14, 2015 21:55

Quorum: Sep 24, 2014; REMIND ME AGAIN HOW THE LITTLE HORSE-SHAPED ONES MOVE?

Equine Don posted:

I am a supervisor for a security company. 100% of my time has been spent on a single site contracted by a single company. So while I show up to work at one company, I have zero contact with the company that actually hired me and pays me. Additionally, 3 of 4 of my managers are employees of the company that contracted our services. So what is all this ruckus going to mean?

The company where you actually report every workday would become a joint employer and be legally responsible for your treatment. So, nothing practically, unless you were fired and wanted to bring a discrimination suit or something like that, in which case you could bring it against whichever employer was most relevant.

ToxicSlurpee posted:

Wow, that's a huge loving deal. Are they going after unpaid interns as well or is this only going to be about employees?

God, I sincerely hope they tackle unpaid internships. Some work has already been done on that front but it's still a huge problem. Sadly, given the pattern, if they do anything it'll still likely exclude the public sector, which leaves my field almost entirely high and dry.

# ? Aug 15, 2015 04:28

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

So is this going to mean that say, McDonalds can't shut down a franchise when people talk about unionizing because McDonalds Coporation would officially constitute their employer and hence it would be illegal to punish people for unionizing?

# ? Aug 15, 2015 04:43

OneEightHundred: Feb 28, 2008; Soon, we will be unstoppable!

I'm guessing that the odds of this triggering a high-profile court case to decide if the NLRB actually has the power to do this is around 100%?

# ? Aug 15, 2015 04:56

skaboomizzy: Nov 12, 2003; There is nothing I want to be. There is nothing I want to do.
I don't even have an image of what I want to be. I have nothing. All that exists is zero.

Fojar38 posted:

So is this going to mean that say, McDonalds can't shut down a franchise when people talk about unionizing because McDonalds Coporation would officially constitute their employer and hence it would be illegal to punish people for unionizing?

Union stuff is way down the line.

What happens now is McDonald's corp says "Hey man, it's not OUR fault the guy/gal at the fry-o-lator has to work at two different stores for 70 hours a week combined to pay bills. These franchisees, y'know, they set their own pay and run their own stores autonomously!" This ignores that McDonald's corp tells tells them where to buy their ingredients, cleaning supplies, etc and specifies exactly how each item is supposed to be made, what the cashier says to customers, and micro-manages the poo poo out of every location under threat of stripping the franchise.

But McDonald's isn't the employer, you see, and they're not responsible for any terrible poo poo that happens in a franchise location like the pervy manager groping the teenage girls on the closing shift.

# ? Aug 15, 2015 05:00

Woof Blitzer: Dec 29, 2012; [-]

Quorum posted:

The company where you actually report every workday would become a joint employer and be legally responsible for your treatment. So, nothing practically, unless you were fired and wanted to bring a discrimination suit or something like that, in which case you could bring it against whichever employer was most relevant.

God, I sincerely hope they tackle unpaid internships. Some work has already been done on that front but it's still a huge problem. Sadly, given the pattern, if they do anything it'll still likely exclude the public sector, which leaves my field almost entirely high and dry.

Well that's loving stupid if the thread title suggests "permanent temp" is going to go away, when it's really merely making both employers liable for legal infractions. So this won't positively affect workers who get paid far less for doing the same job as true permanent employees, unless something illegal happens.

# ? Aug 15, 2015 05:27

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

Equine Don posted:

Well that's loving stupid if the thread title suggests "permanent temp" is going to go away, when it's really merely making both employers liable for legal infractions. So this won't positively affect workers who get paid far less for doing the same job as true permanent employees, unless something illegal happens.

It's a big deal though because companies just love to hire other agencies to bring in temp workers to absolve themselves of all responsibility when it turns out that those workers were illegal immigrants and/or being paid less than minimum wage. There were stories coming out about Walmart hiring other companies to clean their stores and it turning out that said companies hired illegals to work for like $2/hour. Walmart got to just go "welp, not our workers!" They won't be able to now.

# ? Aug 15, 2015 05:31

Woof Blitzer: Dec 29, 2012; [-]

ToxicSlurpee posted:

It's a big deal though because companies just love to hire other agencies to bring in temp workers to absolve themselves of all responsibility when it turns out that those workers were illegal immigrants and/or being paid less than minimum wage. There were stories coming out about Walmart hiring other companies to clean their stores and it turning out that said companies hired illegals to work for like $2/hour. Walmart got to just go "welp, not our workers!" They won't be able to now.

People will still be getting screwed over when they do these unpaid internships because hey you signed the paper not our problem! So stupid this continues to exist in 2015. Hell I work at a fortune 500 company that is frequently rated as one of the best places to work, I do weekly 20+ hours more than a company employee, but even though I work nowhere else I'm just a contractor and so that justifies no vacation, no healthcare, 2x lower pay, all for the exact same responsibilities. This country is so hosed

# ? Aug 15, 2015 05:36

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

Equine Don posted:

People will still be getting screwed over when they do these unpaid internships because hey you signed the paper not our problem! So stupid this continues to exist in 2015. Hell I work at a fortune 500 company that is frequently rated as one of the best places to work, I do weekly 20+ hours more than a company employee, but even though I work nowhere else I'm just a contractor and so that justifies no vacation, no healthcare, 2x lower pay, all for the exact same responsibilities. This country is so hosed

Yeah and this sort of thing is a step toward ending those conditions. It's the issue with capitalism as a whole; you make one way of exploiting the workers illegal and they come up with another. Then when you put laws in place to get them to knock that poo poo off they scream that it will ruin all business and usher in a thousand years of liberal darkness.

Of course if you become technically "an employee" I kind of wonder if it's going to keep being "one of the best places to work." That probably only counts direct employees.

# ? Aug 15, 2015 06:00

Kim Jong Il: Aug 16, 2003

I support the workers in this case, but it's pretty obvious that fast food if not all retail is going to get hit hard by automation in response to these pushes.

# ? Aug 15, 2015 08:39

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

Kim Jong Il posted:

I support the workers in this case, but it's pretty obvious that fast food if not all retail is going to get hit hard by automation in response to these pushes.

That was going to happen eventually no matter what.

# ? Aug 15, 2015 08:51

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

Would this have an effect on the H1B abuse where companies get around the ban on replacing workers with visa holders because the new employees don't work for the company but are instead employed by companies like Infosys and Tata?

It seems like that loophole wouldn't be feasible if the visa holding employees are jointly employed by the parent company and the staffing agency.

# ? Aug 15, 2015 22:58

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Kim Jong Il posted:

I support the workers in this case, but it's pretty obvious that fast food if not all retail is going to get hit hard by automation in response to these pushes.

I've yet to find a person who likes working retail.

I can least understand people being nostalgic about lovely factory jobs because they paid a decent wage (even though most weren't alive when they really existed) but retail doesn't even pay that well.

# ? Aug 15, 2015 23:10

Control Volume: Dec 31, 2008

computer parts posted:

I've yet to find a person who likes working retail.

I can least understand people being nostalgic about lovely factory jobs because they paid a decent wage (even though most weren't alive when they really existed) but retail doesn't even pay that well.

Factory jobs are less bad because the hours tend to be set (barring mandatory overtime) and they pay you enough to rent an apartment but if you find someone who's happy with their factory job, they're lying.

# ? Aug 15, 2015 23:15

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

Could this negatively impact the National Park Service? My memories of the food service, cleaning, hotel management, reservations, etc for places as remote as Denali had the non-ranger duties (aside from gift shop iirc as they tended to double as the visitor center) seemingly outsourced to another company. All of those employees suddenly becoming federal employees (assuming they aren't already) would seemingly be a hit to park service budgets, let alone possible logistics requirements.

# ? Aug 16, 2015 00:02

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

computer parts posted:

I've yet to find a person who likes working retail.

I can least understand people being nostalgic about lovely factory jobs because they paid a decent wage (even though most weren't alive when they really existed) but retail doesn't even pay that well.

If the pay wasn't so awful I'd have actually liked my retail job. I spent most of my time unloading and sorting trucks. I just hid in the back of the store and carried heavy things around. I just figured I was getting paid to exercise and then when it was time to leave I could go do other crap if I wanted.

Granted before the economy tanks I could get all the extra hours I wanted and we were getting deliberately dicked on medical stuff. Then the Great Recession hit and everything went to garbage.

# ? Aug 16, 2015 00:07

Okuteru: Nov 10, 2007; Choose this life you're on your own

computer parts posted:

I've yet to find a person who likes working retail.

During my time in Fast Food, I've met more than a few workers who LOVED working minimum wage fast food. Mind you, they were mostly shift managers and acted like Ryan Reynolds character in the film "Waiting", but they exist.

# ? Aug 16, 2015 01:08

Quorum: Sep 24, 2014; REMIND ME AGAIN HOW THE LITTLE HORSE-SHAPED ONES MOVE?

Zachack posted:

Could this negatively impact the National Park Service? My memories of the food service, cleaning, hotel management, reservations, etc for places as remote as Denali had the non-ranger duties (aside from gift shop iirc as they tended to double as the visitor center) seemingly outsourced to another company. All of those employees suddenly becoming federal employees (assuming they aren't already) would seemingly be a hit to park service budgets, let alone possible logistics requirements.

This doesn't impact who pays employees, just who is responsible for their working conditions. And with a lot of these labor rulings, governments are exempt; I don't know if that is the case here. (I would think not, but the government is explicitly exempted from unpaid internship restrictions, so...)

# ? Aug 16, 2015 03:10

archangelwar: Oct 28, 2004; Teaching Moments

Quorum posted:

This doesn't impact who pays employees, just who is responsible for their working conditions.

Yes, basically a liability issue. I wonder if they will ever apply this to contract based employees as well (looking at Uber et al).

# ? Aug 16, 2015 03:15

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

archangelwar posted:

Yes, basically a liability issue. I wonder if they will ever apply this to contract based employees as well (looking at Uber et al).

It's looking less and less likely that Uber would fall under a contract scheme.

# ? Aug 16, 2015 04:01

CAPS LOCK BROKEN: Feb 1, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

Interesting development. Nearly all of my coworkers at my company started out as permatemps and then worked their way into the company from the staffing agency. One of my coworkers was a temp for almost 4 years because she refused an offer from the company to work on the phones. As a result, they punished her by on as a temp through the agency for a few years until an opening appeared.

# ? Aug 16, 2015 04:05

cheese: Jan 7, 2004; Shop around for doctors! Always fucking shop for doctors. Doctors are stupid assholes. And they get by because people are cowed by their mystical bullshit quality of being able to maintain a 3.0 GPA at some Guatemalan medical college for 3 semesters. Find one that makes sense.

Kim Jong Il posted:

I support the workers in this case, but it's pretty obvious that fast food if not all retail is going to get hit hard by automation in response to these pushes.

Good. The sooner we get rid of all of these below subsistence wage "jobs" the sooner we can have a real conversation about what work and income really mean in a
2015 economy where I can get on my smartphone, order something made by a robot, and have it delivered to my house by a drone.

computer parts posted:

It's looking less and less likely that Uber would fall under a contract scheme.

I wonder if Uber is already too big to fail.

# ? Aug 16, 2015 04:14

Shrecknet: Jan 2, 2005

Kim Jong Il posted:

I support the workers in this case, but it's pretty obvious that fast food if not all retail is going to get hit hard by automation in response to these pushes.

If it were cheaper to hire robots, they would have done so by now. It is clearly not, and won't be for some time.

# ? Aug 16, 2015 04:31

Lyapunov Unstable: Nov 20, 2011

Shifty Pony posted:

Would this have an effect on the H1B abuse where companies get around the ban on replacing workers with visa holders because the new employees don't work for the company but are instead employed by companies like Infosys and Tata?

It seems like that loophole wouldn't be feasible if the visa holding employees are jointly employed by the parent company and the staffing agency.

I'm curious about this, too. This poo poo is rampant.

# ? Aug 16, 2015 04:40

Rand alPaul: Feb 3, 2010; by Nyc_Tattoo

Kim Jong Il posted:

I support the workers in this case, but it's pretty obvious that fast food if not all retail is going to get hit hard by automation in response to these pushes.

Like the self-checkout lines at grocery stores that are neither faster nor cheaper than an actual worker? Good, I hope McDonalds makes McRobots and they go bankrupt against a company that actually pays their workers a decent wage.

# ? Aug 16, 2015 04:44

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Rand alPaul posted:

Like the self-checkout lines at grocery stores that are neither faster nor cheaper than an actual worker? Good, I hope McDonalds makes McRobots and they go bankrupt against a company that actually pays their workers a decent wage.

They're getting faster again because everyone realizes they suck so much that there's hardly ever a lineup for them.

I'm still waiting for the vending machine that can make me a pizza from scratch, like I was promised a few years ago. Where's my pizza, assholes?

# ? Aug 16, 2015 04:47

Berk Berkly: Apr 9, 2009; by zen death robot

PT6A posted:

They're getting faster again because everyone realizes they suck so much that there's hardly ever a lineup for them.

I'm still waiting for the vending machine that can make me a pizza from scratch, like I was promised a few years ago. Where's my pizza, assholes?

Was it this one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyrav_9Pbsc

# ? Aug 16, 2015 04:53

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Berk Berkly posted:

Was it this one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyrav_9Pbsc

Yeah, that's the one. Apparently it's actually a real thing, but I've never seen one in real life.

# ? Aug 16, 2015 04:58

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

Man they really stress "human-free".

Either its a front for some soylent-pizza cartel or the weird snobby-accent lady is one of the secret AI overlords of the world.

# ? Aug 16, 2015 05:09

archangelwar: Oct 28, 2004; Teaching Moments

computer parts posted:

It's looking less and less likely that Uber would fall under a contract scheme.

They seem to be getting some loses in Cali local, but outside of that I am not so sure. This decision seems like it could guide the narrative in the right direction at least.

# ? Aug 16, 2015 05:12

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

Quorum posted:

This doesn't impact who pays employees, just who is responsible for their working conditions. And with a lot of these labor rulings, governments are exempt; I don't know if that is the case here. (I would think not, but the government is explicitly exempted from unpaid internship restrictions, so...)

Unless I'm massively misreading one of the issues is that the change will impact franchises to the point where the mothership corporation will simply retract all control from the franchisee in order to eliminate danger of labor violations, and in doing so employees of McDonalds #2311 will functionally become employees of McDonalds #1. If not exempted, the NPS would seem to have a similar problem - either absorb all the employees working for a contracted vendor operating in a park in order to ensure against labor violations or risk lawsuits resulting from vendor misbehavior.

Similarly, government buildings that use private security would presumably want to restaff with LEO of some sort, which on the face would be good (actual training, powers, pay, etc) but would at a minimum have a rocky transition period and depending on site may ultimately be worse (my building would probably go back to no security and I don't know that getting actual LEO would be an improvement).

# ? Aug 16, 2015 05:16

ChairMaster: Aug 22, 2009; by R. Guyovich

Wait do people not like self-checkouts? I can self checkout in the same amount of time that it takes one of the clerks to do it except people don't take very large amounts of groceries into them so there's never a line up and I don't have to look at or talk to another person, which is a huge bonus for me.

# ? Aug 16, 2015 06:36

Typical Pubbie: May 10, 2011

Replacing workers with machines is good. Raising the minimum wage to $15 will do little to drive this trend, sadly.

# ? Aug 16, 2015 06:59

foobardog: Apr 19, 2007; There, now I can tell when you're posting.

-- A friend

ChairMaster posted:

Wait do people not like self-checkouts? I can self checkout in the same amount of time that it takes one of the clerks to do it except people don't take very large amounts of groceries into them so there's never a line up and I don't have to look at or talk to another person, which is a huge bonus for me.

This is what I'm wondering, the self checkout has always been just as fast for me, and not as much of a bottleneck as a normal checkout. That said, looking at other people, I often feel I'm the exception to the rule, and if you're buying produce, figuring out what to enter is not as human friendly as it could be. And waiting to get carded for beer is slow. Additionally fighting the theft prevention scale can be annoying as gently caress.

I'm still in favor, and I think the posters in this thread doth protest too much, but I could see it being a wash in the end.

That said, it will be interesting to the the shake out of this, I expect apocalyptic whining from business once they get their media message straight. Including the liberal "good ones". Permatemping has been a constant part of my life in the software industry, where contingent staff are referred to as dash trash since their email addresses are prefixed with letters separated by dashes. On one hand, there are some benefits to it since expectations and hourly pay can work against the overworking culture, but you're basically always second class citizens within the company.

# ? Aug 16, 2015 07:26

ugh its Troika: May 2, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

The whole "make the parent company liable for labor violations of the franchise" thing is retarded, much like a lot of poo poo the NLRB has pushed (and gotten slapped down for by federal courts) in the past 10-15 years. Some random bureaucrat at the head office obviously has nothing to do with your manager being an rear end in a top hat.

Also this entire thing is being pushed by the SEIU, which are gigantic hypocrites given their efforts to destroy locals in California.

ugh its Troika fucked around with this message at 08:23 on Aug 16, 2015

# ? Aug 16, 2015 08:21

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

-Troika- posted:

The whole "make the parent company liable for labor violations of the franchise" thing is retarded, much like a lot of poo poo the NLRB has pushed (and gotten slapped down for by federal courts) in the past 10-15 years.

How so? If these stores are being so closely managed by corporate, it seems as though they bear responsibility for their working conditions. I am, of course, doubtless both stupid and retarded, and I await being properly schooled.

# ? Aug 16, 2015 08:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 8, 2024 16:30

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

-Troika- posted:

The whole "make the parent company liable for labor violations of the franchise" thing is retarded, much like a lot of poo poo the NLRB has pushed (and gotten slapped down for by federal courts) in the past 10-15 years. Some random bureaucrat at the head office obviously has nothing to do with your manager being an rear end in a top hat.

Also this entire thing is being pushed by the SEIU, which are gigantic hypocrites given their efforts to destroy locals in California.

I'm pretty sure the whole idea is to force the companies to actually care about employees they've managed to absolve themselves of responsibility for. The issue is that, right now, companies can indirectly perpetuate all sorts of abuses on their employees then just shrug and go "well they weren't our employees so it isn't our fault." Except that it kind of is. I guarantee you that some companies do in fact know that the companies they are hiring for temp/indirect work are breaking the law or mistreating employees but don't care because it costs them less.

Companies really only care about the bottom line and will do literally anything to make more profit. This looks like people are trying to pull the rug out from under at least some of the awful practices.

# ? Aug 16, 2015 08:53

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Go Forth and Temp No More

«‹›5 »