Obama admin issues landmark labor ruling redefining the term "employer"

[eldirector]

Did I miss where the "dropped package" came in?

If I am reading this correctly (and that may be a stretch), this decision means that both the contracting company and the supplying company are responsible for the benefits to the "employee", as that person is now an employee of BOTH companies (joint-employer). Rather than the PREVIOUS standard, which was that the supplying company ONLY was responsible for benefits (they performed all HR functions), and the contracting company ONLY managed the daily work (line manager).

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Did I miss where the "dropped package" came in?

If I am reading this correctly (and that may be a stretch), this decision means that both the contracting company and the supplying company are responsible for the benefits to the "employee", as that person is now an employee of BOTH companies (joint-employer). Rather than the PREVIOUS standard, which was that the supplying company ONLY was responsible for benefits (they performed all HR functions), and the contracting company ONLY managed the daily work (line manager).

I'm still stumbling through it myself, so I could easily be wrong myself. Is expanded liability referring to something else?

Why would you have to pay benefits you don't currently pay? I'm sure worker's comp and unemployment insurance and the like must already be paid on temp workers. I'm also sure that not all direct hire employees get benefits if we mean health care and the like, so why would saying you are liable for that person mean you have to pay benefits?

**EDIT**

Maybe its just referring to liability for workplace labor violations?

 

[eldirector]

In this particular case, it appears that the Union already "represented" full-time, permanent employees. They wanted to ALSO "represent" the contracted employees. But, as they were not employees of the main company, they were not eligible. This changes that, and removes one of the benefits of outsourcing.

 

[MisterChester]

Am I the only one here that thinks it's kind of silly to see work being contracted on multiple levels? It just sounds so inefficient.

 

[dusty88]

The problem is the distinct avoidance of hiring employees by the parent company. Its one thing to hire a cleaning contractor to do ancillary work not related to daily operations. Its an entirely different animal to outsource core competency so you dont have to pay benefits.

Look at both Amazon and Eli Lilly. Both outsource VERY heavily with the express intention of avoiding employment responsibilities as it relates to benefits.

Its one thing to hire a contractor to fill a temp position or to fill a need for a random position that doesnt align with your core needs. Its another thing entirely to outsource all staff that fills that core operations goal.

Exactly. People who don't mind taking away employer's rights of course don't mind forcing the employer to do even more.

The shortsightedness of this is that the more burdensome it is to be an employer, the less likely it is for the average guy to be an employer.

That's one point I make strongly when people ask me about owning a business: avoid being an employer as long as you possibly can.

You become an unpaid agent for properly collecting taxes and enforcing policy. You are subject to fines and lawsuits, with no contrasting benefit.

 

[dusty88]

The problem is the distinct avoidance of hiring employees by the parent company. Its one thing to hire a cleaning contractor to do ancillary work not related to daily operations. Its an entirely different animal to outsource core competency so you dont have to pay benefits.

Look at both Amazon and Eli Lilly. Both outsource VERY heavily with the express intention of avoiding employment responsibilities as it relates to benefits.

Its one thing to hire a contractor to fill a temp position or to fill a need for a random position that doesnt align with your core needs. Its another thing entirely to outsource all staff that fills that core operations goal.

If we were to take your idea and fully embrace it, then you are an "employer" for someone you hire to cut your hair, deliver your paper, etc.

The fact we differentiate rights and responsibilities for something the government defines as "employment" and make it more than 2 people agreeing on terms, has caused massive business inefficiencies. Lawyers and bureaucrats benefit, though.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

In this particular case, it appears that the Union already "represented" full-time, permanent employees. They wanted to ALSO "represent" the contracted employees. But, as they were not employees of the main company, they were not eligible. This changes that, and removes one of the benefits of outsourcing.

I think the union could represent the contracted workers. At our plant the UAW represents the full time, regulars and certain contractors. I think they might be different locals but they're represented I believe. Don't discount the depth of pockets involved here. It's likely the client will likely have much deeper pockets from which to extract compensation for the contractor employees and that translates into dues.

 

[Thor]

and that translates into dues.

And that translates into money for the unions. They can now send off their litigation pettifoggers to suck the client dry.

 

[MisterChester]

The problem is the distinct avoidance of hiring employees by the parent company. Its one thing to hire a cleaning contractor to do ancillary work not related to daily operations. Its an entirely different animal to outsource core competency so you dont have to pay benefits.

Look at both Amazon and Eli Lilly. Both outsource VERY heavily with the express intention of avoiding employment responsibilities as it relates to benefits.

Its one thing to hire a contractor to fill a temp position or to fill a need for a random position that doesnt align with your core needs. Its another thing entirely to outsource all staff that fills that core operations goal.

Another problem is perma-temps. Companies will hire agency temps but keep them for long periods of time, around a year or more, with no intention of giving them temporary work. The worker is given equivalent responsibilities as employees yet receives no benefits like paid time off or insurance. Even when most of the time it costs more to pay the agency than to just hire the worker and give them benefits. Makes no sense to me. There have been some lawsuits about it and the courts have almost always sided with the temps. You can't treat them just as an employee but give them no benefits employees do.

 

[churchmouse]

Nothing petty about this Tyrant.

 

[cbhausen]

Yes, the next year and a half could be interesting (and not all in a good way). Prepare for BHO gone wild.

 

[spec4]

Yes, the next year and a half could be interesting (and not all in a good way). Prepare for BHO gone wild.

^^^^Plus this!! He will be pulling his socialist crap up to the last minute before he has to leave. I never thought we'd have another POTUS worse than Clinton. Man was I wrong.

 

[actaeon277]

I guess if you hire a company to cut your grass, you'll be a "co-employer".
Opening up a can of worms most aren't ready to open.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

SCOTUS 6-2 holds Obama temporary NLRB appointment to Senate-confirmable post was improper under statute.

 

[Twangbanger]

SCOTUS 6-2 holds Obama temporary NLRB appointment to Senate-confirmable post was improper under statute.

So Obama made a "temporary" appointment, because he didn't want to put up with the hassle of "hiring" a perm...uh...permanent...uh...

Ok, so given the subject matter of this thread, you'd have to be a pretty cold fish to not appreciate the irony in that.

Isn't that a birch when da Prez cannot staff his shop, without some third party (ie, Senate) getting in the way of his hiring/firing decisions?

Heh.