Labor board will let more workers bargain with their employer’s employer
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
The cut that these companies take from the employees they outsource does not justify the cost they're charging the clients. 50 percent sometimes for doing nothing more than posting a craigslist ad and shoving a contract in the face of some poor, but earnest, immigrant or a down `n out tech worker.
[edit typo]
> Consistent with earlier Board decisions, as well as the common law, we will examine how control is manifested in a particular employment relationship. We reject those limiting requirements that the Board has imposed— without foundation in the statute or common law—after Browning-Ferris. We will no longer require that a joint employer not only possess the authority to control employees’ terms and conditions of employment, but also exercise that authority.
What more information do you want on the topic, rather than shawnee_'s opinions? I ask because your questions here look like they are meant more to put shawnee_ on the spot than anything else, when shawnee_'s opinions are consistent with that of:
> labor advocates and academics who have described an increasingly “fissured” economy, in which whole industries have been built on business models that offer workers few of the protections of a traditional employer relationship.
Is it not more useful to look at the broader arguments already presented in the WaPo article?
And since when is it wrong to "put someone on the spot" by asking questions? The "increasingly fissured economy" argument is an old one but the solutions are not at all clear. Legislating more lawsuits, forcing contractors and temps into an employee relationship with 3rd parties -- this is a temporary favor to unions and wage-and-benefit advocates but doesn't solve the real problems which are the prohibitive cost basis of hiring full time employees in today's economy in the U.S.
I would address the cost basis first, and make it less expensive to hire full timers, and then we'll see more hiring of full timers.
Regarding "put someone on the spot"; you are veering close to "JAQing off" territory. The question you had were general ones addressed by the article, and here are many easily found sources that would give you the insight you are looking for.
Your one line response to shawnee_ did not give any evidence that you understood the context, or cared to do your own research, it had a implicit assumption that a random HN should educate you, a full answer would have required multiple paragraphs, and would unlikely to be correct as HN readers tend to not be aware of labor law.
Plus, shawnee_ was clearly expressing an opinion and not trying to make provable statements that can be backed up by the specifics you wanted. Following up as you did is hard to distinguish from sealioning.
[citation needed]. What's the above-salary overhead on hiring someone in the USA vs other countries vs the USA at other times when the labor market was tighter?
I'd love to see someone open a McDonalds-like fast food restaurant that paid $20 or $25 per hour, plus decent benefits, and make a profit. If it were possible to do, why can't anyone do it?
Moreover, that solution concerns many issues besides wages, including "employment qualifications, work hours, breaks, productivity standards, staffing levels, work rules and performance, the speed of the lines, [and] dismissal."
As I suggested elsewhere, it seems like the questions you have can easily be answered by the many articles on this topic, including the WaPo article and the primary references. You instead ask other commenters for answers to your questions, which is unlikely to get you far as most HN readers are 1) not here to educate you and 2) not knowledgeable about labor law and practices.
As an example of one of the things which often come up in this discussion, McDonald's in Denmark pays $20/hour. See http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/05/15/fight-for-1... or http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/15/global-mcdonalds-pr... or http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/03/... as some of the many articles on the topic. And there are no minimum wage laws in Denmark.
Can explain why it is that McDonald's can make a profit in Denmark while paying $20/hour, but (according to you) can't do so in the US?
Regarding McDonald's in Denmark: do they operate on a franchise basis there as in the U.S., or are the stores directly owned and operated by corporate McDonald's? What kind of prices are there on the foods they sell?
I didn't say it was impossible to make a profit at $20/hour; I DID say I'd love to see it, and I'd like an explanation of how it would be competitive in the U.S. economy. In Denmark, $20/hour is not the same as $20/hour in the U.S., because Danish income tax is 55.6%. Also, they have a VAT of 25% on most goods and services (not sure if it applies to fast food). Thus, that $20 is really closer to $10 or $15 in U.S. purchasing power parity terms.
The NLRB decision is very careful to argue that there is a 'joint-employer status under the National Labor Relations Act', which is different from your statement that this is a 'once-removed' case.
Where do you disagree with their decision? Where is the case law to back your belief? Because they insist that the case law is in their favor and instead that for the last few decades:
> the Board, without explanation, has since imposed additional requirements for finding joint-employer status, which have no clear basis in the Third Circuit’s decision, in the common law, or in the text or policies of the Act. The Board has never articulated how these additional requirements are compelled by the Act or by the common- law definition of the employment relationship. They appear inconsistent with prior case law that has not been expressly overruled.
I take it then that you have not read the decision? It is the central topic at hand, and my quotes from the document, which directly counter comments you made, suggest that you are arguing at this point from ignorance of the actual subject.
" do they operate on a franchise basis there as in the U.S"
I gave you three links. They covered most of not all of the issues you just raised, including comparisons between the different economies. I also pointed out that there are a lot of articles on this specific topic. What additional questions do you have that are not addressed by those links?
One of the links says:
> According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the average tax burden in Denmark is 38.2 percent, while in America, it is 31.3 percent. So taxes are about a fifth higher. Most people, if given the choice, would accept a 20 percent hike in taxes in exchange for making twice as much.
which tells me that your analysis ("that $20 is really closer to $10 or $15 in") is simply incorrect.
At this point I've concluded that you don't actually care about the topic, other than to defend personal beliefs, which appear to be anti-labor.
I notice you didn't actually address my points, but hid behind the "I posted links, why can't you read them" strawman, and then made a weak argument about the "average tax burden" that in no way counters the fact that Danes pay a much higher income tax.
In fact, Denmark's PPP is far higher than the US's, about 7.6 to 1. In other words it costs $7.6 to buy the same unit of goods and services in Denmark as it costs $1 in the U.S.
http://knoema.com/nwnfkne/world-gdp-ranking-2015-data-and-ch... http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.PPP/countries/1W-...
The article is about the NLRB's decision to define an employer's employer as obligated to deal with employees and contractors under existing organizing rules. Thus, McDonald's corporate becomes the direct employer of workers at a franchise, and there are implications for Uber drivers as well whom the Teamsters are trying to define as employees of Uber (thus raising Uber's employee count to over 100,000).
To me, this is "once removed" relationship. What else can it be, and why else would they do it other than to expose the contracting/franchising corporate entity to unionization?
I did not address your points because you wanted to switch the conversation to another topic without resolving any of the earlier topics. I feel no need to let you be in charge of steering the conversation to only those things you want to bring up, when I feel you have ignored my earlier points. Rhetorically, why should I spend more time on the new topic with the expectation that it will also be ignored?
I notice the use of the phrase '"I posted links, why can't you read them" strawman'. I have not heard of a logical fallacy based on not reading primary or secondary references. My suggestion was and is that you should ask the questions which remain after reading those materials, instead of insisting that people like me do your research for you. That is not a fallacy. It is a suggestion of how you might make better use of the limited time and patience of others.
Since you wish to use those PPP tables, perhaps you can explain why Belarus stands at 4,520.37 and Indonesia at 3,939.56. Using your interpretation, that means it costs $3,939.56 to buy the same unit of goods and services in Indonesia as it does in the US? Indonesia is a very expensive country. (Hint: it does not require a home loan for most US citizens to spend two weeks on vacation in Denmark or Indonesia.)
If you instead look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity you would see Denmark as only being about 20% more expensive than the US. That same page shows that a Big Mac in Denmark cost $5.37 in 2012. While more expensive than the US, it's hardly the 7x that you suggest. I suggest therefore that you have misunderstood the underlying economics.
Indeed, your first link says "A purchasing power parity (PPP) between two countries, A and B, is the ratio of the number of units of country A’s currency needed to purchase in country A the same quantity of a specific good or service as one unit of country B’s currency will purchase in country B." In Denmark it costs 7.6 DKK to purchase what in the US would cost 1 USD. As the current exchange rate is 1US = 6.68 DKK, this means the Denmark is 14% more expensive than the US, in rough agreement with the Wikipedia page on PPP.
I'm glad I could help clear up your understanding how how to interpret those tables.
"To me, this is "once removed" relationship. What else can it be, and why else would they do it other than to expose the contracting/franchising corporate entity to unionization?"
The decision makes clear what is meant by 'joint-employer', which is a concept which has long been part of US labor law:
> the Board typically treated the right to control the work of employees and their terms of em- ployment as probative of joint-employer status. The Board did not require that this right be exercised, or that it be exercised in any particular manner. Thus, the Board’s joint-employer decisions found it probative that employers retained the contractual power to reject or terminate workers;22 set wage rates;23 set working hours;24 approve overtime;25 dictate the number of work- ers to be supplied;26 determine “the manner and method of work performance”;27 “inspect and approve work,”28 and terminate the contractual agreement itself at will.29 The Board stressed that “the power to control is present by virtue of the operating agreement.”30 Reviewing courts expressly endorsed this approach.31 ...
etc. There is no need for me to give my personal views of "what else can it be" when you can read the actual reasoning yourself. My interpretation is that your analysis only considers contract law - hence, 'once-removed' - and leaving out the common-law definition of the employment relationship - hence, 'joint-employer'. It is possible to be both once-removed and a joint-employer.
You may of course hold your personal views on the topic, but the issue at hand is the interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act, which is the US law that among other things, yes, 'guarantees basic rights of private sector employees to organize into trade unions.' It's almost as if I had the ideology that people should be able to exercise their legal right to unionize!
It is entirely a solution.
"The net result will undoubtedly be much higher prices for goods and services"
There's no proof of that.
"and a number of start-ups will either fail, or be forced to downsize."
No proof of that either. Besides, no startup is entitled to labor. I don't care if they're a startup; that doesn't mean they deserve cheap labor or they have the right to skirt labor laws by hiring contractors.
I can almost see that working as a novelty restaurant. Kind of a trendy, high end fast food place with high quality food and really expensive prices, where you can go and tell your friends it's a good place because they pay decent wages. But it'll never over take Burger King and McDonalds.
People eating at McDonalds want fast and cheap more than they want fair wages for fast food employees.
McD, Burger King, Wendy's, etc, are exceptions to the rule, imo.
1 Bad employers exploit a loop hole to fuck over poor people
2 It becomes a political issue "something must be done"
3 Laws are passed in haste that negatively effect contractors on $1000/day
In a collective bargaining scenario, they provide a 2nd class workforce not subject to bargaining that weakens the union's bargaining position.
Rather than special privileges for unions, I would prefer that workers negotiate contracts as individuals, but that the government or private philanthropy provide a massive subsidy to workers who wish to retrain and move from lower-wage to higher-wage industries.
If you do not like market distorting laws then you should not like the Taft-Hartley Act, which weakens the power of the unions to maximize the market for the labor they represent. Yet somehow I think you believe that distorting the market in this fashion is correct.
Regarding 'negotiate contracts as individuals', do you disagree with the concept of inequality of bargaining power? Quoting from the National Labor Relations Act, which is the relevant US law:
> "The inequality of bargaining power between employees who do not possess full freedom of association or actual liberty of contract and employers who are organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association substantially burdens and affects the flow of commerce, and tends to aggravate recurrent business depressions, by depressing wage rates and the purchasing power of wage earners in industry and by preventing the stabilization of competitive wage rates and working conditions within and between industries."
If workers negotiate contracts as individuals, then they are at a disadvantage to employers who, quoting now from Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations":
> ".... being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer.
Finally, a massive government subsidy distorts the market in order that give some special interest groups (employers) free training for their workers. It's curious that you want market distortions that favor employers, but not those which favor labor.
And the result of this was essentially zero stocking error, and I learned pyQT.
You can't say we suffer from false consciousness WRT to that working class!
Perspective. Company size was approx 125 in 2007, but under 50 today. And the annual volume has returned to 90% of what it was for 2007. Unlike some of our big competitors, the boss has re-invested the increased margin after the recovery in next-gen product dev and an annual bonus system. My employer, to my knowledge, does nothing illegal or immoral, and struggles with 'doing the right thing' vs ensuring company survival.