Oppose the new Joint-Employer Rule

What You Need To Know

The NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to determine when one business can be deemed a “joint employer” of another business’s employees.

  • A joint employer would have to bargain with a union representing jointly employed workers.
  • A joint employer would be liable for unfair labor practices the other employer commits.
  • A joint employer would be subjected to labor picketing that would otherwise be illegal.

Why You Should Oppose the Proposed Rule

Businesses need certainty about rules and regulations in order to be willing to invest. The Trump 2020 rule provided that certainty: it made very clear that an employer would NOT be viewed as a joint employer unless it exercised direct control over the employment terms/conditions of another business’s employees. The Trump rule has yet to be applied to a single case, so the NLRB cannot possibly have found fault with it.

What You Can Do

File your comment below, now through November 7th, and use our talking points below the form to make your message unique.

Talking Points

  • This proposed rule benefits big unions and plaintiffs’ lawyers at the expense of job-creating businesses. Unions could organize an entire franchise at the national level instead of franchise-by-franchise. Plaintiffs’ lawyers would have deep corporate pockets to sue for alleged labor violations–whether or not the corporation was actually responsible for its franchisee’s or subcontractor’s violations.
  • Most of those who own franchises and subcontracting agencies are small, local business people who view owning a local franchise restaurant or a small janitorial service as a chance to build wealth for their families.
  • Before the NLRB was simplified and clarified under President Trump, the old rule from the Obama Administration cost franchise companies alone more than $33 billion a year and cost the economy more than 375,000 jobs, according to the International Franchise Association.
  • Returning to the old Obama rule will mean that franchise owners will be simply employees of a large company, not small business people building wealth for their families and providing jobs for their communities.
  • Large businesses–whether franchisors or companies who hire subcontractors–will be much less likely to take a chance on new potential franchisees or subcontractors who do not have extensive experience, because any training of inexperienced franchisees or subcontractors might make the large business a joint employer. This will deprive would-be small business owners a chance to improve their livelihoods.
  • Franchisors and businesses who employ subcontractors will be much less likely to provide support, such as training, for their franchisees’ or subcontractors’ employees. Government policy should be encouraging such training, not subjecting businesses to legal risks for providing the training.