The rule — announced late last month by the National Labor Relations Board –- sets new standards for determining when two companies should be considered “joint employers” under the National Labor Relations Act.

It sounds wonky. But essentially, the rule could widen the number of companies that must participate in labor negotiations alongside their franchisees or independent contractors. For example, it might require Burger King to bargain with workers even though most of its U.S. restaurants are owned by franchisees. Or it could require Amazon to negotiate with delivery drivers who are employed by independent contractors.

  • John Richard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Joint employer rules have never been that complicated. You want to know what makes them complicated, is that a Supreme Court judge can read regulations and say… oh well it says here that X is defined by Y, so we went back and found a case in 1930 that said that Y can be this, so that is the definition we are going to go by, and our ruling will set president for all future legal cases. Regulations don’t mean shit when the Supreme Court can interpret them however they like.

    • UnspecificGravity@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Pretty much.

      The court can just arbitrarily decide that laws like this aren’t valid unless they existed in 1790. Apparently that’s how democracy works: A council of elders elected by no one and accountable to no one decide what we are allowed to do.