Businesses push back on new rule that could make it easier to unionize

Keywords Labor / Unions
  • Comments
  • Print

A new federal rule that goes into effect next month could make it easier for millions of workers to form unions at big companies like McDonald’s. But it’s already facing significant pushback from businesses and some members of Congress.

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.

“It’s trying to take in the realities of today’s workforce, when many employers subcontract out work and say, ‘Oh, we’re not the employer,’” said Cathy Creighton, director of the Buffalo Co-Lab at Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations. “It’s the employer who is really calling the shots and has the money.”

The NLRB says the new rule changes a 2020 rule that made it too easy for joint employers to avoid their responsibility to negotiate with workers. The 88-year-old National Labor Relations Act guarantees the right of U.S. workers to form or join unions.

But critics say the new rule is an overreach by the labor-friendly Biden administration that undermines independent business owners. Some—including the American Hotel and Lodging Association—have already sued to block it.

“The franchise business model is a really great American innovation. It’s created wealth for thousands, particularly underrepresented minorities and women,” said McDonald’s President and CEO Chris Kempczinski during a recent conference call with investors. “This is something we think needs to be supported, not attacked.”

U.S. Sens. Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, and Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican, have introduced a Congressional Review Act resolution that would overturn the rule. The resolution must pass both houses of Congress and be signed by President Joe Biden.

Biden hasn’t said whether he supports the new joint employer rule, but he has cast himself as the most pro-union president in history. The new rule is scheduled to go into effect Dec. 26.

Richard Eiker, 54, has worked in fast food for 25 years and now works at a McDonald’s in Kansas City, Missouri. He said McDonald’s clearly controls its franchised stores and is sidestepping its responsibilities to workers.

Eiker, a leader in the pro-union group Stand Up KC, said unionizing could improve his pay, benefits and working conditions. Eiker has foot pain and high blood pressure, but said his job doesn’t offer affordable health care or paid time off to see a doctor. He often cuts his prescription medicines in half because he can’t afford to refill them.

“McDonald’s made almost $15 billion in profits over the last two years. They can certainly afford to treat us better, and with a union we could make them do right by us,” he said.

The new joint employer rule had its origins in the Obama administration. In 2015, the NLRB ruled that Browning-Ferris Industries, a waste management company, should be considered the joint employer of contract workers who were sorting its recycling because it had authority over their working conditions. A federal court upheld the NLRB’s decision in 2018.

But during the Trump administration, the Republican-controlled labor board narrowed the definition of a joint employer. Under the 2020 rule, companies could be considered a joint employer only if they had “substantial direct and immediate control” over employment conditions.

The latest rule—passed by a board now controlled by Democrats—more closely resembles the Browning-Ferris ruling from 2015. It says companies may be considered joint employers if they have the authority to control—directly or indirectly—at least one condition of employment. Conditions include wages and benefits, hours and scheduling, the assignment of duties, work rules and hiring.

The rule only applies to labor relations. The Department of Labor sets its own joint employment standards for issues like meeting minimum wage requirements.

Still, the new rule could have a major impact. Local franchise owners employ more than 8 million people in the U.S., according to the International Franchise Association. Millions more work for subcontractors or temporary agencies.

John Motta, who owns 32 Dunkin’ locations in New Hampshire and Virginia, said franchisees must meet certain brand standards and use Dunkin’ uniforms and signage. But beyond that, they want to run their businesses independently.

“We don’t want our corporate partners to be telling us, ‘You have to pay this much per hour,’” he said. “That’s not why I came into this business. I wanted to make all those decisions by myself.”

Motta leads the Coalition of Franchisee Associations, which represents around 46,000 franchisees. He’s worried the rule will prompt Dunkin’ and other companies to stop working with franchisees and run stores themselves so they won’t be held responsible if a franchisee commits labor violations.

Michael Kaufman, an attorney who represents companies in labor disputes, said the rule has other potential complications. If a business hires temporary workers through a contractor but then asks the contractor to fire a temporary worker for harassing someone, the new rule might allow the temporary worker to bring unfair labor charges against the business, Kaufman said.

“The NLRB thinks they are holding more people accountable, but they’re holding the wrong people accountable,” he said.

Labor unions say the NLRB will consider such circumstances on a case-by-case basis, but the rule is still necessary to ensure all workers can negotiate wages and working conditions.

“Workers’ right to collectively bargain cannot be realized if the entity that has the power to change terms and conditions of employment is absent from the bargaining table,” the AFL-CIO, the Teamsters and the Service Employees International Union wrote in a letter sent this month to members of Congress.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our updated comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

13 thoughts on “Businesses push back on new rule that could make it easier to unionize

  1. The Biden admin is labor friendly? Sure, probably better than the average neo-con, but only marginally so. And less so than any other Democrat that preceded him.

    1. Which leads to fascism.

      Churchill’s line about democracy is the worst thing in the world, except for every other form of government, still rings true …

    2. That’s adorable. Letting the peasants actually elect people they want leads to mid-century Germans. You really are completely enthralled with your legacy media, aren’t you Joe? What will you do when the ESG money runs out and they all go the same direction as Vice (bailed out by Soros) or Jezebel, or ThinkProgress, or Pacific Standard?

      Just a friendly reminder that 1930s Germany was dysfunctional and polarized but was still among the wealthiest and best educated countries in the world. Possibly number 1. And that mustachioed Austrian painter had a huge legacy of academics, scientists, and well-educated business leaders completely enraptured with his views. By latching his hatred of Jews toward the glories of Germany’s intellectual and artistic past (Schopenhauer, Kant, Nietzsche, Beethoven, Schiller, Goethe, Bruckner, Wagner), he convinced Germans of their superiority as ubermensch, that they were being held back by the punitive treaties after WWI, and gave them a clear scapegoat who was persecuting them, despite them being more numerous and still quite well off. Fascism is identitarian communism.

      I know your failing rags won’t dare engage in this analysis. Mainly because they can’t decide if they are terrified of the serfs or simply hate them. They keep banging on about Marxist views, yet they replace the class struggle with that racialized one. Much like Dixiecrats of the 1960s, and much like those pesky Germans a generation earlier.

      I guess, by admitting that the Democratic party has abandoned its common-man roots, you’re acknowledging that it was indeed the Democrats who emboldened white southerners into something akin to soft fascism with Jim Crow? Sure, white southerners weren’t as rich as their northern counterparts (and the Dems were big in urban immigrant centers back then, just as they are today), but they were certainly better off than the melanated people whose votes they were blocking.

      Best of all: the corporatists today (neo-lib and neo-con) absolutely LOVE the racial politics inspired by DEI because it fosters distrust among people who otherwise would have a common grievance in their working-class underdog status. And if they can’t see past race/religion/sexuality constraints, they won’t be able to unionize.

    3. Huh. Shakespeare would have been proud of that.

      It leads to fascism because every populist gets into office and decides to change the rules to make sure the serf’s can’t change their minds and vote them out. You’re welcome to detail all the exceptions.

      You do make a lovely example of just the type of person that a fascist leader grooms and weaponizes for their own use, then tosses aside. So jacked up on contradictory wedge issues they never see their disposal coming. As the meme goes, ‘I never thought leopards would eat MY face,’ sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party.” Or as I like to remind you, this is a lot of mental gymnastics to hope to get a double helping of potato soup someday.

      The alternative, of course, is to not pledge allegiance to a political party, but to ideas. Like, I dunno, open primaries or limiting campaign contributions or making it such that a single breadwinner could support a family so we’d have more stable home situations. So very Marxist ideas.

      Unless, of course, what you’re saying is that as long as you get to watch those cross dressers get eliminated, you’ll be just fine when you, an atheist female, is made a second class citizen. If that’s what Making America Great Again is about, I’ll continue to pass.

  2. A company running with fair wages and safe and adequate staffing levels has nothing to worry about. I worked at Community Health Network for a good number of years, and it was amazing how hard they tried to make sure their employees never WANTED to unionize.

    I am sure, on the flipside, there are a lot of companies out there working very hard to make sure their employees never get a CHANCE to unionize.

    1. Both sides need to be able to present their case with NO intimidation of
      the employees.

      The secret ballot must prevail.

      That said, there are many corporations that treat their employees badly.
      Companies that get unionized typically deserve it.

    2. Yes there are. The biggest tool helping to undermine new unionization efforts today is Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

      Make everything about race, and people can’t form coalitions based on class.

  3. The so-called overreach is the shameful attempt to prevent employees from unionizing.
    And this accompanies the hypocrisy of certain businesses that employ and exploit those without legal status who work for low wages and fear complaining might lead to being fired or deported.

    1. Unionization should always be conducted through the secret ballot.
      Cardcheck was fascist to its very core. Cardcheck did away with the secret
      ballot.
      Let the workers decide through the democratic processs.

      Second, the unions should have to compete for union membership just as
      companies have to compete in the market place for business.

      The UAW is basically a monopoly that has a huge unfair advantage in
      negotiations. It should be treated as a monopoly.

  4. Current Indystar headline, appealing to the sensibilities of all 40,000 of its remaining subscribers:

    “Once Indiana’s unions were all about Democrats. Now it’s more complicated.”

    Nothing upsets the left’s applecart more than a large working class who are generally happy with their lot in life.

Get the best of Indiana business news. ONLY $1/week Subscribe Now

Get the best of Indiana business news. ONLY $1/week Subscribe Now

Get the best of Indiana business news. ONLY $1/week Subscribe Now

Get the best of Indiana business news. ONLY $1/week Subscribe Now

Get the best of Indiana business news.

Limited-time introductory offer for new subscribers

ONLY $1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Get the best of Indiana business news.

Limited-time introductory offer for new subscribers

ONLY $1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Get the best of Indiana business news.

Limited-time introductory offer for new subscribers

ONLY $1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Get the best of Indiana business news.

Limited-time introductory offer for new subscribers

ONLY $1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In