Note:
One of the biggest problems with reporting news like the following, it is never
known (or almost never) by the people
responsible for the bad law. And that would be the voter! The low-information
voters of today are responsible for the bad law makers such as Obama, Reid, and
Pelosi. They are also responsible for the recent legislative disasters and the
very big disaster yet to come...total economic collapse! But that's OK, they'll
just blame it on the other guy...
National Labor Relations
Board Ruling to Destroy Franchised Businesses... For the Children
The NLRB has issued a ruling that McDonald's Corporation may be
considered a joint employer of McDonald’s franchisees’ workers. If allowed to
stand, this ruling will redefine the relationship between franchisors and
franchisees by declaring both to be joint employers. This is bad law, bad for
business, and bad for employment.
It’s
bad law because it would unilaterally abrogate long-accepted contractual
arrangements between thousands of franchisors and franchisees. It’s also bad law
because it is an insult–no, a repudiation–of representative government. A major
change in law that affects so many individuals and businesses is properly the
province of Congress. By usurping the legislative prerogative, three unelected
political appointees (a majority of the five-person NLRB) are presuming to make
a decision that rightly should be made by [Congress].
The NLRB ruling
will be immensely disruptive to all the franchisors and franchisees in the
country. Indeed, it would destroy the harmony between a franchisor and its
franchisees.
Currently, franchisors exert no control over hiring, firing,
assigning workers to different shifts, determining the length of those shifts,
deciding which worker performs which functions, etc. and if franchisors are now
to be deemed joint employers of those who work in each local franchise, they
would need to hire additional workers to be on site. You can’t manage a
workforce in Peoria or Mesa or Tupelo from Chicago (or, in the case of
McDonald’s, Oak Park). How would a franchisor cover these additional costs? They
would have to receive a larger percentage of the franchisees’ income. They
also might find it expedient to enter into a nationwide bargaining agreement
with a union that would represent the workers in all the franchises,
figuring that it would be more manageable for them to deal with one collective
bargaining agent than having to micromanage labor issues in a large number of
franchises.
...Clearly, the new NLRB ruling threatens to destroy jobs at
a time when the overall job market remains less than robust. As is so often the
case, government intervention in the name of helping America’s workers will end
up imposing a severe toll on many of those workers.
Why would
the NLRB promote a ruling certain to negatively impact small businesses and
workers? Because it "is designed to help labor unions, a key element of
President Obama’s powerbase."
Little wonder, as Hendrickson notes, that
American companies are fleeing overseas.
No comments:
Post a Comment