Should Congress express disapproval of additional regulations for joint employers?

This bill has Passed the House of Representatives
Bill Summary

H.J. Res 98 expresses disapproval of recent NLRB regulations expanding eligibility for who qualifies as a “joint employer”, or multiple employers simultaneously hiring a single employee. Proponents of this bill argue that the New NLRB regulations will create unnecessary regulations disproportionately impacting small businesses, subcontractors, and freelancers, while opponents argue that such regulations close loopholes to worker protections where businesses hire temporary workers, subcontractors, and sub-agencies to avoid responsibility.
View full bill text ➔

How do you feel?

You can still save your opinion to your scorecard, but since the vote has already taken place, your opinion won't be sent to your lawmakers.

Opponents say

•    "The Administration strongly opposes passage of H.J. Res. 98, a joint resolution to disapprove the

National Labor Relations Board’s rule relating to a “Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status”. Workers have the right to bargain for fair wages and working conditions with every company that directly or indirectly controls their terms and conditions of employment. Too often, companies deny workers this right by hiding behind subcontractors, staffing agencies, and temporary agencies. Reversing this rulemaking will prevent workers from exercising their right to bargain for higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions. Simply put, this legislation would mean lower wages for working families. If the President were presented with H.J. Res. 98, he would veto it." Executive Office of the President, Office of Management on Behalf of Joe Biden 


•    "The Board’s new joint-employer standard reflects both a legally correct return to common-law principles and a practical approach to ensuring that the entities effectively exercising control over workers’ critical terms of employment respect their bargaining obligations under the NLRA. While the final rule establishes a uniform joint-employer standard, the Board will still conduct a fact-specific analysis on a case-by-case basis to determine whether two or more employers meet the standard."

Source: National Labor Relations Board

Proponents say

•    "The new, broader rule is expected to bring more joint-employer findings, as reserved or indirect control is sufficient for a joint-employer status determination. It is likely that retail and other employers involved in business arrangements that often rely on contracted services, such as staffing agencies, will be heavily impacted as a result… The Board, however, declined to provide much clarity or guidance regarding the examples of control required to establish joint-employer status. Furthermore, the Final Rule fails to provide specific guidance on what otherwise common provisions in commercial agreements will give rise to a joint-employer relationship. The Final Rule provides that evidence of control over matters that are “immaterial to the existence of an employment relationship” and “do not bear on the employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment” are not relevant to the joint-employer analysis. It is not clear what matters will be considered ‘immaterial’ though.Source: Jackson Lewis, Employment Law Firm 


•    "On October 26, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a final rule for joint-employer status that will make it far more likely for one business to be deemed a joint employer of another business’s employees under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The new rule eliminates the clear standards and predictable consequences the current rule provides, depriving employers of the ability to reasonably forecast the risks and costs of their contracts with providers, vendors, subcontractors, and franchisees.Source: Ogletree Deakins, Employer Law Firm