Should the definition of “joint employer” be simplified under federal law?
The Save Local Business Act would amend the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act to include a new, standardized definition of “joint employer.” In the bill, a person or entity may be considered a joint employer if they have direct and significant control over the terms and conditions of a worker’s employment who, in the same position, another employer also employs. Sponsor: Rep. James Comer (Republican, Kentucky, District 1)
View full bill text ➔
How do you feel?
Oppose
Support
Opponents say
• "Despite its name, this bill would not protect local businesses. It rewrites federal labor law so that a company is only treated as an employer if it directly hires, pays, schedules, and supervises workers. That narrow definition ignores how many large corporations operate today. Big companies often use franchises, staffing agencies, or contractors to hire workers while still controlling pay, schedules, and working conditions through contracts and corporate systems. This bill would allow those companies to keep that control while claiming not to “employ” the workers they are controlling." Source: AFL-CIO
• "[T]he bill’s narrow definition of joint employment under both the NLRA and FLSA would provide complete safety for business models built upon the misclassification of construction workers as independent contractors. As such, the “Save Local Business Act” is not about protecting companies making hard calls applying unclear law to vague facts. It represents an effort to advantage one business model over another and an endorsement of a model promoting profits over the interests of America’s workers, taxpayers, and construction companies working hard to create middle class jobs and train the next generation of skilled construction craft workers." Source: SWACCA
Proponents say
• "The definition of a joint-employer relationship, which has shifted between Democrat and Republican administrations, has blurred the lines of responsibility for decisions impacting day-to-day business operations across the country and left businesses and entrepreneurs confused regarding their legal liabilities. An expansive joint-employer standard takes away business owners’ freedom, reduces the incentive for larger entities to contract with smaller companies, and places the American Dream of owning a small business out of reach for many entrepreneurs." Source: Rep. Steve Scalise, Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives (Republican, Louisiana, District 1)
• "It strikes down a convoluted joint employer scheme that threatens job creation and undermines the American Dream while restoring a commonsense definition of employer to provide certainty and stability for workers and employers. Job creation and growth yield prosperity. Detrimental regulations strangle opportunity and innovation for workers and employers alike." Source: Rep. Virginia Foxx (Republican, North Carolina, District 5), Chairwoman of the House Rules Committee
• "NSBA has long argued that a clear, statutory definition of “joint employer” under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is essential to reducing regulatory whiplash and legal risk for small firms. Previously, constant shifting of definitions and rules created needless uncertainty for small-business owners, making it harder for them to expand, hire, or contract for basic services without fear of unexpected liability." Source: National Small Business Association
