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.

  • ASaltPepper@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 year ago

    Once independent contractors are able to unionize I believe union membership will go way up. I’ve read of Google having “red-badge” contractors not even being given earthquake safety gear in safety exercises, just to keep them as separate from the company as possible.

  • trackcharlie@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Look, we need to be demanding free education because there’s no world in which McDonalds allows a union. You guys seen the price of a burger and the SIZE recently? The only way they’re going to respond is by firing everyone and putting a rush on flippy.

    For those who don’t know who flippy is: https://misorobotics.com/flippy/

    Some careers get automated, some jobs aren’t worth keeping and this is absolutely one of them. Fast food work is going away and it’s not coming back, just like the milkman or the newspaper delivery kid.

    • interceder270@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Good. Using machines to do the work we don’t want to is how we started producing more food than we can eat and enabled us to focus more on what we enjoy.

      • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        we started producing more food than we can eat and enabled us to focus more on what we enjoy

        I’m all for eliminating scarcity and automating the kind of work nobody thrives doing, but I also recall Keynes famously predicted that if productivity kept on growing the way it was, it would be possible for people to work a 15-hour work week and still maintain a modern standard of living.

        Well, productivity did keep on growing, and the promise of future-leisure time because productivity gains made want a thing of the past… didn’t pan out.

        • interceder270@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s because we keep funneling as many resources as possible to as few people as possible in the vain hopes that we might one day join them.

          The quality of life for the ruling class is inconceivable to those in the working class.

          • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You make it sound like the poors put the GOP in charge when in reality we have oligarchical families that subject the people to an onslaught of lies and propaganda [from the onset, mind you. slavery was a hot debate at one point.] to the point where their brains are mush. It’s a problem all across the entire spectrum of people here.

              • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The poors dont think about wealth at all. If they did they would be fighting tooth and nail for generational wealth and education. Have you seen the commercials that get pedaled on Fox News?

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We also need a tax law to support the displaced workers. This seems like a very socialist idea but there’s so much automation coming down the line that our current model will lead to a demand shock that destroys the economy.

  • rayyy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Does anyone think this would have been possible under the orange menace, anyone?

      • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Has this rule passed? Until then Hexbear is right (and usually is).

        BTW the Hexbear repost has one comment, “Awesome. Hope it passes.”

        • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Holy goalpost move Batman.

          Seriously even when the guy is trying but fails it’s somehow some secret ploy and he’s in cahoots with whoever stopped it up with you people.

          It’s straight up magical thinking with you lot, it’s Biden’s fault if he didn’t do something, it’s his fault if he tried to but fails, and it’s still his fault if he succeeds because something something Bernie woulda done it better something something.

          The worst part is that nobody else would even be mad if it wasn’t so fucking obvious that you’re just astroturfing to not be yelled at for not voting or protest voting again with Dobbs on books to show everyone just how MARVELOUSLY that shit worked last time you tried to “Punish” the DNC for not nominating the guy that even you lot wouldn’t turn out for.

  • John Richard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year 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
      ·
      1 year 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.