• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Effort To Roll Back Worker Protections Knocked Down In Court

Aletheia

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2020
Messages
1,304
Reaction score
927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trump Effort To Roll Back Worker Protections Knocked Down In Court

The fast-food president suffered a major setback in federal court on Tuesday, when a judge ruled that one of the Trump administration’s signature workplace reforms was “arbitrary and capricious.”

The “joint employer” rule issued by Trump’s Labor Department earlier this year would make it harder for workers to sue big chains like McDonald’s if they’ve been stiffed on the minimum wage or overtime pay. The new ruling issued in federal court sides with the 17 states and the District of Columbia that sued to stop that rule from going into effect.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trump and the Right working hard to stiff the American Worker -- MAGA.

Make America's Grifters Abdicate
 

dcsports

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
16,887
Reaction score
4,925
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Trump Effort To Roll Back Worker Protections Knocked Down In Court

The fast-food president suffered a major setback in federal court on Tuesday, when a judge ruled that one of the Trump administration’s signature workplace reforms was “arbitrary and capricious.”

The “joint employer” rule issued by Trump’s Labor Department earlier this year would make it harder for workers to sue big chains like McDonald’s if they’ve been stiffed on the minimum wage or overtime pay. The new ruling issued in federal court sides with the 17 states and the District of Columbia that sued to stop that rule from going into effect.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trump and the Right working hard to stiff the American Worker -- MAGA.

Make America's Grifters Abdicate

Thank you for posting this. It's an interesting - and kind of strange - ruling. The gist is an interpretation of wage and hour law. It comes into play when someone is employed by a franchisee.

So, for example, Susie is employed by Bob, who owns a McDonald's franchise. Bob owns the store, but pays MdDonald's to use their branding and product. Susie was hired by Bob, and is paid by Bob. Under the Obama rule, if there is a paycheck dispute, Susie could sue both Bob and McDonald's. McDonald's could be sued, despite having nothing to do with Bob's payroll system or Susie's paycheck - and likely not even knowing who she is. Note that they could be sued - but the plaintiff would still have to establish that they were somehow responsible. The rule was changed under the Trump administration to say that only the actual, direct, employer (Bob) was responsible, and that you can't sue the "secondary employer".

The court ruled against the Trump administration - stating they didn't do enough of an analysis of potential cost to the employees. The plaintiff did do one (which was excessive), but the administration simply said that the liability remains with the employer who hired/pays the employee.

This sounds like a good rule - and a bad ruling by the judge.
 

dixon01767

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
11,132
Reaction score
1,592
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Trump Effort To Roll Back Worker Protections Knocked Down In Court

The fast-food president suffered a major setback in federal court on Tuesday, when a judge ruled that one of the Trump administration’s signature workplace reforms was “arbitrary and capricious.”

The “joint employer” rule issued by Trump’s Labor Department earlier this year would make it harder for workers to sue big chains like McDonald’s if they’ve been stiffed on the minimum wage or overtime pay


chain store
/ˈCHān ˌstô(ə)r/
noun
one of a series of stores owned by one company and selling the same merchandise.

McDonalds are franchises owned by independent franchisees. If a Mcdonalds franchisee has violated minimum wage laws the employee pursues their claim against the owner of the Franchise, not corporate McDonalds which likely had nothing to do with the violation of minimum wage laws by the individual franchisee.
 

dixon01767

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
11,132
Reaction score
1,592
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The rule was changed under the Trump administration to say that only the actual, direct, employer (Bob) was responsible, and that you can't sue the "secondary employer".

The rule was changed under the Obama administration with the stroke of his pen and no analysis. Trump changes it back and of course the courts jump in- we need analysis.
 

lemmiwinx

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
7,188
Reaction score
3,571
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Didn't Ms. Pelosi just turn down a continuation of federal unemployment benefits? I'm confused.

(she gets her hair done when she wants you know)
 
Last edited:

cabse5

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,637
Reaction score
2,295
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Thank you for posting this. It's an interesting - and kind of strange - ruling. The gist is an interpretation of wage and hour law. It comes into play when someone is employed by a franchisee.

So, for example, Susie is employed by Bob, who owns a McDonald's franchise. Bob owns the store, but pays MdDonald's to use their branding and product. Susie was hired by Bob, and is paid by Bob. Under the Obama rule, if there is a paycheck dispute, Susie could sue both Bob and McDonald's. McDonald's could be sued, despite having nothing to do with Bob's payroll system or Susie's paycheck - and likely not even knowing who she is. Note that they could be sued - but the plaintiff would still have to establish that they were somehow responsible. The rule was changed under the Trump administration to say that only the actual, direct, employer (Bob) was responsible, and that you can't sue the "secondary employer".

The court ruled against the Trump administration - stating they didn't do enough of an analysis of potential cost to the employees. The plaintiff did do one (which was excessive), but the administration simply said that the liability remains with the employer who hired/pays the employee.

This sounds like a good rule - and a bad ruling by the judge.

SIAP. A lawsuit filed by a plaintiff can sue for more money if McDonalds is involved, for example.
 

digitusmedius

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
13,914
Reaction score
4,086
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Thank you for posting this. It's an interesting - and kind of strange - ruling. The gist is an interpretation of wage and hour law. It comes into play when someone is employed by a franchisee.

So, for example, Susie is employed by Bob, who owns a McDonald's franchise. Bob owns the store, but pays MdDonald's to use their branding and product. Susie was hired by Bob, and is paid by Bob. Under the Obama rule, if there is a paycheck dispute, Susie could sue both Bob and McDonald's. McDonald's could be sued, despite having nothing to do with Bob's payroll system or Susie's paycheck - and likely not even knowing who she is. Note that they could be sued - but the plaintiff would still have to establish that they were somehow responsible. The rule was changed under the Trump administration to say that only the actual, direct, employer (Bob) was responsible, and that you can't sue the "secondary employer".

The court ruled against the Trump administration - stating they didn't do enough of an analysis of potential cost to the employees. The plaintiff did do one (which was excessive), but the administration simply said that the liability remains with the employer who hired/pays the employee.

This sounds like a good rule - and a bad ruling by the judge.
Blame the ineptitude (again) of the Trump administration. They keep getting cases tossed for incomplete preparation. Incompetence at the very top leads to incompetence all the way down.
 

dcsports

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
16,887
Reaction score
4,925
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Blame the ineptitude (again) of the Trump administration. They keep getting cases tossed for incomplete preparation. Incompetence at the very top leads to incompetence all the way down.

They have gotten a number of cases tossed on procedural grounds, but it doesn't sound like it was warranted in this case. The basis is an analysis of something that isn't really relevant.

The strategy of suing for this has gotten mixed results - but I don't think the left will be appreciative when it's turned on them. Perhaps the key, in this case, would be to sue to stop the original rule.
 

digitusmedius

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
13,914
Reaction score
4,086
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
They have gotten a number of cases tossed on procedural grounds, but it doesn't sound like it was warranted in this case. The basis is an analysis of something that isn't really relevant.

The strategy of suing for this has gotten mixed results - but I don't think the left will be appreciative when it's turned on them. Perhaps the key, in this case, would be to sue to stop the original rule.

You ought to have a lot more to worry about besides what might happen to "the left" sometime in the future.
 

SCrider

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2018
Messages
13,258
Reaction score
8,636
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Thank you for posting this. It's an interesting - and kind of strange - ruling. The gist is an interpretation of wage and hour law. It comes into play when someone is employed by a franchisee.

So, for example, Susie is employed by Bob, who owns a McDonald's franchise. Bob owns the store, but pays MdDonald's to use their branding and product. Susie was hired by Bob, and is paid by Bob. Under the Obama rule, if there is a paycheck dispute, Susie could sue both Bob and McDonald's. McDonald's could be sued, despite having nothing to do with Bob's payroll system or Susie's paycheck - and likely not even knowing who she is. Note that they could be sued - but the plaintiff would still have to establish that they were somehow responsible. The rule was changed under the Trump administration to say that only the actual, direct, employer (Bob) was responsible, and that you can't sue the "secondary employer".

The court ruled against the Trump administration - stating they didn't do enough of an analysis of potential cost to the employees. The plaintiff did do one (which was excessive), but the administration simply said that the liability remains with the employer who hired/pays the employee.

This sounds like a good rule - and a bad ruling by the judge.

Does the corporate entity, in this case McDonalds, have a responsibility to ensure that the people they entrust to run franchises under their name act in good faith and up hold labor laws?
 

dcsports

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
16,887
Reaction score
4,925
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Does the corporate entity, in this case McDonalds, have a responsibility to ensure that the people they entrust to run franchises under their name act in good faith and up hold labor laws?

Those are different questions. I'm sure there is an ethics clause in the contracts which would allow them to terminate a franchise that broke the law. But no, they have no responsibility to ensure that the franchise, a separate company, follows local employment laws. In fact, I would be surprised if the contract didn't specifically state that this was the responsibility of the franchise.
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
58,557
Reaction score
27,522
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Does the corporate entity, in this case McDonalds, have a responsibility to ensure that the people they entrust to run franchises under their name act in good faith and up hold labor laws?

I haven't read any of the cases, but there isn't any question McDonalds like almost all franchisors exert immense power over how the restaurants are run. I'm sure that's how they are determined to be 'joint' employers under the old rules.

The bigger problem in current times, I'm sure, are the staffing agencies. They're HUGE in Tennessee and what they do is put a cutout between the employer (who hires the temp agency) and the temps. So maybe the temp agency shorts workers on a massive scale, they get sued, declare bankruptcy, and the workers are SOL. Since they worked in places like Amazon warehouses and many other large businesses, they'd be easily determined to be 'joint employers' under the old rules but the intent was to make the big boys exempt under the new rules.

The court even tells us why the broad rules came about - in part from child labor laws. If Amazon didn't want to comply, they would in the old days just get an agency to hire kids, then that agency is on the hook, but not Amazon, which pretends ignorance. And the agency is thinly capitalized. Some rented offices, some computers, and pay out all the earnings every year, so there's nothing there for workers to get if they sue.

That's great for Amazon, but it sucks for workers who get to sue an empty corporate shell for back wages, and punitive or other compensatory damages, and the Trump people said that those kinds of results won't happen by putting a $0 price to workers on this rule change.

More than anything skimming the case it looks like the Trump people just WAY overreached. They didn't just tinker on the edges - they rewrote decades of law in a way that didn't make any sense, and they didn't do their homework. Some of it was pretty breathtaking in a way.

To be a joint employer under the Trump rule didn't just mean the power to direct employees but actually doing it. If Amazon 'suggested' the temp agency do something but didn't require it, that didn't count, but of course if you're a temp agency with one client - Amazon - and they 'suggest' something, it's an order to do it in real life. But employees would have to prove that the order was "mandatory" and not just a helpful suggestion.... I mean, come on - then Amazon just puts "suggest" in front of every directive to the temp agency, and puts a huge burden on suing employees to prove otherwise. It's transparent as hell.

What's amazing is this is from the Trump administration that pretends to give a damn about workers, and this is a dream come true for employers, and especially employers who want to screw their employees right up the rear with a rusty farm implement, and to do it just hire some schmuck with a computer to be the "employer" and then when employees sue and win because that schmuck with a computer is shorting the employees etc. the big boy employer is free and clear, because that guy with a computer has nothing to pay the judgment.
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
83,283
Reaction score
73,266
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
yeah, like the "you're fired" reality tv show idiot was ever going to be the champion of the workers.
 

Integrityrespec

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
20,160
Reaction score
8,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Thank you for posting this. It's an interesting - and kind of strange - ruling. The gist is an interpretation of wage and hour law. It comes into play when someone is employed by a franchisee.

So, for example, Susie is employed by Bob, who owns a McDonald's franchise. Bob owns the store, but pays MdDonald's to use their branding and product. Susie was hired by Bob, and is paid by Bob. Under the Obama rule, if there is a paycheck dispute, Susie could sue both Bob and McDonald's. McDonald's could be sued, despite having nothing to do with Bob's payroll system or Susie's paycheck - and likely not even knowing who she is. Note that they could be sued - but the plaintiff would still have to establish that they were somehow responsible. The rule was changed under the Trump administration to say that only the actual, direct, employer (Bob) was responsible, and that you can't sue the "secondary employer".

The court ruled against the Trump administration - stating they didn't do enough of an analysis of potential cost to the employees. The plaintiff did do one (which was excessive), but the administration simply said that the liability remains with the employer who hired/pays the employee.

This sounds like a good rule - and a bad ruling by the judge.

Want to bet it was a liberal Trump hater judge? This has happened numerous times. Liberal judge makes a ruling against the Trump administration, higher judge or the SCOTUS overturns lower judge ruling. What does that tell you, the lower judge is stupid or partisan.
 

dcsports

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
16,887
Reaction score
4,925
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Want to bet it was a liberal Trump hater judge? This has happened numerous times. Liberal judge makes a ruling against the Trump administration, higher judge or the SCOTUS overturns lower judge ruling. What does that tell you, the lower judge is stupid or partisan.

That wouldn't be much of a stretch. Judge Woods was appointed by Obama, and cited a study by the Economic Policy Institute (a left wing think tank) in his ruling, that even he appears to believe is flawed.
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
58,557
Reaction score
27,522
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Want to bet it was a liberal Trump hater judge? This has happened numerous times. Liberal judge makes a ruling against the Trump administration, higher judge or the SCOTUS overturns lower judge ruling. What does that tell you, the lower judge is stupid or partisan.

You could read the opinion and tell us what the "stupid or partisan" judge got wrong. Or would that be more work than just making stuff up?
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
58,557
Reaction score
27,522
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That wouldn't be much of a stretch. Judge Woods was appointed by Obama, and cited a study by the Economic Policy Institute (a left wing think tank) in his ruling, that even he appears to believe is flawed.

Yeah, well, the Trump team did no study on the cost to workers, and assumed it was $0. But if that's true, then you don't care about this rule change, since it will impact no employers, and if the rule is left as it was, nothing changes.

So you can pick one. The Trump study was correct and workers weren't harmed by even a single dollar, or this rule will impact lots of employers and save them a lot of money, and the Trump people lied about that impact. Hint: that second option is the correct answer.

Once again, Trump screws the little guy and his supporters cheer him on. Man of the people!!
 

dixon01767

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
11,132
Reaction score
1,592
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I haven't read any of the cases, but there isn't any question McDonalds like almost all franchisors exert immense power over how the restaurants are run. I'm sure that's how they are determined to be 'joint' employers under the old rules. .

They werent the old rules, they were the Obama rules. Trump changed it back to the old rules.
 

j brown's body

CHRISTIAN-ish
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
36,652
Reaction score
28,843
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Trump, the corporate populist.
 

dixon01767

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
11,132
Reaction score
1,592
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Once again, Trump screws the little guy and his supporters cheer him on. Man of the people!!

Bet you cant find a single little guy screwed over by Trumps change to the law.
 

beancounter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2017
Messages
3,331
Reaction score
2,213
Location
A Purple State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Do we know all of the factors involved?

It seems like common sense that you shouldn't be able to sue an entity that wasn't involved.

Just because a franchisee pays for branding rights, wouldn't make the company selling the branding rights responsible for illegal activity of the franchisee.
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
58,557
Reaction score
27,522
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
They werent the old rules, they were the Obama rules. Trump changed it back to the old rules.

That's false. Read the opinion if you're confused about that. They rewrote decades of law settled law in this area. I covered some of the changes in my response, and of course you ignored the substantive part to tell us a falsehood.
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
58,557
Reaction score
27,522
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Bet you cant find a single little guy screwed over by Trumps change to the law.

First of all, I get tired of my comments being snipped out of context:

"Yeah, well, the Trump team did no study on the cost to workers, and assumed it was $0. But if that's true, then you don't care about this rule change, since it will impact no employers, and if the rule is left as it was, nothing changes.

So you can pick one. The Trump study was correct and workers weren't harmed by even a single dollar, or this rule will impact lots of employers and save them a lot of money, and the Trump people lied about that impact. Hint: that second option is the correct answer."


Do you disagree with any of that? There isn't any question the changes make it harder for employees to sue and recover damages. It's why employers pushed for these changes. Trump is doing the bidding of the elites, and the entire goal is to insulate big employers from harms done to employees working on their behalf, but through cutouts like temp agencies.

Second, trying to find a victim at this point is impossible because the rule just went into effect. The 'victims' will be employees who sue, win, and then turn to a corporate shell to get damages, and there's nothing there to get, because the people running those companies will make sure there's nothing there. That's the point of Amazon et al. using cutouts for their employees.
 
Last edited:

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
58,557
Reaction score
27,522
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Do we know all of the factors involved?

It seems like common sense that you shouldn't be able to sue an entity that wasn't involved.

Just because a franchisee pays for branding rights, wouldn't make the company selling the branding rights responsible for illegal activity of the franchisee.

They don't just pay for branding rights. The franchisor hands down a book of rules that the franchisee has to comply with, down to the size of napkins, straws, the building, etc. So the franchisors typically exert an immense amount of day to day control over those using their name, and if the franchisee does not comply, they lose the franchise.

So the idea is in some cases e.g. McDonalds corporate is a joint employer, because it knows or should know that their franchisee is ****ing over their workers, and did nothing.

Other typical cases would be a construction company using contractors and subcontractors. If Trump is building something, and the contractor shorts the wages of those workers, and they sue and the contractor files bankruptcy, should Trump be on the hook when his company exerted immense control over all aspects of the project? It's not clear to me that Trump should be immune from damages from people working on his building under the supervision of his people who hire and oversee the contractors and subs.

In Tennessee lots of companies use temp and other employment agencies to staff huge parts of their workforce. Amazon's warehouse might not have anyone employed by "Amazon" on the floor. They're all hired by an agency, who supplies them for Amazon. Well, if they work in oppressive conditions in that warehouse and collapse from heat, who is responsible? Isn't Amazon at least in part responsible, since it's their warehouse, they oversee the work, and they should know the conditions?
 

beancounter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2017
Messages
3,331
Reaction score
2,213
Location
A Purple State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
They don't just pay for branding rights. The franchisor hands down a book of rules that the franchisee has to comply with, down to the size of napkins, straws, the building, etc. So the franchisors typically exert an immense amount of day to day control over those using their name, and if the franchisee does not comply, they lose the franchise.

So the idea is in some cases e.g. McDonalds corporate is a joint employer, because it knows or should know that their franchisee is ****ing over their workers, and did nothing.

Other typical cases would be a construction company using contractors and subcontractors. If Trump is building something, and the contractor shorts the wages of those workers, and they sue and the contractor files bankruptcy, should Trump be on the hook when his company exerted immense control over all aspects of the project? It's not clear to me that Trump should be immune from damages from people working on his building under the supervision of his people who hire and oversee the contractors and subs.

In Tennessee lots of companies use temp and other employment agencies to staff huge parts of their workforce. Amazon's warehouse might not have anyone employed by "Amazon" on the floor. They're all hired by an agency, who supplies them for Amazon. Well, if they work in oppressive conditions in that warehouse and collapse from heat, who is responsible? Isn't Amazon at least in part responsible, since it's their warehouse, they oversee the work, and they should know the conditions?

But should they know? Unless McDonald's is preparing the franchisee's payroll, there would be no way for them to know (unless they conduct an annual audit).
 
Top Bottom