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
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 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".
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.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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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. .
Once again, Trump screws the little guy and his supporters cheer him on. Man of the people!!
They werent the old rules, they were the Obama rules. Trump changed it back to the old rules.
Bet you cant find a single little guy screwed over by Trumps change to the law.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?