Trump Effort To Roll Back Worker Protections Knocked Down In Court

[ludin]

I actually read the opinion. You didn't. And you cited an article that included a part of it:
That's explained in the opinion, but the bottom line is the position is so pro-employer that NO COURT in decades has adopted anything like it.

which is irrelevant. The obama unconstitutional EO can be changed by any president. The constitution gives this power to the president and was designed that way for a reason.
now we have the judicial branch overstepping their authority in the matter.

The most telling part of the Trump rule was if Amazon, who hires through an employment agency, only "suggested" work changes, that doesn't count for control, they have to make the changes "mandatory."

Amazon can "suggest" whatever they want they still have to abide by federal labor laws. If the employee's of the agency for the agency then the agency is still bound under federal labor laws as well no matter
what amazon suggests they do. They are not bound to follow those suggestions if they would break federal labor laws. If they do then they are in violation not amazon.

Well, if you want to address this seriously, what do you think happens when a behemoth like Amazon "suggests" something to an employment agency that might have ONLY Amazon as its customer? It's treated as an order and mandatory. Do you agree?

Suggestions are just that suggestions. If you knowingly do something illegal then that is on you.
In any eventi seriously doubt that amazon would expose itself like that, however to sue amazon as well you would have to prove
that they were the ones enforcing the illegal behavior and that it was mandatory to do so. good luck with that one.

Anyway, it's telling that Trump MAGAs are cheering on rules that are a dream come true for the global elites, and run against the interests of common workers. Trump is a Man of the PEOPLE..... if they're $billionaires!!

Nope you are wrong again but well that is to be expected.

 

[dcsports]

which is irrelevant. The obama unconstitutional EO can be changed by any president. The constitution gives this power to the president and was designed that way for a reason.
now we have the judicial branch overstepping their authority in the matter.



Amazon can "suggest" whatever they want they still have to abide by federal labor laws. If the employee's of the agency for the agency then the agency is still bound under federal labor laws as well no matter
what amazon suggests they do. They are not bound to follow those suggestions if they would break federal labor laws. If they do then they are in violation not amazon.



Suggestions are just that suggestions. If you knowingly do something illegal then that is on you.
In any eventi seriously doubt that amazon would expose itself like that, however to sue amazon as well you would have to prove
that they were the ones enforcing the illegal behavior and that it was mandatory to do so. good luck with that one.



Nope you are wrong again but well that is to be expected.

Technically, in this case it was a regulation, which was replaced by another regulation (not an executive order). But the department absolutely had the right to do that.

 

[ludin]

Technically, in this case it was a regulation, which was replaced by another regulation (not an executive order). But the department absolutely had the right to do that.

Either way. the same thing applies. If a department can willy nilly change a regulation then it can be reversed the same way.
these judges have found a new unconstitutional loophole.

 

[JasperL]

You keep bringing in the temp arrangement... which is different. There you could absolutely make the case that Amazon sets the wages (or at least heavily influences), and controls the hiring / firing process. That example would qualify under the revised rule. However, that's completely different than the franchise example, which was the focus here. In that case McDonalds doesn't hire, fire, or set wages for the employees. They don't do their payroll, or schedule when they work. They work for a separate business which has a contract arrangement with them. McDonalds may not even know who they are.

Well, it's not enough that Amazon CAN control the process, but that they actively exert control. And if they exert control in the week of Sept 14th, but don't in the week of the 21st, they're only a 'joint' employer for that one week. Also, again, if Amazon "suggests" that someone be fired, that's not enough to establish control - that suggestion must be mandatory.

Read the opinion if you want. And from the article:

Narrowing the joint employer standard has long been a goal of such companies as McDonald’s, Amazon.com, FedEx and hotel operators that depend heavily on franchises or outsourcing.

In Tennessee the biggest employer as a group are employment agencies who contract with Amazon and others - the 'outsourcing' mentioned. It's a way to get around benefits, vacation, health insurance, etc. The new Trump rule made it easier to insulate Amazon et. al from that employment agency screwing their workers, while working in an Amazon warehouse, loading Amazon products, being shipped to Amazon employees. Depending on what "control" Amazon exerted - if they went beyond suggestions!! - then those workers aren't employees of Amazon and if they sue for damages, Amazon is off the hook. That's a change of decades of law.

 

[JasperL]

which is irrelevant. The obama unconstitutional EO can be changed by any president. The constitution gives this power to the president and was designed that way for a reason.
now we have the judicial branch overstepping their authority in the matter.

Read the opinion. It's not about the Obama regulation but the STATUTE, the LAW, as passed by CONGRESS.

My goodness - if you want to understand the judge's opinion, read it.

 

[dixon01767]

I actually read the opinion. You didn't. And you cited an article that included a part of it:

I read both and nothing in the opinion contradicts the fact that Trumps rule set aside the Obama rule.

 

[dcsports]

Well, it's not enough that Amazon CAN control the process, but that they actively exert control. And if they exert control in the week of Sept 14th, but don't in the week of the 21st, they're only a 'joint' employer for that one week. Also, again, if Amazon "suggests" that someone be fired, that's not enough to establish control - that suggestion must be mandatory.

Read the opinion if you want. And from the article:



In Tennessee the biggest employer as a group are employment agencies who contract with Amazon and others - the 'outsourcing' mentioned. It's a way to get around benefits, vacation, health insurance, etc. The new Trump rule made it easier to insulate Amazon et. al from that employment agency screwing their workers, while working in an Amazon warehouse, loading Amazon products, being shipped to Amazon employees. Depending on what "control" Amazon exerted - if they went beyond suggestions!! - then those workers aren't employees of Amazon and if they sue for damages, Amazon is off the hook. That's a change of decades of law.

Again.... outsourcing is different than hiring through temp agencies. For example, if Amazon contracts with a company to deliver products, they may set the standards for the company to meet with regards to delivery - through a contract with the company. The delivery service hires, fires, and manages the staff. That's different than Amazon using a temp worker to perform an Amazon job in an Amazon facility.

 

[JasperL]

Technically, in this case it was a regulation, which was replaced by another regulation (not an executive order). But the department absolutely had the right to do that.

They have the 'right' to issue regulations. They don't have any 'right' to contradict the statute. Again, if you read the opinion, it is all about how the plain reading of the statute conflicts with the Trump regs. Like I said, what's clear is Trump overreached. They could have just rescinded the Obama regs, but they went WAY beyond that.

 

[Hatuey]

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.

Lmao, funny how one sentence can say so much about a single person.


------------------------

Thought had by person at the White House: If you can remember, man, woman, car, camera, TV, you are fit to lead a country and no one has anything to worry about

 

[Nickyjo]

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.

Maybe NcDonalds should require its franchisees to adhere to labor laws as a condition of keeping the franchise.

 

[JasperL]

Again.... outsourcing is different than hiring through temp agencies. For example, if Amazon contracts with a company to deliver products, they may set the standards for the company to meet with regards to delivery - through a contract with the company. The delivery service hires, fires, and manages the staff. That's different than Amazon using a temp worker to perform an Amazon job in an Amazon facility.

If you believe the judge got the law wrong, you can quote from the opinion, and the law and explain why an interpretation that is contrary to decades of settled law and judicial precedent is actually OK.

Your own link said Amazon was pushing for the changes, then appear to agree that they shouldn't be excused from abuses on their property, just because they don't directly - but only indirectly - pay and control the work. Well the Trump reg makes that REALLY hard for workers to show Amazon did that, including by considering mere "suggestions" as irrelevant, and requiring the directives to be worded as 'or else' demands, i.e. "mandatory."

It's what the global elites wanted from the Trump regs, they got everything they could ask for and more, and of course the Trump MAGAs think it's great to insulate the global elites from consequences! MAN OF THE PEOPLE!

 

[Nickyjo]

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.

Of course, since the higher judge or SCOTUS could never be stupid or partisan.

 

[JasperL]

I read both and nothing in the opinion contradicts the fact that Trumps rule set aside the Obama rule.

If you did read it, then you KNOW it goes FAR, FAR, FAR beyond just rescinding the Obama regs. So don't gaslight us. It's either that or you're lying about having read the opinion. The vast majority of the discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with the Obama regs, but the STATUTE and the decades or prior judicial precedent.

 

[dcsports]

Lmao, funny how one sentence can say so much about a single person.


------------------------

Thought had by person at the White House: If you can remember, man, woman, car, camera, TV, you are fit to lead a country and no one has anything to worry about

Care to clarify?

 

[dcsports]

Maybe NcDonalds should require its franchisees to adhere to labor laws as a condition of keeping the franchise.

I'm sure they require their franchises to adhere to all laws and regulations. That doesn't make them responsible for all actions of the company.

 

[Hatuey]

Care to clarify?

You have never worked at, or owned a franchise in any capacity.




------------------------

Thought had by person at the White House: If you can remember, man, woman, car, camera, TV, you are fit to lead a country and no one has anything to worry about

 

[dcsports]

If you believe the judge got the law wrong, you can quote from the opinion, and the law and explain why an interpretation that is contrary to decades of settled law and judicial precedent is actually OK.

Your own link said Amazon was pushing for the changes, then appear to agree that they shouldn't be excused from abuses on their property, just because they don't directly - but only indirectly - pay and control the work. Well the Trump reg makes that REALLY hard for workers to show Amazon did that, including by considering mere "suggestions" as irrelevant, and requiring the directives to be worded as 'or else' demands, i.e. "mandatory."

It's what the global elites wanted from the Trump regs, they got everything they could ask for and more, and of course the Trump MAGAs think it's great to insulate the global elites from consequences! MAN OF THE PEOPLE!

My link? Where was that?

You've ignored pretty much anything that I or others have said here. I'm not going to nitpick through the opinion. Again, we're talking the rule, not 'decades of settled law and judicial precedent'. I've pointed out that there are situations which are, and would continue to be, covered (like temp workers in many cases). There are others that the law targeted (like franchising and outsourcing) where the rule would help limit frivolous lawsuits.

 

[dcsports]

You have never worked at, or owned a franchise in any capacity.




------------------------

Thought had by person at the White House: If you can remember, man, woman, car, camera, TV, you are fit to lead a country and no one has anything to worry about

You are not correct. I worked for a Hilton franchise before. Hilton was on the building, but it was clear that I worked for, and was paid by, the company that owned the hotel.

And your point?

 

[Nickyjo]

Early in his administration Trump took a couple of actions that bear mentioning. He allowed use of a pesticide that causes birth defects, one which had been under review (or banned) under Obama, and he removed the requirement that a company's record of deaths and injuries on the job be a factor in granting government contracts. Trump doesn't care about working people in my view, except as voters he might attract with appeals to their perceived bigotry. Any effort by his administration to roll back protections for workers should not surprise anyone. Worker protection tends to be a democratic thing, with republicans tending to favor employers more. Obvious stuff, though odds are that Trump will be more extreme than the average republican, as he is in other areas.

 

[Nickyjo]

I'm sure they require their franchises to adhere to all laws and regulations. That doesn't make them responsible for all actions of the company.

Shouldn't some minimal oversight be required of McDonalds? I can see them not being liable if they could show that they monitored compliance up to a point.

 

[JasperL]

My link? Where was that?

You've ignored pretty much anything that I or others have said here. I'm not going to nitpick through the opinion. Again, we're talking the rule, not 'decades of settled law and judicial precedent'. I've pointed out that there are situations which are, and would continue to be, covered (like temp workers in many cases). There are others that the law targeted (like franchising and outsourcing) where the rule would help limit frivolous lawsuits.

Right, why reference the actual discussion of the law and how the Trump regs contradict any plain reading of the text of the statute. Much easier to ignore all that.

And the correct term for "frivolous lawsuits" is "anything that would hurt the profits of the multinational behemoths" or that makes it easier for wronged workers to collect on damages. Trump's people checked off the wish list of the global elites with this rule, and of course that's GREAT! To hell with workers!

I'll just repeat again that the 'flavor' of the Trump regs is captured by their requirement that to be a joint employer requires some level of 'control' and it's NOT evidenced when Amazon has the contractual power to direct anything they want, it's not evidenced when Amazon merely "suggests" work changes, and instead the only way Amazon can exert control under these regs is to make the suggestions 'mandatory.' Well, anyone who has 1 week of experience in the real world knows that's bull****. If your boss "suggests" you do something, if you want to keep your job, you do it. If a behemoth like Amazon is your client, perhaps only client, and they 'suggest' something, what do you do if you're the employment agency? Exactly what they "suggest" every ****ing time. You know this if you've had a single job beyond cutting yards, and even then if the daddy at that house only "suggests" you cut in a diagonal, what does that 13 year old kid do? Cuts on a diagonal.

 

[Hatuey]

You are not correct. I worked for a Hilton franchise before. Hilton was on the building, but it was clear that I worked for, and was paid by, the company that owned the hotel.

And your point?

Do you think that Hilton has employees corporate doesn't know about?

This is impressive.


------------------------

Thought had by person at the White House: If you can remember, man, woman, car, camera, TV, you are fit to lead a country and no one has anything to worry about

 

[dcsports]

Shouldn't some minimal oversight be required of McDonalds? I can see them not being liable if they could show that they monitored compliance up to a point.

Minimal oversight of the franchise - yes. In fact, they do extensive oversight of franchises.

However, they can't, and shouldn't, delve into every aspect. This actually could increase their liability. There are also other factors that come into play - such as privacy laws. For example, if your company contracted with another company to provide services for them, would you want them to have access to your payroll records? Again, McDonalds doesn't own the franchise - they contract with them and provide services. Their oversight - and responsibility - goes only as far as the contract allows.

 

[dcsports]

Do you think that Hilton has employees corporate doesn't know about?

This is impressive.


------------------------

Thought had by person at the White House: If you can remember, man, woman, car, camera, TV, you are fit to lead a country and no one has anything to worry about

WHOOOSH!!!!

Possibly. I don't know if they sent a roster. Records weren't as invasive then. They certainly didn't hire, fire, set wages for, or pay, the employees of the franchise.

 

[dcsports]

Right, why reference the actual discussion of the law and how the Trump regs contradict any plain reading of the text of the statute. Much easier to ignore all that.

And the correct term for "frivolous lawsuits" is "anything that would hurt the profits of the multinational behemoths" or that makes it easier for wronged workers to collect on damages. Trump's people checked off the wish list of the global elites with this rule, and of course that's GREAT! To hell with workers!

I'll just repeat again that the 'flavor' of the Trump regs is captured by their requirement that to be a joint employer requires some level of 'control' and it's NOT evidenced when Amazon has the contractual power to direct anything they want, it's not evidenced when Amazon merely "suggests" work changes, and instead the only way Amazon can exert control under these regs is to make the suggestions 'mandatory.' Well, anyone who has 1 week of experience in the real world knows that's bull****. If your boss "suggests" you do something, if you want to keep your job, you do it. If a behemoth like Amazon is your client, perhaps only client, and they 'suggest' something, what do you do if you're the employment agency? Exactly what they "suggest" every ****ing time. You know this if you've had a single job beyond cutting yards, and even then if the daddy at that house only "suggests" you cut in a diagonal, what does that 13 year old kid do? Cuts on a diagonal.

And again, you keep lapsing into a discussion of temp worker arrangements, which aren't what we're talking about. Those were covered under the old and new rule.

Let me help define (again) the frivolous lawsuits in this case. We're talking about workers (really lawyers seeking to profit off the workers) suing a company which doesn't employ workers for paying them incorrectly - because they contract with the employer - in an attempt to squeeze out a settlement to avoid litigation costs.

The last paragraph, again, lapses into the irrelevant. There's a difference between setting standards for the work of a contractor and being responsible for that contractor's payroll obligations. For example, I can insist that the people who mow my lawn mow it diagonally and they'll probably do it. (At least while I'm watching). I do also ask them to edge around the flower bed, and blow the leaves off the porch. That doesn't mean I'm responsible for paying the individual employees. I contract with the company, and pay the company. That company is responsible for paying the individual workers.