Who’s the Boss When You Work for a Franchise or Contractor?
In a decision that’s been called the greatest expansion of union rights in decades, the National Labor Relations Board has ruled that if a corporation uses contractors or franchisees, contract workers who unionize can negotiate with the parent company and their direct employer. Previously, unions could often only deal with the contractor or franchise owner, greatly limiting their bargaining power. Critics of the ruling say it unfairly makes corporations responsible for workers they haven’t hired and conditions over which they have no control. Should companies have responsibility for all contract workers, even if they don’t employ them directly?
* expansion = 확대, 확장. 팽창/ rule = 결정[판결]을 내리다/ contractor = 계약자, 도급업자/ negotiate with ~ = ~와 협상[교섭]하다/ bargaining power = 협상력/ contract worker = 계약직 사원
직접 고용하지 않은 계약직 사원에 대해 회사는 책임을 지어야 하나요?
1. Companies Must Take Responsibility for All Workers
Companies have been able to ignore the needs of workers hired by subcontractors or franchises, even when those workers are victims of wage theft or worse.
2. An Impractical and Dangerous Ruling
It is virtually impossible to tell which employers in this line-up are “indirect" employers now.
3. A Fair Decision That Reflects Globalization and Technology
Workers must maintain their right to organize in a labor market transformed by new, informal relationships.
4. A Trade-Off for Large Franchises and Companies
If franchisors want to avoid being considered a joint employer, all they have to do is abstain from participating in decision-making at the franchisee level.
Sample Essay
An Impractical and Dangerous Ruling
The myriad complexities of today's business relationships show the impracticality of the N.L.R.B.’s new rule. Under their recent decision, the status of "employer" is not limited to companies that exert direct control over their workers. "Indirect" control, and the potential to exercise control, now suffice.
So what does that mean for the many businesses that work with multiple subcontractors?
For example, manufacturers contract with shipping companies for distribution, and with suppliers of raw materials and component parts. Corporations often utilize vendors for catering, janitorial and maintenance work. And general contractors routinely work with a dozen or more subcontractors, each of whom provide different construction specialties.
It is virtually impossible to tell which employers in this line-up are “indirect" employers now, as that status is not clearly defined in the new rule. Contracting companies typically limit their management to setting hours of operation, minimal standards of competence or skill, and to the right to remove any contractor employee whose conduct is disruptive or performance is incompetent.
Such broad oversight should be distinguished from the subcontractor's domain, which includes direct control of wages, hours and benefits, and day-to-day employee supervision. But under the N.L.R.B.'s new "indirect employer" rule, these lines of management and responsibility blur confusingly, resulting in significantly increased costs to the contracting companies or franchisors. Automakers, for example, strictly control prices for their suppliers — a business model that would suffer greatly under the new rule because of the potential for additional uncapped costs.
Essentially, the N.L.R.B. has opened the door for multiple, unworkable workplace obligations for contracting parties, even when they have no direct or immediate relationship with the terms and conditions of the subcontractor’s employees. This decision is unbounded and plainly inconsistent with the purposes of the N.L.R.B., set by Congress in 1935 to remove the burdens and obstructions that were “impairing the efficiency, safety or operation of the instrumentalities of commerce.”
Eventually, the courts and Supreme Court will reject this new rule that subjects an ever-widening circle of businesses to liabilities not of their making.
