Murray: Update to Joint-Employer Standard Will Help Protect Workers’ Basic Rights

(Washington, D.C.) – Today, Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-WA) delivered remarks at a hearing on the National Labor Relations Board’s joint-employer decision. In her remarks, Murray explained that while the labor market has changed over the past 30 years, it shouldn’t be the end of basic worker protections or the ability to earn a living wage. Murray highlighted that too often, when workers want to exercise their basic rights to improve workplace conditions, many corporations that have substantial control over workers’ wages and terms of employment have no obligation to meet them at the bargaining table. Murray added that the NLRB’s Browning-Ferris decision simply adapts the nation’s labor law to the realities of today’s workplaces. Murray called on the Committee to move beyond partisan political fights and work together on policies that ensure workplaces work for all families, not just the wealthiest few and biggest corporations.

Key excerpts from Senator Murray’s remarks:

“Many big corporations increasingly rely on temp agencies, franchises, and other third-party sources to stay competitive and lower labor costs.  And sometimes, corporations still maintain significant control over the workers performing their day-to-day operations of franchises and subcontractors. Now, some of these corporations work very hard to ensure workers are treated fairly and have access to the protections they deserve.  Unfortunately, when many other parent companies maintain this control, it can often come at a huge cost to workers and to small business owners alike.”

“…Some of the biggest corporations can dictate a franchise’s pricing and store hours, they can decide how many people are on a franchisee’s staff, and they sometimes even have a say in how much employees can earn.  And yet, these parent companies can escape all liability for poor working conditions and rock-bottom wages.  In some cases, workers have tried to exercise their basic rights to join together and improve wages and workplace conditions. When those workers sit down to negotiate, they find out that not all of the people who have control over the terms and conditions of their jobs have to show up at the bargaining table.”

“There has been an overwhelming amount of disinformation out there about the NLRB’s Browning-Ferris decision. So, before hearing testimony, I want to make a couple of things clear. When workers want to join together with their coworkers, they are not looking for special treatment. They are simply exercising their basic rights that are guaranteed by law. Secondly, one of the Board’s responsibilities is adapting to the realities of today’s workplaces to ensure workers can exercise their right to collectively bargain. Some of my Republican colleagues have claimed that this decision is somehow an over-reach. But given the changes in the workplace, the Board is simply carrying out its duties under the law.”

“And this might be the most important point. I’ve heard some opponents of this decision use sweeping language about the scope of this decision. Let’s be clear. This decision doesn’t change the relationship between a local business owner and her employees. If she was deciding who to hire and who on her staff deserved a raise before this decision, she will continue doing that going forward.  The Browning-Ferris decision only clarifies that if another company also has substantial control in the critical terms of employment, like who to hire and fire, and how much to pay franchise owner’s employees, the NLRB is going to take it at its word and treat it as an employer, as well.”

“…The labor market looks much different today than it did 30 years ago. Rather than using these trends to end basic worker protections and undermine the fundamental fairness of due process, this Committee should study these trends, and discuss what we can do for workers and small business owners to keep the American Dream in reach for all families. Mr. Chairman, instead of partisan fights, I hope this Committee can find ways to look at these trends and work together on policies that expand economic security, grow the economy from the middle-out, not the top down,  and ensure our country and workplaces, work for all families, not just the wealthiest few and the biggest corporations.”

Full text from Senator Murray’s remarks:

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

“Our economy, our workplaces, and our country should work for all families, not just the wealthiest few.

“I think everyone in this room agrees we can’t make that happen without considering the massive changes in the labor market over the past 30 years.  

“Many big corporations increasingly rely on temp agencies, franchises, and other third-party sources to stay competitive and lower labor costs.  And sometimes, corporations still maintain significant control over the workers performing their day-to-day operations of franchises and subcontractors.

“Now, some of these corporations work very hard to ensure workers are treated fairly and have access to the protections they deserve.

“Unfortunately, when many other parent companies maintain this control, it can often come at a huge cost to workers and to small business owners alike.

“For example, some of the biggest corporations can dictate a franchise’s pricing and store hours, they can decide how many people are on a franchisee’s staff, and they sometimes even have a say in how much employees can earn.  And yet, these parent companies can escape all liability for poor working conditions and rock-bottom wages.

“In some cases, workers have tried to exercise their basic rights to join together and improve wages and workplace conditions. When those workers sit down to negotiate, they find out that not all of the people who have control over the terms and conditions of their jobs have to show up at the bargaining table. 

“Take for example a worker named Arold, who worked for a temp agency that supplied workers for a warehouse in California. In a report from the National Employment Law Project, he said he and his coworkers barely made more than the minimum wage.

“They never knew when their shift would end, and they never had a set day off of work. That made it impossible for them to plan their lives.

“But when they joined together to form a union, instead of meeting them at the bargaining table, the company that owned the warehouse threatened to close the temp agency and fire all the workers.

“These employment arrangements can be bad for small business owners, as well.

“Take for instance a man named Syed.  In a story from NPR, Syed said he came to the U.S. from India, and he’s been a franchise owner for nearly a quarter of a century.

“Over time, the parent company has enacted tighter and tighter controls over Syed’s business. And that has really limited his ability to free up resources to treat his workers better.

“He said, ‘When I lived in Bombay, this is not what I thought they meant by the American Dream.’

“And while there are many responsible corporations, other parent companies put all liability for low wages and poor working conditions squarely on the shoulders of small business owners.

“Mr. Chairman, I believe we need to help workers and grow our economy from the middle out, not the top down. And this means we as a nation should not turn our backs on empowering workers – especially because that’s the very thing that has helped so many workers climb into the middle class.

“There has been an overwhelming amount of disinformation out there about the NLRB’s Browning-Ferris decision. So, before hearing testimony, I want to make a couple of things clear.

“When workers want to join together with their coworkers, they are not looking for special treatment. They are simply exercising their basic rights that are guaranteed by law.

“Secondly, one of the Board’s responsibilities is adapting to the realities of today’s workplaces to ensure workers can exercise their right to collectively bargain.

“Some of my Republican colleagues have claimed that this decision is somehow an over-reach. But given the changes in the workplace, the Board is simply carrying out its duties under the law.

“And this might be the most important point. I’ve heard some opponents of this decision use sweeping language about the scope of this decision. Let’s be clear.

“This decision doesn’t change the relationship between a local business owner and her employees.

“If she was deciding who to hire and who on her staff deserved a raise before this decision, she will continue doing that going forward. 

“The Browning-Ferris decision only clarifies that if another company also has substantial control in the critical terms of employment, like who to hire and fire, and how much to pay franchise owner’s employees, the NLRB is going to take it at its word and treat it as an employer, as well.

“Workers can only exercise their basic rights – rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution and the National Labor Relations Act – when all of the employers who have a say in their working conditions are at the table.

“Again, the labor market looks much different today than it did 30 years ago.

“Rather than using these trends to end basic worker protections and undermine the fundamental fairness of due process, this Committee should study these trends, and discuss what we can do for workers and small business owners to keep the American Dream in reach for all families.

“Mr. Chairman, instead of partisan fights, I hope this Committee can find ways to look at these trends and work together on policies that expand economic security, grow the economy from the middle-out, not the top down,  and ensure our country and workplaces, work for all families, not just the wealthiest few and the biggest corporations.”