3 ms·

While the news article didn't describe the percentage of people "harmed" by using a temp company, it did give examples including the Teamsters / Leadpoint / Bro

by dalke 11y ago

While the news article didn't describe the percentage of people "harmed" by using a temp company, it did give examples including the Teamsters / Leadpoint / Browning-Ferris case, it described that it was a non-trivial fraction of people affected, and it explained the rule change for to do things differently. It also linked to the actual decision, at https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-issues-decision-browning-ferris-industries https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-issues-d... , so you can read the full details. That in turn says (emphasis mine): > Consistent with earlier Board decisions, as well as the common law, we will examine how control is manifested in a particular employment relationship. We reject those limiting requirements that the Board has imposed— without foundation in the statute or common law—after Browning-Ferris. We will no longer require that a joint employer not only possess the authority to control employees’ terms and conditions of employment, but also exercise that authority. What more information do you want on the topic, rather than shawnee_'s opinions? I ask because your questions here look like they are meant more to put shawnee_ on the spot than anything else, when shawnee_'s opinions are consistent with that of: > labor advocates and academics who have described an increasingly “fissured” economy, in which whole industries have been built on business models that offer workers few of the protections of a traditional employer relationship. Is it not more useful to look at the broader arguments already presented in the WaPo article?

blisterpeanuts 11y ago
I read the WaPo article and see no financial rationale for forcing this relationship between contractors and commercial organizations. And since when is it wrong to "put someone on the spot" by asking questions? The "increasingly fissured economy" argument is an old one but the solutions are not at all clear. Legislating more lawsuits, forcing contractors and temps into an employee relationship with 3rd parties -- this is a temporary favor to unions and wage-and-benefit advocates but doesn't solve the real problems which are the prohibitive cost basis of hiring full time employees in today's economy in the U.S. I would address the cost basis first, and make it less expensive to hire full timers, and then we'll see more hiring of full timers.
- dalke 11y ago
  There's no financial rationale because the case didn't concern financial rationale. This is a question of how to interpret the existing National Labor Relations Act. Thus, your comments make no sense. Regarding "put someone on the spot"; you are veering close to "JAQing off" territory. The question you had were general ones addressed by the article, and here are many easily found sources that would give you the insight you are looking for. Your one line response to shawnee_ did not give any evidence that you understood the context, or cared to do your own research, it had a implicit assumption that a random HN should educate you, a full answer would have required multiple paragraphs, and would unlikely to be correct as HN readers tend to not be aware of labor law. Plus, shawnee_ was clearly expressing an opinion and not trying to make provable statements that can be backed up by the specifics you wanted. Following up as you did is hard to distinguish from sealioning.
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  >the real problems which are the prohibitive cost basis of hiring full time employees in today's economy in the U.S. [citation needed]. What's the above-salary overhead on hiring someone in the USA vs other countries vs the USA at other times when the labor market was tighter?

by dalke 11y ago

blisterpeanuts 11y ago

I read the WaPo article and see no financial rationale for forcing this relationship between contractors and commercial organizations. And since when is it wrong to "put someone on the spot" by asking questions? The "increasingly fissured economy" argument is an old one but the solutions are not at all clear. Legislating more lawsuits, forcing contractors and temps into an employee relationship with 3rd parties -- this is a temporary favor to unions and wage-and-benefit advocates but doesn't solve the real problems which are the prohibitive cost basis of hiring full time employees in today's economy in the U.S. I would address the cost basis first, and make it less expensive to hire full timers, and then we'll see more hiring of full timers.

dalke 11y ago
There's no financial rationale because the case didn't concern financial rationale. This is a question of how to interpret the existing National Labor Relations Act. Thus, your comments make no sense. Regarding "put someone on the spot"; you are veering close to "JAQing off" territory. The question you had were general ones addressed by the article, and here are many easily found sources that would give you the insight you are looking for. Your one line response to shawnee_ did not give any evidence that you understood the context, or cared to do your own research, it had a implicit assumption that a random HN should educate you, a full answer would have required multiple paragraphs, and would unlikely to be correct as HN readers tend to not be aware of labor law. Plus, shawnee_ was clearly expressing an opinion and not trying to make provable statements that can be backed up by the specifics you wanted. Following up as you did is hard to distinguish from sealioning.
eli_gottlieb 11y ago
>the real problems which are the prohibitive cost basis of hiring full time employees in today's economy in the U.S. [citation needed]. What's the above-salary overhead on hiring someone in the USA vs other countries vs the USA at other times when the labor market was tighter?