hero image

The Obama administration’s pro-union “joint employer” rule was controversial with awful consequences, according to President Donald Trump. Business groups opposed it, citing that it was only protecting corporations. On the other hand, unions claimed that the Obama rule exposed the corporations to pressure campaigns

However, despite all that, the Trump administration is restoring the Obama rule. Justifying its efforts, the White House said it was a way of protecting both the businesses and workers. The rule would shield businesses from taking responsibility for workplace violations by their franchisees. Previously, the so-called joint employer rule demanded that franchisees are legally responsible for their workplaces, including the independent ones.

The effort is geared towards promoting an entrepreneurial culture

The entrepreneurial culture is reportedly what has driven America into its current prosperity. The American economy is among the most thriving economies in the world.

According to Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia, “This final rule furthers President Trump’s successful, government-wide effort to address regulations that hinder the American economy and to promote economic growth.”

Scalia further added that the government had the best interest of allowing businesses to create jobs, participate in new markets, and also have the opportunity of contesting at lower prices. This would eventually be a big win for all Americans.

A “joint employer” case from the Obama era against McDonald’s Corporation

McDonald’s is one of the many Corporations, which have suffered the consequences of the “joint employer rule. The case was launched in 2013 but was only settled late last year. In its verdict, the National Labor Relations Board outlined that the company did not have any direct responsibility to its franchise restaurants.

However, in some instances, the corporation was held responsible for unfair labor practices, threatening employees and not respecting their protected activities. While it may not have committed the offense directly, it had is supposed to have exercised control over the same.

Having failed to do so, McDonald will have to part with $171,636 to pay the affected workers. It must also take care of such future occurrences by setting up a $250,000 fund. Nonetheless, the consequence may not be as severe as it would have been in the joint employer rule was in effect.