mechalink

Midnight Wonderer

  • any/he

I code for work, I get varianced for fun. MTG/Randomizers/Coding/Speedrunning. Also, I enjoy waffles. Genderfluid, any/he 両刀使い Pseudo-anonymous.


cohostunionnews
@cohostunionnews

In another win for labor a new NLRB rule set to go into effect later this year (December 26, 2023) will make it easier for corporations to be found as joint-employers. Tomorrow the NLRB will officially publish its updated Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status—the new standard overturns the current 2020 standard. Previously corporations were required to “possess and exercise . . . substantial direct and immediate control” over essential terms and conditions of employment to be held as a joint-employer; obviously this made establishing joint-employment quite difficult for employees because it's a high bar to clear and what constitutes "substantial direct and immediate control" is ambiguous.

The NLRB summarizes its new rule as follows:

Under the new standard, an entity may be considered a joint employer of a group of employees if each entity has an employment relationship with the employees and they share or codetermine one or more of the employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment, which are defined exclusively as:

  • (1) wages, benefits, and other compensation;
  • (2) hours of work and scheduling;
  • (3) the assignment of duties to be performed;
  • (4) the supervision of the performance of duties;
  • (5) work rules and directions governing the manner, means, and methods of the performance of duties and the grounds for discipline;
  • (6) the tenure of employment, including hiring and discharge;
  • and (7) working conditions related to the safety and health of employees.

While the NLRB will still be obliged to conduct analysis of whether a corporation meets this standard, going forward the standard should apply to many more workers than it has been to this point.


mechalink
@mechalink

Oh, this is why WotC ended their contract with Judge Acadamy.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @cohostunionnews's post:

Trying to understand the significance of an employer being found as a "joint employer." Is this about closing the "contractor" loophole by ruling that you still have to treat workers as employees even if they technically are being employed by someone else?