Bill Overview
Title: Save Local Business Act
Description: Act This bill provides that a person may be considered a joint employer in relation to an employee under federal labor law only if such person directly, actually, and immediately (and not in a limited and routine manner) exercises significant control over the essential terms and conditions of employment. Such control may by demonstrated by hiring and discharging employees, determining individual employee rates of pay and benefits, day-to-day supervision of employees, assigning individual work schedules, positions, and tasks, and administering employee discipline.
Sponsors: Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]
Target Audience
Population: Employees and employers involved in joint employment scenarios
Estimated Size: 20000000
- The bill affects the definition of a joint employer, which directly impacts businesses that operate under franchises or subcontracting arrangements.
- Many local businesses in the U.S. operate as franchises and often deal with issues related to joint employment, affecting owners and managers.
- Employees may experience a shift in labor protections and accountability as a result of altering the criteria for joint employment.
- The bill could lead to reduced liability for companies that operate under franchise models, affecting their operational decisions.
- Labor unions and worker advocacy groups will likely need to adjust their organizing and legal strategies based on this legislative change.
Reasoning
- The influence of joint employer doctrine largely impacts businesses in franchise or subcontractor networks, thus primarily affecting two main groups: 1) Business owners/operators who might face changes in their management autonomy, liabilities, or negotiations, and 2) Workers who could see variations in labor protections, supervision, and workplaces conditions.
- While most businesses will not directly encounter changes because they do not operate under such complex managerial structures, those that do may see significant impacts, especially regarding reduced liabilities and streamlined management under the new definition of joint employer.
- The budgetary constraints suggest the potential for significant influence on labor policy infrastructure or educational campaigns, making direct business operational changes or labor rights disputation less immediately financially burdensome.
- Given the wide distribution of franchises and subcontractor-reliant industries across the country, variations exist within these impacts based on regional business concentrations and local economic structures.
Simulated Interviews
Franchise Owner (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this policy will clarify my roles and limit unnecessary liabilities.
- Running a franchise is already costly, and safeguarding my business risk is critical.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Subcontracted IT Technician (Chicago, IL)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried this policy might reduce my protection at work.
- Joint employment laws are already complicated for people like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Corporate Lawyer (Franchise Specialization) (Dallas, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could streamline legal processes for my clients and reduce litigation odds.
- It's important for us that the rules around joint employment become clearer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Union Organizer (Miami, FL)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might make organizing harder, reducing worker protections.
- We're strategizing on how to adapt our methods under these new limits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Buffalo, NY)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't seem to directly impact me since I'm not part of any franchise.
- I focus on my shop's growth rather than worrying about overarching legal changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
H.R. Manager in a Tech Company (Seattle, WA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Changing joint employment rules could simplify regulatory compliance for H.R.
- It’s crucial for us to understand any policy change for its immediate implemented scope.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Bartender/Freelancer (New York, NY)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Clarity in employment definitions helps me understand rights and liabilities better than currently.
- However, not many immediate changes appear influenced by this bill in my day-to-day.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Public Relations Specialist (Houston, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bill could impact how franchises perceive their employment structure and need PR strategies.
- I foresee more stable communication frameworks to update clients on liabilities and HR policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Healthcare Worker (Denver, CO)
Age: 26 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Adapting to policy shifts in employment law can be crucial for contract workers like me.
- There might be impacts in how I’m supervised and who assesses my pay levels through contracts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Labor Economist (Boston, MA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Exploring these legal changes provides insight into labor market adaptability.
- My interest and work in the field will likely increase due to this policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 3: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 5: $100000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $150000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $75000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Key Considerations
- Changes in the definition of a joint employer could alter the landscape of labor relations by potentially reducing union influence on franchised establishments.
- The bill's implementation could lead to legal challenges regarding interpretations of 'direct and significant control.'
- Potential resistance from labor groups who view this as a reduction in worker protections.