Overview
Title
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Labor Relations Board relating to Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status.
ELI5 AI
Congress made a plan, called H. J. RES. 98, to stop a rule about how companies share work responsibilities from happening. They want to make sure the rule doesn’t affect anyone, so everyone knows what to do.
Summary AI
H. J. RES. 98 is a joint resolution in the 118th Congress that seeks to nullify a rule made by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The rule, titled “Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status,” was published in the Federal Register on October 27, 2023. By disapproving this rule, Congress aims to stop it from taking effect. The resolution was introduced by Mr. James and others, and it has been referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The House Joint Resolution 98 (H. J. RES. 98) under consideration by the 118th Congress seeks to disapprove a rule issued by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This particular rule pertains to the "Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status." Essentially, the resolution expresses Congress's rejection of the NLRB's criteria for identifying whether different businesses are considered joint employers. If adopted, this resolution would nullify the NLRB's rule, rendering it ineffective and unenforceable.
Summary of Significant Issues
A notable issue with the resolution is its ambiguous language regarding subsequent actions following Congress's disapproval. The phrase "falls short of providing specific guidance on what comes after the disapproval," which could lead to questions about what steps governmental bodies are expected to take next. This lack of clarity could result in implementation challenges or legal disputes.
Additionally, while the resolution states that the rule "shall have no force or effect," stakeholders may benefit from additional details or context. Clarity on this point is vital, as it directly affects companies and employees operating under the joint employer framework, with possible legal and operational implications.
Public Impact
Broadly speaking, this resolution could impact how businesses and employees interpret their relationships. If companies are determined to be joint employers, they might share legal responsibilities for specific employment conditions, impacting labor relations across various industries. The resolution endeavors to prevent the implementation of the NLRB's rule, potentially maintaining the status quo that does not recognize such relationships under the contested guidelines.
Stakeholder Impact
For businesses, especially franchises and subcontractors, the resolution could be beneficial. By invalidating the NLRB's rule, businesses might find it easier to structure their operations without the burden of shared liabilities, thereby fostering more robust outsourcing or franchise arrangements without fear of shared labor law responsibilities.
Conversely, for employees, particularly those working in complex employment setups, there may be negative consequences. Without the rule, affected employees might face challenges in determining and asserting joint employment for work conditions or obtaining reparations for grievances.
In the broader labor market, this resolution underscores ongoing tensions concerning employer accountability and worker rights. Those advocating for more inclusive worker protections might see this move as a step backward, whereas segments of the business community may welcome it for preserving traditional corporate boundaries.
In summary, the resolution is a critical point of legislative discussion with far-reaching implications for how employer relationships and responsibilities are perceived and managed across the United States.
Issues
The language 'That Congress disapproves the rule' in the resolution could be clearer if it specified what specific actions Congress or other governmental entities are expected to take following this disapproval. This is significant because it affects the implementation and enforcement of the decision, potentially leading to ambiguity or legal challenges regarding the outcome of the disapproval.
The phrase 'and such rule shall have no force or effect' might benefit from additional context or clarification to ensure that the legislative intent is fully understood and that affected parties are aware of the implications of the rule being invalidated. This point is crucial as it directly impacts employers and employees subject to the 'Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status' and may have broad implications for labor relations and legal interpretations.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress does not agree with the rule made by the National Labor Relations Board about how to decide if companies are joint employers, and says this rule should not be used or followed.