Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 3441

"Save Local Business Act": Changing Federal Employment Regulations of Companies That Have Franchises

Argument in favor

The NLRB’s recent decision regarding the definition of a “joint employer” for regulatory purposes burdens small businesses and franchisees. This bill would enact a more sensible standard that only considers a person or entity a joint employer if they directly control an employee’s work terms.

Matthew's Opinion
···
11/07/2017
While I appreciate the concern and desire to protect workers, the NLRB ruling would seem to over reach their authority and results in unnecessary ambiguity over what should be a straight forward question of who actually employees the worker. The NLRB ruling seems to have extended corporate liability to bigger pocket organizations that do business with smaller corporations, without really changing employee protections, which are still safeguarded by existing legislation. Congress should clarify this issue and restore a common sense definition of employer - employee.
Like (37)
Follow
Share
operaman's Opinion
···
11/07/2017
Since this involved the NLRB, then yes. Anything to counter this Socialist Board is a step toward freedom and the shaking off of Obama’s dust of his presidency.
Like (20)
Follow
Share
Harry's Opinion
···
11/07/2017
If you can not control or have ability to direct a person's work, they are not your employee.
Like (8)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

This bill would enable unscrupulous employers to skirt vital legal protections for workers and minimize their liability, while leaving employees with no recourse for the damages. The current joint employer standard should remain in place.

Mark's Opinion
···
11/07/2017
The United States became the most powerful country in the world on the back of a strong middle class. Removing worker rights is not the way to improve our country, neither is reducing taxes for Donald Trump and his friends. The GOP seems to think they are only accountable to CEOs and Oligarchs. Anyone in favor of this bill or the new tax plan ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Like (141)
Follow
Share
John's Opinion
···
11/07/2017
Amazing how Republicans can focus on items that compromise American Workers while ignoring treason at their Highest Levels...Great Job!
Like (73)
Follow
Share
JayOxidative's Opinion
···
11/07/2017
This is another pro-business, and therefore anti-worker, attack by the Republicans. Strengthen worker rights and our Unions, not erode them.
Like (57)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house Passed November 7th, 2017
    Roll Call Vote 242 Yea / 181 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Education and Labor
      Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions
      Workforce Protections
    IntroducedJuly 27th, 2017

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

Bill Activity

  • action
    Introduced in House
  • referral
    Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  • action
    Hearings Held by the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections Prior to Referral.
  • action
    Hearings Held by the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Prior to Referral.
  • action
    Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
  • calendar
    Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 23 - 17.
  • action
    Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and the Workforce. H. Rept. 115-379.
  • calendar
    Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 278.
  • action
    Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 607 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3043 and H.R. 3441. Measure will be considered read. The resolution provides for one hour of debate on H.R. 3043. The resolution makes in order only those further amendments printed in the report and one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Also, the resolution provides for one hour of debate on H.R. 3441 with one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  • action
    Rule H. Res. 607 passed House.
  • action
    Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 607.
  • action
    Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3043 and H.R. 3441. Measure will be considered read. The resolution provides for one hour of debate on H.R. 3043. The resolution makes in order only those further amendments printed in the report and one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Also, the resolution provides for one hour of debate on H.R. 3441 with one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  • action
    DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 3441.
  • action
    The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
  • action
    Ms. Bonamici moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  • action
    DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Bonamici motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with an amendment to section 2, Clarification of Joint Employment, to change the applicability when a franchisee takes an action at the direction of a franchisor, and such action by the franchisee violates this Act, in which case the franchisor shall be considered a joint employer for purposes of such violation.
  • action
    The previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection.
  • action
    On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 186 - 235 (Roll no. 613).
  • vote
    On passage Passed by recorded vote: 242 - 181 (Roll no. 614).
  • action
    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
  • action
    Received in the Senate.

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house Passed November 7th, 2017
    Roll Call Vote 242 Yea / 181 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Education and Labor
      Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions
      Workforce Protections
    IntroducedJuly 27th, 2017

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    While I appreciate the concern and desire to protect workers, the NLRB ruling would seem to over reach their authority and results in unnecessary ambiguity over what should be a straight forward question of who actually employees the worker. The NLRB ruling seems to have extended corporate liability to bigger pocket organizations that do business with smaller corporations, without really changing employee protections, which are still safeguarded by existing legislation. Congress should clarify this issue and restore a common sense definition of employer - employee.
    Like (37)
    Follow
    Share
    The United States became the most powerful country in the world on the back of a strong middle class. Removing worker rights is not the way to improve our country, neither is reducing taxes for Donald Trump and his friends. The GOP seems to think they are only accountable to CEOs and Oligarchs. Anyone in favor of this bill or the new tax plan ought to be ashamed of themselves.
    Like (141)
    Follow
    Share
    Amazing how Republicans can focus on items that compromise American Workers while ignoring treason at their Highest Levels...Great Job!
    Like (73)
    Follow
    Share
    This is another pro-business, and therefore anti-worker, attack by the Republicans. Strengthen worker rights and our Unions, not erode them.
    Like (57)
    Follow
    Share
    Another Conservative tactic to further oppress the employees, the Citizens and to exploit the disadvantaged. Profiteering is all that matters to this group.
    Like (33)
    Follow
    Share
    Since this involved the NLRB, then yes. Anything to counter this Socialist Board is a step toward freedom and the shaking off of Obama’s dust of his presidency.
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    Support employee rights.
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    For all you working class who voted republican. Here is another one in the shorts for you. I hope some day you realize unless you are the top 1 percent you are being used
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    What a sneaky name for a bill that really aims to limit worker rights. Do not pass!
    Like (14)
    Follow
    Share
    Leave the unions and NLRB alone! Everyone knows you are totally on corporate and business’ side and will help them rather than average Americans! Do ANY of you care? Hint: Elections coming up!
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Coffman, I swear if you keep voting with Trump you’ll lose your seat.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    I’m concerned this is only an attempt to protect the corporate franchiser from liability. Since franchisers train franchisees in every aspect of their business and establish best practices, I believe they should continue to shoulder some of the responsibility for the actions of their franchisees. I’m leary of this apparent attempt to escape culpability.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    The NLRB formulated this rule to keep the mega franchisers - who make the guidelines for employment for the franchisees - from avoiding responsibilities like worker safety, rotating shifts, benefits, minimum pay and liability for their franchises. Another bad deal for employees and actually for small business franchisees.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    If you can not control or have ability to direct a person's work, they are not your employee.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    What this bill says it does and what it actually does are two different things. This doesn't save local businesses, quite the contrary; this exempts big businesses and businesses that use temp agencies from worker protections and as a result will actually harm local businesses by holding them liable for actions performed by their franchisors. The joint employer rule as it exists today makes sense, and should not be repealed. I've worked as a subcontractor/temp and if the company I was doing work for was exempt from labor laws they could have attempted to abuse their position and under this bill get away with it without any recourse. That is unacceptable, and I do not approve of this bill.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Come on. Seriously? Regulations are put in place because someone did something wrong in the first place. Regulations do not happen out of thin air. They happen because someone has exploited someone else. This will allow only the rich to be above the law when it comes to employees.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    This to me after reading the pros & cons of this bill; a change is necessary. I ask the democratic party if your so worried about unscrupulous employers, why not go after them? Knowing that there is some employers who will take advantage of employees is it not part of your requirement to do something about it? If you give me and others the normal political BS, answer. Then maybe its time to reconsider your position as a representative for the betterment of the people of this country.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Passing this bill Will allow businesses to take advantage of workers. Why can’t Congress do something for workers for a change instead of always doing things to improve things for businesses and to give them the control?
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    This is another bill that erodes workers rights and bolsters corporate gains.its been around since the 1939's for a reason, because it's the way things should be. Vote no.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Absolutely NO to H.R. 3441. If an employer is doing the right thing they have nothing to worry about. It’s only when an employer is trying to take advantage of and/or abuse its employees that they are concerned. Simple Solution: Do what is right.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE