[Pages H112-H124]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 0915
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD RELATING TO ``STANDARD FOR DETERMINING
JOINT EMPLOYER STATUS''

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 947, I call up
the

[[Page H113]]

joint resolution (H.J. Res. 98) 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'', and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Kim of California). Pursuant to House
Resolution 947, the joint resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

H. J. Res. 98

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the National Labor
Relations Board relating to ``Standard for Determining Joint
Employer Status'' (88 Fed. Reg. 73946 (October 27, 2023)),
and such rule shall have no force or effect.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce or their
respective designees.
The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

General Leave

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, House Republicans are coming to the rescue of small
business owners once again. The House will soon vote on a bipartisan
Congressional Review Act resolution to rescind President Biden's
antifreedom, antigrowth joint employer rule.
Business-to-business relationships are fundamental to American
commerce. At its most basic level, a joint employer standard should
ensure that the entity calling the shots in the workplace is legally
liable. That is why it is important to get this right.
Under the Trump National Labor Relations Board rule, it was right.
The Trump NLRB made sure that clear criteria were met before an
employer was deemed legally liable for an individual's employment
conditions.
Critically, the Trump rule recognized that the ability of businesses
to control their destinies is a pillar of the American Dream. It
established a standard that enticed countless men and women to start
and grow small businesses and employ millions of workers.
The Biden NLRB upended this easy-to-understand joint employer
standard that promoted economic growth and job creation. Under the new
joint employer rule, small business owners are going to be compelled to
acquiesce to more Big Government regulation and union boss control.
Here is why: The traditional Trump rule stated that two or more
businesses were considered joint employers under the National Labor
Relations Act if they shared actual, direct, and immediate control over
the essential terms and conditions of employment, including hiring,
firing, discipline, supervision, and direction of employees. This
predictable and clear standard ensured employers would not be saddled
with collective bargaining obligations or with liability of a company
they do not control.
Under the Biden NLRB rule, an employer now includes those who have
only indirect or even potential control over employees' essential terms
and conditions of employment. Like a rerun of a low-rated TV show, we
have seen this story before.
While the Trump Board restored the commonsense, traditional joint
employer standard, the Biden NLRB's rule largely revives an Obama-era
standard. The Obama NLRB upended decades of precedent and broadly
expanded the definition of joint employment. That means working
families and small businesses are up against a confusing and damaging
new rule from Biden's NLRB, which will sow confusion and destabilize
the economy in a time when persistently high prices are crushing
hardworking Americans.
The results from Obama's joint employer rule give us an eerie glimpse
of what is to come. Franchise operational costs increased by $33
billion. The decision caused 376,000 lost job opportunities in the
franchise sector alone. It increased NLRB unfair labor practice charges
by 93 percent, imposing significant litigation costs on businesses,
both large and small.
Special interests are hard at work attempting to sweep these facts
and the failed historical record under the rug. The AFL-CIO purports
that the rule will in no way threaten or disrupt franchise arrangements
or staffing firms. Big Labor set the line, and the Biden administration
took the bait--hook, line, and sinker.
Moreover, this is not the only myth Big Labor is spreading about the
resolution. Let me be clear. This resolution does nothing to restrict
union activity. It does not alter the rights afforded to workers under
the National Labor Relations Act. What it does is ensure the
appropriate parties meet at the bargaining table to resolve labor
disputes.
While the Biden NLRB's joint employer rule takes the side of the
special interest masters, House Republicans have heard the pleas and
are taking the side of workers, small businesses, and the American
entrepreneurial spirit.
Congress must stand with franchisees, small and large business
owners, and millions of workers by voting with a bipartisan mandate to
rescind the Biden NLRB's joint employer rule.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 98, a Congressional
Review Act resolution to repeal the National Labor Relations Board's
joint employer rule, which the Board finalized last October.
Through their unions, workers should be able to negotiate for higher
pay, better benefits, and safer workplaces. However, that is not the
case for millions of Americans, including janitors, housekeepers,
cooks, and many others who are employed through subcontracts or
temporary agencies.
The rise of what is called ``fissured workplace,'' where firms
increasingly use overlapping arrangements of contracting,
subcontracting, and temping, has weakened workers' bargaining power and
allowed large corporations to evade bargaining obligations and
liabilities.
For example, if employees of a subcontractor were to unionize, the
subcontractor could refuse to bargain over pay, hours, workplace
safety, or other issues because its contract with the prime contractor
essentially sets the wages for the employees. Whoever is setting the
wages ought to be the one at the bargaining table.

If the workplace employer is essentially setting the wages, but you
have to negotiate with the temp agency, and they say, ``That is all we
can pay, so talk to somebody else,'' we need the somebody else at the
table to be bargaining.
Likewise, a temp agency may be restrained on what it can pay because
of the contract with the owner of the workplace.
Additionally, by evading bargaining obligations, the prime contractor
who is actually setting the wages can shift liability for an unfair
labor practice onto the subcontractor or the temp agency.
The NLRB rule fixes this problem by ensuring workers can negotiate
with all entities controlling their working conditions. This protects
small businesses from being held liable for labor violations that are
the result of other employers' actions.
By repealing the NLRB's rule, H.J. Res. 98 would undermine workers'
ability to exercise their rights and reinstate the deficient Trump-era
rule that narrowed the joint employer standard. Under the Trump-era
standard, employers who control the working conditions could easily
evade their obligations to collectively bargain with employees.
We should not go backward. The Biden-Harris administration's joint

[[Page H114]]

employer rule empowers workers and protects small businesses.
My colleagues have just claimed that there is a problem with
franchisees and the franchising model. These claims are unfounded, as
there is no credible evidence showing that the rule would adversely
affect the franchise model.
In fact, if a problem arises, a strong joint employer standard will
protect franchisees by ensuring the franchisors don't control the
franchisees' labor relations and then leave the franchisees on the hook
for the liabilities.
I want to highlight that the American Association of Franchisees and
Dealers wrote in support of both the Protecting the Right to Organize
Act--that is, the PRO Act--joint employer standard and the Biden-Harris
joint employer rule that we are talking about today.
It is also important to point out that the NLRB has never found a
franchisor to be a joint employer of a franchisee's employees.
The joint employer rule reflects the best interests of the American
people and our economy.
Madam Speaker, I hoped that we would be standing with the workers and
small business owners and not repeal a rule that protects them. I
oppose the resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Good).
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J.
Res. 98, a resolution brought under the Congressional Review Act that
will nullify the new joint employer rule finalized by the Biden
administration's activist National Labor Relations Board.
The joint employer rule is a continuation of anti-employer,
antiworker, pro-union activism spewing out of Biden's NLRB.
Originally created as a neutral Federal agency to safeguard employee
rights, the NLRB has destroyed its reputation under the leadership of
radical leftist General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo.
If we fail to pass the resolution today and this new rule goes into
effect, it will rescind the direct and immediate control standard and
replace it with the Biden administration's indirect, reserved control
standard.
These rules go to the heart of what it means to control your own
business. The Biden administration threatens the existence of the
franchise model used by so many great businesses across our Nation.
Years ago, when President Obama's NLRB tried to advance a similar
rule, the International Franchise Association conducted a study on its
impact. Research showed the Obama standard would have increased
operational costs for franchisees collectively by as much as $33
billion annually and led to the loss of 376,000 jobs.
Under the rule, something as simple as a franchisor giving a
franchisee a company handbook could be interpreted as exercising
indirect control, and this opens up a floodgate of questions and
unnecessarily creates a problem for the current structure.
Today, businesses are fighting to survive the consequences of
Bidenomics. They are suffering high inflation, low workforce
participation, high interest rates, and more. If you ask any
franchisor, the last thing they would say they need is more government
bureaucrats telling them how to run their businesses.
We must protect the model that is currently working for businesses
and eliminate the threat of this new rule, and I urge my colleagues to
vote for H.J. Res. 98.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), who is a senior member of our
committee and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.

{time} 0930

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of workers and
franchisees and in opposition to this harmful resolution.
The joint resolution we are debating today would reverse a rule of
the National Labor Relations Board that clarifies who or what is a
joint employer. Under this rule, employers can no longer use
subcontractors or a staffing or temporary agencies to block the
opportunity for hardworking Americans to bargain for fair wages or
safer workplaces.
The Biden administration's joint employer rule will help workers and
grow the middle class by restoring the NLRB's ability to consider an
employer's control over an employee when determining joint employer
status. This is not new. It was the law for decades.
Also, I want to push back on the arguments that some of my colleagues
continue to make that a strong joint employer rule threatens the
franchise model. It does not.
As a lawyer who formerly represented franchisees, I know the
franchise model, and I know how it works. A franchisor does not have an
employer relationship with the franchisee's employees. Additionally,
franchisors do not determine the terms and conditions of their
franchisee's employees. It is the franchisee who runs the business and
controls the employees. That is freedom.
In fact, the rule actually helps franchisees, because it discourages
franchisors from trying to micromanage the franchisee's employees. In
fact, as Ranking Member Scott has made clear, the NLRB has never found
a franchisor to be a joint employer.
Now, the chair mentioned this increase in expenses. Well, they
certainly are not the expenses of the franchisees. I would expect that
a significant amount of that money has been lobbying against this rule
and spreading misinformation about how the sky is falling for
franchisees when, I repeat, there has never been a franchisor who has
been found to be a joint employer.
The rule works. Let's stand with workers and defeat this joint
resolution.
For these reasons, I oppose H.J. Res. 98, and I encourage all of my
colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Williams), the distinguished chair of the Small Business
Committee.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the National Labor
Relations Board joint employer rule that will be disastrous for small
businesses across the country, and I also am a franchisee.
The NLRB is attempting to adopt an overly broad new definition of a
joint employer that will greatly increase the number of entities that
are subject to costly new Department of Labor requirements.
Last fall, the Committee on Small Business held a hearing to examine
the disastrous impact of the regulation as well as many others coming
out of the Department of Labor.
We heard directly from job creators on how the new joint employer
rule will prevent businesses from looking for growth opportunities
because of the legal uncertainty caused by this rule.
If we continue to punish the businesses who provide over half the
workforce and half the payroll, our economy is going to suffer. In a
time where inflation remains stubbornly high, businesses cannot find
qualified workers to hire, and supply chains remain fragile, we should
not be adding another confusing regulation to the list of their
troubles.
I am glad to see the CRA come to the floor today so we can provide
regulatory relief to businesses already dealing with significant
employee economic headwinds.
I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 98.
In God we trust.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), a senior of our committee, and
the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
resolution.
The National Labor Relations Board, under President Biden, issued a
final rule this past October that restores the Board's ability to
consider the extent to which an employer controls the terms and
conditions of someone's employment. So what does this mean?
Well, the Biden NLRB rule prevents employers from skirting
accountability for complying with workplace

[[Page H115]]

laws. Under the Trump administration, their NLRB 2020 rule severely
hampered the American worker's ability to hold employers accountable.
I reject the characterization by the chairwoman that the Trump
administration rule was pro-freedom. There is nothing pro-freedom about
the Trump administration rule, except for the freedom to steal wages,
to exact unfair labor practices, and other violations. That is a
perversion of the word ``freedom''.
A trend called fissured work has become commonplace. What does
fissured work mean? Fissured work is when a company adopts a dynamic of
contracting and subcontracting. Instead of hiring the workers directly,
they subcontract it out. That is how they avoid responsibility for
being fair to the workers.
A prime example of this is temping. Today, roughly 3.1 million
Americans are employed by a temping agency. These temporary work
arrangements are characterized by their short duration, and employment
can range from just a handful of days to months.
So let's say a company needs to hire a front-desk receptionist and
enlists the help of a staffing agency. For an individual seeking a job
opportunity who may not be able to secure full-time, long-term
employment, maybe as quickly as he or she would like, a temporary
staffing agency may seem very enticing.
If hired, the receptionist sent out by this staffing agency would
essentially be performing work on behalf of a client company that
directs the employee's work but does not receive a check signed by that
client company, but, rather, the staffing agency writes the check.
This common practice is one for companies to pay employees less for
work than a traditional, full-time employee would receive. In addition,
many times these employees have hostile or unsafe workplaces.
Now, these fissured work arrangements at temp agencies often result
in a lack of clarity regarding employer responsibilities and may become
challenging for workers who are interested in organizing a union to
negotiate collectively or hold employers accountable for labor
standards.
For that receptionist who wants to negotiate his or her pay, the
conversation with the company proves difficult to have. Who do you
negotiate with: the temp agency or the company?
Fissured work is unfortunately rampant, and it is critical companies
are not able to evade bargaining and responsibility of workers. This is
the problem that the Biden NLRB joint employer rule seeks to fix.
If a company maintains its right to control how much a worker earns
and how many hours they work a week and whether they can organize, then
it also must maintain its responsibility for complying with the laws
that protect workers. This is common sense. This rule helps workers and
protects small businesses that follow the rules.
This rule would upend the dynamic of allowing big companies to shield
themselves from labor negotiations. Companies that engage in fissured
employee arrangements would no longer be able to evade such
responsibilities.
All companies should be held accountable irrespective of how many
workers or geographically where employers are stationed.
The final rule is expected to take effect February 2024.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30
seconds to the gentleman from California.
Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, I wish that my Republican colleagues were
more focused on helping and empowering workers.
I urge opposition to the joint resolution.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Hern), chair of the Republican Study Committee.
Mr. HERN. Madam Speaker, because of the successes that I have had in
life, not many people know that my life began very differently.
My family was dependent on food stamps for most of my youth. My
stepdad never worked, and my siblings and I paid the price for it. I
knew from a young age that I would not let that be my life. From the
moment I could start working, I did whatever it took to earn financial
security--hog farming, welding, computer programming, the list goes on.
If it weren't for the McDonald's franchisee program, I wouldn't be
here today. After 11 years of working in the restaurants, I was able to
work my way into the franchisee program and purchase my first franchise
location. I was able to build a successful company with over 20
locations and thousands of employees.
I have lived a truly American story, and my mission in life is to
help every child who grew up like me--wondering where their next meal
would come from, unsure if the lights would be on when they came home
from school. I want those kids to know that our country is a place of
opportunity and a place of hope for those who will work for it.
Today, we are here to provide congressional disapproval of a rule
that would completely destroy the franchise model that gave me the
opportunity to be successful.
I thank Congressman James for introducing the CRA to shed light on
how harmful the National Labor Standards Board rule is to small
businesses and especially the franchise model. This new rule would have
grave consequences on small businesses and the franchise model.
Have we not learned from our history? Under the Obama administration,
the joint employer rule was expanded, and the data shows that
franchises lost $33.3 billion each year, 376,000 jobs were lost, and
losses increased by 93 percent.
We have already seen this administration's spending habits wreak
havoc on Americans in the form of inflation. We cannot allow the Biden
administration to move forward with this rule that will have
devastating effects on our economy.
We should learn from the mistake the Obama administration made and
reject this new joint rule.
Madam Speaker, I urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to
support H.J. Res. 98.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and
say hello to the Chairwoman.
When workers come together to bargain collectively for better wages,
hours, and working conditions, workers, families, and our entire
economy succeeds. However, they can only negotiate for these things if,
in keeping with the principles of the National Labor Relations Act, all
parties with power to control their employment are required to be at
the table.
The Biden administration's joint employer rule makes sure that that
is possible, and we should be supporting it, not trying to undo it.
If someone is hired by a subcontractor and that subcontractor has no
ability to change the pay and hours of its employees because they are
predetermined by the prime contractor, it might understandably refuse
to bargain over those issues. Without the prime contractor at the
table, these workers are denied their right to negotiate over these
fundamental parts of their jobs.

The Trump-era joint employer rule allowed companies to control the
workplace like an employer but dodge the legal responsibilities of one.
The Biden administration's updated rule will set the law back on track,
ensuring that if a company controls a worker's essential terms and
conditions of employment they are accountable to answering to those
workers directly.
As a former union member and the current ranking Democrat on the
House Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the
Education and the Workforce Committee and a member of the Labor Caucus,
I have seen firsthand that labor unions can be key to improving working
conditions, pay, and a worker's voice.
When workers succeed, America succeeds.
I am also a former small business owner, and I appreciate that, as
part of

[[Page H116]]

its due diligence when putting this updated rule together, the NLRB did
an analysis and concluded that it would not have an undue economic
impact on small businesses.
I encourage my colleagues to vote against this resolution which would
harm workers by overturning the Biden administration's joint employer
rule.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. James), and the prime sponsor of the resolution.
Mr. JAMES. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my resolution,
H.J. Res. 98, to provide for congressional disapproval of the NLRB's
recent joint employer rule.
I first thank the esteemed Member from North Carolina, Chairwoman
Foxx, and her staff for working with me and my staff to get this joint
resolution to the floor and, hopefully, through to the Senate.
I have been here for about a year, and it is readily apparent to me
that too many people in this town are making rules that they will never
live by in an area where they have never had to survive in the business
world. Additionally, too many of my colleagues seem to be convinced
that small business is the enemy and Big Government is here to save
them.
Plainly put, this joint employer rule is part of the Biden
administration's antifreedom, antigrowth, and antibusiness agenda that
is gutting the American Dream.
Madam Speaker, the American people don't want Washington telling them
how to start or manage a business in this country.
Don't take it from me. Franchise owners in my district have conveyed
to me that they are choosing retirement over dealing with this harmful
policy. They want the chance to create a better life for their families
and their employees' families and not be controlled by out-of-control
bureaucrats at the NLRB.
We already have the right to collectively bargain in this country,
but this rule goes too far. This is the most glaring evidence yet that
capitalism and choice are threats to this administration's socialist
America last agenda.
When this regulation was enacted under the Obama administration, it
cost franchise businesses $33.3 billion per year. According to the
International Franchise Association, around 26 percent of franchises
are owned by people of color compared with 17 percent of independent
businesses generally.

{time} 0945

Madam Speaker, I fear this harmful rule will lead to job losses,
increases in the cost of living, and for Americans already suffering,
fewer American Dreams being realized, as well.
It burns me up when I hear politicians talk about creating jobs.
Politicians can't create jobs, but they sure can kill them. That is
what this regulation does.
Bureaucrats don't create jobs; businesses create jobs. Republicans
aim to make policy that will not only result in more jobs but more job
creators.
These job creators, these entrepreneurs, these franchisees, and these
independent contractors create good-paying jobs and give people
opportunities to succeed. Overturning this joint employer rule is just
the first step in the right direction.
I am the walking result of the American Dream. My father started our
family business with one truck, one trailer, and no excuses. He worked
25 hours a day and 8 days a week with my mother by his side. When he
handed that business down, my brother and I, with a wonderful team and
the grace of God, were helped to grow it to higher heights. We put more
effort into it, and that is the story of how this Nation grows and
becomes more successful. Nonetheless, we can't allow this story to end.
Madam Speaker, I implore my colleagues to remember that small
business on Main Street in their districts when they cast their vote
today because the small business on Main Street will certainly remember
them in November.
For these reasons and more, Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on
H.J. Res. 98.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle).
Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition
to H.J. Res. 98 which would repeal the National Labor Relations Board
joint employer standard.
Under President Biden, this rule was issued to protect workers'
rights. Unfortunately, House Republicans want to repeal this strong
standard. Today, I have heard a lot of misleading claims about this
joint employer standard.
Simply put, this issue is about whether or not employers have to come
to the bargaining table where the employer controls the means and
manner of the workers' employment.
As a member of the Congressional Labor Caucus and someone who has
spent 25 years in the private sector putting food on the table for my
family, I believe that when workers come to bargain over their wages
and working conditions, then those employers who do control the means
and manner of workers' employment--and that is a standard by which we
determine whether someone is a direct employee or an independent
contractor--should be at the bargaining table as required by law.
When workers do better, employers do better, and our country does
better.
This is exactly what the Biden administration's joint employer rule
does.
What it doesn't do is impact the ability to utilize independent
contractors when appropriate, and, as has been mentioned today, no
franchisee has ever been categorized as a joint employer. This is more
misinformation used to undermine the ability of workers to organize and
bargain for better wages, hours, and working conditions.
This strong standard overturns the Trump administration's rule, and
it cracks down on corporations that outsource jobs and use independent
contractors to walk away from their duties as an employer creating an
unlevel playing field and unfair competition for those employers who
are willing to provide fair wages, hours, and safe working conditions
for their workers as per the letter of the law.
In seeking to overturn the NLRB's new and stronger joint employer
standard, House Republicans are working to help bad employers avoid
their responsibility to employees and are undermining workers across
this country.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this antiworker
resolution.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte).
Mr. OBERNOLTE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this joint
resolution which would overturn a completely nonsensical ruling by the
National Labor Relations Board.
The NLRB is seeking to expand the definition of an employer to
include what they call joint employers. That is an employer who exerts
indirect control or even potential control over an employee.
Madam Speaker, it has been said that those who do not honor the
mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them, and we are about to
make the same mistake that we made almost 10 years ago when the NLRB
took this exact same action.
What happened?
It raised costs for small businesses by over $33 billion and resulted
in the loss of nearly 400,000 jobs.
Madam Speaker, that will happen again if this ruling is allowed to
stand. It is completely appropriate that Congress is taking this action
under the Congressional Review Act because this is a decision that has
major consequences for employers across our country, and, yet, it has
been made by a set of unelected bureaucrats.
Madam Speaker, under our Constitution, the power to regulate
interstate commerce resides here in this Chamber in this building and
not with an unelected executive branch agency.
Madam Speaker, this commonsense resolution would overturn that
ruling, returning that power not only to Congress but to small
businesses across our country, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is
remaining on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 15\1/2\
minutes

[[Page H117]]

remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 14\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Sorensen).
Mr. SORENSEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res.
98.
Last year, the administration took an important step to protect
workers' rights by issuing an updated joint employer rule.
Unfortunately, House Republicans are now trying to reverse the strong
standard.
My colleagues across the aisle are making misleading claims today
about this joint employer standard, arguing incorrectly about the
impact on small business franchises.
Now, let me be clear. The joint employer issue is simply about
whether or not an employer is obligated to come to the bargaining
table.
I have heard from so many working families across central and
northwestern Illinois who feel as if they are left behind and as if
their government does not stand for them as they work paycheck to
paycheck trying to do the right thing for themselves and their
families.
All the while, big corporations automate jobs and misclassify workers
all to save a quick buck while reporting record profits and forgetting
whose labor got them to their positions of success in the first place.
As a member of the Congressional Labor Caucus, I believe that when
workers come together to bargain for fair wages, for good benefits, and
for safe workplaces, then every entity that has control over these
conditions should be at the table, and it is required by law.
That is exactly what the Biden administration's joint employer rule
does. The strong standard overturns the previous administration's rule
which allowed corporations to easily outsource jobs so they could evade
responsibility and undermine organized labor.
We cannot allow House Republicans to undermine workers in this
country by overturning the National Labor Relations Board's joint
employer standard.
To the hardworking people in my district, let me be clear. As their
Member in Congress, I will always stand on the side of workers and
fight for their protections.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this joint
resolution to rescind this detrimental and job-killing regulation from
the Biden administration. This final rule revives the Obama-era joint
employer standard and leaves companies liable for employees whom they
don't oversee or directly manage.
As co-chair of the Congressional Franchise Caucus and chair of the
Committee on Small Business' Oversight Subcommittee, I have heard from
countless franchise businesses about this rule. Overwhelmingly, they
would suffer drastically. They would lose out on income, opportunity,
and autonomy over their business.
The cost is not small. A very similar 2015 standard cost the
franchising sector over $33 billion per year. It resulted in nearly
400,000 lost job opportunities, and it practically doubled litigation
against franchises.
My home State of Texas continues to lead the Nation in job growth and
is the fastest growing State for franchise establishments. This
misguided policy would hurt these job creators who want nothing more
than to provide for their families and offer job opportunities to our
communities.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to
push back on the Biden administration's vast overreach and give our
small businesses the chance to survive and to thrive.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Casar).
Mr. CASAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this
Republican proposal because across our country and across my home State
of Texas, working families are struggling to make ends meet while big
corporations boast record-breaking profits.
We should all be celebrating this Biden-era NLRB rule to make sure
that those same big companies have to bargain for better wages and
better benefits with their workers and that those big companies can't
throw contractors in the way in order to evade that baseline
responsibility.
Nonetheless, unsurprisingly, my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle are running to the rescue of those same big corporations and
their record-breaking profits. The Republican majority wants to help
those corporations be able to deny workers the benefits, the higher
wages, the overtime, and the healthcare they deserve.
The most ironic thing that I have heard today from the Republicans
who are for this resolution is they keep saying they want to defend
small businesses. However, in fact, the Republican proposal today will
allow big corporations to throw a small contractor in between
themselves and their employees so that they can keep on underpaying
their staff and provide fewer benefits than those workers deserve.

I will give you an example from my district, Madam Speaker. In my
district, my constituents run YouTube Music which is used by millions
of people across the world. YouTube Music, of course, is owned by
YouTube and by Google. However, they don't get a check from Google.
They get a check from a contractor that otherwise wouldn't exist except
for the fact that they are there to essentially pass the check along to
workers and shield Google and YouTube from their responsibility to
their workers.
That is why these folks who are helping make Google $60 billion in
profits just last year make as little as $19 an hour. This Republican
proposal is to shield enormous corporations like Google from their
responsibility to make sure that the workers who create their profits
actually get to share in American prosperity.
Workers have the right to bargain for fair wages and working
conditions with every company that controls their terms and conditions
of employment, and that is why we should defend this Biden-era NLRB
rule to protect workers' rights to bargain.
Workers across the United States are saying ``yes'' to higher wages,
they are saying ``yes'' to better healthcare, and they are saying
``yes'' to collective bargaining. It is time for Congress to catch up.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I strongly support H.J. Res. 98 to overturn the Biden
administration's joint employer rule which would directly harm
employees across this Nation--employees who can become and do become
entrepreneurs, franchise owners, and small businesspeople because of
their opportunity.
This misguided joint employer rule is a classic case of solving a
problem that doesn't exist, and, in the process, it creates unnecessary
barriers to success.
Madam Speaker, we have been here before. In 2015, the Obama NLRB
implemented the Browning-Ferris decision--I remember it well--which
rewrote the joint employment standard with disastrous results. To say
otherwise denies the truth.

{time} 1000

It raised franchise operational costs by $33 billion and caused
376,000 job losses. It increased NLRB unfair labor practice charges by
93 percent, imposing significant litigation costs on businesses, both
large and small.
Despite the historical evidence that expanding the definition of
joint employment harms economic growth and job creation, the Biden NLRB
has decided to finalize a substantially similar rule anyway.
Michigan is home to over 23,000 franchise locations, employing
approximately 248,000 people. However, as a result of this new
regulatory burden, workers and small businesses in Michigan and across
the country are at risk of losing jobs and opportunities to pursue
their own American Dream.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass H.J. Res. 98 so we can
return to a commonsense standard that workers and local employers have
relied on for decades and promote success.

[[Page H118]]

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record three
letters in opposition to H.J. Res. 98. The first is signed by the AFL-
CIO, SEIU, and Teamsters. The second is signed by the United
Steelworkers. The third is signed by a diverse group of organizations,
including the National Organization for Women, the National Partnership
for Women and Families, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights, and many more.
November 2, 2023.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 12.5 million workers
represented by the AFL-CIO, the 2 million workers represented
by SEIU, and the 1.2 million workers represented by the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters. we write to urge you
to support the National Labor Relations Board's (``NLRB'' or
``the Board'') recent final rule addressing joint-employer
status under the National Labor Relations Act (``NLRA'' or
``the Act''). This important rule will ensure that workers
have a real voice at the bargaining table when multiple
companies control their working conditions. Accordingly, the
undersigned unions strongly oppose any effort to nullify or
weaken the rule, whether by legislation or resolution under
the Congressional Review Act.
The rule, published on October 27, 2023, rescinds the Trump
NLRB's 2020 joint-employer rule and replaces it with an
updated standard that is based on well-established common-law
principles and consistent with recent D.C. Circuit decisions
identifying critical flaws in the Trump NLRB's approach to
this issue. The Board's updated rule is welcome and necessary
because the Trump rule was harmful to workers' organizing
efforts, inconsistent with the governing legal principles,
and against the policies of the Act.
The crux of this issue is simple--when workers seek to
bargain collectively over their wages, hours and working
conditions, every entity with control over those issues must
be at the bargaining table. The Act protects and encourages
collective bargaining as a means of resolving labor disputes.
Collective bargaining cannot serve that purpose if companies
with control over the issues in dispute are absent from the
bargaining table. The Trump rule offered companies a roadmap
to retain ultimate control over key aspects of workers'
lives--like wages and working conditions--while avoiding
their duty to bargain. This standard left workers stranded at
the bargaining table and unable to negotiate with the people
who could actually implement proposed improvements.
Companies are adopting business structures specifically
designed to maintain control over the workers who keep their
businesses running while simultaneously disclaiming any
responsibility for those workers under labor and employment
laws. Such businesses often insert second and third-level
intermediaries between themselves and their workers. These
companies seek to have it both ways--to control the workplace
like an employer but dodge the legal responsibilities of an
employer. This phenomenon is often called workplace
``fissuring.''
Fissured workplaces, sometimes involving staffing firms,
temp agencies, or subcontractors, often leave workers unable
to raise concerns, or collectively bargain with, the entity
that actually controls their workplace. In such arrangements,
multiple entities may share control over a worker's terms of
employment. For example, if employees of a subcontractor were
to unionize and bargain only with the subcontractor, it might
simply refuse to bargain over certain issues because its
contract with the prime contractor governs those aspects of
the work (e.g., pay, hours, safety, etc.). This harms workers
because the entity that effectively determines workplace
policy is not at the bargaining table, placing workers'
desired improvements out of reach.
The way to ensure that workers can actually bargain with
each entity that controls their work is to readily identify
such entities as ``joint employers.'' The Act requires joint
employers to collectively bargain with employees over working
conditions that they control. But the Trump NLRB's joint
employer rule was designed to help companies with such
control escape bargaining. The rule's standard for finding a
joint employment relationship was unrealistic and overly
narrow. It conditioned a company's joint employer status on
proof that it actually exercised substantial direct and
immediate control, discounting its reserved or indirect power
to control a small list of working conditions. This conflicts
with the governing common law principles, which make clear
that a company's power to control working conditions must
bear on its employer status (and thus its bargaining
responsibilities under the Act) regardless of whether it has
formally exercised that power. The new final rule correctly
rescinded the Trump rule.
Critics of the new rule claim that its joint employer
standard will outright destroy certain business models or
dramatically change operations. Opponents claim, for example,
that companies will be required to bargain over issues they
have no control over, or will be automatically liable for
another entity's unfair labor practices. This is simply
untrue and a further attempt to leave workers with no
opportunity to bargain with controlling entities. The final
rule makes it clear that a joint employer's bargaining
obligations extend only to those terms and conditions within
its control. And current Board law--unchanged by the rule--
only extends unfair labor practice liability to a joint
employer if it knew or should have known of another
employer's illegal action, had the power to stop it, and
chose not to.
Similarly, critics claim that the new standard imposes
blanket joint employer status on parties to certain business
models like franchises, temp agencies, subcontractors, or
staffing firms. This is also untrue. The rule does not
proclaim that all franchisors are now joint employers with
their franchisees, or that any company using workers from a
temp agency is automatically their employer. The particular
business model used by parties in any case is not
determinative. Instead, the Board looks at every case
individually, and grants companies a full and fair
opportunity to explain the underlying business relationship
and dispute whether they control the relevant workers'
essential terms and conditions of employment. The Board
conducts a fact-specific, case-by-case analysis that
considers whether the putative joint employer controls
essential terms and conditions of employment.
Make no mistake, the Board's rule may well result in the
employees of a staffing firm, for example, being treated also
as employees of the firm's client, but only if the client
controls the employees' terms and conditions of employment.
That is the only way workers can meaningfully bargain at
work. But even in that situation, the workers are deemed
employees only for purposes of the NLRA and collective
bargaining, and the client would be obligated to bargain only
about the terms it controls. It would still be up to workers
to choose whether they want to organize a union and
collectively bargain with their employer or employers.
Nothing in the NLRB's rule alters employers' responsibilities
under any other state or federal law (e.g., tax laws, wage
and hour laws, or workplace safety laws) or requires any
changes to business structures. But it does make clear their
responsibility under the NLRA to show up at the bargaining
table.
The new rule is clear and commonsense: there is no
bargaining obligation for an entity that cannot control
workplace policies or working conditions. And for good
reason--their presence at the bargaining table would be
pointless. Workers have no interest in bargaining with a
company that lacks the power to implement the workplace
improvements they seek.
This rule simply invokes a more realistic joint employer
standard on par with the standard enforced during the Obama
administration, allowing a company's indirect or reserved
control over working conditions to be sufficient for finding
joint employer status. Workers' right to collectively bargain
cannot be realized if the entity that has the power to change
terms and conditions of employment is absent from the
bargaining table.
For the reasons explained above, the undersigned unions
oppose any effort to nullify the Board's rule. In particular,
we urge Congress to oppose efforts to nullify the rule under
the Congressional Review Act (``CRA''). Here, a successful
CRA disapproval resolution would be particularly harmful: it
would revert the NLRB's joint employer standard to the Trump
Board's 2020 rule, which stymies workers at the bargaining
table. And further, as explained above, at least one federal
appeals court has strongly suggested that provisions of the
2020 rule are inconsistent with the NLRA, so litigation would
likely invalidate that rule as well. This would create
confusion for the workers, unions, and employers regulated by
the NLRB. Not only could the two standards be nullified,
leaving the Board's joint employer analysis in limbo, but the
NLRB's ability to address that limbo would be unclear due to
CRA limitations.
The CRA provides that once a disapproval resolution is
passed, the underlying agency cannot issue a subsequent rule
in ``substantially the same form'' as the disapproved rule
unless it is specifically authorized by a subsequent law.
Thus, if the Board's new rule is nullified under the CRA, and
the prior Trump rule is invalidated by federal courts, the
NLRB would be limited in issuing a clarifying rule. To avoid
confusion and ensure stability for workers, unions, and
employers, Congress must steer clear of using the CRA to
address the joint employer standard.
For these reasons, we ask that you support the NLRB's joint
employer rule and oppose any effort to weaken or nullify the
clarified standard.
Sincerely,
AFL-CIO,
America's Unions.

United Steelworkers,

Pittsburgh, PA, November 14, 2023.
Re United Steelworkers urges a NO vote on H.J. Res. 98, which
would invalidate the National Labor Relations Board's new
Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status.

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 850,000 active
members of the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union (USW), I write to oppose a misguided and
short-sighted Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution--H.J.
Res 98. If this resolution passes, American workers will
increasingly face a fractured

[[Page H119]]

workplace and lose access to federally protected collective
bargaining rights.
Updating the NLRB joint employer standard is necessary as
employers are increasingly using ``fissured'' workplace
models to keep the parent company from having to bargain with
workers employed by the smaller contracted companies. The
continued contracting out and increased usage of temporary
workers leads to terrible outcomes for the most vulnerable,
precisely because these workers lack the ability to
meaningfully organize and collectively bargain with their
appropriate employer(s).
For example, a 2014 National Employment Law Project report
found that workers at subcontracted firms receive wages from
7-40 percent lower than their non-contracted out peers. That
same study also showed that workers in subcontracted firms
suffer higher rates of wage theft and unpaid overtime.
Analysis from ProPublica has also shown that temp workers are
at an increased risk of workplace injury. Lastly, and perhaps
most chillingly, child workers have been found in meatpacking
plants, while auto-supply chains in the South have had
children as young as 14 years old working for subcontracted
firms--sometimes with deadly consequences. If this resolution
passes, Congress will have made it easier for corporations to
shirk responsibility of their employment oversight, and make
it harder for the American labor movement to stop labor
abuses such as wage theft, unpaid overtime, workplace
injuries, and child labor.
The NLRB had to act as the result of a partisan rulemaking
process during the Trump administration. Prior to 2020, the
NLRB's assessment of a joint employer standard had been
guided by common law for over 50 years. The NLRB, as a quasi-
judicial body, would use case decisions to substantiate its
joint employer standard.
The Trump administration's NLRB dramatically broke with
precedent and created a regulatory rulemaking process to
establish a new joint employer standard. Through this final
rule, the previous NLRB added non-statutory and non-common
law requirements to the NLRB joint employer assessment--
notably, the requirement that an employer must ``possess and
exercise . . . substantial direct and immediate control''
over a worker's ``essential terms and conditions of
employment'' to be considered joint employers.
The problem with this Trump era rule is that it
significantly constrained the NLRB's ability to exercise
jurisdiction over cases, and limited the scope of the joint
employer standard on when the NLRB can weigh in. With such a
weak standard, employers were able to simultaneously
influence a worker's wages, hours, and working conditions--
all while being inoculated from having to bargain over those
issues with their workers.
By returning to common-law principles in this new standard,
the NLRB provides ``a practical approach to ensuring that the
entities effectively exercising control over workers'
critical terms of employment respect their bargaining
obligations under the NLRA''.
Unfortunately, Representative James John (R-MI-10), along
with 29 other Republicans, introduced a Congressional Review
Act resolution to repeal the NLRB's return to past precedent.
USW strongly opposes the use of a CRA to undermine the NLRB.
If a CRA were to be successfully used, it would prevent the
federal agency from ever issuing a substantially similar
rule, freezing in perpetuity a process that was designed to
evolve with employment practices.
USW opposes H.J. Res 98 in the strongest terms and will
educate union membership on any floor vote outcome. The
NLRB's released joint employer standard returns the country
to prior precedent, and strengthens the legal right of
millions of workers across this country to collectively
bargain with their appropriate employer(s). Again, I urge you
to support this new standard and oppose H.J. Res. 98.
Sincerely,
David McCall,
International President.
____

November 20, 2023.
Re NLRB Joint Employer Rule CRA.

Hon. Charles Schumer,
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Hon. Bernie Sanders,
Hon. Bill Cassidy,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mike Johnson,
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
Hon. Virginia Foxx,
Hon. Robert ``Bobby'' C. Scott,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Members of Congress: The undersigned organizations
write to share our opposition to the Congressional Review Act
(CRA) challenge to the National Labor Relations Board's 2023
Joint Employer Rule.
Millions of workers in precarious and subcontracted work
depend on the joint-employer doctrine to protect their right
to organize under the NLRA. In labor-intensive and underpaid
industries like retail, hospitality, fast food, janitorial,
construction, and delivery, workers hired through
intermediary subcontractors like staffing agencies and
specialized contract firms are effectively deprived of their
labor rights because the law fails to recognize who their
employers are. They provide work central to the hotels,
retail operators, fast food chains, construction contractors,
delivery companies, and other corporations that rely on their
labor, but are unable to hold those employers accountable
when their labor rights are violated. While this harms a
broad range of workers, it has particularly damaging impacts
for women, Black workers, immigrants, people of color, and
people with disabilities who disproportionately hold
precarious, low-paid jobs.
The Board's new rule reaffirms that, under the NLRA, a
worker may be jointly-employed when more than one entity
shares or co-determines the essential terms and conditions of
their work. What matters is not the corporate structure or
what the companies call the work relationship; what matters
is who has the power to control the essential terms of
employment, like pay, discipline, and health & safety on the
job.
Now, large corporations and industry trade groups are
pushing Congress to vote for a CRA resolution to overturn the
rule. Despite the claims made by these self-interested
groups, the joint employer rule is a simple and necessary
course correction that:
Rescinds the misguided 2020 rule, which improperly narrowed
the NLRA's coverage and unmoored the legal standard from the
common law, by requiring workers to show that a business had
``substantial direct and immediate control'' over the
essential terms of employment;
Grounds the legal analysis in the common law, building on
the Obama-era Browning-Ferris decision that the 2020 Trump
rule overrode;
Affirms that companies are liable for committing unfair
labor practices (such as terminating workers for exercising
their right to organize) and required to bargain with their
workers as joint employers, where they control the essential
terms and conditions of employment;
Accounts for forms of control that are ``indirect'' and
``reserved,'' as well as direct and actually exercised, in
determining whether or not there is an employment
relationship; and
Recognizes that the ``essential terms and conditions of
employment'' include workplace health and safety, and
direction as to how to complete the work, as well as control
over pay and discipline.
This rule is a major step toward safeguarding the labor
rights of millions of workers in subcontracted employment,
ensuring that corporations cannot skirt the law simply by
outsourcing responsibility for their workers. Should a CRA to
overturn this rule be brought to the floor, we strongly urge
all Members of Congress to vote No.
Sincerely,
A Better Balance; AFL-CIO; American Federation of State,
County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); APALA; Asian
American Pacific Islander Civic Engagement Collaborative of
New Virginia Majority; Bruckner Burch PLLC; Care in Action;
Caring Across Generations; Center for Economic and Policy
Research; Center for Law and Social Policy; Cincinnati
Interfaith Workers Center; Clearinghouse on Women's Issues;
Communications Workers of America (CWA); Community Legal
Services, Philadelphia; Congregation of Our Lady of Charity
of the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces.
CRLA Foundation; Demand Progress; Demos; Economic Policy
Institute; Endangered Species Coalition; Equal Rights
Advocates; Feminist Majority Foundation; Impact Fund;
International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Japanese American
Citizens League (JACL); Jobs to Move America; Jobs With
Justice; Justice & Accountability Center of Louisiana;
Justice at Work; Justice in Motion.
Kentucky Equal Justice Center; KIWA; Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights Under Law; Legal Aid at Work; Long Beach
Alliance for Clean Energy; National Advocacy Center of the
Good Shepherd; National Center for Law and Economic Justice;
National Council for Occupational Safety and Health; National
Domestic Workers Alliance; National Education Association;
National Employment Lawyers Association; National Employment
Law Project (NELP); National Institute for Workers' Rights;
National Organization for Women; National Partnership for
Women & Families.
National Resource Center on Domestic Violence; National
Women's Law Center; New Jersey Association on Correction;
North Carolina Justice Center; Northwest Workers' Justice
Project; Public Justice Center; Restaurant Opportunities
Centers United; Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition;
Service Employees International Union; Shriver Center on
Poverty Law; TechEquity Collaborative; The Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights; The Legal Aid Society;
The Women's Employment Rights Clinic (WERC) at Golden Gate
University (GGU); Transport Workers Union of America.
UAW; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America; United Food and Commercial Workers International
Union (UFCW); Women Employed; Worker Justice Center of New
York; Worker Power Coalition; Workers Defense Action Fund;
Workplace Fairness; Workplace Justice Lab at Rutgers
University; Workplace Justice Project at Loyola Law Clinic;
Worksafe; Young Invincibles.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for yielding the
time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 98, which would nullify
the

[[Page H120]]

Biden administration's expanded joint employer standard, impacting
franchises and small businesses across the Nation.
In October, President Biden's radical National Labor Relations Board
appointees circumvented Congress to reimpose a broad joint employer
standard that threatens the flexibility of businessowners, upends the
franchise model as we know it, and negatively impacts the U.S. economy
and workers.
We know and appreciate our local franchises and want to make sure
they have the flexibility to operate efficiently and inspire future
entrepreneurs. However, in a report released by the International
Franchise Association, two-thirds of franchises expected the new
standard to raise barriers to entry into franchising.
As a small business man, I know that in today's evolving economy,
certainty in the workplace is a key ingredient to success for
employers, job creators, and small businesses nationwide.
Unfortunately, the Federal Government tends to get in the way, muddying
the waters and blurring the lines in already difficult economic
conditions.
Having started a small business, I know all too well how additional
hurdles and barriers to entrepreneurship can stifle innovation. In
fact, what we have in this administration is a war on small businesses.
At a time when workers and families are struggling to keep up with
the inflationary reality of Bidenomics, it is appalling that this
administration is now saddling entrepreneurs with further roadblocks.
Republicans will continue to promote policies that foster the
entrepreneurial spirit and the small business community.
Madam Speaker, I urge support of H.J. Res. 98.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I want to answer the question: Can't
we all get along?
There is no doubt of Democrats' promotion and support of small
businesses. They are in my district. We work every day to make sure
they have access to credit and that they are able to pay their workers
and benefit from programs like the PPP during COVID.
I don't know how many small businesses stop me to say we were a
lifeline, the Democrats who passed the American Rescue Act and many
other ways of helping.
Today, we rise to oppose what is not bringing people together; it is
dividing people.
H.J. Res. 98 is another extreme attack on workers, and it undercuts
the NLRB's ability to address workplace conditions in a fair and
equitable manner. As we know, on October 27, 2023, the NLRB published a
final rule addressing the standard for determining joint employer
status. It is important to highlight the following facts in support of
this rule.
The rule is not to be against businesses, small businesses, or
workers. It is, in fact, to be able to ensure good quality of work.
Employees need to be able to collectively bargain with both joint
employers to ensure the parties calling the shots are at the table.
This requirement is particularly important for employees of
subcontractors and staffing agencies, such as janitors, housekeepers,
cooks, and many others. They work on behalf of a company that directs
their work but does not sign their paycheck.
I can assure you this can be a win-win situation, a good quality of
life for our employees, great income for our small businesses, and a
reasonable response to people's hard work.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.J. Res. 98 because I stand for small
businesses and for the workers. That is what Democrats do.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 98, a
joint resolution to disapprove the National Labor Relations Board's
rule relating to a ``Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status''.
H.J. Res. 98 is yet another extreme attack on workers and undercuts
the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) ability to address
workplace conditions in a fair and equitable manner.
As we know, on October 27, 2023, the NLRB published a final rule
addressing the Standard for Determining Joint-Employer Status.
It is important to highlight the following facts in support of this
final 2023 rule:
The 2023 rule establishes that, under the National Labor Relations
Act, two or more entities may be considered joint employers of a group
of employees if each entity has an employment relationship with the
employees, and if the entities share or codetermine one or more of the
employees' essential terms and conditions of employment.
This 2023 rule rescinds and replaces the 2020 final rule that was
promulgated by the prior Board and which took effect on April 27, 2020.
The 2023 rule more faithfully grounds the joint-employer standard in
established common law agency principles.
In particular, the 2023 rule considers the alleged joint employers'
authority to control essential terms and conditions of employment,
whether or not such control is exercised, and without regard to whether
any such exercise of control is direct or indirect.
The common law clearly recognizes that reserved control and indirect
control are relevant to the analysis.
And including reserved control is important to account for situations
in which an alleged joint employer maintains authority to control
essential terms and conditions of employment but has not yet exercised
such control.
The reality is that an entity holding such control may step in at any
moment to affect essential terms.
Indeed, even when the entity remains on the sidelines, it may cast a
shadow over the other employer's decision-making with respect to such
terms.
By contrast, the 2020 rule made it easier for actual joint employers
to avoid a finding of joint-employer status because it set a higher
threshold of ``substantial direct and immediate control'' over
essential terms of conditions of employment, which has no foundation in
common law.
In the 2023 rule, the joint-employer standard is only implicated if
an entity employs the workers at issue and has authority to control at
least one of these terms or conditions. Authority over other matters is
not sufficient.
With passage of H.J. Res. 98, my colleagues across the aisle are now
seeking to invalidate this 2023 rule that replaces the Trump-era
regulation in the 2020 rule that was purposefully crafted to restrict
workers' rights and undermine their legitimate organizing efforts.
Thus, this resolution seeks to invalidate the 2023 rule and quite
simply weaken essential labor protections for working people across the
economy.
We cannot roll back necessary protections for our American workers.
We must acknowledge the following harms that would result from the
passage of H.J. Res. 98, because it would do the following:
Undermine workers and their collective bargaining. This disapproval
resolution would prevent workers from comprehensive collective
bargaining with all entities that have control over their employment;
Prohibit employer accountability. Employers should not be able to
hide behind subcontractors, staffing agencies or temporary placement
services when failing to provide fair wages and safe working
conditions; and
Backtrack to Trump's regressive joint employer standard. The new 2023
Joint Employer standard is based on common-law agency principles.
However, a disapproval resolution will restore the previous version of
this standard issued by the Trump Administration.
Yes, H.J. Res. 98 undermines workers and their collective bargaining.
The National Labor Relations Board finalized a new Standard for
Determining Joint-Employer Status that established that two or more
entities may be considered joint employers if each has an employment
relationship with the employees and has influence over the essential
terms and conditions of employment.
Once deemed a joint employer, workers would be able to negotiate with
all parties that hold influence over their employment.
With this CRA, House Republicans are undermining workers as they
collectively bargain for higher wages, better benefits and safer
working conditions.
This Republican-led CRA prohibits employer accountability.
Many employers have shielded themselves from accountability by using
subcontractors, staffing agencies or temporary agencies. This new Joint
Employer standard will ensure that any company with control over
employees is responsible for those employees.
Temporary employment increased by almost 63 percent between April
2020

[[Page H121]]

and July 2022, rapidly outpacing the growth of overall employment.
This has serious implications for workers potentially subject to
subpar wages, training and work conditions found in staffing agencies
when compared to direct-hire counterparts.
If H.J. Res. 98 were to become law, it would revoke the new standard
and return to the previous version issued under the Trump
Administration which enabled companies to more easily evade a joint-
employer status and had no foundation in common law.
We must not allow extreme agendas to sabotage the tireless work of
the National Labor Relations Board to safeguard workers' rights and
address unfair labor conditions.
Workers have the right to bargain for fair wages and working
conditions with every company that directly or indirectly controls
their terms and conditions of employment.
Too often, companies deny workers this right by hiding behind
subcontractors, staffing agencies, and temporary agencies.
Reversing this rulemaking will prevent workers from exercising their
right to bargain for higher wages, better benefits, and safer working
conditions.
Simply put, this legislation would mean lower wages for working
families. This is beyond unacceptable and must be rejected.
I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 98, a joint
resolution to disapprove the National Labor Relations Board's rule
relating to a ``Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status''.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the National
Asian/Pacific Islander American Chamber of Commerce and
Entrepreneurship, U.S. Black Chambers, and U.S. Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce supporting H.J. Res. 98.

January 3, 2024.
Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the undersigned
organizations representing millions of minority-owned
businesses across the United States, we write in support of
the joint Congressional Review Act resolution concerning the
National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) joint-employer rule.
As discussed below, we support this bipartisan measure
because of the opportunities it represents to bridge the
racial wealth gap through entrepreneurship and fair
competition. While our organizations agree with the aim of
the National Labor Relations Act and the mission of the NLRB,
this rule represents a broader need to modernize our laws for
the diverse economy of the 21st century.
On October 26, 2023, the NLRB released a final rule setting
forth a new standard for joint employer status under the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This rule would have a
concerning impact on all small businesses, contractors, and
franchisees around the country who could be held liable for
potential NLRA violations for employees that they do not
directly control, just by the virtue of entering a standard
business-to-business contract.
We write you today, however, because we believe this rule
could particularly impact minority-owned small businesses and
franchisees that rely on these contracts to sustain and grow
their businesses. The rule will take effect on February 26,
2024, unless Congress acts.
The franchise model has been a driver for minority
entrepreneurship and job creation, by allowing budding
entrepreneurs to partner with well-known brands and bolster
local ownership of Main Street businesses around the country.
It has also been particularly successful on ramping first-
and second-generation immigrants into business ownership. We
believe that the unintended consequences of this rule could
threaten the entire franchise modal. It is our experience
that when business models are transformed--for better or
worse--the minority community, often under-capitalized,
shoulders a disproportionate burden of the immediate harm. We
are very concerned that what will remain of the franchise
model could undo progress toward diversity and inclusion in
this major sector of the economy.
This is particularly harmful at a time when minority
entrepreneurs are just beginning to reap the benefits of this
model. A recent study found that minority entrepreneurs are
more likely to own franchised businesses as opposed to non-
franchised businesses. The franchise model can be a helpful
tool to encourage higher rates of entrepreneurship among
women, minorities, and other underrepresented groups. Below
are some of the key findings:
Nearly one-third (32%) of survey respondents said they
would not own a business without franchising. Women and other
first-time businessowners were even more likely to consider
the franchise opportunity as critical to their ability to
launch a small business.
Nearly one-third (26%) of franchises are owned by
minorities, compared with 17% of independent businesses.
On average, Black-owned franchises earn 2.2 times more than
Black-owned independent businesses; Hispanic-owned franchises
earn 1.6 times more than Hispanic-owned independent
businesses; and Asian-owned franchises earn 1.4 times more
than Asian-owned independent businesses.
Beyond the concerns of the minority franchisee community
that we represent, we also believe this rule could harm
minority business success subcontracting to large prime
contractors. Subcontracting is an important pathway for
businesses that are just starting--which in recent years are
more likely to be owned by minorities and women. This rule
similarly threatens the relationship between subcontractors
and their prime partners, undoing the important work that has
already been done to diversify our supply chains.
For these reasons, we ask you to support the Congressional
Review Act joint resolution of disapproval (H.J. Res. 98/S.J.
Res. 49) to undo the NLRB's final rule on joint employer
status. We must all collectively then ensure that policies
that support a modern, diverse economy are at the front of
the legislative calendar in the new year.
Sincerely,
National Asian/Pacific Islander American Chamber of Commerce
and Entrepreneurship (National ACE).
U.S. Black Chambers, Inc.
U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, this letter raises concerns about the NLRB
joint employer rule's ``impact on all small businesses, contractors,
and franchisees around the country.''
Particularly, the letter notes that the rule could ``impact minority-
owned small businesses and franchisees that rely on these contracts to
sustain and grow their businesses.''
The letter continues: ``The franchise model has been a driver for
minority entrepreneurship and job creation by allowing budding
entrepreneurs to partner with well-known brands and bolster local
ownership of Main Street businesses around the country. It has also
been particularly successful on ramping first- and second-generation
immigrants into business ownership.''
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to consider these views, vote
``yes'' on H.J. Res. 98, and overturn the Biden NLRB joint employer
rule. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, just very briefly, the joint employer rule would only
weaken the critical protections for workers that congressional
Democrats and President Biden have fought so hard to enact. This rule
only requires that those who can control the conditions of work
actually be at the bargaining table when the conditions of work are
being negotiated. Without this kind of rule, employees would be stuck
trying to negotiate wages with a temp agency that has no control over
the wages.
We have heard a lot about the franchisee situation. Mr. Speaker, I
include in the Record a comment letter from the American Association of
Franchisees and Dealers that points out that franchisors should be at
the bargaining table if they are, in fact, controlling the conditions,
as this rule provides and as the resolution would overturn.
American Association of

Franchisees & Dealers,

Palm Desert, CA, December 7, 2022.
Re AAFD Comments on Proposed Joint Employer Rule (87 Fed.
Reg. 54641).

Lauren McFerran,
Chairman, National Labor Relations Board,
Washington, DC.
Roxanne L. Rothschild,
Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McFerran and Ms. Rothschild: On behalf of the
American Association of Franchisees and Dealers (``AAFD'')
and its franchisee members, we respectfully offer our views
and perspective on the September 7, 2022 National Labor
Relations Board proposed rule that would expand the joint
employer definition under the National Labor Relations Act.
The joint employer debate is critical to the long-term equity
ownership question of the franchised businesses.
AAFD is the oldest and largest national not for profit
trade association advocating the rights and interests of
franchisees and independent dealer networks. The AAFD
supports more than 60 independent franchisee associations and
trademark specific chapters, representing thousands of
franchisee operated business outlets. Since our establishment
in 1992, the AAFD has focused on its mission to define,
identify and promote collaborative franchise cultures that
respect the legitimate interests of both

[[Page H122]]

franchisers and franchisees, cultures we describe as
embracing our vision of Total Quality Franchising. The AAFD
came into existence in response to a franchising community
that has been evolving towards increasingly one-sided and
controlling franchise agreements and cultures whereby
franchisee equity and business ownership has been continually
eroding such that many modern franchise systems have lost all
vestiges of business ownership. Interestingly, instructively
and importantly, we make special note that the very issues
that inspired the formation of the AAFD have also given rise
to the Joint Employer doctrine.
For the reasons set forth below, AAFD urges the NLRB to
adopt a joint employer standard that respects NRLB's decision
in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., d/b/a BFI
Newby Island Recyclery, 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015), and
reaffirmed by the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, yet
takes into account the unique relationships between the
franchisees and franchisor needed to protect the brand.

Franchisor Community Misdirection Regarding the Definition and
Foundation of Joint Employment Status

Franchisees respect a franchisor's ownership and control of
its brand and a legitimate right to enforce system standards
to protect the brand, and franchisees depend and rely on the
list of benefits and support services from their franchisor.
We do not believe that the many services franchisors
historically provide to franchisees, and which have been
disingenuously withdrawn under the `guise' of the joint
employer threat are, or should be, the focus of the joint
employment standard.
Rather, the `test' of joint employer status should be
determined based upon the amount of economic control a
franchisor directly or indirectly exerts by use of the
franchise agreement, operations manual, or other means, over
its franchisees and which negatively impact and eviscerate a
franchisee's equity ownership in the franchised business.
We have specifically been asked to comment on the added
economic burden placed on franchisees when their franchisor
backs away from services in order to avoid Joint Employer
attribution. It should be no surprise from our firm
contention that franchisors unduly focus their arguments on
matters of control on their legitimate interests (and we
contend duties) to control and protect brand standards. As
part of the franchisor's playbook to insulate itself from
joint employer classification is to withdraw franchisee
support of human resource services, placing an added economic
burden on its franchisees. The AAFD contends that a
franchisor's withdrawal of such services is a canard, indeed
an integral part of the strategy to misdirect attention from
the real issues and is intended to secure franchisee
opposition to the joint employer doctrine. Stated simply, in
the franchising context, a franchisor's provision of human
resources to its franchisees should play a negligible role in
determining whether the joint employer doctrine should apply
to a franchisor's undue control over its franchisee's equity.
We contend that the human resources services traditionally
provided by a franchisor are appropriate for the protection
of any brand's important standards of service, products and
reputation that are properly a part of brand standards. That
said, we recognize that the joint employer doctrine is built
upon the traditional evaluation of master/servant and
employer/employee characteristics that we believe distract
from the real issues of control to subvert and diminish
franchisee equity interests. We believe that much of the
franchisor community is engaging in the art of misdirection
in its arguments, tending to avert attention from the real
economic basis for its opposition to the Browning-Ferris
joint employer standard which is a bedrock of the traditional
common law standard which incorporates both reserved and
exercised control. The real concerns are the right to assert
economic control, not the enforcement of legitimate brand
standards, and include:
1. The claim that all the goodwill of the franchised
business belongs to the franchisor, without any recognition
of equity ownership by the franchisee whose capital and sweat
equity are a major component of a franchise unit's existence
and success.
2. Control over the ownership of the franchise location
whereby the franchisor owns or controls the real estate which
is leased or sublet to the franchisee impacting the
franchisee's ownership of the business.
3. Abusive control or ownership of the assets of the
business, such that a franchisee is little more than a
sharecropper running the business for the benefit of the
franchisor. Indeed, regarding McDonalds, it should be noted
that McDonalds no longer refers to `franchisees' in its
agreements. In full claim of ownership, a McDonald's licensee
is referred to legally as an `operator' of a business that
McDonald's fully owns.
4. The exercise of abusive control over the suppliers and
supply chain of the of the operation. Far and beyond the
enforcement of necessary system standards, many franchisors
dictate sole sources of supply for the purpose of marking up
the goods and services being purchased by franchisees, and
regardless of the connection to the brand or brand standards.
Franchisors now dictate where to buy insurance, process and
control customer payments, and even business supplies, as
well as dictating the source of brand related commodities--
all of which could be potentially purchased at lower cost
from competitive sources.
5. Control over the cost of labor by setting hours of
operation that are not realistic for a particular franchise
unit.

The Solution to the Joint Employer Dilemma

We join the industry in urging the NLRB to recognize the
legitimacy of protecting brand standards, and to place its
definition of joint employment on the real matter of `who
owns the franchised business equity.' The debate around joint
employer is critical because it includes the broader debate
beyond the impact of labor practices and also includes the
question on who has control over the day-to-day business
practices and who owns the equity in the business. We
recognize that to refocus the inquiry of joint employer
attribution in franchising may require some legislative
revisions to the definition of `control' to the control of
equity (which is not a question in the typical master servant
discussion). However, we believe that our solution to provide
a franchisor exemption is completely consistent with the
premise of the NLRA, and within the authority of the NLRB.
In establishing its test for Joint Employment, and
advocating for the Browning-Ferris joint employer standard,
we urge the NLRB to focus on minimum equity concerns:
1. The right to grow the business and manage its costs of
operations, including the management and control of labor,
goods, products and services purchased for operations.
2. The right to stay in business, to sell the business, or
to transfer the business to heirs.
3. The right to manage the business finances, especially
the right of the franchisor to pull funds from the
franchisee's bank accounts, or whether the franchisee has the
power over its own checkbook.
4. The very important, albeit sensitive, right to control
the cost of supplies and suppliers. A significant promise of
franchising is the power of volume purchasing, but the
ability of a franchisor to dictate suppliers is fraught with
the potential for abuse. A key inquiry to determine whether a
franchisor has crossed the line of control over the business
is whether the franchisee's interests are respected and
protected where a franchisor reserves significant control
over the franchisee's source of supplies.
5. Similarly, the control over the marketing budget is
critical to a successful franchise system. A franchisor may
control most of the marketing fund, but a line is crossed
when a franchisee retains no ability to influence and direct
its marketing dollars.
Quite simply, the solution to the joint employer `threat'
for franchise systems is to recognize franchisee equity
ownership to franchisees in a sufficient amount that the
franchisee is deemed to be the `owner' rather than a mere
`operator' of the franchised business.

The AAFD's Franchisee Bill of Rights Provides the Appropriate Tests for
Excessive Control

We submit the Franchisee Bill of Rights (attached), as
appropriate criteria to measure and test whether a franchisor
has crossed the line of excessive control. The Franchisee
Bill of Rights provide fourteen indicia of a franchise system
that respects the equity interests of franchisees.
It is instructive to note that the Franchisee Bill of
Rights actually recognize, even require, a franchisor to
provide and support brand standards. Providing the expected
`control' over brand standards should not be the
determinative criteria for joint employer. We urge the focus
on relative equity: the determination of whether the
agreement and relationship fairly recognize that the
franchisee has a significant equity right in the franchised
business.

Proposal to Create a Franchisor Exemption from Joint Employer
attribution for Franchise Systems that Recognize an independent
franchisee association and offer a collectively bargained franchise
agreement

The comparison of franchisee associations to labor unions
is inevitable and appropriate. Owners of franchised small
businesses organize for reasons that are similar to the
reasons that employees form unions: to collectively bargain
the rights and benefits of agreements of their engagement to
provide services to their franchisor or employer. At its
core, the National Labor Relations Act that established the
NLRB was enacted to establish the right of employee groups to
organize, and the NLRA recognizes important exemptions for
companies that recognize unions and have a collectively
bargained employment agreement that is ratified by a majority
of union members and employees.
AAFD urges that a franchisor that has recognized an
independent owners association and has embraced a
collectively bargained franchise agreement that has been
ratified by a majority of franchisees should also be exempt
from the consequences and penalties arising from being
determined to be the `joint employer' of a franchisee's
employees. In this regard, it should be noted that the AAFD
has established an accreditation for franchisors that meet
these tests which we label as our ``Fair Franchising Seal.''
To date, 19 brands have been accredited by the AAFD, all of
which have franchise agreements that recognize franchisee
rights and equity interests while reaffirming the
franchisor's essential interest in protecting

[[Page H123]]

its brand standards. In essence, just as recognized in the
NLRA, where the agreement defining rights and obligations has
been collectively bargained, the reasons behind the purpose
of the law have been met by the marketplace effectively doing
its job!

Cooperation with the Federal Trade Commission

We also urge the NLRB to work closely with the Federal
Trade Commission on defining aspects of the relationship that
exceed normal control in a brand. The franchise industry has
many unique attributes, and the FTC is the federal agency
most engaged with oversight of the industry. Many items, such
as uniforms and training, which are critical to the existence
of the brand, are immaterial to the employment relationship,
and should not create joint employer status.

Conclusion

The AAFD appreciates the concerns of the NLRB, with respect
to creating an appropriate `test' for when a franchise system
has crossed a line and become the `joint employer' of a
franchisee's putative employees. We believe that many
franchisors exercise so much control over the franchised
business that the franchisee retains limited if any equity
ownership, or control over, in the franchised business. In
such circumstances it is appropriate to deem the franchisor
as the joint (and sometimes even the sole) employer of the
franchised business employees. But we also believe that the
establishment, support and enforcement of brand standards are
not the appropriate target of any control test. Rather, the
inquiry should be focused on the economic rights of business
ownership that is promised and expected in a franchise
relationship. Fair and balanced franchise agreements and
relationships that respect the Franchisee Bill of Rights will
provide and meet an appropriate test for determining joint
employer status.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert L. Purvin, Jr,
Chair, Board of Trustees.
Richard E. Stroiney,
Chief Operating Officer and Executive Director.
Keith R. Miller,
Director of Public Policy and Engagement.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, instead of advancing H.J. Res.
98, the House should prioritize legislation such as H.R. 20, the
Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or the PRO Act, that strengthens
workers' abilities to organize and collectively bargain.
This resolution goes in the exact opposite direction. For those
reasons, I oppose the resolution and encourage all Members to do the
same.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from a coalition of
more than 70 organizations, led by the International Franchise
Association, supporting H.J. Res. 98.
November 9, 2023.

Support Using the Congressional Review Act to Overturn the NLRB's Final
Joint-Employer Rule

Dear Member of Congress: The undersigned organizations, on
behalf of a diverse group of workers, small businesses, and
critical sectors of our economy, write in strong support of
H.J. Res. 98/S.J. Res. 49, a joint resolution of disapproval
under the Congressional Review Act to nullify the National
Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) Final Rule on Joint-Employer
Status. This misguided rule will harm millions of workers and
small businesses across the country, and we urge you to vote
to protect your constituents from the NLRB's overreach.
Issued in October 2023, the NLRB's Final Joint-Employer
Rule institutes an unworkable, overly broad set of
circumstances under which a company is considered a ``joint
employer'' under federal law. The Final Rule will cripple
small businesses in numerous sectors by exposing them to
frivolous litigation, eliminating jobs, and slowing wage
growth across the country--just like it did when a similar
standard was implemented in 2015. At a time of continued
economic uncertainty, it is alarming that the NLRB has chosen
to move forward on such a divisive and damaging joint
employer rule.
Fortunately, in the coming weeks, members of Congress will
have the opportunity to vote to nullify the NLRB's Joint-
Employer Final Rule by utilizing the Congressional Review
Act. By voting in favor of H.J. Res. 98/S.J. Res. 49, members
can demonstrate that they support workers and small
businesses in their states. Accordingly, we urge your support
for nullifying the NLRB's Final Rule and look forward to our
continued partnership.
Sincerely,
Air Conditioning Contractors of America; American Bakers
Association; American Car Rental Association; American Health
Care Association; American Hospital Association; American
Hotel & Lodging Association; American Pipeline Contractors
Association; American Seniors Housing Association; American
Staffing Association; American Supply Association; American
Trucking Associations; Argentum; Asian American Hotel Owners
Association; Associated Builders and Contractors; Associated
Equipment Distributors.
Associated General Contractors of America; CAWA--
Representing the Automotive Parts Industry; Coalition to
Promote Independent Entrepreneurs; Family Business Coalition;
FMI--The Food Industry Association; Franchise Business
Services; Global Cold Chain Alliance; Heating, Air-
conditioning, & Refrigeration Distributors International; HR
Policy Association; IHRSA--The Health & Fitness Association;
ICSC; Independent Electrical Contractors; International
Foodservice Distributors Association; International Franchise
Association; International Warehouse Logistics Associations.
NATSO, Representing America's Travel Plazas and Truckstops;
National Association of Convenience Stores; National
Association of Electrical Distributors; National Association
of Home Builders; National Association of Manufacturers;
National Association of Professional Employer Organizations;
National Association of Realtors; National Association of
Small Trucking Companies; National Association of Wholesaler-
Distributors; National Center for Assisted Living; National
Cotton Ginners Association; National Council of Chain
Restaurants; National Federation of Independent Business
(NFIB); National Franchisee Association; National Grocers
Association.
National Lumber & Building Material Dealers Association;
National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC); National Ready
Mixed Concrete Association; National Restaurant Association;
National Retail Federation; National Roofing Contractors
Association; National Small Business Association; National
Tooling and Machining Association; National Waste & Recycling
Association; Power & Communication Contractors Association;
Precision Machined Products Association; Precision
Metalforming Association; Real Estate Roundtable; Retail
Industry Leaders Association (RILA).
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council; TechNet;
Technology & Manufacturing Association; The Association for
Hose and Accessories Distribution; The Community Gyms
Coalition; Tile Roofing Industry Alliance; Transportation
Alliance; TRSA--The Linen, Uniform and Facility Services
Association; Truck Renting and Leasing Association; Wholesale
Florist and Florist Supplier Association; Workplace Policy
Institute; Workplace Solutions Association; U.S. Chamber of
Commerce.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the letter argues that the NLRB's joint
employer rule is ``misguided'' and ``will harm millions of workers and
small businesses across the country.'' The letter also states the final
rule ``will cripple small businesses in numerous sectors by exposing
them to frivolous litigation, eliminating jobs, and slowing wage growth
across the country, just like it did when a similar standard was
implemented in 2015.''
The letter continues: ``At a time of continued economic uncertainty,
it is alarming that the NLRB has chosen to move forward on such a
divisive and damaging joint employer rule.''
Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me in listening to this debate this
morning from speaker after speaker on the other side that they have no
experience in the private sector and no idea of how our economy works.
Our country has flourished economically because of freedom and the
entrepreneurial spirit that exists in this country. They constantly
want to squelch both of those principles.
I will point out a key difference in the Republican and Democratic
Parties illustrated by the joint employer rule. Listen carefully to the
language under debate. The conservative language: direct, immediate.
The liberal language: indirect, potential.
Any casual observer of American politics can understand how the
blatant attempt to smuggle legal ambiguity into the otherwise clear-cut
law will be abused by a weaponized and partisan agency. It will open
every American franchisor and franchisee to lawfare from the left if it
does not toe the Democratic Party line.
With the spurious pretenses we have seen this administration use to
go after Catholic Americans and concerned mothers, we don't need to
give it another tool to go after American small businesses.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of the resolution, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murphy). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 947, the previous question is ordered on
the joint resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint
resolution.

[[Page H124]]

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________