Writing
UDC Joint Employer Status Under the Fair Labor Standards Act Analysis HW

Question Description

I’m studying for my Business class and don’t understand how to answer this. Can you help me study?

Write an opinion based paper, opposing the department of labor's proposed changes to the joint employer status.

Proposal: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/...

Use other sources solidify your argument but make sure that they are credible news websites (accessible - provide links in references)

Single Space, 600 (minimum) words - 700 (maximum) words, and Times New Roman size 12 font.

UDC Joint Employer Status Under the Fair Labor Standards Act Analysis HW
instructions_.png
UDC Joint Employer Status Under the Fair Labor Standards Act Analysis HW
instructions.png

Unformatted Attachment Preview

United *tato *mate WASHINGTON, DC 20510 June 25, 2019 The Honorable R. Alexander Acosta Secretary of Labor U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20210 RE: Notice of Proposed Rulernaking, RIN 1235-AA26, Joint Employer Status Under the Fair Labor Standards Act Dear Secretary Acosta: We write to express our strong opposition to the Department of Labor's (DOL) proposed interpretation to dramatically narrow the circumstances under which employers may be considered jointly liable with contractors, franchisees, and temporary staffing companies for wage-and-hour violations. The proposed interpretation would violate the language and intent of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and weaken the enforcement of wage-and-hour protections on behalf of many of the most vulnerable workers in the country, directly contradicting DOL's mission to "foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners... of the United States."1 For rnore than 80 years, federal wage-and-hour law has recognized that multiple companies can be held to be jointly responsible for workers, depending on the economic realities of the situation. As the prevalence of contracting, temporary staffing, and franchising arrangements has ballooned throughout the American economy, it is increasingly important that companies that share responsibility for workers are held liable for wage theft, child labor abuses, and other violations of federal wage-and-hour law that too often devastate the financial security of working families across the country. For example, the number of American workers in temporary staffing jobs alone is at a record high of almost 3 million workers. This group is disproportionately made up of African American and Latino workers, and these employees earn significantly less than their counterparts in the rest of the private sector.' DOL' s proposal would make it easier for rnassive corporations to shirk their obligations under federal wage-and-hour laws simply by outsourcing jobs to contactors or staffing agencies, further accelerating this concerning trend. By attempting to narrow the definition of employer under the FLSA to companies that "actually exercise" a strictly limited set of types of contro1,3 D0L's proposal would exclude U.S. Department of Labor, "About Us," https://www.clol.gov/general/aboutdol. National Employment Law Project, "Temped Out: How Domestic Outsourcing of Blue-Collar Jobs Harms America's Workers," Rebecca Smith and Claire McKenna, September 2, 2014, https://www.nelp.org/publication/temped-out-how-domestic-outsourcing-of-blue-collar-jobs-harms-americasworkers/. 3 Wage and Hour Division, "Joint Employer Status Under the Fair Labor Standards Act," April 9, 2019, 29 CFR Part 791, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=WH D-2019-0003-0001. many of the arrangements that employers are using—and will increasingly use with DOL's blessing—to avoid their responsibilities to workers under the FLSA. Congress explicitly sought to avoid this problem when it crafted the FLSA to be as encompassing as possible, defining "employ" extraordinarily broadly—"to suffer or permit to work"—and "employer" to include "any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer."' But DOL proposes to ignore the plain language of the statute, inventing a new and extremely restrictive standard that employees would have to show to hold their employers liable for abuses for which Congress intended them to be responsible. This makes DOL's proposal a free pass for large employers, allowing even those that should be joint employers as shown by the economic realities of the situation to walk away from wage-and-hour and child labor violations for which they should be held responsible, leaving smaller businesses on the hook and potentially leaving employees empty-handed. Despite DOL's claims that it is seeking to "reduce uncertainty" and "clarify for workers who is responsible for their employment protections,"5 the Department is attempting to revise DOL's interpretation of the joint employer standard for the first time in the better part of a century, without any new statutory language or judicial precedent, laying out a roadmap for employers to abuse their workers in the process. Minimum wage violations, unpaid overtime, illegal use of child labor, and pay discrimination are all extremely serious problems faced by countless workers and families. Even under the current joint employer standard, enforcement of crucial wage-and-hour protections is unacceptably weak in the United States, and DOL should be at the forefront of the fight to better protect American workers. Instead, this proposal takes the Department in the opposite direction, undermining wage-and-hour enforcement for millions of workers who are already faced with particularly poor job quality, low wages, unpredictable schedules, and precarious work. We strongly urge you to reverse course and withdraw this harmful proposal. Sincerely, kom Sherrod Brown United States Senator -lizabeth Warren nited States Senator (fricteo-Th Patty M y United States Senator United States Senator Wage and Flour Division. "The Fair Labor Standards Act Of 1938, As Amended," https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/statutes/fairlaborstandact.odf. 5 U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor Issues Proposal for Joint Employer Regulation," press release, April 1, 2019, https://www.dol.gov/newsroomireleases/whd/whd2019040l. 2 i) Benjamin L. Cardin United States Senator Ui it ;Ift p tA., Chris Van Hollen i United States Senator Kirsten Gillibrand United States Senator Margaret od Hassan United States Senator Bernard Sanders United States Senator Cory A. Booker United States Senator T. my Ba win nited St es Senator Amy<4har United States Senator Ron yden United States Senator United States Senator 3 No more interruptions during dinnertime: FCC proposes rule to eliminate fraudulent robocalls (Valeriy Kachaev / Getty Images) By Humbaba McLafferty April 26 at 2:20 PM IN MAY of last year, the FCC published “Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls.” This proposed rule is significant because it amends existing call completion rules outlined in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), allowing telephone providers more authority to block illegal robocalls than ever before. But what exactly are robocalls, you ask? According to a Congressional Research Service report on the subject, a robocall, also known as a “voice broadcasting” or “automatic dialer/auto dialer” is “any telephone call that delivers a pre-recorded message using an automatic (computerized) telephone dialing system.” Illegal robocalls, which intend to spam and defraud consumers, have quickly become the top complaint category of both the FCC and the FTC. In fact, last year, the “FTC received more than 1.9 million complaints” (which was a decrease from the 5.3 million they received in 2016), while the “the FCC has stated that it gets more than 200,000 complaints about unwanted telemarketing calls each year.” It may come as no surprise that fraudulent robocalls, while a mere annoyance to a majority of consumers, do still pose a very real security threat to the vulnerable groups (like senior citizens and non-native English speakers), who fall victim to the scams offered by telemarketing calls. Illegal robocalls put an estimated $7.4 billion dent in the bank accounts of millions of American consumers every year, and techniques like “spoofing”- which is when caller ID information is altered to show a fake name or number- only increase people’s chances of getting scammed. But just how effective is this proposed rule actually going to be at banning telemarketers from convincing Grandma she just won a free cruise to the Bahamas? Well, that answer is a nuanced one, and it depends on who you ask. This proposed regulation was met with a flood of comments- by big corporations and ordinary people alike. By and large, consumers expressed emphatic support for the rule’s passing (which comes as no surprise to anyone who’s ever owned a phone). It was industry stakeholders that had more to say. Many were cautiously optimistic about the proposed regulation, unsure that- as it currently stands- it would be enough to eliminate the threat that illegal robocalling poses to consumers. Critics argue that while the proposed rule has good bones, it is merely a drop in the bucket on this complicated issue, and will likely require further amendments in the future if it passes in its current form. For instance, some industry stakeholders argue that the definition of robocalls being used is too broad, and will only encourage organizations to find and exploit loopholes to allow them to continue defrauding consumers. Another concern is that organizations who legally use robocalling technology to distribute information- such as banks, schools, or political campaigns- will have their calls mistaken for spam and blocked. Although both industry stakeholders and regulatory agencies like the FCC and FTC share a common interest in protecting the consumer, neither group can mitigate this issue without help from the other. Currently, the authority of telephone providers is strictly limited when it comes to screening telephone calls. This was a limit originally put in place by the government with the two intentions: maintaining transparency between telephone providers and their customers, and preventing unfair competition by forcing telephone providers to let all calls go through. However, times have changed, and the fact of the matter is that industry stakeholders and regulatory agencies need to work together to reach a long-term solution that limits the need for future regulation on this issue, while still focusing on what’s most important: the consumers. After all, dinnertime (and Grandma) deserve as much. ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Final Answer

Hello buddy, your assignment is complete. I will be around to help with the edits. Otherwise, goodbye and remember to invite me for future questions.

Running Head: OP-ED JOINT EMPLOYER STATUS

Op-ed Joint Employer Status
Students’ Name
Institutional Affiliation

1

OP-ED JOINT EMPLOYER STATUS

2

Op-ed Joint Employer Status
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has a significant role of ensuring the wellbeing of
job applicants, employees and retirees in the country. For this reason, it develops policies aimed
at improving employees’ working conditions and ensuring that they obtain necessary benefits
(DOL, Wage and Hour Division, 2019). However, the department’s proposed changes meant to
clarify the joint employer status might increase, rather than reduce, issues in the labor force. The
current definition of the joint employer status is based upon the extent that two employers can
control an employee’s work, whether they can hire the same worker, and the association between
the employers. DOL’s proposed changes entail a four-factor ...

ProfHenryM (16619)
UIUC

Anonymous
Top quality work from this tutor! I’ll be back!

Anonymous
Just what I needed… fantastic!

Anonymous
Use Studypool every time I am stuck with an assignment I need guidance.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4
Similar Questions
Related Tags