[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 7 (Friday, January 12, 2024)]
[House]
[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.

                          ____________________