I don’t understand the below quote. Why would a carrier insist on naming the franchisor as a named insured when asked to write a franchisee? Wouldn’t that just broaden the exposure? I don’t follow. I would think the franchisor would have a tougher time finding coverage.
“We have heard from our members who are franchisees/small business owners that a carrier wouldn’t write an EPLI policy to a franchisee without naming the franchisor as an additional named insured,” Layman said. Should the franchise owner attempt to secure coverage alone, the market becomes “markedly more expensive for the franchisee” – that’s a new trend, he said. “A year ago, five years ago, that wasn’t happening but the looming and growing threat of joint employer is having that impact.”
The NLRB “Joint Employer” changes have the ability to drastically change the way business is done in this country. Here is an interesting article about how it might effect general contractors.
This is so egregious, so toxic, and so disgusting, I can barely put everything into words. Each individual that works for a temp agency, or any other service provider who staffs individuals for temp positions (be it for franchisees, GCs, etc), have a CHOICE in working there. Some may be hard on their luck and they need a temp position. Others might prefer the openness and discovery of working in a wide variety of fields before settling on a permanent career. Either way, it’s a CHOICE and serves a distinct purpose in business. Creating joint-liability like this absolutely ruins small business and makes everything more expensive than ever before. Not shocked that this has come to a head during a time that Obama is dictating very destabilizing and innovation stifling employment trends in the US. Not for individual protection, but for votes. Plain and simple.
Did anyone catch in the article that only approximately 2% of the total US workforce is made up of staffing/temp positions? WTF is the NLRB doing by meddling in a practice that is not only fair and just, but has operated very successfully for at least the last 30 years? There’s no goddamn reason to justify it. Every single American worker has a choice of where they want to work. They may not always like the outcome or get the position of their dreams, but that’s life, and life comes with risks/rewards.
I don’t see how this ruling will stick. I’d be hard pressed to see even liberal governors at the state level not enacting laws that will protect businesses from joint-liability. F the NLRB, F unions, and F OBAMA.
UW Supreme wrote, “Every single American worker has a choice of where they want to work. They may not always like the outcome or get the position of their dreams, but that’s life, and life comes with risks/rewards.”
Sounds like someone may have a case of the white privilege. Tell your above quote to the kid stuck in the projects. Or, perhaps you avoid those areas.
When you have to resort to finishing with “F Obama”, you pretty much destroyed your argument. I said good day!
I don’t understand the below quote. Why would a carrier insist on naming the franchisor as a named insured when asked to write a franchisee? Wouldn’t that just broaden the exposure? I don’t follow. I would think the franchisor would have a tougher time finding coverage.
“We have heard from our members who are franchisees/small business owners that a carrier wouldn’t write an EPLI policy to a franchisee without naming the franchisor as an additional named insured,” Layman said. Should the franchise owner attempt to secure coverage alone, the market becomes “markedly more expensive for the franchisee” – that’s a new trend, he said. “A year ago, five years ago, that wasn’t happening but the looming and growing threat of joint employer is having that impact.”
The NLRB “Joint Employer” changes have the ability to drastically change the way business is done in this country. Here is an interesting article about how it might effect general contractors.
This is so egregious, so toxic, and so disgusting, I can barely put everything into words. Each individual that works for a temp agency, or any other service provider who staffs individuals for temp positions (be it for franchisees, GCs, etc), have a CHOICE in working there. Some may be hard on their luck and they need a temp position. Others might prefer the openness and discovery of working in a wide variety of fields before settling on a permanent career. Either way, it’s a CHOICE and serves a distinct purpose in business. Creating joint-liability like this absolutely ruins small business and makes everything more expensive than ever before. Not shocked that this has come to a head during a time that Obama is dictating very destabilizing and innovation stifling employment trends in the US. Not for individual protection, but for votes. Plain and simple.
Did anyone catch in the article that only approximately 2% of the total US workforce is made up of staffing/temp positions? WTF is the NLRB doing by meddling in a practice that is not only fair and just, but has operated very successfully for at least the last 30 years? There’s no goddamn reason to justify it. Every single American worker has a choice of where they want to work. They may not always like the outcome or get the position of their dreams, but that’s life, and life comes with risks/rewards.
I don’t see how this ruling will stick. I’d be hard pressed to see even liberal governors at the state level not enacting laws that will protect businesses from joint-liability. F the NLRB, F unions, and F OBAMA.
UW Supreme wrote, “Every single American worker has a choice of where they want to work. They may not always like the outcome or get the position of their dreams, but that’s life, and life comes with risks/rewards.”
Sounds like someone may have a case of the white privilege. Tell your above quote to the kid stuck in the projects. Or, perhaps you avoid those areas.
When you have to resort to finishing with “F Obama”, you pretty much destroyed your argument. I said good day!