Re: Michael L. Cadorette’s column on the National Labor Relations Board’s ruling in the Browning-Ferris case (“Maine Voices: New federal rule spells trouble for small businesses that hire outside services,” Oct. 30):

This rule returns accountability to employers that control the terms and conditions of subcontracted employees’ labor (such as pay, benefits and working conditions).

Mr. Cadorette wrongly says that this rule will apply to a company that administers “any level of direct or indirect control over contracted employers.” This statement fails to recognize the specific types of control a business must display before the rule is applied.

I do not find it convincing that he can cite statistics on the number and size of businesses and franchises in Maine, but doesn’t cite a single specific example of how this rule could affect business operations, growth or hiring.

I would also point out to Mr. Cadorette that this rule was in effect for 50 years before first being changed in 1984. I would ask if there is any evidence this rule inhibited companies from growing, hiring and responding to market dynamics during this time.

I see nothing in the ruling that would prohibit Mr. Cadorette from focusing on his core business while subcontracting out non-core functions to subcontracted labor. But if Mr. Cadorette chooses to control the terms and conditions of that labor, then he should assume the responsibilities that accompany that level of control.

This rule simply returns an employer’s responsibility to the same place it was between 1935 and 1984. Our country experienced the greatest economic expansion in history during this period. On the other hand, the destruction of the working class at the benefit of the corporate class since 1984 has been extremely well documented.

I would ask Mr. Cadorette to re-examine his presumptions on how this ruling could affect his business.

Copy the Story Link