IBT's DRIVE contributes $100,000 to disgraced former Sec. of Labor's new PAC

[OT+]

DRIVE contributes $100,000 to new PAC

Screenshot (210).png
Screenshot (211).png
Screenshot (212).png

[jerseymike78]

Is this simply a deposit in case a pardon will be needed in the future? Better use it while your dinner host is still around.

[WTF891]

She's out of work C'mon throw her a bone. No pun intended.

[jerseymike78]

Maybe Trump already did.

[WTF891]

Jersey I hope he took the diaper off first.

[JZuraw]

O'Brien will be using this Chavez-DeRemer front to distribute money to the campaigns of right-wingers who blow smoke up his ass.

[Ron Dans]

Oldie but apparently still relevant today.

[AlJackson1962!]

Brother Ron Dans:

Not as relevant as it might have been under the Biden NLRB when the NLRB was still relying on a broadened definition of Joint Employer?

Union Busting Law Firm Jackson Lewis (see below) celebrating return to NLRB definition of Joint Employer after Trump won second term.

Legal Update Article NLRB Goes Back to the Employer-Friendly Future as It Reinstates Strict Joint-Employer Rule


03.03.26


Laura A. Pierson-Scheinberg, Richard F. Vitarelli & Jiyoon Yoon
Takeaways

• The NLRB issued a final rule restoring the 2020 joint-employer standard, replacing the broader Browning-Ferris approach that had been reinstated in a 2023 rule that never took effect.
• Under the rule, a company is a joint employer only if it possesses and exercises substantial, direct and immediate control over at least one essential term of employment, such as wages.
• Sporadic, isolated or de minimis control does not create joint-employer status.

Related links

• 91 Fed. Reg. 9707, Withdrawal of 2023 Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status
• Labor Board Issues Final Rule for Determining Joint-Employer Status
• Labor Board (Again) Returns to Broader Rule for Determining Joint-Employer Status

Article

With its newly restored quorum, the National Labor Relations Board published a final rule for determining a joint employer under the National Labor Relations Act, reinstating its long-standing rule and higher threshold for determining joint-employer status. The rule went into effect on Feb. 27, 2026.

The final rule returns to the 2020 standard issued under the first Trump Administration that vacated the Board’s broader 2015 standard under Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 186. Under the reinstated rule, a business must possess and exercise “substantial direct and immediate control” over at least one essential term and condition of employment of another employer’s employees to be found a joint employer.

The rule defines “substantial” direct control as actions that have “a regular or continuous consequential effect” on one of the eight core aspects of a worker’s job. These “essential terms and conditions of employment” are:

1. Wages
2. Benefits
3. Hours of work
4. Hiring
5. Discharge
6. Discipline
7. Supervision
8. Direction

Importantly, the rule provides that even where an employer exercises direct control over another employer’s workers, it will not be held to be a joint employer if such control is exercised on a sporadic, isolated, or de minimis basis.

The Board determined that its issuance of the final rule is “ministerial in nature” because the prior 2023 rule returning to the Browning-Ferris standard was vacated before it took effect. As a result, a notice-and-comment period is unnecessary.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are committed to helping employers make the best business decisions. Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with questions on the final rule and the Board.

[Ron Dans]

Brother Al, thanks for the response. What I meant by “still relevant today” was, I hope the video exposed O’Brien's poor judgement supporting Chavez-DeRemer. On top of all that, after Chavez-DeRemer had to resign in disgrace, reports her husband was barred from the building for sexual misconduct, O’Brien is still supports Chavez-DeRemer! It was poor judgement that “still relevant (Applicable) today”

[AlJackson1962!]

Brother Ron: I hear you and agree.

[Barry455]

Brother Ron Dans:

Not as relevant as it might have been under the Biden NLRB when the NLRB was still relying on a broadened definition of Joint Employer?

Union Busting Law Firm Jackson Lewis (see below) celebrating return to NLRB definition of Joint Employer after Trump won second term.

Legal Update Article NLRB Goes Back to the Employer-Friendly Future as It Reinstates Strict Joint-Employer Rule


03.03.26


Laura A. Pierson-Scheinberg, Richard F. Vitarelli & Jiyoon Yoon
Takeaways

• The NLRB issued a final rule restoring the 2020 joint-employer standard, replacing the broader Browning-Ferris approach that had been reinstated in a 2023 rule that never took effect.
• Under the rule, a company is a joint employer only if it possesses and exercises substantial, direct and immediate control over at least one essential term of employment, such as wages.
• Sporadic, isolated or de minimis control does not create joint-employer status.

Related links

• 91 Fed. Reg. 9707, Withdrawal of 2023 Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status
• Labor Board Issues Final Rule for Determining Joint-Employer Status
• Labor Board (Again) Returns to Broader Rule for Determining Joint-Employer Status

Article

With its newly restored quorum, the National Labor Relations Board published a final rule for determining a joint employer under the National Labor Relations Act, reinstating its long-standing rule and higher threshold for determining joint-employer status. The rule went into effect on Feb. 27, 2026.

The final rule returns to the 2020 standard issued under the first Trump Administration that vacated the Board’s broader 2015 standard under Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 186. Under the reinstated rule, a business must possess and exercise “substantial direct and immediate control” over at least one essential term and condition of employment of another employer’s employees to be found a joint employer.

The rule defines “substantial” direct control as actions that have “a regular or continuous consequential effect” on one of the eight core aspects of a worker’s job. These “essential terms and conditions of employment” are:

1. Wages
2. Benefits
3. Hours of work
4. Hiring
5. Discharge
6. Discipline
7. Supervision
8. Direction

Importantly, the rule provides that even where an employer exercises direct control over another employer’s workers, it will not be held to be a joint employer if such control is exercised on a sporadic, isolated, or de minimis basis.

The Board determined that its issuance of the final rule is “ministerial in nature” because the prior 2023 rule returning to the Browning-Ferris standard was vacated before it took effect. As a result, a notice-and-comment period is unnecessary.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are committed to helping employers make the best business decisions. Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with questions on the final rule and the Board.

It would almost be funny if it wasn't so damaging to the union and working people in general. Our union president pals around with the very people who killed what ever chance we had to organize Amazon. The strategy of the entire campaign was to show the delivery drivers were really employees of Amazon. That was legitimate under the Biden NLRB. Not so under Trump's NLRB.

How much money has been spent on this campaign? The organizing, the strikes, the salaries, the travel, PR, out-of-work benefits etc all of it at this point useless. More importantly what about the workers who took a chance on the union? Were they ever honestly told about the strategy and the risks of a new administration?

Side note: the new chair of the NLRB is a former partner at Jackson Lewis.