�鶹��ý

Four Things Employers Need to Know

�鶹��ý submitted its first set of comments on a Biden administration guidance implementing a new executive order that changes the process of developing regulations (Executive Order 14094 on Modernizing Regulatory Review). The new policy would limit the business community’s access to the administration during the inter-agency review process, while encouraging feedback from groups that ordinarily would not engage in the regulatory process. The policy effectively closes the door on the very entities that stand to bear the compliance cost of a proposed regulation. The executive order also raises the threshold of a significant regulatory action, meaning fewer regulations would be required to undergo review. �鶹��ý encourages the administration to abandon the executive order.

�鶹��ý of America recently urged the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division to abandon or at least postpone issuance of its anticipated proposed rulemaking altering the overtime regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Even though the COVID-19 public health emergency has been lifted, concerns with supply chain disruptions, workforce shortages, inflationary pressures, and the shifting dynamics of the American workforce persist, and any rule change now would threaten a particularly vulnerable and recovering economy.

On May 31, the House of Representatives passed the �鶹��ý of America-backed debt limit agreement legislation entitled the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA). The U.S. Senate is expected to pass it shortly and President Biden to sign it into law thereafter.

In an eight-to-one decision issued on June 1, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a favorable decision in a labor preemption case in which �鶹��ý of America submitted an amicus brief. The case, Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174, presented the question of whether the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempts an employer’s state tort claim against a union for intentionally destroying the employer’s property in the course of a labor dispute. Agreeing with arguments made in an �鶹��ý-supported coalition amicus brief, the Court affirmed the principle that strikers must take “reasonable precautions” to protect employer property from “foreseeable, imminent danger” and held that the union’s failure to do so in the case rendered its conduct outside the NLRA’s protections. Accordingly, preemption did not apply, and the employer in the case is free to pursue damages against the union in state court. For more background on the case, see �鶹��ý’s prior articles here and here.

The purpose of this virtual, quarterly townhall is to communicate key safety and health issues and challenges, as well as discuss enforcement, regulatory, and outreach activities at the national and local levels. Open to all �鶹��ý members and Chapters, the meeting also provides an opportunity for industry professionals from various sectors to share best practices, discuss emerging safety trends, and collaborate on ways to improve safety across the entire construction industry. Register HERE to join us on June 22, 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM for the inaugural meeting.