Thread by @AFLCIO

Passage of the #PRO Act is the top priority of the labor movement. It is supported by the AFL-CIO and its 56 affiliated unions. The #PROAct has also been endorsed by unaffiliated international unions and a wide variety of civil rights, religious, and environmental organizations.

Strengthening outdated labor law is key to rebuilding the economy and restoring fairness to the workplace. We urge you to support this vital legislation.

To date, you have heard from workers, union leaders, and allied organizations about the urgent need to pass the #PROAct, which would give workers a voice at the table to bargain for better wages, retirement, health and safety standards, and other vital benefits.

In all likelihood, you have also heard from some who falsely claim that the #PROAct will hinder small businesses, undermine workers’ rights, and disrupt the economy.

This thread is intended to dispel some of the misconceptions related to employee misclassification, employee privacy, and joint employment.

The rise of misclassification has been one of the reasons that millions of workers across the country lack basic labor protections and are unable to make ends meet.

All too often, employers have misclassified employees as “independent contractors” to deny them a living wage, benefits, the right to organize, and other basic workplace protections.

As a result, misclassified workers often lack access to protections that every worker should be afforded such as workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, overtime, and a minimum wage.

Opponents of the PRO Act have claimed that it will harm small businesses that have a relationship with independent contractors, or end independent contracting itself.

Some have also argued the PRO Act could restrict freelancers’ ability to continue their work. All of these claims lack merit for a wide variety of reasons.

As an initial matter, the NLRA explicitly excludes independent contractors from coverage. The PRO Act does not change that. Under the PRO Act, independent contractor status would still exist, but it would be harder for employers to misclassify workers who are truly employees.

Nothing in the #PROAct, including the ABC test, makes it harder for independent contractors to get work. Instead, it provides a clear and simple test for the @NLRB to find employee status when workers seek to form a union or protection under the NLRA.

The PRO Act does not amend any of the laws that typically determine whether someone is hired as a W-2 employee, most notably tax law, but also minimum wage, overtime, unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, or any state laws.

To the extent a worker is deemed to be an “employee” under the ABC test in the PRO Act, that worker is then protected by the NLRA and able to form a union if they (and a majority of their coworkers) so choose.

Nothing more. Merely being classified as an employee for the purposes of the NLRA does not change one’s ability to freelance or engage in any other work.

Indeed, union workers in the building and construction trades often perform work for multiple employers, going from job-to-job for short periods of time.

Union workers in the entertainment industry also perform their craft for multiple employers and are protected by collective bargaining agreements at each job, enjoying high wages and better benefits than non-union workers.

The idea that the PRO Act, by expanding the base of workers who would be protected by the NLRA, somehow limits worker flexibility is simply not supported by the facts or the history of collective bargaining.

To put it simply, the PRO Act gives more workers the right to form a union and negotiate for the rights, compensation, and working conditions they lose when misclassified as “independent contractors.”

When a group of employees petition to form a union, the NLRB requires the employer to provide the relevant union with a list including the names and home addresses of those employees who are eligible to vote in the union election (sometimes called voter eligibility lists).

This has been true for over 55 years. SCOTUS has reviewed and approved of this requirement. NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759, 767-68 (1969).

The Court did so because it recognized that voter contact information is necessary so that employees can receive information and make an informed decision on union representation.

In 2014, the NLRB expanded the eligibility lists to include “available personal email addresses, and available home and personal [cell phone] numbers.”

The NLRB understood that this change was necessary because workers needed the ability to receive timely information on the union through modern means of communication.

Some PRO Act opponents dubiously argue that the bill would strip workers of their right to privacy by continuing to require eligibility lists. This is also patently false.