MA Legislation Poses Potential Irrevokable Harm to Staffing and Recruiting Industry

Wed, 07/28/2010 - 09:35 — Mark Carlson

Urge MA House and Senate to Vote "No" on Anti-Staffing Legislation - H. 4623 and S. 680

CALL and E-MAIL Your Representatives and Senators TODAY
The Massachusetts House of Representatives and Senate are considering two anti-staffing bills that, if passed, would greatly harm staffing firms doing business inthat state.  The House may vote on its bill TODAY, and the Senate may vote on its bill any day this week, so your immediate attention and action are required.
S. 680, a so-called temporary worker "right to know" bill, would require staffing firms to provide temporary workers with written notice of, among other things, the expected duration of the work to be performed, a job description,and information on health and safety hazardsas well asthe staffing firm's workers' compensation carrier.
H. 4623 includes the temporary worker right to know provisions, as well as registration requirements, potential rate caps, meal and lodging requirements for out-of-state workers, and other onerous provisions.
For firms that assign thousands of workers per year in Massachusetts, attempting to satisfy these requirements would be cost-prohibitive and administratively difficult, if not impossible. This added cost would inevitably drive up the prices of staffing services, which in turn would lead to reduced demand for temporary employees and job loss.
Please call and e-mail the representatives and senators for the districts in which you work and live TODAY and tell them to vote NO on these bills.  Talking points are set forth below. To find your representatives and senators, click on http://www.mass.gov/legis/city_town.htm
blocked::http://www.mass.gov/legis/city_town.htm
http://www.mass.gov/legis/city_town.htm
blocked::http://www.mass.gov/legis/city_town.htm" href="http://www.mass.gov/legis/city_town.htm">http://www.mass.gov/legis/city_town.htm.
 
 
 
 
Talking Points for Temporary Worker Right-to-Know (S. 680) and Registration (H. 4623) Bills
This legislation will be extremely harmful to my company, workers, and the state's economy for many reasons.  Here are just a few.
1.  The "abuses" this legislation attempts to prevent are not committed by staffing firms and, to the extent they are, staffing firms already must comply with all laws applicable to employers
It is my understanding that this legislation primarily aims to protect day laborers - who are picked up at such sites as parks and street corners and transported to worksites - and who are not adequately informed about their wages, working conditions, employer, etc.
But these alleged abuses are not committed by staffing firms.  The vast majority of staffing firms that place workers on temporary assignments do not place day laborers, and those firms that do assign day laborers not do pick up them up from street corners, parking lots, or parks - instead, the day laborers report to the staffing firms' offices, from which they are assigned.  Therefore, this legislation will adversely impact an entire industry, even though the vast majority of alleged abuses are not committed by members of the industry.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, such alleged abuses are committed by staffing firms, temporary workers already are protected under myriad state and federal employment laws. As employers, staffing firms providing temporary help are already obligated by law to pay payroll taxes (FICA, FUTA) and to provide workers' compensation insurance, as well as comply with many other legal obligations (e.g. civil rights, wage and hour, and workplace safety laws).  Our employees are afforded all of the protections under those laws, as are all other employees in the state.  
Hence, no new laws are necessary.  Rather, greater enforcement of existing laws is.
2.  Putting restrictions on how staffing firms operate will harm workers and the economy 
According to most recent data, Massachusetts staffing firms employed 215,570 people for temporary or contract work annually, and employed an average of 56,138 temporary and contract employees per day. The average tenure was approximately 13.5 weeks. 74,359 temporary and contract employees bridged to permanent jobs and Massachusetts staffing firms generated more than $1.8 billion in annual payroll. Staffing firms operate some 1,142 offices throughout the state, each contributing to the vitality of Massachusetts's economy.
Because of the measures this legislation would impose, staffing firms would have no choice but to close or relocate elsewhere - hurting workers, clients, and the Commonwealth's economy. 
3.  Requiring staffing firms to provide written notice to temporary employees would impose an unnecessary and crushing administrative burden (S. 680 and H. 4623)
This legislation would require staffing firms to provide temporary employees with written detailed information including, among other things, job descriptions, the name and address of the client worksites to which the temporary employees are assigned, wage rates, the expected duration of the assignment, and transportation costs. 
Most staffing firms already provide this information to workers verbally.  Requiring the information to be given in writing would place an unnecessary administrative burden on staffing firms. Staffing firms place thousands of workers in jobs each day.  The volume and variety of temporary jobs and the fact that most job assignments must be filled on very short notice make it impractical if not impossible to provide job-specific written job descriptions within seventy-two hours of the date workers go on the job. Such written notice, therefore, is neither feasible nor necessary.
4.  H. 4623 could be interpreted to impose rate caps on staffing firms (H. 4623)
H. 4623 imposes caps on fees charged to temporary employees.  However, the definitions of "fee" and "applicant fee" are ambiguous and could be construed so as to apply the caps to fees charged to clients.  If this were to occur, there is no way staffing firms could continue to do business - resulting in tremendous harm to clients, workers, and the state's economy.
5.  Requiring staffing firms to provide meals, lodging, and transportation expenses to out-of-state workers who are fired or whose temporary assignments are cancelled makes no sense (H. 4623)
H. 4623 would require staffing firms to compensate out-of-state workers for meals and lodging expenses when clients cancel such workers' assignments.  The legislation also would require staffing firms to provide such workers allowances for meals and transportation expenses if the workers' assignments are terminated within 30 days - regardless of the reason for the termination. 
This would produce absurd results, such as staffing firms having to cover such costs when workers are terminated due to their own misconduct.  Also, since staffing firms have no control over when and why clients terminate assignments, requiring firms to compensate out-of-state workers for expenses when their assignments are ended is patently unfair.
6.  The definition of "applicant fee" is overly-broad and should apply only to fees charged to applicants in exchange for placing them on assignments (H. 4623)
H. 4623's proposed definition of "applicant fee" is overly-broad and ambiguous.  Because it applies to fees charged for "any goods or services rendered," it could apply to deductions for health insurance, as well as FICA or SUTA deductions.  The legislation's intent is to regulate fees charged to temporary workers in exchange for placing them on assignment, and thus the definition of applicant fee should be narrowly tailored for that purpose only.
7.  Staffing firms would be allowed to charge applicants for such things as drug tests and criminal background checks only if such applicants receive job assignments (H. 4623)
Under H. 4623, staffing firms would not be able to charge individuals whose drug test or criminal background check results render them unfit for assignments - however, firms could charge applicants for such tests when the applicants are placed on assignment.  This makes no sense, and staffing firms should be allowed to pass such costs along to all applicants, if they so choose.  Applicants, of course, do not have to agree to pay such costs, as they can apply for jobs through the myriad staffing firms that do not charge applicants for drug tests or background checks.
8.  Staffing firms would not be permitted to send candidate resumes to clients for purposes of generating client interest and job orders under H. 4623
Staffing firms often send candidate resumes to clients even if the staffing firms do not have existing job orders from the client.  The purpose of sending candidate resumes is to generate client interest and assignments for the candidates - something that happens regularly.  But the proposed legislation would prohibit staffing firms from "referring" candidates when no job order exists, and could be interpreted to prohibit staffing firms from sending candidate resumes to clients.  Such prohibition would serve no constructive purpose and would harm candidates, staffing firms, and their clients.
9.  Staffing services significantly benefit both workers and businesses 
Temporary workers employed by staffing firms make up just 2 percent of the workforce.  But temporary jobs are providing millions of workers with critical flexibility, training, and a great way to find a permanent job.  And for over 50 years, staffing services have helped American businesses manage their labor costs more effectively.  The proposed legislation would only serve to hurt staffing firms, workers, and businesses. For firms that assign thousands of workers per year in Massachusetts, attempting to satisfy the legislation's requirements would be cost-prohibitive and administratively difficult, if not impossible. This added cost would inevitably drive up the prices of staffing services, which in turn would lead to reduced demand for temporary employees and job loss.