have to provide water, cooling areas, and paid rest breaks, among other measures. The requirements expand when the heat index hits 90 degrees, as employers would have to offer mandatory paid breaks and monitor employees for signs of heat-related illness.
Lawmakers have proposed legislation that would block OSHA from finalizing and implementing the heat standard. Spencer said employers aren’t necessarily opposed to a federal standard. However, they do want OSHA to give companies enough flexibility to account for differences among workplaces. “We’d like to see a rule written from a perspective of making it actually workable and effective,” he added, “as opposed to just a purely prescriptive rule.”
California is also considering expanding its workplace inspection rules to allow third parties, including union organizers or other outside representatives, to accompany inspectors. The proposal mirrors OSHA’s federal walkaround rule, which expanded the types of representatives employees can choose to accompany inspectors during workplace safety inspections.
“The OSHA walkaround rule allows
third parties to accompany OSHA inspectors,” said Spencer, noting that the Chamber would ultimately like OSHA to repeal the rule. “That rule has not actually been applied anywhere, but it’s still sitting out there on the books.”
Other Labor Rules to Monitor The Department of Labor (DOL) is
working on a new joint employer rule that would spell out when two businesses can both be held responsible for complying with federal wage and hour laws. The proposal, issued in April, is intended to provide employers with more consistent guidance and reduce differences among the standards used by federal courts.
30 FEDA News & Views
“In an ideal world, Congress could legislate more effectively and reach compromises. It’s kind of wishful thinking at this point.”
— Glenn Spencer Senior Vice President Employment Policy Division U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Using a four-factor analysis, the final version of the rule is expected to bring the joint employer definition back in line with the standard set by the first Trump administration in 2020. At that time, the DOL narrowed the circumstances under which two businesses could be considered joint employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Biden administration rescinded that rule in 2021, leaving the agency without generally applicable regulatory guidance on FLSA joint employment. The public comment period for the proposed new rule closed in June, and the DOL is currently reviewing feedback. Beyond revising its policies, Spencer said the DOL is putting more emphasis on helping employers understand and follow the rules before problems turn into enforcement actions. “They want to be in compliance, they want to do the right thing,” he explained, “and the department is focusing on helping them understand how to do that.” States are also taking action on so- called captive audience meetings, where employers gather employees to discuss issues like unionization. Thirteen states now restrict or prohibit these meetings, including New York, Illinois, Washington, and Rhode Island. In California, a federal district court blocked the law while the case moves through the courts. The legal question now centers on whether states have the authority to impose those restrictions or if they
are superseded by the NLRA. “The challenge has been getting into court and being able to establish standing,” Spencer said. “The exception is in California, where a district court did say that the law is preempted.”
What’s Next on the Agenda? With the Trump administration directing federal agencies to adopt a deregulatory approach, more states are taking it upon themselves to address labor issues. One such example is a New York law that allowed the state to assume some of the NLRB’s authority during periods when the NLRB lacks a quorum — as it did during most of 2025 — or when it declines authority. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York struck down the law this past July in a case involving Amazon. Other states are considering “fair-
share laws” that could impose added costs on larger employers whose workers rely on state Medicaid or whose health plans don’t meet specified standards. Spencer said those measures could face challenges under federal benefits law.
Looking ahead, Spencer expects the
current dynamic to remain the same in both this Congress and the next due to narrow majorities, regardless of who’s in charge. “In an ideal world, Congress could legislate more effectively and reach compromises,” he said. “It’s kind of wishful thinking at this point.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
