Franchisees; status thereof and its employees as employees of the franchisor. (HB1394)

Introduced By

Del. Chris Head (R-Roanoke) with support from co-patrons Del. Buddy Fowler (R-Ashland), and Del. Chris Peace (R-Mechanicsville)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Employees; franchisees excluded. Clarifies that neither a franchisee nor any employee of the franchisee shall be deemed to be an employee of the franchisee's franchisor for any purpose to which the amended section of the Code of Virginia applies, notwithstanding any voluntary agreement between the U.S. Department of Labor and the franchisee. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Failed

History

DateAction
07/18/2016Committee
07/18/2016Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/11/17 17100054D
07/18/2016Referred to Committee on Commerce and Labor
01/11/2017Impact statement from DPB (HB1394)
01/12/2017Reported from Commerce and Labor with amendment (15-Y 7-N) (see vote tally)
01/16/2017Read first time
01/17/2017Passed by for the day
01/18/2017Read second time
01/18/2017Committee amendment agreed to
01/18/2017Engrossed by House as amended HB1394E
01/18/2017Printed as engrossed 17100054D-E
01/19/2017Impact statement from DPB (HB1394E)
01/19/2017Read third time and passed House (67-Y 31-N)
01/19/2017VOTE: PASSAGE (67-Y 31-N) (see vote tally)
01/20/2017Constitutional reading dispensed
01/20/2017Referred to Committee on Commerce and Labor
02/13/2017Reported from Commerce and Labor with substitute (10-Y 4-N) (see vote tally)
02/13/2017Committee substitute printed 17105397D-S1
02/15/2017Impact statement from DPB (HB1394S1)
02/15/2017Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/16/2017Read third time
02/16/2017Reading of substitute waived
02/16/2017Committee substitute agreed to 17105397D-S1
02/16/2017Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute HB1394S1
02/16/2017Passed Senate with substitute (20-Y 19-N) (see vote tally)
02/20/2017Placed on Calendar
02/20/2017Passed by for the day
02/21/2017Passed by for the day
02/22/2017Passed by for the day
02/23/2017Senate substitute agreed to by House 17105397D-S1 (65-Y 35-N)
02/23/2017VOTE: ADOPTION (65-Y 35-N) (see vote tally)
03/07/2017Enrolled
03/07/2017Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB1394ER)
03/07/2017Impact statement from DPB (HB1394ER)
03/07/2017Signed by Speaker
03/10/2017Signed by President
03/13/2017Enrolled Bill communicated to Governor on 3/13/17
03/13/2017G Governor's Action Deadline Midnight, March 27, 2017
03/16/2017G Vetoed by Governor
04/05/2017Placed on Calendar
04/05/2017House sustained Governor's veto (66-Y 34-N)
04/05/2017VOTE: OVERRIDE GOVERNOR'S VETO (66-Y 34-N) (see vote tally)
04/05/2017(67 affirmative votes required to override)

Video

This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 3 clips in all, totaling 16 minutes.

Transcript

This is a transcript of the video clips in which this bill is discussed.

A NUMBER OF GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS. WE USED TO HAVE GOVERNMENT WORKERS BUILDING GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, BUILDING BRIDGES AND ROADS BUT WE PRIVATIZE WAS THE PRIVATE SECTOR CAN BUILD ROADS BETTER THAN THE GOVERNMENT CAN BID -- BUILD ROADS. WHEN WE PUT IN OUR SOLICITATION FOR PROPOSAL, YOU HAVE TO DO ALL THE STUPID THINGS THE GOVERNMENT DOES IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF CONTRACTS, AND WE WIND UP SPENDING A LOT MORE THAN GOVERNMENT DOES AND ACTING A LOT LESS EFFICIENT. IF WE'RE GOING TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR, LET THEM BE THE PRIVATE SECTOR, INSTEAD OF TELLING THEM THEY CAN'T HIRE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO WORK FOR LESS THAN GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO PAY. THANK YOU SENATOR. THE SENOR -- SENATOR FROM FAIRFAX. WILL THE SENATOR YIELD FOR A COUPLE QUESTIONS? I WILL BE DELIGHTED. I BET YOU WOULD. [LAUGHTER] AS THE GOOD SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM EVER HEARD OF AN ITEM CALLED THE DAVIS BACON ACT. THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM. MR. PRESIDENT, I HAVE HEARD OF THE DAVIS BACON ACT AND I'M AWARE OF WHAT THE DAVIS BACON ACT WAS. IT WAS A PRETTY REPREHENSIBLE PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT WAS ADOPTED IN THE EARLY PART OF THE LAST CENTURY, IN ORDER TO PREVENT COMPANIES FROM HIRING BLACK WORKERS FROM THE SOUTH, WHO WANTED TO WORK. IT WAS THE WORSE OF THE WORSE KINDS OF LEGISLATION THAT WAS WILL THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM MIND TELLING THE OTHER 38, EXACTLY WHAT THAT DAVIS BACON ACT SAYS? MR. PRESIDENT, I'LL BE HAPPY TO. THE DAVIS BACON ACT WINDS UP MOTIVATED BY TERRIBLE POLICY. TELLING PEOPLE WHO ARE IN DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE STATE, DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE COUNTRY, WHAT THE PREVAILING WAGES ARE FOR THOSE AREAS OF THE STATE. I LIVE IN AN AREA OF THE COUNTRY, IN AN AREA OF VIRGINIA, WHERE I CAN TELL YOU THAT PIPE FITTERS AND PLUMBERS CAN BE HIRED FOR LESS THAN THE $80 PER HOUR THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SAYS IS THE PREVAILING WAGE RATE FOR THOSE WORKERS IN THAT AREA OF VIRGINIA. IT'S AN OUTRAGEOUS EFFORT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TELL THE PRIVATE SECTOR WHAT THEY SHOULD
REPORTED FROM COURTS OF JUSTICE WITH A SUBSTITUTE. MR. SPEAKER, THERE IS A FLOOR SUBSTITUTE AS WELL.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM ALBAMARLE,

[Unknown]: MR. SPEAKER, THIS IS THE MR. BELL. BILL THAT HAS THE FLOOR. I ASK WE REJECT THE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): QUESTION IS ON ADOPTION OF THE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE, AS MANY AS FAVOR THAT MOTION SAY AYE, OPPOSED NO. THE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE IS REJECTED. GENTLEMAN FROM ALBAMARLE.

[Unknown]: NOW I WOULD ASK THAT WE ACCEPT THE FLOOR SUBSTITUTE. QUESTION IS ON ADOPTION -- MR. SPEAKER?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE, MR. TOSCANO.

Del. David Toscano (D-Charlottesville): MR. SPEAKER, WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD?

[Unknown]: YES, SIR. HAPPY TO YIELD.

Del. David Toscano (D-Charlottesville): I ASK THE GENTLEMAN, SINCE WE ARE READY TO VOTE ON THE FLOOR SUBSTITUTE, MIGHT BE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE ORIGINAL BILL DID. COULD THE GENTLEMAN EXPLAIN WHAT THE FLOOR SUBSTITUTE DOES THAT IS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL BILL.

[Unknown]: SURE. SO THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BE DONE BY LINE AMENDMENTS, BUT BECAUSE WE WERE MOVING A SECTION, WE HAD TO DO A THIS ACTUALLY CONFORMS IT TO SUBSTITUTE. WHAT THE HOUSE ALREADY DID, MAKES IT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT CAME OUT OF THE CRIME COMMISSION, THIS AND WHEN MY BILL COMES BACK FROM THE SENATE, ONLY DIFFERENCE IS, THE CRIME XHIS HAD SAID YOU SHOULDN'T -- COMMISSION SAID YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO FINE SOMEONE WHO HASN'T BEEN PAID RESTITUTION. SEEMS STRANGE TO HAVE A FINE ON TOP OF A LACK OF RESTITUTION, PUNISHMENT MAYBE, BUT NOT A FINE. THE HOUSE PUT THAT BACK IN. I SPOEK TO THE PEOPLE THAT THOUGHT THAT WAS IMPORTANT. THEY SAID THEY DON'T MIND IF IT COMES OUT. THIS WILL SAVE US FROM A CONFERENCE. THE TWO BILLS WILL GO FORWARD WITH THREE TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS IDENTICAL TO WHAT CAME OUT OF THE CRIME COMMISSION SIX WEEKS AGO. THANK YOU. THAT'S VERY HELPFUL.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM ALBAMARLE.

[Unknown]: MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD ASK THAT WE ACCEPT THE SUBSTITUTE. NOW, I AM BEING REMINDED, IS THERE ONE VOTE, BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME NO VOTES. I WAS GOING TO MAKE SURE -- OKAY. THIS IS NOW IDENTICAL TO HOUSE BILL 1855, WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT I JUST EXPLAINED TO THE GENTLEMAN, THE ORIGINAL VERSION PASSED OUT OF THIS BODY 91-6. MR. SPEAKER, I STAND CORRECT. THIS BILL, JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE I DON'T LEAVE ANYBODY STRANDED, PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): I BELIEVE I WAS WRONG, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ADOPT THE AS MANY FAVOR ADOPTION OF THE SUBSTITUTE. FLOOR SUBSTITUTE SAY AYE. OPPOSED NO. SUBSTITUTE AGREED TO. SHALL THE BILL PASS. THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 100, NO'S ZERO. AYES 100, NO'S ZERO, BILL IS PASSED. TURNING TO PAGE 15 OF THE PRINTED CALENDAR, PAGE 15, BILL BEFORE IS SENATE BILL 1578, A BILL TO AMEND AND REENACT A SECTION OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA RELATING TO THE SHORT-TERM RENTED AL OF PROPERTY, FROM GENERAL LAWS AND SUBSEQUENT REPORT FROM COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM SUFFOLK, MR. JONES.

Del. Chris Jones (R-Suffolk): MR. SPEAKER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE, SENATE BILL 1578 IS BEFORE THE BODY WITH A SUBSTITUTE. FURTHER DEFINES BED AND BREAKFAST IN CERTAIN TWO SECTIONS OF THE CODE, ESTABLISHES AT THE END OF THE BILL A CREATION OF A REGISTRY FOR SHORT HAD BEEN -- SHORT-TERM RENTAL, DEFINES WHAT A SHORT-TERM RENTAL IS, WHICH IS FEWER THAN 30 CONSECUTIVE DAYS. REQUIRES REGISTRATION AND ALLOWS FOR THE LOCALITY, IF THEY DO ESTABLISH THIS TO CHARGE A REASONABLE FEE FOR SUCH REGISTRATION. IT DOES EXEMPT CERTAIN REALTORS, WHO INVOLVE WITH TIME SHARE ACT, I BELIEVE, AND IT ALSO ON THE LAST PAGE, YOU WILL NOTE THAT IT DOES ALLOW A LOCALITY, IF THEY WISH, THEY MAY BY ORDINANCE INCLUDE A PENALTY UP TO, NOT TO EXCEED $500. IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT, NOT A SHALL, IT IS A MAY, AND I WOULD ASK THAT THE HOUSE WOULD PASS THE BILL.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): SHALL THE BILL PASS. THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

Del. Chris Jones (R-Suffolk): AYES 86, NO'S 14.

[Unknown]: AYES 86, NO'S 14, THE BILL IS PASSED. MR. SPEAKER, TURNING TO PAGE 24, FOR SENATE BILL 1285, ON PAGE 24, PRINTED CALENDAR, BEEN TAKING BY TEMPORARILY. THAT IS A BILL TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE CODE RELATING TO RESTITUTION, SUPERVISED PROBATION, REPORT FROM COURTS OF JUSTICE WITH A SUBSTITUTE.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM ALBAMARLE, MR. BELL.

[Unknown]: MR. SPEAKER, I MOVE THE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): QUESTION IS ON ADOPTION OF THE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE, AS MANY AS MANY AS FAVOR THAT MOTION SAY AYE. OPPOSED NO. SUBSTITUTE AGREED TO. GENTLEMAN FROM ALBAMARLE.

[Unknown]: THIS CONFORMS THIS BILL NOW TO HOUSE BILL 1856, WHICH IS MY BILL INVOLVING RESTITUTION THIS IS THE BILL THAT PASSED AND RELATED ISSUES. THIS BODY THE 1-6 -- 9 THE 1-6. THOSE OF YOU TRYING TO STAY CONSISTENT, THERE WERE 6 ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE THAT VOTED NO. HOPE IT BE THE PLEASURE OF THE HOUSE TO PASS THE SUBSTITUTE.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): SHALL THE BILL PASS. THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 78, NO'S 21. AYES 78, NO'S 21, THE BILL IS PASSED. CONTINUING WITH TODAY'S CALENDAR, THE NEXT CATEGORY ON PAGE 26 OF THE PRINTED VERSION, NEXT CATEGORY, HOUSE BILLS WITH SENATE AMENDMENTS. HOUSE BILLS WITH SENATE AMENDMENTS, FIRST BILL BEFORE THE BODY IS HOUSE BILL 1394. A BILL TO AMEND AND REENACT A SECTION OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA RELATING TO THE STATUS OF A FRANCHISEE AND EMPLOYEES OF THE FRANCHISE BILL PASSED THE HOUSE JANUARY 19, SUBSEQUENTLY PASSED THE SENATE WITH A SUBSTITUTE. MR. SPEAKER?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE.

[Unknown]: POINT OF ORDER.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

[Unknown]: MR. SPEAKER, WHEN THIS BILL WAS INITIALLY INTRODUCED, IT ESSENTIALLY WAS A DEFINITIONAL BILL. WHEN IT GOT OVER TO THE SENATE, THE SENATE PUT ON A SUBSTITUTE WHICH INCLUDED A WHOLE DIFFERENT SECTION, IF YOU WILL NOTICE ON 40.10-2.2B, TALKS ABOUT WITH RESPECT TO A SPECIFIC CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER THIS TITLE. SO IT TALKS ABOUT A CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER THIS TITLE, WHICH WOULD TAKE IN THE ENTIRE TITLE OF 40.1. MR. SPEAKER, I HAVE 40.1, JUST THE FIRST CHAPTER, AND THAT IS ABOUT 10 PAJTS LONG, AND INCLUDES -- PAGES LONG, INCLUDES INSPECTIONS, EMPLOYMENT OF IMMIGRANTS, TRAFFICKING, ALL KIND OF NOTICE PROVISIONS. MR. SPEAKER, I THINK THE SENATE SUBSTITUTE GOES WAY BEYOND THE ORIGINAL INTENTION OF THE BILL, WHICH HAS TO DO WITH DEFINING OF THE FRANCHISEE STATUS, AND IS THEREFORE NOT GERM AN TO -- GERMANE TO THE ORIGINAL BILL. GENTLEMAN LIKE TO COME UP?

Comments

Waldo Jaquith writes:

For some background on this bill, read about the 2015 National Labor Relations Board's ruling finding that companies like McDonald's are liable for labor law violations by their franchisees. The ruling is regarded as very good for employees, but big businesses do not like it at all.

Jay A Hufton writes:

Another Republican law designed to make it easier to exploit Virginia's workers and suppress wages.

This law is designed to keep workers from bargaining for fair wages and work conditions with the franchisor who actually controls much of how the business of a franchise is conducted.

Sorry you have to work so many hours for so little pay says the controlling franchisor. There is nothing we can do. You will have to take that up with the franchisee. Now put this uniform on that we require you to wear and conduct yourself in the manor which we require or you're fired. Sounds like a joint employer to me.