The NJBIA (New Jersey Business & Industry Association) and the New Jersey Staffing Alliance have opposed a bill that purports to increase the rights of temporary workers, but not its overarching purpose.
The problem with the bill (S-511/A-1474) is it lacks the critical balance necessary to create sound public policy and garner legislative support, as evidenced by the Senate failing to concur with Gov. Phil Murphy’s conditional veto of it over the past several months.
And in its current form, the bill will decimate segments of an industry that provides greatly for New Jersey’s economy, which will harm the workers it’s trying to help in the long run.
We respect and support the sponsors’ intent to provide more transparency and consistency for temporary laborers, which is why we have been seeking a compromise on certain provisions of the bill.
For starters, throughout the long, winding road of this legislation, we have encouraged temporary workers to work only with registered temporary agencies — as many complaints come from non-registered temporary agencies. We have consistently advocated for workers to report any bad actors to the state Department of Labor, which has extensive authority to penalize through current statutes.
In fact, under the New Jersey Wage Theft Act, employers face extensive fines and even jail time for not paying employees properly.
Additionally, supporters have stated that temporary laborers are not receiving adequate safety training. All businesses, especially those in logistics, are heavily regulated and monitored by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Employers are required to provide appropriate training for workers who face work hazards. Any worker who finds themselves in an unsafe workplace can file complaints with OSHA.
Supporters of the legislation also contend that temporary workers, in some cases, are making less than minimum wage because automatic deductions are being made on temporary agency fees for transportation.
The truth is temporary workers cannot be forced to take transportation that is provided to them through a staffing company if they wish to get to a job site by car or public transportation. And while recognizing that commuting costs are an expense for most workers – temporary or permanent – we support reasonable limits on transportation deductions to ensure no temporary worker is charged beyond the reasonable cost for transportation.
Unfortunately, this legislation, as written, calls for a total ban of transportation fees, which could have the unintended consequence of eliminating the availability of employer-sponsored transportation for those who may really need it to get to a job site and earn a living.
But the biggest issue we have with the legislation, even with the provisions of the governor’s conditional veto, is it mandates that temporary employees receive the same average wages and benefits, or the cash equivalent of the benefits, received by client employees performing similar work.
There are multiple problems with this approach.
First, temporary agencies contract with multiple businesses that offer different benefits packages, which can encompass everything from 401K matches and health insurance to vacation days and life insurance policies. Calculating and providing payment for the average cost of these benefits packages would be logistically unworkable.
Second, and more impactfully, this pay provision could easily result in a temporary worker making more than a permanent employee, creating unfairness by usurping pay scales for staff that are based on seniority and experience.
Finally, this provision would be impossible to implement. The state would have to make a myriad of arbitrary judgments as to which jobs or occupations in society are of comparable economic value, and then mandate that those jobs be compensated at the same rate regardless of marketplace value.
Such a mandate would disrupt longer-term projects, violate market principles and chill the use of flexible staffing arrangements, depriving both workers and businesses of critical flexibility. No other state has such a “comparable worth” law.
States like Illinois and Massachusetts have taken steps to provide further protection and transparency for temporary laborers. But they have done so without including these provisions which would put the viability of temporary help service firms and third-party company relationships at great risk.
There is middle ground to be reached on this bill. There are ways to improve transparency for temporary workers and even provide additional protections, without destroying the staffing industry and harming our economy.
At the end of the day, the employment opportunities provided by staffing agencies are mutually beneficial for workers and employers. Many temporary laborers choose these work arrangements as a way to enter the workforce or find flexible work and many businesses utilize these work arrangements to fill temporary gaps in their labor force.
Enhancing worker protections while ensuring these job opportunities remain in New Jersey is achievable and worth working toward. We remain willing and ready to work with the sponsors to achieve these goals.