National Worker Cooperative Development and Support Act
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17]
ID: K000389
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
Introduced
đź“Ť Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
đź“š How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another exercise in legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce and expose its true nature.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The National Worker Cooperative Development and Support Act (HR 5958) claims to promote worker-owned cooperative businesses by directing federal agencies to develop and support these entities. The bill's primary objective is to create a framework for the growth of worker cooperatives, supposedly to benefit workers and the economy.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill establishes a United States Council on Worker Cooperatives, which will coordinate federal efforts to support worker-owned cooperative businesses. It also requires various agencies to implement programs, review regulations, and provide education and outreach to promote these businesses. The Small Business Administration will develop educational materials and an outreach program, while the Secretary of Labor will chair the council.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill affects worker cooperatives, federal agencies, small business owners, and workers in general. However, let's not be naive – the real stakeholders are the politicians who sponsored this bill and their corporate donors, who will likely benefit from the increased access to capital and government contracts that these cooperatives will receive.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "regulatory capture," where special interest groups (in this case, worker cooperatives) use government regulations to gain an unfair advantage over their competitors. The bill's provisions will likely lead to:
1. Increased bureaucracy and regulatory burdens on small businesses. 2. Favoritism towards worker cooperatives, potentially stifling competition from other business models. 3. Misallocation of resources, as federal agencies prioritize supporting these cooperatives over more effective economic development strategies.
The real disease here is the politicians' addiction to pandering to special interest groups and their donors. This bill is a symptom of that disease – a desperate attempt to appear pro-worker while actually serving the interests of those who fund their campaigns.
In medical terms, this bill would be diagnosed as "Acute Regulatory Capture Syndrome," characterized by an excessive growth of bureaucratic tissue, favoritism towards special interest groups, and a complete disregard for the well-being of the general public. The prognosis is poor, with symptoms likely to worsen over time unless drastic measures are taken to address the underlying corruption.
Now, let's watch as our esteemed politicians pat themselves on the back for "supporting workers" while their corporate donors reap the benefits. It's a never-ending cycle of legislative theater, and we're all just pawns in their game.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Donor Network - Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 18 nodes and 21 connections
Total contributions: $188,900
Top Donors - Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17]
Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 591 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies qualify as an independent contractor or employee under the FLSA and NLRA. The Biden Administration is replacing those rules with vague and expansive definitions that would add uncertainty, increase costs, and reduce options for Americans who want to work independently. l NLRB and DOL should return to their 2019 and 2021 independent contractor rules that provided much-needed clarity for workers and employers. l Congress should establish a bright-line test—based on the level of control an individual exercises over his or her work—to determine whether a payee is an employee or an independent contractor, across all relevant laws. This would prevent continued uncertainty as well as provide continuity across federal laws. l Congress should provide a safe harbor from employer-employee status for companies that offer independent workers access to earned benefits. Doing so would increase access among independent contractors to traditional pooled workplace benefits such as health care and retirement savings accounts. Protect Small Businesses and Entrepreneurship (Joint Employer). Millions of busi- nesses across America engage in mutually beneficial affiliation arrangements with other businesses. These arrangements include janitorial services, staffing firms, construction contractors and subcontractors, technology support services, and many other vendor and contracting services. They also include the nearly 775,000 independently owned franchise businesses, which employ 8.2 million workers across the United States. The franchise structure offers a proven business model for individuals who want to own and operate their own small business. An Obama-era regulation changed the definition of a joint employer to make corporate franchi- sors jointly liable for employees of individual franchisee owners, even without the franchisor exercising any direct control over those employees. The Biden Admin- istration is advancing an even more expansive definition of a joint employer that would upend the franchise business model, taking away ownership and income opportunities from small-business entrepreneurs, costing jobs, and raising prices. l DOL and NLRB should return to the long-standing approach to defining joint employers based on direct and immediate control. l Congress should enact the Save Local Business Act, which would codify the long-standing definition that has existed outside the Obama-era and Biden-proposed rules.
Introduction
— 591 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies qualify as an independent contractor or employee under the FLSA and NLRA. The Biden Administration is replacing those rules with vague and expansive definitions that would add uncertainty, increase costs, and reduce options for Americans who want to work independently. l NLRB and DOL should return to their 2019 and 2021 independent contractor rules that provided much-needed clarity for workers and employers. l Congress should establish a bright-line test—based on the level of control an individual exercises over his or her work—to determine whether a payee is an employee or an independent contractor, across all relevant laws. This would prevent continued uncertainty as well as provide continuity across federal laws. l Congress should provide a safe harbor from employer-employee status for companies that offer independent workers access to earned benefits. Doing so would increase access among independent contractors to traditional pooled workplace benefits such as health care and retirement savings accounts. Protect Small Businesses and Entrepreneurship (Joint Employer). Millions of busi- nesses across America engage in mutually beneficial affiliation arrangements with other businesses. These arrangements include janitorial services, staffing firms, construction contractors and subcontractors, technology support services, and many other vendor and contracting services. They also include the nearly 775,000 independently owned franchise businesses, which employ 8.2 million workers across the United States. The franchise structure offers a proven business model for individuals who want to own and operate their own small business. An Obama-era regulation changed the definition of a joint employer to make corporate franchi- sors jointly liable for employees of individual franchisee owners, even without the franchisor exercising any direct control over those employees. The Biden Admin- istration is advancing an even more expansive definition of a joint employer that would upend the franchise business model, taking away ownership and income opportunities from small-business entrepreneurs, costing jobs, and raising prices. l DOL and NLRB should return to the long-standing approach to defining joint employers based on direct and immediate control. l Congress should enact the Save Local Business Act, which would codify the long-standing definition that has existed outside the Obama-era and Biden-proposed rules. — 592 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Overtime Pay Threshold. Overtime pay is one of the most challenging aspects of the Fair Labor Standards Act rules. “Nonexempt workers” (e.g., workers whose job duties fall within the law’s power or whose total pay is low enough) must be paid overtime (150 percent of the “regular rate”) for every hour over 40 in a work- week. Overtime requirements may discourage employers from offering certain fringe benefits such as reimbursement for education, childcare, or even free meals because the benefits’ value may be included in the “regular rate” that must be paid at 150 percent for all overtime hours. And because some of these fringe ben- efits may be more valuable (and often come with tax preferences that benefit the worker), the goal should be to set a threshold to ensure lower-income workers have the protections of overtime pay without discouraging employers from offering these benefits. l DOL should maintain an overtime threshold that does not punish businesses in lower-cost regions (e.g., the southeast United States). The Trump-era threshold is high enough to capture most line workers in lower-cost regions. One possibility to consider (likely requiring congressional action) would be to automatically update the thresholds every five years using the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) as an inflation adjustment. This could reduce the likelihood of a future Administration attempting to make significant changes but would also impose more adjustments on businesses as those automatic increases take hold. l Congress should clarify that the “regular rate” for overtime pay is based on the salary paid rather than all benefits provided. This would enable employers to offer additional benefits to employees without fear that those benefits would dramatically increase overtime pay. l Congress should provide flexibility to employers and employees to calculate the overtime period over a longer number of weeks. Specifically, employers and employees should be able to set a two- or four- week period over which to calculate overtime. This would give workers greater flexibility to work more hours in one week and fewer hours in the next and would not require the employer to pay them more for that same total number of hours of work during the entire period. Compliance-Assistance Programming. Labor agencies are often tempted to encourage “over compliance” by companies subject to regulation by pursuing “regulation through enforcement” strategies. Rather than giving regulated enti- ties clear boundaries for what they can and cannot do under the law, the agencies
Introduction
— 604 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise argue that the next Administration should end Project Labor Agreement require- ments and repeal the Davis–Bacon Act. And while some conservatives have chosen not to address massive federal subsidies for unionized labor, others believe that current laws and regulations that pick winners and losers to the detriment of the majority of construction workers and to all taxpayers should not be ignored. Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) are short-term collective bargaining agreements that apply to construction projects. There are a few reasons that con- struction projects may benefit from a PLA, and there are many reasons that even when actively encouraged to do so public construction projects have declined to use PLAs. Among the consequences: The majority of construction firms and construction workers are not unionized and their temporary forced unionization results in large-scale wage theft; construction companies are significantly less likely to bid on projects with PLAs; and PLAs consistently drive up construction costs by 10 percent to 30 percent. The Davis–Bacon Act23 requires federally financed construction projects to pay “prevailing wages.” In theory, these wages should reflect going market rates for construction labor in the relevant area. However, both the Government Account- ability Office and the Department of Labor’s Inspector General have repeatedly criticized the Labor Department for using self-selected, statistically unrepresenta- tive samples to calculate the prevailing-wage rates that drive up the cost of federal construction by about 10 percent. The Davis–Bacon Act redistributes wealth from hardworking Americans to those that benefit from government-funded construc- tion projects. Repealing the Davis–Bacon Act would increase worker freedom and end a longstanding effective tax on American families. l End PLA requirements. Agencies should end all mandatory Project Labor Agreement requirements and base federal procurement decisions on the contractors that can deliver the best product at the lowest cost. l Repeal Davis–Bacon. Congress should enact the Davis–Bacon Repeal Act and allow markets to determine market wages. THE STATES Worker-led Benefits Experimentation. Workers depend on unemployment benefits to navigate inevitable market frictions and seek new employment oppor- tunities. But existing unemployment insurance (UI) is bureaucratic, ineffective, and unaccountable. The outdated system’s myriad failures during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for innovations that respond to recipients’ needs. The most promising avenue for innovation is to involve workers and private-sec- tor organizations more directly, freed from unnecessary bureaucratic strictures. Americans take for granted that unemployment benefits must be administered by — 605 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies government agencies, but other Western market democracies feature effective and popular benefits administered by non-public worker organizations. The next conservative Administration should encourage UI innovation by capi- talizing on a key feature of the system and principle of conservative policymaking: federalism. State governments already administer unemployment benefits and have broad discretion over their programs. Existing statutory language in the Social Security Act24 does not prohibit non-public organizations from administering the program, nor does it specifically authorize states to do so. Further, the Adminis- tration can replicate state-level experiments in welfare programs and empower state officials to adapt UI to local conditions and needs. l Approve non-public worker organizations as UI administrators. DOL should approve, pursuant to § 303(a)(2) of the Social Security Act, non- public worker organizations as administrators. l Offer waivers for suitable alternatives. DOL should offer waivers from the standard requirements imposed on unemployment compensation by § 303(a) and § 303(d) of the Social Security Act to states that propose suitable alternatives. l Require organizations to comply with restrictions on political spending. DOL should establish as a precondition for receiving any public funds a requirement that an organization comply with restrictions on political spending as applied to 501(c)(3) charitable organizations. Labor Law. The federal laws governing labor-management relations have barely changed in generations, and reforms on the federal level have been almost impossible to get through Congress. To modernize labor law, the Congress should: l Pass legislation allowing waivers for states and local governments. To encourage experimentation and reform efforts at the state and local levels, Congress should pass legislation allowing waivers from federal labor laws like the NLRA and FLSA under certain conditions. State and local governments seeking waivers would be required to demonstrate that their reforms would accomplish the purpose of the underlying law, and not take away any current rights held by workers or employers. In addition, waivers would be limited to a five-year period, after which time they could be modified, canceled, or renewed. Excessive Occupational Regulation. Excessive occupational regulation— most typically encountered as occupational licensing—creates underemployment
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.