Bloomin' Blinds
BusinessSupport
Joint employer status factors
Joint Employer Status under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act
WHD-2026-0067-0001Proposed Rule
Comments
259
Last activity Jun 8, 2026
Deadline
Closed on Jun 23, 2026
Closed Jun 23, 2026
Net supportiSupport minus oppose · campaigns included
+77%
+77% excluding campaigns
Document
Details
The document's own metadata, straight from the source system.
- Title
- Joint Employer Status under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act
- Posted
- Apr 23, 2026
- Comment period
- Apr 23, 2026 – Jun 23, 2026
- FR Doc
- 2026-07959
- CFR
- 29 CFR Parts 500, 780, 791, and 825
- Topics
Analysis
Overview
What the public is saying — stance, who's commenting, and the issues they raise.
Include campaigns
Stance breakdown
+77%
Net support
Support228Oppose28Other3
Aggregates include form-letter campaigns. Excluding them, net support is +77% across organic comments.
Who commented
Breakdown by commenter type.
Union
1
Business
128
Government
3
Individual
59
Trade association
29
Advocacy
39
Comments over time
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
Posted Apr 23, 2026Deadline Jun 23, 2026
Apr 20May 11Jun 1Jun 15Jun 22
Support228Oppose28Other3
Support × commenter type
How each type splits across stance.
Support
Oppose
Other
Business
99%
1%
0%
Individual
85%
10%
5%
Advocacy
62%
38%
0%
Trade association
93%
7%
0%
Government
0%
100%
0%
Union
0%
100%
0%
Issues raised
The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.
Joint employer status factors195
Labor violations and human trafficking6
Joint employment wage standards5
Contractor pay and benefits3
Immigration enforcement and audits2
Data privacy and job posting transparency1
Federally mandated paid maternity leave1
Offshore consulting firm practices1
Payout amount adjustment1
Recruitment process transparency and security1
Position map
Who stands where on each issue?
Every non-silent position is backed by an excerpt from the comment.
Issues shown
Choose up to five.
| Organization | Joint employer status factors | Contractor pay and benefits | Labor violations and human trafficking |
|---|---|---|---|
Bloomin' Blinds BusinessSupport Kristopher Stuart, CEO of Bloomin' Blinds Franchise Corp., supports the proposed rule but requests further clarification | · | · | |
California Farm Bureau AdvocacySupport The California Farm Bureau supports the proposed rule because it provides a clearer, more straightforward four-factor te | · | · | |
Center for Law and Social Policy AdvocacyOppose The Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it improperly narrows the joint emp | · | · | |
East Coast Wings + Grill BusinessSupport East Coast Wings + Grill, a restaurant franchise, supports the proposed rule but requests specific refinements to ensure | · | · | |
First Service Brands BusinessSupport FirstService Brands supports the proposed rule but requests specific clarifications to ensure that reserved contractual | · | · | |
Independent Women AdvocacySupport The Independent Women’s Center for Economic Opportunity supports the proposed rule because it reinstates a clear, consis | · | · | |
Institute for the American Worker AdvocacySupport The Institute for the American Worker (I4AW), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, supports the Proposed Rule because it provides regu | · | · | |
Justice for Migrant Women AdvocacyOppose Justice for Migrant Women opposes the proposed regulations, arguing that they inaccurately narrow the definition of join | · | · | |
Main Street Foundation Center for Regulatory Analysis and Engagement AdvocacySupport The Main Street Foundation’s Center for Regulatory Analysis and Engagement (CRAE) supports the Department of Labor's eff | · | · | |
McDonald's Hispanic Owner-Operators Association Trade associationSupport The McDonald’s Hispanic Owner-Operators Association (MHOA), representing Hispanic-American small business owners, suppor | · | · | |
National Association of Manufacturers Trade associationSupport The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) supports the proposed rule, stating that it provides necessary regulator | · | · | |
National Council of Agricultural Employers (NCAE) Trade associationSupport The National Council of Agricultural Employers (NCAE) supports the Department's effort to provide clarity on joint emplo | · | · | |
Open Markets Institute AdvocacyOppose The Open Markets Institute opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it allows large corporations to evade responsibility | · | · | |
Oregon Law Center AdvocacyOppose The Oregon Law Center, a non-profit legal services organization, opposes the proposed rule because it narrows the scope | · | ||
Signatory Wall and Ceiling Contractors Alliance Trade associationOppose The Signatory Wall and Ceiling Contractors Alliance (SWACCA), a national trade association representing construction ind | · | · | |
SMART and SMACNA Trade associationOppose The International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART) and the Sheet Metal and Air C | · | ||
The Sunray Companies BusinessSupport The owners of Sunray Companies, a multi-brand franchise business, support the proposed joint-employer rule because it re | · | · |
California Farm Bureau
AdvocacySupport
Joint employer status factors
Center for Law and Social Policy
AdvocacyOppose
Joint employer status factors
East Coast Wings + Grill
BusinessSupport
Joint employer status factors
First Service Brands
BusinessSupport
Joint employer status factors
Independent Women
AdvocacySupport
Joint employer status factors
Institute for the American Worker
AdvocacySupport
Joint employer status factors
Justice for Migrant Women
AdvocacyOppose
Joint employer status factors
Main Street Foundation Center for Regulatory Analysis and Engagement
AdvocacySupport
Joint employer status factors
McDonald's Hispanic Owner-Operators Association
Trade associationSupport
Joint employer status factors
National Association of Manufacturers
Trade associationSupport
Joint employer status factors
National Council of Agricultural Employers (NCAE)
Trade associationSupport
Joint employer status factors
Open Markets Institute
AdvocacyOppose
Joint employer status factors
Oregon Law Center
AdvocacyOppose
Joint employer status factors
Labor violations and human trafficking
Signatory Wall and Ceiling Contractors Alliance
Trade associationOppose
Joint employer status factors
SMART and SMACNA
Trade associationOppose
Joint employer status factors
Contractor pay and benefits
The Sunray Companies
BusinessSupport
Joint employer status factors
4 organization-typed comments could not be identified.
Comments
Explorer
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
Filter:
- Jun 22, 2026American Civil Liberties Union Women's Rights ProjectOpposeAdvocacy📎 Attachment
A coalition of 29 organizations is opposing the Department of Labor's proposed rule on joint employer status, arguing that it improperly narrows the standard for determining joint employment. They contend that the rule undermines statutory protections for workers—particularly women in "fissured" workplaces—by allowing companies to avoid liability for wage theft and other labor violations.
Read comment → - Jun 22, 2026Oregon Law CenterOpposeAdvocacy📎 Attachment
The Oregon Law Center, a non-profit legal services organization, opposes the proposed rule because it narrows the scope of joint employer protections and moves away from the "economic reality" framework. They argue that the rule allows employers to evade responsibility for labor violations by using contractors and will negatively impact agricultural workers who are economically dependent on the primary business.
Read comment → - Jun 22, 2026National Center for Law and Economic JusticeOpposeAdvocacy📎 Attachment
The National Center for Law and Economic Justice (NCLEJ) opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it improperly narrows the joint employer standard and undermines workers' access to statutory rights under the FLSA, FMLA, and AWPA. They contend that the rule favors employers who use subcontracting to evade liability and will disproportionately harm vulnerable workers, particularly women and people of color in "fissured" industries like home care and agriculture.
Read comment → - Jun 22, 2026Economic Policy InstituteOpposeAdvocacy📎 Attachment
The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it weakens labor standards and would cost workers approximately $1 billion annually. They contend that the rule incentivizes "workplace fissuring" and increases wage theft by allowing large employers to avoid liability for violations committed by subcontractors or franchisees.
Read comment → - Apr 24, 2026OVERSEAS RETURNEES ASSOCIATION (ORA)SupportAdvocacy📎 Attachment
The Overseas Returnees Association (ORA), representing former Ugandan security specialists, supports the enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to address alleged labor violations by a private contractor. They argue that the contractor willfully violated minimum wage, overtime, and sick leave provisions while exploiting workers in a war zone.
Read comment → - Jun 22, 2026Comment from U.S. SenateOpposeGovernment📎 Attachment
United States Senators Markey, Sanders, Blumenthal, and Murray oppose the proposed rule, arguing it weakens the Department of Labor's ability to hold large employers accountable for wage theft and labor violations. They contend that the rule unfairly burdens small businesses while allowing large corporations to evade responsibility for the "fissured workplace" model.
Read comment →