OP-ED: Don’t Pick Winners and Losers in Labor Reform

Most congressional Republicans know that America needs conservative labor reform in 2026. But there is debate around how best to achieve it. Some favor carveouts for particular industries, while others realize the only fair solution is to make changes that apply to all sectors. This difference in approach is clear when it comes to debate around two bills: the Save Local Business Act (SLBA) and the American Franchise Act (AFA). While these bills deal with the same fundamental problem, the SLBA would offer broad relief to American businesses while the AFA cherry picks which industries will feel regulatory relief and which won’t. 

For years, under the Obama and Biden administrations, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) aggressively expanded joint employer liability. In doing so, they have held companies liable not just for their own employees, but employees of other companies whom they “indirectly” control through contracts. 

To put it in plain English: If a small business contracts with a larger company—say, for staffing or logistics—the government could treat both companies as an employer, creating a liability minefield in the process. This uncertainty discourages investment, undermines entrepreneurial independence, and invites arbitrary enforcement.

Since as far back as 2015, Republicans have agreed that this anti-business regulatory overreach needs to end, and that Congress should restore a clear, commonsense joint employer standard. The Save Local Business Act does exactly that by applying protections to all industries and business models.

However, following opposition from a small group of dissenters—including union leaders—there is now a push to substitute the SLBA with the American Franchise Act. Despite being well-intentioned, the AFA is a sector-specific carveout that narrowly focuses joint employer reforms on the franchise business model. 

If passed, the AFA would protect big franchise brands, but the bill’s carve outs would leave other industries—such as construction, staffing, grocers, and healthcare—with the same regulatory uncertainty they currently face. Why should a large hotel chain be protected while a local Louisiana construction company is not? If we are going to fix joint employer liability, it should apply to all employers, not just franchises. 

Louisiana is fortunate to be represented by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA). Speaker Johnson and Representative Julia Letlow (R-LA) both championed an earlier version of the Save Local Business Act, recognizing that real reform must protect every employer, not just a select few. Meanwhile, the Republicans in our House delegation have abstained from co-sponsoring the flawed AFA. I hope they will lead their colleagues to support the broad reforms offered by the SLBA.

We also need our Senators Bill Cassidy and John Kennedy to bring that same principled commitment to the upper chamber. They have long stood up for Louisiana businesses against administrative overreach, and they understand that laws must be applied equally, not carved up to benefit specific sectors at the expense of others. 

Together, Louisiana’s federal delegation has the opportunity to make positive reform happen for American small businesses. But it must be done the right way. Rather than picking winners and losers the way the AFA does, Republicans should rally around the Save Local Business Act. 

After all, the principled, conservative path forward is to pass legislation that works for everyone—not just the chosen few. 

Submitted by Darren Justus. Mr. Justus owns Justus Salon in Monroe, LA.