Industry objects to new labor rule, cites extra burden on contractors

Six industry groups are objecting to a new Agriculture Department rule on labor law violations, claiming the rule is redundant and would cause extra work for businesses and contracting officers. The groups made their complaint known in a Jan. 26 letter to department officials.

Under USDA’s rule, companies contracting with the department must certify that they comply with labor laws and that their subcontractors of any tier and their suppliers also comply. It includes reporting requirements for violations and the threat of tough action if there are violations.

The rule was issued Dec. 1 as a direct final rule, amending the Agriculture Acquisition Regulation (AGAR). It takes effect on Feb. 29. In their notice, department officials said they would pull back their final rule, if they received “adverse comments” on it.

In the letter, six business groups, called the Council of Defense and Space Industry Associations, said the government already has 180 federal labor laws, as well as regulations to implement those laws. The government also has numerous offices within the Labor Department, such as the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, to ensure companies abide by the complex web of laws. The council said the USDA officials would have to be careful that they not usurp other agencies' authorities, which could lead to conflicting rulings on enforcement.

The rule would add a significant burden on companies with large numbers of employees and facilities, and with significant numbers of subcontractors and suppliers. They would have to develop procedures to monitor and report on their own compliance with each of the labor laws. Then, companies would have to set up similar procedures to monitor compliance up and down their supply chain.

Contracting officers also would have a lot of extra work as a result of the law. Acquisition officials would be responsible for reviewing reports of noncompliance and taking action against companies. Meanwhile, officials may not have the expertise and resources to interpret and then enforce the myriad labor laws.

The council noted several ambiguities in the rule, such as which labor laws apply to the rule. Another concern was with the compliance clause. When awarded a contract, the prime contractor deems that all its subcontractors and suppliers are complying with labor laws. However, companies often will not have a contractual relationship with its subcontractors until after award.

“We urge USDA to immediately cancel the direct final rule and also withdraw the proposed rule,” the letter said.

The council is comprised of the Aerospace Industries Association, American Council of Engineering Companies, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Defense Industrial Association, Professional Services Council, and TechAmerica.

About the Author

Matthew Weigelt is a freelance journalist who writes about acquisition and procurement.

Reader Comments

Mon, Apr 23, 2012 Olde Sarge DC

Any and every "requirement" has been, is and will be found "objectionable" bye "industry". Perhaps that is why they are called rgulations? Regulations become necessary when "industry" fails to self-regulate within the guidelines established by law. At that point, those tasked with regulating must step in with enforcement rules. The reason these "new" requirements are being enacted is that the greatest violators of illegal immigrant employment lie within the "industries" that fall under the FDA's regulatory regime. Stop hiring illegals and the additional rules wont be necessary. If a business contracts with another business to perform a service (in this case provide labor) it is not excused from ensuring that the subcontractors comply with the same laws it would be required to follow. Out of sight, out of mind does not apply. If this is too burdensome, hire your own employees and do it yourself.

Tue, Jan 31, 2012 SPMayor Summit Point, WV

An interesting note : Agriculture posted the proposed rule notice on the same day [page74755] as the direct final rule [page 74722] with the final rule notice being published first in that day's Federal Register. In my view, either someone did a shoddy job of meeting their responsibilities or there was purposeful mis-direction. As a minimum I can only conclude someone was hoping to slip-in a requirement that they surmised would be found objectionable by industry.

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above.

What is your e-mail address?

My e-mail address is:

Do you have a password?

Forgot your password? Click here

Washington Technology Daily

Sign up for our newsletter.

Terms and Privacy Policy consent

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.


contracts DB