In the decision, the Board applies long-established principles to find that two or more entities are joint employers of a single workforce if (1) they are both employers within the meaning of the common law; and (2) they share or codetermine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment. In evaluating whether an employer possesses sufficient control over employees to qualify as a joint employer, the Board will – among other factors -- consider whether an employer has exercised control over terms and conditions of employment indirectly through an intermediary, or whether it has reserved the authority to do so.

In the case of McDonald's, roughly 90 percent of its locations are actually run by franchisees, who are typically considered the workers' employers. One of the main reasons companies choose to franchise or to outsource work to staffing agencies is to shift workplace responsibilities onto someone else. But if a fast-food brand or a hotel chain can be deemed a "joint employer" along with the smaller company, it can be dragged into labor disputes and negotiations that it conveniently wouldn't have to worry about otherwise. In theory, such a precedent could even make it easier for workers to unionize as employees under the larger parent company.

Rampant use of subcontractors or franchises is one of the key ways companies get away with workplace abuses and avoid union organizing drives. "Hey, we're not the employer of these workers who work entirely in our facility," the claim goes. "The staffing agency/franchisee is responsible for abuses, and if workers want to organize, they have to negotiate with said staffing agency/franchisee!" But thanks to a National Labor Relations Board decision issued Thursday , that dodge is getting a lot harder.In short, if you have control over how the work is done and the workers are paid and so on, you are a joint employer. That means that, in this particular case, Browning Ferris Industries will have to join its subcontractor at the bargaining table with the Teamsters. Dave Jamieson explains some of the possible ramifications of the decision, which was three to two along partisan lines, beyond BFI:McDonald's has already faced being considered as a joint employer in some cases, but now that could be dramatically expanded. Business lobby groups are predictably howling, but it's not an outlandish principle that if a company has control over what workers in its sites are paid, what schedules they work, and their working conditions, it should be considered their employer.