You must not be in California, where the labor laws are so stacked in favor of employees it is absurd. For example, if there is a wage and hour dispute, and employee can file a complaint with the DLSE. The first meeting is a settlement hearing, not one in which the facts are presented and discussed. IOW, the employer is guilty by default. If no settlement is reached, the employee can decide whether to go to a judgement hearing, or just sue. If the employee doesn't have a case, he or she will sue, paying their lawyer on a contingency basis. Because it costs so much to defend in court, employers are usually forced to settle for a 5 figure number. The employee doesn't incur much risk since we do not have "loser pays" in our legal system. I'm not saying that is always bad, but it does have an impact. Notice also that the NLRB just ruled franchise parents can be considered to be in the "dual employer" role. That means plaintiffs attorneys have deeper pockets to go after, so there will be a lot more of this litigation.
The cold result of this is that it becomes much more difficult for people with limited work skills or employment history to get a job. For an employer, it simply is not worth the risk. Of course the laws were put in place to protect employees against unscrupulous employers, but the reality is that the people who need jobs the most are the least likely to get them now. This is an unmentioned reason why we have a growing underclass of unemployed people. Ellen Pao has become one of these individuals since she is now known to be litigious and therefore an unacceptable risk. She might get a job at a non-profit, though, since non-profit directors have special immunities.