Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Friday, May 6, 2011

McKenna Mimics Walker On Paid Sick Leave

Posted by on Fri, May 6, 2011 at 10:53 AM

A couple months ago I asked "Could Washington Be the Next Wisconsin?," comparing 2012 GOP gubernatorial frontrunner Rob McKenna to the Badger State's profoundly anti-labor Gov. Scott Walker, a thesis that many of McKenna's admirers in our local media scoffed at. But it's a resemblance that's all the more striking in light of the two conservative Republicans' recent actions on the issue of paid sick leave.

Yesterday, Gov. Walker burnished his anti-worker reputation, signing a Republican sponsored bill that preempts Milwaukee's paid sick leave law, a popular measure that had been approved via referendum in 2008 by nearly 70 percent of local voters. Walker's bill prohibits local governments from passing ordinances guaranteeing paid sick and family leave, but was clearly targeted at Democratic Milwaukee, which was the only city in the state to have passed such an ordinance, and one of only three cities nationwide, including Washington D.C. and San Francisco.

As it turns out, Seattle may soon become the fourth US city to mandate paid sick leave, with an ordinance to that effect soon to be introduced before the City Council. Currently, more than 40 percent of Seattle workers get no paid sick leave benefits at all, creating a hardship on workers and their families, and a public health risk for those customers with whom these workers come in contact... a status quo McKenna now says he adamantly supports.

Speaking to the Seattle Restaurant Alliance this week, as reported on the Washington Restaurant Association's own website, the state Attorney General even offered his office's assistance in opposing Seattle's proposed paid sick leave proposal:

[Y]ou’ve certainly got your work cut out for you in Olympia, not to mention in Seattle now with this new proposal for mandatory paid sick leave,” McKenna told the group, explaining that he would explore the possibility of his office’s assistance.

“We’ll look at it, and see if there’s some way we can help reinforce the WRA’s position, maybe by asking them to withdraw the proposed rulemaking.”

[...] McKenna urged the operators to take a coalition approach in responding to the the sick leave proposal, recommending that the industry “get big fast” by linking arms with other employers and demonstrating how this idea could be detrimental to the city’s economy.

It's a position entirely consistent with McKenna's anti-worker resume, but what should be most alarming to local voters is McKenna's eagerness to use his state office to interfere with local, Seattle policy. It's not enough for Republicans like Walker and McKenna to deny workers rights and benefits at the state level; given the chance they'll do whatever they can to prevent local governments and local voters from filling the gap and taking care of their own.

Voters here in Seattle need to remember this in 2012, or suffer the inevitable consequences of an anti-worker/anti-Seattle McKenna administration.

 

Comments (9) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Cui Bono 1
OK, I'm convinced McKenna is running for governor, this is just another step. But where is he getting this moxy? Is he expecting the smart-rich-white-man/dumb-poor-white-man vote to rocket him to victory?

I love it when people consider offering paid sick leave a REVOLUTIONARY idea. Thanks to the town halls from 2009, health care is still not in the national interest.. People mock the FLOTUS for pointing out that hey, maybe we're all a little too fat if we're having to design new sports stadiums with wider seating. Here they scream for privatized liquor because the right to drink ourselves to death is more important than the basic right to life. What QUALITY of life do we want for ourselves?.

Republicans want poor people to have shitty access to health care and then work themselves ragged until they are forced to die in an emergency room because "You weren't going to vote for us anyway, you have no money to donate to our campaigns, you've no underage Thai girls to fellate our penises/diddle our Skittles, so why should we give a flying fuck about you?"

HOW are people buying into this bullshit?

What do Republicans expect people to do when they get sick? Would the Attorney General be willing to take unpaid sick days to help our budget woes? We are literally watching the country move backwards.
Posted by Cui Bono on May 6, 2011 at 11:21 AM
2
They appear to be counting on the Fox-news-watching, not-big-on-thinking-for-themselves crowd to swallow their crap hook, line, and sinker the way that they always have. Honestly, if you can believe God made the world 6000 years ago over the course of 7 days and that Jesus loves everyone except the muslims and gays (and historically blacks, jews, etc.), then it isn't exactly a stretch to believe that Republicans have your best interests at heart and that sick people are only sick because we allow gay people to exist.
Posted by bpinsea on May 6, 2011 at 12:17 PM
3
How many sick days has McKenna taken as a public employee? Anyone able to find out?
Posted by Daniel K on May 6, 2011 at 12:35 PM
Donolectic 4
Let's just start calling him a Scott Walker Republican and use that as a preface for everything "Just today Scott Walker republican McKenna said he'd..."
Posted by Donolectic on May 6, 2011 at 12:59 PM
Timrrr 5
The stupidest thing about all that is that businesses in the restaurant & entertainment industries will benefit the most from universal paid sick leave!

Right now, when a part time worker gets sick and can't work, they loose wages for the days they miss. That short term reduction in income impacts their spending -- but the impact isn't realized equally across all types of spending.

The worker who's minus a couple day's pay can't pay less in rent for the month, or for utilities, or transportation, or any of the other numerous fixed costs in their family's budget. Instead, those lost wages come out of spending in the very industries that are bitching the most about this legislation: dining out & entertainment!

When random Jane Part-Time-Worker-Mom has to stay home cuz her daughter has a 103 degree fever -- and she can't use sick leave to compensate for her lost hours -- it means she's can't afford go out for dinner that extra time the following week. Or go to a movie or out to a club on Saturday night. She won't be buying that extra latte or indulging herself in that overpriced cupcake or locally-sourced specialty ice cream cone.

The manufacturing, construction, industrial, engineering, software, office, etc sectors of the local economy don't suffer a wit when the part-time worker misses a day's pay. But the restaurant/entertainment sector takes it in the ass every. single. time!

So for the price of a few days sick pay a year for their dozen or so employees, the restaurant owners get a whole fucking city full of part time workers with money to spend at their businesses during the otherwise slow winter, cold & flu season here in Seattle. You'd think it would be a no brainer!

I guess someone really needs to teach these short-sighted idiots how to think in their own enlightened self interest for a change!

More...
Posted by Timrrr on May 6, 2011 at 1:02 PM
6
Why is a paid sick leave law pro-worker?

Look, an employer cares how much he pays for the labor he gets. If he pays $X total, he doesn't care if that's $X in wages and $0 in paid sick leave, or $(X-Y) in wages and $Y in paid sick leave. If a business's workers would prefer to get $Y of their compensation in the form of paid sick leave, they probably already do, since the employer doesn't care how his $X get spent. Mandating $Y of paid sick leave just changes the mix; it doesn't give workers an overall pay raise to $(X+Y).

A paid sick leave law may benefit public health by encouraging potentially infectious workers to stay home. It may benefit the less healthy workers who use sick leave, at the expense of the more healthy workers who don't. But there is no reason to think that it raises the overall benefit level of workers as a whole.
Posted by David Wright on May 6, 2011 at 1:09 PM
Timrrr 7
@David:
If a business's workers would prefer to get $Y of their compensation in the form of paid sick leave, they probably already do...

1) You assume part-time workers have a say in the ratios of their compensation (pay vs. benefits, X vs. Y) at their place of employment. WA is a "right to work" state. There is absolutely no evidence to support such a bold assumption on your part.

2) X has a low-end limit of the minimum wage, so for those at the bottom end of the pay scale, as many part-time workers are, for every single one of them: (X+Y) > X
Posted by Timrrr on May 6, 2011 at 4:02 PM
8
Timrrr@7:

1. WA is not a right-to-work state. But it doesn't actually matter one way or ther other, because workers are free to tell their employer that they would prefer an alternative mix of compensation regardless of whether they are in a right-to-work state or not. And if the cost to the employer is truely the same, why wouldn't the employer agree? If you can make your employees happier, and you get the same work for the same cost, that's a win.

2. Yes, minimum wage laws do impose a lower bound on X-Y. One possible employer response to that would be to increase total compensation so as to meet both the minimum wage and minimum paid sick leave mandates. Of course, another possible response is to conclude that employing this person is no longer profitable.
Posted by David Wright on May 6, 2011 at 5:29 PM
9
We can't forget that is businesses (large and small) will just pass on the added cost to us, the consumer. So I might get 9 of paid sick days a year, but I will be paying more every time I go out for dinner, drinks or get groceries.

When it comes right down to it, we will have to be paying our own sick days-
Posted by justonevoice on May 13, 2011 at 8:35 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy