Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Shadowy Business Interests Protest Paid Sick Leave for Workers

Posted by on Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:43 PM

A local human resources association and other unnamed, frowny-faced business interests have formed a coalition to block new, progressive city legislation that would mandate that all Seattle businesses offer their employees paid sick leave. Tonight at 5:30 p.m., masked members will be present to speak against the legislation at a public hearing at City Hall.

Citing a recent study produced by the conservative earnestly non-partisan Washington Policy Center, the so-called Reasonable Employment and Legislation Coalition (or REAL Coalition) claims that the proposed legislation would cost Seattle businesses $100 million a year*, would cripple Seattle's competitiveness with Bellevue and neighboring cities, and ultimately cause "a majority" of businesses leave Seattle, according to coalition spokesman David Black.

Instead of passing the legislation, Black calls on city council members to commission an "independent economic impact study before deciding the issue" in a July 5 press release (.pdf). Black says he's "not at liberty to say" who's joined the coalition, which is spearheaded by the Society of Human Resources Management.

"A majority of businesses are telling me that they're considering moving out of the city [if this legislation passes]," says Black when reached by phone today. He adds that "I think it's possible" downtown could become a ghost town.

But Marilyn Watkins, policy director of the Economic Opportunity Institute—which has helped craft the legislation with city officials and small business owners—says that the ghost town claim, among others, is an empty threat meant to generate hysteria.

*The WPC study actually estimates the legislation could collectively cost Seattle business owners between $30 and $90 million annually.

"The majority of businesses, anchoring our downtown business district already provide paid sick leave for their workers," says Watkins. "That's not going to change." She admits that "there will be some cost to businesses" but context is key.

Take the REAL Coalition's inflated claim* that it will cost businesses $100 million annually. According to the most recent data taken from the 2007 Economic Census, "Seattle payrolls generate $13 billion a year," Watkins explains. "Gross receipts for businesses—the total operating costs for businesses—are in the neighborhood of $52 billion. $100 million? That's a drop in the bucket. It's a fraction of a percentage."

Anecdotally, Molly Moon's ice cream shop owner Molly Neitzel—who voluntarily offers paid sick leave to her employees—reports that, “Less than 10 total hours have been used over three months by a staff of 48 employees," costing her a little more than $100.

Put another way: "There's absolutely no evidence that there's a negative impact on businesses," Watkins says. "What we have found is what’s good for their workers is good for the business. Morale is higher, productivity is higher."

Furthermore, calls for more studies is nothing but a transparent tactic aimed to kill the legislation. "There would never be a good time, a good day that would convince these people that it’s time to act," says Watkins. "I suspect the reason these people don’t want to be named is an ideological opposition to workers having any power. It's a hard place to argue from. Nobody wants to go on record as saying that people should be forced to go to work sick, or families should be punished for getting sick. No one wants to go on record saying that. They’d rather hide behind these 'we need more studies' slogans when, from what we've seen, the legislation is very popular with Seattle voters."

 

Comments (24) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Hmmm. Conservative flack uses fear and misinformation to advance his employer's policy interests. Par for the course.
Posted by moretent on July 6, 2011 at 3:56 PM
2
I never went to business school, but I'm pretty sure that "gross receipts" are not the same as "total operating costs".

Net profit is the number that matters, since that's what will be paying for this benefit.
Posted by Westside forever on July 6, 2011 at 4:00 PM
3
it's morale, right?
\end nitpicking
Posted by InfinitePest on July 6, 2011 at 4:02 PM
Zebes 4
WHAT

WHAT

I WOULD RATHER PACK UP MY BUSINESS AND LEAVE TOWN ENTIRELY THAN PAY MY SERVERS NOT TO BLOW SNOT ALL OVER THE FOOD FOR A FEW DAYS EACH YEAR

I am taking my business ELSEWHERE, SEATTLE. Enjoy your fucking GHOST TOWN
Posted by Zebes http://www.badrap.org/rescue/index.html on July 6, 2011 at 4:04 PM
5
Gonna leave if it passes? Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

And good riddance.
Posted by suddenlyorcas on July 6, 2011 at 4:06 PM
JF 6
Here's how I know Watkins is full of shit: she won't go into business for herself and offer paid time off for free. If she's so convinced that offering paid time off makes a better businesss, she would enter the market place, steal all the good employess by offering more money and better benefits, and completely crush the competition. But she won't, because she's only concerned with other people's money and how they should spend it.

Why doesn't Cienna pose the question "Marilyn, you seem to know what's best for other business', why aren't you in business for yourself?"
Posted by JF on July 6, 2011 at 4:11 PM
Cienna Madrid 7
@3, fixed, thanks!

@6, your question is stupid.
Posted by Cienna Madrid on July 6, 2011 at 4:26 PM
8
Why can't people have a couple hundred bucks put aside for days that they can't come to work? Why do I, as a small business owner, have to pay twice to cover the same shift? I'm their employer, not their fucking master - I'm not responsible for every facet of their well-being and I shouldn't have to pay them when they don't work. If someone can't figure out how to have a small rainy day fund in the state that has the highest minimum wage, they pretty much suck at life.
Posted by ablex on July 6, 2011 at 4:32 PM
9
Marilyn is great; always has been.

I once worked for a legislator, and lobbyists would regularly button-hole him in private to plead their case. He always told them to come to the committee hearing, identify who they are working for (who's paying their salary), and make their case in public. If they didn't, he would assume they were not serious.

I hope City Councilmembers have similar attitudes.
Posted by Citizen R on July 6, 2011 at 4:33 PM
JF 10
@7 My question cuts to the truth of both your and her bullshit because the answer mkes her opinion as irrelevant as putting "Writer for the Stranger" on a resume being submitted for a managerial position.
Posted by JF on July 6, 2011 at 4:44 PM
sloegin 11
@8, By jove, those minimum-wage employees are making over $300 per week before taxes! Bunch of ungrateful wastrels, I say! Surely they can mind their pennies for a rainy day, rather than wasting all that spare coin on frivolities.
Posted by sloegin on July 6, 2011 at 5:05 PM
seandr 12
There's bullshit flying from all directions here. It's a bullshit fight!
Posted by seandr on July 6, 2011 at 5:21 PM
Chef Thunder 13
@ JF- I am a former line cook who for much of my career was not given any sick leave. What that meant, for me was working while sick because couldn’t afford to miss a day. This was at some of Seattle’s award winning restaurants.

I promise you that much of the food you eat out is prepared and served by people who should not be working with food but cannot miss work and still pay the bills. I remember distinctly checking my temperature one particularly miserable night and finding I was running 102 fever. I hate to imagine how many of the 500 people we served that night went home with whatever I had.

By paying people who are sick to stay home instead of getting on the bus and coming to work everyone is protected.
Posted by Chef Thunder on July 6, 2011 at 5:35 PM
JF 14
@13 You're confusing my skeptic attitude towards someone who claims to know what is good for business with disapproval for this proposed rule.
Posted by JF on July 6, 2011 at 6:11 PM
Free Lunch 15
@14 - Because no one could possibly understand something unless they are a participant. Is that what you're saying?
Posted by Free Lunch on July 6, 2011 at 6:27 PM
16
Really, Cienna? "Your question is stupid" is not an appropriate response from a reporter to a reader. Ever.

I don't agree with #6. But is it too much too ask for a bit of professionalism from the stranger news department?
Posted by M. Wells on July 6, 2011 at 6:56 PM
JF 17
@15 Certainly not. I'm asking if her understanding of business is so great and more specifically, what makes a business more competitive (better productivity), why isn't she entering the market place and kicking ass all over the place?
Posted by JF on July 6, 2011 at 6:59 PM
18
@15 - it is true that many of the proponents for this and other business regulations would do well by actually including business owners in the creation of the legislation. Labor, and Public Health/ Social Justice advocates want to regulate business, and often have the attitude that all business owners are evil. They then make the mistake of creating laws and rules that are well intentioned but end up having some very negative unintended effects, and they don't care, because they believe business owners are all rich fat cats preying on 'workers'. They don't consider how the laws might cause less jobs, worse working conditions etc. And they don't even begin to understand the effects because they literally know very little about business. Even the studies they love to quote are suspect because they apply to things they have no understanding of. The proponents can be quite sanctimonious, with egos that prevent them from seeing some obvious things that would make for better policy. They also tend to divide progressive people rather than bringing them together around an idea.

That said, on this legislation, the proponents worked with progressive small businesspeople to craft a pretty decent ordinance. It's not going to put people out of business. Though It will cost businesses some money, let's no pretend otherwise. But that is also ok. Better working conditions often have a cost, while the benefit is nothing more than the workers having a better life. And that is valuable in itself. We don't need to value everything financially.

Some things to consider. While the public health argument seems compelling, remember that the most common airborne illnesses are contagious before symptoms are apparent. So there will be little public health benefit overall. This is evidenced in San Francisco where the law has been in effect for 4 years and there has been no measurable decrease in the spread of flu or the common cold. However, on an individual level, there's no doubt that a sick worker can infect you (or me) when they are preparing or serving your meal, let alone taking care of you at a hospital or your grandma at a nursing home.

As for the argument that this rule made at a city level creates an uneven playing ground for local business. That's mostly true. But for me, that's an argument for the County to step in an make this law be county-wide. Then the argument is gone. Right? Dow, help us out here.

The business community would do well trying to make some amendments to this ordinance rather than kill it altogether. Take a look around you - the idea of mandated paid sick leave is popular nationwide. One poll shows 86% of people supporting it, including 75% of Republicans. This is coming to Seattle, and will be nationwide soon. So if you spend the money to move your business you'll end up eating that cost, cause you are going to end up paying this wherever you go that is civilized (so maybe not Tacoma...).

Let's pass this thing and then get on to finding ways to make it easier to do business in Seattle. Ideas that don't punish workers.
More...
Posted by Meinert on July 6, 2011 at 7:10 PM
rob! 19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/e…
Connecticut 1st state to require paid sick time

By Stephen Singer, Published: July 5

HARTFORD, Conn. — Connecticut has become the first state to require companies to provide employees with paid sick leave with legislation signed into law by Gov. Dan Malloy (D), who announced his action Tuesday...
The home roost of the hedge-fund managers beats every Left Coast state?! It's a trick!
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on July 6, 2011 at 7:11 PM
JF 20
@18 Very well said.
Posted by JF on July 6, 2011 at 7:43 PM
21
The Washington Policy Center is a member of the State Policy Network, a bunch of libertarian, free market "think tanks" devoted to the worship of Milton Friedman. Not a whit non partisan, rather, determined to have a corporation-ruled feudal system in power. Guess we're getting closer...
Posted by betsio on July 6, 2011 at 7:49 PM
wisepunk 22
@16. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Funniest troll all day. This ain't the fuckin times, ya dig?
Posted by wisepunk on July 6, 2011 at 8:35 PM
23
#22 As long as the Stranger claims to be a newspaper I'm gonna hold them to some journalistic standards. Wouldn't it be refreshing if they actually came through?
Posted by M. Wells on July 6, 2011 at 8:42 PM
24
Shame on you Stranger: You significantly overstated my comments on the potential for businesses leaving Seattle. There was never any mention or even an inference of a "ghost town." If you recall, what I said was that many business have expressed departure as a potential response, along with reduction of other compensation and benefits. The most poplar business response to mandated benefits -- as indicated in national SHRM surveys and other literature -- is the commensurate reduction of other benefits and/or compensation to finance a new mandate.

I think from now on, I'll restrict my comments to the Times, PI and PSBJ who have not taken such creative liberties with interview statements.
Posted by Dave Black on July 12, 2011 at 3:01 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