Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Decaffeinated Council Considers Paid Sick Leave

Posted by on Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Protesters induct Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz into Hall of Shame for cutting paid sick leave.
  • Goldy | The Stranger
  • Protesters picket Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz for cutting paid sick leave.

A couple dozen protesters gathered outside the Starbucks at 4th and Cherry to induct CEO Howard Schultz into the "Paid Sick Days Hall of Shame," in honor of the coffee mogul's move to strip US retail employees of paid sick leave benefits back in 2008. According to Seattle Coalition for a Healthy Workforce campaign coordinator Gabriela Quintana, Starbucks continues to provide paid sick leave to company executives, and to its retail employees outside the US, including those in Australia, Chile, China, and San Francisco.

Seattles finest defending Columbia Center Starbucks from dangerous lefties.
  • Goldy | The Stranger
  • Seattle's finest defending Columbia Center Starbucks from dangerous lefties.

Starbucks earned $1.4 billion in profits in 2010. "I think they can afford to pay sick leave to US workers," says Quintana.

As usual whenever progressives gather to protest a business over some grievance or another, security was out in force. Police officers gathered within and without the Columbia Center Starbucks, which also brought in several non-uniformed security guards just for the occasion. After all, the Wobblies got a little violent back in 1919, so, you know, you can never be too careful.

Protesters chanted gamely and waved their signs to honks of approval from passing cars, but across the street in the city council's City Hall chambers, things were much more subdued. At a scheduled briefing on proposed sick leave regulations before the Housing, Human Services, Health and Culture Committee, a handful of audience members testified pro and con, before council staffer Ben Noble attempted to step council members Bruce Harrell, Sally Clark, Mike O'Brien and Nick Licata through an 18-page document. Everybody seemed non-committal. Zero drama.

To sum up the briefing: There is an undisputed public health benefit to providing paid sick leave to workers, particularly those in the retail and food service industries. But there's also an unavoidable cost to employers. And that's the cost-benefit analysis that is ultimately before the council.

 

Comments (10) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Healthcare should be a right, so should not having to work when you're infectious to others. The fact that we have to fight for this at all is a pretty sad comment on the state of the American working class as well as American consumers.
Posted by stuck in boston http://www.nothing.com on July 13, 2011 at 4:38 PM
2
Sorry I snorted in your tall double caffinated mochachino.
Posted by jessalou on July 13, 2011 at 4:45 PM
3
just a note about the San Francisco thing--SF has an ordinance that requires all employers to provide paid sick leave...kinda like the one we're debating here...and SF's businesses haven't upped & vanished yet.
Posted by analemma on July 13, 2011 at 4:46 PM
gloomy gus 4
That's great! As for the cop presence, when I was doing some fucking freelance job or other in that building I remember that particular Starbucks has cops constantly going in and out all day as customers.
Posted by gloomy gus on July 13, 2011 at 4:49 PM
Chefgirl 5
Huh. What sort of sick leave did the employees have before it was stripped away? I worked for Starbucks for most of the 90s in a store and we didn't have any sick leave but did have two "personal days" - one every six months - that we could use to supplement our paychecks if we'd stayed home sick or needed an extra day on a certain week for something. Are those two days a year what got taken back or did the employees get and then lose sick leave during the noughties?
Posted by Chefgirl on July 13, 2011 at 5:54 PM
6
@5. Yep those are the two days that got taken away. Not much in terms of sick leave at all and even that is long gone.
Posted by Jope on July 13, 2011 at 6:11 PM
7
BIG FAG!
Posted by PugilistPuck on July 13, 2011 at 6:20 PM
Kinison 8
@3 SF's businesses haven't upped & vanished yet.

Its not about that, its about what happens after the law gets passed. How many people saw their status go from full time to part time in order to exploit the one loophole in the law.

Posted by Kinison http://www.holgatehawks.com on July 13, 2011 at 6:40 PM
9
It's true, San Francisco has waged a long war in our attempt to destroy Starbucks! But nothing is working.

We made them give their employees paid sick leave, 1 hour for every 30 hours worked @8 so even the PART-TIME employees would still accrue paid time off. Starbucks did not fall!

Then we got a new evil scheme to destroy American industry. We required they provide workers with health benefits--for EVERYONE who has worked at Starbucks for at least 90 days and works at least 10 hours a week (so even the part-time employees get it again Kinison!). We twisted our handle bar mustaches and waiting for them to die...but they just kept making money!!! How?!

We set the minimum wage at $9.92. That's the highest minimum wage in the country, except for Massachusetts on a Sunday! But we just can't put Starbucks out of business. AHHHHHHHH!

If this stupid coffee blight of a company stay profitable through the next quarter we may have to resort to drastic measures!
Posted by LukeJoe on July 14, 2011 at 9:24 AM
10
#9 That is the best comment ever.
Posted by avocado on July 14, 2011 at 10:24 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