Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Health Committee Passes Paid Sick Leave Legislation, With Reservations

Posted by on Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Legislation that would allow all Seattle employees to accrue mandatory paid sick leave was passed by the Seattle City Council's Housing, Human Services, Health, and Culture Committee this afternoon. Currently, 190,000 Seattle employees—or roughly 40 percent of the city's workforce—don't have access to paid time off.

Council members Nick Licata, Jean Godden, Sally Clark, Mike O’Brien voted unanimously in favor of the legislation (Council President Richard Conlin abstained). But don't expect easy passage of the bill at the September 12th full council meeting. Even though council members have made concessions for business owners—including exempting micro businesses (with fewer than five employees), excluding work study employees, and ensuring that paid time off can't be used for 180 days after an employee's start date—both Conlin and Clark criticized the legislation before today's vote, and a few other council members are rumored to be waffling.

"I know it's not wildly popular to support big business..." began Clark, who's up for re-election this November, before criticizing the number of paid time off days awarded in the legislation and parroting business owners' specious arguments about how restaurant employees can swap shifts if they're sick (but employees outside the restaurant industry cannot).

"There are issues of concern that are outstanding," Conlin simply said.

Meanwhile, council member Bruce Harrell's challenger, Brad Meacham, released a statement today accusing Harrell of opposing the legislation in a private endorsement meeting with the Seattle Chamber of Commerce.

“Release your questionnaire answer, Bruce,” Meacham said in the statement. “The public deserves to know the truth about whether you have been saying one thing to them about paid sick days and the opposite to the powerful downtown interests backing your campaign.” Harrell has publicly supported paid sick leave in the past but may, like Clark and Conlin, be an waffling asshat. I'll update when I hear back from his people.

UPDATE: Here's Harrell's response: "As an attorney who has spent decades fighting to protect the rights of employees, it stands to no surprise that I support a sick leave policy and our current effort to address the health challenges that sick employees face when they are unable to come to work. I have stated my position at every forum and whenever asked. At the same time, I want the input and vetting process with small business owners to occur such that our policies do not place small businesses at risk or encourage them to move to other cities. I am not convinced this has occurred yet and I am confident we will achieve the policy objectives regarding the health of employees and the needs of small businesses when the legislation is passed.”

 

Comments (24) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
This is a solid ordinance the way it is written and we should pass it now. If anything, try it for 3 years and then analyze it and improve it if needed. The criticisms of it are playing to conservative concerns, not 'business' concerns. Let's get on with it.
Posted by Meinert on August 10, 2011 at 4:16 PM
2
At Candidate Survivor, they were asked "Would you vote for paid sick leave TODAY?" and all the incumbents said yes. Were we being pandered to? Clark and Harrell had better come through and vote yes on this bill.
Posted by big l on August 10, 2011 at 4:23 PM
Baconcat 3
Ridiculous antics from the chamber of commerce this year. I thought nothing would top their endorsement of I-1053 last year.
Posted by Baconcat on August 10, 2011 at 4:23 PM
AlaskanWayViaducks 4
It is shameful that Bruce Harrell claims to be the Council Member speaking for us people of color in Seattle, and yet he sides with big business on an issue like paid sick days that disproportionately impacts minority workers.
Posted by AlaskanWayViaducks on August 10, 2011 at 4:27 PM
oyezoyezoyez 5
Didn't know Seattle had so many DINOs on the City Council - and elections are right around the corner
Posted by oyezoyezoyez on August 10, 2011 at 4:28 PM
6
All the fuck ups who infest these jobs will be happy....
Posted by Laffs on August 10, 2011 at 4:32 PM
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 7
R.I.P. Dow Industrial

http://youtu.be/W5D07c0dJuQ
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://yrihf.com on August 10, 2011 at 4:43 PM
8
How in the fuck can Harrell's statement be taken as a waffle? His statement clearly shows he is supportive. We need to consider the source here though. Madrid is clearly in the Meacham camp. They have a Hugo House connection. Meacham needs to get publicity somewhere I guess.
Posted by Right Cross on August 10, 2011 at 4:55 PM
9
So wierd that Clark voted to pass the legislation to Council and Harrell said legislation would be passed, and they still keep getting rapped for not supporting sick leave. I'm confused, is the Stranger so biased that they can't see when someone they see as an opponent is actually doing the work they advocated? Cienna might want to pull her head out of her ass long enough to realize that she is actually criticizing people who have already committed to moving sick leave forward.
Posted by TPS Report on August 10, 2011 at 5:08 PM
10
All of Meacham's pals in the press giving him free media is kind of sickening.
These same people probably mock Fox news for doing the same thing for their chosen candidates. Judge Harrell on how he actually votes- that's what matters.
Posted by NBNW on August 10, 2011 at 6:19 PM
11
Waffling asshat is a great phrase, fun to use, but let's review:
1. I seconded the motion to approve the legislation.
2. I voted for it today.
3. I've consistently said I support passage.

Yes, I've raised a question about why to treat employees of large restaurant groups differently than smaller restaurants when it comes to shift swap opportunities.These employees depend on tips just like the employees of other restaurants. Raising a question about fairness for the companies and the employees shouldn't be seen as heretical. Condemning people for raising questions and tarring them as "pro-business" is cheap and a disservice.
Posted by sally on August 10, 2011 at 7:12 PM
12
you are correct on both counts cm clark. waffling asshat is fun to say and your questions are not heretical,

thank you for your second and your vote!
Posted by lisalouh on August 10, 2011 at 10:08 PM
AlaskanWayViaducks 13
@11 From what I understand the current ordinance doesn't stop anyone, regardless of size of employer, from swapping shifts. Employees at large companies just don't lose a sick day for swapping.

So employees at large restaurants who rely on tips actually are much better off under the current ord. than employees at smaller restaurants, presumably because their employers can afford it.

Am I misreading something?
Posted by AlaskanWayViaducks on August 11, 2011 at 4:37 AM
14
this is a great time to be installing job killing policies.
Posted by Liberal=Assphat on August 11, 2011 at 8:09 AM
15
@7 OH NO, IT'S DEAD AND IT WILL NEVER COME BACK WE'RE DOOOOOOOOOMED
Posted by beef rallard on August 11, 2011 at 9:25 AM
16
This concept is ridiculous on its face. Employees who just don't want to work can and will call in "sick" (and expect to be paid). But what's to prevent the employer from removing said employee from the schedule, effectively terminating him or her?

If the city wants to mandate health insurance (and that's what paid sick days amount to), then the city should fund the program, not put the burden on the owners of small businesses.
Posted by Cornichon http://cornichon.org on August 11, 2011 at 9:40 AM
17
@ 16 - Paid sick days amount to health insurance?

So you're saying my paid sick days will cover the bill for my doctor or ER visit, and my prescriptions? And my health insurance will pay me for the days of work I miss due to illness or injury?

What fucking planet do you live on?
Posted by Damned grateful to have both, wish it wasn't 1/3 my paycheck on August 11, 2011 at 10:27 AM
18
@16 Where/in what industry do you work? Or are you a small business owner (and do you not remember life before being a small business owner)? I'm genuinely curious, because your viewpoint is so alien to me.

*Every* full-time job I've ever had has had paid sick days, and many of the part-time ones, too. If you work in a white-collar field, it's just standard. And I simply can't understand why what's standard in my career path (copywriter, teacher, radio DJ—I never said it was a straight path) can;t be offered to blue collar workers, or how that's going to ruin small businesses.

On the contrary, I see what happens when people who *have* sick days don't use them—sickness travels through my floor like lightning whenever someone is "too busy to stay home sick," leaving the rest of us ill and productivity shot. That costs way more than our salary for that day.

(And there's a BIG difference between health insurance and a few measly sick days, and you know that. One is about coverage for illness and accidents; the other is about being able to pay for your groceries and keeping you from infecting others. Seriously, argue fair.)
Posted by PEM on August 11, 2011 at 10:28 AM
19
And yes, as a writer, I'm ashamed of my typos—but c'mon, people, I got work to do!
Posted by PEM on August 11, 2011 at 10:30 AM
oyezoyezoyez 20
@16 Paid sick days does not equal health insurance. Health insurance = health insurance. Or maybe you've never had the luxury of having a job that provides neither.

This bill would give people who have been working for a small business FULL TIME for 1 year 40 hours of paid sick time. That's 5 days that are earned by the employee.

What ridiculous on it's face is saying employees shouldn't stay home when they're sick. If you're sick and you gotta make rent, you're working. Unless you don't have to. I'm sick of people who have sick days, probably including yourself, telling people that don't they don't deserve a few days off when they're sick.

And as far as retaliation goes, what's to stop an employer right now from removing said employee from the schedule? Nothing. The ordinance would make retaliation against an employee for calling in sick illegal.
Posted by oyezoyezoyez on August 11, 2011 at 10:49 AM
21
I like unpaid sick leave. So when I'm half-assed sick or not feeling well, I can take a day off and not feel like I'm cheating the company out of money.
Posted by AsherCapHill on August 11, 2011 at 12:28 PM
22
A lot of small business owners have a thought process like this: they worked really, really REALLY hard guys, like 120+ hours a week, and they had to take out a second mortgage on their home and resort to eating their kids' pets just to get their business up and running, yeah, and they certainly never got a sick day while doing all that, so anyone who DOESN'T have the guff to start their own business just doesn't have the cajones to have a REAL work ethic and are all sissy whiners, that's why they're employees and not employers. So they can just come to work and like it when they're sick, they're lucky to have a job and it's all thanks to MEEEEEE, how bout that?
Posted by Auggiedoggie on August 11, 2011 at 12:38 PM
23
@16: Hi Cornichon, a.k.a. Ronald Holden, food writer for Crosscut. You'd think a food critic such as yourself would appreciate not having people sneeze in your salad. But hey, maybe to you it tastes better that way. Whatevs.
Posted by cloudveil1 on August 11, 2011 at 12:44 PM
24
Why should work study employees get the shaft? Aren't they people who get sick like the rest of us?
Posted by I have always been... east coaster on August 11, 2011 at 1:14 PM

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