Tools
+ Enlarge this Image
MOLLY NEITZEL TELLS DAVE MEINERT “I love you, but you’re wrong.”
+ Enlarge this Image
Dave Meinert
Within a few weeks, Seattle City Council member Nick Licata intends to introduce legislation that would require every business in Seattle to provide paid sick leave for its workers—one hour of accrued leave for every 30 hours worked. It's modeled on a four-year-old San Francisco ordinance that applies to all workers, even temporary and part-time employees, which many say has been successful. But the as-yet-unseen Seattle proposal already has an army of business owners gearing up for a fight. And while that fight brews among the obvious players—large trade organizations, business groups, and labor unions—another fight is dividing people who are usually allies: local restaurant owners.
"My employees don't want paid sick days; they want health insurance and retirement," says Dave Meinert, co-owner of Capitol Hill's Big Mario's and owner of the 5 Point Cafe downtown. Meinert's argument is a common refrain—offering paid sick leave will cut into the other benefits employers could offer. He's not alone. Successful restaurateurs such as Linda Derschang (owner of Linda's Tavern, Smith, Oddfellows Cafe, and others) and John Howie (owner of the Seastar restaurants) are against the plan, as is the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce. Washington Restaurant Association president Anthony Anton says the measure could cost restaurants up to $175,000 a year. All of them have been lobbying the city council to kill the proposal before Licata even introduces it.
Stranger Personals
"If the city mandates this benefit, I can't offer my employees the benefits they want," Meinert continues. "If my employee costs go up, some other cost must go down."
Others disagree.
"I love you, but you're wrong," counters Molly Neitzel, owner of Molly Moon's Homemade Ice Cream, which has one of its shops around the corner from Meinert's pizza joint. Neitzel offers her 65 employees full health coverage and accrued paid time off. She says the cost of replacing an employee—who's unhappy at a job or lured away by an employer offering better benefits—is far higher than offering paid time off. "When you offer good benefits to your employees, they value their jobs," she says. "They stick around."
Licata's proposal, which is still in draft form, would affect businesses differently. Employees working for businesses with fewer than 10 people could accrue only five days of paid sick leave per year; employees in larger businesses could earn up to nine days. (Regardless, in San Francisco, employees use only an average of two to three sick days per year.)
Meinert, Derschang, and Neitzel all say they offer employee benefits in some form or another, be it health insurance, free meals, above-minimum-wage pay, or paid time off. The fight is about whether this proposal will actually do what restaurateurs fear—cost them money.
But Licata says skyrocketing costs is the same straw man raised against child labor laws and the implementation of a minimum wage. "Every time we make an adjustment in working conditions, there is an argument that there's an impact in profits and the way businesses are run," Licata says. "There can be no better way of measuring how well our workforce is treated than by assuring they don't have to come to work sick."
In other words, do you want someone who has the flu making your sandwich?
A 2010 study of San Francisco's ordinance appears to support Licata's conclusion: Restaurant owners have nothing to fear. In the study, six out of seven of the 1,194 workers polled by the Institute for Women's Policy Research reported that their employer didn't reduce raises, bonuses, or other benefits in order to give them paid sick time. That's because, on the whole, the measure didn't cost San Francisco business owners much money. Seventy percent of the 727 business owners polled said the ordinance didn't affect their profitability (14.2 percent reported that their profitability suffered because of the measure).
"Overall, San Francisco has seen no negative impact on jobs," explains Marilyn Watkins, policy director of the Economic Opportunity Institute, which lobbied Licata to draft the Seattle proposal. "In fact, they're doing better than surrounding cities and counties after the implementation of their ordinance."
Still, even some employees who would benefit are unconvinced. "I understand the intention, and I appreciate it," says Melanie Schweitzer, bar manager at King's Hardware (owned by Derschang). "But it won't do me much good. If I have the choice to take paid time off or switch shifts with somebody and not lose my tips, that's a no-brainer—I'll switch shifts."
Other waiters and baristas I spoke with—people who wouldn't speak on the record because their bosses wouldn't approve—see Licata's proposal as a safety net for emergency situations when a shift switch isn't possible.
Still, restaurant owners insist prices will rise, quality will suffer, and businesses will close. They also argue that this is a grocery-union fight cloaked as a policy debate and emphasize the importance of shift swapping. "If my employees miss work and they're making only minimum wage, they'd lose 50 to 75 percent of their pay," Meinert says. "This won't help us, but it might hurt us." 
2
Restaurants that do not provide sick pay for their works provide an incentive for their employees to come in and sicken the clientele.
Take note of which establishments oppose this.
Take note of which establishments oppose this.
3
This is difficult, especially as I have been sending insults every few years to Planned Parenthood NW for being a member of the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, and hate to see them on what might be the correct side this one time. (The GSCC has worked industriously with local corporations to offshore as many local jobs as possible, etc.)
The problem is that far too many of these iniatives are being financed by big business, or those foundations being financed by big business, which places an onerous burden on the smallest businesses, which helps in the overall long-term consolidation plans of big business!
On the face of this, I agree with the overall sentiment, but far greater would be Universal Healthcare, now why don't we have that?
Or the public option?
Because Cantwell and Murray, the two faux crats, voted it down when it came to the floor of the US Senate (known as the Dorgan Amendment)!
Please, everybody, start paying attention to reality, not the literal drivel you are being constantly and consistently fed.
The problem is that far too many of these iniatives are being financed by big business, or those foundations being financed by big business, which places an onerous burden on the smallest businesses, which helps in the overall long-term consolidation plans of big business!
On the face of this, I agree with the overall sentiment, but far greater would be Universal Healthcare, now why don't we have that?
Or the public option?
Because Cantwell and Murray, the two faux crats, voted it down when it came to the floor of the US Senate (known as the Dorgan Amendment)!
Please, everybody, start paying attention to reality, not the literal drivel you are being constantly and consistently fed.
4
If some workers say they don't want it, and won't use it (trading shifts instead), then it won't cost the owners much money now, will it?
What am I missing?
What am I missing?
5
Seems pretty common sense. If you can swap shifts, do it. If you can't, call in sick.
It's even more important for people with kids, whether they work in service jobs or not. Kids are always sick, and parents should be able to stay home when they are.
Plus, with Molly Moon championing this, looks like I know where I'm eating out - and also where I'm not.
It's even more important for people with kids, whether they work in service jobs or not. Kids are always sick, and parents should be able to stay home when they are.
Plus, with Molly Moon championing this, looks like I know where I'm eating out - and also where I'm not.
6
The paid sick days proposal we're bringing to the City Council balances the responsibility that employers and employees share for preventing the spread of disease and keeping customers/colleagues healthy, with a good deal of flexibility for both.
For example, workers can swap shifts, if they prefer, instead of taking a paid sick day. And employees must make a good faith effort to provide notice and schedule use of sick time, when the need for sick leave is foreseeable (for example, for preventative care or wellness visits).
Employers, for their part, are free to offer more generous benefits if they choose, and can require up to a 90-day waiting period before new employees can use paid sick time. Those employers that already provide an equivalent amount of paid leave for the same purposes (for example, “PTO” plans that combine vacation and sick time) do not have to modify their current policies. And employers are not required to “cash out” unused paid sick leave when someone leaves employment.
The "math of fear" being used by opponents of this measure doesn't pencil out. The average paid sick day use among employees who have it is about 3 days a year, nationwide. A few occasionally need more for major illness or injury, and a substantial portion don’t take any leave at all. In San Francisco (which has a paid sick day standard similar to the one being considered in Seattle), 25% of workers reported they didn’t take any sick leave the year prior.
Learn more at: http://seattlehealthyworkforce.org/our-p…
For example, workers can swap shifts, if they prefer, instead of taking a paid sick day. And employees must make a good faith effort to provide notice and schedule use of sick time, when the need for sick leave is foreseeable (for example, for preventative care or wellness visits).
Employers, for their part, are free to offer more generous benefits if they choose, and can require up to a 90-day waiting period before new employees can use paid sick time. Those employers that already provide an equivalent amount of paid leave for the same purposes (for example, “PTO” plans that combine vacation and sick time) do not have to modify their current policies. And employers are not required to “cash out” unused paid sick leave when someone leaves employment.
The "math of fear" being used by opponents of this measure doesn't pencil out. The average paid sick day use among employees who have it is about 3 days a year, nationwide. A few occasionally need more for major illness or injury, and a substantial portion don’t take any leave at all. In San Francisco (which has a paid sick day standard similar to the one being considered in Seattle), 25% of workers reported they didn’t take any sick leave the year prior.
Learn more at: http://seattlehealthyworkforce.org/our-p…
7
oyezoyezoyez makes a great point - the businesses are free to choose how they treat their employees, but we are also free to choose whether to give those businesses our money or not. Who wants to eat somewhere that the employees are miserable and maybe sick? Not me! Raise your prices a little if you need to pay to give your employees a fair benefit package.
9
Good point @6, but as a former cook, I have to point out that giving restaurant employees sick leave won't always ensure that you don't get a side of cold germs with your steak (although it's a step in the right direction). I showed up for work sick on a number of occasions simply because I had no choice, as there was no one to cover my shift. I would wash my hands obsessively, try not to touch my face, and so on, but I still might have infected someone. Sick leave would definitely help in larger operations where they have more flexibility to cover shifts or work short-staffed, so the main motivation for coming in sick is not missing out on a day's pay.
As for "not being able to afford it": I used to love it when my boss would tell us he couldn't afford to offer benefits or pay more than minimum wage (for what was supposedly skilled labour - this was a fine dining establishment) and then drive off with his mistress in his BMW to spend the day at the golf course. His definition of "I can't afford it" was substantially different from ours. I know very well that it is a difficult business to make money in, but I still say restaurant owners are frequently full of shit on the topic of labour costs. They also often don't appear to realize that shortchanging your employees can be false economy, because it results in higher turnover and thus lower quality of service, plus way more management headaches. (God bless restaurant owners like Molly Neitzel, who do realize this.)
As for "not being able to afford it": I used to love it when my boss would tell us he couldn't afford to offer benefits or pay more than minimum wage (for what was supposedly skilled labour - this was a fine dining establishment) and then drive off with his mistress in his BMW to spend the day at the golf course. His definition of "I can't afford it" was substantially different from ours. I know very well that it is a difficult business to make money in, but I still say restaurant owners are frequently full of shit on the topic of labour costs. They also often don't appear to realize that shortchanging your employees can be false economy, because it results in higher turnover and thus lower quality of service, plus way more management headaches. (God bless restaurant owners like Molly Neitzel, who do realize this.)
10
I put myself through college working in restaurants, and believe me, there are NO benefits. I love how the guy says "my employees don't want paid sick days; they want health insurance and retirement" as if they ACTUALLY offer those things.
11
If a business owner can't afford to pay reasonable wages and bare bones basics such as sick leave, then they have no fucking reason to be in business in the first place. Survival of the fittest! Take that you sniveling business owners who say you can't afford such things as sick leave. Fuck your shitty ass scabby jobs.
14
In my interview I outlined many times the ELECTED benefits we do have access to, ones that are quite costly for the owner. Our health insurance is comprehensive and very affordable. You want to talk about having healthy employees, how about giving them the tools to be able to go to the doctor when they are sick? And please don't dismiss the shift meals and hefty employee discounts we get. Employees rely on these benefits! So at what cost will this new policy get forced upon business owners in a still struggling economy? This is not a one size fits all solution.
15
Best way to weed out the inevitable dead beats- sick pay doesn't start until the second day plus a doctor's note.
@11 enjoy your life working at kinkos.
@11 enjoy your life working at kinkos.
16
San Franciscan here! Can verify that our restaurants are indeed no suffering under the crushing weight of offering a couple days of sick leave.
And there an easy fix to that "well if I offer sick time I can't offer health care" problem. Mandate the health care benefit too! We pay usually between a $1 and a $1.50 health surcharge at restaurants, but that has caused businesses to lose business.
And a related note. I have basically stopped supporting local small businesses just for the localness and the smallness of them, mainly because I'm seriously sick of the reactionary whining they do. Now if they aren't great citizens or they don't have a better product, I'm all about Starbucks et al.
Those small mom and pop shops we are all supposed to shell out higher prices to because of the evil predatory franchises?! They are always the ones lined up to oppose sick leave, healthcare, bike lanes, everything...
So fuck em!
And there an easy fix to that "well if I offer sick time I can't offer health care" problem. Mandate the health care benefit too! We pay usually between a $1 and a $1.50 health surcharge at restaurants, but that has caused businesses to lose business.
And a related note. I have basically stopped supporting local small businesses just for the localness and the smallness of them, mainly because I'm seriously sick of the reactionary whining they do. Now if they aren't great citizens or they don't have a better product, I'm all about Starbucks et al.
Those small mom and pop shops we are all supposed to shell out higher prices to because of the evil predatory franchises?! They are always the ones lined up to oppose sick leave, healthcare, bike lanes, everything...
So fuck em!
17
@8 Must be salaried and has been so for a while, because they clearly don't know what their talking about. (This is coming from an hourly worker who receives vacation time and sick time)
And as others have already stated- pay attention to which bar/restaurant owners oppose this, and in return oppose giving them your money.
And as others have already stated- pay attention to which bar/restaurant owners oppose this, and in return oppose giving them your money.
18
@16: I get sick of shelling out extra to support small businesses when in fact that offer less to their employees them larger outfits. Scratch any "small" "indie" or even "sustanable" business owner and you get a Republican.
20
Oops to typo, let me clarify. The health surcharges at SF restaurants has NOT cost them business. Eating out is always going to be more expensive. No one is deterred by another buck-fifty.
(And we SFers are so cheap about our cocktail prices we usually find ways to save that $1.50 by the end of the weekend.)
Also, keep in mind we added another Michelin Star post all this regulatory devilry.
And re this: "My employees don't want paid sick days; they want health insurance and retirement," says Dave Meinert, co-owner of Capitol Hill's Big Mario's and owner of the 5 Point Cafe downtown...
Yeah I'm pretty sure your employees WANT all three. And Seattle to would well by itself if it mandated you give them all three! And I would not be eating at Big Mario's or 5 Point Cafe if they were in my town!
(And we SFers are so cheap about our cocktail prices we usually find ways to save that $1.50 by the end of the weekend.)
Also, keep in mind we added another Michelin Star post all this regulatory devilry.
And re this: "My employees don't want paid sick days; they want health insurance and retirement," says Dave Meinert, co-owner of Capitol Hill's Big Mario's and owner of the 5 Point Cafe downtown...
Yeah I'm pretty sure your employees WANT all three. And Seattle to would well by itself if it mandated you give them all three! And I would not be eating at Big Mario's or 5 Point Cafe if they were in my town!
21
I was at Molly Moon's the other day, and the employee was telling another customer about her employee benefits. They were considerable. Molly Moon's isn't necessarily my favorite ice cream shop in the city, but I'm definitely going to be stopping by Wallingford more often.
22
As a former restaurant owner I’ll confess it’s often very difficult to figure out how to afford benefits for employees like health insurance, which I would have loved to give/subsidize for my employees BUT it seems like paid sick days are a win-win for restaurants that can’t afford insurance. The last thing anyone wants is sick employees coming to work, especially in food service.
King Co must spend a fortune sending health out to restaurants to inspect the kitchens and hand sinks, yet one ill server could infect any number of people. That said, servers might not use this benefit as readily as others since the majority of their income is in tips not wages.
I think Derschang, Meinert and the like can afford this and probably subsidize their employees insurance too ...they might have to sacrifice a touch on their part .. who knows they might actually see the benefits Molly Moon’s owners claim?
King Co must spend a fortune sending health out to restaurants to inspect the kitchens and hand sinks, yet one ill server could infect any number of people. That said, servers might not use this benefit as readily as others since the majority of their income is in tips not wages.
I think Derschang, Meinert and the like can afford this and probably subsidize their employees insurance too ...they might have to sacrifice a touch on their part .. who knows they might actually see the benefits Molly Moon’s owners claim?
23
@17,
Indeed. If anything, salaried workers are worse off because employers don't have to pay them overtime. My boyfriend regularly works 12 hours a day and almost never takes a day off even when he's sick.
Indeed. If anything, salaried workers are worse off because employers don't have to pay them overtime. My boyfriend regularly works 12 hours a day and almost never takes a day off even when he's sick.
24
If Molly Moon's or any other food business can afford to do this, great! They can offer it as a way to lure good employees from small businesses that can't.
But requiring this by law? I don't know. When someone puts their life's savings into something as risky as opening a restaurant, I'm inclined to give them some leeway.
But requiring this by law? I don't know. When someone puts their life's savings into something as risky as opening a restaurant, I'm inclined to give them some leeway.
27
"they want health insurance and retirement" as if they ACTUALLY offer those things."
So, did you apply for a high deductible insurance plan with and set up an HSA?
Non-profit, Group Health has $2500 high deductible plans for $100 a month for under 30 yr old non-smokers. Set aside another $100 month in your HSA (Tax free!) and you're covered. That's $200 a month. Making $10/hour that's $1600 a month (virtually tax free with the earned income tax credit and all those tips you refuse to report and pay your SS taxes on) you are only paying 12.5% of month on health care coverage. Of course, I know you're all hard workers, so you work 50-60 hr weeks to cover your bills, so that's $2k+ a month, with 10% going to cover yourself.
But of course you won't. You want to spend that $200 a month on your iPhone/Netflix/beer and make some else pay the bills when you wrap your fixie around a lamppost? Well guess what, come 2015 you will have to pay. It's called 'universal coverage'. No more being a carefree hipster, you too have to contribute.
So, did you apply for a high deductible insurance plan with and set up an HSA?
Non-profit, Group Health has $2500 high deductible plans for $100 a month for under 30 yr old non-smokers. Set aside another $100 month in your HSA (Tax free!) and you're covered. That's $200 a month. Making $10/hour that's $1600 a month (virtually tax free with the earned income tax credit and all those tips you refuse to report and pay your SS taxes on) you are only paying 12.5% of month on health care coverage. Of course, I know you're all hard workers, so you work 50-60 hr weeks to cover your bills, so that's $2k+ a month, with 10% going to cover yourself.
But of course you won't. You want to spend that $200 a month on your iPhone/Netflix/beer and make some else pay the bills when you wrap your fixie around a lamppost? Well guess what, come 2015 you will have to pay. It's called 'universal coverage'. No more being a carefree hipster, you too have to contribute.
28
I put myself through college and grad school working in bars and eateries. I managed a few of them, and did the books for a few. I can assure you that this anxiety is misplaced.
All things being equal, turnover will kill your business faster than anything else. Treating your employees like shit routinely costs businesses between 3-5k per FTE yearly. Every mixed up order by a new wait staff, every kid making minimum wage while sitting and watching your corporate training video about sexual harassment...all money wasted.
All things being equal, turnover will kill your business faster than anything else. Treating your employees like shit routinely costs businesses between 3-5k per FTE yearly. Every mixed up order by a new wait staff, every kid making minimum wage while sitting and watching your corporate training video about sexual harassment...all money wasted.
31
"My employees don't want paid sick days; they want health insurance and retirement"
This quote is perfect. It blends the right amount of dreamy idealism with detached free market theory, with a just a hint of irony.
This quote is perfect. It blends the right amount of dreamy idealism with detached free market theory, with a just a hint of irony.
32
remember the last time you got food poisoning, or got 'THE OFFICE COLD'? hell yeah, i want people to stay the fuck home when they're sick, so that i don't get sick, TOO. especially if they touch food! jesus. it seems so damned obvious.
33
So I don't know Linda Derschang and I'm not familiar enough to comment on her businesses. But it seems like she owns a lot of them...all apparently too cash strapped to offer benefits? At what point must we demand a redefinition of the term "successful restaurateur"?
34
$175,000 a year? You'd have to have over 200 full-time employees to ring up that kind of a bill. Most restaurants don't even have 20.
Also, this argument that paying for sick days will prevent a restaurant from buying health insurance is utter bullshit:
* Cost of 10 sick days per employee: $800/year
* Cost of health insurance per employee: $6,000/year
Anyone whining about paying for sick days certainly has no intention of paying for health insurance.
Also, this argument that paying for sick days will prevent a restaurant from buying health insurance is utter bullshit:
* Cost of 10 sick days per employee: $800/year
* Cost of health insurance per employee: $6,000/year
Anyone whining about paying for sick days certainly has no intention of paying for health insurance.
35
Small business owners, and restauranteurs in particular, have ALWAYS complained about these issues, they've been doing it literally for decades (ZOMG! Prohibition will RUIN me! Minimum Wage will KILL my business! Recording tip income will WIPE ME OUT! Offering benefits to my employees is MADNESS!!! - Lather, rinse, repeat). And yet, every week we hear of literally scores of new eateries opening up all over the place.
If their situations were as bad as they keep claiming, why would any sensible person endeavor to start-up such a business in the first place?
If their situations were as bad as they keep claiming, why would any sensible person endeavor to start-up such a business in the first place?
36
Dear Seattle:
Over the course of approximately 8 years that I worked in restaurants, I would estimate that I worked sick for maybe 100 days. If that figure seems high, the fact that I couldn't afford to take sick days meant that I was often sick longer than I otherwise would have been. Sometimes *much* longer. But that's not what you should be concerned about.
What you should be concerned about is that I worked approximately 100 days serving you food that had been handled by someone who was wiping his nose with his t-shirt, hacking, coughing, and exhaling flu onto every customer I spoke to over a cash register.
You know who can't afford to pay for sick days? Restaurant workers who make $8 an hour to wash your dishes. So either you pay that restaurant worker to go home sick, or a guy with a cold handles your dishes before you eat on them.
You decide which situation you want to deal with.
Sincerely,
Former Restaurant Worker
Over the course of approximately 8 years that I worked in restaurants, I would estimate that I worked sick for maybe 100 days. If that figure seems high, the fact that I couldn't afford to take sick days meant that I was often sick longer than I otherwise would have been. Sometimes *much* longer. But that's not what you should be concerned about.
What you should be concerned about is that I worked approximately 100 days serving you food that had been handled by someone who was wiping his nose with his t-shirt, hacking, coughing, and exhaling flu onto every customer I spoke to over a cash register.
You know who can't afford to pay for sick days? Restaurant workers who make $8 an hour to wash your dishes. So either you pay that restaurant worker to go home sick, or a guy with a cold handles your dishes before you eat on them.
You decide which situation you want to deal with.
Sincerely,
Former Restaurant Worker
37
Small business-owners, and particularly restauranteurs, have been complaining about things like this for exactly FOREVER ("ZOMG! Prohibition will put me OUT OF BUSINESS! Minimum Wage will KILL ME! Reporting Tips will WIPE ME OUT! Providing benefits is MADNESS!" Lather, rinse, repeat). Yet, every week we hear about literally scores of new establishments opening up all over the place.
Seriously, if conditions were as bad as they keep claiming, why would any sane business person endeavor to get into the restaurant business in the first place?
Seriously, if conditions were as bad as they keep claiming, why would any sane business person endeavor to get into the restaurant business in the first place?
39
@37 Yep. Business owners complain about everything--fire extinguishers, toilets, smoke detectors, health inspections, not being able to work children 14 hours a day without breaks, etc. Small businesses fail by the score largely because small business owners are crappy business people.
40
This is reason #95739753 why I'll never go to a Dave Meinert or Linda Derschang restaurant or bar again. Ugh, what awful people.
Dave Meinert: Owner of the Five Point Cafe, Big Mario's Pizza, Capitol Hill Block Party, and conservative blog commentator
Linda Derschang: Owner of Linda's, Smith, Oddfellow's, King's Hardware
Dave Meinert: Owner of the Five Point Cafe, Big Mario's Pizza, Capitol Hill Block Party, and conservative blog commentator
Linda Derschang: Owner of Linda's, Smith, Oddfellow's, King's Hardware
42
And yet, every week we hear of literally scores of new eateries opening up all over the place.
And where do they open up? On top of the charred remains of the literally scores of eateries going out of business every week.
And where do they open up? On top of the charred remains of the literally scores of eateries going out of business every week.
43
I love how everyone here is just an absolute genius when it comes to running the other guy's business. Scores of complaints outlining how these businesses are poorly run and, even better, as #11 ignorantly claims shouldn't even be in business. Oddly enough though, none of these posters see this as an opportunity to enter that industry and take these shitty business owners down.
44
@43 So if a business owner started screeching about how minimum wage, 40 hour work weeks, age requirements, health code requirements, etc were hurting their business, would you come running to their aid too?
45
Impacting a restaurant's profits is a nice way to say less money into the pockets of the owners. If the owners are that much more concerned about how much cash they get to pocket at the end of the day than they are about the health and well-being of their employees and the cleanliness of their businesses, I personally don't particularly feel like patronizing their businesses. I don't want to be all "well NOW you've LOST a CUSTOMER for LIFE" but come on, that's just not cool.
It's like saying Obamacare made insurance companies raise their premiums. No one made them do anything; they raised prices for consumers to keep more money in their pockets. In the same vein, a lot (not all, but a lot) of restaurateurs won't have to cut other benefits if this law passes, but they'll do it because they want to continue making their money and they'll prioritize it over the well-being of their employees. I don't think Howie or Derschang will be put out of business by this law. They're just greedy.
It's like saying Obamacare made insurance companies raise their premiums. No one made them do anything; they raised prices for consumers to keep more money in their pockets. In the same vein, a lot (not all, but a lot) of restaurateurs won't have to cut other benefits if this law passes, but they'll do it because they want to continue making their money and they'll prioritize it over the well-being of their employees. I don't think Howie or Derschang will be put out of business by this law. They're just greedy.
46
43: This isn't exactly advanced economic theory. It's basic logic: communicable diseases are communicable--> they will spread if a sick person serves food or handles cash for other people--> these people will not patronize the business that spread this disease to them--> it is bad for business when a sick restaurant worker goes to work--> restaurant workers shouldn't have an incentive to show up sick to work--> restaurant workers need paid sick leave (or a high salary).
Besides, this isn't likely to significantly affect a restaurant's profits. Firstly, we're talking about an hour for each 30 hours, so this isn't an unlimited pool of free cash being handed out to lazy waiters. Secondly, even if a business' workers are somehow so sick that their sick leave adds up enough to drive the place out of business, the last thing we need is for this business to keep serving food to the public. To be concerned about those many sick days, they'd have to be doing their hiring from a leper colony.
Further, a sick employee is way less productive than a healthy one, so your sick worker will make you less money than usual that day anyway. Not only this, but he will be sick (and unproductive) for longer due to lack of rest. Meanwhile, he's getting your other workers sick, and they're less productive when they come to work sick the following week. This can add up to hurt your profits more than one or two paid sick days, even though it's not as direct. This is aside from the potential loss of business should any customers notice how sick their waiter is.
You can debate whether or not this should be legally mandated, or you can debate some of the finer points of how it should be implemented to avoid fakers. But it's pretty clear that a sick worker causes a business more damage when they're getting paid at work than when they're getting paid at home.
And the only way to reasonably expect your employees to actually take unpaid sick leave is if they're highly paid enough to sacrifice their day's pay. And really, isn't this more expensive than just offering the occasional sick day?
There's a logical fallacy that I've noticed where people believe that any policy that shows leniency or generosity towards workers must be bad for business. That's not true. It may be more difficult to quantify the costs of lower productivity, lower morale, higher turnover, and a bad reputation for diseased waitstaff; but this doesn't mean that the costs aren't significant.
More...
Besides, this isn't likely to significantly affect a restaurant's profits. Firstly, we're talking about an hour for each 30 hours, so this isn't an unlimited pool of free cash being handed out to lazy waiters. Secondly, even if a business' workers are somehow so sick that their sick leave adds up enough to drive the place out of business, the last thing we need is for this business to keep serving food to the public. To be concerned about those many sick days, they'd have to be doing their hiring from a leper colony.
Further, a sick employee is way less productive than a healthy one, so your sick worker will make you less money than usual that day anyway. Not only this, but he will be sick (and unproductive) for longer due to lack of rest. Meanwhile, he's getting your other workers sick, and they're less productive when they come to work sick the following week. This can add up to hurt your profits more than one or two paid sick days, even though it's not as direct. This is aside from the potential loss of business should any customers notice how sick their waiter is.
You can debate whether or not this should be legally mandated, or you can debate some of the finer points of how it should be implemented to avoid fakers. But it's pretty clear that a sick worker causes a business more damage when they're getting paid at work than when they're getting paid at home.
And the only way to reasonably expect your employees to actually take unpaid sick leave is if they're highly paid enough to sacrifice their day's pay. And really, isn't this more expensive than just offering the occasional sick day?
There's a logical fallacy that I've noticed where people believe that any policy that shows leniency or generosity towards workers must be bad for business. That's not true. It may be more difficult to quantify the costs of lower productivity, lower morale, higher turnover, and a bad reputation for diseased waitstaff; but this doesn't mean that the costs aren't significant.
47
@41:
I suppose it could be said in the case of some small arts orgs, but very few of the ones with which I've been associated with; in part, because we recognize how little we CAN offer people who choose to collaborate with us, we make a point of doing as much as we can in terms of providing them with a clean, safe, comfortable working environment.
I suppose it could be said in the case of some small arts orgs, but very few of the ones with which I've been associated with; in part, because we recognize how little we CAN offer people who choose to collaborate with us, we make a point of doing as much as we can in terms of providing them with a clean, safe, comfortable working environment.
48
No one has mentioned the most obvious side effect of this initiative. All restaurant people are drunks. Every. Single. One. So businesses will suffer because instead of sobering up and getting some sleep so that you can be coherent at your breakfast shift at the cafe tomorrow morning you opt to finish the bottle and then call in sick to sleep off your hangover. This is indisputable fact. A restaurant is only staff-able through the threat of losing your job if you don't show up or get your shift covered in advance.
By the way small business owners are not often rich people. $800 per employee? Multiplied by 20 employees? That is most likely a 20% pay cut to a small business owner. Hourly, most servers make more than the owner of the business where they work.
By the way small business owners are not often rich people. $800 per employee? Multiplied by 20 employees? That is most likely a 20% pay cut to a small business owner. Hourly, most servers make more than the owner of the business where they work.
49
@43: The noble readers of SLOG are always willing to step up and give away someone else's money to a good cause.
50
@48,
The law offers approximately eight days of sick leave a year. How, exactly, is that going to bring the world to an end?
The law offers approximately eight days of sick leave a year. How, exactly, is that going to bring the world to an end?
51
@50
8 days times 20 employees is 160 days out of the year that a restaurant has to function understaffed (giving the customer a sub-par experience or in some instances no experience), or sending someone into overtime, or missing deliveries etc.
All of this and more so that a small business owner, who scrapes by to add something that they believe is valuable to the community, can subsidize an employee's drunken binge out of their already meager margins.
Who's going to pay the entrepreneur's sick leave? Oh that's right, they have to work everyday come hell or high-water and then get unproportionately taxed for the privilege.
Could this be another example of making the middle class shoulder the majority of the burden so that the wealthiest people don't have to do their part for society and lower income people can avoid responsibility for themselves?
There is an inaccurate perception that anyone who owns a business, no matter how small, is well to do. When in fact in proportion to the investment of time, sweat and soul they make very little.
8 days times 20 employees is 160 days out of the year that a restaurant has to function understaffed (giving the customer a sub-par experience or in some instances no experience), or sending someone into overtime, or missing deliveries etc.
All of this and more so that a small business owner, who scrapes by to add something that they believe is valuable to the community, can subsidize an employee's drunken binge out of their already meager margins.
Who's going to pay the entrepreneur's sick leave? Oh that's right, they have to work everyday come hell or high-water and then get unproportionately taxed for the privilege.
Could this be another example of making the middle class shoulder the majority of the burden so that the wealthiest people don't have to do their part for society and lower income people can avoid responsibility for themselves?
There is an inaccurate perception that anyone who owns a business, no matter how small, is well to do. When in fact in proportion to the investment of time, sweat and soul they make very little.
52
I am shocked we even have retail or service sector anymore...I thought every small business owner was going to go broke when we established a minimum wage, or when we raise that every so often.
When I see a member of the Chamber of Commerce sharing a 1 bedroom apartment w/ 2 other people and taking 3 busses to get to work, I'll be a tad more sympathetic to their "it'll break me" argument.
When I see a member of the Chamber of Commerce sharing a 1 bedroom apartment w/ 2 other people and taking 3 busses to get to work, I'll be a tad more sympathetic to their "it'll break me" argument.
53
@51:
You haven't been paying much attention have you? Yes, in your hypothetical scenario that would be the case IF EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE TOOK EVERY SINGLE ALLOCATED SICK DAY. But, as people have pointed out on numerous occasions on this thread, that's simply not the case. While a few employees might max-out their sick leave, most will only take a day or two, while some won't take any at all. Plus, your scenario doesn't take into account the already common practices of shift-swapping or other employees not scheduled that day otherwise covering the shift.
And clearly your attitude toward your "drunken binge(ing)" employees tells me just about everything I need to know, because: A.) it's none of your fucking business HOW your employees spend the money they earn; B.) if their off-the-clock recreational activities are causing problems in the workplace, you have options, including termination; C.) nobody owes you a fucking dime for your "entrepreneurship", so get over your "middle-class victim" persecution complex already, and; D.) just remember that, if your business goes belly up tomorrow, in the larger scheme of things, no more than a handful of people will notice your absence by the following week. Besides, if what you do, and the people you hire to do it are so onerous to you - why the FUCK are you doing it in the first place?
Oh, right. You're "providing something of value to the community". Give me a fucking break. You're not curing cancer, or preventing suicides, or cleaning up the environment - THOSE things have "value to the community". No, you're just serving FOOD. It ain't rocket science, and it sure the hell ain't fucking altruism either.
So, if you really WANT your employees coming in to work SICK, TO SERVE FOOD TO THE PUBLIC, then please, tell me what restaurant(s) you own, so that in the future I can make a point of never setting foot inside your vile, putrid den of pestilence at the risk of my own health.
More...
You haven't been paying much attention have you? Yes, in your hypothetical scenario that would be the case IF EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE TOOK EVERY SINGLE ALLOCATED SICK DAY. But, as people have pointed out on numerous occasions on this thread, that's simply not the case. While a few employees might max-out their sick leave, most will only take a day or two, while some won't take any at all. Plus, your scenario doesn't take into account the already common practices of shift-swapping or other employees not scheduled that day otherwise covering the shift.
And clearly your attitude toward your "drunken binge(ing)" employees tells me just about everything I need to know, because: A.) it's none of your fucking business HOW your employees spend the money they earn; B.) if their off-the-clock recreational activities are causing problems in the workplace, you have options, including termination; C.) nobody owes you a fucking dime for your "entrepreneurship", so get over your "middle-class victim" persecution complex already, and; D.) just remember that, if your business goes belly up tomorrow, in the larger scheme of things, no more than a handful of people will notice your absence by the following week. Besides, if what you do, and the people you hire to do it are so onerous to you - why the FUCK are you doing it in the first place?
Oh, right. You're "providing something of value to the community". Give me a fucking break. You're not curing cancer, or preventing suicides, or cleaning up the environment - THOSE things have "value to the community". No, you're just serving FOOD. It ain't rocket science, and it sure the hell ain't fucking altruism either.
So, if you really WANT your employees coming in to work SICK, TO SERVE FOOD TO THE PUBLIC, then please, tell me what restaurant(s) you own, so that in the future I can make a point of never setting foot inside your vile, putrid den of pestilence at the risk of my own health.
54
um, meg213, you're contradicting yourself. If these small business owners are not rich, then they aren't being "disproportionately taxed for the privilege" of working every day. See, we don't progressively tax people based on their job title ("Restaurant managers 40%, pizza delivery drivers 20%, chinese food delivery drivers 19%"). We tax people based on their income. So they will only have higher taxes if they have a higher income.
And by the way, out of all the jobs I worked to put myself through college, the owners took an awful lot of vacations for people who "work every day come hell or high water."
Oh, and I didn't drink until I STOPPED working service jobs. I couldn't afford it back then. So no, poor people are not just a bunch of lazy out-of-control drunks out to oppress the overworked business owner. Have you ever even had a restaurant job, or did mommy and daddy pay for everything through college and grad school so that you never had to mix with the peasants and get a more realistic view of them than this cartoonish bullshit?
And by the way, out of all the jobs I worked to put myself through college, the owners took an awful lot of vacations for people who "work every day come hell or high water."
Oh, and I didn't drink until I STOPPED working service jobs. I couldn't afford it back then. So no, poor people are not just a bunch of lazy out-of-control drunks out to oppress the overworked business owner. Have you ever even had a restaurant job, or did mommy and daddy pay for everything through college and grad school so that you never had to mix with the peasants and get a more realistic view of them than this cartoonish bullshit?
55
53: that, and they're providing even less of a value to the community if the food they're serving is laden with disease, and the jobs they're providing are shitty ones with a feudalistic approach to the employee
56
"When I see a member of the Chamber of Commerce sharing a 1 bedroom apartment w/ 2 other people and taking 3 busses to get to work, I'll be a tad more sympathetic to their "it'll break me" argument."
Wow, I'm finding that hard to square with:
"Hourly, most servers make more than the owner of the business where they work."
It's as if one of the opinions is at least half a crock of shit?
Wow, I'm finding that hard to square with:
"Hourly, most servers make more than the owner of the business where they work."
It's as if one of the opinions is at least half a crock of shit?
57
@43, I'm ignorant? No, you are ignorant. Real, competent entrepreneurs know that there is a cost and risk to doing business and accept it. Incompetent entremanures want things both ways. Entremanures want to reap the benefits of running their own business, but not take responsibility for the cost and risk. They snivel over every little penny they pay in cost. They scream and howl about the risks that they take. And yes, somebody who cannot afford to be in business, pay their employees, bills, taxes,etc. and abide by the law has no fucking business being in business in the first place.
58
@44, 46, 57 - I don't think I'm coming to the aid of small business owners nor did I post an opinion about the proposed law. I was simply pointing out that with all these OBVIOUSLY shithead, know-nothing, business owners, there is a enourmous opportunity to enter into the market place and take their customers. Specifically #57, he really has shit together. He knows exactly how to run a business and will be starting up one any day now. And if you already have one, I'd love for you to post the name of it in your reply.
59
It should be accrued paid-time off. Employees should feel the agency to do what they need to do when they need to to stay healthy both mentally and physically. Unfortunately in our culture, taking "sick-time" off is riddled with guilt "am I sick enough to stay home?" and the scrutiny of other workers who bitch when a co-worker is out for the day. If it were paid time off, a worker could use it for sick time, or use it to get well when they feel overwhelmedm or the beginnings of a sickness they could fight off with rest or plan a vacation that may keep them from running their immune system into the ground. Americans are saddled with shit pay, shit benefits, all alongisde barely ever getting a fukcing break. And the quote that other benefits employers offer include "above minimum wage pay" is hilarious. Really though, how to local restaurants institute sick leave when so many of them still to this day to cannot even give their employees regular breaks.
60
Do you think Dave Meinart will have to SELL HIS PERSONAL ISLAND in order to afford a basic benefit like paid sick days for his staff? Nope.
"To get away from it all, [Dave] and family escape to a secluded lake on the back roads of Mason County where his relatives kept summer cabins during his childhood. Recently he bought a tree-studded, three-acre island in the lake where, as a kid, he used to hang out with cousins."
Or will Linda Derschang have to downgrade from her million-dollar NYC penthouse to something a bit less extravagant? Doubtful.
"Linda owns three businesses, a half-million-dollar Pine Street penthouse condo with palm trees and a view, a silver Mercedes convertible, and half of a New York City apartment. 'Thank god for Jet Blue,' she jokes."
These people are lying when they claim they can't afford a basic benefit like paid sick days for their staff.
"To get away from it all, [Dave] and family escape to a secluded lake on the back roads of Mason County where his relatives kept summer cabins during his childhood. Recently he bought a tree-studded, three-acre island in the lake where, as a kid, he used to hang out with cousins."
Or will Linda Derschang have to downgrade from her million-dollar NYC penthouse to something a bit less extravagant? Doubtful.
"Linda owns three businesses, a half-million-dollar Pine Street penthouse condo with palm trees and a view, a silver Mercedes convertible, and half of a New York City apartment. 'Thank god for Jet Blue,' she jokes."
These people are lying when they claim they can't afford a basic benefit like paid sick days for their staff.
61
I, like many that have already posted, find it laughable that Dave Meinart is saying we would rather have health insurance than paid sick days. Speaking for probably most wait staff, I am not eligible for health benefits at the restaurant I work at, because I am not allowed to work full time (40 hours). Sure, I can work three 12 hour days in a row, or close/open/close on very few hours of sleep, but if I cross that 40 hour mark, I actually get written up. Hence, no health benefits. Also (and this is MOST restaurants I have worked in), unless you are projectile vomiting everywhere, you are expected to tough it out with your sicknesses at work. Even the managers come in with their sicknesses, which in truth really irritates me because I know that we will all start getting sick as well. On top of all that, managers sometimes have the attitude that you are not really sick when you try and call in with your fever.
I am all for paid sick days! It is the least my work can do for me after all I do for them.
I am all for paid sick days! It is the least my work can do for me after all I do for them.
62
@61 Technically, the least they can do is follow the current employment laws and pay you per the terms of your agreement. What you meant to say is that you want the government to increase what the company does for you.
63
"But Licata says skyrocketing costs is the same straw man raised against child labor laws and the implementation of a minimum wage."
Reductio ad absurdum
Reductio ad absurdum
64
Isn't it fascinating to see hipster business owners like Dave Meinert and Linda Derschang get in bed with the Chamber of Commerce to oppose paid sick leave BEFORE THEY'VE EVEN SEEN THE PROPOSAL?
They say that any proposal would have to cost their employees something else. Because they are certain where the money won't come from: their net business profits or six figure personal income.
They say that any proposal would have to cost their employees something else. Because they are certain where the money won't come from: their net business profits or six figure personal income.
66
I wonder how Mr. Meinert manages in rural Mason County without the Seattle nightlife and music 'industry' with its attendant heavy drinking, noise, mess and and lousy behavior he seem always to be peddling to the rest of us stuck in town on the weekend?
67
This is fascinating. With more and more eligible workers gravitating toward food service throughout the recession--and treating their work as a "real job"-- arguably, the same benefits are owed to workers. The quality of service industry workers has increased dramatically. Serving isn't a goof off job anymore. It's a life-saving alternative when other opportunities aren't available, as is now the case. Restaurant workers should ALWAYS earn above minimum wages and receive benefits, with the opportunity for raises, just like any old office job would provide. In addition to the benefits restaurant workers already get, paid sick leave is owed and deserved.
(Also my favorite part: "Meinert, Derschang, and Neitzel all say they offer employee benefits in some form or another, be it health insurance, free meals, above-minimum-wage pay, or paid time off."
FREE shift meals? $8.75 an hour? BOY THANKS.)
(Also my favorite part: "Meinert, Derschang, and Neitzel all say they offer employee benefits in some form or another, be it health insurance, free meals, above-minimum-wage pay, or paid time off."
FREE shift meals? $8.75 an hour? BOY THANKS.)
68
@56 - I would imagine that, for 2 hours per night, a skilled server in a very high end establishment who does not tip out the bus boy or the dishwasher (dick move) might be able to bring in a good chunk of cash- but probably not as much as the owner. Problem is that they are making minimum wage while they are doing prep, wrapping silverware, moving tables for large parties, cleaning up, etc.
- Also, being forced to clock out for 15 minutes so they don't get a paid lunch,
- being clocked out at 39-1/2 hours so they don't accidentally get overtime.
-having their time averaged over 2 weeks to avoid paying overtime.
-being scheduled for 29 hours/week (or whatever the cutoff is at a given company) to avoid benfits
-having employees do personal work for owner while clocked in
-have employees mis-enter inventory for tax advantage
-etc. etc. etc.
I appreciate small business owners entreprenurial spirit and drive to 'make it'. but taking advantage of your employees is the norm, and places that treat their people well should be lauded.
- Also, being forced to clock out for 15 minutes so they don't get a paid lunch,
- being clocked out at 39-1/2 hours so they don't accidentally get overtime.
-having their time averaged over 2 weeks to avoid paying overtime.
-being scheduled for 29 hours/week (or whatever the cutoff is at a given company) to avoid benfits
-having employees do personal work for owner while clocked in
-have employees mis-enter inventory for tax advantage
-etc. etc. etc.
I appreciate small business owners entreprenurial spirit and drive to 'make it'. but taking advantage of your employees is the norm, and places that treat their people well should be lauded.
69
@68 --I meant @56 and @48 -Meg213: you are not very smart. I know it is hard to realize that supply-side econ 101 models don't actually work in the real world. Making seemingly random assertions with no real merit is a good way to get yourself heard, but it doesn't lend any weight.
70
seriously- if we somehow were able to pinpoint exactly how we got sick (like, say, a sick restaurant worker) so the guilty business could be held accountable, this wouldn't even be an issue- Sick workers wouldn't be forced to show up, PERIOD.
(But as it is, these cheap fucks bank on patrons not being able to pinpoint how they got sick... which is really fucked up)
(But as it is, these cheap fucks bank on patrons not being able to pinpoint how they got sick... which is really fucked up)
71
@68
All the skullduggery that you mentioned goes on in the healthcare industry as well.
How's that for a cheery thought?
Be nice to the person taking your vitals: they're disposable "service" workers, too. and if they get sick? So what?! Doc needs his coffee and you had *better* be quick about it.
All the skullduggery that you mentioned goes on in the healthcare industry as well.
How's that for a cheery thought?
Be nice to the person taking your vitals: they're disposable "service" workers, too. and if they get sick? So what?! Doc needs his coffee and you had *better* be quick about it.
72
Bad idea. If restaurant employees are home sick I sincerely hope they are sick because I was too lazy to wash my hands and I got shit in their food for a change. And if they are indeed sick because of my uncaring laziness too fucking bad but they can use their down time to learn to speak english or go the fuck home. If you want bennies then stay the fuck in school and get a real job you motherfucking losers and don't try to ruin my business because you are trying to out fag San Francisco yet again.
73
OK, I have read ALL the comments above and there are many great points.
Let me tell you all how it would directly effect a business and its employees.
I am a small business owner in Seattle, I have been in business for 8 years and have 12 full time employees. My business grosses around $432,000 a year, sounds like a ton, huh? Well, my Cost of Goods are $172,800/labor is $138,240 /General Expenses are $95,000. This leaves $25,960 /year as profit. I work 40 hours a week, sometimes more, and bring home $2163/month. This breaks out to be $13.50/hour which is actually less than some of my employees. I'm not complaining, I love my business, my job and all my wonderful employees.
BUT, if this initiative passes it could cost me $1080 per employee each year which would add up to $12,960 every year. Remember that I bring home $25,960/year which would bring that sum down to $13,000/year.
I could not support my family should this pass and would be forces to close my business.
This would mean that the city would no longer get the $518,000/year in sales tax that by business collects for them but myself and 12 other people (8 of which have families) are out of work!
Here's a bit of irony for you...I am on my way into work to cover for an employee who is sick. With this initiative, not only would I have to cover his shift, but I would pay him for every hour I work...wow!
Let me tell you all how it would directly effect a business and its employees.
I am a small business owner in Seattle, I have been in business for 8 years and have 12 full time employees. My business grosses around $432,000 a year, sounds like a ton, huh? Well, my Cost of Goods are $172,800/labor is $138,240 /General Expenses are $95,000. This leaves $25,960 /year as profit. I work 40 hours a week, sometimes more, and bring home $2163/month. This breaks out to be $13.50/hour which is actually less than some of my employees. I'm not complaining, I love my business, my job and all my wonderful employees.
BUT, if this initiative passes it could cost me $1080 per employee each year which would add up to $12,960 every year. Remember that I bring home $25,960/year which would bring that sum down to $13,000/year.
I could not support my family should this pass and would be forces to close my business.
This would mean that the city would no longer get the $518,000/year in sales tax that by business collects for them but myself and 12 other people (8 of which have families) are out of work!
Here's a bit of irony for you...I am on my way into work to cover for an employee who is sick. With this initiative, not only would I have to cover his shift, but I would pay him for every hour I work...wow!
74
A friend of mine works at the Stranger,most of the staff are freelance, but they have many employees too. He overheard some folks joking about this saying"Oh well, if it passes we will just charge more for ads". Wow, super funny-NOT.
76
Contrary to what is stated in this article, I have yet to choose a position. Comment 73 is the reason I am not willing to actively support this issue, because this is not an anomaly. Though my company can afford it, many small business owners cannot. However, I am unwilling to speak out against it because I care about my employees and I do think employee benefits are important. This includes paid sick leave, health insurance, and shift meals, but I understand that not all businesses cannot afford to provide some of these things. I remain undecided.
77
"Meinert, Derschang, and Neitzel all say they offer employee benefits in some form or another, be it health insurance, free meals, above-minimum-wage pay, or paid time off."
Translation: Molly Moon's employees get health insurance and time off, while Big Mario's employees get the crusts from the compost bin.
Way to equivocate. Is this biased or just sloppy?
Translation: Molly Moon's employees get health insurance and time off, while Big Mario's employees get the crusts from the compost bin.
Way to equivocate. Is this biased or just sloppy?
78
@Linda: You're totally right--we don't want to put 73 or any other employers out of business. And when did the argument become over what employers' responsibilities are? We should all be responsible as a society for providing health care to everyone.
But since society won't pay and you can afford it, it would be great if you would voluntarily give health insurance and PTO.
But since society won't pay and you can afford it, it would be great if you would voluntarily give health insurance and PTO.
79
@73 I think your math is off--are you assuming all employees will be sick the maximum nine days?
You're paying $172,800 in labor now, right? If you're paying each employee to work ~200 days a year, but under this law they would work about 197-198 days, your labor costs are effectively going up about $2000 total. For that price you get a healthier workplace and no more "office colds" which damage productivity themselves.
And keep in mind 70% of SF businesses said there was no impact..
You're paying $172,800 in labor now, right? If you're paying each employee to work ~200 days a year, but under this law they would work about 197-198 days, your labor costs are effectively going up about $2000 total. For that price you get a healthier workplace and no more "office colds" which damage productivity themselves.
And keep in mind 70% of SF businesses said there was no impact..
80
@79 re: 73
And what if you factor in, just spit balling a figure here, a twenty-five cent increase in all prices? I doubt an extra quarter will drive customers away in droves.
And what if you factor in, just spit balling a figure here, a twenty-five cent increase in all prices? I doubt an extra quarter will drive customers away in droves.
RSS
Twitter
Comments (80) RSS