Hmmm. Conservative flack uses fear and misinformation to advance his employer's policy interests. Par for the course.
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.
it's morale, right?
\end nitpicking



I am taking my business ELSEWHERE, SEATTLE. Enjoy your fucking GHOST TOWN
Gonna leave if it passes? Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

And good riddance.
@3, fixed, thanks!

@6, your question is stupid.
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.
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.
@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.
There's bullshit flying from all directions here. It's a bullshit fight!
@ 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.
@14 - Because no one could possibly understand something unless they are a participant. Is that what you're saying?
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?
@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.
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!
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...
@16. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Funniest troll all day. This ain't the fuckin times, ya dig?
#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?
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.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.