@Mistral

Unless you're proposing population control, all of your bullet points against worker's rights would happen regardless. So until then, why not pay people a living wage with a livable schedule to boot. Automation is coming no matter how much labor costs.

Shouldn't that be called "UNpredictability pay"?

@mistral

What is the argument called when you completely ignore my point and argue semantics and they go about repeating yourself in lieu of furthering the conversation?

This is all about the union's power. This is not about workers. Retail and restaurant workers want flexibility, that is often why they work in these industries. It is rare for employers in this city to treat people like some of these individuals claim they are treated.

If you don't have your Monday schedule until Monday morning, that business is going to fail and you should jump and turn right or left and you'll find a better business to work for.

When someone calls in sick, the business should not be punished for offering those hours to someone else. And quite honestly they should be able to offer those hours to the people they know need them, not the person who is quickest to text back. Now, the business is not going to pay a minimum of $26 with taxes to fill that position for that shift. That just is crazy, and it is an everyday thing for these businesses.

It is also going to push people out of jobs that might be less reliable, people with health issues, such as frequent migraines, or a parent or child they need to care for. Now, employers can handle these issues, but they won't if it costs them that much. And it won't help morale if those remaining employees are made to work harder because another employee didn't show up.

It doesn't stop there. I encourage people to read the proposed law. They aren't just targeting big business, they added that exemption last week, but I guarantee it will be short lived.

Last night some thoughtful business shared some things that concerned them, and the union reps mocked and insulted as well as the employees who came forward to oppose the bill. Apparently these union organizers believe they are the only ones who understand the employer-employee relationship. I'm sure the city will just go ahead because after all they in debt to the unions.

Good for them: Does anybody pay YOU to commute or be on call? Pah! --- http://crimethinc.com & http://www.whywork.org & http://www.ic.org .

My only HUGE concern is this: if it is worded this vaguely, it will mean no workers can ever work a double shift. Sure, they could in theory, but no employer is going to pay them $22.50/hour. As long as it is worded so "clopening" refers only to closing at night and being back in the morning, that's fine, otherwise a lot of people are going to get screwed. When I worked at a restaurant I preferred to work double: I come in, work lunch, have an hour or so to eat and use my laptop at Starbucks, and come back and work dinner. I worked that for three days and had the rest for school and what not. As it sounds from this and other articles, it is just worded "every shift must have 10 hours between them or it is overtime," which is asinine without being more specific.

Sure, make scheduling predictable, make "clopening" happen less and all, but give workers to option to work doubles and pick-up shifts.