Comments

1
funny how often it's the super-corporate franchisees who whinge about these things while numerous local places are happy to step up
2
Franchises definitely ARE small businesses - it's entry level ownership, which is why so many fast-food franchises are owned by immigrants.

But anyhow, I think the law would do better by protecting workers from penalties related to missed/late shifts that could be explained by sabotage-scheduling (this, IMO, is the primary concern: some companies mix up schedules to keep leverage over employees in case they need to fire them).
3
no, not our beloved Subways and Walgreens!
4
If this pushes subway out of Seattle, then full speed ahead!
5
Did we ever find out if eating subway every day made Jared horny for kids?
6
Just because the restaurant I currently work at does not fall under this law, is not an argument that holds any weight at all Heidi. The thing is, I am a real worker heading a real grass roots movement to protect real workers rights. The FSWA stands for all workers in the Full Service industry. I, myself have worked in those very establishments. I may yet again. Those workers are part of my working family and I will not stand down just because I currently dont fall under this bill. I still have the right as a citizen of this country to execise those rights in protest of council when they are doing the wrong thing.
7
This law makes great business sense. Nothing worse for morale than anxiety over how much you'll make in a paycheck for a job you've devoted your current life and energy to. If he were alive today, Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican of course, would agree with this law.
8
Come on kids, load up the Explorer. We're heading to Shoreline for some Subway! Ask the neighbors if they want to come.
9
Actually West Seattle is even closer than Shoreline, with that water taxi running.
10
Does Heidi work for Working Washington (an SEIU front group) or is she a reporter? Hard to tell.

The reason actual people who work at full service restaurants dislike this law is that it makes schedule changes more expensive for owners, so owner won't allow them. Most full service restaurant workers choose that industry for the flexibility.

And Heidi is just plain wrong that when a worker volunteers to shifts there is no penalty. In the case of "clopenings", even if a worker chooses to work a closing shift and an opening shift, the employer is effectively fined, which means the workers who want to do this won't be allowed to anymore.

Also, Heidi keeps citing Working Washington's talking point that the Full Service workers at Tom Douglass's restaurants don't have credibility when testifying on this issue since they are exempt from it. But they are only exempt from it because they spoke up. Original drafts had any full service restaurant with 500 employees covered by the law, which would have included Douglass's restaurants. It's also important to note that this is just the Mayor's proposal. Labor is still lobbying to make it 500 employees, not 500 and 40 locations. And council members like Herbold and Sawant also want a more broad definition of who this applies to. Additionally, Working Washington says this will only be a 2 year pilot, and if it works (which it will no matter what for their analysis) then they will lobby to have it expanded to all businesses.

So actual workers should continue to speak up.
12
@11) Stop complaining or we'll bring back those crackheads to write the comments for you again.
13
All businesses throw tantrums when their exploited workers demand rights. Fact is, if small changes like this imperil your business model here, then your business model is seriously fragile shit and deserves the failure it seeks. Maybe a 3rd world nation is better for your type of business theory, but I doubt the governments there will provide 1) any of the costly (and 'free' - 'FREE STUFF!') infrastructure that is essential for you, or 2) the competent/reliable/intelligent workforce you claim entitlement to, or 3) protect you from criminal graft, or 4) have the customer base that buy what you sell. Competent business people with effective business models will gladly step in to our thriving economy and take the profits you were unable/unwilling to earn with your 19th century mentality.
14
I work at Starbucks!

We are not allowed to be scheduled a clopen, but if we volunteer to take one on it's on us. It will be the same with this bill: if we volunteer to trade shifts or go home early, that is different from the manager making the decision for us.

It's really not rocket science.

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
Preview

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