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.
“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.” 
@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.
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?
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
“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?
@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.
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.
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.
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.
“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
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.
@62 Indeed.
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?
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.)
@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.
@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.
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)
@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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
“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?
@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.
@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..
@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.