By Melanie Trottman
Proposed laws requiring employers to give workers more
predictable and remunerative schedules are sprouting across the
nation, drawing the ire of some employers as local governments wade
into the debate over economic inequality.
Largely aimed at part-time employees in the retail and
food-service sectors that employ some of the lowest-wage workers in
the country, the plans vary in scope but have common goals: give
employees more notice of their schedules, more access to extra
hours and extra pay for employers' last-minute scheduling
changes.
Worker advocates say the laws would shore up the middle class by
narrowing income gaps and improving work-life balance. Some
employers worry about rising costs and inefficiencies they say
could hurt them and their employees.
Seattle's City Council unanimously approved an ordinance over
fair scheduling in September after a lively political debate
pitting employers against labor groups and their allies.
New York City's Mayor Bill de Blasio in September said he would
work with his City Council to draft scheduling legislation.
And in California, the City Council in Emeryville unanimously
passed a scheduling law last month, while San Jose residents
approved a scheduling ballot initiative in the Nov. 8 election.
There also have been scheduling campaigns or proposals in
several states -- Maryland, Massachusetts and Minnesota to name a
few. In Washington, D.C., the City Council recently put aside a
bill to give them time to sort through the issues.
But Republican victories this month in the presidential,
congressional and gubernatorial races are raising fresh questions
about whether pending scheduling proposals would face greater
resistance at the state and federal levels.
President-elect Donald Trump has generally vowed to roll back
regulations, but hasn't been specific about laws addressing issues
such as overtime pay and scheduling. Most of the scheduling
legislation has come at the local level, however.
Employers call scheduling regulations a solution in search of a
problem and say workers initiate most scheduling changes. They warn
such laws would remove employer autonomy and penalize businesses
because of a small group of bad actors.
They say the regulations boost employer costs and reduce
flexibility. "I will have to raise my prices," said David Jones,
who owns two Subway sandwich shops in Seattle. He says the
scheduling law adds a "complicated layer" to the cost of the recent
Seattle law increasing the minimum wage. Mr. Jones expects many
employers to try to cut costs by not fully covering shifts, "So
when somebody calls in sick, everyone will just have to work
harder."
Employers are also concerned about documentation required to
prove compliance with these laws. "We have to document that we
offer added hours" fairly to employees, said Bob Donegan, president
of Ivar's, a Seattle-based chain of seafood restaurants.
Still, not all business owners oppose scheduling mandates.
Reginald Swilley, co-owner of the Minority Business Consortium in
Silicon Valley, said the San Jose initiative will benefit the
economy. Employees "will be able to commit themselves to one
particular job and be more efficient, " he said.
Flavia Cabral works two part-time jobs to make ends meet. She
would like a more reliable schedule from one -- a McDonald's
franchise restaurant. "They text me telling me to stay home
'because we don't need you today,' " making it harder to cover her
rent, the 55-year-old New York City resident said.
McDonald's Corp. didn't have a comment.
The economic recovery has left a range of workers with stagnant
or lower incomes, and they often lack the hours they need or are
working multiple jobs.
But as cities and states have increased minimum wages to as high
as $15 hourly, worker groups have pressed for other improvements,
such as paid sick leave and scheduling mandates.
"The economy is changing rapidly. We've got to figure out the
new sets of policy solutions that are going to make it so that
workers can earn a decent living and thrive," said Derecka Mehrens,
executive director of Working Partnerships USA and a co-founder of
the campaign that launched the San Jose effort.
Ms. Mehrens and other supporters of scheduling laws say they are
encouraged by the four states -- Arizona, Colorado, Maine and
Washington -- where voters approved minimum-wage increases on Nov.
8.
Seattle's was the second comprehensive scheduling law enacted in
the U.S., after San Francisco passed one for big retailers in 2014
that become fully effective this past March.
Although some employers and business groups say they have
experienced some hitches with San Francisco's law, Seema Patel,
deputy director of the city's Office of Labor Standards Enforcement
said that based on complaints and calls to the agency's hotline,
the regulations have helped workers. And "we have not heard any
feedback from employers that the law has negatively affected
them."
Seattle's law takes effect next year and covers large retailers
and food-service businesses. It requires employers to post
schedules at least 14 days in advance. They must also give existing
part-time employees first shot at extra hours instead of
automatically hiring part-timers to cover. And employers will have
to pay added wages for making certain last-minute scheduling
changes.
Oliver Savage, a 22-year-old barista at a Seattle Starbucks,
already gets his schedule two weeks in advance, as some employers
made changes on their own before the city took action. The
full-time college student hopes to work next summer beyond the
21-hour weekly maximum this past summer.
A Starbucks spokesman declined to comment on the Seattle law but
said the company has made scheduling improvements over the past two
years.
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
November 26, 2016 07:14 ET (12:14 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2016 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Starbucks (NASDAQ:SBUX)
Historical Stock Chart
From Apr 2024 to May 2024
Starbucks (NASDAQ:SBUX)
Historical Stock Chart
From May 2023 to May 2024