SF Politics and LaborPosted by sasha at 08 Nov 2006 09:24 pm
I wanted to highlight the groundbreaking nature of San Francisco’s passage of Prop F, the sick pay initiative. We are the first people in the country to pass something like this, but I bet we won’t be the last. This will be another case of San Francisco setting a precedent and other cities (and eventually states) following.
But beyond the precedent, prop F’s passage will make a material difference in the lives of thousands of San Francisco’s low wage workers.
Much credit goes to Young Workers United for their spearheading of this effort. They’re a small but scrappy organization, and I am proud to be on the board of a foundation that funded them early.
November 8th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
Oh…we might be the last.
This is a horrendous measure that hits small businesses directly in the pocketbook. It escapes me why anyone would want to start a business in San Francisco with such hostile governing. You and the YWU just don’t even understand the very basics of economics. There is a very good reason why all the good jobs are outside the City. It’s measuers like these that make it absurd to do business in the City.
November 8th, 2006 at 11:56 pm
So you wanna eat in a place where the staff are coughing on your salad because they can’t afford a day off?
November 9th, 2006 at 10:57 am
pwb, those “good jobs” you refer to have paid sick days. Prop. F is an effort to create more “good jobs.”
November 9th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
And every other first world country guarantees sick days, often in nearly unlimited quantity, and not to mention giving at least 2 if not 6 weeks of paid vacation, and a lot of those countries are wealthier than this one. That’s basic economics too.
November 9th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
After giving it some thought, I’m 50/50 on Prop F. Yes, in the grand scheme of things, paid sick leave is probably a good idea.
That being said, I fully agree with the spirit of pwb’s comment. San Francisco IS A TERRIBLE PLACE TO START A BUSINESS and the Board of Supervisors has no clue regarding basic economic principals. The propositions they put on pretty much every ballot keeps moving SF away from a business friendly environment. Many of the “good jobs” that Esperanza says are outside of the city were once IN the city. Chevron and Pacific Bell/SBC moving to San Ramon didn’t occur because they got sick of the fog. They moved becasue it’s cheaper to operate (read: cheaper to CREATE GOOD JOBS) outside of the city. It’s always amazing to me how the progressive movement in SF consistently ignores basic supply / demand principles, then questions why all the “good jobs” are not in SF.
I’m beginning to think that the progressive movement in SF is pro-business, so long as the business is an “acceptable” business to them:
Acceptable = Atlas Cafe
Unacceptable = Starbucks
Acceptable = any weekend farmers market
Unacceptable = Safeway
Acceptable = any local pharmacy
Unacceptable = Walgreens
November 9th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
“And every other first world country guarantees sick days”
Then what is the “precedent”?
“So you wanna eat in a place where the staff are coughing on your salad because they can’t afford a day off?”
A) that’s a scare tactic, b) the law extends well beyond restaurants, c) employees are free to choose employers who offer paid sick time, d) that’s an extreme situation, e) does anyone exert any personal responsibility anymore?, f) when’s the last time that happened to you?, g) should i go on?
November 9th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
“And every other first world country guarantees sick days…”
This is a huge can of worms that you don’t want to open. When you say First World, are you referring to western European countries? If you are, then you should know that these countries (France, Germany, Britian) are poster children for the traditional welfare state, and are suffering high unemployment and sustained low growth. Contrast that with Ireland which has rolled out the red carpet to foreign businesses by cutting corporate tax rates down to 12%. Unemployment is non-existent in Ireland and companies like Intel are huge employers there.
Can you even comprehend the Supes even considering cutting corporate tax rates in SF??
November 9th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Young Workers United is supportive of small business and also supports the health and well-being of workers. We shouldn’t have to chose between good, safe and humane jobs and a vibrant small business community.
We feel that the best solution is the recently proposed gross receipts tax that shifts the tax burden to large corporations, while preserving the quality of jobs for workers.
Our suggestion to small business owners would be to do exactly what the Coalition for Paid Sick Days. Organize yourselves to win a gross receipts tax with the support of labor, community and progressive activists. Don’t attack workers’ rights and let big corporations off the hook so easily.
November 9th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
“these countries (France, Germany, Britian) are poster children for the traditional welfare state, and are suffering high unemployment and sustained low growth.”
Well, except that they create more jobs than we do.
And there’s no longer much of an employment gap.
But carry on…
November 9th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
“..employees are free to choose employers who offer paid sick time..”
Whatever supply and demands principles you claim are lost on progressives is only offset by your lack of understanding of what low-wage workers are actually “free” to do when trying to survive.
You don’t want them on the street, but you also don’t want to ensure they can subsist either.
November 10th, 2006 at 11:19 am
If they young workers were so pro small business, they might have attempted to negotiate in good faith with the restaurants, whose concern was not sick days, but so many for the first year of employment. Nine days is extraordinary, five would be fine. And the “low wage workers” you’re so concerned about are called waiters, and they do just fine in this town. The progs would be able to go alot farther in their agenda if they tried to listen more and preach less.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
…OK, I will. Repost your comments next June ‘cause everything I’m reading suggest any economic gains in Europe today are a temporary blip.
November 10th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
“Organize yourselves to win a gross receipts tax”
Did anyone read this without laughing? Win a tax?
November 11th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
I work for a small business that has a wellness policy in which we employees are rewarded for being well and not sick. Most of us are only sick a couple times a year and this policy REALLY rewards us for being at work. Now my boss says he’s abandoning this perk in leiu of Prop F. Our office relies on people not cutting out of work but I’ve heard coworkers saying they’re going to call sick even though they’re OK to take advantage of this policy. That means I’m going to have to cover them when they’re gone. I know the argument about not spreading germs at work but I rather see a policy that rewards committed people for being at work than being at home.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:41 am
Regarding Prop. F. I own a small business in San Francisco. I offer as many sick days as my business can afford and health insurance to our employees, their spouses/domestic partners and their children. To those who supported Prop. F and the Worker Healthcare Security Ordinance consider this: on December 31, 2006 I will be firing eight employees five of whom have children. We simply do not have the money to cover the added costs resulting from these two acts. I’m not some greedy stereotype trying to increase quarterly profits. I’m an honest hard-working guy just trying to get by and this is breaking my heart. To those of you who supported these acts I ask that, in the future, you carefully consider the consequences of your actions.
Thank you,
James T Duncan
November 12th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
James, I don’t get that. How could a few extra sick days mean that you have to fire 8 employees? If every employee works 220 days a year, that means the 8 employees work 1760 days total. If the law requires you to give every employee 5 extra sick days a year, then you must have (1760/5 = )352 employees. At that point, I am not sure how you can call your business “small”. And if you can’t run a business that big that can afford 9 days of sick time, I’d guess that this new law is not exactly your biggest problem.
November 12th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
To be honest I don’t understand your math. This is what I do understand: We have 22 employees. Our average cost for an hour of labor is 38.50. As written the Prop F requires that we provide 9 paid days off. This will cost us an additional $60,984.00 per year. Here is how I reached that figure:
Employees Average Hourly Cost $38.50
Hours per Work Day 8.00
Daily subtotal $308.00
Prop F requires 9 days per year 9.00
Yearly cost per person $2,772.00
Times 22 employees 22.00
Total yearly cost $60,984.00
We do not have that money. Because of the competitive nature of the business we are in that is more money than we have left over at the end of any year.
If you would like I can provide you with some spreadsheets showing the impact of Prop F on our business and how I, in conjunction with our financial advisor, concluded that firing 8 good people was the only way to keep our business afloat.
Thank you,
James T Duncan
November 12th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
Here’s what I don’t understand, James: If your average hourly cost per employee is $38.50, your total theoretical cost for sick time is less than what it costs you to pay one employee for a year. So I don’t understand how it means you have to fire 8 people.
Second, I would imagine your productivity per hour will increase if people are not working when they are sick or worried about their kids or whatever.
Third, I still maintain that simply having 9 sick days per year does not mean people will take 9 sick days. I have never taken all ten of my sick days, so I don’t understand why all of a sudden people will work the system for everything it allows.
November 15th, 2006 at 7:09 am
This is the worse written nightmare that politicians could have visisted upon the workplace. They have shortsighted the realities and left more questions than answers.
1. There is no payout upon termination.
2. If a person is subject to layoffs, does the company maintain accruals from one period of employment to another, or does it start accruing from zero when that employee begins employment again?
3. When an employee terminates via layoff for a period of over 3months, does the accrual of sick days exist when s/he returns or is it gone?
There are many other gaping holes in this “law” that the drafters were too eager to get votes (both for the proposition and their own jobs) to pay attention to. The voters did not vote on these holes, so is the business community free to drive right through them? See this one leading to injunctions and being exposed for the flimsy, poorly written and incomplete legislation of a complex personnel/Human Resources function. I’m willing to bet not one of the drafters reviewed it with an HR professional before submitting it to the voters.