Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Council Will Consider Citywide Mandatory Paid Sick Leave

City council members will consider legislation that would mandate paid sick leave for all employees in Seattle; if the bill, which will be introduced later this spring by city council member Nick Licata, passes, Seattle will join just three other cities—Milwaukee, Washington, D.C., and San Fransisco—in requiring private employers to provide paid sick days.

According to Marilyn Watkins of the Economic Opportunity Institute, one of several dozen liberal and progressive groups pushing the legislation, more than 40 percent of workers in Seattle—many of them in food, health care, and service jobs that put them in close contact with the public—have no paid sick leave. “There’s a huge public health issue and equity issue.”

Employees could use their sick time to recover from illness, to care for family members, to seek services related to domestic violence or stalking, or to stay home during a public health emergency (like swine flu). Employers could require employees to provide a doctor’s note if they stay home from work for more than three days, but employers who don’t provide health care would have to pay for their employees’ trip to the doctor to get that documentation.

The ordinance would set a range of mandates depending on the size of a business. For very small businesses (under 10 employees), employees would accrue an hour of sick leave for every 30 hours they work, up to 40 hours (five days off) a year. Larger businesses would have to provide more sick leave—up to 72 hours (nine days off) a year for businesses with more than ten employees.

It’s the startups, the restaurants, and the in-home health care providers, among small, narrow-margin employers, that tend to chafe at government mandates like paid sick leave.

Obviously, Watkins says, “people at small companies get sick just as often, and have kids who are sick just as often” as those who work at big corporations, “but larger companies typically have more flexibility. … There’s a perception that it’s more difficult for small businesses to give people time off,” she tells PubliCola.

Those same small businesses and the groups that represent them have typically been the ones most opposed to medical leave mandates, Watkins says. “Boeing isn’t going to be against this. Amazon isn’t going to be against this. They provide paid leave already,” Watkins says. It’s the startups, the restaurants, and the in-home health care providers, among small, narrow-margin employers, that tend to chafe at government mandates like paid sick leave.

Still, Watkins says that in cities where paid sick leave is mandatory, the sky has not fallen down. In San Francisco, for example, “there was a lot of skepticism about government mandates, but the theories about rampant abuse”—people staying home just because they can—”didn’t pan out.” In fact, the average worker in San Francisco takes just three sick days a year.

The group that’s lobbying for the legislation, the Seattle Coalition for a Healthy Workforce, is holding a town hall meeting to discuss the proposal on Wednesday, May 11, at 5:00 pm at the University Christian Church, 4731 15th Ave. NE.


  • Mary

    Not the best timing for something like this…

  • Butch

    Great way to drive yet more jobs out of the city.

  • Semper virens

    Re: “The group that’s lobbying for the legislation, the Seattle Coalition for a Healthy Workforce, is holding a town hall meeting to discuss the proposal on Wednesday, May 11…”

    I went to the proponents’ website and the “town hall meeting” is billed as a “kick-off”, not a discussion. A discussion would imply an articulation of the pros and cons of the idea with a wide range of stakeholders “discussing” it. To my knowledge, no one opposed has been invited, nor have any agnostic business-owners.

  • Anonymous

    Lets quantify the impact of 3 days paid leave. There are about 260 week days in a year, 3 days paid sick leave constitutes 1.15% of these work days. Thus area businesses will recieve 1.15% less work or pay 1.15% more for the same amount of work. Harder to quantify is how productive these sick workers would actually be if they didn’t have off. I would stipulate that anyone who is taking a sick day, probably wouldn’t be 100% productive. Meanwhile the benefits for public health are even harder to isolate but there must be some positive economic benefit from this. Additionally one should add that even though it’d be a government requirement, companies offering sick leave to potential employees does constitute a benefit that will help companies attract workers. To the extent that paid sick leave substitutes for higher income this might even be revenue neutral or even positive for companies. Suffice to say there is very little downside risk to the economy of the city and strong potential benefits.

  • Anonymous

    Lets quantify the impact of 3 days paid leave. There are about 260 week days in a year, 3 days paid sick leave constitutes 1.15% of these work days. Thus area businesses will recieve 1.15% less work or pay 1.15% more for the same amount of work. Harder to quantify is how productive these sick workers would actually be if they didn’t have off. I would stipulate that anyone who is taking a sick day, probably wouldn’t be 100% productive. Meanwhile the benefits for public health are even harder to isolate but there must be some positive economic benefit from this. Additionally one should add that even though it’d be a government requirement, companies offering sick leave to potential employees does constitute a benefit that will help companies attract workers. To the extent that paid sick leave substitutes for higher income this might even be revenue neutral or even positive for companies. Suffice to say there is very little downside risk to the economy of the city and strong potential benefits.

  • gohuskies

    I think this is mainly targeted at workers in food service. Many menial jobs at restaurants, grocery stores, etc, don’t offer paid sick leave, and you don’t want a sick worker preparing or handling your food.

  • Cascadian

    Would this cover contract workers, or just salaried employees? I currently don’t get paid sick leave and the net impact on me and the company I work for is reduced productivity, because I come in when I’m sick, don’t work effectively, take longer to get better than if I had time off, and I almost certainly contribute to other people getting sick even though I try not to. I think this is a great thing and this is the best time to do this–companies are failing to hire because of lack of demand, and not because employees are too expensive. Putting more money in the hands of employees and making them more productive by allowing them to take sick leave will help the local economy.

  • Anonymous

    Having a sick worker cook, handle or serve your food is definitely a public health issue, just like a sick home care nurse taking of your grandma or a sick daycare teacher in your kid’s school. Those industries are probably in the majority of workers w/o paid sick days anyway.

    Also, I would be willing to be that the restaurant owners/managers that let their employees stay home when they’re sick without penalty probably have higher worker retention and *maybe* even a higher customer RoR.

    Sounds like lower hiring/training costs and maybe a better customer base, which tend to drive up profits. Of course, most servers and cooks won’t stay home unless they’re really sick anyway – tips are the real wages.

  • Jakers

    Contract as in 1099? If so, the company you work for is yourself and you have to take into account sick days that you won’t work (and all other kinds of expenses) when you negotiate the terms of the contract with the company that is contracting with you. But if you are sick and still have to report to work somewhere, you may not truly be a 1099 contractor, and may be able to sue for benefits.

  • sarah

    Where do you suppose those primarily service-sector jobs would go? If you’re a worker in a hotel, restaurant, or other low-pay-type industry company in Seattle which traditionally doesn’t pay sick leave but which depends on customers walking in the door, your employer isn’t going to be able to send your job to Des Moines. The employer will just add a few more cents to the customers’ bills, which won’t break anyone.

  • puzzled totally

    1) Under what authority granted by the legislature can the city do this;elp

    2) This would not affect any worker covered by collective bargaining

    3) How about the city cutting enough of its staff benefits and wages, to enable a tax cut to city businesses, that would them pay for this?;

    4) Just because this is Seattle does not mean money grows on trees. What exactly is the City going to do, to help pay for this, besides gouge working folks on parking tickets?

  • Dmeinert

    josh, way to talk to just one side on this issue. would be nice if you gave a voice to the progressive small business owners and workers who oppose this well meaning but poorly thought out ordinance.

    Is Paid Sick Days really the most important benefit workers want, especially in the restaurant world? Or would it be better to figure out a way to get pooled and thus inexpensive health care plans for small businesses to buy into so they can provide health insurance to their employees? The same goes for retirement plans. Both these benefits would be much preferred by workers. Sick days could be a part of the package, but they aren’t the most important part.

    Most small business owners in Seattle want to take care of their workers. They want to offer benefits, and when they own their business long enough and can afford them, they do. I see more and more restaurant owners providing benefits like health insurance and retirement all the time. New restaurant owners like myself are taking tips from the more successful owners and are adding like benefits. As new businesses get established and profitable they can afford to offer benefits. If they don’t, they will lose their best workers to businesses that do. If we mandate that all business have the same benefits at all times, we’ll see fewer new businesses open and succeed, and small businesses making marginal profits close.

    If the City wants to get involved in offering incentives or making benefits cost less, it should. Business owners will in turn offer them in order to compete in attracting and retaining the best employees. Then we’ll see more benefits offered that are really wanted by workers, like health insurance.

    This plan also conflicts with last week’s council economic initiative – http://www.seattle.gov/council/newsdetail.asp?id=11637&Dept=28 – it definitely won’t make it easier to do business in Seattle.

    And agreed on the comment above about the fake town hall the proponents of this proposal as putting on. Business owners are not invited to be a part of it. That’s because it’s a rally, not a town hall. Don’t expect open dialogue on this issue from the proponents.

    I encourage the Council, labor leaders and small business owners to work together to find ways for all small businesses to be able to offer benefits to their employees. But let’s do it in a way to encourages business and job growth, not kill it at this fragile economic time.

  • Dmeinert

    You’re right, we should raise food prices, and while we’re at it, the businesses who can’t absorb this cost can also lower wages. This way the cost of essential goods will increase and wages will go down. This is a brilliant plan!

  • AD

    Then why not actually target it at restaurants, grocery stores and food service? If that was all they wanted, they could easily craft the law to solve just that problem alone.

    And, yes, no one wants to imagine a situation like their sick waiter sneezing on their entree before bringing it to their table — the gross-out factor/public health tack here is deliberate and politically clever (or perhaps manipulative?). But be clear about the fact that they are taking action that will increase burdens on businesses, employees and consumers and using a small subset of the imaginary problem as the primary justification.

  • Monster

    Whats this one of the sites liberals thinks it a bad idea?! But, but, but its for the children!

  • Monster

    San Francisco, now there is a good case study where its “poor” are making a average of 80K + a year…

  • Blue Light

    Will the last person out of Seattle please turn the lights on.

  • smallbizguy

    Great comment Dmeinert. Business owners are doing their best during this Great Recession to keep offering health care and benefits, but like most small businesses restaurants have struggled to make due in such difficult times. We are finally starting to see some economic recovery, and restaurants will be crucial to this economic recovery as this is where many folks get back into the working world and start climbing the ladder again. This is exactly the wrong time to mandate huge new costs on employers without any recognition of whether they can afford it.

    As for sick workers in the industry, restaurants do a great job of setting up operations where shifts can be swapped so the worker stays home sick but can pick up the work later on so they do not lose any pay.

    Finally, please stop comparing us to San Francisco. Seattle is not San Fran, and the comparison is irresponsible and short sighted.

    City Council, please help our small businesses continue to pull out this recession, grow jobs, bring life back to our neighborhoods, and reject this proposal.

  • Jakers

    City Council, please take advantage of small businesses to help our city survive the great recession just like small business take advantage of their employees to make profits.

  • jgqman

    “Boeing isn’t going to be against this. Amazon isn’t going to be against this. They provide paid leave already,” Watkins says. Wrong. In the short-term, this proposal, if enacted, would be another anti-competitive nail in the anti-business coffin Seattle has been building for some time. Taking the longer view, the prospect of a patchwork quilt of local labor laws will be of great concern to all businesses.

  • Gomez

    At the absolute least it would flatten wages and depress hiring for a good long while.

  • Gomez

    This assumes there are no work-relations drawbacks to calling out sick, which could have short to long term ramifications for the employee in terms of job security and advancement potential. In many time-sensitive or on-demand companies/industries, employees who take sick days are seen as a liability.

  • Dmeinert

    propoenents are going to quote from an Institute for Women’s Policy Research study (NOT an objective group) on the SF law. But the study is only supportive of paid sick leave if you ignore a lot of the findings. For instance, according to that study, close to 30 percent of employees in the bottom fifth of earners reported layoffs or reduced hours at their place of work after passage of the paid sick leave mandate.

    And the study completely negates the public health argument for the ordinance. Only 1 in 8 workers reported that they went to work sick less often – meaning 87.5% of workers still worked sick. And more than eight out of 10 employers in San Francisco said the paid sick leave ordinance had no effect on the number of employees who came to work sick. So there is no public health benefit to this ordinance.

  • Robby

    As the President of the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans, I am surprised and saddened that there are some who fail to recognize the serious public health consequences for seniors and others when people who handle food are penalized if they do the responsible thing and stay home rather than expose others to their illness. It simply contradicts reason to argue that people will come to work sick if they know they will not lose wages by being responsible, staying home, and taking care of themselves. I know for a fact (ask any school nurse, particularly in locations where there are significant numbers of the working poor) that children are sent to school with fevers because their parent(s) cannot afford to take the day off to care for them. To argue that there is no public health purpose to such an ordinance is ingenuous.

  • Dmeinert

    Robby, please keep in mind that we are not arguing that employees should go to work sick. In fact, at my restaurants it is discouraged. But folks in the restaurant industry deal with it in a different way. Since only a fraction of a restaurant employees pay comes from what the employer pays them, swapping a shift when sick is common practice. This way the person works the same hours and makes the same money.

    Also, if a worker is seriously sick but cannot go to the doctor because they lack health insurance, is 1.9 sick days per year (what the average hospitality worker in SF uses) going to make the difference. It’s a great hypothetical argument, but the stats the proponents of this ordinance provide shows it doesn’t work.

    Since you work with mostly post 65 year olds, when one of them returns to work because the market crashed and they need to earn more money, would you rather see them getting health coverage and retirement benefits or sick days? What about kids who should be saving towards retirement. If the city requires a hodgepodge of maximum benefits like 9 sick days per year be provided to every employee, you’ll see less of other more important benefits, not to mention lower wages.

    Please don’t make this about evil business owners vs. Their employees or the health of senior citizens. The facts just don’t support this fake argument. You are making a straw man argument here. Let’s rise above the fake rhetoric and look at the facts.

  • Monster

    Comment easier said then done for a Puget sound liberal

  • Monster

    Comment easier said then done for a Puget sound liberal

  • Monster

    Comment easier said then done for a Puget sound liberal

  • Monster

    Comment easier said then done for a Puget sound liberal

  • Monster

    Comment easier said then done for a Puget sound liberal

  • Monster

    Comment easier said then done for a Puget sound liberal

  • Dmeinert

    Monster, stop being a troll. I’m a Puget Sound liberal and I’d rather try to have a factual discussion with the like than with a right wing troll.

  • Monster

    Whatever you just don’t want to provide sick days cuz it will hurt your bottom line which is making money

  • Anonymous

    So if SF employees only use 1.9 sick days per year, it seems like the economic impact on businesses that provide it is marginal. And that’s the average. It means some (seriously) ill workers probably use more, while the healthy ones use none at all. In fact, maybe paid sick time makes a doctor visit more affordable, and helps workers stay up on bills when they have to pay a doctor’s bill and buy prescription meds. So it’s not a hypothetical argument at all.

    But from a more holistic point of view, maybe paid sick days will increase worker retention and lower training and hiring costs, which would be an economic benefit for those businesses, not to mention the positive impact on employees, customers and public health.

  • Monster

    That is assuming they want to stay in the service industry being a waiter/ess, or take care of the elderly or whatever.

  • Monster

    That is assuming they want to stay in the service industry being a waiter/ess, or take care of the elderly or whatever.

  • just sayin’

    aren’t these the same arguments made against minimum wage? i.e., if you impose this artificial rate of pay workers will pay for it in other ways.

    do you oppose the minimum wage?

  • http://www.twitter.com/joeszi Joe Szilagyi

    Yeah, no sane employer would try to get around this with 1099ing people. It would be asking to be taken to pieces with lawsuits.

  • Lisalouh

    The report may be from a group with an agenda – but the evidence it provides IS objective. A survey by David Binder Research with an employer sample of 727 San Francisco firms, found employers are supportive. Two-thirds of employers support the PSLO and one-third are “very supportive.”

  • Lisalouh

    The report may be from a group with an agenda – but the evidence it provides IS objective. A survey by David Binder Research with an employer sample of 727 San Francisco firms, found employers are supportive. Two-thirds of employers support the PSLO and one-third are “very supportive.”

  • TBake

    This ordinance assumes that small businesses can afford to pay an employee to stay home, and pay another one to come in and take their place. I’m sorry, did I miss some sort of incredible news about the economy, is the recession over?

    Anybody confused enough to think that small business owners have a bucket of cash to cover things like this should read the following article. Its a story by Nancy Leson about a restaurant in Ballard that closed after only 4 months. The part about laying off the chef so they could stay afloat is particularly compelling.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/allyoucaneat/2014835906_5_corner_market_down_and_out_a.html?cmpid=2628

    People shouldn’t come to work sick, thats pretty obvious, every individual needs to have enough personal responsibility to stay home when they have a contagious illness. But, its nobodies job to pay you to do it.

    Grow up!

  • Butch

    A good chunk will move to the surrounding cities – like Bellevue – that don’t have this additional mandated cost. Hmmm…. maybe that’s why Kemper Freeman is doing so well.

  • Butch

    A good chunk will move to the surrounding cities – like Bellevue – that don’t have this additional mandated cost. Hmmm…. maybe that’s why Kemper Freeman is doing so well.

  • Lisalouh

    Study does NOT at all negate public health argument.

    “Parents who had paid sick days were much less likely to report sending a sick child to school in the last year because the parent could not stay home with the child….The reduction in the behavior is over 20 full percentage points.”

    BTW Dr. David Fleming Director of King County Public Health will be a speaker at the Town Hall in May as will Jeff Duchin, Chief of Communicable Disease, Find out more here: http://seattlehealthyworkforce.org/

  • Cam

    The ski areas will fare quite well under this proposal.

  • Blue Light

    More government growth, more regulation, more costs brought to us all by…. say it with me, Sarah… “non-profit” organizations.

    We need a severe overhaul of section 501(c)(3) of the tax code. The “non-profit” has become a haven for all manner of charlatan, activist and corruption.

  • Blue Light

    Hopefully someone will ask about the “public health” ramifications of allowing unchecked immigration from countries that do not practice our same childhood immunization schedules.

  • Blue Light

    Hopefully someone will ask about the “public health” ramifications of allowing unchecked immigration from countries that do not practice our same childhood immunization schedules.

  • chloe

    The ability to take time of to get well and protect the community from your or your kid’s illness shouldn’t be a luxury benefit. (Same for health insurance, but that’s another discussion.) Back when I worked for a very small landscaping company, I had to take a week off to deal with strep throat. Lucky for me I could borrow money from family to pay my rent, but not everyone has that option.
    Paid sick days will not torpedo a well managed business. This is a common sense regulation, and we will all adjust and be thankful!

  • Seagjguy

    If you do your math correctly, this proposal would create 9 days or 72 hours per year of sick pay and not 3 days. Now figure the impact. Pretty stiff and a business door closer.

  • Seagjguy

    If this were to go through, you would eat home more often because most restaurants would go out of business. At least the supermarkets will benefit.

  • Marcus C.

    When people are sick they should stay home. In our restaurants, when one of our crew members is sick, someone will usually switch them shifts so that the sick person doesn’t only lose their hourly pay, but the tips generated from that shift as well. In our establishments, people don’t work when they are sick.

    Seattle is a really hard city to do business in, both relative to other cities in our State, as well as other states in our area of the country. This regulation will only add to that perception and reality.

    Also, the way I read this proposal, these 9 paid days off per year are effectively personal days that cover a wide range of subjective personal issues besides infections colds/illnesses.

    No large company that I know of, including Boeing and Amazon, offer employees 9 paid personal days off on top of paid vacation time.

    Large companies cannot have a patch work of labor laws across one county / region much less a state and be effective. I suspect if Seattle enacts different labor laws from King County and the State of WA. Eastside tech companies will just close satellite Seattle offices and consolidate on the Eastside. And, when companies want to move to our region and are deciding between Bellevue, Seattle, and Portland, this ordinance will put Bellevue and Portland at a competitive advantage.

    Instead of this ordinance, the City should be looking into a large group health plan for small and medium sides businesses that both employees and employers can contribute to, so that when someone is sick, they don’t just stay home, they can actually go to the doctor and get well.

    Marcus Charles, The Croc, Local 360, Juju

  • CommonPerson

    I like it. Here’s the main thing: workers–especially but not just food-handling workers–shouldn’t come to work sick. It’s a public health policy issue. It’s also a “I don’t want to get sick because somebody who helped me had to come to work sick today” issue. The public gets it. It’s just the responsible thing to do. And since the idea is to set up a level playing field, no one entity is going to be unduly burdened. Smart move.

  • CommonPerson

    I like it. Here’s the main thing: workers–especially but not just food-handling workers–shouldn’t come to work sick. It’s a public health policy issue. It’s also a “I don’t want to get sick because somebody who helped me had to come to work sick today” issue. The public gets it. It’s just the responsible thing to do. And since the idea is to set up a level playing field, no one entity is going to be unduly burdened. Smart move.

  • CommonPerson

    I like it. Here’s the main thing: workers–especially but not just food-handling workers–shouldn’t come to work sick. It’s a public health policy issue. It’s also a “I don’t want to get sick because somebody who helped me had to come to work sick today” issue. The public gets it. It’s just the responsible thing to do. And since the idea is to set up a level playing field, no one entity is going to be unduly burdened. Smart move.

  • Ire

    It’s never the best timing to treat people decently, allow parents to care for their children, pay people a living wage. It is always time to make sure the the wealthy get more wealthy and the working folks made to live ever more precariously.

  • Robby

    Dmeinert, I will acknowledge that there are few employers who would advocate that workers should go to work sick. Unfortunately, I am aware of too many examples of employees having their jobs threatened when they call to report they are sick and cannot work and I know of one example with a large retailer where the worker was threatened with loss of a job, went to work and actually died.

    Restaurants are not uniform in how they deal with employee illness. Some restaurants actually provide paid sick days. I agree that the minimum wage most restaurant employees receive is a fraction of their wage, the issue is how much of a fraction. That will depend on the restaurant and for some employees, their hourly wage is 50% or more of what they earn.

    I am unaware of anyone who is arguing that the SF ordinance does not work. In fact, it now has significant majority support in S.F. from employers and workers. The 1.9 days average, is just that-an average. It means that the more seriously ill workers are taking more and the majority are taking less. It is an average and that should give you some comfort. If you have a more seriously ill employee, they will be able to survive economically while the majority of your employees will rarely use the sick leave.

    The Center for Disease Control reports that 19% of restaurant workers now go to work when they are either suffering from vomiting or diarrhea. The CDC is not a suspect source. That is genuinely scary for customers, and particularly for seniors who are more vulnerable. I hope it is also scary to you.

    The example you give regarding the 65 year old returning to work doesn’t really make sense. A 65 year old is covered by Medicare and is also eligible for Social Security. Neither of those programs cease if they are forced to return to work because of inadequate income. I do agree with you that we need health care coverage for everybody but I think it is incorrect to create a choice between health care and sick leave. One of the cost drivers for health care is that people wait too long to get the medical attention they need. Paid sick days will help. Once again, I am particularly struck by the experience of my school nurse friends who talk about parent(s) sending their kids to school sick because they cannot afford to lose a day’s pay.

    It really is a public health problem and needs to be addressed. I also want to mention that it will create a level playing field for all restaurants so no restaurant will gain a competitive advantage. When campaigning against the increase in the minimum wage in 1998, the Restaurant Asso. made the argument that it would drive restaurants out of business and that there would be a decline in restaurant employment. That did not happen because it created a level playing field. I believe S.F. restaurants have increased employment since the passage of the paid sick days ordinance in S.F. 4 years ago. I know you will not believe this, but it may turn out to be advantageous for you rather than disadvantageous.

  • Laurieuwp

    Have you thought about a scenario in which a single working mother’s child is ill and she has to take time off from work because her child can’t go to school? There are many families that can’t afford to go without a day’s wages in this circumstance. I appreciate that you’re concerned about the financial security of businesses, but life doesn’t happen in a bubble. People get sick and we need a way for everyone to have the security of knowing that they can take time off of work when they’re sick without serious financial consequences. You might read up on the situation in San Francisco and DC, where this policy is already in place. Not one business has gone under because of it.

  • Big Jim Slade

    Right, because all small business owners are evil wealthy corporations. You are a fool.

  • Marcia FS

    “Seattle is a really hard city to do business in”

    News flash: ALL big cities are hard to do business in by their very nature. You won’t find one that isn’t. But the greater success potential (financial and otherwise) makes it worthwhile for many of us. If you can’t hack it, just go to a smaller town with fewer obstacles but also much less income potential.

  • fed up w big gov

    So tell me, those of you who love government telling you how to run every aspect of your life – how in the world do all of the other cities survive by not having mandatory paid leave? Those cities must be full of dying, decaying people and their restaurants oozing viral servings topped with …It follows then that when you are traveling you should only eat in the three cities mentioned. Come on! This whole idea is bizarro logic! Tell the government to back off. Mind its own business and do what it is commissioned to do and stay out of the labor and benefit negotiations of private business. This whole idea is moronic.

  • SS50

    Many employers say, “I would provide something like this if everyone else does.” If every employer works under the same rules, then no employer is at a disadvantage.

  • http://twitter.com/rawlingswright Elizabeth Rawlings

    Three days is the average time workers took in San Francisco took after the law went into effect, and that is likely the reason alexbroner used it in his math. You could also consider the impact of customers getting sick from a sick employee, lost revenue due to poor performance by a sick employee and the cost of training new employees when an employee has to leave or is terminated for being sick. I would imagine those costs are significant as well (and not just for food related businesses).

  • Jerri

    Are you aware that there is already a state law in effect that prohibits an employer from reprimanding/disciplining employees or curtailing their advancement if they use family care time to care for themselves or a sick family member? Employees would have to have paid sick/ill time to access this act, but it’s the right thing to do. If you’ve ever had an ill child with a very contagious disease, a spouse who needed your assistance as they go for a chemo appointment, or an elder that needed help getting to a doctor’s appointment, or have you ever gotten the flu and crawled into work sharing your virus with others? You’ll see the need for this. It puts all businesses on an equal playing field. We reduce the transmission of illness, we get well faster and return to work quicker and in a more productive state than if we had come to work ill. A few days pay while someone recovers could make a difference in whether or not they can pay their rent or utilities or even their medical care.

  • Joe Rizzo

    And you wouldn’t right????? what are you another Nanci Pelosi type, give everyone a minimum wage increase EXCEPT Guam where her husbands fish canery is…. Humm seems everyone wants the business owner to brunt all the expenses.HELLO DUMBASS pretty soon their be no more small business because every liberal unionized fuck is on the take as a result of providers like EOI.
    Do America a favor, take EOI, ALCU, SEIU move on.org and go play in traffic on a busy street some where

    REAL AMERICA IS SICK OF YOU!

  • http://twitter.com/rawlingswright Elizabeth Rawlings

    According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, US workers who get paid sick leave accrue an average of 9 days after 1 year of employment. In fact, Boeing employees get between 218 and 304 hours of time off when you combine sick leave, vacation and holiday PTO.
    Also, accruing 1 hour for every 30 hours worked means that not even those who work 40 hours a week would accrue 72 hours in a year. I work at a restaurant 10 – 15 hours a week, and most of my friends seem to work about 30 hours a week or work at two places to get 40 hours of work in. That means that, in one year, most people I know in the industry would earn 52 hours. I can bet you that most of them would only take a day or two if they really needed it.
    My retail job offered a health plan, but the amount I would have to pay into it was too expensive for me to buy into it. Sometimes a day off to sleep is all you need to get back on the right foot and start feeling healthy again. I have friends who go to work sick because they can’t afford not to, because they can’t get anyone to trade shifts with them, or because they are afraid of being punished for calling in sick. Worse yet, people can be punished for calling off because they have a family emergency. A friend of mine was told she could clean out her locker if she went to her grandfather’s funeral.
    I’m sure you are understanding of your employee’s needs — my experiences at Local 360 have been fantastic and the staff are great — but not all business owners are so gracious. This mandate has so many benefits — public health, economic security for workers, employee loyalty/continuity for employers — it really is the responsible thing to do. There is a cost to employers, but I believe that cost is balanced out by increased worker productivity, decreased risk to public health, and not having to train new workers.
    Tech firms won’t up and leave Seattle — there are other reasons to be there, including proximity to customers and aligned businesses. Paid sick days didn’t hurt the business climate in San Francisco (also surrounded by cities and suburbs without paid sick days that could have drawn business away, but didn’t), it won’t hurt Seattle.

  • http://twitter.com/rawlingswright Elizabeth Rawlings

    According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, US workers who get paid sick leave accrue an average of 9 days after 1 year of employment. In fact, Boeing employees get between 218 and 304 hours of time off when you combine sick leave, vacation and holiday PTO.
    Also, accruing 1 hour for every 30 hours worked means that not even those who work 40 hours a week would accrue 72 hours in a year. I work at a restaurant 10 – 15 hours a week, and most of my friends seem to work about 30 hours a week or work at two places to get 40 hours of work in. That means that, in one year, most people I know in the industry would earn 52 hours. I can bet you that most of them would only take a day or two if they really needed it.
    My retail job offered a health plan, but the amount I would have to pay into it was too expensive for me to buy into it. Sometimes a day off to sleep is all you need to get back on the right foot and start feeling healthy again. I have friends who go to work sick because they can’t afford not to, because they can’t get anyone to trade shifts with them, or because they are afraid of being punished for calling in sick. Worse yet, people can be punished for calling off because they have a family emergency. A friend of mine was told she could clean out her locker if she went to her grandfather’s funeral.
    I’m sure you are understanding of your employee’s needs — my experiences at Local 360 have been fantastic and the staff are great — but not all business owners are so gracious. This mandate has so many benefits — public health, economic security for workers, employee loyalty/continuity for employers — it really is the responsible thing to do. There is a cost to employers, but I believe that cost is balanced out by increased worker productivity, decreased risk to public health, and not having to train new workers.
    Tech firms won’t up and leave Seattle — there are other reasons to be there, including proximity to customers and aligned businesses. Paid sick days didn’t hurt the business climate in San Francisco (also surrounded by cities and suburbs without paid sick days that could have drawn business away, but didn’t), it won’t hurt Seattle.

  • Kelly

    Elizabeth, you make a very good point about healthcare often being too expensive for employees to pay into, even if it is offered. To those who would say offering health insurance is a more important benefit than paid sick days, realize that in this day and age, health insurance premiums can be a heavy burden for someone to bear. At least with paid sick days, workers will have a chance to recover from illness, instead of working themselves too hard and possibly winding up in the hospital (and uninsured, which just causes greater costs for everyone).

  • Matt

    Faced with choice of paying a few cents more for a meal versus being served by someone who may be working while sick, I know which one I’d chose. Yuck!

  • http://profiles.google.com/keithdtyler Keith Tyler

    Spiteful nonsense! Downtimes are precisely when we need to look out for each other. And precisely the time when a responsible, sensible company would theoretically not want have their entire staff infected with illness and infecting the public. Unfortunately all too often the seed money goes to unsensible, irresponsible people who treat workers like crap in the belief that squeezing blood from stones is a viable long-term business strategy.

    Do we really need to encourage an outbreak of communicable disease because hard-hit employees, many of whom, if working, have taken salary reductions and downward career shifts, can’t afford to skip a days’ pay to stay home and get better — and more to the point, not infect others? No we don’t! We need a healthy workforce to return to prosperity. That’s just plain common sense!

  • http://profiles.google.com/keithdtyler Keith Tyler

    And small business owners are more important than small business employees!

    Guess what, all too many small business owners are wanna-be wealthy corporations. They aren’t angels just because they don’t have billion dollar profits. They can still exploit their workers. In fact, they are more able to exploit their workers because their small size makes their abuses less visible. No one cares if Joe’s Taco Shack makes their workers work unpaid overtime.

    The broad brush strokes both ways.

    I for one want to know that the public-facing staff at the businesses I patronize aren’t going to be spreading diseases to me because their self-righteous, self-centered boss would rather they come in sick than pay them for a day off to get better.

  • http://profiles.google.com/keithdtyler Keith Tyler

    Clearly you have not been to Bellevue lately, and seen all its vacant skyscrapers.

    Go a block or two east of Bellevue Way next time you’re there. Or just go south of 4th.

    But thanks for playing.

  • http://profiles.google.com/keithdtyler Keith Tyler

    Read further. In San Francisco where this law has already been implemented, workers took only 3 days off on average. The “9 days” — which is only for businesses with over 10 employees, and only for workers who work 30 hours a week and only after working for a full year. (Like most other PTO it accrues after time worked.) So the 9 days a year is the absolute worst case — what insurance companies might call a “50 year sickout”. In other words: unlikely. In even different words: less likely than your store burning to the ground.

    Using the highly unlikely absolute worst-case scenario to rail against this policy is just illogical fearmongering.

  • http://profiles.google.com/keithdtyler Keith Tyler

    Yeah, good luck proving your case, especially when you’re unable to afford an attorney after you’ve been fired.

  • http://profiles.google.com/keithdtyler Keith Tyler

    I’m pretty tired of people putting profit before people. I don’t care if you’re Wal-Mart or Wally’s Waffle House. Just because you’re the boss doesn’t mean you should exploit people, does it?

    And even people who don’t work in a public-facing job still interact with others. They might infect their fellow bus riders or car-pool buddies. They might go out to lunch and use the tongs at the salad bar. They’ll possibly infect their co-workers. They’ll possibly infect business partners and other visitors. That day when they were sick as a dog but still had to deal with workday stresses and exertions didn’t help them get better. If they’d stayed home, they’d have avoided those infection vectors and also been able to let their bodies recuperate. But that would mean foregoing a full fifth of their weekly paycheck-to-paycheck income.

    Bah, employees have credit cards for that, right?

  • http://twitter.com/r343l Rachael Ludwick

    Yeah. Those people who are too stupid to get a nice paying office job should just plan to not get paid when they’re sick. When you’re making minimum wage you certainly have lots of spare savings for the flu fund!

    The point of having rules like this is so all businesses compete on a level playing field *and* workers are treated well. Other countries (and cities in the US) seem to be able to allow workers paid time off for illness and still compete. Even in an economic downturn. I wonder how they manage?

  • http://profiles.google.com/keithdtyler Keith Tyler

    Yes yes we’ve heard it all before, public employees have it all, which is why you guys all have applied for public jobs. Right? Because they pay so well and have such great benefits and are such great jobs? I mean, if that’s true, the smart capitalistic employee should be at the front of the line going for the most financially beneficial jobs.

    ‘Cept you guys ain’t. Perhaps they ain’t such great jobs after all then.

    And they’re not. The overpaid public employee story is a myth and a lie, and whenever the real actual numbers are counted up, this fact is exposed.

    It is important to parrot lies without checking them out and looking at the actual, objective, complete truth, else you might not be able to vote Republican.

  • http://profiles.google.com/keithdtyler Keith Tyler

    Prove it. Give me examples.

    You can’t. Because it ain’t true. It’s a lie. Telling lies, what does that make you?

    Or you could prove it. Just give me examples. Show me facts.

    (crickets)

    Americans are tired of empty BS. They want facts not bogeymen. Save it for the card table tea parties.

  • http://twitter.com/r343l Rachael Ludwick

    Perhaps the market has changed, but in my experience companies that don’t have sick pay also don’t have any formal paid time off of any kind. I certainly didn’t have any paid time off when I waited tables. Unless things have changed this kind of policy isn’t going to add to the number of paid time off (of any kind) that any employer is already offering: it will most likely give time off to people that don’t have it at all now.

    I agree that it is not ideal for small localities to have special rules, especially labor laws. That just means the law should be changed at the state or federal level, not that waiters and low wage workers should continue to go to work sick because they can’t afford the lost income.

  • Marcia FS

    Exactly. This should really be a federal law like it is in most European countries where it isn’t even controversial. But the chances of the current Congress passing such a law are nil, so workers in Seattle and other cities have little choice but to act locally. I pay for sick leave for my employees and am tired of being placed at a competitive disadvantage for doing the right thing. This issue really raises the question of whether our economic system exists to serve people, or whether people exist to serve it.

  • Wpkelpfroth

    If paid sick days are a make or break deal for you as an employee, you’re certainly free to move your labor to where you can get it. This is not something that government should mandate.

  • Wpkelpfroth

    Most of the ‘pro’ comments I’m reading seem to think that the paid sick leave issue is one of fairness, and to some extent, it is. But what I don’t see is an acknowledgement that sick leave or any other benefit is part of the total compensation package. There seems to be an idea that this benefit can be created out of a vacuum, with no consequences to either the business or to the employees.
    By mandating paid sick leave, or paid paternity/maternity leave, or any other benefit (including social security and medicare), a portion of the employee’s compensation is allocated according to legislative policy. I would rather allocate my compensation in the way that I choose. If I take all my compensation in cash and don’t put some of it aside for the inevitable sick day, then it’s my responsibility to bear the consequences. The fact that some portion of my compensation flows into mandated benefits reduces my ability to take advantage of some opportunity; I won’t have the money to buy that patch of timber, for example.
    A legislative mandate to allocate compensation in any way at all diminishes our freedom. Think carefully before you vote on something like this.

  • Citizen

    Protecting people from being fired when they take a limited days off for being sick is reasonable. On the other hand forcing all employers to pay the employee’s when sick is questionable. It may work well for some employers but be economically impossible for others.

    The City Council shoud really work on fixing abuses in the City’s own sick leave system. Unfortunately many employees have come to consider it equivalent to additional vacation days and all the incentives lead to abuse. Employees acrue 12 days per year, most use more than 8 each year. Although an employee earns 2,880 hours over a thirty year career, few have more than a couple of hundred hours untaken.

    The City should reduce the number of days earned per year to 8 or less and treat it as equivalent to vacation. That would reduce abuse and also lead to a more honest relationship between employees and the City and the City and its citzens.

  • Wrongprioritiywrongtime

    I see the unions have gathered their commenters to post in here a day late. Nice. Quit trying to vilify the small business owners who usually are workers themselves. Or recently were. It’s a mistake in Seattle where many of our best active progressives are small business owners doing interesting things to make this city great. Your campaign to vilify them won’t work here.

    As was pointed out below, in SF where this law is already in place, it doesn’t keep people from working sick. You anti business people just want to punish business owners you think are eveil. Disgusting

  • Wrong

    Clearly when you were there you missed all the businesses who have moved out of Seattle to Bellevue or opened up their new place there not here. The condos there are no more empty than in seattle.

  • AD

    “Not one business has gone under because of it.” That’s the kind of absolutist statement that’s easy and fun to make because it’s impossible to measure or prove. :)

  • Wpkelpfroth

    I have to take exception to your news flash, Marcia.
    Bring your business to the fourth largest city in the US and see how well you do where there isn’t any zoning.

  • Laurieuwp

    Good point. I guess what I should say is that there was no wave of establishments going out of business in the wake of the new law. This from a study by the Institute For Women’s Policy Research:

    “One concern about paid sick days laws is that they will motivate businesses to relocate. However, an IWPR analysis of employment in San Francisco before and after the implementation of their paid sick days ordinance found that San Francisco’s job growth remained stronger than that in the surrounding counties, suggesting that the policy did not have any adverse effect on employment.”

    Haven’t seen any studies that point to the opposite, but would be happy to read any that you can point me to.

  • Marcia FS

    There are certain types of “freedom” that ought to be diminished. This is one of them.

  • Anonymous

    It’s a start in the right direction. Of course, if we had universal, single payer healthcare delivery like a civilized, moral country, we might not have to have this particular conversation.

  • http://profiles.google.com/angelallwayz angela obrien

    I believe that this is something that every business should do for loyal employees – I have always appreciated having time to heal and care for my family = there are many stipulations so a boss with a heart should approve this.

  • Erica C. Barnett

    Hey, Meinert — read the byline! I wrote this, not Josh.

  • Wpkelpfroth

    why?

  • Jon in Belltown

    To Marcus Charles of Local 360,

    Here I thought you were a responsible small business owner. The way you’re running your business, you’ve got the burden of switching on the sick employee. I really don’t want wait staff serving me to have to make that choice.

    I’d much rather patronize a business that raises the bar for working standards rather than speaks out to lower them.

    Too bad, I really liked your new place.

    One lost customer

  • Jon in Belltown

    Gee, maybe this lack of mandatory sick leave is one reason why the US is sicker, dies sooner, and pays more for health care than Western Europe.

    As for big government – tell them to get out of my bedroom and out of my email and phone. Sheesh.

  • Jon in Belltown

    Gee, maybe this lack of mandatory sick leave is one reason why the US is sicker, dies sooner, and pays more for health care than Western Europe.

    As for big government – tell them to get out of my bedroom and out of my email and phone. Sheesh.

  • Jon in Belltown

    Right. Every business should. But right now, the responsible businesses that do provide sick days are punished for it. They’re at a competitive disadvantage to the business that punish responsible employees that stay home when they’re sick.

    Pass this so we have a level playing field and make Seattle healthier.

  • Wpkelpfroth

    Another factor that seems to have been overlooked by the commenters is that businesses should welcome mandatory sick leave. here’s why:
    As the employee accumulates sick leave the business has to put aside some money to pay for the sick day… someday. But since money is fungible, until the business has to actually pay for the sick day, it gets the use of the employee’s sick time compensation… for free.
    And that’s one of the reasons I don’t care for these employment mandates. That money is part of my compensation and is withheld for the employer’s benefit, not mine.

  • Blue

    Way to be a bully Jon. What as ass. Here’s the thing – look at the data in SF. If you really care about workers not coming to work sick, you wouldn’t care about this ordinance – 87.5% of workers still go to work sick in SF. No public health benefit.

  • Blue

    Way to be a bully Jon. What as ass. Here’s the thing – look at the data in SF. If you really care about workers not coming to work sick, you wouldn’t care about this ordinance – 87.5% of workers still go to work sick in SF. No public health benefit.

  • Jon in Belltown

    Bully? Aren’t I free to take my business where I like? Pshaw! No, bullying would be threatening to picket restaurateurs opposed to this ordinance – and then picketing them even if they switch to support it.

    What I want from this bill: workers and businesses not being punished for doing the right thing – staying home when sick.

    The current labor market punishes responsible businesses and workers both.

  • Anonymous

    I’m shocked that so many people haven’t realized – if someone goes to work sick, their coworkers, boss, clients and customers may get sick and then have to use their sick time. I’m lucky to have paid sick time at work. Most of my paid sick leave is used when my child gets sick. If I let my kid go to school or after-school care sick, his friends and teacher may get sick.

    In providing paid sick leave for all workers, we’re actually saving ourselves time and money. I will gladly pay a little extra for food at restaurants who provide paid sick hours for their employees. It’s worth it to me to know that my chef or server hasn’t coughed into my lettuce, and that the person who set the table didn’t sneeze into his or her hand just before touching my silverware.

    We want people who are sick to stay home. If they fear losing their jobs or losing their homes or being unable to make ends meet, then these sick people will be at work infecting many others.

  • Blue

    I’m shocked that so many salaried workers have no clue about how hourly employees trade shifts, especially at restaurants where 75% of their pay comes from tips not hourly pay. This ordinance won’t keep anyone from getting sick. It’s a red herring issue.

  • Laurieuwp

    It always makes me sad to see discussions on issues devolve into name calling. There are so many ways to respectfully disagree without resorting to it.

  • Marcia FS

    Shift trading, while preferable because of the tip factor, is not always possible. It depends on someone else being able and willing to trade with you. I don’t think you’d find many restaurant workers who wouldn’t like to have paid leave as a backup in the event they can’t work out a shift trade.

  • Wpkelpfroth

    no response, Marcia?

  • theoc

    No, what will happen is the cost of those sick days will get passed on to you in the form of either:

    A) Higher meal prices.
    B) Fewer restaurants to choose from.

  • theoc

    The last three tech companies I’ve worked at have all converted split sick/vacation days into a single pool of PTO. It’s just easier on everyone that way.

  • Gomez

    Yeah, and no one cares because it’s for the most part unenforceable.

  • Verminato

    I am so sick and tired of listening to the whiny mantra of the “evil rich”. Who on God’s green earth said someone is evil or bad or any kind of a negative connotation just because they have been financially successful? And since when is it an employer’s job to coddle their worker’s? If an employee doesn’t like the conditions they can talk to the employer or quit. The employer only owes the worker his wage, period. I don’t know where all this lame, bleeding hearted, socialistic tripe has risen from, but if we don’t get a handle on it they’ll be right and there won’t be any “rich” to worry about and we can be just like the people of Russia before the free market was allowed there. Standing in bread lines, waiting for “big brother ” to throw us a crumb. So come on “buck up”.

  • Sbright

    This would affect workers with collective bargaining agreements if the requirement of the ordinance is greater than what is required by the CBA. Law trumps contract if the minimum therein is greater.

  • Chipsea

    The current proposal exempts collective bargaining agreements. 

  • Chipsea

    I worked at a restaurant that cut 33 hours a day in work to make up the cost of the minimum wage increase in 1999.  They did not have the $40,000 to cover the increase in payroll.