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.

x close
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.

Study: San Francisco Restaurants Support Paid Sick Leave

City Hall   May 9, 2011 at 1:56 pm Andrew Calkins

According to a new report by the Economic Opportunity Institute, the left-leaning statewide think tank, a majority of employers in San Francisco, which passed a mandatory sick-leave law in 2007, said they supported the law. EOI is pushing for similar legislation in Seattle, where city council member Nick Licata is expected to introduce a paid sick leave ordinance later this year, as PubliCola first reported last month.

The EOI report finds that three and a half years after the San Francisco ordinance went into effect, 68 percent of all employers, and 66 percent of hotel and food service employers, support the ordinance.

Here in Seattle, the Washington Restaurant Association is spearheading the opposition to the ordinance (as the California Restaurant Association did in San Francisco).  The WRA argues that small restaurants can’t afford to pay for sick days, and that the proposal will be a job-killer in Seattle.

Speaking to the latter point, the EOI report found that employment in San Francisco actually increased, relative to the state and surrounding region, after the ordinance went into effect, and that “accommodation and food service jobs outgrew three of the four counties in 2007 and all of them in 2008.”

EOI’s report also cites a 2010 survey showing that, on average, workers took just three sick days a year (less than the five to nine sick days the law provides). The same survey found that a quarter of all workers didn’t take a single paid sick day the previous year.

The EOI study also found that although “the vast majority” of businesses in San Francisco are following the law, more than 21 percent of the smallest employers—those with fewer than 10 workers—are not providing paid sick leave.

In last week’s Think Tank, Nick Licata and Washington Restaurant Association head Anthony Anton duked it out over the sick leave issue.


  • Blue Light
  • Getarealjob

    Nice advocacy ‘journalism’ on this one. just reprinting a press release from EOI = Publicola’s continuing loss of credibility.

    This might be a ‘new’ document, but it is just EOI rehashing old data put together by a San Francisco group which was a proponent of the original ordinance. That original report also shows that almost 90% of worker in the restaurant industry still worked sick, and it shows no change in food related illnesses in SF. Which means the ordinance has had no effect on public health.

    Further, the report shows that in the lowest 20% of paid jobs, 30% of workers reported decreased hours or lay offs as a result of the ordinance.

    The employment stats Watkins reports are for overall job data in SF, and she doesn’t report on the number of businesses that moved out of San Francisco right before or immediately after the new ordinance took effect,  and she doesn’t consider the effect on the smallest businesses in SF, because she would then have to recognize the adverse economic impact this ordinance had in SF. Do we want that in Seattle?

    What Publicola, who’s owners are very much for this ordinance but who don’t themselves offer any benefits to their employees or writers don’t report on is who is lobbying for this ordinance.

    John Burbank – who brought us the Latte tax.

    Tim Ceis – former much vilified deputy mayor, via CBE strategic.

    These folks are in need of a win, and of a job. This ordinance isn’t being pushed by workers who are requesting this benefit, it’s being pushed by professional political consultants who need to make money and get an easy win.

    If politicians want to help Seattle workers, find out which benefits they actually want and need. Then help make these benefits accessible citywide at affordable rates, find ways to encourage businesses to offer them, and they will be made available.  Make Seattle a great place to work for regular people, not a great place to lose an election and stay employed in politics by the organizations your raised money from when you were in or ran for office.

  • schlump

    This made me curious: what exactly are the business owners citing as the benefits to THEM? So I went and read the original study. Turns out that two-thirds of the business owners thought it was a great idea because two-thirds of the business owners were already in compliance, so they didn’t have to make any changes. It only makes sense that they’d support this: it forces other employers competing for employees to spend money on the same things they’re already spending money on.

  • schlump

    This made me curious: what exactly are the business owners citing as the benefits to THEM? So I went and read the original study. Turns out that two-thirds of the business owners thought it was a great idea because two-thirds of the business owners were already in compliance, so they didn’t have to make any changes. It only makes sense that they’d support this: it forces other employers competing for employees to spend money on the same things they’re already spending money on.