iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Paid Sick Days: Restaurant Lobby Fights New Laws For Workers

Restaurantkitchen

First Posted: 10/26/11 10:43 AM ET Updated: 12/26/11 05:12 AM ET

Voters in Denver, Colo., will head to the polls next week to decide whether or not the city's employers should be required to give workers paid sick days. Among the first of its kind in the country, the contentious ballot initiative has attracted plenty of attention from restaurant owners outside of Colorado -- and plenty of money, too.

The Washington-based National Restaurant Association, the formidable lobby for the nation's eateries, has poured $100,000 into a local effort to defeat the legislation known as Initiative 300, which is on a Nov. 1 ballot. If passed, the initiative would give employees one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours they work, capped at nine days for large businesses and five days for small ones.

Big out-of-state restaurant chains like KFC and Pizza Hut have also chipped in to the cause, making donations to a group called Keep Denver Competitive, which has raised more than $600,000 to fight the legislation through ad buys and canvassing. A competing group, Campaign for a Healthy Denver, has brought in $164,000 to support the initiative.

Why the national concern for a city ordinance that would affect 600,000 Coloradans? It has to do with both the cause and the method of the initiative.

Denver's is just the latest in a string of similar proposals pushed by labor and public-health groups around the country, including one signed into law in Connecticut earlier this year. Employers in industries with low-paid part-time workers are growing concerned that mandated paid sick days could become the norm rather than the exception, thanks to a raft of local legislation.

But a ballot initiative is particularly worrisome for business interests. Paid sick days are generally a popular idea with the public, and ballot initiatives can preempt mayors, governors and state legislators who've come out on the industry's side on workplace issues.

"Denver, in particular, is very problematic because they've gone to a ballot initiative," said Scott DeFife, executive vice president of policy and government affairs at the National Restaurant Association. "They've bypassed the city council, the mayor and all the local elected officials. If you want to have paid time off, going to a ballot initiative is the worst-case scenario for sound public policy."

DeFife added, "We're not really trying to debate whether workers in general should have time off when they're ill. This is about the specifics of the initiatives they've been advancing."

Worker and public-health advocates describe the sick-day initiative as commonsense legislation. Not having paid leave encourages non-salaried workers to come in sick, exacerbating their illness and spreading it to colleagues and customers, the argument goes. Proponents of the law argue that it's more important for restaurants than any other businesses, given that cooks and servers are handling food throughout the day. And that's why they're galled to see the restaurant industry fighting the Denver initiative so strongly, lambasting it as a costly job killer during an economic downturn.

"It would seem like the least logical group to oppose it," says Saru Jayaraman, co-founder of Restaurant Opportunities Center United, a national advocacy group for restaurant workers. "But they're neck and neck with retail as the largest growing industry with little unionization and little worker voice. That's resulted in a large lobby."

"They're putting a lot of money into Denver because they don't want to see [paid sick days] spread," she goes on. "But there's a lot of momentum and energy right now."

Among the supporters for Initiative 300 is Denver resident Laura Baker. Baker, 24, has been working part-time as a barista at Starbucks for more than a year, a job she says she enjoys very much. She's on the company's health plan but has no sick days. Though she doesn't like to admit it, she's gone into work sick at times and handled customers' drinks.

She feels guilty about it, but she says she can't afford to miss a day of work. If she doesn't work, she doesn't get paid.

"If I work an 8-hour shift I make about $65," Baker says. "That's enough to pay my utilities for an entire month, or groceries for a couple of weeks. It has a very real impact if I miss my shift."

"I care deeply about my customers," she adds. "It freaks me out to think I may be infecting them with what I have, but the reality is we have to survive. That means going to work sick." Baker says the economic downturn doesn't diminish the need for sick days so much as reinforce it, arguing that workers should be able to miss a day's work due to illness without worrying they'll be replaced. She says she's "appalled" by the restaurant industry's opposition to the law.

Keep Denver Competitive, the group campaigning against the Denver initiative, says on its website that the law would create "a mountain of red tape" for small businesses and "require a costly new city bureaucracy to oversee the program." "In Denver we care about people," the site reads. "That's why at first blush, the mandated paid sick leave policy in Initiative 300 may sound like a good idea. But read the fine print and you'll see that Initiative 300 is the wrong approach." The group did not respond to a request for comment.

The restaurant lobby isn't the only powerful voice opposing the initiative. Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D), former Denver mayor and restaurant owner, flayed the initiative last month, telling an assembly of executives with the Economic Club of Colorado, "You could not pick a worse initiative at the present time. ... If anything, it's going to cost jobs."

Denver Mayor Michael Hancock went so far as to tape an advertisement opposing the initiative, saying it "may look harmless enough, ... but it will create a huge city bureaucracy, at the same time we're cutting services ... and cost thousands of jobs."

Of course, Hickenlooper and Hancock may have more to gain by opposing the measure than by supporting it. Voters will ultimately be the ones to decide whether or not the initiative goes into law, and if it does, the politicians can tell business leaders they did what they could to stop it.

But Erin Bennett, spokeswoman for the Campaign for a Healthy Denver, an advocacy group for women workers that's pushing the sick-day initiative, believes that voters will ultimately come out in favor of the law, regardless of what more influential parties may have to say.

"We've been talking with voters in Denver for 8 months," Bennett says. "We go door to door, around town, and it's just a commonsense issue. People get it."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
Voters in Denver, Colo., will head to the polls next week to decide whether or not the city's employers should be required to give workers paid sick days. Among the first of its kind in the country, t...
Voters in Denver, Colo., will head to the polls next week to decide whether or not the city's employers should be required to give workers paid sick days. Among the first of its kind in the country, t...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 574
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (13 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
dadw5boys
Disabled Vietnam Vet
12:10 PM on 10/28/2011
We want sick cooks in the back unseen coughing and sneezing all over the foods they prepare and setup to serve.
No one checks the health of people or sending them home. There are no standards of personnel health on the job ? Why ?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
maggirl
12:01 PM on 10/28/2011
Restaurant owners do not care if people come to work sick. Just think about it. Your cook is sneezing and coughing as he breaks the eggs into the pan, stirs the hashbrowns, flips the bacon. Yumm - virus laden food! Your server is sniffling and sneezing as he brings your Steak Diane to your table, fills your water glasses, gets another glass of wine. 3 days later - you are sick & can't figure out where you got it. Having worked 25 years in foodservice as a cook/chef I can tell you from personal experience that you go to work sick because your pay is so low you can't afford to take a day off. This is a HUGE health problem. All of you people who don't support this should probably start drinking Purell before you go out to eat so you can be sure you don't catch any of the diseases that your cook/wait staff are transmitting to you through your food!
photo
Barbara DeZan
Knowledge is Power
11:50 AM on 10/28/2011
All I can say is this: Unions.

They have no problem getting sick days or vacation time...or health benefits.

Without the Unions, we'd all still be working 12 hour days at 1.00 an hour with nothing......
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
dadw5boys
Disabled Vietnam Vet
12:06 PM on 10/28/2011
16 hour days like Mexicans fo here
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
coolmaiden
I fight right-wing bullies
06:04 PM on 10/27/2011
The health-care sector is also notorious for threatening employees if they call in sick. I thankfully work at a place that does no such thing, but it is not unheard of to give nurses, who are around contagiously ill people frequently, no more than 4 or 5 sick days per YEAR. This is one of the most absurd things I can think of.
Those who take care of others are not trusted to take care of themselves. Disgusting.
photo
Jay from Ottawa
sovereignty sale, 1.3T OBO
01:51 PM on 10/27/2011
So say someone works the usual 37.5 hours a week. 37.5 hours a week x 52 weeks = 1950 work hours a year. Divide that by 30 hours (the amount required to earn 1h paid sick time) and you get 65 work hours of paid sick time, or 8.6 paid sick days off a year. Since working 5 days a week for 52 weeks means you didn't take a single day off, figure that you have to work 50 and a half weeks to get 8 paid sick days, so that means 252.5 work days for 8 paid sick days. Thats ONE paid sick day for every 31.5 days worked.

Granted many work less than 7.5 hours a day, some work way over 7.5 hour a day (usually trying to make ends meet or earn a little disposable income), and what you get is a very fair number of paid sick days. Figure that you have to work almost an entire year without missing a shift to call in sick for a week when you get the flu.

Reminds me of people who went to work with swine flu because they either didn't have paid sick days, didn't have any left, or simply had too much work to do, and there you have a massive propogation of a powerful flu.

Life is for living, and that shouldn't only apply to the few who can afford it.
03:06 PM on 10/27/2011
I have worked in restaurants for 30 years. At the few places that offered paid sick leave, I saw the majority of employees using sick time for hangovers or having fun, then they came to work sick because they had used up all their sick pay. Additionally, any tipped employee is not going to find any benefit from getting paid minimum wage for sick time when they are used to making substantially more in tips. As for payroll costs, 1 hour for every 30 hours is a 3.3% pay increase. What other industry has given an across the board pay increase of 3.3%?
03:57 PM on 10/27/2011
That cost is already built into personnel costs for every other industry that started granting sick leave during the last century. Did you also abuse sick leave as you described or were you the exception?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
susanthe
11:27 AM on 10/28/2011
Your anecdotes may apply to life where you are. Where I am, there were no sick days for restaurant employees, nor do most restaurants offer health insurance as a benefit. Not only that, but servers earn less than minimum wage, because they are tipped employees. The last restaurant owner I worked for cries poverty at every turn, but owns 2 vacation homes, in addition to the several homes he owns in our area. Restauranteurs make big money on the backs of the slave wages they pay their employees.
photo
Skwib
Babies Ate My Dingo
12:36 PM on 10/27/2011
This is a tough one. Disregarding chains like KFC whose only dog in the fight is their corporate profits, adding another financial burden to the mom and pop restaurants out there that are already struggling could potentially put some out of business. I prefer the mom and pops to the corporate chains.... better food, better service, better experience, and would hate to see them lose yet another competitive advantage. However, a sick employee serving food is a significant public health issue, and with the current system it's a disincentive for them to stay away while they are contagious. I'm not sure what the solution would be.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
maggirl
12:04 PM on 10/28/2011
The solution is simple - let the public get sick. Screw 'em - they are just the 99%
11:19 AM on 10/27/2011
When I was a waiter I often got sick because as a waiter I came into contact with the sneezing, coughing public-at-large. Because I was paid less then the minimum wage, I could not afford to take days off when I was sick. Although I must have scrubbed my hands a hundred times during those shifts, I bet many servers aren't that conscientious.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
maggirl
12:05 PM on 10/28/2011
You are right - they are not!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ILoveGreatDanes
If you can read this,my cloaking device is broken.
08:41 AM on 10/27/2011
Of course companies would fight paying for sick days, because that would mean actually treating their employees like human beings, instead of like just another tiny cog in the giant corporate machine. Just ask Walmart.
08:36 AM on 10/27/2011
as the article says this will be a mountain of red tape and a costly city bureaucracy - i see hugh goverment growth once again.--I also believe that most people will take there sick days when they feel good and have something to do.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lachelle Wolfe
So proud to be a Democrat!
08:50 AM on 10/27/2011
There will be more that will go to work sick and prepare and serve you food - would you like that better?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Austintatious
12:02 PM on 10/27/2011
garbage
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Grada3784
Dogmatic Dictators, believers or not, not welcome
07:36 AM on 10/27/2011
Like I'm going to go to a restaurant when the food preparers or servers are sick.

It's not like restaurant workers make a decent wage after all. Otherwise, why would they have to rely on tips?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ILoveGreatDanes
If you can read this,my cloaking device is broken.
08:43 AM on 10/27/2011
How would you know if they're sick? You don't see the cooks, and waitstaff can hide it easily unless they're coughing like crazy.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Grada3784
Dogmatic Dictators, believers or not, not welcome
09:28 AM on 10/27/2011
I'd start with skipping chains like KFC and Pizza Hut, who have volunteered the info that their workers are more likely to be sick on the job.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:16 AM on 10/27/2011
If they don't have paid sick days, they will go to work sick because they have to in order to pay the bills. I can't think of a faster way to spread the flu and many other illnesses. Big business should be careful. If they kill off the peons, who will they have to screw?
photo
Trapper50cal
Prose & Con's...hmmm
11:14 AM on 10/27/2011
"I can't think of a faster way..." - Day Care Center
04:12 AM on 10/27/2011
How much do employees at local eateries make there anyway? I read a lot of posts that claim this will cripple the industry, put small places out of business or raise prices.

At 10$ an hour the employer only needs to put back .34 cents/ an hour that may or not be paid out. Its for sick pay, not vacation...geesh. Plus that, since the days are capped...he can stop putting into his little savings account once the money is put aside. That, or he can just hang it all and take his chances, not saving anything.


At .34 cents an hour, and the number of customers one employee serves, what is the fear the prices are going to go up all about? So pay 3 cents more for your meal. If you can't afford 3 cents more stay home.
02:48 PM on 10/27/2011
34 cents per hour on a $10 per hour wage is a 3.4% pay increase. A 3.4% increase in payroll cost is a significant issue for any business.
04:38 AM on 10/28/2011
Since there is a cap on days that can be used, the 34 cents would not be an on going expense. That or the employer can forgo putting the money aside and just pay the weeks wage. Menu prices are raised due to the market price of fresh produce, utiliies, advertisment, supplies...I don't see raising menu prices a nickle a hinderence. If a nickle makes a big difference to a customer they can't afford to eat out anyway.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
maggirl
12:08 PM on 10/28/2011
Cost of Living raise!!!
03:56 AM on 10/27/2011
Much, much better to make the customers sick. Maybe they'll order soup to go becaue they're too sick to cook.

Work,slave
photo
Dr Gachet
Long live utility.
03:02 AM on 10/27/2011
I'm in favor of the proposal, but I understand where the restaurant owners are coming from too. The restaurant business, more often than not, offers modest profits even when paying waitstaff peanuts. Obviously to increase worker benefits while allowing mom and pop type places to remain open the increased financial burden would be passed to the customers. I'm OK with that and all, but let's not forget that this is a public that BUGGED OUT when netflix started charging 23 cents more per day for its service. I just don't know if we, as a public, can handle paying 10 bucks for a turkey club at Bob's Diner. So let's not act like it's just KFC and Pizza Hut that are against this legislation.
04:15 AM on 10/27/2011
It would work out to .34/hour more to the employer, and only if the staff all used the sick pay. Divide by the number of turkey clubs and pay the extra nickle just to make sure someone is not coughing into it.
photo
Dr Gachet
Long live utility.
11:17 AM on 10/27/2011
All I'm saying is that even if it is only .34 more an hour, and you have 10 servers working full time hours, then you have to come up with 7,000 dollars or so per year. That's a lot for some places. If tagging on 7,000 per year to your bottom line were that simple, wouldn't you think they would have done it already?
02:56 PM on 10/27/2011
If the staff used the sick time? How many people do you know that have called in sick when they weren't. The average human is going to take everything they can get.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bruce Joseph
Think before you vote.
01:52 AM on 10/27/2011
Maybe I'm just selfish, but I really don't want a sick person preparing or serving me food because he/she can't afford to take a day off when ill.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
maggirl
12:09 PM on 10/28/2011
Too bad because that is what is happening many times when you go out to eat!