Reader: Initiative 300 will encourage workers to stay home with hangovers, not flu

• As a restauranteur in San Francisco, I had all the same concerns about our Paid Sick Leave Ordinance that passed a few years ago, giving all employees 72 hours/ year of paid sick leave.  I've been pleasantly surprised to find that not only do my staff not abuse the sick days, they don't use many at all... I've actually had to encourage people to request their pay.  Yes, people call in hungover, but they did that before this ordinance.  When management knows that the sick day was suspicious, staff don't push their luck by asking for paid sick leave.  Restaurant workers eat off each other's plates, drink eachother's drinks- and generally all get sick at once.  With the new ordinance, my employees are less likely to come in when they're contagious, leading to fewer "sick-outs" than we used to have.  It seems presumptuous to say that restaurant workers are "young and still partying," thereby dismissing the possiblity of real illnesses; does youth somehow make them immune to viruses?  A server at my restaurant comes in contact with about 120 people a day- that's a good enough reason to keep them home if they're sick.  Most restaurant staff live month to month and may come to work ill simply b/c rent is due.  I'd rather keep them home, pay them, and keep the rest of my staff and my customers healthy. Jen Piallat, owner, Zazie Restaurant www.ZazieSF.com

• Clarification: 5 days/yr for small business, 9 days/yr for others.

• "Bad guys win, good guys lose", but only because you are letting them. Penalize those employees that follow the rules, so you don't have to worry about the cheaters? That might be good for your "business", but you're going to find it tough holding onto (and finding new) employees. Good business starts at home, so treat well those that do the right thing, and the bad apples will be weeded out by their fellows. You want a way around the Initiative? Give your employees Paid Time Off. As little as 5 days/year means 300 doesn't apply to you. That way you can happily approve those early vacation requests, keep your good employees happy, and kick the cheaters to the curb - where they should be.

• I can state 100% that I am not a proponent or opponent of initiative 300--prior to yesterday I had no idea what initiative 300 was.  However, before the headline was fixed, it read "Initiative 300 will encourage workers to stay home with hangovers, not flu."  It did not indicate that this was the opinion of the reader, and instead stated that assertion as a fact.  As such, it looked like an editorial and not a comment of the day.  Westword has since changed it (before buddha chimed in) to be consistent with the other comments of the day. As for the comment that workers should "ideally" show up in uniform, we just disagree.  I think setting that comment aside with em dashes suggests that it's the writer's opinion.  Otherwise, why use the dashes to set that phrase apart from the rest of the sentence?  It's either sloppy writing or Westword taking a stance.  I'll accept it's the former.

• Patricia Calhoun's editorial integrity couldn't be questioned by the Buddha, Gandhi or Hesus and the baby Hesus.  epl seems to be looking for a fight.  I've been reading Westord for 13 years (only about 1/3 of the time Calhoun has been publishing and writing it) and I don't see any journalistic ethics being compromised here.   I'm probably being convenient with my next statement, but I suspect epl is being disingenuous.  epl is a proponent of 300.  Hey, this is an opinion page, and that's my opinion.  

• Thanks for pointing out that I inadvertently left off the word "Reader." It's been added. As for noting that organizers wanted employees to show up in uniform -- that's a telling detail, and including it is hardly "taking a stance." As noted in a post last week, I'll be meeting with Initiative 300 proponents this week. I don't like some of the language of the proposal, but I'm more than willing to let them tell me why I'm wrong.

• So is Westword taking a stance against Initiative 300?  If so, you should probably indicate that this is an editorial/opinion piece.  I realize this is labeled as the "Comment of the Day" and that you are quoting a poster here, but the way it's presented gives the impression that Westword is advocating for a particular stance.  For example, the comment of the day headlined usually states "Reader:" to indicate that it is the reader's position and not Westword's; here, however, the headline doesn't indicate that it's the reader's opinion that initiative 300 will encourage hangovers and, instead, states as a fact that the initiative will encourage this behavior.  Moreover, including in this writeup that the rally organizers want employees there in uniform operates as a call to arms in opposition to the initiative and, again, indicates that Westword is taking a stance on this issue and using its place in the media to advocate for its stance.  (I realize that Westword did link to opinions in favor of the initiative, but the balance of the piece and its tone weighs heavily towards opposition.) As a general point I have no issue with a publication taking a stance on an issue, this one included.  I also don't agree or disagree with initiative 300--I don't know enough about it to state an opinion.  However, given that Westword/Cafe Society relies, to a certain extent, on cooperation of the restaurant industry and continuing a good working relationship with that industry, Westword should probably state upfront that it is taking a stance and using its blog to advocate for a political issue that is beneficial to the business side of the industry Cafe Society covers.  Or, if that was not the case, it should probably do a better job of making clear that it is not advocating for a given stance.  Just seems like professional journalism to me. 

• Because the laws are written differently in those markets.  300 is written by myopic, well intentioned folks that just got it wrong.  This Denver initiative is just dead wrong and not thought through.   I already have staff members talking about using sick days on around Christmas.  What this mean is that employees that requested time off around Christmas months ago are now going to have to stay in town on-call to cover the irresponsible ones that plan to use their sick days to go back to their hometowns and see family and friends.  This, mind you, is exactly what the responsible employees that requested time off in advance would like to do as well.  Now, only the cheater will get days off and my quality staff get the shaft.   Really good bill, huh?? Bad guys win, good guys lose.  C'est la vie.  

• Why is it then, in cities where sick days have already passed, workers only use an average of less than 3 paid sick days per year (1.8 for restaurant workers)?

TotalComments: 9