Campaign For a Healthy Denver calls out food service in television spot

Categories: News, Politics

campaign screenshot.jpg
Last week, No On 300 announced the release of the first television spot focusing on the Denver Paid Sick Leave Initiative. The video stars Mayor Michael Hancock and directs attention to the toll the ordinance could have on the city's budget. In contrast, the clip from pro-300 Campaign For a Healthy Denver features an anonymous narrator, but some heavy facts.

According to the video, more than 100,000 of Denver's restaurant, nursing home and daycare workers currently don't have paid sick leave, a statistic that focuses less on the implications of the initiative than the reasoning behinds its creation.

The thirty-second spot also draws attention to a statistic from the Centers For Disease Control that suggests nearly 10,000,000 food-borne illnesses a year are the result of sick workers -- and the group has established background research on the topic from the Bell Policy Center (below). As the November 1 election approaches, both ads are becoming more frequent on local and cable stations.

Check out both spots below.

Which ad do you think is the most effective?

Bell Policy Center paid sick leave statistics

More from our Politics archive: "Contagion: Not Just a Movie fights against opposition to paid sick leave initiative (VIDEO)."

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help

Ths supporters try to trick the public.  First, they only talk about restaurant workers, but this initiative covers every worker in Denver, and there are many more non-restaurant workers than there are restaurant workers.  So this fact dilutes their main reason to support the bill which is that...

If (restaurant) workers do not receive sick pay, they cannot afford to live and they will be "forced" to come to work sick and they will infect other people.  But this premise is loaded with fallacies:

Fallacy 1: Restaurant workers are unable to survive if they lose even a single day's pay.  (What will they do if there is a snow day, if they get fired, if the restaurant closes?)

Fallacy 2: Restaurant workers are inherently unethical, and even if they know they will harm other people they will harm them in order to make more money. 

Fallacy 3: Workers can only infect others when they show symptoms.  But much infection can be spread BEFORE a person shows symptoms.

Fallacy 4: Restaurant workers will ONLY use the sick pay for days when they are sick, and they will not abuse the system (as the vast majority of the general public abuses the unemployment system by claiming they are seeking a job every single day/week when they are sometimes/often not doing so), and therefore restaurant workers will not come to work sick and infect other people.  Right. But if we accept the supporters' premise that these people are so poor they are "forced" to work sick, and if they have no sick days left this means they will work sick and infect people.

Fallacy 5: Since the initiative gives workers for restaurants employing 10 or more people 9 sick days, and restaurants employing 9 or fewer employees 5 sick days, then this means that at small restaurants many more people will get sick.  Otherwise, there is no way to logically support giving 9 sick days to the bigger restaurants.  Thus, workers at small restaurants will be "forced" to work for 4 days when they are sick.

You know what, it seems that the logic behind this law is sick.


Right 9 days paid. Who's paying for these 9 days of vacation. Ohh since its Denver only I guess the jobs will go to Aurora. Soon Aurora will be greater then Denver. Way to go liberalism: )

Robert Chase
Robert Chase

Ignorant turd!  Why don't you read the Initiative before having another keyboard accident?

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault