After months of meetings and focus groups, members of the Seattle City Council got their hands on proposed “secure scheduling” legislation that could change the way thousands of employees in the City receive their working schedules.
The overarching goal of the legislation is to shift power over scheduling from employers to employees by giving them control over accepting shifts, additional pay if they pick up a shift by the employer’s request and an offer of weekly hours in writing upon being hired.
Councilmember Lisa Herbold praised the process that kicked off in mid-March as creating something that will fit Seattle’s workforce.
“I’m glad we stuck to our guns to create a Seattle-specific policy rather than replicate what another city had done,” Herbold said.
The proposed ordinance raised flags for some local business owners and workers content with their schedules who worried that the ordinance would have unintended consequences that would reduce the flexibility that they value.
It’s unlikely that the ordinance would impact many local businesses at all.
The proposed legislation affects companies in fast food, full-service restaurants and retail stores. To fall under the law, the company must have 500 or more employees, and the full-service restaurants have to have 40 locations worldwide in addition to having 500 or more employees.
That means chains with franchises including Subway, Starbucks or McDonald’s on the fast food side or full service restaurants such as Cheesecake Factory and ihop.
The law requires that employers offer a specific number of hours per week to each employee, although it also says that this “good faith estimate” is “not a contractual offer” and that the employer will not be bound by the estimate.
Workers have the right to provide input on their schedule at any time. If an employer denies a request that relates to a number of sensitive subjects — such as a health condition, caregiving, a second job or schooling — the denial has to be in writing and they have to have a “bona fide” reason for saying no.
Under the legislation, employers would also be required to pay employees time and a half for every hour that their shift is extended. If it’s cut short or if they’re “on call,” meaning that they have to come in if the business calls them, they get another half hour of pay for every hour they were either shorted or spent waiting for work. These policies are called “predictability pay.”
If employers find that they need more hours covered, they have to offer those hours to an existing employee before hiring a new person. This change stems from complaints that employers artificially keep workers under 30 hours a week to avoid triggering requirements under federal healthcare legislation that would result in them getting benefits.The proposal gives workers the flexibility to switch shifts and doesn’t trigger predictability pay under those circumstances. However, it does put the onus of finding a last minute replacement for a dropped shift squarely in the court of the employer.
Finally, it puts in place a review process to assess the effects of the law six months, 18 months and two years after implementation.
The ordinance puts more power in the hands of workers, and councilmembers focused most of their discussion on how far it should go.
Councilmember Tim Burgess, who is not a member of the committee where the legislation was discussed, expressed concern about the law putting so much on employers, including finding coverage for dropped shifts and being forced to pay time-and-a-half in predictability pay if they can’t.
“We’re attempting to strike a balance,” said Dylan Orr, director of the Office of Labor Standards, the office responsible for enforcing the proposed ordinance.
There will be at least three more meetings for committee members to hear more public comment and propose potential amendments. The next hearing is Aug. 16 at 6 p.m. to try to reach out to people who cannot attend meetings during the day.