Question of the day
Wednesday, Jul 24, 2019 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Tribune…
The City Council on Wednesday unanimously approved a bill requiring large Chicago employers to give workers at least two weeks’ advance notice of their schedules and compensate them for last-minute changes.
In development for more than two years, the “fair workweek” ordinance reflects a compromise between representatives from labor and business, who have been working with the city on what kinds of employers and employees would be covered by the scheduling rules.
The final version of the workweek legislation limits protections to just those workers earning less than $26 an hour.
The ordinance, which covers eight industries ranging from restaurants to manufacturing, is the first in the country to include health care employers in predictable scheduling legislation. The potential impact on hospitals and other health care facilities, which have said they need flexibility to make abrupt changes in staffing levels as the need arises, was among the bigger industry concerns.
But during a hearing on the final bill Tuesday before the workforce development committee, David Gross, senior vice president of government relations at the Illinois Health and Hospital Association, said the group was withdrawing its opposition thanks to efforts to find middle ground. In addition to the wage threshold, which exempts most clinical staff like nurses and technicians, the final legislation includes exceptions for health care employers in the event of an unexpected increase in demand due to severe weather, violence, large public events or other events beyond their control.
* From the mayor’s press release…
This ordinance requires employers to schedule employees 10 days in advance, rising to 14 days in 2022, and directs employers to ban scheduling practices which prevent workers from attending to their families, health, education and other obligations.
By requiring predictive scheduling, employees covered by this ordinance will now receive:
• Predictability of pay: Employees are entitled to compensation for changes an employer makes to a work schedule after the deadline.
• The right to decline when schedules change: Employees may decline additional hours not previously scheduled.
• Choice of additional work hours when available: First offer of additional shifts of work will be reserved for qualified existing employees.
• The right to rest and request a flexible working arrangement: Employees are not required to work hours scheduled for less than 10 hours after the end of the previous day’s shift and are paid a higher differential for those shifts.
[…] To qualify for the requirements of the Chicago Fair Workweek Ordinance, a business must have over 100 employees globally, 50 of which must be covered employees, with the threshold for non-profits and restaurants raised to 250. Additionally, restaurants must have at least 30 locations globally, meaning that most small restaurants are exempt. Small businesses are largely exempt from these regulations, and to account for the unique needs and populations served, Chicago’s safety net hospitals will be given a six-month extension to meet the requirements of the ordinance.
* The Question: Should the state adopt a similar “fair workweek” law? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please…
web polls
- The Captain - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 3:14 pm:
I would like to see the state do this. However, I also wouldn’t mind if they waited a little bit to see what lessons can be learned from the City’s implementation and execution. They can essentially treat the City program as a pilot project and learn from it.
- Just Me 2 - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 3:20 pm:
Rich, you left out that the City of Chicago exempted itself. Would the State’s law include City of Chicago employees?
- A guy - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 3:22 pm:
That’s just a bit too much government meddling in private industry for my taste.
- lakeside - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 3:28 pm:
My gosh, yes. A few years ago I was talking to a younger relative and his friend, both of whom lived in a small, rural town without a ton of job prospects. They both worked at a major pizza chain. The employer would make them be ‘on call’ all day, and they’d have to go in at a moment’s notice only to be cut when they were no longer needed - in one case after two hours. They made $16 that day.
They couldn’t get a second job to supplement because the pizza chain required them to be available all the time - for free - in case they were needed. They were desperate to get other full time work, but couldn’t get it and couldn’t get part time work because of this supposedly ‘full time’ job.
It has stuck with me so, so hard. They wanted to work and just could not get ahead at all because the company had an algorithm that put the risk on them, rather than the company.
- NIU Grad - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 3:28 pm:
I like the idea, but every industry I’ve been involved in would have just ignored this.
- Anyone Remember - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 3:34 pm:
Having been married to a teacher of young children, YES! Day care for younger kids isn’t conjured up out of thin air.
- revvedup - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 3:37 pm:
The State should adopt a uniform law, and override home rule to avoid a patchwork of local laws which could make a nightmare for employers AND employees, especially in businesses where people work on multiple job sites in different jurisdictions (such as security guards and service technicians as examples). The other aspect is that businesses start playing games with their office locations to avoid humane scheduling practices and penalties.
- Earnest - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 3:38 pm:
I voted ‘no,’ because the first image that pops into my head are larger developmental disability agencies who are in the midst of a DSP staffing crisis which is about to get even worse as the state did not appropriate money to have wages keep pace with the minimum wage increase.
That said, workplace protections have not kept pace with the modern face of employment opportunities. Apologies that I couldn’t find the right google search terms, but we had some interesting and fervent comment threads about the modernization of the labor movement back during the Quinn administration.
- Just Me 2 - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 3:55 pm:
Voted no.
Isn’t this why we have unions? If the workers are being mistreated they should unionize. We don’t need government getting involved in the scheduling of employees. Total overkill.
- Anon For Now - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 4:11 pm:
Voted no. One week out makes sense, two weeks seems a bit much.
- Homer Simpson's Brain - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 4:14 pm:
Voted yes. State law should cover as many industries as possible, and should overrule home rule areas. This is desperately needed for so many people. If we want people to lead healthy lives, one bedrock of that is work stability. Humans are animals of habit; if you break that habit, crises ensue.
As to Just Me 2, no unions are not the answer. This is a systemic problem that requires a systemic solution. This is an issue of fairness. If bosses give themselves stable schedules, so should employees. The burdens of a business should not be employees’ cross to bear, it should be the boss’ cross to bear.
- Chicagonk - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 4:18 pm:
https://www.npr.org/2019/05/26/727107486/colorado-court-complicates-life-for-drug-sniffing-dogs
A different state, but the reality is that this is going to be an issue in Illinois.
- Froganon - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 6:53 pm:
Voted yes. This should apply to all businesses, regardless of size in a few years. Minimizing payroll at the expense of employees ability to have lives is rotten. As so often happens, the excesses of the “free market” require government intervention to prevent a race to the bottom for businesses as they externalize as many expenses as possible onto staff, customers and the public.
- Lynn S. - Thursday, Jul 25, 19 @ 2:23 am:
Voted yes. My workplace is good, but I have a brother who works in a factory in a small Illinois town.
This factory (owned by a Fortune 500 corporation) expects its employees to be available 4 hours before and 4 hours after their scheduled shift. Example: brother is on 2nd shift, 3 p.m. to midnight, but factory expects to be able schedule his shifts as early as 11 a.m. (home at midnight), or as late as 4 a.m. (come in at 3p.m., work until 4 a.m.).
Factory also pays at least 50 cents less than other factories around it, and cannot figure out why a.) almost no one applies to work there and b.) those who get hired usually quit before 6 months.
Brother has been there 20 years, and factory only started pulling scheduling crap in last 10. Brother has stayed because he’s worked himself to semi-managerial position and has beaucoup vacation time. He generally tells young people not to apply, get a job elsewhere or get a degree of some sort.
- Techie - Thursday, Jul 25, 19 @ 9:27 am:
Very much yes. The kind of stress and strain that workers endure from last-minutes scheduling changes is real and isn’t merely inconvenient, it often costs them money. What is a single parent to do when the restaurant decides last minute it wants them to come in tomorrow, but they don’t have a sitter?
In order to have a life outside of work, people need to be able to plan that life. If they don’t know when they will be working, how can they plan?
To those who say this should be dealt with by unions - that would be nice, except unions have been crushed so hard that at this point in time, that’s very impractical. Until unions have the support they deserve, government has a role to play to protect workers in the workplace.