San Francisco Becomes First City to Require Fully Paid Parental Leave

Take your hair dresser or barber.

They have a child and can't work for six weeks.

Let's assume you get your hair done every week. Wouldn't you find it absurd if your hair dresser still asked you to pay them every week even though you aren't actually getting your hair done while they are on maternity leave? Any normal person would be like WTF? You didn't cut my hair (i.e., working) so why should I pay you?

Yet, if that same barber were an employee of a company, everyone thinks the company should pay for their maternity leave. The company is getting screwed the same way you would be under the scenario I presented.

Not only are they paying for an employee who isn't working, they have to turn around and pay another person to make up for that work or figure out who to reallocate work during that employees absence. It is very disruptive.

a reply to: eluryh22

These discussions are always frustrating because while we both live in the US we live in fundamentally different countries. Where I live wages were cut and jobs were turned into tipped positions to lower overhead. Vacation days aren't given, though you can buy them from the employer. You can be fired at any time for any reason. Sick days aren't given, it's your responsibility to avoid germs. Employers can treat employees this way too because there's a near 50% real unemployment rate. When I see places like California actually siding in favor of employees I find it really hard to side against that because where I live is the exact opposite.

As far as your example of an employer suddenly wanting 50 hours of work a week goes, that's precisely what happens here. You'll be hired for x hours per week but more work will need to be done. If you expect to keep your job you will "volunteer" a few hours unpaid. It's the price of having a job.

That aside, I'm probably going to regret bringing abortion into this, but I find it curious that the people who are usually pro life are also usually the ones who want to keep in place laws that make babies financially devastating. The more able people are to have children, the fewer they will abort.

How many small business owners even have the resources to have that much cash on hand? I mean especially in the service industries

originally posted by: avgguy
How many small business owners even have the resources to have that much cash on hand? I mean especially in the service industries

How much would they have to have on hand? 6 weeks worth of salary for 50% of their workforce assuming every woman got pregnant at once. If you're a 20 person company that's 6 weeks worth of salary for 10 people every say 5 years, and you have 9 months to save up the funds. That's 1% of payroll over that time frame, are you claiming a small business owner can't handle a 1% increase in payroll costs? Actually, because they're currently paying 55% of wages it's less than half that increase.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: avgguy
How many small business owners even have the resources to have that much cash on hand? I mean especially in the service industries

How much would they have to have on hand? 6 weeks worth of salary for 50% of their workforce assuming every woman got pregnant at once. If you're a 20 person company that's 6 weeks worth of salary for 10 people every say 5 years, and you have 9 months to save up the funds. That's 1% of payroll over that time frame, are you claiming a small business owner can't handle a 1% increase in payroll costs? Actually, because they're currently paying 55% of wages it's less than half that increase.

If you've ever ran a small business with say around 25 employees, you would understand how tough it can be at times to meet payroll. Depending on your business, how much debt you have, whether your customers decide they're too broke this month so they'll pay next month, if quarterlys are due, the furnace broke down in your building, yada, yada, yada, it can be hell. There are times some business owners take no pay because there aren't enough funds. Sometimes it's hard to meet payroll, loan payments, bills etc. They all look for better financial times but some of them are on finite time lines.

Here is a scenario on the $15.00/hr wage hike in Seattle. Now, CA isn't at the $15.00/hr yet but they will be. If your business depends on a body to do the work, you won't only be paying for the person on maternity/paternity leave but also someone to fill the position while they're gone. Your payroll taxes increase during this period because you have more payroll because you have more employees.

So take the scenario below and ignore if you desire the wage increase issue and look at the figures:

“He estimates that a common budget breakdown among sustaining Seattle restaurants so far has been the following: 36 percent of funds are devoted to labor, 30 percent to food costs and 30 percent go to everything else (all other operational costs). The remaining 4 percent has been the profit margin, and as a result, in a $700,000 restaurant, he estimates that the average restaurateur in Seattle has been making $28,000 a year.

“With the minimum wage spike, however, he says that if restaurant owners made no changes, the labor cost in quick service restaurants would rise to 42 percent and in full service restaurants to 47 percent.”

Restaurant owners, expecting to operate on thinner margins, have tried to adapt in several ways including “higher menu prices, cheaper, lower-quality ingredients, reduced opening times, and cutting work hours and firing workers,” according to The Seattle Times and Seattle Eater magazine. As the Washington Policy Center points out, when these strategies are not enough, businesses close, “workers lose their jobs and the neighborhood loses a prized amenity.”

A spokesman for the Washington Restaurant Association told the Washington Policy Center, “Every [restaurant] operator I’m talking to is in panic mode, trying to figure out what the new world will look like… Seattle is the first city in this thing and everyone’s watching, asking how is this going to change?” The Washington Policy Center.

shiftwa.org...

Many small business owners are not wealthy and do not collect outrageous salaries. This new parental leave act will be the final nail in many coffins.

Many might say "good riddance", and look forward to the new establishments but the problem is, it will be a long time coming. We lost a small restaurant, actually 3 in my small town in the last 5 years. The owners weren't millionaires, they loved cooking and wanted to work for themselves. They didn't make enough to make it worth it and closed down. One was a burger joint with great burgers and the others were home-style affairs. They had regular and steady income but again, these weren't high income earners. After they closed, no new restaurants replaced them. We did have a Sub-way open which was better than nothing but a town with only 1 or 2 restaurants is a town not growing or doing well.

a reply to: Aazadan

These discussions are always frustrating because while we both live in the US we live in fundamentally different countries.

You know, I'll concede that point. You are right that the realities in different areas can be remarkably different. Although living in a suburb of one of the largest US cities has it's problems (EVERYTHING costs a fortune and property taxes are INSANELY high and just getting to and home from work is an absolute NIGHTMARE), there are some benefits. Although overall salaries aren't what they used to be for many people, because of the volume of people there tends to be places to work (even if they aren't the best paying jobs).

Where I live wages were cut and jobs were turned into tipped positions to lower overhead. Vacation days aren't given, though you can buy them from the employer.

While this may not be the exact same thing, what I have seen happening a LOT (particularly in the medical field where my wife works) is employers are transferring workers from direct hires to being workers employed by consultants.

Quick explanation: The (non-medical) upper management at the hospital system where my wife works used to work directly for the hospital and received the overall compensation package that is afforded to hospital employees. Sadly, unfortunately, frustratingly for those affected, the hospital essentially "gave" these employees to an outside consulting firm so now, since they are technically no longer hospital employees, the hospital no longer has to extend all the benefits previously provided (including some medical benefits and amount of vacation time that is accrued). (I'm grateful that my wife's position is just below that cut-off line but it will make her think twice before she puts in for another promotion). (Also, I'm going to come back to this later on).

You can be fired at any time for any reason.

For the most part, it's the same thing here. Anyone can get fired at any time (provided it's not some sort of civil rights thing but I think that would likely be the same over in your neck of the woods).

Employers can treat employees this way too because there's a near 50% real unemployment rate. When I see places like California actually siding in favor of employees I find it really hard to side against that because where I live is the exact opposite.

I think this is probably where our two viewpoints start going against each other. Although I don't know where you are and even if I did I wouldn't necessarily know all the details, the fact that there is such a high unemployment rate where you are indicates that there just aren't many businesses being created or staying there. So my question is, how does introducing new laws that make things HARDER for employers to set up shop or hire people going to help bring in businesses to hire people and LOWER the unemployment rate?

Bringing it back to the hospital system where my wife works... Do you know why they made that move? The (alleged) Affordable Healthcare Act. Although you will never see a formal memo on the hospital's letterhead indicating so, there has been little effort to keep that fact quiet. Is this a case of corporate greed and an instance where a company did something because they COULD rather than they HAD to? Perhaps. However, ultimately there were new laws enacted by the government to "help" the average American worker and all it did was screw over a bunch of people.

That aside, I'm probably going to regret bringing abortion into this, but I find it curious that the people who are usually pro life are also usually the ones who want to keep in place laws that make babies financially devastating. The more able people are to have children, the fewer they will abort.

Hey, I often bring things up that I suspect I will regret... so you have company there.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but I think you aren't seeing the forest for the trees on this one. I think you are looking at those six weeks and saying that pro life (conservatives or republicans or whatever) people are making having babies devastating financially. I would argue that having a decent job for years and decades supersedes six weeks of relative comfort.

Edit to Add: My advice to any business that can possibly afford it would be to suggest they have some sort of sick-day policy. I say this not because it shows compassion for the employee but that in the long run it may save them money. One sick person at work can spread the cough or cold or whatever and suddenly you have multiple people calling out. Even if a company isn't paying for sick days this can cost them dearly.