The debate over proposed restrictive scheduling regulations under consideration by the Seattle City Council (and likely to be voted on before the end of the year) has galvanized many in the business community, with some of the city’s most progressive business leaders warning of the unintended consequences of such regulations.  And it isn’t their bottom line they warn about—it is the harm that would fall on employees.

The same warning is coming from many of the employees themselves (the workers the regulations are supposed to protect). Over 1,000 restaurant and bar workers have organized to form the Full Service Workers Alliance of Seattle, a group dedicated to fighting the proposed regulations.  Their biggest complaint—restrictive scheduling regulations would destroy the freedom and flexibility that are the hallmark of many service sector jobs.

Not surprisingly, Working Washington, the union-backed group pushing the restrictive scheduling rules, dismisses the concerns raised by liberal Seattle business leaders as nothing more than the griping of “rich people who were 100% wrong about $15,” (I wonder if the employees of Z Pizza and Cascade Designs, who lost their jobs, and Icon Grill employees, who lost three weeks of paid vacation every year, think they were 100% wrong?  Or whether the UW professor the city hired to study the impacts of $15 thinks they were 100% wrong?)  Of course, Working Washington can’t as easily attack the concerns of the 1,000 service workers who oppose the restrictive scheduling rules that supposedly would protect them. 

Nor will it be easy to dismiss the concerns of a well-respected nonprofit organization that is dedicated to helping at risk youth. A compelling editorial from the president and CEO of the nonprofit Boys & Girls Clubs of King County, Calvin Lyons, offers a thought provoking explanation of how restrictive scheduling would “punish some of the most vulnerable people in our community."

Lyons sets the stage for his editorial by opening with an apropos quote from author Rob Norton on the law of unintended consequences:

“Actions of people—and especially of government—always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended. Economists and other social scientists have heeded its power for centuries; for just as long, politicians and popular opinion have ignored it.”  

Lyons follows with a pithy observation of his own:

“Unfortunately, recent actions in Seattle are showing that Norton may know what he is talking about.”

What follows is a plea from Lyons for Seattle’s politicians (Mayor Ed Murray and the Seattle City Council) to “read the fine print” of the proposed scheduling restrictions.

One of the stated goals of restrictive scheduling is to increase full time employment opportunities for workers.  Lyons astutely points out that in doing so the availability of part-time jobs would be reduced:

“Seattle’s employers would be forced to offer available hours to existing employees at the expense of those seeking part-time work.”

Lyons argues it is these part-time jobs that the city’s “disconnected youths” rely on as the “first rung of the ladder of opportunity.”  Young people from poor households (a disproportionate percentage of which he says are “people of color from single-parent homes”) need these part-time jobs to contribute to their family’s household expenses while still attending school and other extra-curricular activities.  For these young workers from poor families, whom Lyons calls the “most vulnerable people in our community,” a part-time job is not just a means to earn spending money—that income is a necessity to help support their family. 

“Fortunately, many Seattle-area companies are looking for bright, energetic, positive and hardworking additions to their teams. But, infusing this talent requires managers who are willing to schedule around myriad complexities and challenges that define the lives of economically disadvantaged youths.

 

If managers are limited in the amount of flexibility they can provide, and if part-time employment is reduced, Seattle’s young men and women will suffer. Fewer flexible part-time-employment opportunities mean fewer people would find their all-important first job that provides immediate income and a chance to pursue greater dreams.”

­­­­­Lyons concludes by imploring Seattle’s leaders to preserve young workers’ opportunities for part-time work.  The mission statement of the Boys & Girls Clubs is to “enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.”  Clearly the organization thinks Seattle's proposed regulations targeting part-time work compromise that mission.