Seattle’s progressive business leaders seem to have reached their limit with the city’s seemingly endless push to regulate employers.  In recent weeks former Starbucks president Howard Behar, El Gaucho president Chad Mackay and restaurateur Dave Meinert have published scathing criticisms of the city’s proposed regulations restricting how employers manage and schedule their workers.

But it isn’t just employers who are upset.  Workers who understand the real world impacts of restrictive scheduling regulations are worried the flexibility they enjoy working in the service industry is in peril.

Targeted primarily at businesses in the service sector, such as restaurants, the regulations under consideration in Seattle would require employers to give workers two or three weeks advance notice of scheduled shifts with extra “predictability” pay for changes to shifts with less notice, guarantee shifts are scheduled at least 11 hours apart, guarantee existing employees have the opportunity to work any extra hours before additional part-time employees are hired and mandate workers be paid a minimum of two to four hours for any shift, including those on-call.

Over 1,000 of Seattle’s restaurant workers have organized to fight the proposed regulations. The Full Service Workers Alliance of Seattle says the regulations being considered by city officials would not only prohibit the flexible schedules they value (picking up shifts and dropping them as needed), but could result in fewer work opportunities and fewer benefits (such as free or discounted meals) that are offered as perks by many establishments.  They also say the rules would “create an environment of stress between employers and employees.”  

A common theme throughout the Alliance's commentary is a feeling of disenfranchisement.  Workers say the Seattle City Council has purposefully left them out of the conversation about the supposed need for scheduling restrictions:

“As workers of the Seattle Full Service Industry our voices are being silenced by special interest groups who aim to destroy the freedoms of flexibility our industry currently has. Implications of such legislation will impact our work life and income in a negative way. They are destroying our culture and taking away our freedoms.”

In a video filmed in front of the Seattle office of Working Washington, the union-backed group pushing the proposed scheduling regulations, one member of the group who describes herself as a “mother, artist and worker in a full service restaurant” who “relies on a flexible schedule to take care of my child and to raise my child” explains why she is opposed to restrictive scheduling regulations:

“I do not support the irresponsible tactics of our city council to pass legislation that will destroy my freedom of flexibility as a working mom…It’s extremely irresponsible to use misleading polls, with small sample sizes, funded by special interests, and applying that data to the service industry as a whole in Seattle.”

In another video, a service worker who identifies himself as “a gay, Hispanic bartender” delivers a similar message:

“I do not support irresponsible railroad tactics to pass legislation that will hurt and end the freedoms of flexibility that service workers currently enjoy.”

Both workers demand members of Seattle City Council meet with them and other restaurant and bar workers who are opposed to restrictive scheduling rules and their unintended consequences.

What kind of consequences?  As one worker posting on the Facebook page explained:

“…the reality is, after reading the ordinance, there is no way an employer will allow any last minute days off or shift pick ups if they have to pay you extra [due to the proposed predictability pay penalty].  If the patio is rained out, you still will be called into work [due to the proposed provision requiring workers be paid a minimum of two to four hours for any shift, including on-call shifts]…”

This has certainly been the experience for many workers in San Francisco, where restrictive scheduling is already the law.  Workers there complain the law’s “predictability pay” penalty discourages employers from offering extra shifts on short notice—even if workers want to pick up more hours with last minute shifts.  Conversely, employers, particularly restaurants, grocers and movie theaters, report problems with having enough staffing when business picks up unexpectedly.  Being understaffed results in frustrated customers and lost sales for businesses.

And while Working Washington vilifies service industry schedules as not being family friendly, one worker posted that her family’s service industry jobs are the only ones that provide the flexibility they need:

“The service industry offers flexibility that other industries do not…my husband and I both work in the industry and it allows us to stagger our shifts so that we don’t have to come up with $2,000 a month for daycare.”

Flexibility is the key message from workers supporting the Full Service Workers Alliance of Seattle.  As one worker neatly sums up, "I chose to work in this industry in part because of the flexibility it affords me."  

Clearly there is another side of the story to Working Washington's agenda-driven narrative that shift workers in Seattle are being exploited by their employers and in need of protection.  Reading the comments of the workers supporting the Full Service Workers Alliance of Seattle, it would appear what workers are in need of is protection from the special interests of Working Washington.