City Hall
Study: San Francisco Restaurants Support Paid Sick Leave
According to a new report by the Economic Opportunity Institute, the left-leaning statewide think tank, a majority of employers in San Francisco, which passed a mandatory sick-leave law in 2007, said they supported the law. EOI is pushing for similar legislation in Seattle, where city council member Nick Licata is expected to introduce a paid sick leave ordinance later this year, as PubliCola first reported
last month.
The EOI report finds that three and a half years after the San Francisco ordinance went into effect, 68 percent of all employers, and 66 percent of hotel and food service employers, support the ordinance.
Here in Seattle, the Washington Restaurant Association is spearheading the opposition to the ordinance (as the California Restaurant Association did in San Francisco). The WRA argues that small restaurants can't afford to pay for sick days, and that the proposal will be a job-killer in Seattle.
Speaking to the latter point, the EOI report found that employment in San Francisco actually increased, relative to the state and surrounding region, after the ordinance went into effect, and that "accommodation and food service jobs outgrew three of the four counties in 2007 and all of them in 2008."
EOI's report also cites a 2010 survey showing that, on average, workers took just three sick days a year (less than the five to nine sick days the law provides). The same survey found that a quarter of all workers didn't take a single paid sick day the previous year.
The EOI study also found that although "the vast majority" of businesses in San Francisco are following the law, more than 21 percent of the smallest employers---those with fewer than 10 workers---are not providing paid sick leave.
In last week's Think Tank, Nick Licata and Washington Restaurant Association head Anthony Anton duked it out over the sick leave issue.
The EOI report finds that three and a half years after the San Francisco ordinance went into effect, 68 percent of all employers, and 66 percent of hotel and food service employers, support the ordinance.
Here in Seattle, the Washington Restaurant Association is spearheading the opposition to the ordinance (as the California Restaurant Association did in San Francisco). The WRA argues that small restaurants can't afford to pay for sick days, and that the proposal will be a job-killer in Seattle.
Speaking to the latter point, the EOI report found that employment in San Francisco actually increased, relative to the state and surrounding region, after the ordinance went into effect, and that "accommodation and food service jobs outgrew three of the four counties in 2007 and all of them in 2008."
EOI's report also cites a 2010 survey showing that, on average, workers took just three sick days a year (less than the five to nine sick days the law provides). The same survey found that a quarter of all workers didn't take a single paid sick day the previous year.
The EOI study also found that although "the vast majority" of businesses in San Francisco are following the law, more than 21 percent of the smallest employers---those with fewer than 10 workers---are not providing paid sick leave.
In last week's Think Tank, Nick Licata and Washington Restaurant Association head Anthony Anton duked it out over the sick leave issue.
