Plan B Forum

Family friendly SF? New measure would pioneer flexible work rules

Today, Board of Supervisors President David Chiu is introducing a proposed ballot measure for family-friendly workplace rules that, while unlikely to reverse family flight on their own, would once again put San Francisco at the vanguard of a public policy debate.

Today, Board of Supervisors President David Chiu is introducing a proposed ballot measure for family-friendly workplace rules that, while unlikely to reverse family flight on their own, would once again put San Francisco at the vanguard of a public policy debate.

In the city of St. Francis, “family friendly” is not often the first term that comes to mind.

This is, after all, the city that reputedly has more dogs than children, and certainly has the lowest percentage of children of any major city in the country — just 13.5 percent of the population, according to the 2010 census. Density, sky-high real estate prices, uneven public schools, crime and a glut of homelessness are all factors.

Today, Board of Supervisors President David Chiu is introducing a proposed ballot measure for family-friendly workplace rules that, while unlikely to reverse family flight on their own, would once again put San Francisco at the vanguard of a public policy debate.

Chiu’s legislation, modeled on similar measures in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, would grant employees who are parents or caregivers a “right to request” a flexible work schedule, like telecommuting, job sharing, working part time or adjusting their start time.

Employers could deny those requests only if the change would create an “undue hardship” for the company or organization, including an increase in costs or a “detrimental effect on the ability to meet customer or client demands.”

Chiu described his legislation as a “common sense” approach to provide a reasonable level of worker protection in an era when women make up half the workforce and are the primary bread winner in nearly 4 in 10 families.

Critics, however, warn that the proposal would be a government intrusion into day-to-day business operations.

source

I have nothing against the idea of employers allowing flexible work schedules but I do have a problem with the government requiring it.

job sharing, working part time

The wave of the future. No benefits, no perks. Employers love it, especially for low/no skill jobs.

Joe Guy wrote:I have nothing against the idea of employers allowing flexible work schedules but I do have a problem with the government requiring it.

Why? It's only "required" if it doesn't create undue hardship for the business. What's the problem? Worst case is the employer and employee try to figure out scheduling that can work for both.

Wally World does it and they get sued...

Sue U wrote:Why? It's only "required" if it doesn't create undue hardship for the business. What's the problem? Worst case is the employer and employee try to figure out scheduling that can work for both.

Employers should be allowed to decide on their own whether or not they want to offer flexible working hours.

Joe Guy wrote:Employers should be allowed to decide on their own whether or not they want to offer flexible working hours.

Why?

Should employers be allowed to decide on their own whether or not they want to offer lunch breaks, or a 40-hour week, or a minimum wage or unemployment insurance?

Sue U wrote:

Joe Guy wrote:Employers should be allowed to decide on their own whether or not they want to offer flexible working hours.

Why?

Should employers be allowed to decide on their own whether or not they want to offer lunch breaks, or a 40-hour week, or a minimum wage or unemployment insurance?

There is quite a difference, in my opinion, between offering perks and maintaining 40 hour weeks, minimum wage and not offering the right to have a lunch break.

(not all jobs have 40 hour work weeks)

Joe Guy wrote:
Chiu’s legislation, modeled on similar measures in the United Kingdom and elsewhere,

Bet they make it really complicated though.

Joe Guy wrote:There is quite a difference, in my opinion, between offering perks and maintaining 40 hour weeks, minimum wage and not offering the right to have a lunch break.

There was a time when a lunch break, overtime pay and a minimum wage floor -- not to mention sick leave and paid holidays -- were considered "perks" of the better jobs. What is the difference here? You have still not articulated any reason why a framework for offering flex-time, telecommuting, etc. -- when by legislative definition it does not create a hardship for the business -- is some kind of problem. What is the slippery slope/parade of horribles embodied by this proposal?

Sue U wrote:You have still not articulated any reason why a framework for offering flex-time, telecommuting, etc. -- when by legislative definition it does not create a hardship for the business -- is some kind of problem. What is the slippery slope/parade of horribles embodied by this proposal?

It doesn't need to be legislated. People can already ask for a flexible schedule. If employers think it will work they will allow it. Forcing it upon employers is unnecessary.

It's not a right. It's a privilege that many employers already allow.

You are doing nothing but begging the question. Lunch breaks only became a "right" when government mandated it. Ditto minimum wage, paid vacation, and overtime pay. Before they were mandated by law, they too were "perks'. And all of them are mandatory whether they cause "undue hardship" or not. So why is requiring negotiation of flexible hours with employees, provided it does not cause undue hardship to the employer, any less worthy of government mandate than any of the other "perks" that became "rights" only by government fiat?

Because it's not necessary.

Scooter wrote:So why is requiring negotiation of flexible hours with employees, provided it does not cause undue hardship to the employer, any less worthy of government mandate than any of the other "perks" that became "rights" only by government fiat?

There are two main answers to this: 1) where should we be on the continuum of adding regulations which inevitably adds to the cost of doing business, even for things that can be justified as a good thing? and 2) even assuming the policy change is justified under 1), can a local government impose this change without providing an incentive for existing businesses to relocate or new businesses to locate elsewhere?

Nearly every government rule, including this proposal, makes sense on some level. Things such as the family medical leave act makes sense, but the other side is that it imposes a cost on the employer to figure out how to comply and then, for some employers, the actual cost of complying (by bringing in temps or other solutions to cover for employees on leave). Then you have the states adding their own mini-fmla's, and now we have a local government providing a similar proposal. What this will do is make employers hire lawyers to figure out how to comply, and then hire personnel to oversee implementation, or to create defensive arguments as to why someone cannot telecommute.

I am with Joe, this goes too far down the continuum of imposing a burden on employers to achieve a "social good".

Joe Guy wrote:Because it's not necessary.

You've got nothing but begging the question, then.

Long Run wrote:

Scooter wrote:So why is requiring negotiation of flexible hours with employees, provided it does not cause undue hardship to the employer, any less worthy of government mandate than any of the other "perks" that became "rights" only by government fiat?

There are two main answers to this: 1) where should we be on the continuum of adding regulations which inevitably adds to the cost of doing business, even for things that can be justified as a good thing? and 2) even assuming the policy change is justified under 1), can a local government impose this change without providing an incentive for existing businesses to relocate or new businesses to locate elsewhere?

Nearly every government rule, including this proposal, makes sense on some level. Things such as the family medical leave act makes sense, but the other side is that it imposes a cost on the employer to figure out how to comply and then, for some employers, the actual cost of complying (by bringing in temps or other solutions to cover for employees on leave). Then you have the states adding their own mini-fmla's, and now we have a local government providing a similar proposal. What this will do is make employers hire lawyers to figure out how to comply, and then hire personnel to oversee implementation, or to create defensive arguments as to why someone cannot telecommute.

I am with Joe, this goes too far down the continuum of imposing a burden on employers to achieve a "social good".

Did you imagine it would sound any less like begging the question by going the roundabout way to get there?

Sometimes a simple answer is too complicated for you.

Your "simple answer" is nothing more than a restatement of your original question.

Perhaps you should learn the difference between "simple" and "simplistic".

Perhaps you should learn how to focus.

Giving sick leave to everyone has been a huge success.




yrs,
rubato

Perhaps you should learn that your opinions are not the axis around which the world spins.

And attempting to elevate "because I said so" to an artform won't change that.