The San Francisco Board of Stupervisors....

[Scooter]

There's another one of your trademarks, to accuse anyone who dares challenge you when you make an unsupported statement of foaming at the mouth.

In your own way you are as predictable as rubato, or as quad and loCA were.

[Joe Guy]

[Scooter]

You couldn't have found a better self-portrait if you had someone do one up custom. Congratulations.

[Long Run]

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?

Maybe didn't do a good enough job of saying the cost of this proposal will far outweigh the benefit. I agree with Joe that in the vast majority of situations where it can be of benefit, employers already work out such arrangements without the government getting involved. Which means employers will have to spend a bunch of money, those who work the angles will extract money from employers based on this, and we will get very little additional benefit for society. In other words, there will be bunch of money siphoned out of the productive economy to provide a very small benefit. Bad policy choice. And on the margins, employers will look at The City as a less desirable place to do business.

[Joe Guy]

This is the same Board of Supervisors that made it a law that McDonalds couldn't give kids toys with their meals.

They think that they need to save San Francisco residents from themselves. They're nothing but a bunch of f*ckups with too much authority.

[dales]

Joe, at we don't have to deal with their silly nonsense.

Poor Lord Jim, I don't know how he remains relativiely sane.

[Scooter]

Maybe didn't do a good enough job of saying the cost of this proposal will far outweigh the benefit.

You can say it as much as you like. Let me know when you are actually able to provide evidence for it.

I agree with Joe that in the vast majority of situations where it can be of benefit, employers already work out such arrangements without the government getting involved.

So let's not mandate any workplace conditions at all Because we all know that employers are all smart enough to know when they need to offer certain benefits to attract employees. And what they need to do to keep their workplaces safe. And whether 10 year olds should be doing factory work. And we all know that prospective employees all have an infinity of potential employment choices that the market will take care of employers who aren't taking good enough care of their employees.

What planet do you guys live on that you believe that most employers are smart enough to look out for their own self-interest, let alone that of their employees? Because it sure as heck isn't this third rock from the sun.

[Sue U]

Maybe didn't do a good enough job of saying the cost of this proposal will far outweigh the benefit.

What, exactly, are those costs and how do they outweigh the benefits?

I agree with Joe that in the vast majority of situations where it can be of benefit, employers already work out such arrangements without the government getting involved.

If that is the case, then there is no added cost or difficulty that the legislation would create.

Which means employers will have to spend a bunch of money, those who work the angles will extract money from employers based on this, and we will get very little additional benefit for society.

How, when the legislative framework specifically says no accommodation need be made if it results in any undue hardship for the employer? How much money would have to be spent and on what? What "angles" are there to "work"? How does this in any way "extract money from employers"? Is there really "very little additional benefit for society" in providing scheduling accommodations so workers can care for children and sick/disabled family members where it doesn't interfere with actually getting their work done?

In other words, there will be bunch of money siphoned out of the productive economy to provide a very small benefit. Bad policy choice. And on the margins, employers will look at The City as a less desirable place to do business.

If leaping to conclusions were an Olympic sport, you could medal.

[Joe Guy]

Because we all know that employers are all smart enough to know when they need to offer certain benefits to attract employees. And what they need to do to keep their workplaces safe. And whether 10 year olds should be doing factory work.......

In case you haven't noticed, it has been illegal for children to work in factories for quite a while and employers are already liable for not providing a safe work environment.

The government doesn't need to tell employers how to attract employees. They either will attract them or they won't have a business.

The situation in San Francisco is a case of a bunch of lug nuts not knowing when to quit and believing that everything is solved by legal force.

The fact that you are equating flexible scheduling with factory work for 10 year old children shows that you are no different than the lug nuts. They think they need to save every worker from evil employers who would never offer flexible scheduling if it might work well for an employee.

Let's see.... If we don't make it a law to allow flexible scheduling at work, then... people won't have flexible scheduling!!! Oh my!!! We can't have that!

And Sue, forget the 'If it's not a hardship....'. If it's not a hardship, let employers work it out. If employers don't want to offer flexible scheduling, they shouldn't be forced to offer it.

[Crackpot]

How do you do flex scheduling on line work? Or indeed any job where multiple people are required to work together?

[oldr_n_wsr]

How, when the legislative framework specifically says no accommodation need be made if it results in any undue hardship for the employer? How much money would have to be spent and on what? What "angles" are there to "work"? How does this in any way "extract money from employers"?

I would guess that once signed into law that there will be a certain amount of employees (and possible employees) who will use this to somehow "force" an employer to grant them flex time. Then the employer will have to "prove" that it's a hardship for them (costing it time and money) and they may, or may not prevail. If the employer does not prevail, then they will be forced into granting flex time even if they never offered flex time before.

[Joe Guy]

How, when the legislative framework specifically says no accommodation need be made if it results in any undue hardship for the employer? How much money would have to be spent and on what? What "angles" are there to "work"? How does this in any way "extract money from employers"?

I would guess that once signed into law that there will be a certain amount of employees (and possible employees) who will use this to somehow "force" an employer to grant them flex time. Then the employer will have to "prove" that it's a hardship for them (costing it time and money) and they may, or may not prevail. If the employer does not prevail, then they will be forced into granting flex time even if they never offered flex time before.

That's correct. It will set up situations in which people will demand the right to flex time and cause friction between employees and employers that simply don't want to provide flex time. Then, in the case where an employee fights and wins his flex time, some employers will find a way to fire him.

Believe it or not, some things don't need to be forced on people and can be worked out. If an employee takes a job and is told that no flex time is allowed, he shouldn't be able to turn around and make the employer give it to him. He can go and try to find a company that offers it.

[Lord Jim]

Joe and oldr have essentially got this right....

The devil is in the details here; depending on the enforcement mechanisms and burdens that have to be met, this is either meaningless, self-righteous feel good legislation, (The SF Board of Stupidvisors excels in that area) or a cluster-fuck business killing nightmare...(another area of their expertise)

The plain language of the legislation seems harmless enough on first read:

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.”

Put upon closer examination...

Just what is meant by "undue hardship"? Does that mean that there is some sort of level of "due hardship" that a business would be expected to bear? And who is going to determine this?

If an employee makes this request and the business says "no, that will have detrimental effect on the ability to meet customer or client demands." will that suffice and be the end of it? Or will the employee have some sort of legal and/or administrative recourse that will compel the business to expend resources somehow trying to "prove" this?

The answers to these questions will explain whether this falls into the meaningless, self-righteous feel good legislation category, or the cluster-fuck business killing nightmare category...

The fact of the matter is for businesses where it doesn't create an operational "hardship" it makes absolutely zero sense...none whatsoever...for those businesses not to offer the sort of flex time opportunities for employees, (particularly if you're talking about valuable, reliable employees) described in the ordinance.

Having someone work from home is cheaper then having them work in an office space. Providing time and schedule flexibility for good employees is positive for employee morale and makes them more productive workers, improving the bottom line....

The idea that there's a bunch business owners out there not doing what is in their own best interest to do just out of some sort of unreasoning nastiness, is absurd....

That would make the business owner nearly as stupid as well....

A member of the SF Board of Supervisors...

But of course in order to realize this, one would have to have at least the slightest understanding of business and the chuckle heads on the board of stupidvisors understand business about as well as I understand Swahili....

Remember, this is the bunch of sharpies that spent 15 years trying to figure out how to put pay toilets on the streets, and still got it wrong....(well of course that was earlier generation of numbskulls, but apparently there's an IQ test for getting on the ballot for the job...anyone who scores above 75 is immediately disqualified...they all appear to have been raised on a diet of leaded rice...)

These clowns can't get potholes fixed, let alone make intelligent business polices...

They're nothing but a gang of supercilious, know-nothing micro managing ninnies who I wouldn't hire to run a bath much less a business...

There are few things more pernicious than a group of people who know absolutely nothing, but have somehow managed to delude themselves into believing they actually know more than anyone else, and who have the power to put their ignorance in motion....

This town survives in spite of them; not because of them....


A couple of years ago, this crowd was threatening to take over the PG&E operations for the city...

In a way I'm sorry that didn't go through, because if it had, I'd be a wealthy man today....

I was planning to go into the home generator business....I'd have made a mint....

[Rick]

[Administrative Code - San Francisco Family Friendly Workplace Ordinance]
130622
Sponsors:
Chiu; Cohen and Mar
Motion ordering submitted to the voters an Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to
allow San Francisco based employees who are caregivers to request flexible working
arrangements, subject to the employer's right to deny a request based on specified undue
hardship; require that employers give advance notice of changes in an employee’s work
schedule; prohibit adverse employment actions based on caregiver status; prohibit interference
with rights or retaliation against employees for exercising rights under the Ordinance; require
employers to post a notice informing employees of their rights under the Ordinance; require
employers to maintain records regarding compliance with the Ordinance; authorize enforcement
by the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement, including the imposition of remedies and
penalties for a violation, and an appeal process to an independent hearing officer; authorize
waiver of the provisions of the Ordinance in a collective bargaining agreement; and making
environmental findings, to the voters of the San Francisco at an election to be held on
November 5, 2013.
RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Rules Committee.

Is this the ordinance that was being reported on in the OP?

If it is it doesn't look much like what is being portrayed in the article, I did notice that article (in the OP) repeated the same paragraph 3 times.

I'm confuzzed...

[rubato]

"...

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

It imposes no burden at all. The burden was always there and being paid by the employee entirely. It simply shifts part of the existing burden from being borne entirely by the employee to being borne in common. It democratizes the workplace and says that employers have an obligation to try to accommodate the employees schedule. The current rule is that employers can say "fuck you, I don't want to be bothered so do it my way or get out". My employer will make some accommodation for individuals personal family needs (children &c) but most won't.

As rules go this is fairly soft, no real teeth. It just establishes some ground rules for the conversation between employer and employee.

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

Once this is incorporated into law, it will be necessary for employers to DEFEND THE REFUSAL to allow flexible work hours, based on arguments supporting a claim of "undue hardship." In a court of law. Employee sues, saying that the employer's claim of undue hardship is arbitrary and capricious. And other similarly situated employees have been granted flexible work hours. In competing companies.

The law of unintended consequences comes into play.

Why not require S.F. employers to provide free parking? Free monthly BART passes? Free child care in the workplace?

A job is not a familial relationship. It is ENTIRELY voluntary. If you want some benefit that one employer refuses to provide, YOU GO SOMEPLACE ELSE!

[Rick]

I guess they'll find out how much support they have 11/5/13...

[Lord Jim]

As rules go this is fairly soft, no real teeth. It just establishes some ground rules for the conversation between employer and employee.

Rube of course does not know this...

He cannot possibly know this, because the only way he (or anyone else) could know this if he knows the answers to these questions:

Just what is meant by "undue hardship"? Does that mean that there is some sort of level of "due hardship" that a business would be expected to bear? And who is going to determine this?

If an employee makes this request and the business says "no, that will have detrimental effect on the ability to meet customer or client demands." will that suffice and be the end of it? Or will the employee have some sort of legal and/or administrative recourse that will compel the business to expend resources somehow trying to "prove" this?

Which of course he does not...

So as usual, rube is just: