Public Comment

It is shameful that federal labor law does not include any provision that curtails the right of an employer to impose last minute changes on work schedules. So the lives of a substantial number of workers, particularly in food service and retail business, can become problematic because they do not receive sufficient notice. This neglect in the labor laws is particularly burdensome for women, who need a stable work schedule to plan how their children will be taken care of in their absence. Generally speaking, unpredictable schedules in low wage jobs interferes considerably with the ability of working woman, especially single parents, to care for their families.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 41 percent of hourly workers (ages 26-32) find out about their upcoming shifts a week or less in advance.

Working people need consistency in their lives. Many obligations and activities that working people engage in depends on knowing well in advance what their work schedule will be. They should not have to cancel an appointment with their doctor, for example, because the employer on very short notice changes their hours of work. And parents should not be shocked when they learn that their child sitter would be on vacation just when the new schedule takes effect. The Economic Policy Institute found that haphazard scheduling not only reduces job satisfaction. It increases work-family conflict.  

In the absence of federal legislation, it is up to the states and local communities to enact worker friendly scheduling laws. But only one state, Oregon, has done so. Employees must be given at least 7 days notice of their schedule. In July 2020 the notice period increases to 14 days. However, only employees who work in retail, hospitality, and food service companies with 500 employees worldwide are covered. Obviously, the vast majority of workers are not. Unfortunately, Oregon's law is essentially window dressing. 

In the Bay Area, only two cities require employers to notify employees of their schedule well in advance. --San Francisco and Emeryville. The San Francisco ordinance, which was enacted in 2014, requires employers to give their schedules to employees two weeks in advance. With regard to how many employees are covered, the law is stingy. It applies to workers at chain stores with at least 11 locations worldwide or that employ 20 or more employees and have 20 or more locations worldwide. Clearly the law benefits only a very small fraction of workers in San Francisco. 

Emeryville passed a scheduling ordinance that obligates far more businesses than the San Francisco law allows. All retail and food services businesses with at least 56 or more employees worldwide are covered under the law, which requires employers to provide employees an advanced scheduling notice of at least 14 days in advance. About applying the law only to firms with at least 56 employees, isn't that too high? Why not apply the law to businesses with half that number of employees? Nevertheless, by enacting a scheduling law that allows employees to plan their activities, Emeryville has moved in the right direction. 

It is very disappointing that very few cities in the United States have adopted a worker oriented scheduling law. Working people need not only decent wages, but humane working conditions, which protect employees against volatile working conditions. Employees should be able to plan their lives beyond work. But the local legislatures and mayors in the bay area cities have so far not been interested. However, a real possibility is that the progressive majority of the City Council in Berkeley will take up this issue. One council member, Kate Harrison, has already indicated her support for predictive scheduling legislation. 

Progressives and Labor unions in the various bay area towns must demand that their city councils act. And certainly organizations that represent women should be very concerned about and active on this issue. It is vital for all progressives to remind employers that working people are not things. That is, employees are not only the means to an employers' ends.