Wednesday, November 18, 2009

paid sick leave

November 18

I’m happy to report that the past 500 visitors to this blog came from 32 different U.S. states, four Canadian provinces and eight other countries, but 68 of you (that's 13.6 percent) came from New York.

So for my next poll I'd like to address an issue concerning local restaurants, that of mandated paid sick leave for workers.

The New York City Council’s considering such a measure, and so of course we at Nation’s Restaurant News are writing about it.

And one of my colleagues wants to ask you what you think.

For some background information, click here.

Pleas click what you think on the upper right hand corner of this blog, and, as always, feel free to write comments below, too.


Unknown said...

Paid sick leave presumes the kitchen help are legal immigrants who would have a valid claim if they tried this.

Seems that the back of kitchens are rife with dubious citizen claims and fear of thier employeers.

Paul A. said...

I'm sure you're aware of the health coverage that San Francisco restaurants are controversially required to offer their workers.

When I was there a couple of weeks ago, a number of restaurants I ate at had a new 2.5% line item on the bill to cover employee health care. I didn't mind dropping an additional $5 on a $200 check, but some people evidently do.

Unknown said...

Is the 2.5% a required line item or is the restaurant highlighting it similar to gas stations stating that 37.5 cents per gallon are for taxes?

If its not a required line item, then its a hostile way to call out a specific expense. I'd rather they called out an extra x% to cover our property tax or y% for organic vegtables.

Jonathan Deutsch said...

I think there's no question it would increase costs and benefit the worker.

I'm interested to see a study of the food safety benefit. It makes sense that if someone could stay home sick rather than feverishly cough on your food it would be a good thing.

But I'm sensitive to the cost concerns.

Paul A. said...

In my understanding, the restaurant is required to provide health coverage for its workers; how they pay for it is up to them. Doubtless some raise prices silently, while others explicitly add a tariff to the bill.

As a customer (and incidentally not an SF voter or taxpayer) I appreciated the transparency about the policy change.

Heidi from DenverDryGarden said...

I was just reading a quote from David Chang complaining about this, stating that this is why he would never open a restaurant in SF.

Although a nice concept, it seems to put too much of a burden on the restaurants in my opinion.

And...this really does not apply to the waitstaff and bar staff, as their hourly rates are a joke (sans tips).