Last month the City of Seattle commissioned a survey and study from University of Washington researchers to determine if work schedules are a problem for shift workers, and if so, to what extent.  The moved seemed to indicate city officials’ willingness to thoughtfully explore the controversial issue of restrictive scheduling before acting rashly to adopt a slew of regulations drafted and pushed by labor unions and the labor-backed group Working Washington. 

The results of the study and survey aren’t due until July, but some City Council members are pressing full steam ahead with proposed regulations.  Leading the charge are new Councilmembers M. Lorena González and Lisa Herbold, who last week told The Seattle Times they will be proposing scheduling regulations in August.  The message from both González and Herbold is clear—the results of the study may impact the specifics of what they propose, but there will be new city regulations restricting how employers schedule their workers.

While some in the business community have begun working to cut the best deal they can, other employers remain steadfastly opposed to any new restrictions on how they schedule and manage their workforce, saying such regulations are unnecessary and burdensome.  Even business owners who support some of the proposed scheduling provisions say others go too far. 

One of the most contentious provisions proposed by unions would limit how a business can utilize full-time and part-time workers.  That provision would require any additional hours of work an employer may have to be offered to existing part-time workers before creating new jobs for additional workers.  One Seattle employer, David Jones, agrees with a rule that would require one-week advance notice of workers’ schedules, but says a regulation requiring him to offer additional hours to current employees before hiring new ones would be “a huge issue.”  Jones, who owns two Subway stores in the city, told The Times it would force employers to advance to full time status workers who may not be well qualified.

Whether Councilmembers Herbold and González will take such concerns into account remains to be seen.  But labor unions have made limiting an employer’s ability to create new, part-time jobs a top priority.  Like every member of Seattle’s city council, both Herbold and González received significant contributions from organized labor during their campaigns last year.  In fact, they were both among the top four recipients of unions’ nearly $129,000 investment in Seattle City Council races. 

Given the fact labor unions drafted the current proposal being considered by the city council, it is hard to imagine that some Councilmembers will turn their back on their top supporters’ priority issue.