The Seattle City Council is evidently not satisfied with the damage it has already done to the city’s small businesses, so the far-left members are now considering a proposal that would, essentially, restrict how many people businesses can hire, when they can schedule employees to work without paying a penalty, and the length of notice businesses give them.
This proposal has been conveniently developed by the labor unions which also conveniently provide campaign cash to the politicians pushing it.
In order to justify putting such heavy regulations on employers, council members “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 results are not due until July, but that hasn’t stopped council members from charging ahead with their job-killing idea. Via the Washington Policy Center:
“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.”
Well, according to Philip Garland, a visiting scholar at the University of Washington (UW), the survey that “may impact the specifics” of what council members are already determined to propose is severely flawed.
Why does Garland’s opinion matter? The Washington Policy Center explains:
“In addition to his academic credentials, Garland is also the former VP of Methodology for SurveyMonkey, the world’s leading provider of web-based survey services. So Garland is uniquely qualified to analyze the online-only survey created and conducted by his UW colleagues for the city.”
Blasting his colleagues from UW, Garland called the survey “poorly designed and unreliable”, manufactured to yield the results Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, council members, and special interests’ want. He adamantly argues that it “should not be used as the basis for the city to craft regulations restricting how employers schedule and manage their workforce.” The Washington Policy Center:
“According to Garland, the methodology behind the survey is ‘substandard to accurately represent the Seattle worker population,’ which he says makes it pretty easy to predict what the results will be. Garland goes through a comprehensive explanation of the various factors that virtually ensure the survey will yield the result Mayor Murray, the City Council and organized labor are looking for.”
So, will Garland’s protests make a difference? Sadly, based on the city’s record, no.
As Council members González and Herbold have already admitted, a job-killing proposal for scheduling regulations is a guarantee. The commissioned survey is a mere formality designed (and, apparently, manufactured) to grant “credibility” to a proposal that will be pushed and, in all likelihood, passed.
That, folks, is the Seattle City Council’s approach to developing “good” policy.