David Chiu's flextime

|
(24)

I'm not surprised that the folks at the Chamber of Commerce are all agitated about Sup. David Chiu's proposal to expand family-friendly scheduling at local businesses. The Chamber's Jim Lazarus is typically out of control:

"At some point, people are not going to want to create businesses in San Francisco when they have to go up to City Hall for a hearing every time an employee doesn't like their reason for not agreeing to a shorter workweek," Lazarus said. "Are we going to close for the month of August like France? Is that the next one?"

For the record, I'm all in favor of the French way of thinking about work. But you already know that.

Here's the crazy thing, though: The Chiu legislation is actually remarkably mild. All it says is that a worker at a company with more than 10 employees has the right to request a different work schedule. The word here is "request." The company can deny the request if 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."

Folks: That's a huge, broad exemption. If giving an employee the right to work at home sometimes (actually, a good idea for lots of reasons, including climate change) or the right to start or end a shift early or late, costs any money or causes any real disruption in the business, then management is exempt and can deny the request.

All the law would really do is elevate the idea of flextime to something that has to be considered if someone asks for it. And you can't be fired for asking.

If the Chamber is going to go ballistic about this, it's way out of step. A lot of businesses in the city already comply with at least the spirit of the Chiu law. I don't see this as a huge issue for anyone.

Comments

business how employers and employees choose to structure their work days.

Some employers that have historically had "work at home" policies have abandoned them (Yahoo is a significant example IIRC) because it is too open to abuse.

It's all very well saying that it just allows a request but then, if that is all it is, then employees can ask for that now. And employers can say no. So what difference will this make?

The difference is clear. If an employer says no, then an employee can no doubt appeal to some city tribunal where a clueless "administrative law judge" will adjudicate.

If you want an odd schedule, then ask for it. no need to legislate it.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 2:15 pm

Because you are totally incapable of seeing the other point of view, even when it is explained to you.

Posted by anon on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 2:23 pm

All tech/biotech companies already do because it makes sense and makes for happier employees.

My issue is Chiu and others acting as if this will address the fundamental issue involved in why people leave San Francisco - which is the school selection system and the high cost of housing. It won't. Not one single family is going to say "We should move to/stay in San Francisco because there's a chance we can get a flexible schedule." Not one. This is another feel-good measure which ignores the real reasons families move out of the city. Because addressing that would require facing down progressive interest groups with real power and our BOS is not interested in that at all.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 2:24 pm

Chiu is eyeing his next office. This legislation allows him to say he is looking out for families while he pushes through legislation like the condo conversion deal that is bad for families but appeases the tenant bloc.

Posted by The Commish on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 2:42 pm

Mayor, in the face of left-wing criticism, which has led to a very popular mayor. He correctly saw the demise of the hard left and trashed Daly on the alter of being more relevant to a changed political dynamic.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 2:51 pm

Speaking of which. Whatever happened to Daly and it being "on like Donkey Kong?" Is he still living in that foreclosed home he purchased out in Fairfield?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 5:11 pm
Posted by Guest on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 5:18 pm

Where rich hypocrites go to retire :D

Posted by Houseguest on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 1:36 am

and for Tim to even mention climate change in his post when all he does is bitch about the Google buses is just about the funniest thing I've heard all week.

sell your car yet, Tim, or is being carless just good policy for other people?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 3:14 pm

Not that I believe in global warming anyway.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 3:19 pm

I’m bending my mind around the concept of municipal codification of free speech when it comes to simply asking for something from an employer.

Has Chiu actually been there? We've been his primary employer.

Posted by Tom Ferriole on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 7:04 pm

employer and a worker. He wants the nanny state to be the go-between.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 6:12 am

we had two blue bins at work, I got a letter from some clown at the department of environment about not having a green bin. I told the person in an e-mail that there was not a green bin because there was not enough room as per the law, and that we had a problem with vermin.

The city flunky could not figure out e-mail and called and called, then e-mailed that she would drop by and check things out on a certain date, she never came by on that date or any other.

The city is full of idea men like Redmond who think it is the cities job to tell us all how to live, the city employees are lazy, stupid, and entitled.

Posted by matlock on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 12:17 am
Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 2:03 pm

We learn that city bureaucrats are tormenting the Tamale lady, and that sucks.

There are never enough laws, unless progressives get screwed by one of them.

Posted by matlock on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 12:20 am

OMG, is this Tim's last column EVER in the SFBG after 30 years of service? Is this how he is to be sent off into the sunset and down the preverbial River Styx?

You should let him write a nice memoir piece at least. Something to clear the air and not ruffle any feathers. Something to keep us all sane.

Posted by Edward on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 5:53 pm

Marke will take over and I feel sure he will do an adequate job, in perhaps a more camp way . . . ?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 6:01 pm

Given the timing of the announcement (late Friday afternoon), it doesn't sound as if Tim's departure was particularly voluntary...

Posted by Sam on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 6:05 pm

Well, at least we know that Marke will keep fighting the good fight for one and all.

He's a good trooper. He will continue Tim's legacy. Of this I am confident.

Posted by Edward on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 2:41 am

to be seen if he can hande the weightier subjects and lend enough gravitas.

Steven would have been a more heavyweight choice, although he too suffers from wanting to only write about sex, drugs and Burning Man. JAW has similar limitations.

SFBG may devolve into a "what's on" rag with much less political freight, and perhaps that will be fine.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 5:44 am

Folks, THIS is the very last piece Tim every wrote for SFBG.

This is the culmination of a 30-year career started under Bruce's tutelage, and ended by some guy saying he 'accepts Tim's resignation letter' even though Tim never wrote one of those.

How degrading is that? I, and the Progressive Community, are flabbergasted.

Posted by Irene on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 8:20 pm

He brought it on himself. The majority of Progressives were never really interested in changing anything. If you think you were, you're deluding yourself. To affect change, one must either try talk to the enemy and try and compromise, or start handing out rifles. Fortunately, violence is not what Progressives are about. Unfortunately, indiscriminate hatred and slandering the opposition rather than actually trying to reach some kind of agreement IS what Progressives are about. So there was never any real effort made to bring about the things they wanted. Tim was a very visible person in the movement and, when people finally started to see Progressives for the emotionally damaged and socially challenged rage-babies they really are, the public's perception of Tim's whole personality was colored by his political and intellectual immaturity.

Tim became an embarrassment. All you have to do is look back over the last year or so and see where he wrote that he'd rather his little kid walk eye-level past a line of cock than a condominium, or that crack cocaine isn't harmful to society because he once had a neighbor down the hall who smoked it and the worst thing the guy ever did was ask Tim if he could borrow a few $'s.

I, for one, am glad he's gone. And, once the rest get shit-canned, I'll be even happier :) Why? Because Tim facilitated and enabled a rift in our citizenry, causing it to be widened into a chasm. Shame on him. If a man is so burnt out that he can't see when he's arbitrarily persecuting people based on some cookie-cutter communist, enemy visual identification checklist, then he's not a man who can be reasoned with. If you can't work with people to get things done, then what good are you?

Posted by Snoozers on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 12:15 am

Loved the line about Tim would rather his kids walk past a line of wrinkly cocks than a condo. Classic.

Tim was mired in class warfare, identity politics and the projection of hate and envy based on stereotypes. That never helps and will not be missed.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 7:37 am

This was Tim Redmond's last column ever in the SFBG.

The end of a beautiful era.

Posted by Anony on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 11:02 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.