Heads up for on-call workers

State bill would require 24 hours’ notice

“It shouldn’t take three years to graduate from a two-year college because I had to work.” Lexi Evans, a Hartford retail worker and student

The General Assembly is considering a bill to require employers to give low-wage workers a 24-hour notice before being called into work.

“Being on-call was stressful enough for me to manage as a single person, and I cannot imagine how one would be able to handle such an already unpredictable system while also being a caretaker for their family,” said Sarah Locke, a New Haven server and bartender.

“Both financially and emotionally, this system causes stress, insecurity and instability to the workers just so the owner can cover their bases and never be over or understaffed,” Locke said.

The Legislature’s Committee on Children on Tuesday heard testimony from dozens of low-wage workers and fair-wage advocates about problems associated with working an “on-call” job.

They were told working for retailers, restaurants, bars and at myriad shopping mall jobs often means scrambling for hours, being called in at the last minute, completing backto-back shifts and showing up for work only to be told to go home.

Those testifying, either in person or through written statements submitted to the committee, said the lack of any kind of set schedule

makes it difficult to care for children, keep day care arrangements, go to school, shop for groceries and meet routine medical appointments.

Lexi Evans, a Hartford retail worker and full-time student, said it’s nearly impossible to juggle kids, school and sudden work shifts.

“It shouldn’t take three years to graduate from a two-year college because I had to work,” she said, tears flowing during a news conference. “So please support this even if you don’t get it.”

The proposed 24-hour notification rule saw plenty of opposition, namely from business interests who said notice requirements raise costs and are often unworkable in industries where staffing needs change by the hour.

“In the majority of employment circumstances, employers are able to provide employees with their schedules well in advance,” said Eric Gjede, a counsel with the Connecticut Business and Industry Association.

“Without on-call scheduling, day care centers, for example, may be unable to meet their state-mandated student-to-teacher ratio if an emergency arises for a parent or teacher,” Gjede said. “Builders may be forced to pay workers to install materials that have not yet been delivered to the job site.”

Gjede added “Studies done in municipalities that have scheduling restrictions, like San Francisco, show that employers respond to these laws by hiring fewer part-time workers and by scheduling less employees per shift.”

Under the proposed bill, only hospitals would be exempt from the 24hour requirement.

The state judicial department would not, for example, and officials submitted testimony opposing the legislation.

Bill Ethier, chief executive officer for the Home Builders and Remodelers Association of Connecticut, said the rule is unworkable.

“While it would be impossible for residential construction to comply, common sense dictates that many other types of businesses also could not easily accommodate the requirements of this bill,” Ethier said.

‘Back-breaking work’

The bill thrusts Connecticut into the forefront of a growing labor movement that seeks to give workers the right to have reasonable notice of when they must report to work.

Oregon last year became the first state to require employees be given their schedules a week in advance. Last fall, San Francisco required retail chains to pay on-call employees if a shift is canceled, give workers two weeks notice of schedules and provide “predictability pay.”

New York requires employers pay workers for four hours if they show up for work, even if the shift is canceled.

State Sen. Marilyn Moore, DBridgeport, said in 2015 she took a job at Target to see what it’s like to work a low-wage job.

“It was backbreaking work, whether you are 20 or 50,” Moore said. “Just constantly working. One day, I worked from 4-11 p.m. and had to come to work the next morning at 8 a.m. If I didn’t want those hours, that was the only hours I was going to get.”

Moore added “It’s my desire to stabilize families with this on-call scheduling. I hope people will get some kind of notice.”

Eric Morgenson, of Middletown, said constant work-schedule changes made it difficult to go to school.

“Several of my co-workers were not able to finish their schooling because of the demands of balancing work and classes,” Morgenson said. “Our employer simply demanded too much of their time and attention, and they were forced to continue working for poverty wages with few options to escape.”

But Scott Fanning, president of the Connecticut Franchisee Association, which represents 350 Dunkin’ Donuts restaurants in Connecticut, said flexibility in scheduling is important.

“The legislation presumes employers are misusing the practice of oncall scheduling, when in fact, it is only used in circumstances in which employees agree to be available for extra shifts on an on-call basis,” Fanning said.

“These new mandates are impractical and would limit the flexibility needed by local officials to meet the constantly changing needs of municipalities,” the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities said in a statement.