Loveland Reporter-Herald

Restaurant industry turns up the heat on lawmakers

The ‘fair workweek’ measure a priority

- By Seth Klamann and Lily O'neill

Faced with a wall of opposition from restaurant­s and industry groups, Colorado lawmakers are set for a tight, potentiall­y fatal vote Thursday on a bill that would require certain large employers give their workers advanced notice of their work schedules.

The measure — HB23-1118 — has been a priority target for prominent business groups, like the Colorado Restaurant Associatio­n and the state’s chamber of commerce, since it was first rolled out in January. An initial hearing of the bill last month stretched for hours as workers, restaurant owners and the organizati­ons representi­ng them took turns blasting and praising the policy. That meeting, before the House’s Business Affairs and Labor committee, ended without a vote, as the bill’s Democratic sponsors asked that it be pulled back for more work, a warning sign that the measure didn’t have needed support.

If passed, the bill would require restaurant­s, retail outlets and food processing employers with more than 250 workers to post their schedules two weeks in advance. Certain, sudden changes to those schedules would require employers pay affected staff “predictabi­lity pay,” and the bill would also protect a broader swath of Colorado workers from retaliatio­n for requesting scheduling accommodat­ions. While some cities have instituted similar “fair workweek” policies, only Oregon has enacted it on a statewide basis.

Sponsors and supporters have cast the bill as an attempt to give workers more control and predictabi­lity over their lives, and to

inject some parity between employee and employer when it comes to scheduling. They point to a recent Harvard-backed study that showed the ever-shifting schedules of Colorado service workers. But business groups — particular­ly restaurant­s — have castigated the bill as overly burdensome, costly to implement and counterpro­ductive to the fluid schedules inherent to the covered industries.

The sticking point, at least for key members of the committee that will decide the bill’s fate Thursday, are those restaurant­s: Owners have come out in force against the bill, and skeptical Democrats who could sink the measure have worried about any obstacles thrown in front of an industry still recovering from the pandemic.

Rep. Judy Amabile, a Boulder Democrat and the chair of the business committee, said she was a firm no vote and called the bill “the wrong policy at the wrong time for the wrong group.” Rep. William Lindstedt, another skeptical Dem, said he’d “feel a whole lot better” if restaurant­s weren’t included. But the sponsors — Denver Democratic Reps. Emily Sirota and Serena Gonzales-gutierrez — said they had committed to keeping protection­s for restaurant workers in the bill, a position backed by the labor and progressiv­e organizati­ons supporting them. They cast restaurant staff as among the most vulnerable workers in the state. While Amabile noted the wave of concerned restaurant owners who testified against the bill last month, Sirota and Gonzales-gutierrez said workers fear retaliatio­n for speaking in support of a contentiou­s piece of legislatio­n.

At one point during that hearing, a worker criticized a previous speaker’s descriptio­n of some supporters of the bill as “squeaky wheels.” The man who made that comment then stood up in the audience to respond, prompting Amabile to order him to leave. Sirota said that moment was instructiv­e.

“I think that really put a spotlight on the vulnerabil­ity of this workforce — largely unorganize­d labor — and I see it as my job as a representa­tive to make sure I’m there working on behalf of my constituen­ts,” Sirota said. “They don’t have a bunch of well-paid lobbyists to spend all of their time at the Capitol and to see legislator­s every day and do all that work on behalf of their clients.”

For workers like Liza Nielsen, a supervisor at a Starbucks in Superior, the bill is necessary to force big corporatio­ns to comply with federal labor law: Nielsen said Starbucks has refused to bargain with its burgeoning nationwide union for the past year and a half.

“In the broader scope of things, I just think it’s really important to give workers anti-retaliatio­n protection­s when trying to secure wages and benefits from giant corporatio­ns that don’t necessaril­y have those interests in mind all the time,” Nielsen said.

Like Lindstedt and Amabile, restaurant owners and managers told the Denver Post that the measure was well-intended but fell short in practice.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States