‘Opportunity to Work’ may turn out to be the opposite

We’re all familiar with the popular Chicken Little tale in which Henny Penny declares “The sky is falling.” For years, the business community has been accused of being a “Henny Penny” of sorts when talking about new regulation. As a result, pleas from businesses have fallen on deaf ears.

Yet the sky is falling, and the forecast looks dismal with the so-called “San Jose Opportunity to Work Initiative” on the Nov. 8 ballot — a proposal that requires employers to offer current employees additional hours before hiring additional staff.

We’re reaching a tipping point in the region at which it no longer pencils out to operate a business, given increases in minimum wage, the business license tax and sales tax, among other regu- lations.

Individually, these burdens are not necessarily overwhelming. But collectively, the impacts are devastating. Heaping on a confusing and outdated scheduling mandate, as Measure E does, will not create more opportunity, but instead result in a decrease of jobs.

That is counter to what the San Jose City Council has set out to accomplish. As it stands, San Jose does not have enough employment per resident, so it’s baffling that we’re considering yet another proposal that will decrease jobs.

While the “Opportunity to Work” initiative sounds good, it does not work in the real world. In fact, the proposed law is so confusing that it’s difficult to determine when, where and how it actually applies, which will expose local employers to frivolous litigation and mounds of admin- istrative paperwork. What’s more, it puts a drain on city budget and staff resources at a time when we’re still recovering from the recession – further complicating any understanding of compliance.

It’s expensive to hire and train new employees, which is why businesses would rather give an existing employee additional hours versus hiring another person. Yet that’s not always possible when employing college students, retirees or entry-level workers who desire a part-time schedule.

What’s more, employers need a level of scheduling flexibility to respond to last-minute requests. Employees’ demand for scheduling flexibility is the reason many employers have adopted an openshift model that allows employers to schedule employees on the times they’re available.

With the use of smartphone technology, many employees can view, select and update their schedules in real-time and secure additional hours when desired. With this access comes an opportunity for employees to view their current schedule, communicate availability and identify open shifts. It’s this type of innovation that must be encouraged versus mandating an archaic, confusing and costly scheduling policy.

The only real winner is labor union leadership, as the fine print conspicuously exempts union businesses from having to comply – giving them a free pass to schedule union rank and file employees any way they see fit.

This is hypocrisy at its worst, and it’s not the first time policies have included a loophole to exempt union businesses. Labor-driven policies have been introduced throughout California that exempt union businesses on everything from minimum wage increases to restrictive scheduling mandates. If the rule were truly fair, there would be no discrimination between union and nonunion jobs. It should apply to every job or not be applied at all.

We urge a defeat of this poorly crafted initiative. Instead of using the initiative process to put local job creators out of business, now is the time to have a thoughtful conversation about ways to advance policies that benefit all employees and employers – making it easier to create jobs, not more difficult. Otherwise, the sky will continue to fall on local businesses.