1. The U.S. Supreme Court has handed another big victory to pro-choice advocates today. Their latest ruling, a follow-up to yesterday’s headline decision against a Texas law[1] that put undue burdens on women seeking abortions, weighs in on a Washington state case that’s been in play since 2007; start here for PubliCola’s ongoing coverage[2] .
Religious pharmacists have complained that Washington state board of pharmacy rules mandating that they provide emergency contraception infringes on their religious freedom. The case made its way through the higher courts with a Federal district judge in Tacoma ruling in favor of the pharmacists (or at least granting an injunction until the higher courts ruled on the substantive issue.) Next, the higher court, the 9th Circuit court of appeals, ruled in favor of the pharmacy board, tossing the injunction and letting the rules stand.
Today, the U.S. supreme court refused to hear the pharmacists’ appeal, letting the 9th Circuit ruling and the pro-choice pharmacy board rules stand. Lisa Stone, executive director of the women’s legal advocacy group Legal Voice said this morning:
“Nearly ten years ago, we intervened in this case to protect Washingtonians’ rights as patients. And today, those rights have been vindicated by the highest court in our country. Nobody may hold themselves above the law, especially when doing so impedes a patient’s access to health care.”
And NARAL Pro Choice Washington, the women’s rights group that lobbies in Olympia specifically on choice issues, zoomed in on the state senator Steve O’Ban (R-28, Tacoma Area), who worked as an attorney for Stormans, the plaintif pharmacy that didn’t want to follow the state’s access rules. NARAL director Rachel Berkson tells Fizz:
“With this case finally laid to rest, it’s worth remembering that state senator Steve O’Ban has been determined to limit women’s access to contraception every step of the way. As the attorney for Stormans, he stood by religious pharmacists who wanted their personal beliefs to trump women’s right to access birth control. And as a state legislator, he’s opposed efforts to require insurance coverage for abortion and sought to require parental notification for minors to access abortion services.
“It’s time for senator O’Ban to answer for his efforts to uphold a policy that has now been rejected by the courts at every level.”
Taiwanese immigrant, U.S. army veteran, and education activist, Democrat Marisa Peloquin is running against O’Ban.
2. Howard Behar, the former president of Starbucks, has sent a series of emails to city hall this spring slamming a nascent proposal to regulate scheduling for on-the-clock employees in the service industry. Labor activists say workers are capsized by unpredictable scheduling.
I wrote about the push for “secured scheduling” legislation[3] earlier this year in the magazine, and one aspect of the potential legislation (left wing council members Lorena Gonzalez and Lisa Herbold are heading up the discussion) would require companies to divvy up available hours among current employees before hiring new employees to complete the weekly schedule. This type of regulation would address one of the more startling changes in management techniques in recent years in which employers, striving for capitalist efficiency, need more employees to choose from to stay nimble. With a larger pool of employees to choose from, employers have an easier time plugging workers in to an algorithm that matches business rushes and slow downs. The dystopian result, though, can be that workers, rather than getting traditional shifts, get fewer hours—while more people are brought on for part time hours.
Starbucks told me they do not hire new employees before offering all hours to current workers.
Interestingly, though, in Behar’s (frankly, blustery) letter to deputy Seattle mayor and former head of the Downtown Seattle Association Kate Joncas, council member Tim Burgess, and King county deputy executive and former Republican-turned-Democratic state lawmaker, Fred Jarrett (all seen as business allies), the former Starbucks president focused in on this aspect of the proposed rules.
He complained (all caps his):
What the council is considering is just plain looney. …
Let me give just one example of why this is so ridiculous. One of the proposals is to require that companies offer more hours to existing people before being able to hire more people.When you do that you do a couple of things. You decrease the number of positions in a store so that decreases jobs. The second thing that happens you now have fewer people to handle requested leaves, sicknesses and no shows. It takes all of the flexibility out of the system, the nature of the business requires flexibility. And yet because of this proposal they want to build in penalties not to mention all of the potential lawsuits for not offering the hours to existing people. I know that the next thing they are going to ask for is extra hours being offered by seniority…..Hmmmm just like the teachers unions….how is that working for us.
Is it not enough that Starbucks is now paying a “living” wage, providing healthcare for all, stock options for all, assistance with college tuition, sick leave, a pound of coffee a week for free ($600 a year),vacation pay, 401k’s AND THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL A FUN JOB in an organization that treats their people with respect and dignity and lots of opportunity for growth. Why is it that we are now thinking that we need to penalize companies for providing good jobs. We are beginning to take these companies do granted. I can almost promise what is coming next. Jobs for underserved kids and summer jobs will be non existent and you will putting together programs to deal with the problem you caused.
Sage Wilson, a spokesperson for Working Washington, a labor-backed group that’s organizing around “secured scheduling,” tells Fizz: “Howard Behar is right about one thing: large employers like Starbucks & Macy’s currently have an incentive to sign up as many extremely part-time employees as possible, so that they can be shuffled around to meet business demands on zero notice. That may be the ultimate in flexibility for the employer, but it effectively eliminates flexibility for workers, who have to be available 24/7 to have a shot at getting the additional hours they need to support themselves. A 1%er like Howard Behar may think the “MOST IMPORTANT THING OF ALL” is “A FUN JOB”, but for baristas and other service workers trying to support themselves and contribute to their communities, getting the hours you need to pay the rent is a shade more important that the all-caps enthusiasms of a retired corporate executive. By ensuring current employees have access to additional hours when they’re available, a secure scheduling ordinance can help bring the demands of business and the needs of workers back into balance.”
Starbucks spokeswoman Jaime Riley teased Behar about his “colorful” language and “passion,” but said Behar “doesn’t speak for us.”
She added, though, that “Seattle would be wise to listen to his 30 years of business and retail experience and passion for employees and customers.”
Behar, is certainly colorful. In another email, this one to Gonzalez, he says she’s taking her marching orders from Service Employees International Union leader David Rolf—“If you are after truth then do your work. Represent all the people not just David Rolf who is basically trying to get rid of part time work,”—concluding:
It’s obvious that your mind was made up before you started this process. I now am questioning if you are trying to help people or just penalize businesses for being in business… I am disgusted with this city government. You are not progressive you are permissive….permissive in allowing lies to go unchallenged, permissive in allowing our downtown to become an unwelcoming place to live by allowing drug deals to continue going on in our neighborhoods, permissive in allowing developers free reign. I expect more and so do a lot of other people. Can you please let common sense prevail. Warm regards, Howard Behar
References
- ^ headline decision against a Texas law (www.nytimes.com)
- ^ PubliCola’s ongoing coverage (www.seattlemet.com)
- ^ the push for “secured scheduling” legislation (www.seattlemet.com)
