A Legislative Column by Assemblyman Will Barclay
Unfortunately, New York has a habit of creating policies that are punishing to businesses.
In the past two years, business owners in New York state have had to ingest several onerous mandates such as new wage orders, higher minimum wages, and a new paid family leave policy.
Now the Department of Labor is considering another mandate, known as the “call-in pay” regulation that will, if adopted, place additional strain on those business effected.
In short, the “call-in pay” regulation would require employers to provide employees with a 14-day work schedule and, if there is deviation from that schedule, the employer must pay the employee “call-in pay.”
The amount of “call-in pay” depends on when and how the employee’s schedule deviates.
In some cases, an employer would be required to be pay an employee 4-hours at minimum wage.
The intention of this proposed regulation is to address challenges some workers face with erratic work schedules.
Unfortunately, as is too often the case, the proposed regulation instead of taking a reasonable approach to address the issue, takes a one-size-fits-all approach and fails to balance the interest of the employee and the employer.
While this mandate will have a substantial impact on all businesses effected, its impact will be significantly negative for small businesses.
While national chains and big box stores have thousands of employees, small businesses operate with far fewer employees.
An employee calling in sick for a national retail store will cause less disruption and scheduling issues than an employee calling in sick at a small business that employs less than 10 individuals.
Presumably, in this type of situation, the small business owner would either have to cover the shift themselves or call in another employee to fill the shift.
Under the proposed regulations, if an employee was called in to cover the shift as described above, the employer would have to pay the employee the additional call-in rate along with their regular wage.
Penalizing a business for scheduling issues beyond their control is excessively punitive.
Secondly, it is unclear why the Department of Labor has settled on mandating a 14-day schedule as opposed to a shorter period.
In today’s business world, circumstances can change quickly.
Orders can come in, be filled and be out the door to customers in less than a day.
On the other hand, customers have more options and years of loyalty to a supplier is no longer the reality.
Penalizing an employer for his or her inability to predict work flow 14 days in advance illustrates that the Department of Labor does not understand how modern business works.
A more balanced workable approach would be a shorter time-period.
Finally, the proposed regulations fail to provide an exemption for weather dependent businesses.
What happens if, within the 14-day scheduling period, weather plays a role in the employer’s ability to provide a service.
For example, what if there is no snow for snow removal company to plow.
Would the company still have to provide call-in pay for the employees whose work schedule was canceled?
Again, the proposed regulations are divorced from how business works and at the very least, weather dependent business should be exempted from the regulations.
These proposed regulations have yet to be adopted by the Department of Labor.
I and other legislators have written to the Department of Labor expressing our concerns over the regulations.
It is my hope that the Department listens to our concerns and at the very least amends the regulations to better match the realities of today’s business.
If the Department of Labor goes ahead and adopts the regulations as proposed, I would look to work with my legislative colleagues, to enact legislation that would overturn the Department’s adoption of the call-in pay regulations.
If you have any questions or comments on this or any other state issue, or if you would like to be added to my mailing list or receive my newsletter, please contact my office.
My office can be reached by mail at 200 N. Second St., Fulton, NY 13069, by e-mail at [email protected] or by calling (315) 598-5185.
You may also friend me, Assemblyman Barclay, on Facebook.
Discover more from Oswego County Today
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Once again New York claims to want new businesses to open, yet raps their knuckles and bleeds them dry once they do.
Keep driving people out of New York you geniuses of nothing in Albany.
“Hansen said tighter federal rules and regulations help keep the highways safer. “The Department of Transportation wants to make sure that drivers are not fatigued behind the wheel, in an effort to keep the general and motoring public safe,” she said.”
Typo: “…. strain on those business effected.”
businesses
“Onerous” is the Assemblyman’s favorite word. I have to register and inspect my car every year.
Typo: Question mark, not a period. “What happens if, within the 14-day scheduling period, weather plays a role in the employer’s ability to provide a service.”
“….at the very least amends the regulations to better match the realities of today’s business.”
How about some examples? The assemblyman agrees that regulations are needed, even though his article article starts out with the description “onerous”.
The Assemblymen should learn to write in paragraphs rather than incomplete open ended, half truth, talking points.
Assemblyman Barclay always does a great job of articulating the views of oligarchs and owners.
It’s amazing he can actually compose a sentence calling major popular victories like increased minimum wages and paid family leave “onerous.” Right Will, onerous from the perspective of the capitalist ownership class … the working people you theoretically represent don’t see them as onerous … but a rich aristocrat like Barclay just cannot put himself in the position of an average American worker … everything must be seen through the eyes of those at the top.
If businesses can’t afford to pay workers a living wage and benefits, then the business should not exist, period.
The goal of a democratic society is to provide increased prosperity for ALL of its members, not just the ownership class … an ownership class which enjoys wealth and income inequality at levels not seen in America since the Roaring Twenties (right before the greed and injustice of capitalism run amok caused the Great Depression … and led to the spectacular victories Americans achieved under FDR: Social Security, regulation of Wall Street, unemployment insurance, collective bargaining rights, etc.).
It is such a shame that we live in a region with such a dead Democratic opposition to Barclay’s Republican oligarchy … one day someone will rise and unseat this embarrassing representative of corporate power and privilege.
The Assemblyman should learn to write in paragraphs rather than incomplete, open ended, half truth, talking points without any data to back-up his claims. Also, the lack of writing skill is appalling:
“For example, what if there is no snow for snow removal company to plow.”
‘What happens if, within the 14-day scheduling period, weather plays a role in the employer’s ability to provide a service.”
If you pose a question, use a question mark.
I probably have to actually disagree somewhat with the Assemblyman on this issue, but certainly not for any of the reasons “Anonymous” stated.
Obviously, not all businesses are the same (for many reasons), so it should be fairly obvious to most that a “one size fits all” approach would certainly impact small business owners in a negative way much more than big business. (This is probably where the line should be drawn as to “who needs to comply and who is exempt”, concerning such labor laws).
Much like my mixed opinion on this issue, I can see both sides of it with the needs and concerns of both the employer and the employee.
As far as the employee’s go, many are increasingly burdened with inconsistant work schedules… especially part time workers who are practically considered “spot labor” in some instances. Also, many lower paid positions also have a higher turnover rate, often contributing to the inconsistant scheduling. However, I actually agree that someone who gets called into work “to cover” for someone else (who decided to take the day off and enjoy the sunshine) should be entitled to extra compensation for it. After all, many places don’t even give many of these workers “sick days” any longer, so is it really costing them more money? Sure, the employer may be losing money due to lack of productivity, but if he isn’t paying the worker for the sick day, maybe he should give part of what his wage would have been to the person who filled in for him, and caused him to miss out on his “scheduled day-off” plans. Seems fair enough to me, especially considering it perhaps saved the employer (or manager) from doing it himself.
Just an afterthought concerning scheduling. As I see it, both employers and employees actually desire 14 day scheduling as opposed to a shorter time frame. It’s easier for both the manager making out a work schedule, and provides the employee with more advanced scheduling notification, often requested by them so they can make plans outside of work.
The impact on “large companies over 50 workers” to occasionally pay a worker 4 additional hours of minimum wage, (or perhaps time and a half) for filling in wouldn’t seem to be beyond their ability. Furthermore, depending on the type of businees, it should actually amount to less cost (be more cost effective) than the lost productivity of the worker who called off. Not being there isn’t making the company ANY money, so paying part of what that worker who called off would have made (for the company in dollars) is actually making money for the company. They still get their “daily sales” in retail, or “parts manufactured” in manufacturing, or “service provided” in service. This should be “worth something to them”, the employer. Yes, it’s still costing them more, but as the old saying goes: “Half of something is better than nothing at all”, …unless it’s coming from Anonymous!