NO on F: San Francisco Council of District Merchant Associations

On your ballot, there is a noble sounding proposition – the Prop F Paid Sick Leave Ordinance. While the City of St. Francis has always been charitable and tried to follow the path of its namesake, this proposition could well be the end of small business in San Francisco . Already saddled with the highest minimum wages, business license fees and payroll taxes in the state, and more recently being required to pay for mandatory health care coverage for all employees, Prop F would require employers to provide up to nine paid sick days a year. That cost will be passed onto consumers, but even residents are not exempt from this requirement – any employee working 30 hours in a year is also covered. That means if you employ a babysitter, a gardener, a care provider for a relative, even someone to provide maintenance on your building, you will be responsible for tracking their hours and making sure they are provided with paid time off if they request it. And while the ordinance features plenty of clauses to punish employers who do not comply, there is absolutely nothing included for employees who may abuse the system.

Small businesses currently provide the majority of jobs in San Francisco . Most small business owners do their best to take care of their employees, from providing flexible work schedules to higher wages. Even the larger companies like Starbucks realize that to keep quality employees, they need to start them at higher than the prevailing living wage. One argument against the mandatory paid sick leave is that it will result in fewer entry level jobs and fewer raises as businesses struggle to make ends meet. Those entry level jobs are also intended to provide on-the-job training for new employees, teaching them job and interpersonal skills – not provide instant benefit packages. It is important to remember that most small business owners treat their employees almost like extended family. If small businesses are unable to provide those entry level jobs, higher wages and flexible schedules, then earning additional paid time off will seem like a shallow victory.

The most onerous part of this ballot measure is that it was done in the back rooms of a few Supervisors’ offices at the eleventh hour, when it could have been done through the public hearing process. It was also not subjected to a Prop I economic evaluation, the litmus test that you, the voters of San Francisco, mandated be applied to all legislation affecting businesses in The City. As far as economic impact goes, the city controller has already estimated that this will cost The City an additional $9 million for part time City employees and daycare providers that currently are not covered by paid sick leave. And since this is a ballot measure, if it does pass, it cannot be amended except by another ballot measure. In other words, once we start losing our favorite neighborhood restaurants, shops, and service providers, it will be too late to review what the economic impact will be, pass an amendment, or even revoke the ordinance – that could only be done by placing yet another item on the ballot at some future date. By then, will anyone really be left that cares. The S.F. Council of District Merchants Associations, the S.F. Chamber of Commerce, and other neighborhood business organizations and concerned residents, urge you to vote No on Prop F.

Jim Maxwell, President
San Francisco Council of District merchants Association

REBUTTAL TO PROPONENT’S ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION F OPPONENT’S ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION F
PAID ARGUMENTS AGAINST PROPOSITION F
WHAT THE PRESS IS SAYING

REBUTTAL TO PROPONENT’S ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION F

Proposition F Sticks it to Neighborhood Businesses Like kids in a candy store, our Supervisors never tire of gobbling up every bad idea that some special interest group dangles before them, particularly when it means hurting productive people who pay taxes.
Prop F will force small businesses to provide up to 72 hours of paid sick leave for most employees, regardless whether such generosity will put them out of business. There is no means testing - everybody pays. Employees can use the paid time off to care for themselves, their partners, or their family members if they don't have any, they can designate somebody walking down the street. But the business pays twice, regardless once to the employee, and again to cover the employee's absence.

San Francisco Supervisors never tire of over-regulating small businesses, and then cry over the intrusion of national chains that can financially absorb their absurd labor regulations. The Supervisors are not helping workers they are writing a recipe for empty storefronts.

The Controller estimates that this bad idea will cost taxpayers up to $1 million to implement, not including lost welfare recipient work hours, and an unknown amount for city workers not currently eligible for sick time. Add to that the hundreds of jobs and the millions of dollars in sales taxes that will be lost to surrounding cities when diners and shoppers go elsewhere to save money. Vote NO on F.

San Francisco Taxpayers Union
www.sftaxpayersunion.org

San Francisco Republican Party
Mike DeNunzio , Chairman

OPPONENT’S ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION F

No on Prop F.
Our Supervisors were elected to deal with issues that affect all residents, not to be human resources directors for all business located in San Francisco.

Yet, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors have already mandated a living wage which is $1.75/hour higher than the State minimum wage, and wisely exempts small businesses with fewer than 20 employees. Now, Supervisors Chris Daly, Tom Ammiano, Ross Mirkarimi, and Sophie Maxwell want to have every employee in the City receive between 5 and 9 days of paid sick leave annually regardless of the size of the business - even if you have only one employee. This measure would cost businesses minimally $33.5 million annually.

Proposition F is another job-killing attack on San Francisco 's economic engine that will raise prices for all who shop in the City.

The Legislative Findings and Purpose submitted by the four members of the Board who placed this Proposition on the ballot is full of unproven clichés.

The simple fact is that if business owners cannot make a reasonable return on their investments, they will either relocate to another county or close their doors, resulting in fewer jobs and less revenue for the City coffers from business, payroll, and sales taxes to fund the social programs the Supervisors so greatly value.

The majority of San Francisco 's Supervisors have no management experience or experience running large or small businesses. They have no concept of what it takes to manage and finance a business. They obviously think that money grows on trees and profit is sinful.

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION F

For more information, go to our website at www.sfgop.org or call us at
(415) 359-9125.

San Francisco Republican Party
Mike DeNunzio , Chairman

PAID ARGUMENTS AGAINST PROPOSITION F

San Franciscans consistently advocate for the healthy and vibrant neighborhood-serving businesses that keep our neighborhoods unique. Small businesses, many now operating on the slimmest of margins, will be forced to cut jobs, raise prices, or go out of business if mandated to comply with this significant new expense. A lot of our friends and neighbors will be forced out of their jobs. Are you willing to lose many of our beloved corner stores, cafes, and dry cleaners, or see fellow San Franciscans laid off? Once again, the Board of Supervisors has created legislation that will affect small business, without input from the businesses that will be impacted, without any economic evaluation, and without the approval of the Small Business Commission - the charter commission created by the voters of San Francisco to protect and preserve small business in the City. Prop. F is a new TAX that will sap the strength of the very businesses we profess to love and cause more than a few to fail. Please consider carefully and Vote NO on Prop. F.

San Francisco Council of District Merchants Association
Jim Maxwell , President

Haight Ashbury Improvement Association
A Joint Merchant and Resident Organization

Greater Geary Boulevard Merchants Association
David Heller , President

Marina Merchants Association

Inner Sunset Merchants Association

Walter Adams Custom Framing

Nicholas Van-Beek , President - Fillmore, West Portal, Inner Sunset, Presidio Heights

Ric Lopez, Owner, Modern Past Gallery, Glen Park

San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
Everyone deserves time off if they are ill or have a medical appointment. But, does Supervisor Daly need to mandate it?

Like eight other measures, this was put on WITHOUT public hearings, WITHOUT a required economic impact study and with little input from those who will be impacted the most; small neighborhood businesses.

No place in the country has found it necessary to mandate sick leave. Small business is burdened enough by regulations. Keep the “sick leave police” out of your neighborhood businesses.
Vote NO on F.

San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
To read a more detailed argument against F, read the SF Chamber’s
“Vote No on Proposition F on November 7 th”

NO ON PROPOSITION F! It's FOOLISH!
This one is almost unimaginable.

Four (and only four) part-time, $100,000 plus supervisors want to require small business owners who can't afford it, to pay sick leave for all employees. Is this George Orwell's worst “1984" scenario? If not, it's close. Proposition F constitutes a totalitarian attack on barely surviving neighborhood grocers, druggists, laundries, restaurants, book stores, camera shops, beauticians, you name it.

VOTE NO ON THE PROPOSITION F travesty!

Mara Kopp & Denise LaPointe
Good Government Alliance

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION F
Proposition F requires all private sector employers to provide paid sick leave to their employees, including part-time and temporary employees.

And, paid sick leave, under Proposition F, extends beyond an employee's own illness; it encompasses time taken off for the purpose of providing assistance to others. And, if the employee doesn't have a spouse or registered domestic partner, the employee can designate one person as to whom the employee may use paid sick leave to aid or care for the person.

Isn't this all a bit excessive? We can understand the need for paid sick leave but if it is going to be mandated, it should be reasonable.

Proposition F is excessive and out of control. Those who put it on the ballot should come back with something more reasonable.

Vote NO on F.
San Francisco Association of REALTORS®

WHAT THE PRESS IS SAYING

EDITORIAL: THE CHRONICLE RECOMMENDS
San Francisco 's overstuffed ballot
Friday, October 27, 2006

EVER WONDER how the San Francisco ballot gets so unwieldy? Of the 11 measures, six were slapped on it the last possible day by a minority of city supervisors.

No hearings, no economic analysis, no public notice. Four of the measures arrived less than five minutes before closing time at the registrar of voters office on deadline day.

Each proposition deserves a serious look by voters. But when a measure drops unannounced on the ballot, it should make a voter think: How thoroughly was this idea vetted?

Under city election rules, as few as four of the 11 supervisors are allowed to place a measure on the ballot. It's a board power that has existed for years, but it may be time to change a rule that clutters the ballot.

Here are our recommendations on the propositions:

Prop. F: This one's a stunner: required sick pay for all workers in the city. Were there hearings, negotiations, an assessment of the economic impact and a consensus buy-in like the city had when it approved universal health coverage this year? No.

The city's bill will be $9.3 million, according to the city controller. But what about private businesses?

This measure -- handed in at 4:58 p.m. on the last day possible -- could put the city at the forefront on an important issue. Or it could be an inflexible plan that spells failure. The risk of error is too great. Vote NO.

Editorial: A final word on The City’s ballot
The San Francisco Examiner Newspaper
Saturday, October 28, 2006

As Election Day draws near, voters find themselves focusing on various ballot measures, both state and local. San Francisco asks approval of 11 measures, most of them substantive and some dangerously frivolous. Tuesday, we offered our recommendations on five of those measures. Today we assess the remaining six:

Proposition F would mandate paid sick leave for all employees working in The City. While we applaud the good intentions of the young activists who put this on the ballot, it’s patently clear they don’t understand how businesses operating on the margins survive. This is not the way to create more jobs. No on F.



	About SFmerchants \| Pricing \| List of Merchant Associations \| Recommend This Site to a Friend
	© Copyright 2004 SFmerchants.com, All Rights Reserved