Various state industries oppose CT legislature’s ‘predictable scheduling’ bill

HBJ PHOTO | DAVID KRECHEVSKY The State Capitol in Hartford.

Write a Comment

A variety of industries have raised objections to a bill in the state legislature that would require certain employers to provide advance notice of work schedules and any schedule changes to employees.

Senate Bill 831, An Act Concerning Advanced Notice of An Employee’s Work Schedule to Certain Employees, has been raised by the Labor and Public Employees Committee and will be discussed during a public hearing on Tuesday.

The bill would also create penalties for violating the advance notice requirements.

A similar bill was raised during the 2024 legislative session but was never raised for a vote in the state Senate.

Connecticut AFL-CIO President Ed Hawthorne submitted testimony to support the bill in advance of Tuesday’s hearing. He notes that the bill is targeted at “employers who employ more than 500 workers globally, who are part of a restaurant with at least 30 locations worldwide, or who operate as a franchise that is part of a network with at least 500 employees in the retail, food services, hospitality and long-term health care industries.”

The intent, he said, is to offer schedules in advance, in consultation with employees, and to compensate workers if their schedules are changed without enough notice.

“Jobs should provide people with the opportunity to become self-reliant,” Hawthorne states. “They should not be a source of stress and uncertainty when it comes to paying bills and taking care of their families.”

With predictable scheduling, he added, “budgeting income and time becomes more manageable which, in turn, promotes stability, economic opportunity and greater productivity. We urge the Committee to support this bill.”

Scott Dolch, president and CEO of the Connecticut Restaurant Association, disagrees with Hawthorne. Dolch, who opposes the bill and also submitted testimony in advance, states the bill would have a wider impact than legislators might think.

“Proponents of the bill argue that it will only impact large companies outside of the state, but this is untrue, as the vast majority of our franchise owner/operators are small businesses who live and work in Connecticut,” he said. “Some of these franchisees have fewer than 30 total employees, but would be included in this legislation simply because their franchise brand has more than 30 locations globally and more than 500 employees.”

Dolch states that the bill would harm the flexibility of restaurant scheduling, which he said is “a key dynamic” of the industry that works well for both employers and employees.

“In fact, many employees choose to work in restaurants specifically because of the flexibility it allows,” he states.

He also notes that managing schedules for a restaurant is “fluid and unpredictable," because reservations or events often are added or canceled at the last minute, and weather conditions can force closings, among other reasons that make “on-call scheduling an essential aspect to the hospitality industry.”

Paul Amarone, public policy associate and advocacy manager for the Connecticut Business & Industry Association (CBIA), also filed testimony opposing the legislation in advance of the public hearing.

Amarone said that while CBIA understands the intent of the bill, it creates problems for the industries that would be affected.

“Businesses in the retail, hospitality, long-term healthcare and food industries are rapidly changing, flexible environments that rely on their employees working flexible hours, changing shifts on the fly, or adjusting shifts based on customer or patient demands,” Amarone said. “The unpredictable nature of these industries makes it nearly impossible for employers to abide by the provisions of this bill, notably the 24-hour notice period of any changes to an employee's shift or scheduled hours, and the 14-day notice requirement of all scheduled shifts.”

He said the bill, when combined with the state’s “rapidly expanding forms of paid sick leave and other workplace mandates, would handcuff employers’ ability to maintain operations, potentially causing the loss of customers,
jobs and the ability to stay in business.”

CBIA, he adds, asks the committee to “take no action” on the bill.

Ginny Kozlowski, executive director of the Connecticut Lodging Association, also submitted testimony opposing the bill.

“The hospitality industry continues to struggle with the lingering economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing labor shortages, increased operating costs, and unpredictable customer demands,” Kozlowski states. “SB 831 would impose additional operational constraints on an already strained industry by removing the flexibility that hotels need to effectively manage their workforce and meet fluctuating business needs.”

She states that by “further restricting operational flexibility, this legislation could force some hotels to reduce staff hours, limit services, or even close their doors, resulting in job losses and economic hardship for our communities.”

The Labor and Public Employees Committee is scheduled to conduct the public hearing Tuesday at 11 a.m. in Room 2B of the Legislative Office Building.