Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Predictive Scheduling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Workers, unions push predictable‑scheduling bill; hospitality and franchise groups oppose one‑size rules
Summary
SB 8‑31 would require advance notice of work schedules for certain employees at large employers. Unions and worker advocates cited family stability and reduced financial insecurity; restaurant and small‑business groups said the hospitality sector needs scheduling flexibility and warned of burdens on small franchisees.
Worker advocates urged passage of SB 8‑31, legislation that would require advance notice of work schedules and curb on‑call and last‑minute scheduling practices for large employers in certain industries. Proponents said unpredictable scheduling causes financial instability, obstructs child care and education, and increases food and housing insecurity.
Jose Miranda of 32BJ SEIU and Sarah Ganong of Working Families Power described the harms faced by hourly service workers, citing research showing higher food insecurity and more volatile pay among workers with unstable schedules. Jose Miranda said unpredictable on‑call practices "wreak havoc on Connecticut workers' health and economic security" and described the bill as a targeted solution modeled on local ordinances in Seattle and New York.
Taylor Beniers, who testified from personal experience, described being repeatedly called in or canceled and the practical consequences: missed therapy appointments, overdraft bank fees and unreliable income.
Opponents included Scott Dolch of the Connecticut Restaurant Association, who said the restaurant sector relies on last‑minute flexibility — reservations, weather, and customer demand can change quickly — and warned that franchisees with few employees could be swept into the bill because corporate brands operate at national scale. Dolch said restaurants run on slim profit margins and that blunt scheduling mandates would increase costs and reduce flexibility that many workers value.
Union testimony and some committee members urged a compromise: preserve employee protections against abusive scheduling (clopening bans, short notice) while building in reasonable exceptions for seasonal or unpredictable operations. The committee asked for fiscal and implementation analysis and follow‑up on whether franchise definitions and employer size thresholds are calibrated to avoid capturing truly small local businesses.
Ending: The bill prompted the committee to request additional data on industry impact, model language from other jurisdictions, and clarifying thresholds to protect small locally owned businesses while addressing unpredictable scheduling at large employers.
