A Law Banning Flat Bed Sheets Shouldn't Really Be California's Priority Right Now

on May 13, 2011 at 10:00 PM

bed sheets California is just about bankrupt, which must mean that it’s time to pass a law outlawing flat sheets and short-handled feather dusters in hotels across the state.

Seriously.

This year alone, the Golden State will spend about $25 billion more than the $82 billion it expects to take in from taxes and fees. We have big problems in California, but instead of tackling issues that actually matter, the legislature has introduced a bill to ban flat sheets at the Hotel California.

Supporters of the bill argue it will reduce worker injuries by eliminating the need for workers to repetitively lift extremely heavy mattresses when making beds. They contend that flat sheets cause workers to strain their backs, shoulders and wrists, and are often responsible for repetitive motion injuries.

State Bill 432, sponsored by Senator Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles), also calls for the use of long-handled tools like mops and dusters so housekeepers do not have to get down on their hands and knees to clean bathroom floors.

The California Hotel and Lodging Association estimate that the switch would add $30 to $50 million in costs to already tight budgets. Spokesman Randi Knotts also adds that hotels already offer long-handled mops and brooms to their cleaning staffs, but that they aren’t used.

The government has no right to micromanage business. Hotels use flat sheets because they are cheaper, last longer, and are easier to launder, iron and store than fitted sheets with elastic. If tucking in sheets is too difficult a task for an employee whose job description includes tucking in sheets, they might be better suited finding employment elsewhere. With the unemployment rate in California hovering at over 12%, I’m sure someone would jump at the chance to earn an honest paycheck at an entry-level job.

The legislature has some serious work to do to get our financial house in order. Insisting that businesses raise prices to cover costs of newly mandated fitted sheets and creating a new Department of Sheet Enforcement to make sure hotels comply with the rule is not how to do it. The bureaucrats in Sacramento should concentrate on enticing businesses to grow and expand and create jobs in California, not how to protect the housekeeping staff from tucking in sheets.

Image via basheertome/Flickr

Filed Under: corporations, economy, law, in the news

Like What You Just Read?

Click the "Like" button below to get Jenny Erikson's stories on Facebook.

Comments (25)

Facebook comment from Alexandria Scott Campbell

on May 13, 2011 at 11:36 PM

Are you kidding me? This is the most insane way to waste money. Their jobs like you said are to tuck in sheets.

Report this comment

yobabywazup

on May 14, 2011 at 12:36 AM

I think its important to protect the workers and here we have a tourist industry so these workers are having to strain. My mother worked as a hotel maid back in her 20s and she was injured on the job. I think california takes initiative to protect its citizens and workers. I am sure that the actuary that did the cost effectiveness was able to figure that the pay out in disability unemployment ect... Was more than the cost for the law. And no employers don't always choose to benefit the workers. Many in the hotel industry are women and we need to stand together.

butterflymkm

on May 14, 2011 at 2:13 AM

Did anyone else see this title and immediately think of bedbugs? Or something to do w/ bedbugs? Just me?

Facebook comment from Amie Castille

on May 14, 2011 at 5:46 AM

agree with yobaby. The hotels will spend more in litigation and settlements than in implementing the changes for the benefit of the workers, so making the changes makes sense.

Just like the maids' jobs include tucking in sheets, the hotels' jobs include creating a safe work place and the California legislature's job is to legislate. So yes, this seems perfectly reasonable to me. We should all have the right to work in a safe environment. And implying that someone else would be grateful to work under unsafe conditions is the very threat that was used to keep people too scared to fight for their rights in sweat shops and factories. This is why we can appeal for safe working conditions, and raise that plea beyond our employer if we are still becoming repeatedly injured on the job.

I recognize that the blogger believes "maids" should tuck in your sheets and shut up, but in fact they are protected under the same safety laws as the rest of us.

hoticedcoffee

on May 14, 2011 at 7:38 AM

More California crazy!! You don't have to lift the whole damn mattress to tuck the sheets in - just bump the corner up a bit to slide your hand in. Trust me, I come from a long line of women with a fetish for tight-hospital-corners on the bed - no heavy lifting required. And what are they doing about top sheets? Skipping them? Idiotic.

Fitted sheets are from the Devil, just like Rachael Ray and Cheeze Wiz.

jagamama0710

on May 14, 2011 at 7:53 AM

I can't believe there are people commenting that actually think this was a reasonable thing to do! WTF? It's their JOB. Being required to slightly lift the corner of the bed to tuck in a sheet is hardly an unsafe working environment. Seriously, if you are incapable of performing such a task or unable to clean with the products they give you, FIND A DIFFERENT JOB. That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

hoticedcoffee - They are. I don't even fold ours. I just wad it up in a ball and throw it in the closet. lol

on May 14, 2011 at 7:59 AM

To the commentor, California is hardly the only place that receives many tourists. If being a maid in a hotel was such backbreaking work that people were being injured left and right from having to tuck in a flat sheet, this would be all over the news everywhere when they introduced flat sheets (have hotels ever used fitteds? I don't know.). I'm not saying being a maid isn't hard work. I'm sure it is, kudos to them, I could never do it! But seriously...that's a waste of money. Don't get a job that you can't perform.