Of course, that’s not the goal. But that’s the likely consequence of new workplace rules adopted in Seattle, as reported by Bill McMorris of the Washington Free Beacon.

Seattle became the second city to adopt regulations that force businesses to give advanced scheduling notices to shift workers.

The Democratically controlled city council unanimously passed the Secure Scheduling Act on Monday, which will require employers to give workers two weeks’ notice about their upcoming shifts, compensate them for lost or additional shifts, and bar them from taking two shifts within 10 hours.

The legislation is expected to have major ramifications for the retail and restaurant industries, which employ many part-time and shift workers. Democratic Mayor Ed Murray hailed the vote as a boon for workers and a blow against “income inequality.” …

… The vote comes two years after San Francisco became the first city to adopt scheduling regulations supported by labor unions.

That legislation has had several unintended adverse consequences for the workers it is meant to help, according to an analysis of the law by economists from Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Kentucky. Businesses became more rigid in their handling of schedules in the wake of the scheduling regulations.

“To respond to these new requirements formula retailers are now less flexible with employees schedule changes (35 percent), offering fewer part-time positions (21 percent), scheduling fewer employees per shift (19 percent) and offering fewer jobs across the board (17 percent). As a group, retail clothing businesses are even more likely to be taking these steps,” the study said.

This is not the first time Seattle has followed San Francisco’s example in labor reforms. The two cities pioneered the $15 minimum wage that has been promoted by a national pressure campaign.

Michael Saltsman, research director of the Employment Policies Institute, said he expects Seattle to see adverse changes in its job market and business practices as companies adapt to the wage increases and scheduling rules.

“These aren’t cost-free policy experiments—and employees often end up paying the tab,” Saltsman said. “Instead of helping employees, the evidence from San Francisco suggests that such a law will reduce workplace scheduling flexibility, and also diminish the number of part-time positions.”