If the Seattle City Council votes to approve the current paid sick leave ordinance (.pdf) next Monday, some unionized employees in Seattle will be immune to its benefits. You see, while the law would generally trump existing union contracts, the ordinance includes a loophole that exempts collective bargaining agreements that “expressly wave” paid sick leave “in clear and unambiguous terms.”
While there are at least two amendments floating around that would close this loophole, it’s unclear if either of them will be proposed now that the council has the votes needed to pass the legislation. And some small business owners say the exemption puts them at a severe disadvantage. Here is a letter written to council member Tim Burgess from Crocodile from Bad Juju Lounge owner Marcus Charles, explaining the disparity (emphasis mine):
Councilperson Burgess,
Hope all is well and summer is treating you well.
It sounds like the vote on Mandatory Paid Sick Leave is coming this Monday. I offer paid sick leave at my businesses and see the value of a healthy work force. I plan on attending the meeting and voicing my opinion.
On our last correspondence, you talked about needing to understand the issue better before deciding what direction you were going to go. Now that we are coming down to the wire, what have you decided to do?
If you plan on supporting the currently proposed legislation, how do you explain an exemption for employees covered under collective bargaining agreements? If this is really a public health policy, shouldn’t all employees be given the same protection? Shouldn’t all employers (and employees) be treated the same by Government, and pay (or receive) the same Government Mandated Benefits?
In my Industry, a standard Unionized Restaurant Contract calls for 1 day of sick leave to be paid for every year worked, with a maximum of 5 days (this is also the current policy at Local 360, the Croc and the Juju). If this legislation is passed on Monday, it will automatically put all of my small business at an instant disadvantage against our unionized competitors in that we will be paying for 4 more days of sick leave per employee. If my businesses grow into tier three, I will be paying for up to 8 more days on new employees out of the gate.
The exemption for employees covered under collective bargaining agreements is entirely unfair, dirty politics and unjust policy!
If legislation is introduced that calls for a Collective Bargaining Exemptions, I would strongly urge you to vote against it. Or, support any amendments to current legislation that would eliminate exemptions.
Being progressive is not about choosing winners and losers, it’s about treating people justly. As currently crafted, this is unjust legislation that gives big labor a tool for their woodshed, at the almost sole cost to small business!
I will not be able to support any candidate who votes for Paid Sick Leave with a Collective Bargaining Exemption.
Thank you for your time and assistance,
Marcus Charles
Being progressive is not about demanding the right to provide fewer benefits to your employees while using language like “big labor” and transparent demands for small government.
Marcus is completely correct. The UFCW pushed for this exemption against the wishes of the social justice and public health members of the Coalition. It makes no sense. If workers need a minimum of 5 days sick leave to protect the public from disease and to make sure single mothers and abused women have the proper amount of time off, then ALL workers should be provided this. Definitely the employees of larger corporations who are the companies wih organized labor forces, should not be able to be exempted from this law.
Basically what Burgess and the others on Council are doing is giving big labor and big business an out, while putting the burden of this expensive new ordiance on just the non organized small businesses.
It’s also funny that Labor pushed the current Mayor into backing this new law while promising Burgess support to run against him in the next election. Funny, especially when those same labor groups are promising to back Ed Murray as well.
Council – do what you actually believe is the right thing to do on this issue, not what expedited your career and future political donations. The exemption for Labor is clearly a bought and paid for piece of this legislation. The politicians supporting it are clearly the ones with little integrity.
Marcus is afflicted with Random Capitalization Disease, for which there is No Cure, whether there is a Collective Bargaining Exemption, Government Mandated Benefits, or not. This is also known as Will in Seattle Disease.
I’ve known plenty of people that have worked at the Croc and at Juju and I’ve never heard anyone gripe about how they are treated. It seems like they have a fairly generous leave program in place. The real story here, unfortunately, is that unions in this case have decided to make collateral damage of a huge number of small businesses to make a point against Whole Foods, which they lost a MAJOR labor battle to last year. Scratch the surface of this bill and that is what it’s all about. It’s sad that unions, which did so much good in creating the middle class in this country have actually become the very thing they were formed to fight against. Ironic, yes. And, no, I’m not an asshole republican. I voted Obama, gave him a ton of cash, and have always been pro-union. Especially the ironworkers. Those guys are super badass. The teacher’s union, though, are a bunch of wackadoos.
One day per year worked is absurd if we’re actually worried about public health. People get sick from day one on the job, and they are under the weather and/or contagious for more than day. One day per year worked sounds more like a way of handing out vacation time.
@5 Tell me about it! 1 day per year is a total joke; particularly in an industry with a high turnover rate.
@1 I read this letter very differently. It is asking to provided union employees with the same benefits as the general populace. Now that’s progressive.
@5 & 6 – so then you’d agree that this ordinance is a joke – because for a large percentage of food handlers and medical workers who are unionized, this is all that would happen under the ordinance.
One day per year is what Unions like the UFCW offer their members, and they wouldn’t be required to do more under Seattle’s sick day law because Unions are exempted. They shouldn’t be, and they wouldn’t be except they cashed in political favors in exchange for the clause exempting them. And that’s all Marcus is saying.
If sick days are a good thing to offer, and 5 days is the minimum number that should be offered, then make sure Union employees and the people they serve have the same protections are non-Union.
What is really happening here is the UFCW is trying to gain leverage in organizing Whole Foods. UFCW needs more dues paying members, but Whole Foods as a company is fighting their organizing efforts by offering decent benefits to their employees. With this Seattle sick days law, Whole Foods will have to provide their workers 9 paid sick days per year. BUT, if they allow UFCW to organize their workers, then UFCW will do a contract with Whole Foods similar to what they’ve done with the hotel chains – allowing for only 1 sick day per year. Then by Whole Foods allowing UFCW in, Whole Foods saves money, and UFCW gets more union paying members.
The general public loses, but Burgess gains UFCW’s support (who backed McGinn in the last election).
And that’s how ‘progressive’ this ordinance really is. The social justice and public health folks, who we should be paying attention to, are being used as pawns by big Labor. And Cienna is playing right into it.
And that’s politics folks. Sad. I wish we had a paper that would honestly and intelligently write about this sort of insider bullshit.
@7 well, it’s asking for that, or in the alternative, to not support the bill at all. which is i guess making the perfect the enemy of the good. maybe?
@3 while he does appear to be afflicted, and though there may be No Known Cure, i’m not entire sure it is Random Capitalization Disease at work. it’s not entirely Random. is is clearly Purposeful, Intenional and Improper. (i have a different problem altogether.) i cannot speak to the randomness associated with Will iN SeatTle DisEaSe, of which with this particular manifestation of that problem i am personally unaquianted.
Goddamnit, it’s WAIVE, not wave. Unless they’re waving bye-bye to their sick leave. Somebody needs a fucking copy editor.
Okay, so the unions here are fighting for the right to collectively bargain for less generous benefits than would otherwise be the minimum standard?
And they’re doing this because they think giving away the farm will make them more competitive and stem the anti-union tide?
Stick a fork in them.
@11,
Actually unions here are fighting for the right to negotiate MORE generous benefits. You and that idiot Marcus Charles should be able to figure out that what the city is proposing is a MINIMUM, and that employers (and employees collectively) shouldn’t be prohibited or encouraged to offer better benefits than that minimum.
Sheesh what a moron.
And for the record – Marcus Charles is a fucking douchebag.
@12:
Nope. You would think so, but nope.
The plain text of the union exemption from the minimum allows union-negotiated contracts that presently exist — as well as any negotiated in the future — to “expressly waive” the right to enforce the city’s minimum and to settle on something less.
They’re fighting for the right to be “competitive” by negotiating lesser benefits for their members. Pathetic, but true.
@14,
Bullshit – neither you nor Charles knows what the hell you’re talking about.
@15 You’re actually reading it wrong, sorry to say. The unions ARE pushing this as a way to screw companies that choose not to unionize. Basically, you go union, you are ALLOWED to have fewer sick days in your collective bargaining agreement under this proposal. If you don’t, under this legislation, you’re fucked.
And so are you, by the way. Unless your version of a non-douchebag is St. Peter at the damn pearly gates, Marcus is no douchebag. He’s a straightshooter, fair and a family man. Assailing someone’s character unnecessarily is poor manners. Not understanding their argument and still calling them a douchebag in a public forum is, well, something that only a total douchebag would do.
@14:
A minimum standard is, by definition, “minimum.” There would be no possible reason for unions to demand an exemption from the minimum standard if they had any intention of meeting or exceeding that minimum.
They’re asking for the right to demand less for their own members, plain and simple. It is totally perverse.
Wait, @15. I finally just figured out why your linguistic misunderstanding @12 is so baffling.
You literally have no idea what the words “exemption” and “waive” mean, do you?
Again, the unions are asking not to be held (“to be exempt”) to what would be the minimum standard if they were not exempted.
And this applies only when the contract language gives up the right (“waives”) what would be the minimum standard if they had not waived it.
Please find yourself a dictionary. Then maybe you’ll understand the problem here.