SeaTac, Washington, Proposition 1, Minimum Wage Increase Measure (November 2013)

Voting on Minimum Wage Ballot Measures By state By year Not on ballot Local Labor and unions Local wages and pay

A City of SeaTac "Good Jobs Initiative" Minimum Wage Increase, Proposition 1 ballot question was on the November 5, 2013, election ballot in King County, which is in Washington. It was approved. Opponents requested a recount because the approval margin was so small, at only 77 votes. But after the county elections office counted the results again by hand, Proposition 1 was still in the lead and held on to its narrow victory.

Although Proposition 1 was narrowly approved, King County Superior Court Judge Andrea Darvas ruled on December 27, 2013, that the city ordinance boosting minimum wages for certain employees to $15 per hour enacted by Proposition 1 could not apply to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport employees but only to hotels and transportation industry workers in the city. This ruling was based on the argument that the airport belongs to the jurisdiction of the Port of Seattle not the city of SeaTac. This decision left only about 1,600 employees out of the intended 6,300 who received increased wages beginning January 1, 2014. Yes! for SeaTac, the group behind the initiative immediately appealed this decision in the state Supreme Court, where they won their case. The state supreme court overturned the previous decision and ruled that Proposition 1 could be applied to airport workers.

On the night of November 5, 2013, when preliminary vote counts showed Proposition 1 being approved by about 54 percent, proponents declared a victory; but their celebration proved to be premature. With the next few vote count updates, the margin between yes and no votes closed to only 19 votes between approval of Prop 1 and its defeat. After the official certification of election results, the vote count margin was 77 votes in favor.

Proposition 1 produced a very disproportionately well funded battle in the small city of SeaTac. In the city of only 12,100 registered voters, support and opposition campaigns received contributions totaling $1,585,763. This amounted to $131.05 per registered voter and, since the election featured a voter-turnout of just under 50 percent, the campaign spending amounted to about $264 per vote.

At the time of its passage, the measure, known by supporters as the "Good Jobs Initiative," implemented several requirements for the airport and related employers throughout the city. The proposed ordinance established:

• a mandatory paid sick time to all employees
• a minimum wage of $15 per hour
• regulated allocation of tips and service charges
• the prohibition of any shared tip systems
• a "Qualified Displaced Workers list," from which employers must make new hires based on list seniority
• a rule mandating that employers could not hire anyone not on the "Qualified Displaced Workers list" unless the list were empty

Proposition 1 gave SeaTac the highest minimum wage and the most highly regulated working conditions and wages in the nation at the time. The city of SeaTac had a population of about 26,000 in 2013, but it was home to the 16th busiest airport in the nation.

Although the Los Angeles airport workers were payed a minimum of $15.75 under a living wage ordinance, Ken Jacobs, chair of the University of California Berkeley’s Center for Labor Research and Education, said that Proposition 1 was a different case because “having a municipality that essentially is the airport" was unique. In 2013, the highest government enforced minimum wages in the country were:

• San Francisco at $10.55 per hour.
• Washington state at $9.19 per hour
• California set to have a minimum wage of $10 per hour by 2016

Although the Proposition 1 minimum wage only applied to airport and hotel workers, according to Gary Smith, all of the businesses in SeaTac including small businesses were expected to have to raise wages to stay competitive and continue to hire valuable employees.

Before the vote count was certified, Proposition 1 opponents opened a lawsuit trying to show the illegality of Proposition 1.

Aftermath

Lawsuits

Status: Washington Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 1 can be applied to airport employees.

Before the vote count was even certified, Proposition 1 opponents opened a lawsuit, which was ultimately rejected by the state supreme court, trying to show the illegality of Proposition 1. This suit, which was an amended complaint by Filo Foods, Alaska Airlines and the Washington Restaurant Association, claimed that the measure raising the minimum wage for Airport employees and others was illegal because it fell outside of the jurisdiction of the city of SeaTac and the initiative power. Previously, opponents claimed that Proposition 1 was illegal because it was in conflict with certain federal laws, including the Railway Labor Act. Filo Foods specifically claimed that its employees “have not chosen to be represented by a union, but the proposed ordinance improperly encourages unionization and collective bargaining.” Harry Korrell of Davis Wright Tremaine, the lawyer representing the Prop 1 opposition, argued that because the Airport fell under the control of the Port of Seattle not the city of SeaTac, the city ordinance could not apply to the airport employees. In response to those who said the suit should have waited until the results of the election were finalized, Korrell said, “Any company affected by this will have to make adjustments to its pay scale and comply with a host of new regulations. It would be better to know before January 1 if this measure is illegal, as we believe it is.”

Superior and supreme court rulings

King County Superior Court Judge Andrea Darvas ruled on December 27, 2013, that the city ordinance boosting minimum wages for certain employees to $15 per hour enacted by Proposition 1 could not apply to airport employees but only to hotels and transportation industry workers in the city. This ruling, as well as another court ruling, sided with plaintiffs Filo Foods, Alaska Airlines and the Washington Restaurant Association, who argued that the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport fell under the jurisdiction of the Port of Seattle not the city, removing it from the jurisdictional authority behind Proposition 1. This ruling left only about 1,600 workers in the city of SeaTac itself that were set to receive the increased minimum wage out of the 6,300 that Prop 1 proponents were hoping it would affect. Yes! for SeaTac, the group behind Proposition 1, immediately appealed the decision in state supreme court, where they won their case. The state supreme court voted 5-4 to overrule the previous decisions and established that Proposition 1 could be applied to airport workers so that it covered the full number of workers for which it was designed. Justice Susan Owens, writing for the supreme court majority, declared, "We hold that Proposition 1 can be enforced at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport because there is no indication that it will interfere with airport operations. ... the proposition does not conflict with the Port of Seattle’s jurisdiction or ability to operate the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport."

While the case was in court, a letter signed by over 50 elected officials was delivered to the Port of Seattle on February 10, 2014, urging the port officials to honor SeaTac voters and impose Proposition 1 provisions on the Airport themselves.

Individual claims case

In March 2014, former employee of Extra Car Airport Parking sued the company for not giving her $15 per hour after Proposition 1 was approved. This was the first legal test of the enforcement of the "Good Jobs Initiative." Lou Lehman was one of the main plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit that sought to make Extra Car Airport Parking back pay about forty employees $15 per hour starting on January 1, 2014, which was the effective date of Proposition 1. The suit also demanded damages in the amount of double the wages owed and interest on the money owed. Martin Garfinkel, of Schroeter Goldmark & Bender in Seattle, was the lawyer for the plaintiffs.

This lawsuit was the first practical exhibition of the effectiveness of the citizen lawsuit enforcement method written into Proposition 1 in order to keep the costs of enforcement low for the city.

Election results

Opponents called for a vote recount by hand because the margin for approval was so narrow.

Original count

SeaTac Proposition 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		3,040	50.64%
No		2,963	49.36%

Recount

SeaTac Proposition 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		3,040	50.64%
No		2,963	49.36%

These final, certified results are from the King County elections office.

Text of measure

Language on the ballot:

“

This Ordinance requires certain hospitality and transportation employers to pay specified employees a $15.00 hourly minimum wage, adjusted annually for inflation, and pay sick and safe time of 1 hour per 40 hours worked. Tips shall be retained by workers who performed the services. Employers must offer additional hours to existing part-time employees before hiring from outside. SeaTac must establish auditing procedures to monitor and ensure compliance. Other labor standards are established. Should this Ordinance be enacted into law?

”

Support

Supporters

• YES! For SeaTac
• Working Washington, an organizing arm of the Service Employees International Union

Arguments in favor

Heather Weiner, spokesperson and founder of YES! For SeaTac, speaking about the appeals court decision to put the initiative back on the November ballot after a pre-election lawsuit, said, "This is an important victory. We want good middle class jobs back at the airport. Over the last ten years or so it's really declined. People who have worked there for 20 or 30 years are still making minimum wage with no paid sick leave and no job security."

Opposition

Opponents

• SeaTac Action Committee
• Common Sense SeaTac
• Alaska Airlines

Arguments against

A majority of businesses in SeaTac opposed this measure and several stated that, if approved, the proposed minimum wage increase would force them to close down.

Quiznos owner Brett Hebernicht said, "The $15 an hour minimum wage would - I'll tell you right now frankly, and I'm not exaggerating - it would put us out of business. It would absolutely put us out of business."

Scott Ostrander, manager of Cedarbrook Lodge and part of the group Common Sense SeaTac, said, “As with any business, people get paid according to their skill sets and their business. This is going to impact the entire employee base because you are going to have to put everyone up to a higher wage.’’

Campaign finance

Total campaign cash as of October 28, 2013
Support:	$941,065
Opposition:	$644,698

Support

$941,065

The Yes for SeaTac Campaign raised $941,065 in its campaign to get the measure on the ballot and support it before the election. This amounted to $77.77 per registered voter and $157 per actual vote.

Opposition

$644,698

Common Sense SeaTac, the committee in opposition to Proposition 1, raised $644,698 for its war chest, $160,000 of which came from the SeaTac based Alaska Airlines. Other contributions had been given by businesses throughout the city that would be affected by the minimum wage hike. The opposition campaign bank roll amounted to $53.28 per registered voter and $107.28 per actual vote.

Per-vote numbers

Together the two campaigns had already spent $1.1 million by October of 2013. It was estimated that, with the voter turnout of just under 50 percent, the pro and con campaign costs together would sum up to about $264 per vote, which was some of the highest per-vote campaign spending on record.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Washington

Signatures

The group YES! For SeaTac as well as other supporters gathered 2,506 signatures in order to qualify Proposition 1 for the November 2013 ballot.

Lawsuit

When a lawsuit was filed by Alaska Airlines and the Washington Restaurant Association seeking to keep the measure from the ballot over signature validity concerns, Judge Andrea Darvas of the King County Superior Court removed the initiative from the ballot by throwing out both versions of duplicate signatures that were found. This left the petitioners 61 signatures short of the required threshold of 1,536 valid signatures. Proposition 1 petitioners scrambled to collect and turn in nearly 250 more signatures. On September 6, 2013, the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington, taking into account 248 new signatures submitted on August 27, overruled Darvas and ordered the measure back on the ballot.

Timeline

• July, 2013: Petitioners turned in 2,506 signatures
• August 26, 2013: Judge Andrea Darvas ordered the initiative removed from the ballot
• August 27, 2013: Petitioners turned in an additional 248 signatures
• August 28, 2013: Supporters asked court to consider new signatures in appeal of original decision
• September 6, 2013: Darvas' decision was overruled in appeals court and the measure was put back on the ballot
• December 27, 2013: Darvas rules Prop. 1 does not apply to Airport employees, reducing the number of workers received Prop. 1 benefits from approx. 6,300 to 1,600.
• August 2015: State supreme court overturns Darvas' decision and rules that Proposition 1 must be applied to airport workers.

Affected employers

The proposition was designed to affect only those who work in the airport, hotel and related industries. It was estimated the measure would increase wages and impose sick leave requirements for 6,300 jobs at 72 businesses through out the city, due to the new employment standards. This amounted to about 25 percent of all jobs in the city. Below is a break down of which industries were affected and the number of employees in each that Prop. 1 was designed to apply to:

Reports and analyses

Support

Puget Sound Sage, a nonprofit community and labor organization that supported Proposition 1, released a 32-page report on its analysis of the economic benefits of the $15 per hour minimum wage. The report estimated that wages for affected workers would increase by $40 million per year and that, with increased spending, 400 new jobs and $14 million per year in additional income would be produced in the area.

Opposition

Opponents of Proposition 1 said that the research done by Puget Sound Sage was not showing the whole picture of the economic effects of Proposition 1. Pointing to research by David Neumark, department of economics at the University of California, and William L. Wascher, board of governors of the Federal Reserve System in the research and statistics department, as well as other research done on the subject, critics of the Puget Sound Sage study claimed that increasing mandated minimum wages tends to decrease employment, especially for unskilled laborers. They also pointed out that, while there would be a pay-check boost, the study forgets to look into where that money would come from. Those who think Proposition 1 was harmful to SeaTac said that in some cases it would force the applicable employers to raise product prices, making them unable to compete with the surrounding employers and possibly go out of business, reducing employment.

See also

• November 5, 2013 ballot measures in Washington
• King County, Washington ballot measures
• Laws governing local ballot measures in Washington
• Local wages and pay on the ballot

External links

Suggest a link

• SeaTac Action Committee website
• Freedom Foundation: 2013 Informed Voter Guide
• Yes for SeaTac campaign website
• Common Sense SeaTac anti-Prop 1 campaign website

Additional reading

• Sound Progress, "Who is Covered by SeaTac’s Proposition 1 (and Who is Not)?" September 12, 2013
• The Seattle Times, "Both sides brace for impact of SeaTac wage measure," November 23, 2013
• KOMO News, "Officials urge Port of Seattle to adopt $15 wage at Sea-Tac," February 11, 2014
• The Raw Story, "How a tiny airport town near Seattle led the new movement against low wages," February 22, 2014
• SeaTac Action Committee, "The full text of the ordinance," accessed October 2013
• SeaTac Action Committee, "A summary of the ordinance," accessed October 2013.
• Washington Policy Center, "Study Endorsing SeaTac’s Proposition 1 Doesn’t Tell the Whole Story"
• University of California, Irvine, "Study on effects of higher minimum wages," accessed October 2013