AN ORDINANCE relating to employment in Seattle; amending Sections 100.025 and Section 5 of Ordinance 126274 to establish a new date for ending hazard pay requirements and automatically repealing the ordinance.
Agenda Item one Constable 120119 relating to employment in Seattle and many sections 100.025 and Section five of Ordinance one two 6 to 74. And to establish a new date for ending hazard pay requirements and automatically repealing the ordinance. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I'm calling up the reconsideration of passage of Council Bill 120119 to consider passage of the Bill and the Mayor's veto. The reconsideration of Council Bill 120119 is now pending before the Council. Before I go to my colleagues for some comments, I want to add I want to add a few. I want to kind of contextualize where we're at with this particular ordinance and what we're doing here today. And then I'll go to my colleagues for some comments. First of all, thank you, Corina Bull, for pulling this together for me and our own surveys. Who put this together for me this morning? So I just want to put how this how we got here today. So for reference, this is a quick hazard pay timeline. So on January 5th, 20/25, 2021, exactly one year ago today, council passed emergency ordinance establishing hazard pay for grocery employees and the vote was 8 to 0. Everyone voted yes and I did not vote because I was not here. So anyway, then on February 3rd, hazard pay for grocery for grocery ordinance for the grocery ordinance went into effect. And then from there, we started with Council Bill 120119, which is what's before us today. And those were the amendments to the hazard pay for the grocery employees. That is, that this would be the bill to end hazard pay requirements upon the effective date of the ordinance. And again, that's what's before us today. So on July 9th, 2021, out of Councilmember Mosquito's Committee, Finance and housing, the bill was voted out of committee vote 2420. And in favor of that vote were Council member Chairman's Data Council President Gonzalez. Councilmember Lewis. And I believe Councilmember Herbold abstained. Then on July 27th and August 9th and September 13th, this Council held the bill on those three dates. On July 27th, Council voted to hold passage of the bill 7 to 0. Not present was Councilmember Morales and mosqueda on August 9th. This council again voted to hold passage of the bill. It was 8 to 0. The only person not present that day was Council President Gonzalez. Then on September 13th, Council voted again to hold passage of the bill. It was a 9 to 0 vote. So everybody voted yes on September 13th to hold passage of this particular bill. This bill then were to the full council again on Monday, December 13th, 2021, and the vote was 8 to 0 to end hazard pay. Everyone was present except for council members to want. So that's why the vote was 8 to 0. So on December 27th, 2021, Mayor Durkan got this piece of legislation and she vetoed it and returned the bill back to council. So here we are today, exactly one year to the day, January 25th, 2022. So Council will have an opportunity to reconsider passage of the bill. So I am going to at this time turn it over to any of my colleagues that may have some comments to say. And then I'm going to give some instruction about how we're going to vote on this. So with that, I'm going to open up the floor. Colleagues. Councilmember Herbold. I see your hand is up. Thank you so much. Madam President, your sharing of the history of Council's decision to not act on the suspension of hazard pay on several occasions over the last last several months. And appreciate that that. That those actions that the council has taken in the past to do not vote on this legislation reflected the uncertainty that many council members had around the timing. When I did vote on the hazard pay, the ending of the hazard pay, the legislation, I did say publicly at that time that I recognize that we may need to revisit it because of the uncertainty. And this was this vote was more than just a little bit more than a week before the surge. So I'm concerned. Hasn't happened yet. Many of us, myself included, said when we voted on the the termination of hazard pay, that that we may need to revisit it and that we recognize that public health is the number one priority as we continue to get it. Advice from public health officials. We must react quickly to protect the health and safety of our constituents. I issued a statement after the mayor's veto of the council's bill saying that I supported it and I'm glad to be here today to affirm my my support of continued hazard pay for these frontline workers at essential businesses. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Herbold, is anyone else that would like to comment? Councilmember Nelson. Go ahead. Thank you very much. President Suarez. I'm going to vote in favor of the substitute because I think you did the right thing in December in sunsetting the $4 an hour hazard pay increase, which you passed as emergency legislation before the vaccine was widely available. And now 87.5% of residents over 16 are vaccinated in five, five years and 83% are vaccinated. So, you know, there Durkan vetoed Council Bill 120119, which repeals hazard pay shortly after, maybe just days after Obama came on the scene and before we knew anything about its transmissibility or its virulence. And now, according to public health officials, seems to be going in the right direction. It's anticipated that it'll peak in February and locally. The Seattle King County Public Health Dashboard shows today that the number of new cases in Seattle is down 49% from last week. So the point is that conditions have changed. And since your original legislation know Washington in it's official I mean it's it's reopened officially and in June schools are back open for in-person learning. Just today, UW announced that it will go back to in-person and our own libraries are reopened and our librarians aren't getting hazard pay. So here's why this matters. I have spoken with PCC and the independent grocers, and they're really struggling with this with this significant pay increase. I'm concerned about their viability because if they close those jobs go away and the neighborhood loses that asset. And, you know, there was one example, the grocery outlet in District two that did close. So that is why I'm concerned. And we're not talking about Kroger here. We're talking about large the family owns some, many of them family owned. And if they don't raise their if they don't close, they might have to raise their their prices. And we already know what's happening with prices and with all the supply chain problems. They're already going up and working families are hurting. So that is the crux of the matter for me. If we vote no on this legislation, in other words, sustain the mayors, veto this hazard pay increase, will increase indefinitely until the mayor calls an end to the civil emergency. And right now, most of the other jurisdictions have already sunset or repealed their hazard pay. I think that maybe you're in Edmonds are two exceptions, but the vast majority, pretty much all of them have ended this. And the United Food Workers of America Local 21 didn't signal its green light for the repealing of hazard pay, and I believe that they were already negotiating a contract. So that work is ongoing right now. And it was said in committee in December that this legislation was not intended to be a permanent wage replacement. And so let's let wages be dealt with in contract negotiations. So if we pass this proposed substitute, the $4 an hour wage will be in effect for another month to 30 days. We're likely to have more information about it at that point. And I believe that this thing is going to keep changing all the time. We don't know now there's a new unaccompanied. But the point is we have to follow the recommendations of public health officials. And that is and and the mayor's letter in vetoing this said that I'll quote it in the new year, the the incoming administration in the city council will have the benefit of much more information regarding on the front end its impacts. If you work with organized labor other workers in impacted businesses to evaluate the appropriate next steps. And I think that we're at that time for appropriate next steps, and that is why I am going to vote in favor of this legislation. And. Q Councilmember Nelson, is there any one else, Councilmember Peterson. If you council President Juarez colleagues, as you know, I voted for the original bill in January of 2021 to support Seattle grocery workers and require their employers to provide hazard pay. I also supported efforts to keep it in place for a full year due in part to the earlier delta variant of the coronavirus. I have been, however, torn about whether to continue to require those payments into 2022. Just a few weeks ago, on December 13, eight of us voted to sunset this hazard pay. I know several of my colleagues, including Kasper, are making good points about why to support and uphold Mayor Durkin's decision a month ago. Ultimately, however, I have decided to be consistent with my December 2021 vote, and so I'll be voting to override the veto of our former mayor so that the hazard pay requirements could sunset in 30 days. I want to acknowledge that frontline workers in numerous industries that bravely serve Seattle every day should not only be paid well, but also be able to work the quantity of hours they need. And a key question for me is when is it a city government's role to intervene and require business owners to pay above their current compensation? The pandemic has spurred the creation and expansion of many relief programs funded by several different sources. And I have supported nearly all of these interventions because the pandemic is an extraordinary crisis warranting extraordinary responses. In my original vote on January 20, 21, a year ago to support grocery workers. It received criticism from several of my constituents when the Cincinnati based Kroger company announced the closing of a cherished QVC grocery store in the Wedgewood neighborhood. But I stand by my original vote a year ago, but I need to explain why I think we should override the mayor's last minute veto of our sunset legislation. Again, Seattle has imposed this special hazard pay for a year. The supplemental pay would not end immediately, but rather after 30 days. Dr. Satechi recently announced that things look like they're going in the right direction. Today, the University of Washington and Seattle University announced they would be returning to in-person classes next week beyond the government imposed minimum wage. I believe workers and their employers should negotiate compensation and benefits without a local government dictating what they must be. The local union, United Food and Commercial Workers, you have CWA Local 21 is very effective throughout Washington state and beyond and advocating for the grocery workers they represent in organizing those who may want to form a union and influencing policymakers. Temporary hazard pay for grocery workers already ended months ago in all 35 California jurisdictions that originally required it. And it is also ended in about half of the Washington state jurisdictions that required ending the hazard pay in Seattle to make it more financially feasible for other stores to move into the Wedgewood location and open stores throughout Seattle or to to remain in business as we strive to emerge from the COVID pandemic. I believe it may be time to transition away from some of the emergency measures we have put in place over the past two years, unless such measures are required by public health authorities or funded by the federal government. And so I'll be voting to override the mayors veto today. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Peterson. I see that. Councilmember Swann, you have your hand up. Please. What I am, of course, opposing the legislation originally sponsored by self-described progressive councilmember mosquito that would end the $4 an hour hazard pay that grocery workers depend on during this public health emergency. In other words, I am voting to uphold the veto from the outgoing mayor. We know that 300 over 330 community members have emailed the council, saying that the council cannot dare to repeal the hazard pay. We've seen a petition to the council from Trader Joe's workers over 40. What Trader Joe's workers have signed this petition urging the Council to maintain the hazard pay. In December, this bill came to the Council for a vote on a day that I was out sick and scandalously all of the eight other council members were present. All Democrats voted to end the hazard pay for grocery workers. This is totally unacceptable. As I had explained in council meetings throughout last summer when this bill ending hazard pay almost came to a vote several times when the vote was held, which means that the vote was delayed at the time. Grocery workers have risked their lives on poverty wages to make food available to all of society through throughout this crisis. I have repeatedly argued that the hazard pay should not only be maintained for grocery workers, but should be extended to all frontline workers for as long as this public health emergency lasts. To get a sense of how anti-worker the Democrats ending of the grocery worker hazard pay was, consider the study released by the Economic Roundtable of U.S. workers in Washington, California and Colorado. This survey shows that while Kroger CEO made $22 million last year, most of the company's frontline workers faced homelessness, addiction or hunger. The study surveyed a staggering 10,000 workers and found that more than three quarters of Kroger's workers are food insecure. 14% faced homelessness in the past year. And real wages for Kroger workers have decreased in the past few years, while executive profits have increased. The original hazard pay ordinance said that the hazard pay should last as long as the COVID public health emergency lasted, as long as there is an emergency. Hazard pay is really the least that grocery workers should be getting. Former Mayor Durkan vetoed the end of hazard pay, which was not the right thing to do. And we have to be clear that she had no choice but to veto. She's a she was a corporate politician, but she had no choice to veto because the bill came to her desk right when Omicron started sweeping the city council members and as you've heard today, have attempted to excuse their anti-worker vote in December by saying that they could not have predicted on the crime. While it is true that Omicron could not have been precisely predicted, that is not the question at all. The question is why were councilmembers many of these self-described progressive councilmembers so eager to end the hazard pay for grocery workers, so eager that they could not even wait for the official state of emergency to end in our city? At the same time, the city council itself gets to be safe and work from home. Kroger executives get to be safe and work from home. None of these excuses are acceptable. And councilmembers Nelson and Peterson not only say that they believe that voting to end hazard pay in December was the right thing to do, but also say that they're voting to end hazard pay now in the middle of the deadly Omicron surge is just stunning. My allegiance to the is to the grocery workers, not to the bosses at Kroger. I will, as I said, of course, be voting to maintain the hazard pay. I really urge all council members to reverse the scandalous position you took in December and vote to maintain the hazard pay. Finally, I want to urge all council member working people in Seattle to support grocery workers who are rank and file members of your CWA as they fight this year for a decent contract and to stand with Starbucks workers fighting to unionize and to fight and to push for rank and file driven, democratically organized unions. I also want to be you know, I want to say that last year across the country, inflation far outpaced wages. In other words, the average family took a real pay cut, a pay cut in real terms last year because even earned wages may have gone up. In nominal terms, inflation has outpaced it. As an economist, I want to be clear that Councilmember Nelson's assertion that price increases are somehow caused by the tiny wage increases by the lowest wage workers is completely unfounded. I mean, this has no basis in statistical evidence. Wages are falling behind prices. While stock market speculation runs rampant. Grocery workers need hazard pay, but also need a substantial raise, safe working conditions and decent hours. I stand in solidarity with grocery workers, rank and file members of UFW in their fight to protect hazard pay and also with all grocery workers, whether they are unionized or not, who are fighting for this hazard pay and for all non-unionized grocery workers to get unionized and then fight for a good contract. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Swan, before we. Is there anyone else that would like to say before I say a few closing comments? Thank you. CARLSON Swan, thank you for your comments. But I just want to add that members are reminded it is never in order to attack the integrity of your colleagues for why they are voting the way they are voting. Its every member should be reminded that it's never an order to make personal comments or undermine what party any of us belong to. I think everybody is trying to rely on each other and hold each other accountable to the rules of civility, decorum and kindness. So while you may not agree with the vote of our colleagues, Council Member Nelson and Councilmember Peterson, and you may not agree with what you deem any particular party, it's really it's really just isn't helpful for the debate and the civility and for the city council to move forward and to the discussion, quite frankly, about how we approach not just today's work in front of us, but every day the work in front of us. I will add, Councilmember Nelson, you did refer to the mayor's veto letter, which was dated December 27th. I. Madam Clerk, please correct me. That's in the clerk file. Correct? The actual mayoral veto letter is part of the record and is on the agenda. Today's agenda as well. Okay. And so if somebody who's been listening and wanted to see that letter, they can easily access it. That is correct on today's agenda. Okay. So with that, is there any other comments? Okay. I don't see any. I'm going to give a few more comments about how we're going to move forward on this vote. So here we go. And again, thank you, Madam Clerk, and thank you, Karina Bole, and for assisting us in getting us through this. The procedural the procedural piece of this. The city council will now vote to reconsider passage of Council Bill 120119 and to either override or sustain the mayoral veto. During Roll Call, council members will either vote I to pass the bill an override the mayor's veto or no to not pass the bill and sustain the veto. If the vote on the motion is tied or two thirds, that is six or more votes. No, the bill fails and the veto is sustained. If the vote on the motion is six or more votes in favor, the bill passes, the veto is overridden, and all provisions within the bill go into effect. Are there any questions on the procedural vote? Councilor Peterson. Thank you. Council President. I might have heard it two different ways. So if we're voting to override. Is that a yes or no? I'm just getting to that. So let me get through the rest. All right. I have an A. I'm going to read a little bit more than I'm going to. I'm just going to wrap it up. Okay. As a reminder, council members will either vote yes to pass the bill and override mayor's veto or no to not pass the bill and sustain the veto. Now, let me tell you what this means to me. A vote of yes ends hazard pay. In hazard pay in overrides the veto, and a vote of no would sustain hazard pay. It would not override the veto. So with that, any other questions? Okay. So will the clerk please call the role of on the passage of Council Bill 120119 and the consideration of the mayoral vote. Nelson. I. PETERSON Yes. Sergeant No. HERBOLD No. Lewis No. Morales No. Council President Suarez. No. Two in favor. Five opposed. So that means the motion fails, correct? Madam Clerk. And the bill does not pass and the veto is sustained. Alice. Correct. Council President. Okay. So we are done with that. Okay. Can we read the next week under committee reports? We have another vote here. Madam Clerk, can you please. It looks like we have a something from Councilmember Lewis on public assets and the Homelessness Committee. Can you please read that into the record?