Totally outrageous.

Goldy - you should describe the initiative correctly - it provides a $15 per hour minimum wage only for non-union workers. Workers who are in a union get no guarantees of a minimum wage. Just like Seattle's sick day ordinance only guarantees sick days for non-union members. This initiative isn't about a working wage. It's about unions legislating membership by having laws making non unionized employees more expensive than unionized employees. This is because employees themselves have been leaving unions. When Seattle does it's analysis of Sick Days, you'll see the same story - many workers aren't getting them because they are in a union, and the union negotiated them away in collective bargaining agreements. So those grocery store workers you were so worried about handling your food, or the single mother working a construction job with sick kids, they aren't getting sick days. Likewise, if this SeaTac initiative passes, many employees will be paying union dues but not be paid more wages, because that minimum wage won't apply to them. Be honest about what these laws are - they are legislating union membership, not protecting workers. Union leaders' jobs aren't to protect all workers, they are to grow membership, and membership dues, so they and their bosses can justify their bloated salaries.

What a fascinating world you live in, where it's the unions who exploit workers, not the capitalists!

Goldy - dodge the facts all you want. I'm not anti Labor, but these laws aren't what they seem. How about this - let's have sick days for ALL workers, and a higher minimum wage for ALL workers. See if Unite Here, UFCW or SEIU support those ideas. Go ahead, ask them. I'd support both. Voters would support both. Only Unions would be against it.

@5 - that's not what I said. What I said was that Union members are exempt from the minimum wage law. So their employers do not have to pay them $15 per hour. As a union member, they may be guaranteed a wage, but it will be below $15 per hour. And in regards to sick days, some union members get zero, some get 1 or more, but not the same that are guaranteed for everyone else under the Seattle sick days law.

@8 - you're incorrect. Under the new 'living wage' bills being passed, like the one just passed in DC, unions CAN bargain away that wage. Just like in the Seattle sick days ordinance. Laws have exemptions. So if you happen to be a single mom but work for a union, you don't need to stay home to take care of your sick kid I guess.

@9 You are assuming that unions would bargain away those rights or would do so for no good reason.

Much more likely is that unions would use that to get something beneficial like personal days in lieu of sick days, something both employers and employees often like. Or say giving up a couple dollars of wage for better benefits that can be more cheaply acquired by the employer at bulk rates.

I thought the whole argument against unions was that they force employers to give too many benefits, not too few?

@11 if you actually read the ordinance as written, and must be adopted in full if passed. The current CBA's are not affected and will not have to pay current union workers the $15/hr if passed. However, you can be assured when the CBA expires that the unions will push for the $15/hr. Before you begin to spew interpretation of the ordinance, you should really understand it in its entirety. Some many people complain about "bullying" in society, but this is a very classic case of "bullying". Do you stand for a principle or do you stand for a cause. Because they are 2 completely different concepts.