In a final parting shot at SeaTac Proposition 1, the Seattle Times’ Jonathan Martin repeats a familiar No campaign talking point:
Tucked into the SeaTac $15 minimum wage ordinance is a big exemption to the landmark proposal.
In the Waivers section of the proposed ordinance, available on the City of SeaTac website, Proposition 1 gives employers a break from the minimum wage, the paid sick days and other employee protections – as long as the business is unionized.
Except, no, that’s not what the Waivers section says. Being unionized does not automatically give employers a break from Proposition 1’s provisions, as Martin’s summary of it implies.
Proposition 1 allows unions to agree to waive its provisions “in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement.” Big difference. And it makes sense. Seattle’s paid sick leave ordinance includes a similar provision. Unions often negotiate pay and benefits against each other, for example, lower pay raises in exchange for higher healthcare benefits, or vice versa. Proposition 1 merely allows unions (and unionized employers) to retain such negotiating flexibility. But whatever the mix, a union would be crazy to negotiate a smaller total compensation package than the floor mandated by Proposition 1.
Does the union waiver in Prop. 1 make you more or less likely to vote for it?
Hey, way to turn your op-ed page into a push-poll.
But regardless, the entire premise of this attack is bizarre: That it’s somehow unseemly for unions to contribute money to an initiative that might benefit unions. Well, duh-uh. I don’t see the editorial page expressing outrage at the airline, hotel, and restaurant industries investing money in the No campaign in a blatant effort to preserve their profit margins. Because that’s how politics works.