Comments

1
How can the government sign a confidentiality agreement with a private company without a national security issue. This information should be available through the state public disclosure act.
2
Yeah I want to see a court case on @1. Anyone got it going?

If OLS fucked up bad and boxed themselves into a corner, such a bad corner let's say for discussion they really can't talk about it, then they need to be doing a postmortem on "how not to fuck up like that ever again."
3
I had the same thought as @1 and @2. Can the city really sign a confidentiality agreement in a situation like this? What is the justification? Sounds sketchy.
4
Agree with above comments. Thank God the city is getting a new mayor next month, hopefully one with greater concern for Seattle wage earners.
5
I imagine the company threatened to tie up the money in court for a couple more years, and this was the best deal the city could get short term. Justice delayed for the working poor can be justice denied. Please somebody sue to end the gag order so we can find out the sleazy details.
6
Who is the city here? The city attorney?
7
Thanks for bringing this up. This is another illustration why workers should be running their work places. Capitalism thrives on cheap labor. When workers run their work places the community benefits and poverty diminishes. It is not impossible.
8
@7 hey, is there a directory of worker-owned businesses? I'm sure there are ones I could use but I just don't know about them.
9
Confidential settlement? On a matter of public concern, a violation of state/municipal law? Strangers lawyers can get a court to order that document released in a hot minute.
10
First, this isn't a confidential settlement, because there is a link to it in the post. Someone at OLS or the CAO clearly forgot to strike the words "confidential" from the heading in the final draft. You all read the article, right?

Second, OLS is a taxpayer-funded government agency with a handful of staff, an enforcement mission, and a city-wide case load - not this union's legal department. If the union thought it could do better than $190,000 dollars for its members with no resources laid out, they have a CBA and a duty of fair representation, and there is a whole community of lawyers that could have arbitrated the wage dispute, and been paid by the dues the union collects from the workers. It's easy for the union to criticize from the sidelines when it is not responsible for collecting the evidence and putting it on in court. And unions do act rationally; unions settle arbitrations for less than every dollar alleged all - the - time. This is a win for the workers, if not for their union's management.

Could OLS do better? Sure. It is a new agency, and I am sure that some of the lessons of this case will stick.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.