If this is a good policy because of the record profits of grocery chains why do we need an exemption to make sure stores don't close in low income communities? If you really think those other stores closed just to spite the SCC then you have an over exaggerated view of the grandeur of the SCC. Businesses, especially large chains, close when a location is no longer profitable to run..full stop. If we are now going to tacitly admit that this policy has an adverse impact on a low margin business than we should just not have the policy rather than creating special privileges for just a few. The irony here is the KCC is creating inequity in the name of equity. Great job guys!

I live in Skyway and as soon as I read they were doing hazard pay in King County my first thought was, "well that finally gives Safeway an excuse to close." So much theft goes on at both the Skyway and Renton Safeways I wouldn't doubt if one or both are shuttered. But hey, still got grocery outlet amiright?

" Businesses, especially large chains, close when a location is no longer profitable to run..full stop."

That is simply not true. It is very common for businesses to prop up a franchise (of if they aren't different franchises, to simply live with a store that isn't making money). It is a bad idea to just close a store if it is struggling a little bit. You lose overall market share, and it also sends a bad message.

On the other hand, it is quite common for companies to make a statement -- even an unprofitable one. This happened with the Sonics. The NBA lost money when they went to Oklahoma City (it is a much smaller market). But it sent a message to every city: If you don't subsidize the team with lavish arenas, the team could move.

My guess is the QFC stores was the result of both. The company has made a ton of money -- they didn't need to close the stores. But those stores were probably not very productive, and this allowed them to "send a message" without costing the company much at all (in the short or long term). No one is thinking "oh no, maybe QFC is going out of business", they are thinking "what dicks, they closed the stores to avoid paying more people money" or maybe "fucking city council, they forced the QFC out of business". Either message works for QFC, which is why this isn't a coincidence.

@1:

Yeah, that sounds great: just the sort of people the general public wants handling their produce, meat, and bakery goods...

@4:

A lot of those essential workers HAVE been lobbying - some for nearly a year now - for exactly what you suggest; and of course their bosses in the health care industry have been fighting tooth-and-claw against it, because, in the middle of a global pandemic they're more concerned with maintaining stock valuation or profit-margins than they are about the workers who generate that revenue for them.

While it is true that there are other essential workers out there that you could argue should also get hazard pay, not all businesses can absorb the cost.

Kroger made record profits last year, and paid out $1 Billion in stock buybacks to their shareholders last year. While other businesses suffered due to the epidemic, grocery stores have made bank. If they can afford to give $1 billion to their shareholders, they can afford to pay their workers an extra $4 p/hr for a few months.

On the other hand, hospitals (clinics, dentists, etc) been losing money. People have been avoiding going to the doctor during the pandemic. Elective surgeries have often been canceled or delayed. Death from other causes besides Covid have actually gone up dramatically because people are afraid to go to their doctor even when they should. Hospitals and clinics are making some extra money caring for Covid patients, but it doesn't offset the losses in other care that is being canceled or delayed. So while nurses, EMTs, and so on are probably equally deserving of hazard pay, the hospitals and clinics they work in are losing money during the pandemic. Where's the money to pay them going to come from?

The hazard pay for grocery workers isn't a perfect law and it excludes other essential workers that probably deserve it as well. But it is much easier to demand the extra pay from businesses that are making record profits than it is from businesses that are losing money due to the pandemic.

@5 I don’t think the NBA is a great model to point to for this example. I’ll grant you a business may operate for a time at a loss but the moment the long term outlook turns negative it gets closed. I can’t think of one example where a business closed a profitable location to make a political point or kept open an unprofitable location with no prospect of a turnaround.

@8 organize into a union that can support some of the upcoming county/city elections and you too can be granted special favors. Will anyone be surprised when the grocery workers union makes a hearty contribution to Mosqueda’s war chest?

Claiming that a big company can afford to prop up an unprofitable store means you think the company's customers at other stores should subsidize the customers of the unprofitable store.

@7:

"So while nurses, EMTs, and so on are probably equally deserving of hazard pay, the hospitals and clinics they work in are losing money during the pandemic. Where's the money to pay them going to come from?"

Well, if we had universal health insurance, like every other industrialized nation in the world already has, you wouldn't even need to pose that question.

Shorter @9:

"How DARE unions fight to protect their members from being exploited by their employers - why, the NERVE!"

@10:

And you think that doesn't happen as a matter of course, especially in the grocery industry? Why do you think prices at QFC tend to be higher than at Freddie's, even though both chains are owned by the same parent company, both get products from the same delivery-and-distribution chain, and from the same suppliers?

Why does that sneeze guard at the counter in the photo have a big hole to sneeze and cough through?

I've got a better idea.

Establish a local system of forced labor for all millionaires breaking any laws, forcing them to work off their debt to society by working for $1 a year for the duration of their sentences.

We can install speed traps at all downtown exits and set up chain gangs of the uber wealthy to work in grocery stores in non-wealthy areas.

I fail to see how an extra $4 per hour will properly compensate employees for hazards in the workplace. Are people walking off the job because they don't want to die for $15/hr? But are OK with it at $19/hr?

Wouldn't we be better off subsidizing better PPE for the workers? Maybe moving them up the vaccine priority list and having the employer provide periodic Covid testing. Or if we increase the pay, it is done with the idea of cutting employees' hours and exposure without making that hit them in the pocketbook.

Employee safety is handled by providing training, proper equipment and procedures. Not paying them more and hoping that they'll just get over it.

"It’s appropriate for the government to come in and balance the scales a little bit." - how did this clown get elected?

@16: By the people who hope to be on the receiving end of benefits from the re-balancing.