Initiative Measure 124 (Seattle)

Last updated

Initiative Measure 124 was a ballot measure in Seattle, Washington, regulating labor relations in the hotel industry, that was passed by popular vote on November 8, 2016. The initiative was placed on the ballot by UNITE HERE Local 8, a union that represents workers in the hospitality industry. [1] [2] Supporters of the measure see it as bringing a measure of justice to exploited workers. Opponents say the new law is unfair to guests, too expensive to implement, and unfairly advantages unions.

Contents

In 2019, the Seattle City Council repealed the original initiative, and replaced it with four separate laws, re-written and modified with the intent to survive the pending and anticipated lawsuits concerning a single subject for the initiative, and changing the employer healthcare mandate to avoid interfering with federal laws concerning employee benefits, which pre-empt state or local laws. [3]

Legislative history

Initiative Measure 124 was sponsored by UNITE HERE Local 8. Stefan Moritz, a union official, filed the initial text of the initiative with Seattle's city clerk on April 5, 2016. The union began collecting signatures to get the measure on the November ballot in May 2016. The final text of the initiative was filed on May 6. The union submitted its petition signatures on June 22 and King County Elections issued a Letter of Sufficiency on July 15. The final text of the ballot title was issued on July 28. [2] [4] [5] The measure passed on November 8, 2016 and became a city ordinance with full effect on November 30 after a proclamation by Mayor Ed Murray. [6] [7]

Provisions

The initiative requires hotels with 60 or more rooms to issue "panic buttons" to employees that work alone in guest rooms. Hotels are required to keep lists of guests accused of assault or harassment for five years from the date of the last accusation involving any given guest. All relevant documents must be retained for the same period. Any guest accused of assault, sexual assault, or sexual harassment must be banned from the hotel for a minimum of three years. A mere accusation is sufficient to require a ban. No investigation is required. There is no provision for appeals. Workers must be given paid time to make a police report and be given the option to work in a different area of the hotel. Police may only be contacted with the permission of the worker. Hotels are required to warn guests about these rules with a placard written in a large font placed on the interior side of their room doors. [2] [4] [5] [8]

Under the initiative, when a hotel is sold the new owners are required to offer employees of the previous owner work before hiring replacement staff. This requirement applies from the day of sale until six months after the hotel is open to the public while under the management of the new employer. If during the first 90 days of operations the new owner finds that it needs fewer workers, staff must be retained by order of seniority. During this 90 day period staff may not be otherwise dismissed except for cause. Workers must be provided with a written performance evaluation at the end of this period; these records must be retained for at least three years. Conspicuous public notice of change of ownership, including contact information for the new owners, must be posted within five days after a sale is agreed to and must remain posted for six months after the hotel has been open to the public under new management. This provision applies to hotels with 60 rooms or more. [2] [4] [5]

The initiative requires large hotels to limit the workload of cleaning staff to 5,000 square feet per eight-hour shift and regulates the handling of cleaning chemicals. Cleaners assigned space over this limit would be paid at time-and-a-half wage. This provision applies to hotels with 100 rooms or more. [2] [4] [5]

The initiative requires large hotels that don't offer health benefits to pay staff a monthly stipend to help them buy insurance. Qualifying workers would receive an amount based on their income, family size, the federal poverty line, and the lowest premium offered on the Washington Health Benefits Exchange for a gold-level policy. This provision applies to hotels with 100 or more rooms. [2] [4] [5]

Workers can enforce these rights by filing a complaint with the City of Seattle or filing suit in King County Superior Court. Penalties issued against hotels go to the complainant, affected workers, and the city Office of Civil Rights. The measure prohibits employer retaliation for exercising any of these rights. The law has a rebuttable presumption that any adverse action taken against an employee within 90 days of exercising any of these rights is an act of illegal retaliation. [2] [6] [4]

Union-shop exemption

Except for the provisions relating to assault, sexual assault, and sexual harassment, every part of this measure can be waived in a union-shop through collective bargaining. [4]

Debate

Opposition

The Seattle Times editorial board opposed the initiative. They wrote, "If the safety of Seattle hotel employees is a problem, the laws that protect them should be strengthened. Seattle ballot Initiative 124 is a sloppy, possibly illegal first draft that should be rejected by voters." [8]

Support

Seattle Weekly endorsed the initiative. They wrote, "Critics of the initiative—largely hotel-industry representatives—call the measure's stipulations overreaching and Draconian. They say many hotels already have these kinds of protections in place. They also point to I-124's union-exemption clause: If workers belong to a union, their hotel will not be subject to some of the measure's stipulations, to allow for freer collective bargaining. We ourselves recognize that the union exemption may be faintly disguised self-interest; employers might find the law onerous, leading them to encourage unionization in hopes of a better deal. But if the byproduct of passing I-124 is a stronger local union, so be it. We believe the result is a step toward justice for a long-exploited class of workers, union-backed or no." [9]

Litigation

The American Hotel & Lodging Association, its Washington state chapter, and its Seattle chapter all filed suit in Washington state court to block Initiative Measure 124 in December 2016.

On December 24, 2018, a Washington State Court of Appeals threw out I-124 in its entirety, holding that it unconstitutionally contains multiple unrelated topics.

After a King County Superior Court ruled in favor of the initiative, the state Supreme Court last January declined to hear a direct appeal and sent it to the Court of Appeals for further review.

The Appeals Court found that I-124 contains multiple separate parts, including:

The statement for and against Initiative 124 is here.

See also

Related Research Articles

Arbitration, in the context of the law of the United States, is a form of alternative dispute resolution. Specifically, arbitration is an alternative to litigation through which the parties to a dispute agree to submit their respective evidence and legal arguments to a neutral third party for resolution. In practice arbitration is generally used as a substitute for litigation, particularly when the judicial process is perceived as too slow, expensive or biased. In some contexts, an arbitrator may be described as an umpire.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sexual harassment</span> Unwanted sexual attention or advances

Sexual harassment is a type of harassment involving the use of explicit or implicit sexual overtones, including the unwelcome and inappropriate promises of rewards in exchange for sexual favors. Sexual harassment can be physical and/or a demand or request for sexual favors, making sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography, and any other unwelcome physical, verbal, or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature, verbal. Sexual harassment includes a range of actions from verbal transgressions to sexual abuse or assault. Harassment can occur in many different social settings such as the workplace, the home, school, or religious institutions. Harassers or victims can be of any gender.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">UNITE HERE</span> Labor union in the United States and Canada

UNITE HERE is a labor union in the United States and Canada with roughly 300,000 active members. The union's members work predominantly in the hotel, food service, laundry, warehouse, and casino gaming industries. The union was formed in 2004 by the merger of Union of Needletrades, Industrial, and Textile Employees (UNITE) and Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union (HERE).

Trade unions in Malaysia are regulated by the Trade Unions Act of 1959 and the Industrial Relations Act of 1967.

The National Labor Relations Board, an agency within the United States government, was created in 1935 as part of the National Labor Relations Act. Among the NLRB's chief responsibilities is the holding of elections to permit employees to vote whether they wish to be represented by a particular labor union. Congress amended the Act in 1947 through the Taft–Hartley Act to give workers the ability to decertify an already recognized or certified union as well. This article describes, in a very summary manner, the procedures that the NLRB uses to hold such elections, as well as the circumstances in which a union may obtain the right to represent a group of employees without an election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arbitration clause</span> Contract clause requiring parties to resolve disputes via arbitration

In contract law, an arbitration clause is a clause in a contract that requires the parties to resolve their disputes through an arbitration process. Although such a clause may or may not specify that arbitration occur within a specific jurisdiction, it always binds the parties to a type of resolution outside the courts, and is therefore considered a kind of forum selection clause.

The Employee Free Choice Act is the name for several legislative bills on US labor law which have been proposed and sometimes introduced into one or both chambers of the U.S. Congress.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Employment Relations Act 2000</span> Statute of the Parliament of New Zealand

The New Zealand Employment Relations Act 2000 is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand. It was substantially amended by the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2001 and by the ERAA 2004.

Equal Rights Advocates (ERA) is an American non-profit gender justice/women's rights organization that was founded in 1974. ERA is a legal and advocacy organization for advancing rights and opportunities for women, girls, and people of gender identities through legal cases and policy advocacy.

Indian labour law refers to law regulating labour in India. Traditionally, the Indian government at the federal and state levels has sought to ensure a high degree of protection for workers, but in practice, this differs due to the form of government and because labour is a subject in the concurrent list of the Indian Constitution.

Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the authority of states to regulate the electoral process, and the point at which state regulations of the electoral process violate the First Amendment freedoms.

South African labour law regulates the relationship between employers, employees and trade unions in the Republic of South Africa.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013</span> Act of the Parliament of India

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 is a legislative act in India that seeks to protect women from sexual harassment at their place of work. It was passed by the Lok Sabha on 3 September 2012. It was passed by the Rajya Sabha on 26 February 2013. The Bill got the assent of the President on 23 April 2013. The Act came into force from 9 December 2013. This statute superseded the Vishaka Guidelines for Prevention Of Sexual Harassment (POSH) introduced by the Supreme Court (SC) of India. It was reported by the International Labour Organization that very few Indian employers were compliant to this statute. Most Indian employers have not implemented the law despite the legal requirement that any workplace with more than 10 employees need to implement it. According to a FICCI-EY November 2015 report, 36% of Indian companies and 25% among MNCs are not compliant with the Sexual Harassment Act, 2013. The government has threatened to take stern action against employers who fail to comply with this law.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Arkansas since the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015, striking down same-sex marriage bans nationwide. Prior to this, same-sex marriage in Arkansas was briefly legal for a period beginning on May 9, 2014, as a result of a ruling by Sixth Judicial Circuit Judge Chris Piazza striking down the state's constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage as violating the U.S. Constitution. Approximately 541 same-sex couples received marriage licenses in several counties before the Arkansas Supreme Court stayed his ruling pending appeal on May 16, 2014.

Sexual harassment in the workplace in US labor law has been considered a form of discrimination on the basis of sex in the United States since the mid-1970s. There are two forms of sexual harassment recognized by United States law: quid pro quo sexual harassment and behavior that creates a hostile work environment. It has been noted that a number of the early sexual harassment cases were brought by African American women and girls.

Initiative 77 was a voter-approved ballot initiative in Washington, D.C., to phase out the special minimum wage for tipped employees as part of the national Fight for $15 campaign. In the June 2018 primary election, D.C. voters approved Initiative 77 by a margin of 56% to 44%; however, the D.C. Council repealed the initiative in October before it could enter into force. In 2022, a nearly identical Initiative 82 was approved for the November 8, 2022 election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2022 Illinois elections</span>

A general election was held in the U.S. state of Illinois on November 8, 2022. The elections for United States Senate and United States House of Representatives, Governor, statewide constitutional officers, Illinois Senate, and Illinois House were held on this date.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 22</span> Gig economy workers employment status ballot initiative

Proposition 22 was a ballot initiative in California that became law after the November 2020 state election, passing with 59% of the vote and granting app-based transportation and delivery companies an exception to Assembly Bill 5 by classifying their drivers as "independent contractors", rather than "employees". The law exempts employers from providing the full suite of mandated employee benefits while instead giving drivers new protections:

In Malaysia, sexual harassment, as defined by the Employment Act 1955Archived 11 November 2020 at the Wayback Machine, is “any unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, whether verbal, non-verbal, visual, gestural or physical, directed at a person which is offensive, humiliating or a threat to their well-being”. The Act does not distinguish between male and female or employer and employee. As such, sexual harassment can be committed by a female against a male, or an employee against an employer.

Initiative 82 was a voter-approved ballot initiative in Washington, D.C., to phase out the special minimum wage for tipped employees as part of the national Fight for $15 campaign. In the November 2022 general election, D.C. voters approved Initiative 82 by a margin of 74% to 26%, though about 12% of all participating voters did not vote on the initiative. It was nearly identical to Initiative 77, a ballot measure in the 2018 primary election that was approved by D.C. voters but later overturned by the D.C. Council before it could enter into force.

References

  1. ↑ Bryson, Donna (November 23, 2016). "US hotel and casino workers fight back against violence and harassment". Equal Times. Retrieved March 7, 2017.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Groover, Heidi (May 9, 2016). "Union-Backed Initiative Would Require New Sexual Harassment Protections for Hotel Housekeepers". The Stranger . Retrieved March 7, 2017.
  3. ↑ "The legal challenges related to Initiative 124 aren't over". Seattle City Council Insight. December 18, 2019. Earlier this year, Initiative 124 was working its way through the court system — and losing badly. But over the summer Council member Teresa Mosqueda rewrote it to address its legal shortcomings, successfully shepherded the reworked version through the Council's legislative process, and got the Council to repeal the original I-124 ordinance. ... In rewriting it, however, Mosqueda broke it up into four separate ordinances, and passed each one separately;
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "Proposed Initiative Petition Submittal Receipt: Initiative No. 124" (PDF). Office of the City Clerk of Seattle. April 5, 2016. Retrieved March 7, 2017.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Stiles, Marc (July 26, 2016). "Seattle voters to decide whether to protect hotel maids". Puget Sound Business Journal . Retrieved March 7, 2017.
  6. 1 2 Murray, Ed (November 30, 2016). "Mayor's Proclamation, November 30, 2016" (PDF). Office of the City Clerk of Seattle. Retrieved March 7, 2017.
  7. ↑ "Clerk File 319639: Initiative Measure No. 124". Office of the City Clerk of Seattle. Retrieved March 7, 2017.
  8. 1 2 "The Times recommends: Reject Seattle I-124 on hotel safety standards". The Seattle Times . October 11, 2016. Retrieved March 7, 2017.
  9. ↑ "Vote Yes on I-124 to Protect Seattle Hotel Workers". Seattle Weekly . October 21, 2016. Retrieved March 7, 2017.
  10. ↑ kevinsch (December 24, 2018). "Appeals court tosses I-124". SCC Insight. Retrieved January 14, 2019.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.