>>> GOOD AFTERNOON, THANK YOU
FOR BEING HERE, IT IS THURSDAY,
JUNE 27, 2019, AND THE SPECIAL
HOUSING, HEALTH, ENERGY, AND
WORKERS
COME TO ORDER, IT IS 12:02 PM.
I AM TERESA MOSQUEDA, THE
CHAIR, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR
ANNOUNCEMENT AS WELL IN SUPPORT
OF THE LEGISLATION.
WE HAVE 4 ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.
ALL OF THESE ITEMS ARE RELATED
TO THE HOTEL WORKER PROTECTION
LEGISLATION, CB 119554, CB
119555, CB 119556, CB 119557.
I'M REALLY HAPPY TO SEE A FULL
AUDIENCE HERE TODAY, AS MANY OF
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE BEEN HAVING
ONGOING CONVERSATIONS OVER THE
LAST TWO OR THREE MONTHS, I
WANT TO TAKE THE CHANCE TO
THINK THE HOTEL MANAGERS, THE
WORKERS WHO PRESENTED, PEOPLE
WHO HAVE COMMON HOSTED EVENTS
AT THE SEATTLE LIBRARY, TO TALK
ABOUT SOME OF THEIR EXPERIENCES
AS WELL, THANK YOU FOR DOING
THAT, JUST AS A REMINDER, TALK
ABOUT THIS LITTLE BIT LATER, WE
WILL HAVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
PEOPLE TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY
TODAY THROUGHOUT THE NEXT FEW
WEEKS, COMING UP ON JULY 2 IN
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, WE WILL TALK
A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT
BEFORE THE END OF THE MEETING.
THERE'S THAT'S THOSE ARE THE
FOUR ITEMS AND IF THERE ARE NO
OBJECTIONS, I WILL APPROVE THE
AGENDA.>>> BEFORE WE GET TO THE
DETAILS, WHEN WE GO FORWARD TO
PUBLIC COMMENT, WE HAVE TWO
MINUTES RIDGE PERSON, WE HAVE A
LOT OF FOLKS SIGNED UP, -- PER
EACH PERSON.
RECOGNIZE THERE WILL BE MANY
MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO UPPER --
TESTIFIED IN THE NEXT THREE OR
FOUR WEEKS.
PUBLIC COMMENT, THE FIRST
PERSON WE HAVE IS FROM HOTEL
NEXIS, AND FOLLOWED BY KEVIN
DOORS, AND WELCOME COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ.
WELCOME.
PLEASE CORRECT MY
PRONUNCIATION.
>> YOU ARE CORRECT.
>>> MY NAME IS SHAISHA DAMJE,
WE OWN THE HOTEL IN NORTHGATE,
WE I SIT ON THE SMALL BUSINESS
ADVISORY COUNCIL, WE HAVE
SUPPORTED PROGRESSIVE
LEGISLATION, SUCH AS THE
MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE, PAID
FAMILY LEAVE AND PANIC BUTTONS
FOR HOTEL EMPLOYEES.
IS A IMMIGRANT BUSINESS OWNER,
I WANT TO MAKE THIS A VIBRANT
COMMUNITY FOR ALL, BUT THE
PROPOSED LEGISLATION IS THE
TOLLING FOR THE DEATHKNELL OF
FAMILY AND LOCALLY OWNED
BUSINESSES IN SEATTLE.
AS WE CAME OUT OF THE GREAT
RECESSION, HOTEL REVENUES BEGAN
TO RISE TO PRERECESSION LEVELS,
HOWEVER, EVERY DOLLAR HAS GONE
TOWARDS INCREASED LABOR COSTS
AND OTHER EXPENSES.
EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR.
IN 2019, REVENUES ARE DOWN
AGAIN, SIERRA HOTELS ARE DOWN
DOUBLE DIGITS, OUR HOTEL IS
DOWN OVER 15% REVENUES THIS
YEAR, BUT THE IMPACT IS
CONSIDERABLY HIGHER, LABOR AND
OTHER EXPENSES CONTINUE TO RISE
SUBSTANTIALLY.
THE COST WOULD BE $850,000 PER
YEAR, THIS IS NOT AN AMOUNT
THAT WE CAN AFFORD.
THE COST INCREASE TO 850 YEAR
THAT'S 150 -- A 150 ROOM WILL
BE THE STRAW THAT BROKE THE
CAMELS BACK.
THE SOLUTION IS TO WORK WITH
THE STATE TO OFFER MORE
AFFORDABLE OPTIONS AND A PUBLIC
OPTION, THE SOLUTION IS NOT TO
IMPOSE A COMPLETELY ARBITRARY
DOLLAR REQUIREMENT ON ONE
INDUSTRY, THIS IS NOT GOING TO
SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF HEALTHCARE
COSTS.
THE HOTEL NEXIS, AND OTHERS
WERE ALREADY EXCEEDING THE
OBAMACARE REQUIREMENTS, AND WE
WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO,
OFFERING GOLD STANDARD
HEALTHCARE TO OUR EMPLOYEES.
THE MEDICAL ACCESS BILL TARGETS
ONLY ONE INDUSTRY, IN REGARDS
-- REQUIRES PAYMENT WITHOUT
REGARD TO INCOME OR EMPLOYEE
CONTRIBUTION, I'VE TRIED OF THE
LAST FEW YEARS TO REMAIN
POSITIVE, AND OPEN TO THIS
PROGRESSES -- PROGRESSIVE
LEGISLATION, AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY.
>> WELCOME KEVIN.
>>> THANK YOU.
MY NAME IS KEVIN NOURSE, I AM A
HEALTH INSURANCE CONSULTANT IN
THE SEATTLE AREA WITH A LOCALLY
OWNED FIRM, SINCE 1937,
SPEAKING WITH REGARD TO THE
ORDINANCE ON THE MEDICAL ACCESS
PROVISIONS, MY COLLEAGUES AND I
REPRESENT A NUMBER OF HOTEL AND
RESTAURANT CLIENTS IN THIS AREA
IN THEIR PURSUIT TO PROVIDE THE
BEST LEVEL OF BENEFITS TO
EMPLOYEES, WE CONSIDER THE
EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS ARE
CLIENTS -- AS OUR CLIENTS.
DEMONSTRATING YEAR AFTER YEAR A
COMMITMENT TO PROVIDING
EMPLOYEES WITH ATTRACTIVE AND
COMPETITIVE BENEFIT PACKAGES,
PARTICULARLY IN THIS
COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE.
THE PROVISIONS OF THE MEDICAL
ACCESS BILL THAT REQUIRE THEM
TO PAY SIGNIFICANT SUMS OF
MONEY TO ENSURE THEIR
INDEPENDENCE, DON'T HAVE BASIS
IN THE REALITY OF THE
MARKETPLACE IN WHICH WE WORK,
IT IGNORES HOW UNDERWRITING
TAKES PLACE, FOR EMPLOYERS, THE
PREMIUMS ARE SET BY THE LEVEL
OF THE BENEFITS, AS WELL AS THE
HEALTH STATUS OF EMPLOYEES
REFLECTED IN THEIR CLAIMS
EXPERIENCE.
THE PRICE OF COVERAGE DOES NOT
NECESSARILY EQUAL THE QUALITY
OF COVERAGE, IT SEEMS TO BE A
BLUNT HAMMER APPROACH, WITH THE
COST OF COVERAGE.
THE ACA, UNDER THE OBAMA
MINISTRATION CREATED A
ACTUARIAL GUIDELINE, BASED UPON
TEARS TO ASSIGN QUALITY OF
COVERAGE FOR DIFFERENT LEVELS
OF BENEFITS, PLACING A
ARBITRARY VALUE DOES NOT
PROPERLY MEASURE THE REAL VALUE
OF THIS COVERAGE.
I AM INTERESTED IN
UNDERSTANDING HOW THE MONTHLY
PREMIUM AMOUNTS WERE DERIVED,
LOOKING AT SEVERAL INDUSTRY
CLIENTS, THE AMOUNTS ARE IN
EXCESS OF 100% OF THE FULL COST
OF COVERAGE FOR ALL EMPLOYMENT
TEARS, EMPLOYEE AN INDEPENDENT,
WE DO NOT SEE ANY INDUSTRY
VEHICLE IN WHICH EMPLOYEES HAVE
NO, SHARING, EVEN MOST PUBLIC
ENTITIES REQUIRE PREMIUM
SHARING.
BASED ON THESE LEVELS, THE
EMPLOYERS WOULD NOT BE IN A
POSITION TO THAT THEY WOULD
HAVE TO REDUCE BENEFIT LEVELS,
IF NOT TAKE MORE DRASTIC STEPS.
>> THANK YOU, WE WILL BE HAPPY
TO TAKE YOUR OTHER COMMENTS AS
WELL.
I KNOW I HAD TO RUSH YOU, WE
WILL BE FOLLOWING UP, I DID
HEAR SOME SUGGESTIONS AROUND
THE CALCULATION, AN INTERESTING
CONVERSATION ABOUT INDIVIDUAL
VERSUS LARGE GROUP MARKET,
THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.
>>> THE NEXT PERSON WE HAVE IS
LEAH LAVER.
>> IT IS LEAH LAVAR, I
REPRESENT SOME HOTELS NEAR YOU,
THANK YOU FOR HEARING US, THE
FIRST THING I'D LIKE TO SEIZE
THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE
TEAMS IS OF THAT WORK -- UTMOST
IMPORTANCE TO ME AND TO US, I
HAVE PERSONALLY REVIEWED THE
DRAFT SCOTT AND THEY ARE VASTLY
DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS
ORIGINALLY SHARED, WE ARE
ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO
REVIEW AND PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON
THESE INITIATIVES.
>> THAT IS A GOOD REMINDER FOR
ME TO REMIND FOLKS, THERE WAS
CONFUSION, SOME FOLKS THOUGHT
THERE WAS A VOTE TODAY, THIS IS
NOT SCHEDULED FOR A VOTE TODAY,
WE DO HAVE SOME TIME, FIVE OR
SIX WEEKS.
HELLO ANNA.
>> I AM ANNA BOONE, ON BEHALF
OF THE SEATTLE HOTEL
ASSOCIATION, WE REPRESENT HOTEL
OPERATORS THROUGHOUT THE SEASON
-- THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
THE LEGISLATION AFFECTS ALL OF
THEM, INCLUDING GUESTS AND
EMPLOYEES.
EVERY MEMBER OF THE TEAM IS
CRITICAL FOR HOSPITALITY,
MAKING SURE EACH EMPLOYEE IS
SAFE IN THE WORKPLACE.
THE SEATTLE HOTEL ASSOCIATION
CONTINUES TO SUPPORT PANIC
BUTTONS AS AN IMPORTANT
COMPONENT OF EMPLOYEE SAFETY,
WE WERE PROUD TO SUPPORT
LEGISLATION THAT ADDRESSES THIS
STATEWIDE CART REQUIRING PANIC
BUTTONS THROUGHOUT WASHINGTON.
WE HAVE BEEN COMMITTED TO
PROVIDING FEEDBACK TO MAKE SURE
THAT THE LEGISLATION PROTECTS
OUR EMPLOYEES, WHILE
CONSIDERING THE COMPLEXITIES OF
HOTEL OPERATIONS, WE BELIEVE
THERE IS STILL WORK TO BE DONE.
FOR EXAMPLE IS YOU HAVE HEARD,
THE REQUIRED EXPENDITURES FOR
EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING PART-TIME,
FAR EXCEED THE COST OF
PROVIDING HIGH QUALITY HEALTH
COVERAGE.
THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT WE NEED
TO CONTINUE TO WORK TO RESOLVE.
WE ALSO QUESTION YOUR DECISION
TO INCLUDE NON-HOTEL EMPLOYEES
AND SMALL BUSINESSES IN THIS
LEGISLATION, SIMPLY BECAUSE
THEY MIGHT BE A TENANT OF A
HOTEL.
THIS LEGISLATION IS MOVING
QUICKLY, INCLUDING SPECIAL
MEETINGS LIKE THIS ONE TODAY,
AND I URGE THAT WE TOGETHER
TAKE THE TIME TO MAKE SURE WE
GET THIS RIGHT, WE LOOK FORWARD
TO CONTINUING TO PROVIDE
FEEDBACK AS PART OF THE PROCESS
TO ENSURE THAT THE FINAL
LEGISLATION FURTHERS OUR
COMMITMENT TO OUR EMPLOYEES,
AND OUR ABILITY TO PROVIDE
WORLD-CLASS HOSPITALITY HERE IN
SEATTLE.
>> THINGS ANNA.
-- THANK YOU ANNA.
AND FOLLOWED BY ISAAC, WELCOME,
AND A GROUP FROM UNITE HERE.
WELCOME ISAAC.>> MY NAME IS
ISAAC, I AM WITH WASHINGTON
CARE, I WORKED WITH A HOTEL IN
SEATTLE, AND THE HOUSEKEEPING
STAFF, I WAS THE ONLY SPANISH-
SPEAKING FRONT DESK WORKER, THE
WORKERS WONDERFUL, THEY
REMINDED ME OF MEMBERS OF MY
OWN FAMILY WITH THEIR KIND IN
PLAYFUL PERSONALITIES, YET HARD-
WORKING DEMEANOR.
ALL THE WORKERS ALWAYS GAVE
THEIR ALL, NEVER COMPLAINING
ABOUT THE PHYSICAL TOLL THIS
WORK HAS ON THEIR BODY, THEY
CAN TESTIFY THEMSELVES, IT IS
INTENSE WORK AT?
PACE.
ONE OF THE -- QUICK PACE.
ONE OF THE HOUSEKEEPERS,
NORMAL, I GOT INJURED ON THE
JOB, SLIPPED AND FALLING WHILE
CLEANING THE BATHROOM, HURTING
HERSELF, WHICH MAY DOING THIS
PHYSICALLY DEMANDING JOB EVEN
MORE DIFFICULT AND PAIN
INDUCING, SHE HAD TO KEEP
CLEANING THE ROOM SHE WAS
ASSIGNED, TWO THE NEXT DAY OFF,
SHE DIDN'T SEE A DOCTOR BECAUSE
SHE COULDN'T AFFORD TO DO SO.
ALREADY WORKING FULL-TIME AT
THE HOTEL, ON HER DAYS OFF,
WORKING TO CLEAN INDIVIDUAL
HOUSES AS AN EXTRA SOURCE OF
REVENUE, YET SHE COULDN'T
AFFORD TO GO SEE A DOCTOR.
NORMA STORY IS NOT AN ANOMALY,
IN FACT IT IS A STORY THAT MANY
HOTEL WORKERS CAN RESONATE
WITH.
WE URGED THE MEMBERS OF THE
HOUSING, HEALTH, ENERGY, AND
WORKERS
THE COUNCIL AS A WHOLE, TO
SUPPORT THE LEGISLATION IN ITS
ENTIRETY, ALONG WITH ANY
LEGISLATION BROUGHT FORWARD.
WE THINK YOU CHAIR MOSQUEDA,
AND LORENA GONZALEZ, FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP AND SUPPORT, IN
DEFENDING THESE HARD-FOUGHT
RIGHTS FOR SEATTLE HOTEL
WORKERS.
>>> THE NEXT GROUP WE HAVE
SIGNED UP IS FROM UNITE LOCAL
EIGHT, WILL GIVE FOLKS FIVE
MINUTES, IF THERE IS MORE THAN
TWO PEOPLE.
AFTER THAT, MARCIA, AND THEN
GRACE.
WELCOME.
AND PULL THE MICROPHONE CLOSE.
>> COUNCILMEMBERS, MY NAME IS
LOLA, I AM A HOUSEKEEPER, OF
EDGEWATER, I'M A MEMBER OF THE
UNION, I AM HERE WITH 2 OTHER
WORKERS, GIVING OUR SUPPORT,
AND THANK YOU FOR THE LAW.
YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT TODAY,
WORKING AS HOUSEKEEPERS, I WAS
ASSAULTED BY HOTEL GUESTS.
I HAVE TOLD THE STORY OF WHAT
HAPPENED TO ME, FIGHTING FOR
HOTEL WORKERS, BUT IT WAS VERY
HARD.
FOR ME.
MANY OF US FELT THAT PEOPLE
WOULD NOT BELIEVE ME, OR WOULD
SAY IT WAS MY FAULT.
THE -- THEY HAVE BEEN KIND,
AFTER THEY -- I DID NOT HAVE
HOPE.
WE HAVE HAD TO FIGHT SO HARD AT
MY HOTEL, JUST TO GET PANIC
BUTTONS AS A RIGHT.
IT FEELS LIKE NOBODY WAS
THINKING ABOUT OUR RIGHTS TO
GET TO WORK, AND FEEL SAFETY.
IT FEELS LIKE NOBODY WAS DOING
ANYTHING TO STOP WHAT HAPPENED
TO ME WERE HAPPENED TO OTHER
WORKERS.
TODAY, I AM FULL OF HOPE, AND
PRIDE, TO SEE THIS LAW
INTRODUCED WHEN WE SHARE OUR
STORY, IMMIGRANT WOMEN, WE NEED
YOU TO DO THIS, AND THROUGH US,
TO ACT, AND TODAY, THE CITY IS
DOING THAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> I'M LISA, I COME FROM THE
PHILIPPINES, I AM WORKING IN
EMBASSY SUITES SEATTLE.
I MOVED IN AMERICA TO MAKE A
BETTER LIFE FOR MY FAMILY.
AND I'M A SINGLE MOM.
SO MY INSURANCE, WE ALL KNOW,
IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE.
AND I HAVE ONE DAUGHTER, I WANT
TO SEND HER TO COLLEGE FOR HER
FUTURE, TO MAKE A BETTER LIFE
THAN I HAVE.
THAT'S WHY MOVED HERE TO
SEATTLE.
THANK YOU.
-- I MOVED HERE.
>> ABBY LAWLER, WITH UNITE
LOCAL EIGHT, WE WHAT -- WE WANT
TO THINK THE COUNCIL FOR
STEPPING IN AFTER THE TERRIBLE
APPELLATE DECISION, THANK YOU
FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP, ENSURING
THAT THESE PROTECTIONS ONCE
AGAIN BECOME SEATTLE LAW.
THE LEGISLATION YOU ARE BEING
BRIEFED ON ACCOMPLISHES TWO
REALLY IMPORTANT GOALS,
REINSTATING THE CORE PROVISIONS
OF INITIATIVE 124 AS APPROVED
BY 77% OF SEATTLE VOTERS, AND
INCORPORATING INSIGHTS THAT WE
HAVE LEARNED FROM THE TWO YEARS
THE LAW WAS IN EFFECT, AND ALSO
THE LITIGATION THAT WE HAVE
SEEN FROM THE HOTEL INDUSTRY.
TO BE CLEAR, WE DON'T EXPECT
ILLEGAL ATTACKS TO EVER GO AWAY,
BUT WE KNOW THAT THEY SHOULDN'T
SERVE AS COVER FOR THE CITY TO
BACK AWAY FROM THE INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT STRIDES THAT HAVE
BEEN TAKEN, IN PARTICULAR ON
THE ISSUES THAT THEY
HIGHLIGHTED, PROTECTING WORKERS
FROM WORKPLACE VIOLENCE AND
EXPANDING HEALTHCARE FOR
WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES,
THIS LEGISLATION BEING
INTRODUCED REPRESENTS NEEDED
ACTION TO ADDRESS THE REAL
LIVED EXPENSES OF HOTEL
WORKERS, TO FINALLY BEGIN TO
RECTIFY THE FEAR, THE
DISCRIMINATION, VIOLENCE,
STRESS, ANXIETY, PAIN, THE
INJUSTICE THAT THESE WOMEN
IMMIGRANTS AND PEOPLE OF COLOR
WHO MAKE THE HOTELS OF THE CITY
RUN, THAT THEY FACE IN THEIR
WORK.
REALLY GRATEFUL FOR THE
COMMITTEE SCHEDULING THE SPECIAL
HEARING ON TUESDAY, YOU ARE
ABLE TO HEAR FROM MANY WORKERS
THAT DAY, I HOPE YOU WILL BE
ABLE TO ATTEND AND HEAR FROM
HOTEL WORKERS THAT DAY.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR BRINGING
THIS PACKAGE OF LEGISLATION
FORWARD, WE LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THE COMMITTEE TO
STRENGTHENING IT AND MAKING
SURE THAT WE THE -- WE GET
THESE PROTECTIONS BACK IN
PLACE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MARCIA, FOLLOWED BY GRACE.
WELCOME.
>> FOR MY BEGINNINGS OF
ACTIVISM IN THE 1960S, I HAVE
STARTED A NUMBER OF
ORGANIZATIONS, I KNOW WHEN WE
PAY THE HIGHEST, THE BEST
PROTECTIONS AND HEALTHCARE IT
WORKS, AND WE WIN.
MUTUAL PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN
AIMED AT BETTERING OUR
COMMUNITY, I NOW FULLY AND
WHOLLY BELIEVE THAT OUR
OBJECTIVE AND GOAL IS ALWAYS,
AND ALWAYS SHOULD BE, MORE
HAPPINESS IN THE WORLD.
AND JUSTICE IS PART OF
HAPPINESS.
WE KNOW THAT JUSTICE AND EQUITY
ARE SURE GUIDES AND COMPANIONS,
AND ANY HOPE FOR BETTER LIVES,
IS IT JUST OR EQUITABLE TO
LEAVE HOTEL WORKERS WITHOUT THE
DECENT PROTECTIONS THAT MATCH
THE TIMES THAT WE ARE IN NOW?
NO, IT IS NOT, FOR THAT MATTER,
IT IS NOT THE MORAL ACT, EITHER.
WILL HOTEL OWNERS, BY DENYING
THEIR EMPLOYEES SAFE WORK
LEASES, HEALTHY WORKPLACES, ADD
TO THEIR OWN OR OUR COMMUNITIES
HAPPINESS?
THEY WILL NOT.
BUT WILL PASSING LEGISLATION
INTO LAW INCREASE THE REAL JUST
AND EQUITABLE HAPPINESS?
YES, AND A GREAT MANY COMMUNITY
WORKERS AND MEMBERS, LGBTQ
INCLUDED, HOTEL GUESTS INCLUDED,
AND IN TRUTH THE OWNERS
THEMSELVES WERE EXPERIENCE THAT
HAPPINESS, MOST ASSUREDLY THEY
WILL, THANK YOU.
>> THING?
SURE, LOVE YOUR ENTHUSIASM.
GRACE, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE
. -- THINK YOU -- THANK YOU,
MARCIA.
>>> MY NAME IS GRACE WONG WITH
THE ASIAN INSTITUTE ON GENDER-
BASED VIOLENCE, THANK YOU FOR
THESE ORDINANCES SUPPORTING THE
SAFETY, ECONOMIC SECURITY AND
HEALTH OF HOTEL WORKERS IN THE
CITY OF SEATTLE.
MY ORGANIZATION IS A NATIONAL
RESOURCE CENTER, PROVIDING
TRAINING, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE,
RESEARCH AND POLICY ANALYSIS,
AND ADVOCACY INVOLVING GENDER-
BASED ANALYSIS, GIVEN THE
SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF ASIAN-
PACIFIC ISLANDER INDIVIDUALS
WHO WORK IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY,
I WANT TO SAY I HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH A FEW
VIEW FOR DECADES AT THIS POINT,
ON THE ISSUE OF GENDER VIOLENCE
IN OUR COMMUNITY, IT IS
HEARTENING TO SEE THAT THIS
ORDINANCE, THE INITIATIVE THAT
ENCOMPASSES THE MEASURES
COVERED IN THE ORDINANCES WERE
SUPPORTED BY 77% OF THE CITY.
IN THE ELECTIONS.
AND THERE IS RECOGNITION OF THE
VULNERABILITY TO VIOLENCE AND
THE HEALTH ISSUES FACING HOTEL
WORKERS.
>>> OFTEN DUE TO LIMITED
ENGLISH AND THAT -- JOB TRAINING
IMITATIONS, WOMEN FACE BARRIERS
SPEAKING ABOUT ABUSE ON THE JOB,
AND WE ALONG WITH VARIOUS
PARTNERS, ALONG WITH UNITE
HERE, HAVE BEEN PROMOTING
SAFETY FROM SEXUAL DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE, SO
IN ADDITION TO THE PANIC
BUTTONS AND MEASURES RELATING
TO PREVENTING ABUSERS FROM
RETURNING, WE ALSO SUPPORT THE
HEALTHCARE AND ECONOMIC
PROTECTIONS IN THE BILL
RELATING TO THE ABILITY OF
SURVIVORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
AND SEXUAL ASSAULT TO BE ABLE
TO RECOVER -- RECOVER, AND
LEAVE ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS AND
RECOVER FROM ABUSE.
THESE PIECES ARE CRITICAL,
ALONG WITH THE PANIC BUTTONS,
AND MAKING SURE THAT HOTEL
WORKERS HAVE ACCESS TO SAFETY
AND SECURITY.
WE ASK THAT THE COUNCILMEMBERS
PASS THESE MEASURES, AND
RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
SAFETY, HEALTH AND AUTONOMY FOR
THESE WORKERS, THANK YOU FOR
YOUR LEADERSHIP.>> THANK YOU, I
SAW A FEW OF THE PEOPLE SIGNED
UP TO TESTIFY WE WILL TAKE THE
SECOND SHEET.
AND I'M EXCITED TO SEE MORE
PEOPLE SIGNING UP.
>>> THE FIRST PERSON IS FROM
LEGAL VOICE, AND MICHAEL CLARK
FROM THE HOTEL ASSOCIATION.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, THANK YOU
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY,
I WORK AT LEGAL VOICE, A
PROGRESSIVE NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATION THAT LITIGATES FOR
WOMEN AND LGBTQ WRITES IN THE
FIVE PACIFIC NORTHWEST STATES.
LEGAL VOICE HAS BEEN PROVIDING
LEGAL SUPPORT TO UNITE, AND ON
THIS ORDINANCE.
THE LONG-STANDING FOCUS ON
GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE AND
ECONOMIC JUSTICE, WE ARE
FOCUSED ON THE DRAFT ORDINANCE
PROTECTING HOTEL WORKERS FROM
GUEST SEXUAL WORKERS, -- SEXUAL
VIOLENCE, WE THINK THE CHAIR
AND THE COUNCILMEMBER FOR THEIR
LEADERSHIP IN DEFENDING THESE
RIGHTS FOR ALL WORKERS.
SIMPLY PUT, THE HOTEL INDUSTRY
IS LOOKING FOR PERMISSION TO
ACCOMMODATE GUEST SEXUAL
HARASSMENT AND VIOLENCE AT THE
EXPENSE OF HOTEL WORKERS, WE
CAN'T STAND FOR THIS, THE
LEGISLATION SENDS A STRONG
MESSAGE THAT WE AGREE WITH,
THAT HOTEL WORKERS SHOULD BE
TRUSTED, ALL WORKERS SHOULD BE
TRUSTED, WHEN A HOTEL GUEST HAS
PERPETRATED VIOLENCE, ACTION
MUST BE TAKEN TO PROTECT THE
WORKERS.
OUR POLICIES MUST RECOGNIZE
THAT IT IS NOT THE WORKER'S
RESPONSIBILITY TO AVOID
VIOLENCE OR HARASSMENT, WORKERS
ARE NOT TO BE BLAMED, THEY
SHOULD NOT SUFFER HEALTH OR
OTHER CONSEQUENCES IN ORDER TO
ACCOMMODATE THE HARASSERS.
WE WOULD RECOMMEND IN THE
IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH OF A
SURVIVOR REPORT OF HARASSMENT,
THAT THE ORDINANCE REQUIRE THAT
HOTELS RELOCATE YES ON
DIFFERENT FLOORS, AS OPPOSED TO
PUTTING THE BURDEN ON WORKERS
TO FIND ANOTHER ASSIGNMENT.
ANY REGULAR STUDY TO STUDY THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE HARASSMENT
PROTECTIONS.
WE URGE THE COMMITTEE AND THE
CITY COUNCIL AS A WHOLE TO
SUPPORT THIS CRITICAL
LEGISLATION.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.>>
MICHAEL CLARK.
>> YOU HAVE TO FORGIVE ME, I
HAVE JUST COME FROM THE DENTIST.
>> YOU CAN ADJUST THE
MICROPHONE.
>> THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE
RENAISSANCE SEATTLE HOTEL, I
SIT ON THE BOARD, I HAVE WORKED
IN HOSPITALITY AND SPECIFICALLY
THE HOTEL INDUSTRY SINCE 1986,
I STARTED AS A DISHWASHER, I
WAS A BUS BOYCOTT A WAITER, I
AM PROUD TO SUPPORT AN AMAZING
TEAM OF 250 EMPLOYEES, WHEN I
SAY SUPPORT THEM, THAT'S WHAT I
MEAN, I DON'T GIVE MYSELF IS
OVERSEEING THEM, BUT SOMEONE
THERE TO PROTECT AND HELP THEM.
TO MAKE SURE THEY CAN BE THE
BEST THEY CAN BE.
I AM INTERESTED IN THEM
PERSONALLY, PROFESSIONALLY, AND
THEIR SUCCESS IS OUR SUCCESS, I
BELIEVE THAT, EVER SINCE I
BECAME A MANAGER, I CONSIDER IT
A FUNDAMENTAL PART OF MY JOB,
WITHOUT THEM, WE ARE NOTHING
AND WE HAVE NOTHING.
SAFETY OBVIOUSLY IS A TOP
PRIORITY, AND I CARE DEEPLY
ABOUT ALL THE FOLKS THAT I WORK
WITH, WE HAVE BEEN COMMITTED TO
PROVIDING PANIC BUTTONS FOR
EMPLOYEES AT MY HOTEL,
IMPLEMENT IT FOR ABOUT TWO
YEARS.
THE LEGISLATION AS PROPOSED
IMPACTS FAR MORE THAN THE HOTEL
STAFF AND SAFETY ISSUES, THE
ANCILLARY BUSINESSES THAT HAVE
BEEN ADDRESSED, MANY ARE SMALL,
PROVIDING SERVICES IN THE
HOTEL, IT COULD PUT MANY OF
THEM OUT OF BUSINESS, IT
DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO EXTEND
THE REQUIREMENTS JUST BECAUSE
THEY ARE A TENANT SERVICE, I
HAVE BEEN ABLE TO REVIEW THE
HEALTH INSURANCE.
IT IS FAR BEYOND WHAT MOST
BUSINESSES OFFER COST WISE, MY
HOTEL PROVIDES HIGH QUALITY
INSURANCE FOR EMPLOYEES, THE
REQUIRED EXPENDITURES IN THE
LEGISLATION ARE SIGNIFICANTLY
HIGHER THAN WHAT IT ACTUALLY
COSTS UP -- COSTS US.
>> CAN YOU WRAP UP.
>> IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE GET
THIS RIGHT AND NOT JUST PUSH IT
THROUGH, IMPORTANT THAT THERE
IS MORE DIALOGUE BETWEEN
INDUSTRY AND THE COUNCIL, AND
WE COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS TO
DRAFT ORDINANCES THAT ARE
MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL.
>> WE ARE HAPPY AS WELL TO TAKE
YOUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY IF YOU
LIKE TO LEAVE IT.
SORRY WE HAD TO CUT YOU OFF.
WELCOME, CINDY DOMINGO.
>> THIS IS MY FIRST TIME TO
TESTIFY OVER HERE IN 25 YEARS
THAT I WORKED ACROSS THE STREET,
THIS IS TO TELL YOU HOW
IMPORTANT THIS ISSUE IS TO
MYSELF AND TO KING COUNTY
COUNCILMEMBER, LARRY GOSSET,
WHO I AM REPRESENTING, AS WELL
AS THE ASIA-PACIFIC LABOR
ALLIANCE, WITH A SEATTLE
CHAPTER, THAT ORGANIZES AND
WORKS FOR THE ASIAN-PACIFIC
ISLANDER WORKERS, THEIR NEEDS
AND THEIR RIGHT TO ORGANIZE,
AND TO ADVOCATE FOR BETTER
WORKING CONDITIONS FOR
THEMSELVES.
AND A FAIR WAGE.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
TO SPEAK BEFORE THE HOUSING --
HOUSING, HEALTH, ENERGY, AND
WORKERS
KNOW YOU ARE STRONG ADVOCATES
FOR WORKERS, ESPECIALLY FOR
THOSE DISENFRANCHISED LIKE THE
HOTEL WORKERS.
>>> I COME HERE TODAY BECAUSE
THESE WOMEN THAT WE ARE
REPRESENTING, LATINO, API,
AFRICAN-AMERICAN WOMEN, ARE
IMPORTANT TO ME PERSONALLY, MY
FAMILY HAD MANY HOTEL WORKERS
AND THEIR FAMILIES WHO FACED
MUCH HARSHER CONDITIONS BECAUSE
THEY WERE UNORGANIZED,
FORTUNATELY FOR THESE WOMEN,
THEY ARE COURAGEOUS, AND HAVE
WON THEIR RIGHTS.
IT IS WITH THAT MISSION LIKE
HIM TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF WOMEN
HOTEL EMPLOYEES, WHO ALWAYS
WANT TO BE SAFE ON THE JOB, AND
FREE FRO VIOLENT CONDUCT, WHAT
THEY'RE WANTING IS THE BASIC
HUMAN RIGHTS, TO WORK WITHOUT
DISRESPECT HERE, AND PHYSICAL
HARM THAT SO OFTEN COMES WITH
THEIR JOBS.
WHEN ISAAC ABOUT MY JOB THE
COUNTY, IN THE LEGISLATIVE
ARENA, I CAN ONLY IMAGINE WHAT
COULD HAPPEN, THAT SO OFTEN
HAPPENS TO WOMEN HOTEL WORKERS,
IF SOMEONE WAS TO EXPOSE
THEMSELVES TO ME, COMING TO MY
WORKSITE AFTER HARASSING ME,
PROCEEDING TO HARASS SOMEONE
ELSE, SEVERE ACTIONSWOULD BE
TAKEN.
LEGISLATION HAS OCCURRED AT THE
COUNTY TO PROTECT US FROM THAT
TYPE OF ACTIVITY, VIOLENCE AND
SEXUAL HARASSMENT.
BUT YET, WE EXPECT OUR HOTEL
WORKERS TO BE WITHOUT THOSE
PROTECTIONS, WHY?
BECAUSE THEY ARE WOMEN, WOMEN
OF COLOR, IMMIGRANTS AND
REFUGEES.
IN THIS AUDIENCE IS HERE TODAY
TO SPEAK OUT FOR THESE WOMEN,
JOIN WITH THEM IN THEIR FIGHT
TO GET THAT RESPECT AND HUMAN
RIGHTS, SO I SUPPORT,
COUNCILMEMBER GOSSET SUPPORTS
THE PASSAGE OF THIS
LEGISLATION.
>> PLEASE EXTEND OUR
APPRECIATION TO LARRY GOSSET AS
WELL FOR HIS SUPPORT.
I WANT TO DOUBLE CHECK IF THERE
ARE ANY -- IF THERE IS ANYBODY
ELSE WHO WANTS TO TESTIFY.
SEEING NO ONE ELSE SIGNED UP TO
TESTIFY, I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDE,
BEFORE I GET TO MY COMMENTS,
THE COUNCIL HERE REPRESENTED IN
2016, BEFORE AND SINCE, WAS
SUPPORTIVE OF THE INITIATIVE,
THIS IS A EXTENSION OF THE
CONVERSATION FROM THREE YEARS
AGO.
I AM HAPPY TO OPEN UP AS WE GO
DOWN THE LINE, COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ, WE WOULD WELCOME THAT
BEFORE WE GET INTO THE MEAT OF
THIS.
>> SURE, I APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE BRIEF
REMARKS, I WANT TO DIG INTO THE
BRIEFING, AND GIVE THE STAFF
AND THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY WALK US
THROUGH THE MEAT OF WHAT WE ARE
HERE TO TALK ABOUT.
I JUST WANTED TO EXTEND MY
GRATITUDE FOR YOU, CHAIR
MOSQUEDA, FOR YOUR
COLLABORATION ON THESE ISSUES,
YVONNE SIX MONTH PROCESS, OVER
THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS TO
ENGAGE THE VARIOUS
STAKEHOLDERS, WORKERS, AND
HOTEL OWNERS, PROPERTY
MANAGERS, GETTING US TO THIS
POINT NOW, I'M EXCITED TO
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION OVER
THE NEXT SIX WEEKS, POLICY
ISSUES YET TO BE DISCUSSED AND
DEBATED, THIS IS A GOOD
OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO DO THAT,
IN THE SPIRIT OF TRANSPARENCY,
AND WANTING TO HAVE THE
CONVERSATION PUBLICLY, I KNOW
YOU THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO
INTRODUCE A SET OF BILLS TO
BEGIN THE CONVERSATION, AND
EXCITED THAT WE ARE FINALLY
HERE AND LOOKING FORWARD TO
CONTINUING TO WORK ON THESE
ISSUES TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE HAVE THE STRONGEST
PROTECTIONS AVAILABLE TO HOTEL
WORKERS.>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THE
WORKERS WHO HAVE SPOKEN UP, AND
WHO HAVE BEEN SPEAKING FOR
YEARS, AND THE UNION THAT THE
WORKERS ARE ORGANIZED WITH, A
POWERFUL EXAMPLE, UNITE LOCAL 8,
AND SHOWN THROUGHOUT THE LAST
FEW YEARS, THE BEST WAY TO PUSH
BACK AGAINST THE ATTACKS ON
WORKERS RIGHTS, AND THE RAMPING
UP OF A -- ATTACKS ON WORKERS
RIGHTS THROUGH THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION IS FOR WORKERS
TO BE UNIONIZED WITH STRONG
WORKERS WHO ARE WILLING TO
CARRY OUT A CONCERTED AND
COLLECTIVE FIGHT BACK, I SECOND
EVERYBODY WHO HAS SPOKEN HERE
AND IN THE PAST, HOW WE CANNOT
COMPROMISE ON THE QUESTION OF
SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF OUR
WORKERS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT
THIS IS AN INDUSTRY REPRESENTED
BY WOMEN WORKERS, ASIANS, ASIAN-
PACIFIC ISLANDER, WOMEN OF
COLOR, AS A WHOLE, MANY
IMMIGRANT WOMEN, WHO FACE
OPPRESSION IN SOCIETY, IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT THE COUNCIL TAKE
A STRONG POSITION ON THIS,
ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE FACT
THAT 77% OF THE VOTERS VOTED
FOR, IT IS A TERRIBLE RULING
THAT CAME FROM THE COURT, I
JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT AS SOON
AS THAT HAPPENED, WE WERE IN
TOUCH WITH UNITE 8 THAT WE WILL
BE IN TOUCH WITH THEM EVERY
STEP OF THE WAY, AND I'M
THANKFUL TO LISA AND LOLA, WHO
SHARED THEIR STORIES, I REALLY
APPRECIATED.
>> ANYONE ELSE?
I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE
ARE JOINED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MIKE O'BRIEN, AND OTHERS, YOU
CAN READ THESE INTO THE RECORD,
AND WE WILL INTRODUCE THE
PANELISTS.>> CB 119554, AN
ORDINANCE RELATED TO EMPLOYMENT
IN SEATTLE REQUIRING CERTAIN
EMPLOYERS TO LIMIT ROOM
CLEANING WORKLOADS FOR CERTAIN
EMPLOYEES.
CB 119555, AN ORDINANCE
RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT SEATTLE,
REQUIRING CERTAIN EMPLOYERS TO
MAKE REQUIRED HEALTHCARE
EXPENDITURES TO OR ON BEHALF OF
CERTAIN EMPLOYEES FOR THE
PURPOSE OF IMPROVING ACCESS TO
MEDICAL CARE.
CB 119556, AN ORDINANCE
RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT SEATTLE,
ADDING A NEW CHAPTER TO THE
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE, AND
AMENDING SECTIONS 3.15.000 AND
6.208.020 OF THE SMC, AND CB
119557, AN ORDINANCE RELATING
TO EMPLOYMENT IN SEATTLE,
REQUIRING CERTAIN EMPLOYERS TO
TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS TO
PREVENT, PROTECT AND RESPOND TO
VIOLENT OR HARASSING CONDUCT BY
GUESS.>> TO BE DIRECTOR FOR
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
>> KARINA BULL, CENTRAL STAFF.
>> AND OFFICE OF LABOR
STANDARDS.
>> KARINA, IS THIS THE FIRST
TIME YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COME
TO THE TABLE IN YOUR NEW
ROLE?>> IT IS.
>> OUR LEAD ON LABOR POLICY
ISSUES, GREAT TO HAVE YOU ALL
HERE, I WANT TO SEE A SPECIAL
THANK YOU TO OUR CENTRAL STAFF
IN THE OFFICE OF LABOR STANDARDS
YOUR ONGOING ANALYSIS, WORKING
WITH US, AND THE LAW DEPARTMENT,
APPRECIATE YOUR WORK, THANK YOU
FOR CONTINUING TO ENGAGE WITH
US.
I WANT TO REITERATE THAT
TODAY'S CONVERSATION HAS NOT
CROPPED OUT OF NOWHERE, BUT YOU
HEARD FROM OTHERS, A
CONTINUATION OF THE WORK IN
2016, WE HAVE HAD DOZENS OF
MEETINGS WITH STAKEHOLDERS,
LEGAL TEAMS, COLLEAGUES, AND
THE EXECUTIVE, EXCITED TO BRING
THIS FORWARD, TO CONTINUE THE
WILL OF THE VOTERS, 77% IN
FAVOR OF EXTENDING JOB
PROTECTIONS TO HOTEL WORKERS.
THE INITIATIVE WAS FOLLOWED BY
INTENSIVE RULEMAKING AT THE
OFFICE OF LABOR STANDARDS, SO
WE ARE IN A INTERESTING
POSITION, THE BENEFIT AND
FORTUNE OF LOOKING AT HOW IT
WAS IMPLEMENTED, ANY PIECE OF
LEGISLATION, WE GET THE BENEFIT
OF LOOKING BACK TO SEE HOW IT
IS MORE IMPLEMENTABLE,
WORKABLE, ACHIEVING THE GOALS
INCLUDED IN THE INITIATIVE.
IT HAS BEEN HOLED UP IN THE
COURT AND PENDING LEGAL
CHALLENGES, WE GOT GOOD NEWS
EARLIER THIS YEAR THAT THE
SUPREME COURT IS TAKING UP THE
ISSUE RELATED TO THE
úINITIATIVE, OUR INCREDIBLE CIT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, I WANT TO
SHUT THEM OUT, HAVE DONE A
GREAT JOB ARGUING THE CASE, TO
ENSURE THAT THE VOTERS' WILL IS
A LIMITED AND UPHELD, WHILE WE
WAIT, THEY CONTINUE TO FACE
EXTREME CONDITIONS, SOME OF
WHICH WE HAVE HEARD TODAY, AND
MANY OTHER SITUATION, HOTEL
MANAGERS SAID WHILE THE ISSUES
BEING DEBATED, MANY OF THEM
HAVE CONTINUED THE IMITATION,
WHICH WE APPRECIATE, BUT WE
DON'T WANT THERE TO BE A GRAY
AREA OR WORKERS WHO DON'T
RECEIVE PROTECTIONS, THE INTENT
IS THAT AN INDIVIDUAL,
HOUSECLEANERS, WORKING ON THE
HOTELS, PROPERTY, IN THE AREA
IS FREE FROM HARASSMENT,
INTIMIDATION AND DISCRIMINATION,
HAS REASONABLE WORK STANDARDS
IN PLACE, THE HARD WORK TO BE
IN A HOTEL, THAT THEY HAVE
ADEQUATE HEALTHCARE.
AS I MENTIONED EARLIER.
AND INCREDIBLE REPORT 2016,
LOOKING AT DATA FROM THE BUREAU
OF LABOR STATISTICS, AND SAW
THAT HOTEL WORKERS,
HOUSECLEANERS, HAVE HIGHER
RATES OF INJURY THAN COAL
MINERS, AND THOSE WHO WORK IN
THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
TRADES, IN FACT THREE TIMES AS
MUCH BACK INJURY CLAIMS AS
THOSE IN THE GENERAL
POPULATION.
SO THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT
WHY I THINK VOTERS WANTED TO
PROTECT THESE WORKERS.
A STRENUOUS TYPE OF WORK, AS
THEY SAID AS WE WERE CLOSING UP
EARLIER, IT IS HARD WORK,
DIFFICULT WORK EVERY DAY, THE
CONTINUATION OF PROTECTIONS IS
IMPORTANT, AND THE RACE IN
EQUITY ANALYSIS THAT WE ARE
APPLYING IS IMPORTANT, MOSTLY
IMMIGRANTS, ALSO PEOPLE OF
COLOR, WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE ARE EXTENDING THE
PROTECTIONS TO THIS INDUSTRY
THAT WE WOULD EXPECT AND
ANTICIPATE IN ANY OTHER
INDUSTRY.
THANK YOU FOR ENGAGING WITH US
ON BRINGING FORTH THE
LEGISLATION HERE TODAY.>>> WE
HAVE HAD THREE COMMITTEE
HEARINGS, MARCH 24, INITIATIVE
124, APRIL 4, WE HEARD FROM
UNITE HERE AND HOTEL WORKERS
ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE HEALTH
AND SAFETY CONCERNS, MAY 2,
LEADERS IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY
IS, THEIR EXPERIENCES WITH
LAMENTING INITIATIVE 124, AND
HOW TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS.
I HAD THE CHANCE TO HEAR FROM
THEM IN THE MEETING THAT
INITIATIVE 124 WAS PASSED,
HELPING THEM TO PUSH FOR PANIC
BUTTONS AT THE STATE LEVEL, AND
THE SENATE BILL, 5258, WE WENT
-- WE WANT TO UNDERSCORE THE
LEGISLATION ON THE PANIC
BUTTONS.
AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE
FEEDBACK SO FAR TODAY,
UNDERSCORING AGAIN THAT THIS IS
THE FIRST DRAFT OF LEGISLATION,
THERE WILL BE MORE
CONVERSATIONS TO HAVE, ON JULY
11, CONTINUING THE DISCUSSION
ON POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS,
MEASURED HERE ITEMS COME UP,
KEEP IN MIND THAT WE WOULD LIKE
TO DO ISSUE EDIFICATION ON THE
11th, LET US KNOW IF YOU HAVE
DIFFERENT IDEAS YOU CAN PRESENT
TO US, IN THE HOLIDAY, WE WILL
INCORPORATE THEM INTO A MEMO.
JULY 18, WE WILL DISCUSS
AMENDMENTS AND HOLDING A
POTENTIAL VOTE, AND ALSO AUGUST
1 FOR A POTENTIAL VOTE IF
NEEDED ON THE AMENDED
LEGISLATION.
SO LOOKING FORWARD TO TODAY'S
DISCUSSION, THE SPECIAL THINGS,
BUT THIS HAS BEEN A INTENSE
PROCESS TO COME UP WITH THIS
LEGISLATION TODAY.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND WALK THROUGH
IT IF WE CAN.
LET'S START WITH WORKLOADS, CB
119554, GO FROM THERE.
I WILL TURN IT OVER TO DAN TO
UNDERSTAND THE GENERAL CONTEXT
BEFORE WE GO TO EACH ONE.
AND IF I MIGHT, WE HAVE THE
CENTRAL STAFF MEMO THAT WAS
PROVIDED FOR US, I THINK IT WAS
11 PAGES, COPIES ON THE DESK IF
AND BUT HE WANTS THAT, WE WILL
SCROLL THROUGH IF -- SO YOU CAN
SEE WHERE WE ARE AT IN THE
MEMO.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
THE MEMO YOU REFERENCED IS ALSO
LINKED ON THE COMMITTEE'S
AGENDA FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT
PHYSICALLY HERE, THEY CAN SEE
IT ON THE WEB.
THE CHAIR ALREADY COVERED THE
MATERIALS IN THE FIRST COUPLE
OF PAGES, THE ORIENTATION ABOUT
HOW WE CAME TO BE AT THE TABLE
TODAY, WHAT STEPS THE COMMITTEE
HAS TAKEN, AND WHAT SOME OF THE
NEXT STEPS ARE.
I THINK WE ARE PREPARED
COLLECTIVELY BETWEEN KARINA AND
I, WE WILL WALK YOU THROUGH
ATTACHMENT A, A MATRIX THAT
SHOWS WAS INCLUDED 124, NOW ON
HOLD PENDING A LEGAL CHALLENGE.
AND COMPARING AND CONTRASTING
THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE
INCLUDED IN THE FOUR PIECES OF
LEGISLATION THAT ARE ON THE
AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, NOT A
VOTE, I THINK WE WILL START
WITH KARINA, DOING SOME OF THE
OVERARCHING ISSUES ACROSS ALL
OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILLS
THAT ARE BEFORE YOU, AND WITH
THE CHEERS PERMISSION, SHE'S
GOING TO COVER A LITTLE BIT OUT
OF ORDER, A COUPLE OF THE BILLS,
COMPARE AND CONTRAST WITH THE
INITIATIVE, THEN I WILL COVER
COUPLE.
>> THANK YOU.
TO BEGIN WITH OVERARCHING
TOPICS, INITIATIVE 124 WAS ONE
ORDINANCE, NOW WE HAVE FOUR OF
THEM, AS FAR AS EMPLOYER
COVERAGE, IT MAINTAINS THE SAME
DEFINITIONS OF HOTELS, 60+ ROOMS
FOR SOME ORDINANCES, HUNDRED
PLUS ROOMS FOR OTHERS,
CONTRACTED PREMISES OR SERVICES
TO BE COVEED, IT HAS A NEW
LABEL, ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESS,
AND 3 OF THEM, AND ONE IS
CONTRACTED SERVICES, AS WE GO
THROUGH, WE WILL SPECIFY SOME
ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS, WHERE
INTO THE LAWS, IT HAS A
EMPLOYEE THRESHOLD AS WELL,
THOSE ORDINANCES HAVE MORE OF
AN ECONOMIC IMPACT ON
BUSINESS.>> CHAIR MOSQUEDA,
JUST TO ORIENT THE VIEWING
PUBLIC, SOME OF US HAVE BEEN
SPENDING A LONG TIME ON THE
CHART, WE KNOW WHAT THE PARTS
ARE, I WANTED TO LET FOLKS AT
THE FAR COLUMN, THE TOPICS THAT
ARE INCLUDED IN THE VARIOUS
PIECES OF LEGISLATION, THE NEXT
COLUMN SAYS I124, THAT
REPRESENTS WHAT WAS INITIALLY
IN THE INITIATIVE, THAT WAS
APPROVED BY 77% OF THE VOTERS IN
SEATTLE, AND THE LAST IS WHAT
WE ARE PROPOSING, THAT IS
REFLECTED IN THE RELEVANT AND
APPROPRIATE COUNCIL BILL.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT GUIDE.
IT IS A VERY COMPREHENSIVE
CHART.
>> IT IS, VERY DETAILED, WELL
DONE, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE
THAT FOLKS COULD FOLLOW ALONG
WITH THE COMPARISON IS HERE.
THANK YOU.
>>> ABSOLUTELY, SO THE NEXT
OVERARCHING CHANGES REGARDING
ENFORCEMENT, A PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION, THE OFFICE OF LABOR
STANDARDS HAD A LIMITED
ENFORCEMENT ROLE, THEY COULD
CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS, AND
ISSUE ADMINISTRATIVE RULES, BUT
DIDN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO
IMPOSE A REMEDY OR A FINE ON A
NONCOMPLIANT EMPLOYER UNLESS
THAT PARTICULAR REQUIREMENT
HAPPENED TO OVERLAP WITH THE
WAGE ORDINANCE, IT PROBABLY
COVERS A NEW SITUATION WHERE A
AN EMPLOYER OWES AN EMPLOYEE
MONEY, BEFORE, THE OFFICE OF
LABOR STANDARDS COULD ONLY
IMPOSED REMEDY IF THEY DIDN'T
PAY FOR MEDICAL CARE OR THE
PREMIUM FOR GOING OVER THE
MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE.
SO ALL FOUR OF THESE PROPOSED
ORDINANCES, THE OFFICE OF LABOR
STANDARDS HAS A FULL
ENFORCEMENT ROLE.
AS IS TRUE FOR ALL OF OUR OTHER
LABOR STANDARDS, IT IS
MAINTAINING THAT CONSISTENCY.
>>> NOT IN THIS CHART, BUT
SOMETHING NOTEWORTHY, THE
INITIATIVE HAD A COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING WAIVER FOR THE
ENTIRE ORDINANCE, FOR THESE
PROPOSED ORDINANCES, THE
WAIVERS CONTINUED, EXCEPT FOR
THE ORDINANCE INVOLVING
WORKPLACE VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL
HARASSMENT AS WELL.
>>> GOING INTO THE INDIVIDUAL
ORDINANCES, CHAIR MOSQUEDA HAS
STEPPED AWAY.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CONTINUE WITH
PROTECTIONS AGAINST WORKPLACE
VIOLENCE AND HARASSMENT OR GO
ON TO WORKLOAD MAXIMUMS?
BECOME I THINK IT IS FINE TO
FOLLOW ALONG ON THE CHART FOR
EASE OF REFERENCE.
>> UNDERSTOOD.
>>> TO BEGIN, WHAT EMPLOYERS
DOES A COVER, HOTELS WITH 60+
ROOMS, THE SAME AS THE
INITIATIVE, AND THE ANCILLARY
HOTEL INITIATIVE OF ANY SIZE,
IT MIRRORS THE INITIAL
INITIATIVE, AS FAR AS EMPLOYEE
COVERAGE, AGAIN MAINTAINING
BY MINIMUM WAGE, AND WORKING D
FOR A COVERED EMPLOYER IN
SEATTLE, WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHIC
BOUNDARIES, THE INITIAL
ORDINANCE HAD A REQUIREMENT TO
WORK AT LEAST TWO HOURS IN ANY
WORKWEEK IN SEATTLE, THAT HAS
BEEN STRUCK AS AN OVERARCHING
CHANGE THROUGHOUT THE
ORDINANCES, A CHANGE IN THE
ORDINANCES THAT THERE IS NO
EXCLUSION FOR MANAGERS,
SUPERVISORS AND CONFIDENTIAL
EMPLOYEES.
THESE PARTICULAR PROTECTIONS
WILL COVER ALL EMPLOYEES THAT
WORK AT THAT PLACE OF BUSINESS,
OR FOR A ANCILLARY HOTEL
BUSINESS COVERED BY MINIMUM
WAGE.
SIMILAR TO THE INITIATIVE,
EMPLOYERS ARE REQUIRED TO
PROVIDE A PANIC BUTTON, IT
REQUIRES A -- RECEIVING
ASSISTANCE DIRECTLY TO WHEREVER
THEY ARE IN THE HOTEL.
WHEREVER THEY ARE EXPERIENCING
THE ALLEGED VIOLENCE OR
HARASSMENT.
THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL
PROTECTIONS WRITTEN INTO THE
LAW FOR THOSE SITUATIONS.
THE PANIC BUTTON IS REQUIRED TO
BE PROVIDED TO ALL EMPLOYEES
WHO WORK IN A GUEST ROOM OR
MAKE DELIVERIES, IN THE
INITIATIVE IT WAS JUST FOR
EMPLOYEES WHO WORK ALONE AND
ISOLATED SITUATIONS, WITH THIS
NEW ORDINANCE, EVEN IF THERE IS
A TEAM CLEANING OR TEAM
DELIVERY, THEY WILL BOTH BE
GIVEN A PANIC BUTTON.
NEXT IS THAT EMPLOYERS ARE
REQUIRED TO DEVELOP A POLICY
AGAINST HARASSING CONDUCT,
DISTRIBUTING THAT TO THE
GUESTS, AND TO EMPLOYEES.
AND THEN IF AN EMPLOYEE REPORTS
AN ALLEGATION THAT A GUEST
PARTICIPATED, OR ENGAGED IN
VIOLENT OR HARASSING CONDUCT,
THE EMPLOYERMUST TAKE A SERIES
OF ACTIONS AND PRESCRIBED
BEHAVIORS IF THEY DETERMINE
THAT THE CONTACT DID OR DIDN'T
OCCUR.
FOR THIS PARTICULAR PART OF THE
ORDINANCE, IT IS QUITE
DIFFERENCE, -- DIFFERENT.
THE SAME GOAL OF PROTECTING THE
WORKER IMMEDIATELY, BUT THE WAY
IT UNFOLDS IS DIFFERENT FROM
THE INITIATIVE.
>>> NOW AFTER RECEIVING
ALLEGATION, AN EMPLOYER MUST
SAFEGUARD THE EMPLOYEES DURING
THE INVESTIGATION, CONDUCT
INVESTIGATION, MAKE SURE TO
INFORM BOTH THE GUEST AND THE
EMPLOYEE OF THAT INVESTIGATION,
AND THEN ISSUE A PROMPT WRITTEN
DETERMINATION OF THEIR FINAL
CONCLUSION.
THE EMPLOYEES ALLEGATION DOES
NOT NEED TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY A
SWORN STATEMENT, BROADENING THE
ABILITY FOR THE EMPLOYER TO
MAKE THE INVESTIGATION WITHOUT
THAT INFORMATION.>> ON ITEM
NUMBER 6, THE PROTECTIONS, IF
YOU COULD JUST GO OVER IT A
LITTLE BIT MORE IN TERMS OF
WHAT THE INITIATIVE SAID VERSUS
WHAT IS BEING SAID HERE.
ARE THERE ANY SPECIFIC THINGS
ABOUT WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE AN
INVESTIGATION, I'M ASKING THAT
BECAUSE I MEAN OBVIOUSLY, WE
DON'T WANT -- THE INTENT IS NOT
TO SORT OF GO BACK TO AN HR
BASE MODEL, MEANING A MODEL
THAT HASN'T WORKED FOR WORKERS
IN GENERAL, NOT JUST HOTEL
WORKERS, BUT THE WHOLE MODEL OF
WORKERS GOING TO THE HUMAN
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SAYING
SOMETHING HAPPEN, AND THEN IN
NAME THE INVESTIGATION WAS
CONDUCTED, BUT DIDN'T BENEFIT
THE WORKER, BECAUSE THE ROLE OF
HR IS THE LOOKOUT FOR WORKERS,
BUT TO SETTLE IT AND MAKE IT GO
AWAY.
WHAT APPROACH ARE WE USING
HERE?
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
WHAT IS INTERESTING ABOUT THE
INITIATIVE, IS THAT THE
EMPLOYER'S OBLIGATIONS AFTER
RECEIVING AN ALLEGATION
AUTOMATICALLY JUMP TO POST
INVESTIGATION.
IN THIS INITIATIVE, IT
PRESCRIBES STEPS THAT NEED TO
HAPPEN BEFORE REACHING THE
CONCLUSION OF WHETHER THE
CONDUCT DID OR DID NOT OCCUR.
THE INITIATIVE JUST SAID IF THE
EMPLOYER DECIDES THIS HAPPEN,
THIS IS WHAT THEY NEED TO DO.
HERE THERE IS A FULL
INVESTIGATION THAT THE EMPLOYEE
NEEDS TO BE APPRISED OF THE
STEPS, THE GUEST NEEDS TO BE
APPRISED, IT DOES SAY IT IS A
FAIR INVESTIGATION, IMPARTIAL,
AND THERE NEEDS TO BE A WRITTEN
DETERMINATION.
THAT IS GIVING INFORMATION BOTH
TO THE WORKER AND TO THE GUEST
OF WHAT THE EMPLOYER'S FINAL
CONCLUSION IS.
IN THE INITIATIVE, AFTER
RECEIVING THE ALLEGATION, THE
EMPLOYER NEEDED TO DOCUMENT THE
IDENTITY OF THE GUEST IN A LIST
THAT WAS RETAINED FOR FIVE
YEARS.
NOW THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO
KEEP THE LIST, BUT THE EMPLOYER
DOES NEED TO TAKE CERTAIN
ACTIONS FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF
YEARS.
THE EMPLOYER NEEDED TO WARN ALL
EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ASSIGNED TO
WORK IN THE GUEST ROOM FOR FIVE
YEARS, AND THEN DEPENDING ON
THE NATURE OF THE ALLEGATION,
IF IT INCLUDED SEXUAL ASSAULT,
SEXUAL HARASSMENT, OR SALT, THE
HOTEL MUST DECLINE SERVICE TO
THE GUEST FOR THREE YEARS.
IS THAT RIGHT?
KEEP ME HONEST HERE.
>> ABSENTLY, THAT'S RIGHT, I
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE
A DIRECT ANSWER TO YOUR
QUESTION.
I THINK SHE DID COVER, I WANT
TO EMPHSIZE.
IN THE INITIATIVE, A MERE
ACCUSATION WAS SUFFICIENT TO
REQUIRE THE HOTEL TO TAKE
ACTIONS THAT COULD INVOLVE
BANNING THE GUEST FROM COMING
BACK TO THE HOTEL.
THE LEGISLATION THAT IS BEFORE
YOU INCLUDES THE POTENTIAL
RPERCUSSION OF A GUEST BEING
BANNED, BUT IT REQUIRES THAT
THERE BE SOME LEVEL
INVESTIGATION, IT DOES NOT LAY
OUT EXACTLY HOW THAT
INVESTIGATION -- EVERY STEP OF
WHAT IT MUST INCLUDE, BUT THERE
MUST BE A NOTIFICATION TO THE
GUEST, AND TO THE EMPLOYEE THAT
AN INVESTIGATION IS UNDERWAY,
SO THEY HAVE A FAIR OPPORTUNITY
TO PROVIDE THEIR PERSPECTIVE OF
úWHAT HAPPENED.
IT COULD INVOLVE THE STEPS, BUT
THEY ARE NOT SPECIFIED.
AT THE END OF THE
INVESTIGATION, IF THE HOTEL
DETERMINES THAT THE ALLEGATION
WAS CREDIBLE, THEN
REPERCUSSIONS FLOW DEPENDING ON
WHAT KIND OF ACTION OR CONDUCT
TOOK PLACE.
>> DID YOU WANT TO ADD
SOMETHING?
>> THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD
IN THIS AREA THAT I THINK IS
IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE A
CONVERSATION ABOUT IS TWOFOLD,
ONE IS SOME OF THE POINTS THAT
DAN MADE AROUND THE LACK OF
SPECIFICS OF HOW THE
INVESTIGATION PROCEEDS, WE ARE
OF THE BELIEF THAT THOSE ARE
ISSUES THAT CAN LIKELY BE
CONSIDERED AND ADDRESSED IN
RULEMAKING, TO THE EXTENT THAT
THEY NEED TO BE, KEEP IN MIND,
WE HAVE THE PATH OF RULEMAKING
TO GET INTO SOME OF THE MORE
GRANULAR DETAILS.
THE SECOND PIECE IS THAT THERE
IS A DISCUSSION WE CAN HAVE
AROUND WITH THE STANDARD OF
PROOF WOULD BE REQUIRED IN THE
INVESTIGATION PROCESS, SO THAT
AGAIN, WE ARE ADDRESSING ANY
POTENTIAL DUE PROCESS CONCERNS,
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE
INITIALLY TALKED ABOUT, HOW CAN
WE MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE
CLARITY AROUND WHAT THE
STANDARD OF PROOF IS, SO NOT
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, BUT
MORE LIKELY THAN NOT.
RIGHT NOW THE LANGUAGE OF THE
ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE
INTRODUCED IS SILENT ON THAT,
IT WOULD BE PRUDENT FROM A
POLICY PERSPECTIVE TO BE CLEAR
ON THAT.
>> IN THE RULES OR THE
ORDINANCE?
>> A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER WE
PUT IT IN THE RULES OR THE
ORDINANCE, BUT EITHER WAY WE
NEED TO SORT OF DIRECTLY ANSWER
THOSE QUESTIONS.>> YES, SOME OF
THIS WILL FALL UNDER
RULEMAKING, I JUST WANTED TO
RAISE THAT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>> AS DAN WAS SAYING,
DEPENDING ON THE RESULT OF THE
EMPLOYER'S INVESTIGATION,
CERTAIN REPERCUSSIONS WILL
FOLLOW DEPENDING ON WHAT THE
OUTCOME WAS, IF THE
INVESTIGATION DETERMINES THAT
THE VIOLENT OR HARASSING
CONDUCT OCCURRED, AND ALSO
INVOLVE PHYSICAL INJURY, BODILY
INJURY AND UNWELCOME TOUCHING,
THE HOTEL MUST DECLINE SERVICE
TO THE GUEST FOR FIVE YEARS.
IF THE INVESTIGATION DETERMINES
THAT THE CONDUCT OCCURRED BUT
DID NOT INVOLVE THE UNWELCOME
TOUCHING, THEN THE HOTEL WILL
NOT BAN THE GUEST, OR DECLINE
SERVICE, BUT THEY WILL NOT
ASSIGN EMPLOYEES TO WORK IN THE
GUEST ROOM OR MAKE DELIVERIES
FOR FIVE YEARS.
IN THE SITUATION WHERE THE
INVESTIGATION DIDN'T SHOW THAT
THE CONDUCT OCCURRED, THE HOTEL
STILL MUST NOT ASSIGN THE
EMPLOYEE WHO MADE THE
ALLEGATION TO WORK AND I GUESS
FROM FIVE YEARS.
AND IN ALL OF THIS, A GUEST CAN
APPEAL THE HOTEL'S
DETERMINATION TO THE CITY'S
HEARING EXAMINER, AND THE RULES
AND PROCESS FOR THAT IS IN A
SEPARATE SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 3.2.
>> COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN?
>> I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW
THAT INVESTIGATION PLAYS OUT?
DO WE HAVE SOME VISION OF WHAT
THAT LOOKS LIKE OR HOW LONG IT
TAKES.
OR WHO IS INVOLVED.
OR IS THE LANGUAGE WE HAVE HERE
ABOUT THE LEVEL OF DETAIL WE
HAVE AT THE MOMENT?
>> THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE AT THE
MOMENT, GOING TO WHAT
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ WAS
TALKING ABOUT WITH THE RULES,
IDENTIFYING REQUIREMENTS FOR HOW
-- AND THE ANSWERS COULD ALSO
PROVIDE GUIDANCE, BUT AS TO THE
DETAILED REQUIREMENTS, THIS IS
WHAT WE HAVE IN THE WALL RIGHT
NOW.
>> I HAVE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT
INTERESTS HERE, I'M TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT HOW TO NAVIGATE
THEM, I HAVE READ THAT IF A
HOTEL WORKER SAYS THAT THEY
HAVE EXPERIENCED ANY OF THIS
TYPE OF CONDUCT, THAT WE NEED
TO HAVE RULES IN PLACE TO
PROTECT THEM IMMEDIATELY.
AND IN THE LONG-TERM.
I AM ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT A
HOTEL RUNNING INVESTIGATION. I
DON'T KNOW THAT THEY HAVE THE
EXPERTISE TO DO INVESTIGATIONS.
AS SOON AS WE GET INTO AN
INVESTIGATIVE BODY, I WOULD
WANT TO ENSURE THAT THE TYPES
OF BIASES THAT OFTEN CREEP INTO
ALL SORTS OF DISCRETIONARY
DECISIONS, THAT THERE IS
AWARENESS OR EXPERTISE, OR A
LEVEL OF ASSURANCE, AND I HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT
DISPROPORTIONATELY CERTAIN
TYPES OF GUEST BEING TREATED IN
ONE WAY IN A INVESTIGATIVE
PROCESS VERSUS ANOTHER, POSSIBLY
INTENTIONALLY, IN A KIND OF BAD
ACTOR SITUATION, BUT EVEN JUST
UNINTENTIONAL BIAS CREEPING
INTO THIS.
IF THERE IS A BODY THAT HAS
EXPERTISE IN DOING
INVESTIGATIONS, BUILDING
EXPERTISE, ANY GIVEN HOTEL IN
TOWN MAY CONDUCT AN
INVESTIGATION EVERY COUPLE OF
YEARS, AND THERE ARE DIFFERENT
PEOPLE DOING IT, I AM WORRIED
ABOUT HOW THAT PLAYS OUT.
AND WHAT HAPPENS.
I APPRECIATE THE ABILITY TO
APPEAL TO THE HEARING EXAMINER,
BUT I'M WONDERING IF THERE IS
ANOTHER BODY THAT WOULD BE
DOING INVESTIGATIONS BEYOND
JUST THE HOTEL, BECAUSE I'M
WORRIED THAT THEY DON'T HAVE
THE EXPERTISE.
AND THAT IS ON ONE LEVEL,
WITHOUT THAT EXPERTISE, WE
START TREATING DIFFERENT GUEST
DIFFERENTLY, WE WANT TO SUPPORT
THE WORKERS, AND ALLEGATIONS
HAVE BEEN MADE, BUT IN
ALLEGATION AGAINSTA WEALTHY
WHITE INDIVIDUAL IN A HOTEL
MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF
INVESTIGATION THEN A LOWER
INCOME PERSON OF COLOR WHO GETS
IN ALLEGATION AGAINST THEM, AND
THEIR ABILITY TO DEFEND
THEMSELVES, STUFF LIKE THAT.
CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON THAT?
>> I HAVE SOME THOUGHTS.
BUT SHE MAY HAVE THOUGHTS AS
WELL.
>> I AM HEARING WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING, BUT THE FACT IS THAT
OWNERS OF PRIVATE BUSINESSES
CAN CURRENTLY EXPEL AND
TRESPASS PEOPLE OFF OF THE
PROPERTY WITHOUT ANY
INVESTIGATION, SO THE FACT THAT
WE ARE CREATING THE STANDARDS,
WHEREAS THEY MAY NOT BE AS
CLEAR AS THEY LIKE THEM TO BE,
THERE -- THEY ARE STANDARDS
THAT DON'T EXIST RIGHT NOW, THE
ABILITY OF A PRIVATE BUSINESS
OWNER TO MAKE EXCLUSION OF
GUESTS ALREADY EXISTS.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE MORE
OF A CONVERSATION AROUND THIS,
AND TRY TO POTENTIALLY USE
RULEMAKING TO CREATE ADDITIONAL
CLARITY, BUT GIVEN -- I ALMOST
FEEL LIKE WE ARE TIGHTENING UP
AN AREA WHERE THERE IS
POTENTIALLY A GREAT DEAL OF
BIAS, PARTICULARLY THIS KIND OF
ACTIVITY, IT IS MOVING US IN A
DIRECTION THAT WILL REDUCE THE
BIAS IN THOSE DECISION-MAKING
PROCESSES.
>>> ONE THING I WANTED TO FLAG
ON THE HEARING EXAMINER SIDE,
IS THAT I RECOGNIZE THAT APPEAL
PROCESSES ARE TYPICALLY -- THIS
IS AN APPEAL PROCESS THAT
DOESN'T CURRENTLY EXIST FOR
PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING EXCLUDED
FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY, THIS IS
LIKE A NEW -- NOT A PROTECTION,
BUT A SAFEGUARD THAT DOESN'T
EXIST CURRENTLY FOR PEOPLE
BEING EXCLUDED FROM A PRIVATE
BUSINESS.
BUT I DO RECOGNIZE THAT THE CITY
HAS DATA THAT SHOWS A
DISPROPORTIONATE USE OF APPEAL
PROCESSES.
BY PEOPLE OF COLOR VERSUS
CAUCASIANS.
I JUST WANT TO THINK ABOUT THE
USEFULNESS OF THE APPEAL
PROCESS, GIVEN THAT SORT OF
HISTORIC DISPROPORTIONALITY
THAT WE KNOW.
>> THE DISPROPORTIONALITY IS
THAT WHITE PEOPLE USE THE
APPEAL PROCESS MORE THAN PEOPLE
OF COLOR.
>> THIS IS AN ISSUE AREA WHERE
WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO MORE
RESEARCH, LOOKING AT THE POLICY
OF OCCASIONS, THAT HAS BEEN
OUTSIDE -- OUTLINED RIGHT NOW
AND OTHER SOLUTIONS.
THE OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS,
FOLKS THAT UNITE HERE, THE
HOTEL ASSOCIATION, AS WELL AS
THE COUNCILMEMBER WHO WANT US
TO LOOK AT HOW SPD COULD GET
INVOLVED, WE HAD INITIAL
CONVERSATIONS, I THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT TO NOTE SPECIFICALLY
WHO THIS POPULATION IS, PEOPLE
MIGHT BE MORE FEARFUL OF
CALLING THE POLICE IF THEY
EXPERIENCE RETALIATION AND
HARASSMENT, AND WE DON'T WANT
TO CREATE A DISINCENTIVE TO CALL
IF THERE IS A CONCERN AROUND
HARASSMENT OR INTIMIDATION.
I THINK WE DON'T YET HAVE A
CLEAR RECOMMENDATION FOR HOW
THIS COULD POTENTIALLY BE
AMENDED, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE
IS INTEREST AROUND THE TABLE
AND MAKING SURE WE GET THIS
RIGHT, RECOGNIZING WHO THE
POPULATION IS, AND WANTING TO
ENSURE THAT PEOPLE FEEL
ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENT ABOUT
COMING FORWARD IF THERE IS
SOMETHING THAT IS HAPPENED, AND
IF SOMEBODY IS CLEARED, A
VIOLATION HASN'T OCCURRED, AND
THE ACCUSATION WASN'T FOUND TO
BE ACCURATE, THAT THOSE
INDIVIDUALS ALSO ARE NOT
CONTINUING TO BE CALLED OUT.
SO THAT IS THE SENSITIVE
BALANCE THAT WE ARE WORKING ON.
AND PART OF THE ISSUE IS THAT
IF SOMEBODY DOES FEEL LIKE THEY
WERE HARASSED, THAT WAS THEIR
EXPERIENCE, WE DON'T WANT THEM
TO BE IN THE SITUATION THE
FUTURE, TRYING TO FIND THE
RIGHT BALANCE IN POLICY TO GET
THERE IS WHAT WE WILL WORK WITH
YOU ON IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS
HERE, OR I SHOULD SAY 2-6 WEEKS,
AND I WANT TO FLAG THIS IS A
ISSUE THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO
LOOK INTO, THIS MIGHT BE --
MIGHT NOT BE THE FINAL THING,
LET'S CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS.
>> I DON'T KNOW THE
IMPLICATIONS, BUT WOULD BE
INTRIGUED TO EXPLORE, I HEAR
THE CONCERN THAT A HOTEL WORKER
MAY NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE
CALLING THE POLICE ABOUT THAT,
AND HESITANCY TO GO TO THEIR
BOSSES ABOUT IT, I'M WONDERING
IF THERE IS A PATH TO HAVE THE
OFFICE OF LABOR STANDARDS, OR
CIVIL RIGHTS, EITHER BODY, THAT
HEARS THESE CONCERNS.
THERE IS A IMMEDIACY THING,
SOMETHING IS HAPPENING, I NEED
TO FINISH MY WORKDAY, AND I
CAN'T DO THAT WITH SOMEONE HERE,
IF IT IS A 24-48 HOUR DELAY TO
GO THE CITY, THAT IS GOING TO
CAUSE SOME PROBLEMS, BUT AS FAR
AS AN INVESTIGATION AND
APPELLATE PROCESS THAT HAS MORE
OVERSIGHT.
I'M INTERESTED IF THOSE HAVE
BEEN EXPLORED, AND THE
RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT?
>> LET'S PUT OUR HEADS TOGETHER.
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ?
>> A COUPLE THINGS I WOULD SAY,
ONE IS -- AS SOMEBODY WHO
PRACTICED EMPLOYMENT LAW,
REPRESENTING WORKERS FOR 10
YEARS, I SHARE A FAIR AMOUNT OF
SKEPTICISM ABOUT HR PROCESSES,
AND WHO THEY ARE DESIGNED FOR,
IT IS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THERE
IS A STANDARD IN THE INDUSTRY
TO LIMIT RISK, AND LIABILITY,
AND THEREFORE PROTECT THE
EMPLOYER AS OPPOSED TO
ADVOCATING AND ENGAGING IN
CORRECTIVE BEHAVIOR ON BEHALF
OF THE WORKER.
RECOGNIZING THAT IS THE
ENVIRONMENT, I THINK THERE'S AN
OPPORTUNITY TO RECOGNIZE THAT
WE NEED TO BE CONSCIENTIOUS OF
THAT HESITANCY, TO REPORT,
WHICH EXISTS IN ALL WORK
ENVIRONMENTS, REGARDLESS OF THE
INDUSTRY, AND I THINK THE
OBVIOUS OPPORTUNITY HERE IS FOR
THOSE HOTEL WORKERS WHO ARE
REPRESENTED BY UNITE HERE, THEY
WILL HAVE A SHOP STEWARD TO GO
TO, OR SOMEONE ELSE AT THE
UNION TO GO TO DIRECTLY TO HELP
THEM WITH THOSE POTENTIAL
COMPLAINTS.
I THINK SECONDARILY, THERE IS
AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A
CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT IT
WOULD LOOK LIKE TO CREATE SORT
OF AN ADVOCATE POSITION THAT
WOULD REPRESENT THE HOTEL
WORKER IN THIS INSTANCE, WHAT
WOULD IT LOOK LIKE FOR EXAMPLE
TO REQUIRE THAT THERE BE A
THIRD PARTY THAT HAS THE
WORKER'S INTERESTS IN MIND
DURING THE INVESTIGATION
PROCESS AND REPORTING PROCESS
TO ENSURE THAT THE WORKERS
RIGHTS WERE BEING PROTECTED?
IN MY EXPERIENCE, MOST
EMPLOYERS THAT HAVE HR
DEPARTMENTS NORMALLY HAVE A HR
REPRESENTATIVE, A LAWYER ON THE
CALL, THEY ARE WELL RESOURCED
AND HOW TO STRUCTURE
INVESTIGATION, AND EMPLOYERS
GENERALLY, WHEN THEY DO A REPORT
OF A VIOLATION OF LAW, LIKE
THIS ONE, THEY ALREADY HAVE AN
OBLIGATION UNDER STATE LAW TO
DO AN INVESTIGATION OF THAT
ACTIVITY.
SO IF THERE IS EVERY CLAIM OF A
POTENTIAL VIOLATION THAT WOULD
VIOLATE THE WASHINGTON LAW
AGAINST DISCRIMINATION COVERING
THIS BEHAVIOR, THE EMPLOYER
ALREADY HAS A DUTY TO CONDUCT
INVESTIGATION IF THEY WANT TO
HAVE ANY LEGITIMATE DEFENSE TO
CIVIL LAWSUITS.
SO I THINK THERE IS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE
CONCERNS THAT YOU ARE BRINGING
UP IN A WAY THAT COULD BE
REASONABLE, THE DETAILS
OBVIOUSLY, THE DEVIL IS IN THE
DETAILS, I FEEL PRETTY STRONGLY
THAT IT WILL BE IMPORTANT TO
PROVIDE THE WORKER WITH THE
APPROPRIATE ADVOCACY RESOURCES
THAT HE OR SHE WOULD NEED TO
FEEL COMFORTABLE TO REPORT, AND
FEEL LIKE THEY ARE BEING GUIDED
THROUGH THE CIVIL INVESTIGATIVE
IT -- PROCESS.
A GOOD EXAMPLE, FOLKS ARE
ASSIGNED AN ADVOCATE WHO HELPS
THEM UNDERSTAND WHAT THE LEGAL
PROCESSES, AND WHAT THE NEXT
STEPS ARE GOING TO BE IN SORT
OF THE BUREAUCRACY OF THAT
INVESTIGATION, SO THERE IS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE THAT
MODEL HERE, IF THERE IS
INTEREST.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, I KNOW
EVERYBODY IS CIRCLING THIS ON
THIS ISSUE.
>> THE FINAL POINT WE WILL MAKE
ON THIS ORDINANCE, THE
INITIATIVE REQUIRED THE HOTEL TO
PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PAID TIME,
FOR THE PERSON WHO MADE THE
CHARGE TO CONSULT WITH AN
ADVISOR, THE SUFFICIENT AMOUNT
OF PAID TIME IS DEFINED AS UP
TO EIGHT HOURS OF PAID TIME
WITHIN SEVEN DAYS FOLLOWING
THIS REPORT OF VIOLENT OR
HARASSING CONDUCT.
>>> THAT COMPLETES THE
DESCRIPTION OF THAT PARTICULAR
ORDINANCE, SAFETY PROTECTIONS
AGAINST WORKPLACE VIOLENCE AND
HARASSING CONDUCT, AND THE NEXT
IS PROTECTING HOTEL EMPLOYEES
FROM INJURY.
THIS IS THE WORKLOAD CLEANING
MAXIMUM LIMITS, I DON'T KNOW IF
IT IS EASIER TO UNDERSTAND OR
NOT, BUT THAT IS THE WAY TO
REFERENCE IT.
AS FAR AS EMPLOYER COVERAGE, A
LARGER THRESHOLD FOR COVERAGE,
100+ ROOMS, IN ORDER FOR A HOTEL
TO BE COVERED, INSTEAD OF USING
ANCILLARY BUSINESS, IT IS
LIMITING THE COVERAGE TO
CONTRACTORS WHO PROVIDE
SERVICES AT A LARGE HOTEL.
EMPLOYEES AGAIN ARE THOSE WHO
ARE COVERED BY THE MINIMUM WAGE,
AND A REQUIREMENT TO WORK AT
LEAST TWO HOURS, AGAIN, NO
EXCLUSION FOR MANAGERS,
SUPERVISORS AND CONFIDENTIAL
EMPLOYEES.
NOTABLY IN THIS PROPOSED
ORDINANCE, ALL OF THE
INITIATIVES, AND THE
REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY COMPLY
WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE
INDUSTRIAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
ACT, ARE REMOVED, THAT ALREADY
EXISTS UNDER STATE LAW, THIS
ORDINANCE DOES NOT REPLACE
THAT.
THERE IS NO ESTABLISHED LIMIT
OF 5000 SQUARE FEET OF
GUESTROOM SPACE, THAT THE
EMPLOYEE CAN CLEAN, AND THAT
LIMIT IS FOR WHAT A HOTEL CAN
REQUIRE AN EMPLOYEE TO CLEAN,
AN HOTEL EMPLOYEE CAN REQUEST
OR CONSENT TO CLEAN MORE, BUT
WHAT THIS ORDINANCE DOES IS
DEFINITIVELY CODIFY THE
EMPLOYEE'S ABILITY TO SAY NO, I
AM NOT INTERESTED IN CLEANING
MORE, IT CODIFIES THEIR RIGHT TO
DECLINE THAT REQUEST.
>>> ROOM CLEANING HAS A
SPECIFIC DEFINITION,
SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDING
SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVE WAS
EXCLUDED IN THE RULES, COMMONLY
REFERRED TO AS TURNDOWN SERVICE.
IF THE BED IS MADE, AND THEY
ARE SIMPLY TURNING IT BACK,
THAT IS NOT CONSIDERED ROOM
CLEANING, AND WON'T BE
CONSIDERED IN THAT MAXIMUM.
>>> STRENUOUS ROOM CLEANING WAS
DEFINED IN THE INITIATIVE, IT
PROPOSED ORDINANCE, IT IS THE
SAME TO INCLUDE A CHECK OUT
ROOM, A STAYOVER ROOM, THE NEW
CHANGES THAT THE STAYOVER ROOM
MUST NOT HAVE RECEIVED THE
CLEANING IN MORE THAN 24 HOURS.
>> AS IT RELATES TO THE ISSUE
OF ROOM CLEANING, AND ITS
DEFINITION, I UNDERSTAND THAT
SOME HOTELS BREAKUP THE
FUNCTIONS OF ROOM CLEANING, ONE
PERSON TO GOES IN AND IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR ONLY MAKING THE
BEDS, AND THIS ISN'T THE
EXCLUSION REGARDING COMPARING
THE ALREADY MADE BEDS, THIS IS
A NEWLY MADE BED.
SO HOW DO WE HANDLE THAT ISSUE,
WHERE SOME HOTELS HAVE SORT OF
BIFURCATED THE DUTIES, FOR
EFFICIENCY'S SAKE OR ASSIGNING
SOMEBODY WITH MORE PHYSICAL
STRENGTH TO DOING THE BED
CLEANING COMPONENT OF THE
OVERALL ROOM CLEANING?
>> I AM GOING TO PAUSE AND
ANSWER, LOOKING TO MY
COLLEAGUES TO MAKE SURE I HAVE
THIS CORRECT.
MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IF A
HOUSEKEEPER IS PERFORMING A
SINGLE DUTY, REGARDLESS OF THAT,
IF THE WHOLE ROOM COUNTS
TOWARDS THAT WORKLOAD MAXIMUM,
IS THAT CORRECT?
IF THEY'RE ONLY TAKING THE
SHEETS OFF THE BED, THAT IS ALL
THE HOUSEKEEPER IS DOING, THAT
IS STILL 300 SQUARE FEET, IF
THAT IS THE SIZE TO COUNT
TOWARDS THEIR MAXIMUM, IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> YES AND NO.
I THINK THERE IS A ADDITIONAL
PROVISION THAT YOU HAVEN'T
GOTTEN TO, THAT WAS ADDED, IT
DEPENDS ON WHETHER OR NOT WE
BELIEVE THAT THOSE FUNCTIONS,
COMMONLY CALLED STRIPPERS ARE
HOUSEMAN, 18 CLEAN, I THINK
THERE COULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR THE ROOM TO BE SPLIT AMONG
THEM, BUT IF THEY ARE DOING IT
WILDLY INDEPENDENT OF ONE
ANOTHER, IF THERE IS ROOM, IT
WOULD BE THE ENTIRE SQUARE
FOOTAGE THAT WOULD COUNT, SO
THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THOSE
SQUARE FOOTAGE LIMITATIONS AS
WELL.
>> SO A SINGLE EMPLOYEE GOING
INTO THE ROOM AND ONLY REMOVING
THE SHEETS?>> THEY WOULD BE
SUBJECT -- >> IF THAT IS THE
SIZE OF THE ROOM TOWARDS THE
MAXIMUM, ANOTHER EMPLOYEE MIGHT
REMOVE THE SHEETS, CLEAN THE
BATHROOM, VACUUM THE FLOOR, AND
THAT IS 300 SQUARE FEET TOWARDS
THEIR WORKLOAD MAXIMUM?
>> CORRECT.
>> OKAY.>> A QUESTION ON THE 24
HOUR, THE DEFINITION OF A
STAYOVER ROOM, IS THE IDEA THAT
IF SOMEONE DOESN'T HAVE A ROOM
CLEANED, THAT WOULD BE IT, THAT
IS WHAT WOULD DO WITH IT?
FIGURE CORRECT, AND --
>> MY CONCERN, IF SOMEONE GOT
IT CLEANED AT 1030 -- 10:30 AM,
I DON'T KNOW IF WE WOULD INTEND
TO HAVE THAT AS A STAYOVER, MAY
BE A 36 HOUR RULE, CAPTURING THE
TYPICAL VARIABILITY, IF THAT
WAS THE INTENT.
>> OKAY, A REALLY GOOD
SUGGESTION, 36 HOURS SEEMS A
LITTLE BIT MORE REASONABLE WITH
CURRENT PRACTICE, I THINK WE
WILL LOOK INTO THAT FOR SURE,
YOU CAN ANTICIPATE THAT WILL BE
ON THE ISSUE IDENTIFICATION,
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP,
AND BEING REALLY SPECIFIC ABOUT
THE REALITY OF THE CLEANING.
LET'S EXPLORE 36, IT SOUNDS
LIKE THE NUMBER RESONATING WITH
A LOT OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED.
SO WE ALREADY TEAMED UP THE
CHANGE FOR TEAM CLEANING, THE
INITIATIVE DID NOT ADDRESS
SITUATIONS WHERE THERE IS MORE
THAN ONE EMPLOYEE PERFORMING
THE CLEANING.
IT ALLOWS HOTELS TO DIVIDE
THEIR SQUARE FOOTAGE BY THE
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN THE ROOM,
IF IT IS A 300 SQUARE FOOT ROOM,
2 EMPLOYEES IN THERE, HUNDRED
AND 50 SQUARE FEET TOWARDS EACH
OF THOSE EMPLOYEES' SQUARE FOOT
MAXIMUM.
HOWEVER, THE EMPLOYEES HAVE TO
AGREE TO THE TEAM CLEANING, THE
REASON FOR THE PROVISION IS TO
ADDRESS SITUATIONS WHERE IT
COULD BE A TEAM CLEANING, BUT
MAYBE ONE OF THE EMPLOYEES KNOWS
THE STYLE OF THE OTHER CLEANER,
AND THEY KNOW THEY ARE IN THERE
DOING 70% OF THE CLEANING,
RATHER THAN 50%.
IT DOES HAVE TO BE AN AGREEMENT
TO DO THE TEAM CLEANING.
>> DO WE KNOW WHAT KIND OF
NUMBERS, IN TERMS OF -- WHAT
PROPORTION OF CLEANING, IS DONE
ON A INDIVIDUAL BASIS, AND DO
WE HAVE ANY INDICATION OF THAT,
AND THIS IS NOT THE MAIN POINT,
IT JUST SORT OF MADE ME THINK
ABOUT WHETHER IT HAS ANY
BEARING AT ALL ON THE
INCIDENCES OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT,
IF THERE WAS ANY INDICATION THAT
-- I DON'T KNOW AT ALL THAT IT
DOES THIS, BUT THE THOUGHT
OCCURRED TO ME, IS IT ANYWHERE
DETERMINE, DO WE HAVE NUMBERS,
I DON'T MEAN IN SEATTLE, IN
GENERAL IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY,
AND WORKPLACES OF THIS NATURE,
AND I DO THINK IT IS A GOOD
POINT ABOUT EMPLOYEES HAVING TO
AGREE TO TEAM CLEANING, IS THAT
THE GENERALLY OBSERVED NORM
RIGHT NOW BY EMPLOYERS THAT
WHEN THERE IS TEAM CLEANING, IT
IS WHEN EMPLOYEES AGREE TO IT?
WHAT IS THE STANDARD NOW, IS IT
JUST CODIFYING WHAT IS ALREADY
THE NORM?
>> THE?
ANSWER IS THAT I DON'T HAVE ALL
THE INFORMATION, I DON'T KNOW
IF IT IS THE NORM, ANTICIPATED
IS PROBABLY NOT THE NORM TO
OBTAIN THE EMPLOYEE'S CONSENT,
I HAVE IN THE BACK OF MY MIND
HE THOUGHT THAT THERE ARE SOME
PLACES, MAYBE NEW YORK, THAT
REQUIRE IT FOR THE SAFETY OF
HOUSEKEEPERS, I DON'T KNOW THE
IMPACT, AND WHAT STUDIES HAVE
BEEN DONE, TO SEE IF THERE ARE
REDUCED INSTANCES.
>> EVEN IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE,
IF YOU COULD FORWARD THAT TO US,
IT MIGHT BE USEFUL.
>> I'M GOING TO JUMP IN REAL?,
TO POINT OUT, ON PAGE 5 OF THE
BILL, AND THAT IS 119554,
SECTION 1427 050 COVERS THE
ROOM CLEANING WORKLOAD LIMITS,
AND ON PAGE 5, ROUGHLY IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE PAGE, IT DESCRIBES
WHAT KARINA WAS TALKING ABOUT,
THAT AN EMPLOYEE MUST OPT OUT --
I'M SORRY, HAS AN ABILITY TO
OPT OUT OF TEAM CLEANING, BUT
THERE IS A PROVISION AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE LESSONS, IN
THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, IT SAYS
EXCEPT WHEN REQUIRED FOR
EMPLOYEE SAFETY OR BY LAW, THAT
IS THE EXCEPTION, AN EMPLOYEE
-- EMPLOYER MAY ONLY ASSIGN
MULTIPLE EMPLOYEES TO ASSIGN
THEM TOGETHER, IF THEY HAVE
AGREED TO CLEAN WITH OTHER
EMPLOYEES, PURSUANT TO RULES
ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR.
I WANT TO POINT OUT, THAT GOES
TO THE POINT THAT YOU ARE
MENTIONING, THERE IS SOME
QUESTION ABOUT HOW ONE
DETERMINES WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR
SAFETY.
AND THAT GOES TO THE VERY HEART
OF THE QUESTION, WHETHER TEAM
CLEANING DOES PROMOTE SAFETY, I
DON'T KNOW HOW TO INDEPENDENTLY
EVALUATE THAT, BUT I WANTED TO
POINT THAT OUT.
>> VARIOUS ITERATIONS OF THIS,
THE SECTION?
>> 1427 050, THE TITLE IS ROOM
CLEANING WORKLOAD LIMITS, AND
IT IS PARAGRAPH A OF THE
SECTION, AND I WAS REFERRING TO
THE LAST SENTENCE IN THE
PARAGRAPH.>> WHAT IS THE
PURPOSE OF THAT CLAUSE IF WE
DON'T KNOW WHEN IT WOULD BE
REQUIRED FOR SAFETY OR BY LAW,
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THOSE
WORDS BEING INCLUDED?>> I
BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS PORTED
OVER FROM THE INITIATIVE, OR IT
WAS NOT, I WAS INCORRECT.
MAYBE YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE
THAT?
>> [ LAUGHTER ] TO THE EXTENT
THAT I CAN VENTURE RESPONSE,
THE BYLAWS IS THE EASIEST TO
EXPLAIN, THE HEALTH AND SAFETY
ACT, REQUIRING AN EMPLOYER TO
DO CERTAIN THINGS TO ENSURE THE
SAFETY UNDER THOSE LAWS, WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS NO
CONFLICT BETWEEN OURS AND
THEIRS, WITH RESPECT TO WHEN
SAFETY IS IMPLICATED, WE ADDED
THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE HEARD FROM
FOLKS OVER TIME THAT THEY DO
ASSIGN TEAMS FOR SAFETY
PURPOSES, FOR INSTANCE, AT
NIGHT, WHEN THERE IS LEFT STAFF
-- LESS STAFF IN THE BUILDING,
WE DON'T WANT TO NECESSARILY
PUT THEM IN A WORSE OFF PLACE
IN TERMS OF SAFETY.
TO DAN'S POINT, IT PROBABLY
REQUIRES MORE CONVERSATION
ABOUT WHAT WE MEAN BY THAT,
THROUGH RULEMAKING OR FURTHER
CONVERSATION.
>> IN OBVIOUSLY, STATISTICAL
INFORMATION, AND BACKGROUND
FROM OTHER CITIES OR STATES OF
MATTERS DEFINITELY, BUT I WAS
ALSO WONDERING IF UNITE HERE,
COULD PROVIDE INSIGHT, IF THEY
HAVE INSIGHT FROM THEIR MEMBERS
ABOUT WHETHER IT MAKES A
DIFFERENCE TO THEM WHEN THEY
ARE ASSIGNED THE TEAM CLEANING
SHIFT VERSUS INDIVIDUAL SHIFTS,
EVEN THE FEELING, OR THE
PERCEPTION THAT THEY ARE SAFE,
ESPECIALLY NIGHTTIME, IT IS OF
MORE RELEVANCE, BUT JUST IN
GENERAL, IT WOULD HELP TO HAVE
SOME -- IT IS HARD FOR US TO
SPECULATE, ACTUAL WORK
EXPERIENCE WOULD HELP US, EVEN
ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE WOULD BE
HELPFUL.
>> THAT IS A GOOD POINT.
THANK YOU.
JUST FOR THE VIEWING PUBLIC'S
KNOWLEDGE, WE DID HAVE THE
SCHEDULED UNTIL 1:30 PM, WE
KNOW WE WILL PROBABLY GO BEYOND
THAT, IN CASE PEOPLE HAVE TO
LEAVE, I UNDERSTAND, IN CASE
YOU LEAVE, I UNDERSTAND, SORRY
WE DID NOT HAVE MORE TIME PLAN,
BUT I'M PLANNING TO STAY UNTIL
2:00 IF FOLKS ARE ABLE TO.
THAT WORKS FOR YOU?
>> I MAY NOT BE ABLE TO, BUT I
DO APPRECIATE IT, AND THAT
>> THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE
HOPING FOR, TURNING THE CLOCK
OFF, THAT WAS MORE FOR MY
KNOWLEDGE, TO KNOW HOW MUCH
TIME WE HAVE, BUT IF FOLKS ARE
OKAY, EVERYBODY HAS A TIGHT
SCHEDULE, WE WILL CONTINUE ON
FOR THE NEXT HALF HOUR.>> WE
HAVE A LOT OF GROUND TO COVER,
I WILL TRY TO BE?
ABOUT THE REMAINDER OF THIS
PARTICULAR LAW, UNDER THE
INITIATIVE, HOTELS WERE
REQUIRED TO PAY EMPLOYEES MORE
WHEN THEY EXCEEDED THE 5000
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF CLEANING.
SO THAT CONTINUES WITH THIS
PROPOSED LAW.
SUBBING THE TERM, REGULAR RATE
OF PAY WITH NORMAL HOURLY RATE
OF PAY, MAKING IT EASIER FOR
WORKERS TO UNDERSTAND,
EMPLOYERS TO CALCULATE, IT IS
NOT CIRCULAR, AND THERE ARE
SOME EXCEPTIONS TO THAT
PAYMENT, I BELIEVE WERE IN THE
RULES, AND NOW ARE CODIFIED
INTO LAW, SUBJECT TO A NOTICE
AND COMMENT.
AMONG EMPLOYERS.
>>> SO WITH THAT, WE CAN MOVE
ON TO ACCESS TO MEDICAL CARE.
>> THAT IS ME.
ALL RIGHT, THIS BEGINS ON PAGE 8
OF THE MATRIX THAT AGAIN IS
ATTACHMENT A TO THE STAFF MEMO.
THE EMPLOYER COVER -- ACCESS TO
MEDICAL CARE.
HEALTH INSURANCE, OR EQUIVALENT
PAYMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES.
THE EMPLOYER COVERAGE IS
FUNCTIONALLY THE SAME AS IT WAS
IN THE INITIATIVE, THIS APPLIES
TO LARGE HOTELS, AS DEFINED BY
HOTEL WITH 100 OR MORE ROOMS,
AND ANCILLARY BUSINESSES WITH A
PHYSICAL PRESENCE IN THE HOTEL.
THE CHANGE IN THIS, AN
EXEMPTION FOR ANCILLARY
BUSINESSES, UP TO 50 EMPLOYEES
WORLDWIDE.>>> EMPLOYEE COVERAGE
--
>> REAL?, CAN USE -- GIVE
EXAMPLES OF SMALL BUSINESS
VERSUS LARGE BUSINESS IN OTHER
AREAS OF LABOR STANDARDS, 50
EMPLOYEES WORLDWIDE, WHERE DO
WE USE THAT IN OTHER LOCATIONS?
>> SO FOR PAID SICK TIME, THREE
DIFFERENT SIZES OF EMPLOYERS,
BASED ON FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS,
THE ONLY ORDINANCE THAT IS
BASED ON THAT, IT HAS
THRESHOLDS OF UP TO 50, UP TO
250, AND THEN MORE THAN 250,
AND THE SECURE SCHEDULING LAW,
MINIMUM WAGE LAW, HAS
THRESHOLDS, 500 PLUS WORLDWIDE
EMPLOYEES, AND UNDER THAT IS A
SMALL EMPLOYER FOR MINIMUM WAGE,
AND A THRESHOLD OF 20 EMPLOYEES
WORLDWIDE.>> WHAT ORDINANCES
THAT?
>> THE LAW THAT REQUIRES
EMPLOYERS TO PROVIDE PRETAX
BENEFITS TO THEIR STAFF.
OUT OF THE EIGHT LAWS, THAT IS
FOR THEM THAT HAVE THE
THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT.
>> THE OTHER CHANGE, OR THE ONE
CHANGE, THAT I WANT TO DO CALL
YOUR ATTENTION TO, THE
INITIATIVE APPLIED ONLY TO LOW-
WAGE EMPLOYEES, IN THE HOTEL
INDUSTRY, DEFINED AS THOSE
WHOSE HOUSEHOLDS HAVE AN INCOME
THAT IS 400% OR BELOW OR LESS
OF THE POVERTY LINE.
THE BILL THAT IS BEFORE YOU
WOULD CHANGE THAT TO REMOVE THE
REQUIREMENT FOR LOW-WAGE
EMPLOYEES, AND THEREFORE APPLY
TO ALL OTHERWISE COVERED
EMPLOYEES WHO WORK IN THE
ANCILLARY BUSINESSES.
AND UNLESS THERE ARE QUESTIONS,
I'M GOING TO MOVE ON.
>>> I'M GOING TO DESCRIBE THE
INITIATIVE, WHAT KIND OF PAY AS
REQUIRED FOR EMPLOYEES BY THE
EMPLOYER, AN APPROACH THAT WAS
SPECIFIC TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF EACH INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE,
AND A CALCULATION FOR WHAT KIND
OF AFFORDABLE LEVEL OF INSURANCE
THE EMPLOYER NEEDED TO PAY TO
EACH EMPLOYEE, BASED ON THE
TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD AND INCOME.
IT BASICALLY SAID THAT THEY HAD
TO PROVIDE A GOLD LEVEL PLAN,
AND THAT THE COST TO THE
EMPLOYEE COULD BE NO MORE THAN
5% OF THE EMPLOYEES MONTHLY
PAY.
IN RECOGNITION OF SOME OF THE
REACTION AND TESTIMONY, THAT
EMPLOYERS OFTEN -- OFFERED AT
THE TIME THAT THE INITIATIVE
PAST, THAT THIS WAS A BURDENSOME
-- INITIATIVE PASSED. THAT THIS
WAS BURDENSOME, WHAT AGE, AND A
VARIETY OF OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES,
THE BILLS TAKE A DIFFERENT TACK,
AND TRY TO ESTABLISH A COMPOSITE
DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT IS NOW
CALLED A REQUIRED HEALTHCARE
EXPENDITURE, THAT A COVERED
EMPLOYER HAS TO PAY TO EACH
COVERED EMPLOYEE ON A MONTHLY
BASIS.
THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT RANGES FROM
$560 PER MONTH FOR AN
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE, AGAIN NO
MATTER WHAT THEIR AGE, AND
WHETHER THEY ARE A SMOKER, OR
OTHER KIND OF PARTICULARS THAT
WOULD AFFECT THEIR ABILITY TO
GET HEALTH INSURANCE AT
DIFFERENT DOLLAR AMOUNTS, AN
INDIVIDUAL WHO DOESN'T HAVE A
SPOUSE OR DOMESTIC PARTNER, AND
DOESN'T HAVE DEPENDENT CHILDREN,
TO $1680 FOR AN EMPLOYEE WHO
HAS BOTH A DOMESTIC PARTNER OR
SPOUSE, AND DEPENDENT CHILDREN.
THERE ARE FOUR CATEGORIES THAT
I HAVE MENTIONED, IN THE BOTTOM
AND TOP TEARS, THOSE DOLLAR
FIGURES ARE ARRIVED AT BY DOING
AN ACTUARIAL ANALYSIS OF THE
INDIVIDUAL HEALTH PLANS, THE
PRIVATE HEALTH PLANS AVAILABLE
TO INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR
HOUSEHOLDS ON THE -- MAKE SURE
YOU GET THE NAME RIGHT, THE
GOLD LEVEL PLAN AVAILABLE IN
KING COUNTY, ON THE WASHINGTON
STATE HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGE,
THAT IS THE PRICE OF THE HEALTH
INSURANCE, TO GO BY THE HEALTH
INSURANCE.
AN EMPLOYER CAN MEET THE
REQUIRED HEALTHCARE EXPENDITURE
FOR EACH MONTH, EITHER ENTIRELY
IN EXTRA PAY TO THE EMPLOYEE,
OR PROVIDING HEALTH INSURANCE
THAT MEET THE GOLD LEVEL
EQUIVALENTS STANDARD.
I'M SORRY, I WILL SCRAP THAT,
ALL IN EXTRA PAY, OR ALL IN
HEALTH INSURANCE, AND IT
DOESN'T HAVE TO MEET THE GOLD
STANDARD, ANY KIND OF HEALTH
INSURANCE, BUT IT CAN ONLY BE
IN HEALTH INSURANCE, IT HAS TO
BE AN AMOUNT THAT EXCEEDS OR
MEANS THE REQUIRED HEALTHCARE
EXPENDITURE, OR THEY CAN
PROVIDE HEALTH INSURANCE, AND
TOP OFF TO MEET THE BALANCE IN
EXTRA PAY, SO THEY CAN DO A
COMBINATION, SO I KNOW THAT'S A
LOT OF INFORMATION, ARE THERE
ANY QUESTIONS?
>> I WILL CHIME IN, THIS IS AN
AREA THAT I WILL CONTINUE TO DO
SOME RESEARCH ON, FOR ME, THERE
WERE TWO COMPONENTS THAT STOOD
OUT, ONE IS WE REALLY WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE WORKERS IN
THE HOTEL INDUSTRY HAVE HIGH
QUALITY HEALTH INSURANCE.
WHAT WE HEARD FROM SOME OF THE
WORKERS TODAY AND PREVIOUS
MEETINGS, THE AMOUNT OF
INJURIES THAT THEY ARE
SUSTAINING, ONE TALKED ABOUT
THE SHOULDER, OTHERS TALKED
ABOUT THEIR BACK, ONE WORKER
HAD 2 MISCARRIAGES IN A SHORT
PERIOD OF TIME, DUE TO THE
STRENUOUS AMOUNT OF WORK, WHICH
WE ARE ADDRESSING, BUT ALSO
ACCESS TO QUALITY AFFORDABLE
HEALTHCARE IS CRITICAL FOR
ADDRESSING AND PREVENTING SOME
INJURIES.
WE WANTED TO BE HIGH QUALITY,
AND THE BIG AREA OF CONCERN
THAT I HAD WAS THAT THERE
POTENTIALLY WAS A DISINCENTIVE
FROM SOME OF THESE WORKERS TO
TAKE THE HEALTHCARE UNDER THE
PREVIOUS INITIATIVE, UNDER THE
CASH OPTION, WE HAVE SEEN IN
OTHER INDUSTRIES, SOME
UNSCRUPULOUS EMPLOYERS,
BASICALLY WAIVING THE DOLLAR
AMOUNT VERSUS HEALTHCARE, WE
WANT WORKERS TO HAVE
HEALTHCARE, MY DESIRE IS TO
STRIKE THE RIGHT BALANCE
BETWEEN INCENTIVIZING, CREATING
AND REQUIRING HIGH QUALITY
HEALTHCARE, AND GETTING AWAY
FROM THE DISINCENTIVE OF THE
CASH, THAT IS A IMPORTANT
BALANCE TO STRIKE, WE WOULDN'T
BE IN THIS SITUATION IF WE HAD
UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, EMPLOYERS
WOULD NOT BE IN THE SITUATION
OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO
PAY FOR HEALTHCARE, AND UNION
WORKERS, WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE
PUTTING HEALTHCARE ON THE
BARGAINING TABLE, HAD WE HAD
UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, I'M
HOPING THAT CONTINUES TO
UNDERSCORE THE COMMONALITY FOR
WHYWE NEED MEDICARE FOR ALL,
UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, SINGLE-
PAYER, AND IN THE MEANTIME, I'M
NOT QUITE SURE THAT WE HAVE
GOTTEN THAT RIGHT FORMULA YET.
AS YOU ARE EXPLAINING IT, AND
DOES I WAS READING IT, THERE IS
A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
MARKET, AND THE MARKET, HEARING
THE EXPLANATION, WE NEED TO GO
BACK AND DOUBLE CHECK ON COSTS
FOR INDIVIDUAL MARKET VERSUS
LARGE GROUP, THAT IS A REAL
DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT THE
COST IS, AS WE WERE THINKING
ABOUT THE LANGUAGE, I DIDN'T
THINK ABOUT THAT, JUST GOING TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THIS IS AN AREA
THAT I AM INTERESTED IN CAN YOU
DOING TO EXPLORE POLICY
SOLUTIONS THAT MEET THE GOALS,
BUT NOT COMPROMISING ON THE
HIGH QUALITY HEALTHCARE,
ACCESSIBILITY AND AFFORDABILITY,
AND MAKING SURE THERE IS NOT A
UNINTENTIONAL DISINCENTIVE TO
TAKE THE HEALTHCARE.
>> I WOULD ONLY ADD TO THAT BUT
I THINK YOUR VERBALIZATION OF
THE REALITIES, OF THE HEALTH
INSURANCE MARKET, IS AN A
KNOWLEDGEABLE OF THE FACT THAT
WE RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS
EXPENSIVE BOTH ON THE PATIENT
SIDE OF THE EQUATION, AND
PRESSURING -- PURCHASING THE
PRODUCT SIZE OF THE EQUATION,
JUST TO BE REALLY CLEAR, ONE OF
THE OTHER POLICY PRIORITIES
THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS, IS TO
RECOGNIZE THAT WE DON'T WANT TO
CREATE AN UNDUE BURDEN IN TERMS
OF COST ON EMPLOYERS WHO
ACTUALLY WANT TO PROVIDE
HEALTHCARE COVERAGE, IS THERE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE POLICY
CONVERSATIONS AROUND WHERE WE
SET THE LIMIT, AND WHAT WE ARE
TYING IT TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT
AGAIN, WE ARE NOT GOING TO
GENERATE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES IN TERMS OF THE
ULTIMATE POLICY PRIORITY,
MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE
PROVIDING THIS SEGMENT OF
WORKERS, ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY
, AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE
HEALTHCARE, WHICH IS REALLY AT
THE CORE OF IT ALL.
>>> ABSOLUTELY, WE WOULD NOT BE
IN THIS PLACE IF WE HAD
UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE,
STATEWIDE, WE SHOULD BE HAVING
A SERIOUS CONVERSATION, BECAUSE
IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO IT
STATEWIDE, THE MOVEMENT IN
CALIFORNIA WAS ATTEMPTING TO DO
THAT, AND THAT SHOULD BE AN
ACTUAL TOPIC OF CONVERSATION, I
AGREE, THAT SHOULD BE CONNECTED
TO ALL OF THIS.
AND IN TERMS OF WHAT THE
LEGISLATION, WHETHER IN THE
LANGUAGE OF THE BILL ITSELF, OR
THE RULEMAKING, EITHER WAY,
WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT HEALTHCARE,
I WAS WONDERING IF DAN COULD GO
THROUGH THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE,
AGAIN, BECAUSE I DIDN'T QUITE
CATCH ALL OF WHAT IT WOULD SAY,
AND ALSO, WE ALL AGREE HERE THE
TABLE, KEEPING IN MIND THAT
MANY OF THE WORKERS WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT HERE ARE, CORRECT
ME IF I'M WRONG, THEY ARE
EMPLOYED BY LARGE EMPLOYERS WHO
I THINK COMPARED TO VERY SMALL
EMPLOYERS, ARE ABLE TO AFFORD
THESE, I THINK KEEPING THAT IN
THE MIX AS WELL, IN ORDER TO
COME TO WHAT WE THINK IS THE
APPROPRIATE MEASURE OF
HEALTHCARE FOR THE WORKERS,
THAT WOULD BE MANDATED BY THE
LEGISLATION, THROUGH THE ROOT
-- THE RULEMAKING, KEEPING THAT
IN MIND IS ALSO IMPORTANT.
>> I WILL TAKE ANOTHER RUN AT
IT.
I WILL PROBABLY FUMBLE THROUGH
THE SECOND TIME.
>> I THINK YOU SAID THE
INSURANCE WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED
TO BE GOLD LEVEL.
>> LET ME TAKE ANOTHER TRY AT
IT, THE REQUIRED EXPENDITURE
AMOUNT IS KEYED OFF HOW MUCH A
GOLD LEVEL PLAN WOULD COST ON
THE EXCHANGE.
RECOGNIZING THAT EMPLOYERS ARE
NOT BUYING THEIR HEALTH
INSURANCE ON THE EXCHANGE, WE
NEEDED TO TIE TO SOME KIND OF A
BENCHMARK, WE TIED IT TO 4
COMPOSITE RATES FOR A GOLD
LEVEL HEALTH PLAN ON THE
INDIVIDUAL EXCHANGE IN KING
COUNTY, FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE
SEEKING HEALTHCARE IN KING
COUNTY, AGAIN AT THE GOLD
LEVEL, IT DEPENDS WHETHER THEY
ARE AN INDIVIDUAL, WHO HAS NO
DEPENDENTS, OR HAS A SPOUSE OR
DOMESTIC PARTNER, OR ONLY
CHILDREN, BUT NO DOMESTIC
PARTNER OR HAS BOTH, THOSE ARE
THE FOUR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES,
THE SPECIFIC DOLLARS, ABOUT
$952 FOR AN INDIVIDUAL PLUS A
SPOUSE, $1120 FOR AN INDIVIDUAL
PLUS DEPENDENT CHILDREN, OR
$1680 WHO HAS BOTH CATEGORIES,
THAT IS THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT
THE EMPLOYER IS REQUIRED TO
SPEND.
THE WAY THE EMPLOYER SPENDS IS
THE EMPLOYER'S CHOICE, THEY CAN
EITHER PROVIDE ENTIRE EXTRA PAY
CASH, OR THEY CAN PROVIDE SOME
SORT OF HEALTHCARE, THEY CAN
PROVIDE THE HEALTHCARE, BRONZE,
GOLD, SILVER THING, OR A
COMBINATION, OR PAY SOME OF THE
REQUIRED DOLLAR AMOUNTS THAT I
TALKED ABOUT, $560 UP TO $1680,
UP TO THE EMPLOYER.
AND AS THE CHAIR WAS DESCRIBING,
THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE
EMPLOYEE TO UP OUT, AND SAY I
DON'T WANT THAT INSURANCE,
DIFFERENT PROVISIONS FOR WHAT
HAPPENS IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE.>>
BUT ONLY IF IT IS EQUAL OR
BETTER INSURANCE THAT THEY
ALREADY HAVE.
>> THEY CAN ONLY OPT OUT IF
THEY HAVE A GOLD EQUIVALENT
PLAN THEMSELVES, AND OTHER
PROVISIONS FOR WHAT HAPPENS IF
THE TYPE OF INSURANCE THAT THE
EMPLOYER OFFERED, ONE OF THE
OPTIONS FOR MEETING THE
REQUIRED MONTHLY EXPENDITURE
LEVEL, IF IT IS DEEMED TO BE
UNAFFORDABLE TO THE EMPLOYEE,
THE CALCULATION, WHICH IS
PROVIDED IN THE ORDINANCE.
>> THIS IS I THINK A VERY
IMPORTANT DISTINCTION, WHEN WE
TALK ABOUT THE GOLD STANDARD
FOR THE INDIVIDUAL MARKET, WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT AN 80%
ACTUARIAL VALUE, I THINK THIS
IS AN AREA FOR US TO DO
ADDITIONAL RESEARCH WHEN WE
LOOK AT THE LARGE GROUP MARKET
PLANS THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING
OFFERED FOR EXAMPLE IN KING
COUNTY, THERE SHOULD BE A WAY
TO DO AN ANALYSIS OF WHICH OF
THE PLANS ARE BEING OFFERED IN
THE LARGE GROUP EMPLOYER
COVERAGE, MEETING THAT 80%
ACTUARIAL VALUE, WE USE THESE
TEAR NAMES OVER AND OVER, BUT
THE INTENT IS TO MAKE SURE IT
IS REACHING THAT VALUE, MANY
LARGE EMPLOYERS, PRIOR TO THE
ACA, OFFERING HEALTH COVERAGE,
AT 80%, AND SOME OF THE GROCERY
INDUSTRIES, WE HEARD OF
EXAMPLES WHERE PEOPLE WERE
GOING TO THE BARGAINING TABLE,
THROWING DOWN PICTURES OF
PRESIDENT OBAMA, IF 60%
ACTUARIAL VALUE WAS GOOD ENOUGH
FOR YOUR PRESIDENT, THAT IS
WHAT WE WILL OFFER.
THAT WAS THE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCE.
BUT PULLING TOGETHER MORE
WORKERS AND EMPLOYEES, GOOD FOR
RATES.
>> THAT WAS THE PREMISE BE
TAUGHT -- BEHIND MEDICARE FOR
ALL.
>> I AM SYMPATHETIC, THIS IS AN
AREA THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO
DO WORK ON, THE INDIVIDUAL WHO
CAME AND SPOKE, SOME OF THE
FOLKS OF AND CALLING IS THE
LAST FEW DAYS, WHO HAVE BROUGHT
THIS ISSUE UP, THERE IS A REAL
ANALYSIS THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE
TO DO AROUND LARGE GROUP
MARKETS, THE EQUIVALENT OF A
80% ACTUARIAL VALUE IN OUR
REGION, THAT IS MORE THE GOAL,
VERSUS THE DOLLAR AMOUNT PER
SAY, THIS IS AN AREA WHERE WE
WILL DO SOME MORE WORK TO REACH
THE BETTER QUALITY THRESHOLD.>>
THAT LANGUAGE, UNINTENTIONALLY,
WE DON'T END UP ALLOWING THE
EMPLOYERS IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY,
TO UNDERCUT THE WORKERS, THE
MORE SPECIFIC WE ARE ABOUT THE
LANGUAGE, THE BETTER FOR THE
WORKERS.
>> THAT'S RIGHT, AND FAIR TO
SAY, WE ALSO DON'T WANT A
NUMBER BASED ON A SEPARATE
MARKET, THAT IS NOT APPLES TO
APPLES, FOR WHAT IT COSTS, AT
THAT HIGHER-QUALITY VALUE THEN
IS CURRENTLY BEING OFFERED.
>> AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE
WANT TO CREATE AN INCENTIVE AND
THE REAL POSSIBILITY FOR THE
COVERAGE TO BE PROVIDED.
EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN DO TO
GENERATE THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
IN THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, I
DIDN'T HEAR ANYONE SAY I DON'T
WANT TO PROVIDE MY WORKERS
HEALTHCARE, WHAT I'M HEARING
EMPLOYERS SAY IS I AM NERVOUS
THAT THE COST WILL BE SO
PROHIBITIVE THAT I WON'T BE
ABLE TO DO THAT, THERE'S A WAY
TO DO THE ANNOUNCE -- ANALYSIS
AS SUGGESTED BY CHAIR MOSQUEDA,
AND HOW TO RE-CREATE THAT
PATHWAY, TO MAKE SURE THAT IT
IS GOING TO BE ULTIMATELY
FULFILLED WITH THE POLICY GOAL,
MAKING SURE THAT THEY HAVE
ACCESS TO THIS COVERAGE.
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE NOTE, I
MENTIONED THIS YESTERDAY WHEN I
RECEIVED A BRIEFING FOR OTHER
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PURPOSES, I
AM A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT
THE WAY THE DISINCENTIVE DESK
READING THE DISINCENTIVE TO
OFFER CASH, THE WAY IT IS
STRUCTURED, I COULD SEE A
SCENARIO IN WHICH AN EMPLOYEE
-- THE RESULT IS THEY HAVE TO
PAY FOR A PLAN THAT THEY CAN'T
AFFORD BECAUSE OF THE 20% MARK,
OUT-OF-POCKET COULD BE AN AWFUL
LOT OF MONEY TO SOMEBODY'S
MONTHLY INCOME, SO I HAVE AN
INTEREST IN LOOKING AT THAT
NUMBER.
>> DOES IT HELP TO PROVIDE
CLARIFICATION TO THAT POINT?
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO DO THAT?
WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING, TO BE
DISCUSSING, IS AN OPTION, OR A
SITUATION WHERE A HOTEL IS NOT
REQUIRED TO MAKE THIS MONTHLY
HEALTHCARE EXPENDITURE, THAT
CAN HAPPEN IF THE EMPLOYER
OFFERS A HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN.
AND IF THE PLAN, AS DAN WAS
SAYING, HAS AFFORDABLE PREMIUM,
THE ORDINANCE IS SAYING, IF THE
EMPLOYEE SAYS I DON'T WANT TO
PAY THE AFFORDABLE PREMIUM, THE
EMPLOYEE IS OPTING OUT
EVERYTHING, GIVING UP THEIR
RIGHTS TO GET THE CASH INSTEAD,
SO THIS OPT OUT IS
INCENTIVIZING EMPLOYEES TO SAY
YES TO THE HEALTH INSURANCE,
BUT WHAT THE COUNCILMEMBER IS
QUESTIONING, IS WHY IS THE
EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION SET AT
20% OF THE MONTHLY HEALTHCARE
EXPENDITURE RATE LORI -- FOR A
SINGLE EMPLOYEE.
THEY HAVE TO PAY $560 A MONTH
IN THESE, 20% OF THAT IS $112,
AS LONG AS THE PREMIUM IS THAT,
AND THE PLAN MEETS THAT 560
MARK, THEN THE EMPLOYEE HAS TO
SAY YES OR FORFEIT THE RIGHT TO
THE CASH, SO WHAT I AM HEARING
YOU QUESTION IS, WHY 20%, WHY
NOT A DIFFERENT AMOUNT, YOU ARE
THINKING IT SHOULD BE LOWER?
>> THAT IS MY QUESTION.
THE? ANSWER I WOULD OFFER IS
THE ACTUARIAL -- QUICK ANSWER.
THE ACTUARIAL VALUE, 20% PICKED
UP BY THE PATIENT OR THE
CONSUMER, IN AN IDEAL WORLD,
MORE LIKE A 95% ACTUARIAL VALUE,
WHICH IS THE PLATINUM PLUS PLAN,
80% IS BASICALLY WHAT THE
EMPLOYER OR THE INSURER WILL
PAY, AND YOU PAY THE OTHER 20%,
AND OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES,
PREMIUMS, DEDUCTIBLES, ETC.,
THAT HIS WORK COMES FROM, I HEAR
THAT, THE PERCENTAGE OF INCOME.
>> YES.
>> IT USED TO BE THAT YOU
COULDN'T CHARGE -- IT WOULD BE
--
>> WE SHOULD TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION -- BEFORE THE ECA
-- ACA WAS GUTTED, NOT THAT IT
WAS AS ROBUST, BEFORE THAT WAS
GUTTED, IT USED TO BE THAT YOU
COULDN'T OFFER A HEALTH PLAN
THAT WAS MORE THAN 9.5% OF THE
INDIVIDUALS INCOME, DEEMED
UNAFFORDABLE, THE EMPLOYER
WOULD GET DEEMED, SOME OF IT
HAS CHANGED, I HEAR YOUR POINT,
IT'S CONTINUE TO HEAR ABOUT IT,
AS IT IMPACTS THE INDIVIDUAL
WORKER.
>> WE HAVE ABOUT 10 MORE
MINUTES, I AM HAPPY TO EXTEND,
BUT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT WHAT
IS LEFT TO COVER?
>> WE HAVE THE ONE REMAINING
BILL TO COVER, AND I THINK I
CAN COVER IT PRETTY QUICKLY,
AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> IF IT WASN'T CLEAR FROM THE
LAST CONVERSATION, THERE WILL
BE MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT
HEALTHCARE AS WE GO FORWARD.>>
PAGE 10 OF THE MATRIX COVERS
THE HOTEL EMPLOYEES JOB
RETENTION BILL, BOTH THE
EMPLOYER COVERAGE AND THE
EMPLOYEE COVERAGE ARE LARGELY
THE SAME IN THE BILL, COMPARED
TO THE INITIATIVE, INITIATIVE
124, THERE IS ONE CHANGE THAT I
CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO, SIMILAR
TO THE DISCUSSION FOR THE
PREVIOUS BILL, THERE IS A
EXEMPTION FOR SMALL BUSINESSES,
IF THEY ARE ANCILLARY HOTEL
BUSINESSES THAT HAVE 20
EMPLOYEES WORLDWIDE OR FEWER.
IT IS DIFFERENT, IN THE
HEALTHCARE ONE, IT WAS 50, IN
THIS BILL, IT IS 20.
ALL OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS ARE
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS IN
THE INITIATIVE, AN OUTGOING
EMPLOYER, THAT CHANGES HANDS,
AND THERE IS A NEW OWNER, MUST
PROVIDE A PREFERENTIAL -- THE
NEW OWNER WITH A BUSINESS,
THERE IS NO CHANGE THERE.
AND THE INCOMING EMPLOYER MUST
HIRE FROM THE PREFERENTIAL
HIRING LIST FOR A PERIOD OF 180
DAYS, IF THE EMPLOYER ACCEPTS A
JOB OFFER, THEY MUST RETAIN THE
EMPLOYEE FOR NO LESS THAN 90
DAYS, AND CAN DISCHARGE THE
THEM PLOIDY FOR -- I THINK
THERE IS NO OTHER SUBSTANTIAL
CHANGES.
AND THAT IS THE END OF THE
REVIEW OF THE 4 PIECES OF
LEGISLATION.
>> IT IS JUST US LEFT, THERE
ARE NO QUESTIONS.
[ LAUGHTER ] QUESTIONS HERE, DO
YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU
WANTED TO ADD IN TERMS OF THE
CONTEXT OF THE BILL, OR
OVERARCHING COMMENTS?
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ, ANYMORE
FROM YOU?
>> AGAIN, I WOULD THINK YOU,
FOR SHEPHERDING THROUGH THIS
CONVERSATION IN YOUR COMMITTEE,
MAKING SPACE FOR THIS
CONVERSATION, SO THANK YOU, I
THOUGHT TODAY WAS A GOOD
CONVERSATION, WHAT WE WANTED TO
SEE HAPPEN, WAS BEGIN THE
PUBLIC FACING PROCESS OF REALLY
DISCUSSING AND DEBATING SOME OF
THE REMAINING POLICY ISSUES,
AND SOME THAT WE HAVE ALREADY
MADE, SIX MONTHS WORTH OF BACK
ROOM CONVERSATIONS THAT HAVE
INCLUDED UNITE HERE, AND ALSO
HOTEL WORKERS, BUT ALSO
INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS FROM THE
MAYOR'S OFFICE, TO THE STATE
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, TO OUR
OFFICE STAFF, AND TO ME, I
REALLY IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE ARE HAVING THESE
CONVERSATIONS IN A OPEN SETTING
LIKE THIS, AND WE HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM A
BROADER SET OF GROUPS AND
STAKEHOLDERS TO SHEPHERD THIS
WORK THROUGH.
AND I HOPE FOLKS HEARD BOTH OF
US SIGNAL THAT WE UNDERSTAND
THAT THERE ARE DEEPER POLICY
ANALYSIS CONVERSATIONS AND
EXERCISES THAT NEED TO BE
COMPLETED TO GET THIS OVER THE
FINISH LINE IN THE NEXT FIVE OR
SIX WEEKS, AND WE ARE BOTH VERY
WILLING OF COURSE TO CONTINUE
TO ENGAGE IN THOSE
CONVERSATIONS.
AND THEY WILL BE FIRST AND
FOREMOST GUIDED BY THE ULTIMATE
POLICY GOALS AND VALUES THAT WE
HAVE ARTICULATED MANY TIMES.
LOOKING FORWARD TO THE
CONVERSATIONS AND NEXTEP.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> THANKS TO ALL OF YOU, YOU
HAVE BEEN SO AMAZING, WORKING
REALLY HARD ON THIS, A HUGE
SHUT OUT, TO ALL OF YOU ROLLING
UP YOUR SLEEVES, AT LEAST 22
TIMES, PROBABLY A LOWBALL
NUMBER, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE
TIME YOU ARE SPINNING TOGETHER
ON THIS ISSUE.
>> I WANTED TO THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ, FOR
YOUR WORK, THE CHIEF OF STAFF,
SPENDING ENDLESS HOURS WITH YOU
ALL, THANK YOU SO MUCH TO YOUR
TEAM, TO THE FOLKS ON MY TEAM
AS WELL, AND I WANTED TO GIVE
YOU ADDITIONAL THINGS, THE
CENTRAL STAFF, THANK YOU FOR
WALKING IS THE DOCUMENT, AND WE
SAW ADRIAN, STILL THERE, AND
THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, THINGS TO
YOUR TEAM AS WELL FOR YOUR
CONSTANT ENGAGEMENT IN THIS
POLICY AREA, AND ALSO THE ENTIRE
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, I
UNDERSTAND THAT THE ENTIRE
OFFICE AT SOME POINT HAS BEEN
ENGAGED WITH THE TEAMS ON THE
LEGALITY AND THANKS SO MUCH.
AND DOING A GOOD JOB AS WELL OF
HELPING US OF PREVIOUS
MEETINGS, AND BEING AT OTHER
MEETINGS, AND THE ROLLOUT OF THE
PREVIOUS MEETINGS, THINKING TO
TEAMS, THANK YOU UNITE, LOCAL
8, HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION,
ACLU OF WASHINGTON, ONE AMERICA,
MARTIN LUTHER KING LABOR
COUNCIL, AND THANK YOU FOR
STICKING AROUND FOR THE FULL
TWO HOURS, WE WILL BE
DISCUSSING THIS ON JULY 11, AND
THEN JULY 18, WITH THE
POSSIBILITY OF ANOTHER MEETING
IF WE NEED TO, BUT SOME OF THE
ISSUES THAT WE ARE HEARING ARE
OVERLAPPING NICELY, AND WE WILL
CONTINUE TO DO SOME RESEARCH
WITH ALL OF YOU.
>>> JUST A REMINDER, WE HAVE A
PUBLIC HEARING THAT WILL BE
FOCUSED, ON THE MATERIALS
AVAILABLE, STAFF ON HAND, IN
CASE THERE ARE QUESTIONS, BUT
REALLY THIS IS A CHANCE FOR US
TO HEAR DIRECTLY FROM THE
COMMUNITY INVOLVED, AND IF YOU
NEED CHILDCARE, LET US KNOW, AND
PROVIDING US WITH CHILDCARE
THAT WILL BE FREE, AND
DISCOUNTED PARKING, AT SEA
PARK, FIFTH AND JAMES, FOR FIVE
DOLLARS, BEGINNING AT 4:30 PM,
LETTUCE -- LET US KNOW.
FOLKS CAN COME IN THE EVENING,
YOU HEARD FROM THE HOTEL
WORKERS, AND I'M SURE OF THE
MENTORS AS WELL, WE WANT TO
MAKE TIME IN THE EVENING TO
HAVE A CONVERSATION.
>> AND TRANSLATION AVAILABLE.
>> WE WILL WORK ON THAT, LET'S
DO THAT.
IN SPANISH.
OKAY.
WE WILL WORK ON THAT TO MAKE
SURE THAT EQUIPMENT IS
AVAILABLE AS WELL IN REAL TIME.
>>> UST FOR THE GOOD OF THE
ORDER, THE NEXT REGULARLY
SCHEDULED HOUSING -- HOUSING,
HEALTH, ENERGY, AND WORKERS
RIGHTS COMMITTEE WAS ON JULY 4,
MY BIRTHDAY, WE WON'T BE HERE.
IT IS AMERICA'S WAY OF
CELEBRATING ME.
[ LAUGHTER ]>> FIREWORKS FOR
YOUR SPECIAL BIRTHDAY.
>> I USED TO THINK THEY WERE
ALL FOR ME.
IT WAS A SAD DAY WHEN I FOUND
OUT.
WE WILL MOVE THAT TO THURSDAY,
JULY 11, AT 9:30 AM, IN COUNCIL
CHAMBERS, WE WILL HAVE A FEW
ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, INCLUDING
THE HOTEL WORKER INDUSTRY
STANDARDS LEGISLATION, AND
ISSUE IDENTIFICATION.
AND POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO
COME, THERE WON'T BE A FINAL
VOTE THAT THEY COVER ANYBODY
CONCERNED ABOUT THAT, BUT IN
ADDITION, THE BOARD
APPOINTMENTS, THE STANDARD
BOARD UPDATE AND RULEMAKING,
AND THE OFFICE OF LABOR
STANDARDS SOCIAL JUSTICE
INITIATIVE, THE WAGE INFLATION
ADJUSTMENT, AND LEGISLATION,
AND THE NOTICE OF INTENT, THAT
SOUNDS LIKE A FULL DAY'S WORTH
OF ACTIVITIES.
WE WILL TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT
EVERYTHING IS TIMED WELL, AND
IF WE NEED TO ADJUST OTHER
ITEMS WE WILL DO SO.
>>> WITH THAT, SEEING NO OTHER
COMMENTS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR
INCREDIBLE WORK WALKING US
THROUGH THE PRESENTATION,
GETTING YOU OUT 2 MINUTES
EARLY, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE,
REALLY APPRECIATE IT, WE WILL
SEE YOU ON TUESDAY NIGHT AT
5:30 PM.