Ballot measure to enact $15 minimum wage near Seattle wins narrow victory

OLYMPIA, Washington Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:04pm EST

Related Topics

OLYMPIA, Washington (Reuters) - A voter initiative to enact a $15 minimum wage for thousands of workers in a Seattle suburb that houses the region's main international airport won a narrow victory on Tuesday that proponents hailed as a signal moment in the nationwide fight for livable wages.

The measure mandates that some 6,300 workers at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and nearby hotels, car rental agencies and parking lots receive a minimum hourly wage more than double the federal minimum wage of $7.25.

Washington state's hourly minimum wage is already higher than any other U.S. state, and will rise by 13 cents to $9.32 an hour in January. The new wage in the city of SeaTac would be among the nation's highest, just below a $15.38 rate mandated for city workers and contractors in Sonoma, California.

Backers of the SeaTac wage ordinance see it as an opportunity to help local workers while encouraging other communities - particularly cities with progressive tendencies and smaller voting pools - to take similar action.

"It shows that people are tired of waiting for corporate CEOs or Congress to deal with income inequality and that they can use democracy to make a change," said Heather Weiner, spokeswoman for the union-backed Yes For SeaTac campaign.

The measure won by a margin of 77 votes with about 6,000 ballots cast, and King County election officials certified the outcome on Tuesday after weeks of uncertainty.

Opponents who fear the measure will slow the region's economy and drive businesses away said they plan to request a manual recount, for which they will have to foot the bill unless the result is reversed.

"This is a pretend solution to a really serious national economic problem," said Don Stark, spokesman for Common Sense SeaTac, a business-backed campaign opposing the initiative. "It is taking money from one pocket and putting it in another."

Foes of the measure, among them Alaska Airlines, have already sued to block it from taking effect in January, arguing in part that the city lacks the authority to impose a minimum wage on the airport, which is owned by the Port of Seattle.


The election has been a drawn out affair. On election night three weeks ago, early returns showed the measure enjoyed an 8 percentage point lead, and supporters declared victory.

But Washington state requires voters to mail in their ballots or deposit them in drop boxes. As votes trickled in, the lead narrowed to as few as 19 votes over a week ago before expanding as problematic ballots initially set aside by election officials were tabulated.

The measure covers workers in the travel and hospitality industries, and provides sick leave in addition to a higher wage floor. It exempts small firms, airlines and unionized work forces.

While organized labor hopes SeaTac will act as a catalyst for similar efforts elsewhere - including in Seattle, which this month elected to the City Council Kshama Sawant, a socialist whose platform centered on a $15 minimum wage - the initiative is not without precedent.

Since 1994, when Baltimore instituted the country's first so-called living wage ordinance, more than 120 local governments have followed suit, according to the National Employment Law Project.

Four major California airports operate under ordinances similar to the SeaTac measure, including one guaranteeing workers at San Jose airport $13.82 an hour plus health insurance, and another mandating that Los Angeles airport workers earn $10.91 per hour plus health benefits.

(Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Jackie Frank)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (9)
COindependent wrote:
Oh, good! Now we have voters determining what the fair market value for (low-skill) labor, totally ignoring the supply and demand equation. They just priced entry-level workers out of the market.

Much the same in Colorado, we have voters determining what work is desireable and what work that should be banned (oil industry–bad, anything having to do with technology–good).

Soon consumers will be complaining about increasing costs of services at the SeaTac airport–which are already expensive. Much like they complain about the price of the fuel they use to commute to work. The free market system, even acknowledging its flaws, has worked in this country for over two hundred years. But now, we want to ignore the principals of a free society and centrally manage economics–the POTUS must be smiling (the mission is alive and well).

The end result of “leveling the playing field”, which is effectively “equal outcomes regardless of competence”, will be greater economic inequality, not less. And, the voters in SeaTac just condemned their children to a world where their opportunities for financial success are diminished, because financial rewards are now dictated by politics–those who are unwilling to assume risk, or make the extraordinary effort to improve their financial status , and who are not willing to sacrifice short term comfort for long term gain.

“To each according to their need, from each according to their ability.” Nice….

Nov 27, 2013 9:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
@CoIndependent, It sure is a lot easier to cast stones then to propose solutions, what would you propose to help fix the income inequality problem in this country? Or do you think it is not a problem?

I applaud the voters of SeaTac, they did what Congress needs to do.

Nov 27, 2013 10:56am EST  --  Report as abuse
JArbuckle wrote:
Just raise prices for everything in the airport area to fund it then voters can see money doesn’t come from thin air — call it the minimum wage tax because that’s essentially what it is.

Nov 27, 2013 11:14am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.