Category: Blog

Construction cranes dot Seattle neighborhoods as residential development continues to boom. Despite hundreds of new units online, rents for households across the income spectrum are rising.

But as Jonathan Grant, Tenants’ Union Executive Director points out, in a recent Seattle Times article that highlights the crisis, “The Reality is these units are high-cost, and often these were taken out of affordable housing stock. That’s why you see this theory of supply and demand being turned on its head.”

Lack of affordable housing for low and middle wage workers is a problem across Seattle neighborhoods. The experience of Southeast Seattle neighborhoods mirrors that of more affluent areas, like Green Lake and Ballard.  According to the Puget Sound Regional Council the value of parcels around light rail stations in Rainier Valley rose an average of 513% since light rail construction began. In that same time period, the price of rent in Rainier Valley doubled from $500 to over $1,000.

Rising rents strongly indicate gentrification in neighborhoods like Rainier Valley. Gentrification alone does not necessarily cause displacement, but it creates the conditions for it. Largely by increasing the cost of living, gentrification creates a downward pressure on low-income residents. Without anywhere to gain an economic edge, low-income residents are eventually forced to seek housing elsewhere and are displaced from their neighborhoods, as Alexa Vaughn thoughtfully describes in her Times article.

In order for middle and low-income households to benefit from new investments and development the supply of permanently affordable housing and other community infrastructure, like strong cultural centers and small businesses need also need to thrive.

Vaughn’s article also echoes Seattle’s overarching narrative on gentrification: that “market forces” are to blame for the displacement of low income residents, and that “revitalization” springs from wealthy newcomers.

This narrative needs to be challenged. To assume that prosperity from new development can only benefit Seattle’s wealthy “professionals” is a false dichotomy. To allow Seattle to continue to blossom into a City that values diversity, innovation and equity policy makers need to look beyond the constrains of narrow minded economics and build an economy that works for everyone.

Neighborhood revitalization only works if it benefits the current residents of the area in question. Gentrification gives the appearance of “solving the problem” of urban poverty and neglected city infrastructure. Renovated storefronts and apartment buildings attract new tenants, new businesses, and new clients. From an external perspective, this rebirth is a much needed change for economically depressed neighborhoods.

However, people living in these neighborhoods are faced with a much darker reality as their rents begin to rise and they are forced to choose between forfeiting even more of their income to pay rent or giving up their homes altogether.

New apartment complexes are not the only culprits; light rail and transit oriented development have also played a hand in displacing local residents who can no longer afford to live in the area. As prices rise, hard-working tenants are pushed further from their jobs and back into cars (undermining the environmental goals of TOD.) Families are pushed further from their social support networks. Tenants without vehicles are pushed further from public transit.

Growth, investment, and revitalization are not inherently bad. They can be very good. However if policy-makers don’t adopt measures to protect residents, these come to undermine structures that support healthy communities and economies and create greater barriers to economic stability for individuals and families. If we don’t create policies to protect tenants and ensure truly equitable growth, this problem will only continue to create greater inequality and economic instability.

SeaTac’s Prop. 1 has policy-wonks and media outlets re-hashing a long standing argument about raising the minimum wage. Although Prop. 1 is not a minimum wage initiative but rather a living wage requirement targeting specific industries; the debate nonetheless has focused on the “minimum.”

Some opinion makers point to a move made in Washington State, in 1998, to index the minimum wage with inflation. As a result, many other states have seen the minimum wage remain stagnant: without adjusting to inflation, a person who earns minimum wage effectively earns less than they did the year before.

However, the state of Washington’s minimum wage has only kept at pace with its original intent – to set a bare minimum rate of payment to prevent blatant abuse of workers. That is all.  To put this in context, the Fair Labor Standards of Act of 1938 that established a minimum hourly wage also banned oppressive child labor, and established the 40 hour work week. The minimum wage is exactly that – an absolute bare minimum to halt exploitation.

Yet, even many opponents of raising the minimum wage would agree that the minimum wage is not a livable wage. The minimum wage is a poverty wage.

Let’s examine even the highest minimum poverty wage – $9.19 an hour. This adds up to about $19,100 per year for a full time worker working 2080 hours per year, after the federal income tax, this can be as low as $16,700 in a workers pocket.

In Washington, the average cost of housing, utilities and transportation for one single adult is roughly $16,850 per year. This leaves no room in a single adult’s budget for health care, food or savings. When you add the costs of supporting children, this income becomes even more unsustainable. To get by, households go into debt or utilize other services to make sure their families get the services they need.

This is why the local living wage movement took hold twenty years ago in Baltimore when faith leaders working in homeless shelters and soup kitchens began to realize that many of those who were using their services every single day were people who held jobs. Since 1994, the living wage laws became effective ways for cities and localities across the United States to address poverty and boost their local economies.

However, this movement largely bypassed Washington State. Even though our state has the highest minimum poverty wage, we only have one city with a living wage law on the books – Bellingham. Their policy only covers industries that contract directly with the City of Bellingham.

Proposition 1, which would set a living wage of $15 an hour for certain transportation and hospitality workers in the City of SeaTac would be the second living wage policy in Washington State and one of dozens across the country.

For more information about Prop 1 read our posts on who is covered by the policy and why it is not the highest, nor a minimum wage.

After months of legal challenge, SeaTac’s Proposition 1 is finally going to the November ballot after three judges over-ruled a lower court decision to stop it. As media attention has zeroed in on the courtroom drama, much of the debate rhetoric has referred to Proposition 1 as the highest proposed “minimum wage” law in the country.

Here’s the thing – it’s not a minimum wage, nor is it the highest wage requirement in the country.  On the west coast that honor goes to Los Angeles’ airport where the living wage floor is set at $15.37 an hour (plus paid sick leave and minimum training requirements).  According to National Employment Law Project, the highest airport living wage in the country is Saint Louis at $15.92 an hour.

Other airports have lower wage floors, but over twice as much paid time off than the 5 days proposed by SeaTac Proposition 1.

A minimum wage typically refers to a universal wage threshold that raises the floor for all workers. Some cities, in fact, have adopted broad minimum wage ordinances, similar in scope to Federal or state minimum wage laws – San Francisco, Santa Fe and, more recently, San Jose.

“Living wage” initiatives and ordinances, on the other hand, typically cover a narrower group of employers, such as airport employers (see our report Below the Radar) and hotel employers. Although it’s true that these ordinances do increase the wage minimum for a group of workers, they are not universal.

Why does this distinction matter? Using the term minimum wage implies that all workers in the city will be covered. This could be misleading to voters.

Accurately representing the initiative in media stories may frustrate copy editors and journalists as it requires longer, potentially clunky sentences. But clarity for voters seems imperative.

Here’s an example of clarity from the Puget Sound Business Journal:

“The initiative, which would boost the minimum wage for hospitality, transportation and airport-related workers to $15 an hour was ordered removed from the ballot on Monday by a King County Superior Court judge due to lack of enough valid signatures.”

More accurate yet would be description of the initiative as establishing a “living wage”

There are two ways that Proposition 1 does not fit the mold of a minimum wage.

1. The initiative only applies to travel-related business. The scope of coverage is narrowly limited to transportation employers (e.g., airport, shuttle and parking) and hospitality workers (airport concessions, hotels and conference centers). See this post on who it actually covers.

2. The initiative exempts many small and medium businesses. Businesses exempted include:

• Airport businesses with 24 or fewer non-managerial employees.
• Ground transportation businesses (like car rental agencies) with 24 or fewer non-managerial workers and less than 100 cars, 100 parking spots or 10 vans, depending on the type of company.
• Hospitality businesses with 29 or fewer non-managerial employees and less than 100 rooms.
• Airport concessionaires with 9 or fewer non-managerial Employees.

Now that the legal dust has settled the Good Jobs Initiative which goes to the ballot in November, the public debate can shift to more important matters like what would this living wage initiative actually do?

That’s why Sage has crunched the numbers to determine which employers in SeaTac would be impacted by Proposition 1 and how many workers would receive increased wages, paid sick days and other provisions.  Based on a close reading of the initiative language and careful analysis of available data, here is what we found.

If adopted, we estimate that nearly 6,300 jobs at 72 businesses will fall under new employment standards.  This represents about 25% of all jobs in the city of SeaTac.

The table below shows the breakdown of affected jobs by sector.  Approximately 20 airline contractors comprise the most affected employer group, with 43% of all covered jobs.  These include multi-national firms such as Menzies Aviation, Swissport, and DGS.

Food and retail concessionaires contribute another 22% to the total number of covered jobs. This includes the two airport concession giants, HMS Host and Hudson News Group, but also airport restaurants such McDonalds, Wendy’s and Anthony’s.

About 14 hotels and motels with over 100 rooms will be covered by the new employment standards, contributing about 19% of covered jobs. The three largest hotels in SeaTac are the (Hilton) DoubleTree, the Marriot and the Hilton. Restaurants directly operated by large hotels are also covered.

An estimated 14 ground transportation employers comprise the remaining 16% of affected jobs. This group of employers include Hertz, Avis, Shuttle Express and Masterpark.

So, which businesses are not covered?

By narrowly targeting air-travel related business – specifically, hospitality and transportation – Proposition 1 leaves locally-serving businesses out. For example, stand-alone restaurants in the city, such as Pancake Chef, Dave’s Diner and Galliano’s will not be affected. Also, grocery stores, bars, coffee shops, convenience stores, gas stations, and other retailers outside the airport will not be covered.

Our analysis of existing businesses in the various SeaTac industries shows that no non-profit or community service organizations will be affected either. Finally, Proposition 1’s definition of covered employers explicitly excludes government agencies and airline employees like flight attendants and pilots.

Small businesses inside the airport with 9 or fewer non- supervisory, or non-managerial employees are not covered. According to Port of Seattle badge data, there are a number of storefronts that fall below this employee threshold. Some of these businesses include: Roger’s Shoe Shine, Bose and Rosetta Stone. Many of the restaurants and shops inside SeaTac Airport that may appear to be small standalone storefronts are, in fact, operated by larger companies like HMS Host and Husdon who have hundreds of employees in the airport.

What if 42% of the employees at working Puget Sound area restaurants reported not having washed their hands after using the bathroom? The leading reason: Management would not provide soap in the bathroom.

This is only a hypothetical, but I bet you’d ask some tough questions of the management at your favorite eating spot, before ordering up the usual.

Here is what’s NOT hypothetical, but really happening.  In a recent survey of grocery store and supercenter workers in King County, Puget Sound Sage found that 42% of grocery workers in King County go to work sick, because they do not get adequate paid time off. Click here to read the policy brief

The Sage survey found that of all those in our survey who reported working while sick, 66% said that they did so because they did not have paid sick days, had used all of their paid time off already, and/or had wanted to save their paid time off.

Paid sick leave is an important public health concern for curbing the spread of illness and disease. However, large grocery chains not only short workers paid sick leave, but any paid time off at all. All workers in the survey were employed by chain stores with more than 10 locations, or by stores with about 100 employees per store and a minimum of 4 locations.

These grocers comprise some of the largest retailers in the world, selling and earning billions of dollars each year, and compensating executive officers in the tens of millions of dollars. However, few of their frontline workers in the Seattle area receive adequate paid time off for any purpose.

• Only one in three workers surveyed (33%) received more than five days of paid time off.
• 40% received zero to five days of total paid time off per year: which includes vacation, sick days, holidays, etc.

In order to protect the health and safety of workers, their families and the public, it is imperative that grocery companies work to increase access to paid sick days, not find ways to eliminate them. For more information about paid sick leave in Seattle check out our post on the issue next week.  For more information about how scheduling practices impact workers and communities read our post “Short-Shifted.”

Cold and flu season is just around the corner.  So what do grocery and retail workers have to do with public health? In a nutshell, they handle your food and if they don’t have adequate sick days from their employers, you may be more likely to get sick.

That is why, paid sick leave for grocery and retail workers is so important.

In addition to the common colds and flus that are passed along when an ill cashier touches every item that goes into a customer’s grocery bag, serious illnesses are spread as a result of people working while sick.

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently found that sick food workers cause over half of norovirus outbreaks, and contributed to another 29% of outbreaks.
• During the H1N1 Pandemic in 2009, sick workers may have caused as many as 7 million co-workers to get sick.
• In 2011, 16% of documented foodborne illnesses in Washington were caused by ill food workers.

A lack of paid sick leave can also harm child health and school performance.

No caregiver wants to be in the position of choosing between staying home to care for a sick child and going to work so they can pay the bills. However, without adequate paid sick leave, many families must decide between caring for a sick child at home and losing needed pay or risking their jobs.

• One in five workers in a recent survey we conducted of grocery and supercenter workers live with at least one child and do not have any other adults in their households.
• In Washington, the majority of preschoolers and school-age children live in homes where all parents are employed.

Adequate paid sick days mean fewer children going to school sick. When parents can stay at home with their kids, recovery times are shorter and germs stay home too—ensuring healthier schools, families and communities. For more information read our policy brief on Paid Sick Days on our website.  Also see our article on the results of our examination of paid sick leave for grocery and retail workers.

So be sure to cover your cough with your elbow, AND ask your local supermarket if they offer paid sick days to their employees!