The City of Burien announced this week that it is seeking clarification from King County Superior Court about how to implement its new minimum wage law after the passage of Initiative 1, citing ongoing confusion among residents, businesses, and city officials.
In a statement released this week, city leaders acknowledged that Burien “cannot offer suggestions or guidance because Burien does not have an answer to questions of which ordinance to apply or how to apply parts of each ordinance.”
The City has filed a declaratory judgment action, formally asking the court to decide whether Initiative 1 establishes a valid minimum wage and how it should be enforced.
Initiative 24-001 (“Initiative 1”) approved by voters earlier this year, refers to minimum wage rates tied to Tukwila’s municipal code, which – somewhat confusingly – itself references SeaTac’s “living wage rate.”
However, Burien officials note that the SeaTac code sets labor standards for hospitality and transportation workers but does not specifically establish a minimum wage or compensation.
This chain of references has created uncertainty over which wage standards apply.
Burien’s legal action also seeks clarity on Section 11 of the initiative, which states that the ordinance:
“…shall not be construed to preempt, limit, or otherwise affect the applicability of any other law, regulation, requirement, policy, or standard that provides for greater wages or compensation.”
This means the city’s existing minimum wage could remain in effect if the initiative fails to set a higher wage.
“As a result, if employees, employers, or others are unable to determine how to apply the existing laws, they should consult with an attorney for legal guidance and to consider their options,” the city said in its statement.
Burien officials pledged to continue providing updates to the community as the court proceedings advance.
It’s such a poorly written ordinance. Burien’s suit also points out that the initiative wants to base Burien’s minimum wage in Tukwila city code section 5.63 which says “every large employer shall pay to each employee an hourly wage of not less than the 2022 “living wage rate” in the City of SeaTac, established pursuant to SeaTac Municipal Code Section 7.45.060, adjusted for 2023 by the annual rate of inflation. “ The issue being that SeaTac 7.45.060 does not address the minimum wage but instead is this: is “7.45.060 Setting additional labor standards for City hospitality workers and transportation workers.”
So the way the whole thing is written there technically is no minimum wage defined by the initiative.
And from what I can find out, there isn’t even a hearing set until June, even though the ordinance was supposed to go into effect April 12 (but even that isn’t clear). So businesses could be sued if they don’t figure this out, but even attorneys can’t figure it out. It’s anyone’s guess.
Yeah… time to clean up another mess
….. but a distant silhouette of an activist saying: Don’t worry, you just pull on your bootstraps we gave to you.. while disregarding all the festering issues that’s been created.
Lol at “the city” (really Bailon, Schilling, and the rest of the “pro-business” cabal on the city council) feigning confusion over this. The intent of the initiative is clear, and a solid majority of voters approved it. Instead of dragging their feet and obstructing implementation with legalistic nitpicking, they could easily update the existing, council-passed law to harmonize it with the clear intent of the initiative.
Why have they been fighting this so hard for so long? Whose interests are they really looking after here?
I agree that the council’s “confusion” about the initiative is unfounded theatre.
This idea that it can’t be based on tukwila’s rate because tukwila’s rate was based on SeaTac’s not-a-min-wage rate is going to be laughed out of court.
For one, Tukwila certainly seemed to have no problem establishing their min wage on SeaTac’s hospitality rate. There’s no requirement that a min wage must be based on another minimum wage, that idea is just nonsense. And both the Burien initiative and the tukwila ordinance clearly identify the code sections and rates they intend to reference using the correct terms (i.e., the SeaTac rate is never misidentified as a “minimum wage” in tukwila’s ordinance), so there’s no other source of confusion.
And second, tukwila’s rate **isn’t based on SeaTac’s any more.** It was, initially, in 2023. Since then tukwila’s minimum wage is adjusted for inflation from it’s previous value, SeaTac doesn’t come into it any longer.
Tukwila’s ordinance:
5.63.040 Large Employers Shall Pay Minimum Wages
Comparable to Those in Neighboring Cities
A. Effective July 1, 2023, every large employer shall pay to
each employee an hourly wage of not less than the 2022 “living
wage rate” in the City of SeaTac, established pursuant to SeaTac
Municipal Code Section 7.45.060, adjusted for 2023 by the annual
rate of inflation.
B. On January 1, 2024, and on each January 1 thereafter,
the hourly minimum wage shall increase by the annual rate of
inflation to maintain employee purchasing power.
C. By December 31, 2022, and by October 15 of each year
thereafter, the Finance Department shall establish and publish the
applicable hourly minimum wage for the following year using the
annual rate of inflation.
thanks
bet if it was money coming in they’d figure it out.
I can’t help but wonder how much more money the City of Burien would have if it didn’t have to keep going to court to figure out/fight for the ordinances Bailon et al keeps coming up with. Tired of always reading about it.
It’s the outside funded activists that came up with the ordinance that’s needs clarification by the court, because it’s so poorly written it conflicts with the existing one. I’m certainly not surprised it’s a mess as it was brought about by the usual suspects who need to march to the dear leaders drum and meddle in things just to feel needed.
“I can’t help but wonder how much more money the City of Burien would have if it didn’t have to keep going to court to figure out/fight for the ordinances Bailon et al keeps coming up with. Tired of always reading about it.”
I do agree with this statement in principle. However, Initiative 1 IS confusing and should never have been passed. It is unconstitutional for one city to be required to follow the voters of another city for the first city’s laws.
Well hopefully the court finds this to be unusable and should have never been voted on . Then the judge can tell the writers of it to look at what needs to be corrected fix it then re-summit it . But this group that wrote this needs to be held accountable for the money spent on this already and the money for the court costs not the public tax payer money should not have to be wasted on this.