When Initiative 124 passed, it attracted two lawsuits: one that tried to invalidate the entire bill, and another that attacked only one part: the requirement that hotel employers purchase health insurance for their employees. Last summer, facing an almost certain loss in the courts, Council member Mosqueda led an effort that repealed I-124 and replaced it with four separate, modified bills that she hoped would resolve the legal challenges in the two cases. But as expected today the plaintiff in the second case, ERIC, filed an updated complaint arguing that the rewritten bill requiring employers to provide healthcase, still violates federal law.
Earlier this year, Initiative 124 was working its way through the court system — and losing badly. But over the summer Council member Teresa Mosqueda rewrote it to address its legal shortcomings, successfully shepherded the reworked version through the Council’s legislative process, and got the Council to repeal the original I-124 ordinance.
That solved the problem with the main lawsuit. But there is a second lawsuit that has been in limbo while the first one played out, and the plaintiffs in that case are forging ahead with their narrower legal challenge.
Last week the Mayor’s Office officially transmitted to the City Council its “Fare Share” legislation, imposing a tax on Uber and Lyft rides and enforcing a minimum wage for drivers. A close read of the bills reveals some interesting details and nuances.
Tomorrow morning, Mayor Durkan will unveil another of her 2020 budget initiatives: increasing the tax on Uber and Lyft rides in the city. In combination with that, she will announce a proposal to institute a minimum wage for Uber and Lyft drivers.
This morning, the City Council voted out of committee four bills, creating new protections for hotel workers, which have been in the works for several months. Once voted into law, it will replace the embattled Initiative 124.
Last Thursday the Council’s Workers’ Rights committee finished amending three of the four hotel workers’ protection bills, co-sponsored by Council members Mosqueda and Gonzalez to replace Initiative 124.
(update 9/9: a couple of corrections below based upon feedback from Council staff. My apologies; several of the amendments weren’t published in advance of the meeting so it was challenging to follow along)
Two of the four bills that Council member Teresa Mosqueda is sponsoring to extend additional protections and rights to hotel workers saw lengthy discussions last Friday, as well as significant amendments adopted that address some of the most pointed criticisms of the bills.
This morning the Community Police Commission filed its own brief with the U.S. District Court, in response to last Thursday’s submission of the city’s proposal to evaluate its police accountability system and come back into compliance with the Consent Decree.
This evening the City of Seattle submitted its proposed methodology for evaluating the city’s police accountability system, as required by U.S. District Court Judge James Robart who oversees the SPD consent decree.
As a footnote to my earlier post on Mayor Durkan’s proposed plan to get the consent decree back on track, there has been one particular troublesome issue that has generated more heat than light: whether police officers should be able to appeal disciplinary actions to arbitration. The CPC had a few thoughts on that in their letter yesterday.