On Monday, the Seattle City Council voted unanimously to put the union-backed Initiative 124 on the ballot this fall.

City Council members had the option to pass the measure as written, reject it and pass a similar measure, or do nothing and send it to the ballot for voter approval.  The Council picked the latter option.  In November, Seattle voters will decide whether to approve the measure that labor unions say is about protecting the health and safety of hotel workers (such as implementing new worker safety practices and limiting how many rooms housekeepers can clean during a shift) but which also includes a slew of over reaching labor standards. 

These standards include union-style mandates ranging from forcing new hotel businesses that purchase an existing hotel business to hire the same employees (with priority given based on seniority instead of job performance), to requiring hotel employers who do not provide health insurance to pay full time workers a minimum of an extra $200 each month.  Full time workers are defined as any worker who clocks just 80 hours a month (about 20 hours per week).

The union says the new rules are needed because many hotel workers are “women, immigrants and people of color” and as such are more likely to be exploited by their employer.

Council member M. Lorena González recalls that when she worked in a hotel in college she was not exploited by her employer because she was given preferential treatment:

“I got the easy jobs because I spoke English and was born in this country.”

González says the new requirements are needed to “make sure hotel owners and proprietors are doing the right thing.”

Of course, they must believe only the hotel employers who are not unionized need to do the right thing.  Like many other union-backed labor measures, I-124 includes a clause exempting unionized employers from the requirements.  So if a hotel employer encourages its workers to unionize, they can operate without being forced to comply with I-124’s burdensome restrictions and costly mandates.

The union that drafted the measure, UNITE HERE Local 8, clearly does not believe hotel employers whose workers pay union dues should receive the same protections they claim are desperately needed for those most vulnerable to abuse from hotel employers.  

This is not the first time UNITE HERE Local 8, which represents hospitality workers, has sought a special exemption from the standards they want to force on non-union employers.  During Seattle’s $15 minimum wage debate, the 15 Now organization began collecting signatures on a $15 minimum wage ballot measure that included a provision exempting members of the UNITE HERE Local 8 union. 

The union and the campaign said those union workers did not need a $15 wage because they, “…have a unique relationship with the boss,” to negotiate their total compensation package.

Union workers who find themselves paying union dues for fewer benefits see it differently.  When the Los Angeles City Council voted two years ago to pay hotel workers in that city a $15.37 minimum wage, many workers who supported the measure did not realize their own union, the same UNITE HERE (Local 11), had included a carve out for union employers.  Union members were outraged when they realized would not benefit from the wage hike pushed by their union.  Adding insult to injury, those workers are not only earning a lower wage, but are forced to pay union dues for the union to (ostensibly) represent them.

As one angry hotel worker said, she was “dumfounded” to find herself earning the state minimum wage of $10 at the unionized Sheraton and paying monthly union dues, while her colleagues working just 500 away at a non-union Hilton are making $15.37 (with no union dues) under the city’s new law:

"Why is it more of a benefit to be in a union? The union isn't really doing anything for us," she said. "It's completely upside-down. They want to pay us less than the minimum wage."

Another angry union member employed by the Sheraton wants the law repealed:

"It's not right. I've been with the union for 10 years, and I've paid my dues for 10 year.  And in the meantime, I'm losing $12,000 a year."

Labor unions’ willingness to hypocritically undercut their own members demonstrates the self-serving motive behind the legislation—pressure employers to unionize in order to take advantage of the union exemption. The president of UNITE HERE Local 11 calls it making employers “less resistant to unionization.” Employers avoid being subject to more restrictive mandates, while union executives collect more dues. It’s a “win-win” for employers and unions.

As one former union shop steward for the unionized Sheraton in Los Angeles revealed, the UNITE HERE Local 11 organizer told her after the 2014 law passed that union workers would be earning less, but to “look at the bigger picture” because the exemption “is going to make all the hotels go union.”

It appears to be a solid strategy.  According to an analysis by The Los Angeles Times, Unite Here Local 11's membership has grown 73% since it began campaigning successfully for hotel minimum wage laws in 2006 — first for companies operating near Los Angeles International Airport, then for all big hotels in the cities of Long Beach and L.A.  The union's booming growth is in stark contrast to the consistent decline for private-sector union membership.

Of course, left out of the “win-win” are the workers who are forced to pay union dues for the union to represent them—workers who are then exempted from the benefits of the higher wage or paid sick leave, or in this case, I-124, because they are a union member.

Given the only Seattle City Council member that really pushed to pass I-124 as written was socialist Kshama Sawant, the Council’s decision to instead send the measure to voters is perhaps an indication that some members of the Council recognize the difficulty of defending a vote that would allow unions the indefensible and self-serving exemption.  After the negative press from the Los Angeles experience, that is not a vote many would want on their record.