User:Killdozer666/sandbox

Initiative Measure 124 (Seattle) is a city law regulating labor relations in the hotel industry passed by popular vote on November 8th, 2016. The initiative was placed on the ballot by UNITE HERE Local 8, a union that represents workers in the hospitality industry.

Legislative history
Initiative Measure 124 was sponsored by UNITE HERE Local 8. Stefan Moritz, a union official, filed the initial text of the initiative with Seattle's city clerk on April 5, 2016. The union began collecting signatures to get the measure on the November ballot in May of 2016. The final text of the initiative was filed on May 6th. The union submitted its petition signatures on June 22nd and King County Elections issued a Letter of Sufficiency on July 15th. The final text of the ballot title was issued on July 28th. The measure passed on November 8th, 2016 and became a city ordinance with full effect on November 30th after a proclamation by Mayor Edward B. Murray.

Provisions
The initiative requires hotels with 60 or more rooms to issue "panic buttons" to employees that work alone in guest rooms. Hotels are required to keep lists of guests accused of assault or harassment for five years from the date of the last accusation involving any given guest. All relevant documents must be retained for the same period. Any guest accused of assault, sexual assault, or sexual harassment must be banned from the hotel for a minimum of three years. Workers must be given paid time to make a police report and be given the option to work in a different area of the hotel. Hotels are required to warn guests about these rules with a placard written in a large font placed on the interior side of their room doors.

Under the initiative, when a hotel is sold the new owners are required to offer employees of the previous owner work before hiring replacement staff. This requirement applies from the day of sale until six months after the hotel is open to the public while under the management of the new employer. If during the first 90 days of operations the new owner finds that it needs fewer workers, staff must be retained by order of seniority. During this 90 day period staff may not be otherwise dismissed except for cause. Worker's must be provided with a written performance evaluation at the end of this period; these records must be retained for at least three years. Conspicuous public notice of change of ownership, including contact information for the new owners, must be posted within five days after a sale is agreed to and must remained posted for six months after the hotel has been open to the public under new management. This provision applies to hotels with 60 rooms or more.

The initiative requires large hotels to limit the workload of cleaning staff to 5,000 square feet per eight-hour shift and regulates the handling of cleaning chemicals. Cleaners assigned space over this limit would be paid at time-and-a-half wage. This provision applies to hotels with 100 rooms or more.

The initiative requires large hotels that don't offer health benefits to pay staff a monthly stipend to help them buy insurance. Qualifying workers would receive an amount based on their income, family size, the federal poverty line, and the lowest premium offered on the Washington Health Benefits Exchange for gold-level policy. This provision applies to hotels with 100 or more rooms.

Workers can enforce these rights by filing a complaint with the City of Seattle or filing suit in King County Superior Court. Penalties issued against hotels go to the complainant, affected workers, and the city Office of Civil Rights. The measure prohibits employer retaliation for exercising any of these rights. The law has a rebuttable presumption that any adverse action taken against an employee within 90 days of exercising any of these rights is an act of illegal retaliation.

Union-shop exemption
Except for the provisions relating to assault, sexual assault, and sexual harassment, every part of this measure can be waived in a union-shop through collective bargaining.

Opposition
The Seattle Times opposed the initiative. They wrote, "If the safety of Seattle hotel employees is a problem, the laws that protect them should be strengthened. Seattle ballot Initiative 124 is a sloppy, possibly illegal first draft that should be rejected by voters."

Support
Seattle Weekly endorsed the initiative. They wrote, "Critics of the initiative—largely hotel-industry representatives—call the measure’s stipulations overreaching and Draconian. They say many hotels already have these kinds of protections in place. They also point to I-124’s union-exemption clause: If workers belong to a union, their hotel will not be subject to some of the measure’s stipulations, to allow for freer collective bargaining. We ourselves recognize that the union exemption may be faintly disguised self-interest; employers might find the law onerous, leading them to encourage unionization in hopes of a better deal. But if the byproduct of passing I-124 is a stronger local union, so be it. We believe the result is a step toward justice for a long-exploited class of workers, union-backed or no."

Litigation
The American Hotel & Lodging Association, its Washington state chapter, and its Seattle chapter all filed suit in Washington state court to block Initiative Measure 124 in December of 2016. Their complaint says, "The potential for mistakes and abuse is significant, especially because the hotels are allowed no opportunity to determine whether there was actually any wrongdoing, and guests are allowed no opportunity to refute the allegations. The blacklist provision requires hotels to punish people (by placing them on a list and denying some of them accommodations) without any opportunity to investigate the allegations."

The suit also claimed that the initiative violated the single subject rule written into the Seattle city charter. The complaint says, ""Neither the ballot title nor the concise statement express the multiple subjects of I-124, particularly those which deal with compensation and fringe benefits, legal standards for discrimination claims, and the novel and disturbing requirement that hotels deny accommodation to certain guests without notice or a chance to respond to allegations."