Seattle City Council 2/8/222

Thank you.

The February 8th, 2022 meeting of the Seattle City Council will come to order.

It is 2-0-2.

I'm Deborah Juarez, El Presidente of the Council.

Will the clerk please call the roll.

Blount.

Present.

Strauss.

Present.

Herbold.

Lewis.

Present.

Morales.

La Presidente.

Present.

Mosqueda.

Present.

Nelson.

Present.

Peterson.

Here.

Council President Juarez.

Here.

Eight present.

I neglected to share with the viewing public and my colleagues that Council Member Herbold has informed me that she will be absent from today's city council meeting.

If there is no objection, Council Member Herbold is excused from today's meeting.

Hearing or seeing no objection.

Councilmember Herbold is indeed excused from today's City Council meeting.

So let's move on to presentations.

I'm not aware of any presentations this afternoon.

Approval of the agenda.

There's no objection.

The agenda will be adopted.

Hearing or seeing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

We'll move on to E on our agenda approval of the consent calendar.

Will the clerk please read the items that are included on the today's consent calendar.

Today's consent calendar includes the city council minutes of February 1st 2022 and the introduction and referral calendar dated February 8th 2022. Thank you madam clerk.

Does any council member desire to have anything removed from the consent from today's consent calendar?

Hearing or seeing none, I move to adopt the consent calendar.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt the consent calendar.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the consent calendar?

Want?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Nielsen?

Aye.

Peterson?

Yes.

Council President Morris?

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The consent calendar will be adopted.

Will the clerk please affix my signature?

Okay, let's move to public comments.

Colleagues, at this time, we will open the remote public comment period for items on the city council agenda, introduction, referral calendar, and the council's work program.

Again, it remains a strong intent to the City Council to have remote public comment regularly included on meeting agendas.

However, as a reminder, City Council reserves the right to end or eliminate these public comment periods at any point we deem that the system is being abused or is no longer suitable, allowing our meetings to be conducted efficiently and effectively.

Our City Clerk will moderate this general public comment period, and I will now hand it off.

But before I do that, If there are no objections, the public comment period will be extended to 30 minutes.

Hearing or seeing no objections, the public comment period is now extended.

Let's see, Madam Clerk, we have 25 people signed up.

Correct.

OK.

You want to go and take it from there, Madam Clerk?

Thank you.

The public comment period for this meeting is up to 30 minutes and each speaker will be given one minute to speak.

Speakers are called upon in the order in which they register to provide public comment on the council's website.

Each speaker must call in from the phone number provided when registered and use the ID and passcode that was emailed upon confirmation.

Please note this is different from the general meeting listen line ID listed on the agenda.

If you did not receive an email confirmation please check your spam or junk email folders.

Once a speaker's name is called staff will unmute the appropriate microphone and an automatic automatic prompt of you have been unmuted will be the speaker's cue that is their turn to speak.

And then the speaker must press star-6 to begin speaking.

Please begin speaking by stating your name and the item that you are addressing.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of the allotted time.

Once you hear the chime we ask that you begin to wrap up your public comment.

If speakers do not end their end their comment at the end of the allotted time provided the speaker's microphone will be muted to allow us to call on the next speaker.

Once you have completed your public comment we ask that you please disconnect from the line and if you plan to continue this meeting continue following this meeting please do so via Seattle Channel or the listening options listed on the agenda.

The public comment period is now open and we'll begin with the first speaker on the list.

Please remember to press star six after you hear the prompt of you have been unmuted.

And our first speaker is Howard Gale followed by Daniel Kavanaugh.

Good afternoon.

Howard Gale commenting on our failed police accountability system.

Last week the OPA released its investigation into the SPD's murder of Derek Hayden just days before the first anniversary of his murder.

Once more a heartless police accountability system that has police policing police has determined that a cop murdering someone only requires a one to three-day timeout.

In this case, Andrew Myberg has, as he did with the SBD murder of Terry Kaber, engaged in absurd legal and philosophical contortions to separate out an officer's failure to de-escalate from the killing that resulted from it.

It is as if killing a pedestrian with your car gets you a simple traffic ticket for just running the red light.

As surely as the SPD created and supported a system that denied Derek Hayden life, this council and the police accountability system you created and still support has created and supported a system that have denied Derek Hayden, his family, and his friends justice.

We need truly independent police investigations and oversight.

Go to seattlestop.org to find out how, seattlestop.org.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Daniel Kavanaugh, followed by Katie Garrow.

Hi, my name's Dan.

I've been a barista in Seattle for two years, in food service for eight years.

I know what it's like to work in unsafe conditions for low pay, so I stand 100% with Starbucks workers fighting for their union.

And it's disgusting, honestly, that right here in Seattle, millionaire Starbucks executives are holding meetings to try to crush the union, and they just fired workers in Memphis for trying to organize.

We cannot allow this precedent to be set.

We need community support rallies all over the country.

We need a national organizing meeting of Starbucks workers to respond.

Starbucks workers filed for their union on Martin Luther King Day because they knew that Dr. King was organizing with striking sanitation workers in Memphis when he was killed.

One worker at the store pointed out the absurdity of Starbucks tweeting quotes from Dr. King, but at the same time union busting in the city where King died fighting for workers' right to organize.

So we don't need empty words from Starbucks.

We don't need empty words from city council members.

We expect action.

I want to thank Council Member Ciron for her resolution, and also for being the only one who did not vote to end hazard pay.

But should the Democrats on the City Council vote yes without delay on this resolution?

Our next speaker is Katie Garrow, followed by Michael Mullaney.

Good afternoon, Council Members.

My name is Katie Garrow.

Thank you, Dan, for your testimony.

I'm the elected leader of MLK Labor.

MLK Labor represents more than one hundred and fifty thousand unionized workers here in King County and we would like to offer our unequivocal unanimous support of Starbucks workers organizing a union.

Last week our board adopted a resolution and endorsed council member Sawant's resolution in support of organizing Starbucks workers.

It was brought forward by the unions who currently represent Starbucks workers in our region, which includes UFCW 21, Unite Here Local 8, and Teamster Local 117. They did so because they have already experienced the life-changing benefits and stability that a union offers.

I am a 33-year-old labor leader, a millennial, and I ran to Council on an explicitly millennial platform.

And I want to thank the young workers who are organizing and who are energizing a whole labor movement across the country.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Michael Malini followed by Daniel W. Hi, my name is Michael Malini.

I'm a renter in District 3 and I'm calling on the council to vote yes on the Starbucks resolution to stand with its workers.

For a company that is so explicitly linked to our city on the national stage, we should be seen supporting its working people and not siding with the union busting efforts of its multimillionaire CEOs.

Thank you.

I yield my time.

Our next speaker is Daniel W followed by Margo Stewart.

I am Daniel.

I'm a writer in District 4. Like many others, I'm here today to demand council members to vote yes on Council Member Salaam's resolution calling on Starbucks to stop its union busting.

Similar resolutions have been introduced in Chicago and Minneapolis and nationwide.

The urgent need for these is clearer than ever.

As this morning, Starbucks fired the entire union organizing committee in Memphis as a clear retaliation measure.

Not only is this disgusting and shameful, it is straight up illegal, but we cannot rely on labor law and the courts to protect the brave Starbucks workers and their fight to unionize.

The corporate behavior like Starbucks has the resources and lawyers to stall things out, to intimidate and demoralize the workers in order to kill this unionization effort.

Because they know it's a union that can win a livable wage, comprehensive health care, and reasonable scheduling for workers.

All things that would cut into Starbucks's billions in profits.

Elected representatives of working people, it is your duty to stand in solidarity with them.

The absolute bare minimum, in fact, is voting yes on this resolution to show your support for the National Immunization Movement.

If even that is too tall of an asking, it's clear whose interests you represent in the struggle between working people and big business, and it is not the workers.

Our next speaker is Margo Stewart, followed by Shirley Henderson.

My name is Margo.

I'm a worker in Renton First Hill.

I'm calling in solidarity with unionizing Starbucks workers around the country, as well as a hundred of folks around the country as well that have stood in solidarity with them, signed petitions and the like.

As others have noted, today Starbucks shamefully fired a number of unionizing workers in Memphis over made up allegations.

And this is obvious retaliation in an attempt to intimidate workers organizing everywhere.

And it's something that could happen at a store here next in Seattle.

So Council Member Thawant's resolution in solidarity with Starbucks workers is more urgent than ever, and it needs to be voted on today.

You know, the question before Democratic Council members is really easy.

Do you endorse this?

Like, do you endorse firing workers over made-up charges?

Many of these workers are living one or two paychecks away from not making rent, you know, or worse, as the eviction moratorium nears.

Or do you support workers who are demanding fair compensation, consistent hours, easier tipping, and comprehensive health care?

If you're truly friends of labor you're going to vote yes on this resolution with no delay and we need a movement in order to reinstate these workers.

Our next speaker is Shirley Henderson followed by Barbara Finney.

I'm an owner of a small coffee shop in Seattle's District 3 and as someone who is in the coffee industry I stand in solidarity with the courageous Starbuck works or Starbuck books that are fighting for better working conditions in a union.

And I'm calling for all eight Democrats on the City Council to also support Starbucks workers in their unionization effort by voting yes on Councilmember Sawant's resolution today without delay.

People have mentioned the heinous firing of unionizing members in Memphis, which only makes it more clear that workers need and deserve a union.

In this context, the Democrats on the City Council have remained conspicuously silent in the face of Starbucks union busting.

There are many council members who call themselves progressive pro-worker pro-union but all council members except so on scandalously voted in December to end the $4 an hour grocery worker hazard pay.

Council members need to vote yes if they consider themselves progressive on this resolution today and stand with Starbucks workers.

Our next speaker is Barbara Finney followed by Brad Augustine.

Hi, I'm Barbara Finney, delegate to the MLK Labor Council for American Federation of Government Employees, 3197, member of the Seattle Democratic Socialists of America, and speaking in a personal capacity today.

Local Starbucks baristas have requested support from elected officials to demand Starbucks let the workers freely decide without any interference, threats, or intimidation.

You city council as elected officials in the city where Starbucks was founded have an even greater responsibility to support Starbucks workers who want a union.

I rise to call on you to vote yes on Council Member Sawant's resolution expressing support for workers at Starbucks in Seattle who are in the process of forming a union calling on Starbucks to accept card check neutrality.

Support this resolution from Council Member Sawant.

Don't water it down.

Solidarity with unionizing Starbucks workers and this Starbucks what's disgusting union busting.

Our next speaker is Brad Augustine followed by Sydney Durkin who is showing as not present.

And Brad you want to press star six.

Hello.

Hello this is Brad Augustine.

I'm a Seattle City resident for the last 60 years.

Small business owner.

I'm sorry I'm contrarian to the other speakers but I don't believe any city council members should take a position either for or against unionization of Starbucks as I believe this is a conflict of interest as city council members.

This is not about big business or the working people it's about a business and the Seattle City Council should stay out of that.

We derive tax revenue from Starbucks and a lot of that and our city doesn't work without tax revenue.

I'd like to see the City Council spend significantly more time on areas that are way more important such as the fact that in 2021 30,000 people moved to Seattle and in 2021 only 20,000 new dwelling units were created.

This is a simple supply and demand problem and we need more housing and we need to simplify the process in the building department.

Thank you.

The next two speakers we have are Sydney Durkin and Jean Amick, and they are not showing as present.

So we will move on to Nayeon Park, who will be followed by Megan Murphy.

My name is Nayeon Park, and I'm an organizer and vice president of UAW 4121, the union of 6,000 academic student employees and co-staff at University of Washington.

And I'm here in solidarity with the Starbucks workers and to urge city council to vote yes on the resolution that council member Kshama Sawant has just brought forward.

The resolution is important for respecting worker democracy.

When the majority of Starbucks employees sign their union card, the union should be recognized and the worker should have the protection to discuss unionization away from threats, intimidation or anti-union propaganda or lawsuits.

Unionization means that every worker has a fair say in the workplace, and this pandemic has highlighted how important this is.

Thank you for your time.

And again, I urge you to vote yes on the resolution.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Megan Murphy, followed by Jeff Fernandez.

And Megan, you want to press star six.

Okay perhaps we can move on to Jeff Fernandez if he's available.

Hello council members.

This is Jeff Fernandez from District 5. I just wanted to say that politicians like you who advocate for more wealth and racial inequality have failed to remedy the wealth and opportunity inequality racism and climate destruction which American capitalism produces.

Because of your failure as Democrats labor organizing is one of the few remaining paths to create a more equitable society from our current economic dystopia.

It is vital that you as leaders of our city declare your allegiance with the working class people of Seattle and not with the owners of the corporate class.

You must declare your position to be on the side of labor and not the side of those those who exploit labor for their personal enrichment.

I am demanding that you support Solange's resolution that support the unionizing of Starbucks workers and all workers who choose to fight back against corporate union bustling which creates poverty as efficiently as it makes espresso.

And I would call out Deborah Juarez Nelson and Peterson for being.

Our next speaker is Jude Ewing followed by Mark Taylor-Canfield.

And Jude you want to press star-6.

This is Jude Ewing.

I'm the president of the Lake City House Resident Council in a Seattle Housing Authority low income building.

I have a millennial child that used to work for Starbucks as a store manager.

I looked up at will employment.

In the United States, labor law at will employment is an employer's ability to dismiss an employee for any reason that is without having to establish just cause for termination and without warning as long as the reason is not illegal, such as race, religion, sexuality, etc.

When an employee is acknowledged as being hired at will courts deny the employee any claim lost resulting from the dismissal.

The rule is justified by proponents on the basis that the employee may be similarly entitled to leave their job without reason or warrant.

Our next speaker is Mark Taylor Canfield followed by Richie Tai.

My name is Mark Taylor Canfield.

I'm executive director for Democracy Watch News.

In our coverage of pro-democracy movements around the world, it's become clear that a healthy democracy requires the right for workers to organize for better wages and better working conditions.

So I'm speaking in favor today of Councilmember Solon's resolution to support Starbucks employees in their efforts to organize a union in the face of major opposition from the company.

We're living in a state with the most regressive tax system in the U.S.

Seattle has a 10 percent sales tax, Meanwhile, billionaires like Howard Schultz, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos benefit from our state's absence of an income tax.

They've acquired more wealth than anyone has ever even imagined was possible.

Gates and Bezos make more money per minute than most working people make in an entire year.

As the middle class disappears across the nation and poverty increases with millions left without adequate housing or health care, we owe it to cafe workers to make enough to support themselves and their families.

If we're going to allow the rents to skyrocket in the city with no reports of rent control or affordable housing, we must allow workers to make enough money to live where they work.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Richie Tai, followed by Rachel Ibarra.

Hi, my name is Richie Tai.

I'm a Seattle District 3 resident and a rank and file member of the Alphabet Workers Union.

So I'm commenting to call on our council members to vote yes on the resolution to stand with uniting Starbucks workers, because every worker deserves a voice in the workplace.

And more concretely, Starbucks workers deserve a real living wage, a COVID protection to enable a safe workplace.

And at the very least, Starbucks should practice card check neutrality and accept the outcome of any union vote of the workers without union busting.

And we've already heard previously about some of the union busting tactics Starbucks is engaged in.

But today, like some people mentioned, I also heard about Starbucks firing unionizing workers in Memphis.

And prior to that, we've heard about a mandatory captive audience meeting, things where Starbucks has been telling workers how bad unions are, telling them how their work and livelihood may be threatened.

And that's even, oh, like we know union members have consistently had better wages and working conditions than other workers in their industry.

Our next speaker is Rachel Ibarra who is followed by Taylor Latrice Horner who is showing is not present.

And then the next speaker who is present will be Matthew Smith.

So Rachel Ibarra is up.

Thank you.

My name is Rachel Ibarra and I'm and I'm an employee at Starbucks.

I'm urging the council to vote yes on the resolution presented by Council Member Kishama Sanwant.

Whether symbolic or not supporting us in this way is in this is a way to show to show workers that you are on our side.

Starbucks has been getting away with calling itself progressive for decades in spite of the experience of workers.

Their allegedly great benefits are beyond what many of us can afford.

Their concerns over partner safety extend only as far as are absolutely required by law, allowing each of us to catch COVID one by one and spread it amongst each other, our families, and our communities.

Even their claims to a fair and bias-free workplace have been proven to be little more than lip service in the act of firing black union organizers in Memphis with through inconsistent policy enforcement.

I'm unionizing not because I hate Starbucks but because I truly believe that Starbucks has the power and infrastructure to be an incredible place to work.

More than that more than that it could become a powerfully beneficial part of this community by acting on its mission to take care of each and every person to push the service industry to become the respected career that it should be and to work alongside us all to make it possible.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Matthew Smith followed by Carl Thomas.

Hey, my name's Matt Smith.

I'm a renter and worker in District 2. Starbucks is waging just an absolutely brutal anti-union campaign around the country, trying to intimidate workers who are organizing for their rights, organizing collectively to form a union, including Starbucks' firing workers, as we've heard, who are supporting the union.

if new when howard schultz bought starbucks in nineteen eighty seven in seattle his first act with the break a union here in seattle other workers that formed uh...

organized with you have to get you that breaking of the union the first act of our shop but the e-mail laid the groundwork for master location workers from the country they've continued to bust uh...

union every time they've cropped up in the not even two thousand uh...

and that had allowed hope to become a billionaire the new cdl starbucks kevin uh...

uh...

I can't remember his last name, Kevin Johnson, has made $20 million exploiting workers, workers deserve a union.

Council members need to vote yes on this resolution to stand with workers, not with billionaires and CEOs.

Our next speaker is Carl Thomas, followed by Emily MacArthur.

Hi, I'm Carl Thomas, a member of UAW 4121 at the University of Washington.

I want to call on the City Council to vote yes on the resolution in supporting Starbucks Starbucks workers in their fight to unionize in Seattle.

At University of Washington and in UAW we stand shoulder to shoulder with workers in their fight for better conditions.

Workers at Starbucks need support from the broad community as they go up against a massive union busting corporation and we need to pressure Starbucks to stop their anti-union campaign.

Any council member who claims to stand with workers has a responsibility to vote yes on Councilman Sawant's resolution.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Emily MacArthur followed by Jane Foy.

Hi.

I'm a district two renter and resident.

We live in King County and we put MLK on our buses, our letterhead, et cetera.

It's known as a gentler species or easy to pull during Black History Month with a platitude.

One MLK quote I think that fits this moment is, in the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.

Much as grocery workers remember the silence of so-called progressives in fighting to defend hazard pay, quietly fighting with the bosses as Democrats voted to repeal it last year, we have a chance to change course.

Stand with Starbucks workers, passion with the Warrant's Resolution, stand with them.

Workers need solidarity, and Seattle is Starbucks' hometown.

Others have already spoken to a Starbucks slave-grant union busting, so I won't speak to that here.

But we do know that if this union drive succeeds, this will be the first ever union in Starbucks Corporation.

And if Starbucks workers can get a union, it will inspire workers in other fast food companies.

So let's be clear, this is why Starbucks is using these blatant union busting tactics, including firing workers of color in Memphis who filed their union drive on MLK Day.

So yes, Janice Wilkerson.

Our next speaker is Jane Foy.

who is followed by Alexander Stein who is showing as not present.

George Willis who is not present and Alexander Lomas who is not present.

Please go ahead Ms. Foy.

Hello my name is Jane Foy.

I'm a constituent of District District 3 and I am voicing my support for the unionization of Starbucks stores and other private fast food industries.

It is shameful that workers are being intimidated by the Starbuck elite.

All jobs have dignity.

If the police can have a union then Starbuck employees deserve a union.

Unions have served to improve the lives of workers.

Please city council vote yes for the workers.

Thank you for people over profit.

Our next speaker is Sydney Durkin, and Sydney will be followed by Megan Murphy.

My name is Sydney Durkin.

I am a worker at Starbucks and a constituent of District 3, and I am calling in to urge the council to vote yes on Kshama Sawant's resolution to support Starbucks workers.

We are facing unprecedented intimidation just from today from the company.

firing workers who are standing up for their right to unionize.

Standing in solidarity with us shows that you are willing to put your necks out in support of workers now more than ever is super necessary in order to strike while the iron is hot and continue to fuel this movement of workers on the ground fighting for rights that are absolutely essential to all workers, not just workers in Starbucks.

We urge you to vote yes on this resolution, not only as a symbolic act of solidarity, but as a real act of solidarity to show workers that you stand behind them at a very crucial time.

Thank you and please vote yes.

The next speaker is Megan Murphy and our last speaker is Taylor Latrice Werner.

And Megan you want to press star-6 to be unmuted.

Okay, maybe we can move on to Taylor Latrice-Werner.

Hi, my name is Taylor Latrice-Werner and I'm a member of the IBEW Local 46. I'm calling to urge the council to pass Shama Salon's resolution to stand with Starbucks workers and as a body that regularly collaborates with unions to condemn Starbucks union busting.

Declaring yourself pro-labor or pro-partner does not make it so.

As progressives, I'm sure you don't need me to explain that Starbucks' concern for how a union of its workers may hurt their partnership are an exact duplicate of the dishonest and manipulative union-busting strategies deployed by Amazon, Delta, Target, and countless others.

Indeed, what maximally profitable behemoth corporation would want their workers to form a union?

They know unions mean power in the hands of workers.

Unions pump the brakes on their anarchistic, frenzied exploitation.

Of course Starbucks doesn't want a union but they have to play by the rules and that's what I'm asking you to use your council seats to demand.

Starbucks.

Oh am I cut off.

Oh.

And it looks like one of our speakers who were not shown as present is now present and that's Alexander Stein.

Okay let's hear from Mr. Stein.

Hey, guys, it's me.

Mr. Stein, can you press star six, please?

Mr. Stein, just push star six.

Yes.

Can you hear me?

We sure can.

Yo, it's me, Primetime99, Alex Stein.

Thank you all for having me.

I really appreciate it.

But I got some complaints like I'm coming from I moved to Seattle from Oregon and I can say the Oregon Police Department is way more chilled than the Seattle Police Department.

I mean full stop.

I'll be honest.

I'm a member of Antifa and part of what we do is we fight fascism and the reason why we came up to Seattle is because there's there's a high population of fascists up here and I'm doing everything I can to try to stop these people from But local law enforcement is terrible.

I mean, there should be a place where people can cleanly use heroin or use fentanyl, but all my friends, all my comrades are constantly going to jail.

See, that's the thing.

In Portland, they have safe use spots.

You can do heroin all day long, nobody's gonna say anything.

But there's not enough safe use spots in Seattle.

Listen, I'm doing fentanyl, I'm doing heroin all day long, and we're getting jacked up by the cops.

So you need to make it easier for people of Antifa to get clean needles.

Joe Biden's giving free,

How are you doing, Madam Clerk?

I believe that's the end of the list.

OK.

Are you sure?

Because we can just move forward then.

If somebody needs to, if we miss somebody, they get back on.

Madam Clerk, you'll let us know, correct?

Correct.

OK, good.

So with that, Madam Clerk, we have reached a lot of time, correct?

Yes, we have.

OK, thank you.

As I've shared, we've reached the allotted time for public comment today, and the public comment period is now closed.

Thank you for those of you who called in today to give public comment.

So moving on on the agenda, let's go to payment of the bills.

Payment of the bills, Madam Clerk, please read the title.

Council Bill 120263, an ordinance appropriating money to pay certain audited claims for the week of January 24th, 2022 through January 28th, 2022 and ordering the payment thereof.

Thank you.

I move to pass Council Bill 120263. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded that the bill pass.

Are there any comments?

Seeing or hearing none, Madam Clerk, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

Nelson.

Aye.

Peterson.

Aye.

Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes.

The chair will sign it.

Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

So let's move on to the agenda to committee reports.

Item number one, Council Member Sawant, this is yours, but will the clerk please read it into the record?

Agenda item one, resolution 32041, a resolution expressing the Seattle City Council's support for workers at Starbucks in Seattle who are attempting to form a union and urging Starbucks to accept card check neutrality.

Thank you.

I move to adopt resolution 32041, is there a second?

Second.

Great, it's been moved and seconded.

Council member Sawant has sponsored the resolution, you're recognized, please.

Thank you.

This is the resolution in support of Starbucks workers who are struggling to form a union in Seattle as well as at locations around the country.

Just this morning, we heard that Starbucks executives are firing workers who are part of the union organizing leadership in Memphis, Tennessee.

If this doesn't show why progressive elected representatives need to urgently take a stand against the company's shameful union busting, then I don't know what will.

And Seattle is the headquarters of Starbucks Corporation so this city's elected officials have a special responsibility as Gianna Reeve, a Buffalo Starbucks worker who spoke here two weeks ago said the executives take pride in Seattle being their hometown, but they will absolutely rake their workers to the mud unless we tell them no.

The resolution calls on Starbucks to accept card check neutrality.

This means agreeing to recognize a union when the majority sign union cards rather than essentially requiring a second election after months of threats, anti-union propaganda, anti-union meetings, and lawsuits with the idea that workers can be intimidated by the time that second vote happens.

If Starbucks workers in Seattle unionize, The resolution further urges Starbucks to bargain a fair contract such that the workers can have good standards of living and the company's massive wealth does not flow just to the top executives and shareholders.

And the resolution recommends all workers in Seattle organize into unions to collectively fight for better wages, benefits, and working conditions.

As the Memphis Starbucks workers wrote in their recent letter to CEO Kevin Johnson, quote, we are here to fight for our safety and our rights as workers that have been denied and shoved away from us.

Please do not bring your so-called pro-partner anti-union campaign to Memphis, end quote.

Which side will council members stand on with workers like these in Memphis and in Seattle demanding basic workplace rights, or the viciously anti union executives who at this very moment are trying to fire them.

Starbucks workers have already demonstrated the importance of having a union and a fighting approach around concrete demands.

Soon after winning their union, the Buffalo workers went on a five-day strike and forced the company to concede on a colossal demand to give all Starbucks workers paid time for quarantine and self-isolation if they are exposed to COVID.

I thank my sister Katie Garrow and all my siblings at the Martin Luther King County Labor Council for their full support of this resolution.

I thank the Washington chapter of the National Writers Union, who wrote to the city council urging a yes vote, mentioning how women, LGBTQ workers, and workers of color make up much of Starbucks workforce.

Across the United States, union density is at a historic low of 10.3%.

Ironically, support for unions is higher than it has been since 1965. 68% of workers want a union.

How can 68% want a union but only 10% have one?

It is because big business is immensely powerful and uses that power to crush union drives, except when workers fight back, which is what Starbucks workers are doing.

To be clear, there are unionized workers in grocery stores or at the airport who are baristas under the Starbucks label, and this is important, but they are not employed by Starbucks.

The successful unionization in Buffalo last December represents the only United States employees of this multinational corporation to be unionized.

anywhere in this country.

And so if this union movement succeeds nationwide, it will be nothing short of an earthquake.

And that's why it's important to have the support from labor unions that we have.

And it's also no surprise that Starbucks executives and billionaires like former CEO Howard Schultz are engaged in vicious union busting.

They sent literally hundreds of managers into the Buffalo stores to try to intimidate and browbeat workers into voting no.

After the majority of workers at four stores signed union cards, Starbucks began a series of lawsuits to attempt to block those workers from even having the right to vote.

Starbucks went to a National Labor Relations Board court to demand that the vote had to include workers outside those locations who had not had a chance to talk to the union yet.

Starbucks lost that lawsuit, which they are still appealing.

Starbucks went so far as to temporarily close two Buffalo Starbucks locations that were in the process of unionizing, one of which was, quote unquote, reopened as a training center.

As Sydney Durkin, a Seattle Starbucks worker at the Broadway and Denny's store who just spoke said, quote, we are dealing with meetings and intimidation.

I personally have received final written warning for union activity and they will continue to escalate.

Starbucks is trying to push the envelope of what they can get away with in their union busting.

They will continue to do this until there is intense public outcry, end quote.

That is why this resolution is being put forward.

And what Starbucks is doing in Memphis is especially outrageous.

Starbucks baristas in Memphis filed their union cards demanding union recognition on Martin Luther King Day, MLK Day this year, noting that MLK was assassinated while supporting striking Memphis sanitation workers.

The former store manager at the Starbucks there says she had to quit her job because she was ordered to lie about union organizers and her conscience would not allow it.

And just today, we learned that Starbucks has outrageously fired the entire organizing committee.

We need walkouts and solidarity rallies in cities across the nation, including Seattle, to demand that Starbucks executives give the fired Memphis workers their jobs back.

Here in Seattle, baristas at three locations have begun organizing drives.

Across the country, over 60 Starbucks locations have begun organizing since December.

Two weeks ago, I joined Starbucks workers for an important rally on Capitol Hill, which my office co-hosted with Starbucks Workers United, the union that the workers are unionizing with, and local unions, Protech 17, UAW 4121, WFC 1488, CW 7800, and the Book Workers Union, and members from many other unions around 200 joining us despite the cold and rainy weather.

We just heard from Nayon Park of UAW 4121 in public comment today.

over 800 community members have emailed the Seattle City Council urging a yes vote on this resolution.

I joined them in urging City Council members to vote yes without watering it down, sent a clear message to Starbucks executives that union busting will not be tolerated, and joined me in urging all Seattle workers to join the labor movement.

Thank you, and I will, of course, have comments later during the sum up.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

So with that, Colleagues, are there any of our colleagues here who would like to address the resolution?

Councilor Mosqueda.

Thank you very much, Council President.

Colleagues, I am delighted to be able to support this resolution today and also to offer one friendly amendment to the resolution that's been discussed with the council already.

The amendment, I'm happy to speak to.

Madam President, if you'd like me to first move it, Yes.

Okay.

Colleagues, I move to amend Resolution 32041 as presented on Amendment 1 on the agenda.

Second.

Thank you.

Shall I proceed, Council President?

Yes, it's been moved and seconded.

Go ahead, Councilor Mosqueda.

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, I want to just add to the comments from the Prime Sponsor here today in both our excitement about this resolution and our call to action here in our city and across the country, from Starbucks workers, partners, members of the labor movement, and the community at large.

I'm proud to stand in solidarity with folks who are calling for this resolution, but more importantly, the call for unionization across doors across the country.

In about half of the states in this country, including those right here in Seattle, workers are fighting for better wages, staffing, training, and benefits.

While this fight is gaining momentum in hard-to-organize areas like organizing shop by shop.

The fight isn't new to us.

I'm proud to be able to support this resolution here today in our city and in our state and a state with thousands of Starbucks workers and partners in an industry affiliated with the efforts here to make sure that we're fighting for stronger union protections.

Folks at Teamsters Local 117, Unite Here Local 8, UFCW 21 and those who are members of MLK Labor are supportive of this resolution and also excited to make sure that we are recognizing the existing Starbucks workers in stores in our region and standing in solidarity with their siblings across the country and within Seattle who are fighting for more unionization directly with the large corporation and to bring more unionized members into the labor movement.

I was proud to stand with fast food and coffee workers in our fight for 15 in 2013. I'm proud to stand with workers now calling for similar recognition.

I was proud to work with over half a million workers when I worked with the Washington State Labor Council AFL-CIO for about eight years prior to joining council.

And I'm proud to stand with MLK Labor representing 150,000 union members in Seattle.

and King County as we fight to expand and broaden labor protections and the right to organize.

As this resolution notes, and as the sponsor has noted as well, members of labor have grown within Washington State.

The stand, which is the statewide publication that AFL-CIO puts out through the Washington State Labor Council, They noted that 72,000 more members have joined union rank-and-file participation within unions in Washington State, and now Washington State ranks third in union membership in the entire country.

Just this morning, we saw that the number of stores that are unionizing in now 20 states and 68 stores, that number was just updated just seven years ago.

indicating the support for this unionizing effort and the desire to make sure that we send a strong message of solidarity with those in our area and across the country.

I bring forward this amendment to show the strength in numbers, both with existing union memberships and those who are being welcomed into the fold by this unionizing effort across the country.

Thank you very much, Madam President.

Thank you, Councilor Mosqueda.

So just to update us, Council Member Sawant is the prime sponsor of the base legislation.

Council Member Mosqueda just introduced an amendment.

So right now what we're gonna do, is there any comments to the amendment at this time?

Okay, not seeing any comments or raised hands.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment number one.

So want?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Mosqueda?

Yes.

Thank you.

Aye.

Nelson?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

Council President Moraes?

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

The amendment is adopted.

The amended resolution is before the council.

So are there any further comments on the amended resolution before we go forward?

Okay.

Not seeing any.

So I'm going to go forward.

I thought I could make some closing remarks.

Right.

After the council members speak.

Yeah.

So I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

Council member Nelson and then council member Peterson.

I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

I can't hear you.

Thank you.

I was elected to work with my colleagues on the issues we know are priorities for the people of Seattle.

Homelessness, police reform, public safety, housing affordability, basic services, and so on.

I was not elected to take votes on issues that fall beyond the purview of city business.

And I believe that a vote on Resolution 32041 would be just merely symbolic because this is an external labor issue.

And we have no authority over Starbucks or their employees.

And we have a labor movement for that.

And let me be clear, I am pro-labor.

I support workers' right to unionize, and I oppose union busting, or I would not have received the support of the Seattle Firefighters, the Building and Construction Trades Council, and its affiliates.

But we have to stay in our lane and spend our time and energy doing things we know will directly help the people and the workers of Seattle.

For example, build more affordable housing and workforce housing, create more career pathways for our young people.

fix our roads and bridges that our workers use to travel on to get to their jobs, and also eliminate the violence and threats against our frontline workers who are victimized by escalating crime at their workplaces.

And that will be the topic of my Economic Development Committee meeting tomorrow morning.

So this resolution, I believe, is a distraction from that kind of work.

Now, I understand that President Juarez doesn't want to be the gatekeeper on what counts as material city business.

And I do respect that council has adopted resolutions like this in the past.

But personally, I would like to see council conduct its business a little differently going forward, because I was elected by people who want to see progress on our major issues.

And I made a promise to focus on doing that.

So I can't vote yes on this.

My vote matters to me, and I just don't wanna start my term with a symbolic vote on my record.

But I also don't want to have a vote that could be misunderstood as anti-worker on my record.

So I am going to just withhold my vote on this resolution.

Okay, Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Council President, colleagues.

In hopes of increasing the productivity and focus of the city council, we recently updated our parliamentary procedures and rules to provide council members with the option to abstain from certain resolutions rather than taking time away from the core functions of city government work.

We know it takes precious time to thoroughly review issues outside of city government.

Today is the first test of this new rule, and I suspect we might want to further refine this rule by making it more clear And I look forward to working with our council president and colleagues to refine it again.

As the co-author of that amendment, I believe this resolution before us today is the kind of resolution on which council members would ideally be free to abstain.

This resolution does not provide policy guidance to city departments.

The resolution does not express council's priorities on its $6.6 billion budget.

The resolution is not required by other city or state laws.

Instead, the resolution is an important statement in support or opposition to the actions of private organizations external to city government, with city council having no formal role in these actions.

Moreover, this resolution has not been analyzed by our city council central staff, who are rightly focused on city government.

This resolution regarding Starbucks addresses an important issue, and I think we all agree there are so many important issues across the nation and around the globe that are worthy of comment.

At the same time, City Hall has a backlog of city government priorities impacting our districts and all of Seattle, which I believe should be commanding our full attention, such as the need to work with our new mayor to reduce crime and reduce homelessness.

And those issues also impact frontline workers.

That's why I'm in my district right now.

I absolutely support the right of workers to organize.

It's already well known that the city council strongly supports labor, but what's not well known and what's not getting enough attention are our efforts to reduce crime and to reduce homelessness and to deal with the scores of other priorities and responsibilities given to us by our city charter and upon which I believe we should be focusing our time and legislative schedule.

In addition to using this opportunity to simply state my strong support for workers, I want to reinforce my strong support for having City Hall get back to the work of reducing crime, reducing homelessness, monitoring our city's $6.6 billion budget, and addressing the many other problems left unsolved by our city.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Councilor Mosqueda, is that a new hand or an old hand?

It is a new hand, Madam President.

I'll be brief because I know the sponsor is looking forward to wrapping this up.

I do feel compelled to say that this is an important resolution.

This is our lane.

This is part of our job responsibilities.

And I think as noted with the headquarters being within Seattle, this is an important opportunity for us at the national level to show solidarity with workers across our region and our country.

I don't think there is really another point in recent history that we can point to that shows how important unionizing is for frontline workers.

Their health and safety on a daily basis as frontline workers in this moment of COVID is constantly on the line.

As already noted, their health and well-being along with their livelihood is on the line when they organize.

The sponsor noted the firings that just happened this morning in Memphis, leaving people without jobs and a paycheck for simply speaking up on at the workplace, which is a right that all workers should have.

Earlier this week and as noted in the stand as well in this morning's publication, they noted that a man opened fire in a Fred Meyer store in Washington state here and often Fred Meyers have Starbucks within them as well.

I think that As we seek to send a message of solidarity with workers who should have the right to speak up and unionize in every workplace, this is just as much part of our responsibility as it is responding to housing needs across our city, increasing homelessness, worker protections, and expanding protections for working conditions in all industries.

This absolutely is within our lane.

And people getting fired for organizing, people speaking up and facing repercussions and retaliation, That is bad for the health and safety of that worker.

It is also bad for the health and safety of our local economy.

If we care about a functioning economy and a more quick and swift recovery, a more equitable recovery, that is centered on people having the right to speak up in the workplace and have good living wage jobs and access to unionization and representation.

Again, I will conclude my comments and look forward to voting on this resolution, but I just wanted to correct the narrative on this because I think this is part of our effort to make sure that people can stay stably housed, that fewer people fall into homelessness, that we see fewer people dealing with stress and crises because they've lost their job or are facing intimidation in the workplace.

I look forward to ongoing efforts among this council and with our colleagues across the region to send a strong message of support for those organizing within Starbucks stores and to support those who are current Starbucks employees who are represented with Teamsters 117, MLK Labor, UFCW 21, and Unite Care.

Thank you very much.

Again, strongly supportive of this and thanks for the time, Madam President.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Council President.

I just wanted to speak briefly to some components of, generally, of raising worker standards and being very responsive to some of the work that this council is doing on homelessness.

We saw a survey earlier this year, or maybe it was towards the end of last year, of Kroger employees, frontline Kroger workers.

were about fourteen percent reported experiencing homelessness uh...

and thirty eight percent reported uh...

experiencing extreme economic insecurity some of which uh...

putting them at higher risk of homelessness and indeed in a lot of cases putting them on the caseload for a lot of the programs this council has been fun uh...

i think that there's a parallel relationship to discussions around hazard pay mandates and insufficient working standards for people that are in service frontline industries and i do think it affects our work when we have people who are doing uh...

important service sector worker important work in our economy since the nineteen eighties and a trend of union busting and a trend of uh...

on pushing back against unions and fighting against unionization has steadily led to a decrease in benefits a decrease in pay which in turn has dramatically increased caseload pressure on governments to step up and try to fill that void And, you know, we don't often talk a lot about the folks who are working poor who fall within homelessness.

Like, we tend to focus a lot more talking about chronically homeless individuals that tend to pose some of the bigger public policy challenges around addiction, behavioral mental health, and in some cases, low-level property crime and prolific offenses.

But the reality is, and I think Council Member Straus has talked about this extensively, we have a lot of people who are working in service-level jobs, retail jobs, as baristas or in other kind of frontline employment, who are living in encampments, who are living in vehicles, and are creating an environment where folks can shield and hide criminal activity in some of those encampments in and amongst the bigger supply of people experiencing homelessness.

So all of this fits together into the work that we're doing on homelessness.

and i do do you just think it's important that we actually look at raising labor standards as important element of our economic development work which includes the proliferation of you proliferation of union organizing and uh...

allowing uh...

more workers and and under this resolution you know it's really just saying let workers have a fair shot at democratically trying to organize as they're entitled to under federal law and having the city of Seattle be supportive of those efforts, because it does help down the road for our caseload, it helps down the road for our efforts to combat homelessness, if we have more people who are able to have better standards through better jobs and not falling on the caseload of public support and public subsidy.

So for those reasons, I will be voting for the resolution today.

And I do think this is an important national conversation and that increased unionization is a critical component of the work to raise working standards generally and appreciate our allies and partners at King County Labor Council from calling in and the work that they've been doing with us to advance these critical priorities.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Let me just make a few comments and then Council Member Sawant, I will allow you to kind of close out the discussion.

So I want to thank Council Member Sawant as being the prime sponsor of this and Council Member Mosqueda for your amendment.

But I do want to address what Council Member Nelson and Peterson have said.

And I think it underscores why we have this rule about abstention and what that means or voting no.

The rule, as you know, which we will be revisiting, requires the council president, at their discretion, to look at what is material.

As I shared before, I will always err on the side of things being material, because they will touch on that.

I don't want to be the gatekeeper of that.

I will disagree a little bit with Council Member Mosqueda when she said she wanted to correct a narrative.

I don't think that there's an incorrect narrative here.

I think we just have different opinions, and as electeds, we all have that opportunity to share what those opinions are.

And as colleagues, we can agree to disagree.

I hope that the viewing public and my colleagues don't see Council Member Nelson and Council Member Peterson in the words that they say about why they would not be supporting this resolution that makes them anti-labor.

I think it's pretty clear, and I think the votes are always there, at least the majority, that this is a labor town.

And of course we support labor.

That's pretty much what we do.

Whether you call yourself a socialist alternative, a Democrat, a progressive Democrat, or whatever name people want to hang around their neck.

So for today, I do want to share that we do want to revisit what it means to abstain.

I think the abstention tool is important.

We don't have it in place now, but that will be in my committee probably in a month.

And I also want to share that I always appreciate that Council Member Sawant brings these issues to our attention.

And we should also point out for the viewing public that Council Member Sawant's resolution came from Council Member Sawant.

It did not come from central staff.

Though central staff is there to provide and assist us with amendments, public resources were not used to draft this, Council Member Sawant and her staff did this in conjunction with some of her colleagues.

And I appreciate that, because that's the kind of work we should be doing, whether we agree or disagree.

So I'm hoping going forward, at least for me anyway, in the next two years, that we can all agree to disagree that there isn't a right or wrong, that we can all respect each other's opinion and that we revisit the abstention tool, because I do believe that council members should have the tool on resolutions to abstain.

And I'm hoping that the viewing public sees that not as anti or against or being punitive or retaliatory, but merely a difference of opinion, particularly that council member Peterson and Nelson took the time to explain their vote.

And that's what I really appreciate is when people take the time to explain their vote.

And I know that Council Member Sawant in the past has often asked that her colleagues explain their vote.

And so I want to thank Council Member Peterson and Nelson for doing that.

So with that, Council Member Sawant, I will let you close us out on this discussion and then we will go to a vote on the amended resolution.

Council Member Sawant.

Thank you.

I certainly agree with Council President Juarez that all elected officials should be open and I appreciate council members weighing in on why they are going to vote no or stay out.

I'm not exactly sure how that works, but I don't agree that there isn't a right and wrong.

There is a right and wrong, but that right and wrong depends on which side you're on.

What you define as right or wrong depends on which side you're on because in the context of a deeply divided system like capitalism where The overwhelming amount of wealth and power resides in the hands of a few billionaires and the corporate executives and the political establishment and the corporate media that serve them.

And the overwhelming work, labor, is being done by tens of millions, hundreds of millions, billions of workers who see very little to nothing of the fruits of that labor.

Political actions by elected officials cannot be neutral in the face of this deep, deep inequality.

And this is the headquarters of Starbucks, hundreds of Starbucks workers, thousands maybe, I have not counted, it would be great to know how many, thousands of coffee shops workers, tens of thousands of workers in the fast food industry.

This is very much city business.

You cannot say, if you're an elected official, you cannot say you are pro-labor and then vote no or withhold your vote on this resolution.

It simply doesn't work.

I mean, you can say that, you have every right to say that, but My message is to working-class people in Seattle, do not buy that.

That doesn't make any sense.

If you say you're pro-labor, then you have to vote yes on a resolution like this because it's not a neutral situation.

And if Seattle is a labor town, it is only because rank-and-file workers fight for what's just and what's right, fight because of the history of fighters in the labor movement and the way we fought for the $15 an hour minimum wage, the Amazon tax, and so many other renters' rights, both union rank and file and non-unionized rank and file workers are the reason that we have won this, and yes, socialists also.

You want to talk about city business?

The Amazon tax that our movement fought for in the middle of the Black Lives Matter movement with phenomenal support from the Black community and from all working class people.

We won that in 2020 because of the grassroots tax Amazon movement that we built.

That was city business that came for a vote.

Council members Peterson and Juarez voted no.

Another city business item last December, that was the vote to end, scandalously, end the hazard pay, $4 an hour hazard pay for grocery workers, our hardworking frontline workers.

And all eight Democrats at the time, and all the current council members who were in office last year, council Democrats who were in office last year, voted in December in an attempt to end that $4 an hour hazard pay.

Now that pay is surviving, but not thanks to the council Democrats.

So all these examples show that when council members say it is not city business, what they really mean is that it is city business, but we're just not on the side that you want us to be on.

Because all of those votes were also city business.

The Amazon tax was about homelessness and building affordable housing, but you still voted no on it.

So I'm not sure how you can say that you're pro-labor and you're voting no or you're staying out of it.

In the 1930s and 40s, a unionization drive of millions swept the United States.

Millions of auto workers occupied their factories, locking out the bosses until their union was recognized.

General strikes involving whole cities was organized by labor fighters led by socialists in Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Toledo.

That wave of militant labor organizing led to new unions being formed into the Congress of Industrial Organizations, the CIO, and tens of millions of American workers winning unprecedented improvements in living standards.

Today, many of those fighting tactics have been forgotten, which has led to a decline in the labor movement.

And you can see the political outcomes from having political establishment politicians take certain positions is a reminder that we need the fighting tactics back.

The Starbucks union busting is a reminder why we need a fighting strategy.

Starbucks has nearly 9,000 stores nationally that are directly company owned, or over 15,000 if you include grocery workers and other grocery stores and other affiliated locations.

It is a behemoth of a corporation.

with $29 billion in revenue last year.

If Starbucks workers succeed in building a union, it will be unprecedented in the fast food industry and it will be the first successful union drive on this giant scale in the private sector in decades.

That is what is at stake and that is why I'm proud to have brought this resolution alongside Starbucks Workers United.

Council President Juarez, you're right.

We worked on this resolution.

My staff and I worked on it alongside Starbucks Workers United and Starbucks Workers themselves and other socialists and allies in the labor movement.

let's also understand what it will take to rapidly organize as many Starbucks stores as possible.

Workers will need a class struggle approach to win.

We cannot have any illusions that the bosses will be on our side.

They will fight ferociously against us.

The bosses will tell workers they don't need a union, that they are partners in the company, that unions just want your dues money and don't do anything.

But what does it mean to be a partner with a CEO who makes $20 million while you struggle to pay the rent?

Or if they can fire you for trying to unionize?

And if unions allegedly don't do anything, then why is Starbucks terrified of them?

In Seattle, our working class movement has beaten Amazon and Starbucks and Seattle's wealthiest corporate landlords again and again.

not by trying to convince the executives to be kind, but by getting organized and fighting back.

That is what we will need.

That is why I am proposing the idea of a National Day of Action to Starbucks workers so that we can help spread the union movement to hundreds of stores, because that's what is needed.

We know that power at the bargaining table comes from power outside.

And so we need to be coordinated nationwide.

And most urgently, we need walkouts and solidarity rallies in cities across the nation.

including Seattle, to demand that Starbucks executives give the fired Memphis workers their jobs back.

And it's important to fight for this and win this, not only for the Memphis workers, and that's important in itself, but because if we don't fight back this time, then they will use the firing tactic to intimidate workers in other cities as well.

So we have to push back on this.

And we know that it's only when the working class fights that we can win.

Thank you to Starbucks workers in Seattle and everywhere.

Let's keep fighting.

Solidarity.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

I see that Council Member Strauss has his hand up, and then we're going to close argument and our discussion on this resolution.

Thank you, Council Member Juarez.

I wasn't going to speak up today because I think all of my colleagues summarized the points very well.

It goes without saying that I am supporting union workers and the right to unionization.

I have yet to miss a strike line with our brothers and sisters who are striking to get better wages and protections.

I just, point of clarification, point of order, a number of times we have been, our political party has been discussed, and I just wanted to clarify that this is in fact a nonpartisan office.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you.

So with that, I see Council Member Musquiet, I did not see, is that a new, do you want to give a few comments or are you done?

Council President, I know you wanted to call the question and looking forward to voting for this as I already noted, but I think it's important since the two pieces of legislation that I prime sponsored were called into question that we clarify, especially that it actually undermines the effort to try to tear down folks who are wanting to support unionizing efforts and wanting to support a broader movement for progressive values to continue down this line.

As the prime sponsor of hazard pay over a year ago, that legislation went into effect working over a three week period with grocery workers to make sure that our city was the first in Washington state to implement hazard pay for grocery workers.

Our city is the one who continues to have the longest hazard pay on the books.

We extended that four times.

It was always intended to be temporary at the in partnership with those who are working on getting longer term protections that was known to be a short term.

as we work to address longer term health and safety issues.

And after four times of having it extended, we said if there was changes to Omicron, if there was, excuse me, if there's changes to COVID that we would revisit whether or not it needed to be sunset.

And between the passage of the expiration of the hazard pay and the following week, Omicron numbers ticked up.

Always said that we would continue to look at the data and implement it if necessary.

So I just want to make sure that we're clear today as we support workers in our city, in our region, across our country, that we continue to show solidarity for broader organizing efforts and want to make sure that we are clear about the past, especially on the bills that I've prime sponsored, where we're continuing to build opportunities for folks to have good living wages, expand opportunities to organize life through today's call for this resolution and that misinformation.

So looking this past and supporting and our broader labor mo supportive of the amendme today and the work that I

Okay.

So we are going to council member.

So while we are going to go ahead and close the discussion now.

Well, I'm the prime sponsor of the bill.

And so I do want to respond very briefly.

I'm only going to respond by saying that that was not misinformation.

That was not misinformation.

That was a fact.

all of the Democrats who were on the council last December voted to end the hazard pay, and it was Mayor Durkan who vetoed that bill.

So I- Can I have the clerk mute everybody?

Because apparently people can't behave.

Clerk, can you please mute it?

Clerk, please mute it.

Mute everybody.

So, are we all going to take a breath here?

Okay.

OK, Madam Clerk, can we go back on the record?

Let us know.

Madam Clerk?

Let me see if I can get this unmuted.

Thank you.

OK.

And then I'm going to make a few comments, and we're going to go to a vote.

Tell me when.

I believe we should be able to unmute ourselves now.

Okay, great.

So can everybody hear me?

Okay, good.

So I did that because I don't want this to turn into what it just happened.

Again, members are reminded that it's never an order to use insults in debate.

It is members who will confine their remarks to the merits of the pending question.

not use former examples of how people may or may not have voted in the past.

I am going to share two things.

I want to thank Council Member Sawant for the material and the resolutions and the legislation that has come out of her office.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

And I also want to thank Council Member Mosqueda for bringing forward hazard pay and jumpstart.

And I don't want to go down this rabbit hole again.

I'm just trying to get this resolution passed, which is a simple resolution regarding Starbucks and unionization.

So with that, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution as amended?

Blount?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Nelson?

Peterson.

Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Six in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

All right, let's finish the agenda here.

We got item number two.

I understand it's council member Lewis.

Will the clerk please read the item into the record?

Agenda item two, the report of the Public Assets and Homelessness Committee, Council Bill 120264, an ordinance relating to permits in parks, stating a maximum term for permits in parks, clarifying the nature of permissible commercial activities in parks, and amending sections 18.12.030, 18.12.042, and 18.12.160 of the Seattle Municipal Code, the committee recommends the bill pass.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Council Member Lewis, it's all you.

Thank you so much, Madam President.

Hopefully this can be a comparatively brief agenda item.

Council Bill 120264 is aptly described by the title of the legislation.

We heard a great presentation in committee last week from the Parks Department on the need to have a clearer regime to define what commercial activity might be in a park and to have some kind of system to regulate the extent to which there can be allowed commercial activity, both in terms of the time and the space that that takes up in a public park going forward.

So for the first time, this legislation creates a definition of what is considered commercial activity.

To give a couple of examples of the kinds of activity parks has in mind that they would like to be able to facilitate with some level of consideration and to duly permit would be something like an exercise class or a yoga class or some kind of mild food concession that might be seasonal.

So some examples that were given were the food truck pilot for permitting in Westlake Park, which has been a fairly common occurrence over the last couple of years in the downtown core, and potentially having services similar to that on a seasonal basis in some other parks around the city.

This legislation was passed unanimously out of committee with five council members voting in favor and none opposed.

And I am happy to move the legislation.

Is there a second?

Second.

Great.

Are there any other comments regarding Council Member Lewis's legislation?

Okay, not seeing or hearing none.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

to want.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

Nelson.

Aye.

Peterson.

Aye.

Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

Before we move on to adjournment and other businesses, I have a few comments I want to make that I had been hoping that I would not have to make at this point, but apparently it looks like I do.

Moving forward, as a point of order, this council president will have an exercise, and hopefully you will all recognize my, quote unquote, my virtual gavel, that it will mute us.

I am going to rely on our colleagues to abide by all rules.

hold us accountable to rules, behavior, and courtesy of decorum, civility, and basic kindness.

The members are reminded that it is never in order to make personal remarks or attacks.

The members are reminded that colleagues will not attack or question the integrity or motives of other colleagues.

And the members are reminded that we will not be discourteous to each other or make personal and insulting remarks.

I'm hoping that going forward as council president, that we instill a safe place, a kind place, so the rest of the city can see that we're a functioning council that can agree to disagree and still move forward for this great city.

Again, I will use the point of order and I will mute us if indeed this council president feels that we are not following those basic rules of decency and debate to our colleagues.

So with that, colleagues, this concludes our items of business today.

Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on February 15th at two, and I hope you all have a great afternoon.

Thank you.

Sorry, I did have a good of the order item.

I apologize.

But just briefly, I would like to ask to be excused from the March 22nd and 29th council meetings.

Tuesday to Thursday, is that it?

March?

Two Tuesdays.

Two Tuesdays.

Two Tuesdays?

OK.

Well, let's do this then.

I do not have my script here, so I'm just going to have to do it from memory.

It seems that Council Member Lewis would like to be excused.

Is there any opposition or concerns or comments that you would like to share with Mr. Lewis of why he cannot be excused on those two Tuesdays?

Hearing or seeing none, you are indeed excused, Mr. Lewis.

Thank you, Madam President.

Sorry for just jumping in there at the end.

That's right.

That's how I like it.

Just jump right on in.

Let me know.

I have no problem being told when I'm wrong.

Thank you.

you