On Thursday afternoon, a crowd of divided workers and lobbyists filled the Seattle City Councilâs Governance, Accountability, and Economic Development committee meeting to discuss Chair Sara Nelsonâs extreme rollback of a recently instituted minimum wage for gig delivery workers known as âPay Up."
Nelson told her council colleagues that the âlast thingâ she wanted to do was spark such a heated debate. She even told a constituent in an email that she would ârepeal the legislation outrightâ if it were up to her alone. But by at best ignoring and at worst antagonizing those who insist the minimum wage benefits them, Nelson has brought laborâs wrath upon her. And in the Thursday meeting, as workers and labor groups testified against the rollback, Nelsonâs confidence appeared shaken.Â
During discussion, Nelson tried to distance herself from her bill. She said that it's not just her idea but the idea of the gig companies and of Drive Forward, an Uber-backed lobby group she pretends represents the majority of workers. She acknowledged that the opposition will âsay what they wantâ about Drive Forward, but sheâs saying itâs technically an advocacy group, okay?Â
She couldnât play it cool, thoughâNelson defended the bill as if it were her first-born. She dominated the meeting, launching into monologues that shaded labor organizers, interrupting public commenters who criticized her, seeming to look for support from nonpartisan staff, and calling out staff for raising hypothetical concerns.
Her apparent uneasiness in the meeting revealed the fragility of the council president, who has so quickly built a tyrannical reputation for herself. So far, her committee colleagues have not levied strong criticisms or very specific support of her bill. As one public commenter said, this is their opportunity to prove they are more than Nelson disciples, but we'll see.Â
This Is Your Bill, Nelson
Nelson did not include workers in the creation of her so-called âreform,â and it shows.Â
If none of her colleagues stand up to her, the law would cut delivery-worker pay by about 24%. That would make for a wage of about $19 per hour during the workersâ small window of âengaged time,â time when theyâre biking or driving on a call, not waiting for one. It would also cut the per-mile pay to half the IRS rate of reimbursement and eliminate the $5 per order minimum. Some order transparency measures and protections for order cancellations would be eliminated, too.Â
Her law undermines enforcement by eliminating penalties on companies who fail to pay workers, denying them the right to sue companies for breaking the law and cutting provisions that protect workers against retaliation. Not sure how those measures help struggling couriers, but pop off!
Nelson also took aim at the Office of Labor Standards (OLS) in her law by limiting the information the office can request from gig companies, barring the agency from imposing âadditional requirementsâ of any kind on the gig companies, and delaying enforcement action by 30 days. The law amounts to âvirtual immunityâ for gig companies, Washington State Association for Justice Government Affairs Director Larry Shannon said during public comment.Â
Missed a Spot!
With all that shit Nelsonâs law would do, she still managed to miss the point. Gig workers currently see a lower volume of jobs because gig companies slapped retaliatory fees onto orders. Then the companies ran a huge marketing campaign to blame the mark-ups on the greedy, greedy gig workers for wanting a minimum wage.
Opponents often use the example of a $35 burrito to communicate the egregiously high new prices. But Working Washington, a labor group that helped craft Pay Up, noted in a press release that âif burritos feel expensive, itâs not because workers are getting richâtheyâre expensive because DoorDash is getting rich.â
Based on an independent analysis from the Fair Work Center, Working Washington estimated thatâbefore tax and tipââno more thanâ $22.40 of a typical $35 order would go to the restaurant, about $6.40 would go to the worker, and DoorDash would keep $5.75. DoorDash could eliminate the new $5 fee and still maintain a margin over 30%, according to the analysis.
Despite all the uproar about fees, Nelsonâs law does not require, incentivize, or even just ask the companies nicely to repeal them. She seems to believe companies will do that voluntarily, though I havenât seen a strong promise yet.Â
Ideology may be clouding her thinking. In a recent newsletter, Nelson said âno one disputes that the regulatory fee catalyzed the backlash but itâs not our role to question the basis for a business decision nor do we have the authority to prohibit it.â
Working Washington disagreed with Nelsonâs analysis. Hannah Sabio-Howell, a spokesperson for Working Washington, said Nelson failed to acknowledge the 15% commission cap the City already passed to protect restaurants from corporate price-gouging on delivery fees.Â
âMoving forward a commission cap for customers would be an excellent solution that [Nelson] has completely ignored,â Sabio-Howell said.Â
She added: â[Nelson] could be creative and work harder to protect consumers and small restaurants from corporations, if thatâs who sheâs really worried about.âÂ
Nelsonâs law also does not address another issue that may be contributing to some workersâ financial woes. Bike couriers told The Stranger they believe that the gig companies favor drivers because they can complete orders more quickly. The minimum wage ordinance, which requires companies to pay workers for their time, gives companies even more incentive to send orders to faster car drivers. In addition, Nelsonâs law would eliminate transparency requirements that inform workers what they have to pick up and where they have to go. That hurts cyclists because orders may be too large to carry or take them over steep hills.Â
When Nelson Let Others Speak
Despite all these complications, Nelson clearly wants to pass the bill as soon as possible. For instance, when Council Member Bob Kettle said in the committee meeting that there were a lot of âmoving parts,â a lot of stakeholders, and there was a lot of âhomeworkâ to do, Nelson at first said âno,â but then she retreated and said thereâs more time to discuss in the next committee.Â
Some public commenters believe sheâs working quickly in her own financial interest. Earlier this month, Seattle Hospitality Group, one of the stateâs largest restaurant companies, bought a controlling stake in Fremont Brewing, which was co-founded by Nelson. Nelson, who in 2022 stepped away from the company she still co-owns, claims she âwas not involved in the negotiations over the sale of Fremont Brewing,â according to a statement from a council spokesperson. Sheâs working with the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission (SEEC) to keep everything above board, but it's too early for SEEC to comment substantively.Â
Advocates have flagged the deal as a potential conflict of interest because the businesses that Seattle Hospitality Group owns would presumably benefit from a reduction in the minimum wage.Â
So the hospitality group that just bought Sara Nelson's Fremont Brewing has 9 restaurants on DoorDash.
â gig work fugue state (@pnw_nature) April 18, 2024
I guess this explains why she wanted to change the law so quickly, and also why she didn't care that an Uber lobbyist group was writing the proposed replacement law... pic.twitter.com/Holxuny3iO
When public commenter Colin OâKeefe tried to call out Nelson for not recusing herself, she interrupted him and asked him to connect his comment to an agenda item. She doesnât usually interrupt commenters, except for when frequent public commenter Alex Zimmerman launches into his "Sieg Heilâ rants.Â
Council President Sara Nelson interrupts speaker @colinokeefe as he calls on he to recuse herself from Pay Up discussions because Seattle Hospitality Group, which presumably would benefit from minimum wage rollback, just bought into Fremont Brewing, her business. pic.twitter.com/LMSjs9MzQh
â Hannah Krieg (@hannahkrieg) April 25, 2024
OâKeefe called on the rest of the council to tell Nelson to recuse herself, but no one obliged. In fact, most of the committee members seem pretty chill with her proposal. Council Member Rob Saka said almost verbatim what Nelson said in a previous meeting about having three options: Do nothing, revise, or repeal. Parroting his fearless leader, Saka said that he ruled out the âdo nothingâ option and wants to pursue a revision and maybe a repeal at a later time. Council Member Maritza Rivera basically just regurgitated some of Nelson's concerns, as did Kettle.Â
Council Member Joy Hollingsworth asked a lot of clarifying questions about Nelsonâs proposal. She even pointed out a âloopholeâ that allows companies to count incentives and bonuses toward the minimum wage. Hollingsworth, who got donations and endorsements from labor unions in her recent election, should be fighting at least a little for workers. Her mild skepticism in the meeting could make her a good target for pro-Pay Up advocates to lobby for amendments.