Speaker 4: 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.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm going to adopt resolution 32041. Is there a second? Second? Kuwait. It's been moved and seconded. Casper. So what is sponsor of the resolution? You were recognized. Please.
Speaker 1: 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 companies shameful union busting, then I don't know what will. And Seattle is the headquarters of Starbucks Corporation. So the 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 take their workers to the mud unless we tell them no. The resolution called on Starbucks to accept Gottschalk 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 and 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 and do 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 and quote, Which side will councilmembers stand on with workers like these in Memphis and in Seattle, demanding basic workplace rights are 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 Yarrow 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 won. 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 is 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 called 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 closed two Buffalo Starbucks locations that were in the process of unionizing, one of which was, quote unquote, reopened as a training center. As Sidney Durkin, a Seattle Starbucks worker at the Broadway and Denny Store who just spoke, said, quote, We are dealing with meetings and intimidation. I personally have received a 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 and they are union busting. They will continue to do this until there is intense public outcry and quote. That is why this resolution is being put forward and what Starbucks is doing in Memphis especially outrageous. Starbucks baristas in Memphis filed their union cards demanding union recognition on Martin Luther King County, 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 jobs back. Here in Seattle, police does 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 protect 17 UAW 4121, Wolf 1488 S.W. 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 Nathan 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 join them in urging city council members to vote yes without watering it down. Send a clear message to Starbucks executives that union busting will not be tolerated. And join me in urging all Seattle workers to join the labor movement. Thank you. And I will follow up on that later during the summer.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sawant. So with that colleagues, are there any of our colleagues here who would like to address the resolution? Councilor Mesquita.
Speaker 4: 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 amendments. 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 one on the agenda.
Speaker 1: Second.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Charlie. Proceed.
Speaker 0: Council president. Yes. It's been moved and seconded. Go ahead, Customer Mosquito.
Speaker 4: 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 stores 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 eight, you'll see them. You're 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 amendment notes, members of the labor excuse me, 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 the 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 and now 28,068 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.
Speaker 0: Q Councilor Mesquita, so just to update us. Council Member So what is the prime sponsor of the base legislation? Councilor Mosquito just introduced an amendment. So right now what we're going to do, is there any comments to the amendment at this time? Okay. Not seen any comments or raised hands. I will. The clerk please call the role on the adoption of amendment number one. So want.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Strauss. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 2: Morales. Mesquita. Yes. Oh, thank you. Hi. Nelson, I. Peterson.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 2: Council president whereas high eight in favor not opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The motion carries. The amendment is adopted and the amended resolution is before the council. So are there any further comments on the amended resolution? Before we go forward. Okay. Not seen any. So I'm going to go forward.
Speaker 1: And I'm going to present Juarez. I thought I could make some closing remarks.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: After the councilmembers speak.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So I'm sorry. Go ahead. Councilmember Nelson and then Councilmember Peterson. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Oh, I can't hear you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I was elected to work with my colleagues on the issues we know are priorities for the people of Seattle homelessness.
Speaker 2: Police reform.
Speaker 4: Public safety, housing affordability, basic services and so on. I was not elected to take votes on issues that felt beyond the purview of city business. And I believe that a vote on Resolution 3 to 0 for one would be just merely symbolic, because this is an external labor issue and we have no authority over Starbucks or their employees.
Speaker 2: And we have a labor.
Speaker 4: Movement for that. And let me be clear, I am pro-labor.
Speaker 2: I support workers.
Speaker 4: Rights to unionize and I oppose union busting. I would not have received the support of the Seattle Firefighters Building and Construction Trades Council and its affiliates.
Speaker 2: But we had to stay in our lane and spend our time.
Speaker 4: And energy doing things. We know we.
Speaker 2: Will directly help. The people.
Speaker 4: And the.
Speaker 2: Workers.
Speaker 4: Of Seattle, for example.
Speaker 2: Builds more affordable housing and workforce housing, create more career.
Speaker 4: Pathways for.
Speaker 2: Our for our young people, fix our roads and bridges that our workers used.
Speaker 4: To travel on to get to their jobs and also.
Speaker 2: Eliminate the violence and threats.
Speaker 4: Against our frontline.
Speaker 2: Workers who are.
Speaker 4: Victimized by escalating crime at their workplaces. And there that would be the topic of my Economic Development Committee meeting tomorrow morning.
Speaker 2: So this resolution, I.
Speaker 4: Believe, is a distraction from that kind of work.
Speaker 2: Now, I understand that President.
Speaker 4: Suarez doesn't want to be the gatekeeper on what counts as material city business. And I do.
Speaker 2: Respect that council.
Speaker 4: Has adopted resolutions like this.
Speaker 0: In the past.
Speaker 2: But personally.
Speaker 4: I would like to see council conduct its business.
Speaker 2: A little differently going forward because I was elected by people who.
Speaker 4: Want to see progress on our major issues.
Speaker 2: And I made a promise to.
Speaker 4: Focus on doing that.
Speaker 2: So I can't.
Speaker 4: Vote yes on this. My vote matters to me, and I just don't want to start my term with a symbolic vote on my record.
Speaker 2: But I also don't want.
Speaker 4: To have a vote that could be misunderstood is anti-worker on my record, so I am going to just.
Speaker 2: Withhold my vote on this resolution.
Speaker 0: Hey. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 5: That's the 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 coauthor of that amendment. I believe this resolution before us today is 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. If the resolution does not express Council's priorities on its $6.6 billion budget, the resolution is not required by either 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. When City Council having no formal role in these actions. Moreover, this resolution has not been analyzed by our City Council 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 we 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 schedules. 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, abuse and homelessness, monitoring our city's $6.6 billion budget, and addressing the many other problems left unsolved by our city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilor Peterson. Councilor. Is that a new hand or an old hand?
Speaker 4: 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 land. 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. A 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 and 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 with them there as well. I think that's as we seek to send a message of solidarity with workers who have 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 Canadian economy at 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 civilly 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 teams, responsibility and labor. You have S.W. 21 and Unite here. Thank you very much. Again, strongly supportive of this. And thank you for the time, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council President. I just wanted to speak briefly to some components of generally of raising worker standards, of 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, front line Kroger workers, where about 14% reported experiencing homelessness and 38% reported experiencing extreme economic insecurity, some of which are 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 funded. I think that there's a parallel relationship to discussions around hazard pay mandates and insufficient working standards for people that are in service front line industries. And I do think it affects our work when we have people who are doing important service sector work or important work in our economy, that since the 1980s and a trend of union busting and a trend of 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, you know, the reality is, and I think Councilmember Strauss 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 front line employment who are living in encampments, who are living in vehicles and are creating an environment where folks can can can shield and hide criminal activity in some of those those encampments in and among 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 just think it's important that we actually look at raising labor standards as an important element of our economic development work , which includes the proliferation of proliferation of union organizing and allowing more workers. 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 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 that's an important national conversation, and that increased unionization is a critical component of the work to raise working standards generally and and appreciate our allies and partners that King County Labor Council are calling in and the work that they've been doing with us to advance these critical priorities.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Lewis Let me just make a few comments then. Councilmember So what I will allow you to to kind of close out the discussion. So I want to thank customers. One is being the prime sponsor of this in Councilmember Mosquito for your amendment. But I do want to address what Councilmember Nelson and Peterson have said. And I think it underscores why we have when we have this rule about abstention and what that means for 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 Councilmember Mosquito 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 we are 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 Councilmember Nelson and Councilmember 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 that's pretty much what we do, whether you call yourself a socialist alternative, a Democrat or 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. The 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 members who want brings these issues to our attention. And we should also point out to the viewing public that council members the wants resolution came from council members so want it did not come from central staff. The essential staff is there to provide and assist us with amendments. Public resources were not used to draft this council member, so want 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 for 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 Councilmember 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 members want in the past is often asked that her colleagues explain their vote. And so I want to thank Councilmember Peterson and Nelson for doing that. So with that council member silent, I will let you close us out on this discussion and then we will go to a vote on the amended resolution. Customers want.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I certainly agree with Councilperson Juarez that all elected officials should be open, and I appreciate council members weighing in on why they are going to vote nor 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. You know 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, do nothing of the fruits of their 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 shop workers, tens of thousands of workers in the fast food industry. This is very much city business. You cannot say you're an elected official. You cannot say you are pro-labor and then vote no or withhold your vote on this resolution. That 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 is 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 for 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 vote 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 facts 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 Stax Amazon movement that we both that was city business that came for a vote. Councilmembers Peterson and Juarez voted no, another city business item last December. That was the vote to end scandalously and 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 of members who were in office last year. Democrats who were in office last year voted in December in an attempt to end the $4 an hour hazard pay. Now that pay is surviving, but not thanks to the Council Democrats. So all these examples show, you know, 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 of 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 forties, 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 those fighting tactics back. Though of Starbucks union busting is a reminder why we need a fighting dog fighting strategy. Starbucks has nearly 9000 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 am proud to have brought this resolution alongside Starbucks workers. United Council President. What you are right. We worked on this resolution. My staff and I worked on it alongside Starbucks workers, United and Starbucks workers themselves and other socialist and allies in the labor movement. And let's also understand what it will take to rapidly organize as many. Bookstores 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, and 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 it's 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 Wendy's 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.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilor Swan, I see that Councilor Strauss has his hand up and then we're going to close argument and our discussion on this resolution.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Councilmember was I wasn't going to speak up today because I think all 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. In 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.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So with that, I see considerable spirit I did not see. Is that a new do you want to have a few comments? Are you done?
Speaker 4: Council President I know you wanted to call the question. Looking forward to voting for this is already noted, but I think it's important since the two pieces of legislation that I 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 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 fix as we work to address longer term health and safety issues. And after four times of having an 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 on the 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 and 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, like through today's call for this resolution, and that we stop with the misinformation. So I'm looking forward to having this passed and supporting the Starbucks workers and our broader labor movement, who has been supportive of the amendment that I brought forward today and the work that I did throughout last year?
Speaker 0: Okay. So we are going to councilmember. So while we are going to go ahead, close the discussion. Now.
Speaker 1: I'm the prime sponsor of the bill. And so I do want to respond very briefly, Councilman. I'm only going to respond by saying that there was a lot of misinformation and misinformation that was a fact. All of those Democrats were on the council last December, voted to end the hazard pay and it was Mayor Durkan who.
Speaker 4: And we.
Speaker 1: Held.
Speaker 0: It so.
Speaker 4: That we have a.
Speaker 0: Can I have the clerk out? Everybody. Because apparently people can't be fair. Can you please get it?
Speaker 4: I'm still proud of it.
Speaker 0: Please mute it. Mute, everybody. So. Are we all going to take a breath here? Okay. Okay. Madam Clerk, can we go back on the record? Let us know. Madam Clerk.
Speaker 4: I'll let me see if I can get this unmuted. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then I'm going to make a few comments, or we're going to go to a vote. Tell me when.
Speaker 4: I believe you should be able to unmute ourselves now.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. So can everybody go out? Okay, good. So I did that because I don't want this to turn into what it just happened again. Members are reminded that is never in order to use insults in debate. It is net 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 say comes first a want for the material and the resolutions and the legislation that has come out of her office. Thank you, counselor. Excellent. I also want to thank Counselor Mosquito 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 role on the adoption of the resolution as amended?
Speaker 2: What? Yes. GROSS.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 2: Lewis.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 2: Morales. Let's get up.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Nelson. Peterson. Council president worries I. Six in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: 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. Well, the clerk, please read the item into the record.
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.