Thursday, October 1, 2026
Proposition 1, which is on the November General Election ballot in Olympia, is a clear example of what happens when we don’t include the broader community, stakeholders like small businesses and nonprofits, when determining public policy.
The good intensions, helping workers and the working poor, and providing some stability for employees so they can plan their lives, are outweighed by poorly crafted and potentially damaging language.
Let’s start with a little history. In July of last year, the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) came to the city to pursue the Workers' Bill of Rights. They’d worked together before to require hazard pay for grocery workers during the pandemic. The Olympia Finance Committee thought they may be able to at least address minimum wage by the end of the year, but that effort was not successful.
The city council decided the concepts had merit and decided to pursue these ideas with an inclusive process. They allocated $150,000 and placed a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) on the city’s website for a consultant to work on the issue.
Unfortunately, the UFCW decided not to wait and filed an initiative with the language that is now up for approval. The city had to either adopt the language or put it out for a public vote; those were their only choices. Since it’s on the ballot, Olympia had to stop its process, and pull the RFQ so it wasn’t construed as trying to influence an issue on the ballot.
Part of the challenge and expense resulting from the way this proposal is written is due to all the items included in the document. This is unlike what other cities have done where minimum wage was an isolated issue.
There is much more in this proposal than simply increasing minimum wages. Some items, not all, include:
Taken individually, each item has some degree of merit and is an attempt to address some challenges workers face in this economy. That’s understandable. But the overall requirements due to the actual language can be very expensive and indirectly hurt the very people we’re trying to help.
The current minimum wage in Washington is $16.67. The net effect of the wage increases from Proposition 1 will be $17 for small businesses (under 15 employees) going up 50 cents a year after that. For medium businesses (15 to 500 employees) it will start at $18 going up a dollar a year. These increases will be in effect until there is no difference in minimum wages for any business category.
But who is entitled to this pay and how the business sizes are determined is where it gets cumbersome, expensive to manage and damaging to some small business and community services. The wage applies to work done within the city limits, not where a business is located.
The challenge comes from trying to manage this if you had a business that entailed deliveries or catering or similar services to or from one of our three adjacent cities. Sounds like if a business sends a delivery, maybe flowers or furniture, from Lacey to Olympia, they might have to track the time their vehicle crosses the city limits and back again since the ordinance defines working in Olympia as “including all hours worked within the geographic boundaries of the City.” In Seattle’s ordinance, it has language that eliminates the requirement for short trips and clarifies how much time is required before the wage kicks in.
In addition, what constitutes a large business catches a number of small businesses and social services in its wake. Proposition 1 defines franchises as large business. But they typically aren’t, as they can be locally owned and independent businesses that pay to use the name brand and access to products. But this initiative would treat it as a large business, just what we’re trying to avoid.
Additionally, the franchise definition also catches a number of our community services like the YMCA. From their website: “YMCA is a national organization with 194 local associations around the United States. YMCA USA provides a range of technical assistance and capacity-building services to local YMCAs, maintains the YMCA brand …” The Y could easily be construed as a franchise because the language states: “The operation of the business is substantially associated with a trademark, service mark, trade name …” Thus, the Y will have to follow the most expensive requirements of the ordinance.
It’s not necessarily the minimum wage that will cause the burden; it’s the management and other requirements that will be expensive.
Included are requirements called predictive scheduling “designed to provide workers with sufficient advance notice of their work schedules so they can plan their lives and family budgets” with financial penalties if they don’t comply. Again, this sounds reasonable, but it depends on the type of business this applies to.
We have emergency and 24/7 social services, which are legally required to have sufficient staff and should not be penalized while trying to provide a benefit to workers in industries like grocery stores. Employees in these situations know the nature of their jobs and can accept their working conditions. If someone calls in sick, these vital services shouldn’t be penalized, with costs that will be passed along to people in need.
Seattle understood this and did not apply these requirements on emergency services, health care or nonprofits. Because of this requirement and the franchise designation, if this passes the Y will have to raise child care prices, which are already hard for single parents and families to afford.
The language states, “An employee of a large employer may decline a shift that begins less than ten hours after the end of a previous work shift. If the employee consents to work such a shift, the employee shall be entitled to an unfair scheduling payment equal to one half of the employee’s regular rate of pay for each hour the employee works which is less than ten hours after the end of the previous shift.”
Some emergency and nonprofit businesses need to have multiple shorter shifts; it’s the nature of the business. And state law already requires overtime pay for excessive hours. What if someone is teaching a class at the Y in the morning, and one in the afternoon? This language will catch them. And saying that isn’t the intent makes no difference; all that matters is what’s written.
I admit that some of the language bothers me because I simply don’t know why we’re doing it, nor why it belongs in a proposed law like this. Proposition 1 requires any business to offer their part-time employees more hours if they have more work rather than hire other part-time workers. But what’s the issue and who are we trying to help? I can’t tell and wouldn’t want to vote for something I don’t understand. I want our broader community to look at it first to make a recommendation that is carefully crafted.
Our social services are currently losing millions of dollars in federal cuts that imperil these services. They can’t afford any more costs, either in wages or added management. Any additional costs will need to either be passed along to people using these services, or services will have to be reduced. That will harm the same people we’re trying to help. We have to be very sensitive to these organizations and their clients, and make sure we don’t do anything to make their tasks any more difficult.
Clearly, Olympia city staff will be required to enforce all of these new rules and requirements. Because of the complexity and multiple requirements in this initiative, it will be extremely difficult to manage and enforce. This could be avoided with a better written ordinance with a more precise scope. The city doesn’t currently have staff for this. The proposal will require new staff to try and manage it. For instance, Seattle, with its ordinance of lesser scope, has a separate Office of Labor Standards for enforcement.
There is substantial language included about how to file legal action in court, who can file, and how the city can join in lawsuits. It’s as if the intent is to deal with these issues in court. Olympia won't have a municipal court anymore. Ordinances can be crafted to make them easy to understand, manage, and enforce, which will help everyone: management, employees and the city. Employees should not be burdened by a hard to enforce ordinance that requires court intervention.
We are a compassionate and understanding community sensitive to the needs of the less fortunate, with a demonstrated track record of spending and caring. The city council has already shown that they intend to address the initial concepts of the proposal. But they are constrained by the initiative process, so if this proposal passes the council can’t change the language to correct problems.
Together we can craft language that both helps and protect workers without leaving such a destructive wake. Olympia has already demonstrated the intent to do just that. So, understanding what we now know, it makes sense to vote against this poorly crafted proposal, prevent the unintended consequences, and let the whole community address this properly and exactly as the council had already started to do.
Pat Cole — pcbiglife@gmail.com— is a former Olympia city council member. As a private citizen, he seeks to set a positive tone and lead informed discussions about local civic issues.
14 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Quadlok
I'm amazed you managed to type all that while vigorously servicing the fast food industry.
Tuesday, September 30, 2025 Report this
JohnFronono
Impressive multitasking on your part too. Typing that with one hand while clutching your pearls with the other must be tough.
Tuesday, September 30, 2025 Report this
HappyOlympian
Certainly against yet more wretched governing by local officials.
Tuesday, September 30, 2025 Report this
JulesJames
Thank you for the lucid explanation of this ballot measure. Thank you for having the strength to endure the slings and arrows coming your way for speaking up.
Wednesday, October 1, 2025 Report this
Englefamily
Thanks Pat for providing a calm and reasoned recap of what’s included in Olympia’s Prop. 1.
The out of town proponents are well funded and can be intimidating to those that speak against this measure.
I hope you’re spared the nastiness and name calling. Most non-profit leaders and small business owners have stayed silent about the negative impacts, for fear of retribution.
There’s a local group trying to raise awareness of the pitfalls for Olympia, if Prop. 1 passes. Please check out olytogether.com for more information and how you can help defeat this measure.
The more you know, the more you’ll vote NO on Prop. 1.
Cheryl Selby
Former Mayor of Olympia
Wednesday, October 1, 2025 Report this
CurrentResident
This guy gets it! I agree that a lot of the ideas here were good ones, like employees having two weeks notice about their upcoming schedule. But if one of them has communicated to their manager that they'd love some more hours, and then somebody calls in sick... The manager should do the right thing reach out to them to cover the shift, right? That's good for everybody. But the business is *penalized* for this? I guess they're expected to schedule their sick days two weeks in advance to avoid this? Unreal. Not to mention penalties for basically any business that operates any level of care for people in their homes. Somebody needs more care? Sorry, you have to schedule your medical emergencies so that the businesses can follow the process to properly hire more employees.
No, thank you!
Wednesday, October 1, 2025 Report this
jimLacey
This part was kind of a shocker, so hopefully there was just something left out regarding this.
The UFCW filed an initiative. The city had to either adopt the language or put it out for a public vote; those were their only choices.
That makes it sound like anyone that has the ability to file an initiative automatically gets it adopted or it goes on the ballet.
Wednesday, October 1, 2025 Report this
MrCommonSense
Thanks Pat for your thoughtful explanation. Unintended consequences are usually the result of poorly thought out, analyzed and vetted(with those potentially affected) ideas.
I don't know what the rules are for how much City officials can say about this proposition without running afoul of some "rules". At least it can provide the citizenry with an estimate of expected costs of handling complaints and enforcement actions, including potential litigation, lost tax revenue from businesses that might leave the city or reduce employment, and other elements of the proposal which might impact the City's budget.
Looking forward to the City's objective fiscal analysis of the proposal.
Wednesday, October 1, 2025 Report this
BobJacobs
This proposal covers a lot of issues toward which I am favorably disposed. But as Pat Cole points out, there are a lot of details missing. How are those to be filled in?
And where is the fiscal impact analysis? We should not vote for something whose cost is not known.
Bob Jacobs
Wednesday, October 1, 2025 Report this
Olycitymanager
This is a great summary of the many flaws of Proposition One .
Whether intended or not, the proposal adds unnecessary costs and bureaucracy to Olympia nonprofits and small businesses
Pat Cole nailed it.
Thursday, October 2, 2025 Report this
TheVirtualOne
I will be voting No. While there is lots of information is this article, it took me all of 5 minutes to come to that conclusion after reading the proposal several months ago. This is way too much baggage to be saddled in business. The increasing costs, taxes, and administrative oversight by government has led to the decline and loss of jobs in the private sector. Anyone wanting to go into business in Olympia, or the state of Washington, has got to have loose marbles in their head. It’s a shame.
Thursday, October 2, 2025 Report this
Larry Dzieza
I very much want to raise concerns about former Mayor Selby’s statement that “Most non-profit leaders and small business owners have stayed silent about the negative impacts, for fear of retribution.”
Has Olympia’s level of political discourse now reached that of the worst of our national politics? We should not be living in fear of retribution for expressing our opinions.
I ask the former mayor to name those wielding threats of retribution as sunlight is the best antidote for such political poison.
If we can’t deal with this at our local level, what hope is there?
Friday, October 3, 2025 Report this
Larry Dzieza
Points well-made, Pat.
For whatever reason the council did not move in time to head-off this poorly designed proposal, it has forced a difficult choice for the voters who care about the workers, the businesses and non-profits and the customers and clients who rely upon them.
As you point out, “we are a compassionate and understanding community sensitive to the needs of the less fortunate, with a demonstrated track record of spending and caring. The city council has already shown that they intend to address the initial concepts of the proposal.” Therefore, I recommend that the council act now to give the voters a choice lest the only way to express that assessment of community attitude is by voting “Yes”.
The council, within the bounds of settled law, should agree upon worker wages and protections that, should the initiative fail, would address the main concerns of the initiative but be enforceable and exclude non-profits and provide rules that don't harm small businesses. Voters can then consider making the choice with the confidence that their values will be addressed even if they vote “No”.
Friday, October 3, 2025 Report this
Boatyarddog
Hah, Cheryl Selbey!
Who told who, what? Accusations won't bring any respect.
Monday, October 20, 2025 Report this