Washington Minimum Wage Increase, Initiative 1433 (2016)

Washington Initiative 1433
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Minimum wage
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

2016 measures
November 8
Initiative 732 d
Initiative 735 a
Initiative 1433 a
Initiative 1464 d
Initiative 1491 a
Initiative 1501 a
Advisory Vote 14 a
Advisory Vote 15 a
SJR 8210 a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

The Washington Minimum Wage Increase, also known as Initiative 1433, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Washington as an initiated state statute. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported incrementally raising the state's minimum wage from $9.47 to $13.50 by 2020 and mandating employers to offer paid sick leave.

A "no" vote opposed both increasing the state minimum wage and mandating employers to offer paid sick leave.

In November 2016, voters in Arizona, Colorado, and Maine voted on measures to increase their state minimum wages to $12. Washington's Initiative 1433 was the largest minimum wage increase on the ballot in 2016.

Aftermath

Airline lawsuit over federal preemption

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Preemption; whether federal law preempts the paid sick leave requirements for airlines
Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
Timeline: Filed in 2018 about a 2016 ballot measure
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, denying the request for a summary judgment by plaintiffs and upholding the application of Initiative 1433 paid sick leave provisions for airlines.
Plaintiff(s): Alaska Airlines, United Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Parcel Service, et al.	Defendant(s): The Washington Department of Labor & Industries
Plaintiff argument: Because airline crew members regularly work in multiple states even within the same work shift, the application of state paid sick leave requirements is unreasonable and a violation of the U.S. Constitution's limits on a state's ability to regulate interstate commerce; and that the initiative violates the federal Airline Deregulation Act.	Defendant argument: Unknown; the department and the attorney general had not yet responded to the lawsuit as of February 9, 2018. A flight attendant union representative, however, said that it is reasonable and compatible with the constitution to require compliance with state law while operating within the state and that the lawsuit had no merit.

  Source: Herald and News

On February 6, 2018, several airlines, including Alaska Airlines, United Airlines, Southwest Airlines, and United Parcel Service, filed a lawsuit against the Washington Department of Labor & Industries arguing that the application of the paid sick leave requirements in Initiative 1433 to airline employees violated the U.S. Constitution's limits on a state's ability to regulate interstate commerce and the federal Airline Deregulation Act.

The lawsuit argued that "(u)niformity in regulation of air carriers from one end of a route to another is a national necessity.” The lawsuit argued that the paid sick leave requirements in Initiative 1433 combined with the regulations of other states “impose different (and inconsistent) obligations on air carriers. For example, a flight crew departing from SeaTac International Airport, landing in Portland International Airport, and continuing to San Diego International Airport is subject to three different paid sick leave laws in a single duty period, each with its own accrual, compensation, reporting, and leave requirements.”

The Washington Department of Labor & Industries, which is responsible for implementing and enforcing the paid sick leave requirements in question, said that the lawsuit was under review by the office of the attorney general. Association of Flight Attendants-CWA International President Sara Nelson said, “As long as airlines operate in the state, they are subject to state laws. This is not the first time a local or state law has affected the industry.”

The director of representation of the Airline Pilots Association Teamsters Local 1224, Gregory Unterseher, said, “They’re just trying not to have to pay this. Same thing with the $15 an hour wage thing that Alaska Airlines fought in SeaTac so hard and ended up having to live with.”

US District Judge Ronald B. Leighton denied the airlines' motion for summary judgment and ruled in favor of the Washington Department of Labor & Industries and the Association of Flight Attendants.

Lawsuit over single subject

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Single subject; whether Initiative 1433 was about only one subject—as required
Court: Kittitas County Superior Court
Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs, upholding the initiative as compatible with the state's constitutional single-subject rule
Plaintiff(s): Brad Haberman, National Federation of Independent Business, Northwest Food Processors Association, Washington Farm Bureau, Washington Food Industry Association, Washington Retail Association et al.	Defendant(s): State of Washington and Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson in his official capacity
Plaintiff argument: Initiative 1433 was about two subjects: the minimum wage and mandatory paid leave.	Defendant argument: Initiative 1433 was about the single subject of labor standards.

  Source: Business Examiner and Seattlepi.com

In February 2017, several businesses and business associations filed litigation against Initiative 1433 in the Kittitas County Superior Court. Plaintiffs in the case include the National Federation of Independent Business, Northwest Food Processors Association, Washington Farm Bureau, Washington Food Industry Association, and Washington Retail Association. Brad Haberman, the lead plaintiff, said Initiative 1433 violated the state's single-subject rule. Haberman stated, "Initiatives must contain a single subject. We believe I-1433 covers more than one; an increase in the state’s minimum wage, but also a new paid leave mandate. Those should have been subject of separate legislation, separate initiatives. Since it doesn’t follow the constitution we’re taking it to court and trying to get it resolved."

Judge Scott R. Sparks rejected the challenge on May 2, 2017. He said, "This court is of the opinion that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish that I-1433 has violated the Washington State Constitution in any manner. ... I-1433 deals with a general subject, labor standards. The ballot title specifically gave the public notice that the law dealt with the minimum wage, paid sick leave, and related laws. Inquiring minds were put on notice that the minimum wage and paid sick leave were on the ballot."

Election results

Initiative 1433
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		1,848,583	57.42%
No		1,370,907	42.58%

Election results from Washington Secretary of State

Overview

Minimum wage in Washington

In 2016, Washington’s minimum wage was $9.47 per hour. The federal minimum wage was $7.25. Due to Initiative 668 of 1998, the state's minimum wage increased with the cost of living. Washington had the eighth-highest minimum wage of all U.S. states and D.C. in 2016. In 2014, Seattle became the first major city to approve a $15 minimum wage. Without Initiative 144, Washington's minimum wage was expected to increase to $10.28 in 2020.

Changes to state law

Initiative 1433 was designed to increase the state's minimum wage to $13.50 by January 1, 2020. Thereafter, the minimum wage was tacked to increases in the cost of living. The measure also required employers to provide employees with paid sick leave. The measure was designed so that employees accrue one hour of paid sick leave for every 40 hours worked.

State of ballot measure campaigns

The Yes on 1433 campaign, know as Raise Up Washington, outraised opponents 51 to 1. Supporters raised $4.38 million in contributions, while No on 1433 received $85,385. Venture capitalist Nicolas Hanauer had contributed $1 million to Raise Up Washington. Washington State Democrats endorsed Initiative 1433, and the Washington Republicans came out in opposition to it. Both Hillary Clinton (D) and Bernie Sanders (I) supported the initiative. Polls indicated that support for the measure was around 60 percent prior to the election.

Initiative design

Minimum wage

Initiative 1433 was designed to increase the minimum wage from $9.47 in 2016 to $11.00 in 2017, $11.50 in 2018, $12.00 in 2019, and $13.50 in 2020. Beginning in 2021, the minimum wage was to be adjusted with inflation.

Assuming an inflation rate of 2.7 percent in 2021 and 2.6 percent in 2022, the Washington Office of Financial Management estimated the minimum wage to be $10.56 in 2021 and $10.83 in 2022 without the initiative. Under Initiative 1433, the office estimated the minimum wage to be $13.86 in 2021 and $14.23 in 2022.

The following table was adapted and modified from the state's voter guide:

Date	Hourly Rate Under 2016 Law	Hourly Rate Under I-1433	Difference
January 1, 2017	$9.55	$11.00	$1.45
January 1, 2018	$9.77	$11.50	$1.73
January 1, 2019	$10.02	$12.00	$1.98
January 1, 2020	$10.28	$13.50	$3.22
January 1, 2021	$10.56	$13.86	$3.30
January 1, 2022	$10.83	$14.23	$3.40

Paid sick leave

Beginning in 2018, the measure was designed to require employers to provide employees with paid sick leave. At minimum, the measure allowed employees to accrue one hour of paid sick leave for every 40 hours worked. Initiative 1433 permitted employees to earn at least 40 hours of paid sick leave per year. It permitted employees to start using paid sick leave after 90 days with an employer. Unused sick leave was designed to roll over to the following year. For leave lasting more than three consecutive days, the measure authorized employers to ask for proof that an employee's leave would be for authorized purposes.

The measure allowed employees to use paid sick leave to:

• accommodate the employee's physical or mental health condition; need for medical diagnosis, care, or treatment; or need for preventative healthcare.
• provide care for a family member's physical or mental health condition; need for medical diagnosis, care, or treatment; or need for preventative healthcare.
• receive compensation when the employee's place of business closes for a health-related reason or when an employee's child's school closes for a health-related reason.
• address legal needs, seek treatment, or obtain services related to domestic violence.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

Initiative Measure No. 1433 concerns labor standards. This measure would increase the state minimum wage to $11.00 in 2017, $11.50 in 2018, $12.00 in 2019, and $13.50 in 2020, require employers to provide paid sick leave, and adopt related laws. Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

This measure would increase the state hourly minimum wage for employees who are at least 18 to $11.00 in 2017, $11.50 in 2018, $12.00 in 2019, and $13.50 in 2020. The measure would require employers to provide paid sick leave starting in 2018 that employees could use in certain circumstances, including to care for family members (as defined); make the Minimum Wage Act and this measure apply to individual care providers; and adopt related laws.

”

Explanatory statement

The explanatory statement was as follows:

The Law as It Presently Exists Washington's minimum wage for employees who are at least 18 years old is $9.47 per hour for 2016. For employees under 18 years old, the Washington Department of Labor and Industries sets the minimum wage. The Department has determined that workers who are 16 or 17 years old must receive the adult minimum wage. Workers who are under 16 years old may be paid 85% of the adult minimum wage, which for 2016 is $8.05 per hour. Employers must pay overtime wages of at least one and one-half an employee's regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a 7-day work week. Employers cannot use tips as credit toward minimum wages owed to a worker. Some cities have adopted local laws that require a higher minimum wage within those cities. Where a higher local minimum wage applies, the employer must pay the higher minimum wage. If a federal or local law sets a lower minimum wage than the one required by state law, the higher state minimum wage is the one that applies. The Department of Labor and Industries calculates a cost of living adjustment to the state minimum wage every fall, and the new rate takes effect the following January 1. The Department calculates the minimum wage increase according to the rate of inflation. Most workers must be paid at least the minimum wage for all hours worked. But some workers are not currently covered by the state Minimum Wage Act. For example, people who are working as independent contractors, casual laborers, certain "white collar" professionals, and volunteers for qualified organizations are not covered. There are currently no state laws that require an employer to provide paid sick leave. But some cities have passed local laws that require employers to provide paid sick leave. Absent a local law requiring it, paid sick leave is considered a benefit that an employer may choose to provide under an agreement or policy. Under Washington's Family Care Act, if an employer offers paid leave, their employees can use earned paid leave to care for a sick family member. Covered family members include children, parents, spouses, registered domestic partners, parents-in-law, and grandparents. In addition, there are federal and state laws that govern when a worker can take unpaid leave. The federal Family Medical Leave Act and the state Family Leave Act currently permit some workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave and still keep their jobs. To qualify, the worker must have worked at least 12 months for the employer for a total of at least 1,250 hours, and the employer must have 50 or more employees. The unpaid leave can be used to recover from the worker's own serious illness, to care for a child, spouse, or parent with a serious health condition, or to care for a newborn child, newly adopted child, or foster child. Under Washington's domestic violence leave law, victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking and their family members can also take reasonable leave to take care of legal or law enforcement needs, to seek treatment, to obtain services, to relocate, or to take other action to ensure the victim's safety. The law does not require that domestic violence leave be paid leave, but an employee may choose to use paid leave if he or she has it. The Department of Labor and Industries enforces Washington's Minimum Wage Act and state leave laws and adopts rules related to these laws. The Effect of the Proposed Measure if Approved Initiative 1433 would increase the hourly minimum wage incrementally over four years and require employers to provide paid sick leave. The measure would also adopt related laws about earning and using paid sick leave. Initiative 1433 would increase the hourly minimum wage for employees who are at least 18 years old to $11.00 on January 1, 2017; $11.50 on January 1, 2018; $12.00 on January 1, 2019; and $13.50 on January 1, 2020. The Department of Labor and Industries must still set the minimum wage for employees under 18 years old. Beginning on January 1, 2021, the minimum wage rate would again be adjusted each year according to the rate of inflation. If a local law requires a higher minimum wage within a city, the local minimum wage would apply. Beginning on January 1, 2018, employers would be required to provide paid sick leave to employees covered by the Minimum Wage Act. Employers would be required to pay sick leave at the employee's pay rate or at the new minimum wage, whichever is higher. An employee would get at least one hour of paid sick leave for every 40 hours worked, but employers could provide more generous paid leave. The measure would require employers to allow use of paid sick leave after 90 days of employment. Sick leave could be used to meet an employee's own medical needs or to care for a family member's medical needs. Family members would include: a spouse or registered domestic partner; a child; a parent, step-parent, or legal guardian; a grandparent; a grandchild; and a brother or sister. Paid sick leave could also be used when the employee's place of business or their child's school or childcare is ordered to be closed for a health related reason. Paid sick leave could be used for domestic violence leave. An employer could require employees to give reasonable notice when they want to take paid sick leave. Where an absence from work will last longer than three days, employers could also require verification that the employee is taking leave for an authorized purpose. An employer could not require an employee to search for or find a replacement worker in order to be able to take paid sick leave. Employers would be required to provide their employees with regular notice about the amount of paid sick leave they have earned. Up to 40 hours of sick leave could be carried over to the following year, and employers could allow more carryover if they wish. Employers would not have to pay employees for their unused sick leave when the employee leaves. Where an employee leaves a job and is rehired by the same employer within one year, previously earned sick leave would have to be reinstated. The measure would make the state Minimum Wage Act, including its minimum wage, overtime, and new paid sick leave requirements, expressly apply to people who contract with the Department of Social and Health Services to provide care to disabled people under certain programs. But the measure does not otherwise expand the state Minimum Wage Act to make it apply to other workers who are not currently covered. Employers would not be allowed to discriminate or retaliate against an employee or impose discipline against an employee for proper use of paid sick leave. An employee could not agree to receive less than what he or she is entitled to under the initiative. The Department of Labor and Industries would enforce the new law and would have to adopt rules for implementing and enforcing it.

Full text

The full text of the measure was as follows:

Sec. 1. It is the intent of the people to establish fair labor standards and protect the rights of workers by increasing the hourly minimum wage to $11.00 (2017), $11.50 (2018), $12.00 (2019) and $13.50 (2020), and requiring employers to provide employees with paid sick leave to care for the health of themselves and their families. Sec. 2. RCW 49.46.005 and 1961 ex.s. c 18 s 1 are each amended to read as follows: (1) Whereas the establishment of a minimum wage for employees is a subject of vital and imminent concern to the people of this state and requires appropriate action by the legislature to establish minimum standards of employment within the state of Washington, therefore the legislature declares that in its considered judgment the health, safety and the general welfare of the citizens of this state require the enactment of this measure, and exercising its police power, the legislature endeavors by this chapter to establish a minimum wage for employees of this state to encourage employment opportunities within the state. The provisions of this chapter are enacted in the exercise of the police power of the state for the purpose of protecting the immediate and future health, safety and welfare of the people of this state. (2) Since the enactment of Washington's original minimum wage act, the legislature and the people have repeatedly amended this chapter to establish and enforce modern fair labor standards, including periodically updating the minimum wage and establishing the forty-hour workweek and the right to overtime pay. (3) The people hereby amend this chapter to conform to modern fair labor standards by establishing a fair minimum wage and the right to paid sick leave to protect public health and allow workers to care for the health of themselves and their families. PART I ESTABLISHING FAIR LABOR STANDARDS BY INCREASING THE MINIMUM HOURLY WAGE TO $11.00 (2017), $11.50 (2018), $12.00 (2019) AND $13.50 (2020) Sec. 3. RCW 49.46.020 and 1999 c 1 s 1 are each amended to read as follows: (1) Until January 1, 1999, every employer shall pay to each of his or her employees who has reached the age of eighteen years wages at a rate of not less than four dollars and ninety cents per hour. (2) Beginning January 1, 1999, and until January 1, 2000, every employer shall pay to each of his or her employees who has reached the age of eighteen years wages at a rate of not less than five dollars and seventy cents per hour. (3) Beginning January 1, 2000, and until January 1, 2001, every employer shall pay to each of his or her employees who has reached the age of eighteen years wages at a rate of not less than six dollars and fifty cents per hour. (4) (a) Beginning January 1, 2017, and until January 1, 2018, every employer shall pay to each of his or her employees who has reached the age of eighteen years wages at a rate of not less than eleven dollars per hour. (b) Beginning January 1, 2018, and until January 1, 2019, every employer shall pay to each of his or her employees who has reached the age of eighteen years wages at a rate of not less than eleven dollars and fifty cents per hour. (c) Beginning January 1, 2019, and until January 1, 2020, every employer shall pay to each of his or her employees who has reached the age of eighteen years wages at a rate of not less than twelve dollars per hour. (d) Beginning January 1, 2020, and until January 1, 2021, every employer shall pay to each of his or her employees who has reached the age of eighteen years wages at a rate of not less than thirteen dollars and fifty cents per hour. (2) (a) Beginning on January 1, 2001 2021, and each following January 1st as set forth under (b) of this subsection, every employer shall pay to each of his or her employees who has reached the age of eighteen years wages at a rate of not less than the amount established under (b) of this subsection. (b) On September 30, 2000 2020, and on each following September 30th, the department of labor and industries shall calculate an adjusted minimum wage rate to maintain employee purchasing power by increasing the current year's minimum wage rate by the rate of inflation. The adjusted minimum wage rate shall be calculated to the nearest cent using the consumer price index for urban wage earners and clerical workers, CPI-W, or a successor index, for the twelve months prior to each September 1st as calculated by the United States department of labor. Each adjusted minimum wage rate calculated under this subsection (4) (2)(b) takes effect on the following January 1st. (5) (3) An employer must pay to its employees: (a) All tips and gratuities; and (b) all service charges as defined under RCW 49.46.160 except those that, pursuant to RCW 49.46.160, are itemized as not being payable to the employee or employees servicing the customer. Tips and service charges paid to an employee are in addition to, and may not count towards, the employee's hourly minimum wage. (4) Beginning January 1, 2018, every employer must provide to each of its employees paid sick leave as provided in Part II of this act. (5) The director shall by regulation establish the minimum wage for employees under the age of eighteen years. PART II ESTABLISHING FAIR LABOR STANDARDS BY REQUIRING EMPLOYERS TO PROVIDE PAID SICK LEAVE TO EMPLOYEES Sec. 4. The demands of the workplace and of families need to be balanced to promote public health, family stability, and economic security. It is in the public interest to provide reasonable paid sick leave for employees to care for the health of themselves and their families. Such paid sick leave shall be provided at the greater of the newly increased minimum wage or the employee's regular and normal wage. Sec. 5. (1) Beginning January 1, 2018, every employer shall provide each of its employees paid sick leave as follows: (a) An employee shall accrue at least one hour of paid sick leave for every forty hours worked as an employee. An employer may provide paid sick leave in advance of accrual provided that such front-loading meets or exceeds the requirements of this section for accrual, use, and carryover of paid sick leave. (b) An employee is authorized to use paid sick leave for the following reasons: (i) An absence resulting from an employee's mental or physical illness, injury, or health condition; to accommodate the employee’s need for medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of a mental or physical illness, injury, or health condition; or an employee's need for preventive medical care; (ii) To allow the employee to provide care for a family member with a mental or physical illness, injury, or health condition; care of a family member who needs medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of a mental or physical illness, injury, or health condition; or care for a family member who needs preventive medical care; and (iii) When the employee's place of business has been closed by order of a public official for any health-related reason, or when an employee's child's school or place of care has been closed for such a reason. (c) An employee is authorized to use paid sick leave for absences that qualify for leave under the domestic violence leave act, chapter 49.76 RCW. (d) An employee is entitled to use accrued paid sick leave beginning on the ninetieth calendar day after the commencement of his or her employment. (e) Employers are not prevented from providing more generous paid sick leave policies or permitting use of paid sick leave for additional purposes. (f) An employer may require employees to give reasonable notice of an absence from work, so long as such notice does not interfere with an employee's lawful use of paid sick leave. (g) For absences exceeding three days, an employer may require verification that an employee's use of paid sick leave is for an authorized purpose. If an employer requires verification, verification must be provided to the employer within a reasonable time period during or after the leave. An employer's requirements for verification may not result in an unreasonable burden or expense on the employee and may not exceed privacy or verification requirements otherwise established by law. (h) An employer may not require, as a condition of an employee taking paid sick leave, that the employee search for or find a replacement worker to cover the hours during which the employee is on paid sick leave. (i) For each hour of paid sick leave used, an employee shall be paid the greater of the minimum hourly wage rate established in this chapter or his or her normal hourly compensation. The employer is responsible for providing regular notification to employees about the amount of paid sick leave available to the employee. (j) Unused paid sick leave carries over to the following year, except that an employer is not required to allow an employee to carry over paid sick leave in excess of forty hours. (k) This section does not require an employer to provide financial or other reimbursement for accrued and unused paid sick leave to any employee upon the employee's termination, resignation, retirement, or other separation from employment. When there is a separation from employment and the employee is rehired within twelve months of separation by the same employer, whether at the same or a different business location of the employer, previously accrued unused paid sick leave shall be reinstated and the previous period of employment shall be counted for purposes of determining the employee's eligibility to use paid sick leave under subsection (1)(d) of this section. (2) For purposes of this section, "family member" means any of the following: (a) A child, including a biological, adopted, or foster child, stepchild, or a child to whom the employee stands in loco parentis, is a legal guardian, or is a de facto parent, regardless of age or dependency status; (b) A biological, adoptive, de facto, or foster parent, stepparent, or legal guardian of an employee or the employee’s spouse or registered domestic partner, or a person who stood in loco parentis when the employee was a minor child; (c) A spouse; (d) A registered domestic partner; (e) A grandparent; (f) A grandchild; or (g) A sibling. (3) An employer may not adopt or enforce any policy that counts the use of paid sick leave time as an absence that may lead to or result in discipline against the employee. (4) An employer may not discriminate or retaliate against an employee for his or her exercise of any rights under this chapter including the use of paid sick leave. PART III Miscellaneous Sec. 6. (1) Beginning January 1, 2017, all existing rights and remedies available under state or local law for enforcement of the minimum wage shall be applicable to enforce all of the rights established under this act. (2) The state shall pay individual providers, as defined in RCW 74.39A.240, in accordance with the minimum wage, overtime, and paid sick leave requirements of this chapter. Sec. 7. RCW 49.46.090 and 2010 c 8 s 12043 are each amended to read as follows: (1) Any employer who pays any employee less than wages the amounts to which such employee is entitled under or by virtue of this chapter, shall be liable to such employee affected for the full amount of such wage rate due to such employee under this chapter, less any amount actually paid to such employee by the employer, and for costs and such reasonable attorney's fees as may be allowed by the court. Any agreement between such employee and the employer to work for allowing the employee to receive less than such wage rate what is due under this chapter shall be no defense to such action. (2) At the written request of any employee paid less than the wages amounts to which he or she is entitled under or by virtue of this chapter, the director may take an assignment under this chapter or as provided in RCW 49.48.040 of such wage claim in trust for the assigning employee and may bring any legal action necessary to collect such claim, and the employer shall be required to pay the costs and such reasonable attorney's fees as may be allowed by the court. Sec. 8. RCW 49.46.100 and 2010 c 8 s 12044 are each amended to read as follows: (1) Any employer who hinders or delays the director or his or her authorized representatives in the performance of his or her duties in the enforcement of this chapter, or refuses to admit the director or his or her authorized representatives to any place of employment, or fails to make, keep, and preserve any records as required under the provisions of this chapter, or falsifies any such record, or refuses to make any record accessible to the director or his or her authorized representatives upon demand, or refuses to furnish a sworn statement of such record or any other information required for the proper enforcement of this chapter to the director or his or her authorized representatives upon demand, or pays or agrees to pay wages at a rate less than the rate applicable an employee less than the employee is entitled to under this chapter, or otherwise violates any provision of this chapter or of any regulation issued under this chapter shall be deemed in violation of this chapter and shall, upon conviction therefor, be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. (2) Any employer who discharges or in any other manner discriminates against any employee because such employee has made any complaint to his or her employer, to the director, or his or her authorized representatives that he or she has not been paid wages in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, or that the employer has violated any provision of this chapter, or because such employee has caused to be instituted or is about to cause to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter, or because such employee has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding shall be deemed in violation of this chapter and shall, upon conviction therefor, be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. Sec. 9. RCW 49.46.120 and 1961 ex.s. c 18 s 4 are each amended to read as follows: This chapter establishes (a) minimum standards for wages, paid sick leave, and working conditions of all employees in this state, unless exempted herefrom, and is in addition to and supplementary to any other federal, state, or local law or ordinance, or any rule or regulation issued thereunder. Any standards relating to wages, hours, paid sick leave, or other working conditions established by any applicable federal, state, or local law or ordinance, or any rule or regulation issued thereunder, which are more favorable to employees than the minimum standards applicable under this chapter, or any rule or regulation issued hereunder, shall not be affected by this chapter and such other laws, or rules or regulations, shall be in full force and effect and may be enforced as provided by law. Sec. 10. The state department of labor and industries must adopt and implement rules to carry out and enforce this act, including but not limited to procedures for notification to employees and reporting regarding sick leave, and protecting employees from retaliation for the lawful use of sick leave and exercising other rights under this chapter. The department's rules for enforcement of rights under this act shall be at least equal to enforcement of the minimum wage. Sec. 11. The provisions of this act are to be liberally construed to effectuate the intent, policies, and purposes of this act. Nothing in the act precludes local jurisdictions from enacting additional local fair labor standards that are more favorable to employees, including but not limited to more generous minimum wage or paid sick leave requirements. Sec. 12. This act shall be codified in chapter 49.46 RCW and is subject to RCW 49.46.040 (Investigation, etc.) and RCW 49.46.070 (Recordkeeping). Sec. 13. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. Sec. 14. This act takes effect on January 1, 2017.

Fiscal impact statement

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The summary section of the fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

Summary Initiative 1433 would increase state revenues, and state and local government expenditures, during the next six fiscal years. State revenues would increase due to employers making Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund tax payments on higher wages. State General Fund expenditures would decrease in the first four fiscal years, but increase in the fifth and sixth fiscal years. Expenditures from all other funds would increase in each fiscal year. Increases exceed any decreases in State General Fund spending resulting from the initiative. Local school district expenditures would increase. Other local government expenditure impacts cannot be estimated.

”

Background

Voting on Minimum Wage
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Labor and unions Local wages and pay

The minimum wage debate is as old as the United States Department of Labor, an institution established in 1913. The minimum wage was once debated as an issue of constitutionality. The United States Supreme Court ruled the minimum wage unconstitutional in 1923's Adkins v. Children's Hospital, but later reversed course in their West Coast Hotel v. Parrish decision in 1937.

Minimum wage in Washington

The state of Washington increased the minimum wage above the federal government's in 1998, with the passage of Initiative 518. The measure elevated the minimum wage to $4.25 per hour. In 1998, Washingtonians approved Initiative 688, which increased the minimum wage to $6.50. As Initiative 688 adjusted the wage for inflation, it gradually increased to $9.47 in 2016. Washington had the eighth-highest minimum wage in the nation. In 2016, the District of Columbia had the highest wage at $10.50 per hour.

Seattle, Washington, became the first major city to approve a $15 minimum wage in 2014.

2016 minimum wages

Below is a chart detailing the minimum wage in all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, in 2016. Washington, D.C., had the highest minimum wage at $10.10 per hour. Georgia and Wyoming both had state minimum wages at $5.15 per hour, which was below the federal minimum wage.

Click "Show" in the State column to expand.

State	2016 minimum wage	Rank
Alabama	$7.25	31
Alaska	$9.75	4
Arizona	$8.05	24
Arkansas	$8.00	27
California	$10.00	2
Colorado	$8.31	18
Connecticut	$9.60	5
Delaware	$8.25	19
Florida	$8.05	24
Georgia	$5.15	50
Hawaii	$8.50	15
Idaho	$7.25	31
Illinois	$8.25	19
Indiana	$7.25	31
Iowa	$7.25	31
Kansas	$7.25	31
Kentucky	$7.25	31
Louisiana	$7.25	31
Maine	$7.50	29
Maryland	$8.25	21
Massachusetts	$10.00	2
Michigan	$8.50	15
Minnesota	$9.00	10
Mississippi	$7.25	31
Missouri	$7.65	28
Montana	$8.05	24
Nebraska	$9.00	10
Nevada	$8.25	21
New Hampshire	$7.25	31
New Jersey	$8.38	17
New Mexico	$7.50	29
New York	$9.00	10
North Carolina	$7.25	31
North Dakota	$7.25	31
Ohio	$8.10	23
Oklahoma	$7.25	31
Oregon	$9.25	9
Pennsylvania	$7.25	31
Rhode Island	$9.60	5
South Carolina	$7.25	31
South Dakota	$8.55	14
Tennessee	$7.25	31
Texas	$7.25	31
Utah	$7.25	31
Vermont	$9.60	5
Virginia	$7.25	31
Washington	$9.47	8
Washington, D.C.	$10.50	1
West Virginia	$8.75	13
Wisconsin	$7.25	31
Wyoming	$5.15	50

This map was current as of December 31, 2016.

Support

Raise Up Washington, also known as Yes on I-1433, led the campaign in support of Initiative 1433.

Supporters

Officials

• Hillary Clinton (D), 2016 presidential candidate
• Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I)
• U.S. Sen. Patty Murray (D)
• U.S. Secretary of Labor Tom Perez (D)
• Gov. Jay Inslee (D)

Parties

• Washington State Democrats
• Seattle Socialist Alternative

Organizations

• Greater Seattle Business Association
• Main Street Alliance of Washington
• 21 Progress
• American Association of University Women in Washington
• Casa Latina
• Children’s Alliance
• The Church Council of Greater Seattle
• Coalition Ending Gender-Based Violence
• Coalition of Immigrants, Refugees & Communities of Color
• Economic Opportunity Institute
• El Centro de la Raza
• Equal Rights Washington
• Equity in Education Coalition
• Fair Work Center
• Faith Action Network
• Fuse
• Gender Justice League
• Great Spokane Progress
• Jobs for Justice
• League of Women Voters
• Legacy of Equality, Leadership and Organizing
• Legal Voice
• LGBTQ Allyship
• Low Income Housing Institute
• Middle Class Alliance
• Moms Rising
• NAACP Spokane
• NARAL Pro-Choice Washington
• National Council of Jewish Women, Seattle
• National Employment Law Project
• National Organization for Women
• National Physicians Alliance
• Seattle National Organization for Women
• Northwest Progressive Institute
• Planned Parenthood
• One America
• One America Votes
• Our Revolution
• Progreso: Latino Progress Alliance
• Pudget Sound Advocates for Retirement Action
• Puget Sound Sage
• South Sound Jobs With Justice
• Statewide Poverty Action Network
• Ultraviolet Action
• Washington Bus
• Washington CAN! Washington Education Association
• Washington Low Income Housing Alliance
• Washington NAACP
• Washington State Budget & Policy Center Washington State Democrats
• WA State Coalition Against Domestic Violence
• Working America
• Working Washington
• YWCA of Seattle

Unions

• American Federation of Teachers WA
• Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance
• IUPAT DC 5
• IUOE Local 286
• Teamsters Joint Council
• ROC United
• SEIU 775
• SEIU 925
• SEIU Healthcare
• Teamsters 117
• Tenants Union of Washington State
• Transit Riders Union
• United Food and Commercial Workers Local 21
• United Food and Commercial Workers Local 367
• Washington Federation of State Employees
• Washington State Labor Council

Arguments

Supporters made the following arguments in support of Initiative 1433:

• The initiative would increase the income of more than 730,000 workers.
• The initiative would put $2.5 billion into local economies.
• The initiative would decrease the spread of disease in the workplace.
• The initiative would allow parents to take care of sick children without worrying about lost income.

Gov. Jay Inslee (D), backing the initiative, argued:

“

No one who works 40 or more hours a week should struggle to make ends meet. ... And no parent should have to choose between staying home to take care of a sick child or losing a paycheck. Initiative 1433 will lift up workers and families across this state and boost our local economies.

”

Barry Faught, owner of Broadcast Coffee, and Charles Mayer, a Seattle physician, endorsed the measure, saying:

“

A phased-in minimum wage increase will lift up more than 730,000 Washingtonians and put $600 more in the pocket of a minimum-wage worker. The result? About $2.5 billion in new consumer spending injected into our economy every year, according to the Washington State Budget and Policy Center. Businesses need customers, and when workers aren’t paid enough to support businesses in their communities, we all suffer. But when workers earn more, they spend more. And more customers means businesses make more, and hire more.

”

Official arguments

Ariana Davis, Ron Cole, Molly Moon, owner of Molly Moon's Homemade Ice Cream, Mary Bell, Shahrokh Nikfar, owner of Café Affogato, and Don Orange, owner of Hoesly EcoAutomotive, wrote the argument in favor of Initiative 1433 found in the state's voter guide. Their argument was as follows:

Initiative 1433 is good for our workers, our families, and our economy Initiative 1433 ensures every Washington worker can earn paid sick and safe leave and phases in a $13.50 minimum wage by 2020. Putting our health and safety first Washingtonians should be able to take care of themselves or a sick child without having to choose between their family and a paycheck. It’s vitally important to pass a common sense law like paid sick leave to help prevent the spread of disease and keep customers, employees, children, the elderly, and our families safe. When restaurant, grocery, and childcare workers are forced to go to work sick they expose our communities to disease. In fact, 70% of food-related norovirus outbreaks are the result of sick food workers showing up to work. Creating more economic opportunity Initiative 1433 would boost the income of more than 730,000 low-wage workers, lifting families out of poverty and growing the economy. When workers have more money to spend, they spend it at local businesses. Initiative 1433 will inject nearly $2.5 billion into local economies. This demand, in turn, creates more good-paying jobs. That’s why every state that raised the minimum wage in 2014 saw faster job growth than those that left wages stagnant. Put simply, this initiative helps businesses, workers, and families across Washington thrive. By voting “Yes” on Initiative 1433, we can make Washington a better place to live, work, and raise a family.

Opposition

No on I-1433 led the campaign in opposition to Initiative 1433.

Opponents

Officials

• Chris Vance (R), 2016 U.S. Senate candidate
• Bill Bryant (R), Port of Seattle Commissioner and 2016 gubernatorial candidate

Parties

• Washington State Republican Party

Organizations

• Association of Washington Business
• Associated General Contractors of Washington
• Building Industry Association of Washington
• National Federation of Small Business, Washington
• Washington Farm Bureau
• Washington Food Industry Association
• Washington Retail Association

Arguments

Opponents made the following arguments in opposition to Initiative 1433:

• The initiative did not take into account different costs of living across the state.
• The initiative would make it harder for young people to find jobs.
• The initiative would be unaffordable for small businesses.
• The initiative would increase costs for consumers.

Bill Bryant (R), Port of Seattle Commissioner and 2016 gubernatorial candidate, voted for Proposition 1 in 2013, which was designed to increase Sea-Tac's minimum wage to $15 per hour. However, he was opposed to Initiative 1433. He argued:

“

I think if you take a one-size-fits-all approach based on King County’s cost of living, it could cost some people to lose their jobs. … There’s a state beyond Seattle and King County. There’s a state beyond Seattle and King County. What works here might not work in Longview, Pasco and Cusick.

”

Official arguments

John Stuhlmiller, CEO of the Washington Farm Bureau, Mike LaPlant, president of the Washington Farm Bureau, Tammy Bailey, owner of Bailey's IGA, Madelin White, owner of Merle Norman Cosmetics, Phil Costello, owner of Zip’s Drive-In, and Kristopher Johnson, president and CEO of the Association of Washington Business, wrote the argument against Initiative 1433 found in the state's voter guide. Their argument was as follows:

We do need a minimum wage that benefits everyone – workers, consumers and small businesses – a wage that considers different costs of living across the state, the unique pay structures of certain jobs, and the need for a training wage for new workers. Unfortunately, I-1433 is a poorly crafted proposal that will do more harm than good for workers and the Washington economy. Makes State Budget Problems Worse The initiative raises $85 million in new taxes, but will increase state spending by $363 million. The state is in contempt for failing to fund education and must find billions of dollars to fund our schools. This will make the problem worse. Seattle Hasn’t Delivered Seattle passed a $15 per hour minimum wage. The City of Seattle’s economists acknowledge the initial increase to $11 per hour has not benefitted workers. While average pay per hour rose, workers are getting fewer hours and there are fewer jobs available. Meanwhile, consumers are paying more for less. Small businesses are hurting. A University of Washington study warned most communities around our state can’t absorb a 30% wage increase. This means fewer jobs and small businesses, steeper prices in stores, and less opportunity for young people to obtain work experience. We Can’t Afford The Risk Washington State already has the 8th highest minimum wage. This will make it more difficult for young people to find jobs. Adding new mandates and jumping the minimum wage by 30% is a risk that workers, consumers and small businesses can’t afford.

Campaign finance

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$4,385,787.83
Opposition:	$85,384.69

As of January 12, 2017, the support campaign for this initiative featured one ballot question committee, Raise Up Washington, that received a total of $4,385,787.83 in contributions. The support campaign spent $4,385,787.83.

As of January 12, 2017, the opposition campaign featured one ballot question committee, No On I-1433, that received a total of $85,384.69 in contributions. The opposition campaign spent $84,864.64.

According to reports through January 12, 2017, the top donor in support of this initiative, Nicolas Hanauer, provided approximately 23 percent of the campaign's total funds. He contributed $1 million in cash donations.

Support

Cash donations

The following ballot question committee registered to support this initiative as of January 12, 2017. The chart below shows cash donations and expenditures current as of January 12, 2017.

Committee	Amount raised	Amount spent
Raise Up Washington	$3,474,567.63	$4,385,787.83
Total	$3,474,567.63	$4,385,787.83

In-kind donations

As of January 12, 2017, the ballot question committee registered to support this initiative received in-kind donations in the amount of $911,220.20. The top in-kind donor was UFCW Local 21.

Top donors

As of January 12, 2017, the following were the top five donors in support of this initiative. They accounted for 72 percent of total contributions.

Donor	Amount
Nicolas Hanauer	$1,000,000.00
SEIU Washington State Council	$575,000.00
The Fairness Project WA PAC	$400,000
United Food and Commercial Workers Union	$350,000.00
UFCW Local 21	$310,000.00

Opposition

Cash donations

The following ballot question committee registered to oppose this initiative as of January 12, 2017. The chart below shows cash donations and expenditures current as of January 12, 2017.

Committee	Amount raised	Amount spent
No On I-1433	$69,600.00	$84,864.64
Total	$69,600.00	$84,864.64

In-kind donations

As of January 12, 2017, the ballot question committee registered to oppose this initiative received in-kind donations in the amount of $15,784.69. The Washington Hospitality Association was the largest in-kind donor, contributing $8,749.50.

Top donors

As of January 12, 2017, the following were the top five donors in opposition to this initiative:

Donor	Amount
Washington Restaurant Association	$28,546.73
Association of Washington Business	$17,875.00
Washington Food Industry Association	$10,000.00
Washington Retail Association	$10,000.00
Washington Hospitality Association	$8,749.50

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

Support

• The Seattle Times said: "The minimum-wage experiment is sweeping the nation because it has a simple premise: A job ought not to be a poverty trap. [...] An estimated 730,000 workers in Washington make the minimum wage of $9.47. If a worker didn’t take a single hour of vacation in a year, they’d earn $19,697, which is below the poverty line for a family of three. [...] That wage floor must rise. Voters should say yes to Initiative 1433, but also demand the Legislature fix some of the initiative’s flaws. [...] I-1433 is a big experiment. But for the sake of hundreds of thousands of low-wage workers, Washington should give it a try."
• Seattle Weekly said: "I-1433 protects workers, increases public health, and stands as a partial antidote to the incredible poverty and inequality that pervades our society. Vote yes."
• The Stranger said: “Wages for low-income workers have been stagnant for decades. This initiative would put an extra $600 a month in an estimated 730,000 people's pockets. Yes, we're already headed toward a higher minimum wage here in Seattle ($15 an hour) because we're awesome and ahead of the curve. Give a raise to the rest of the state. Vote yes on Initiative 1433.”

Opposition

• The Columbian said: "As the nation has moved from a manufacturing economy to a service-based one, the notion of the minimum wage as being solely for entry-level or part-time workers has been rendered obsolete. There is a need for a robust minimum wage to support working families, but in our opinion Initiative 1433 goes too far."

• The Daily News said: "If passed, the effects of I-1433 will be many. Some workers will benefit from receiving higher pay, but not nearly as many as supporters believe. Businesses will be forced to raise the price of goods and services, hire fewer workers, reduce hours, turn full-time roles into part-time jobs, invest in more automation and pay more people “under the table.” When employers or people face higher taxes, which a higher minimum wage effectively is to businesses, they will do what they can to avoid the higher cost. Will workers and business be better off in the end? We don’t think so."

• The News Tribune: "The initiative is an understandable attempt to address a bleak reality: Though the U.S. can pat itself on the back for an historic economic recovery, it failed to reach millions of middle- and low-income workers. ... There’s no question the raise proposed in I-1433 would be meaningful purchasing power for a working single mother, but it could also be crippling for the business that employs her. ... A reasonable number around which a compromise could be forged is $12."

• Spokane Journal of Business said: "Unfortunately, due to its myopic one-size-fits-all approach and its lack of exemptions, such as the sick leave component and the need for a training wage for new workers, it could do more harm than good as currently written. Voters should reject it in the Nov. 8 general election and should prod the Legislature to find some thoughtful, common-sense middle ground that would be appropriate and fair for all areas of the state."

• The Tacoma News Tribune said: "Ours is an 80-percent service-sector economy; it depends on consumers with spendable incomes. But if employers cut back or go out of business because of an arbitrarily high wage floor, it’s the workers who ultimately will have nothing to stand on."

• Walla Walla Union-Bulletin said: "But the rest of Washington state, the small cities and rural communities such as Walla Walla, College Place, Waitsburg and Dayton, would likely be hurt economically by such a dramatic jump in the minimum wage. We fear the result would be lost jobs and less hiring of young people entering the work force. The rest of the state’s economy outside of a few pockets has been flat. Trying to keep up with Seattle would be counter productive."

Polls

See also: Polls, 2016 ballot measures

• In August 2016, Elway Poll released data showing 57 percent of respondents in support of and 31 percent opposed to Initiative 1433. About 12 percent were undecided on the measure.
• KOMO News and Strategies 360 released a poll in early October 2016 showing support for Initiative 1433 at 61.8 percent. Opposition was around 26.6 percent.
• YouGov conducted a poll in mid-October 2016 and found 62 percent of respondents supporting Initiative 1433.

Note: YouGov pressed "undecided" respondents to select a position. Respondents were also allowed to skip the question. In the poll table below, "undecided" respondents are those who chose to skip the question.

• In October 2016, Elway Poll surveyed 502 registered voters. Supporters claimed 58 percent of respondents, while opponents claimed 31 percent. Undecided voters composed 11 percent of the sample.

Washington Initiative 1433 (2016)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Elway Poll 10/20/2016 - 10/22/2016	58.0%	31.0%	11.0%	+/-4.5	502
YouGov 10/6/2016 - 10/13/2016	62.0%	36.0%	2.0%	+/-4.4	750
KOMO News/Strategies 360 9/29/2016 - 10/3/2016	61.8%	26.6%	1.6%	+/-4.4	500
Elway Poll 8/9/2016 - 8/8/2013	57.0%	31.0%	12.0%	+/-4.5	500
AVERAGES	59.7%	31.15%	6.65%	+/-4.45	563
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Washington

• Supporters filed the petition with the Washington secretary of state on January 12, 2016.
• 246,372 valid signatures are required for qualification purposes.
• Supporters had until July 8, 2016, to collect the required signatures.
• Supporters of I-1433 submitted over 360,000 signatures on July 6, 2016.
• While there were numerous versions of this measure, supporters submitted signatures only for Initiative #1433.
• The Washington secretary of state's office certified the measure on July 22, 2016.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired PCI Consultants Inc. to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $516,270.25 was spent to collect the 246,372 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $2.10.

State profile

Demographic data for Washington
	Washington	U.S.
Total population:	7,160,290	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	66,456	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	77.8%	73.6%
Black/African American:	3.6%	12.6%
Asian:	7.7%	5.1%
Native American:	1.3%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0.6%	0.2%
Two or more:	5.2%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	12%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	90.4%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	32.9%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$61,062	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	14.4%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Washington. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in Washington

Washington voted for the Democratic candidate in all six presidential elections between 2000 and 2020.

Pivot Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, five are located in Washington, accounting for 2.43 percent of the total pivot counties.

Pivot Counties (2020)

In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Washington had four Retained Pivot Counties and one Boomerang Pivot County, accounting for 2.21 and 4.00 percent of all Retained and Boomerang Pivot Counties, respectively.

More Washington coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in Washington
• United States congressional delegations from Washington
• Public policy in Washington
• Influencers in Washington
• Washington fact checks
• More...

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Washington Initiative 1433 2016 Minimum Wage. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Washington Minimum Wage Increase, Initiative 1433 (2016) - Google News

Related measures

2016

Minimum wage measures on the ballot in 2016
State	Measures
Arizona	Arizona Minimum Wage and Paid Time Off, Proposition 206 a
South Dakota	South Dakota Decreased Youth Minimum Wage Veto Referendum, Referred Law 20 d
Colorado	Colorado $12 Minimum Wage, Amendment 70 a

See also

Suggest a link

• Washington 2016 ballot measures
• 2016 ballot measures
• Washington Legislature
• Minimum wage reports and analyses

External links

Basic information

• Initiative 1433
• Washington State Voter Guide 2016

Support

• Raise Up Washington
• Raise Up Washington Facebook
• Raise Up Washington Twitter

Opposition

• No on I-1433