Thursday, October 1, 2026
Why would a King County Political Action Committee spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on an initiative campaign to impose new mandates on Olympia? That’s the question voters should consider when they vote this November on whether to approve or reject Proposition 1.
Rushed through the Olympia City Council this summer, the mandates in Proposition 1 would undermine local nonprofits, burden small businesses, and pile on bureaucratic costs to a city government already struggling to balance its budget.
Proponents are selling Proposition 1, the so-called “Workers' Bill of Rights,” as a simple minimum wage initiative. It’s not. This measure was rushed to the ballot before the Olympia City Council could examine its full impacts, and it would fundamentally reshape Olympia’s economy in ways no other Washington city has attempted.
Seattle has a similar law, but its reach is much narrower. Even so, the consequences have been severe: restaurants and retail shops closing, consumers paying higher prices, and workers losing jobs. Olympia’s Proposition 1 is more extreme, applying Seattle’s failed mandates to every sector, from nonprofits and restaurants to retail and skilled nursing care, child care and more without exceptions.
Olympia faces a $7 million budget shortfall. City leaders are considering tax increases just to maintain basic services, and that’s on top of the record $12 billion tax increase on businesses and residents passed by the Washington Legislature that took effect on Oct. 1.
How will the City of Olympia pay for the new bureaucracy needed to implement and enforce Proposition 1? No one knows. What we do know is that Proposition 1 will divert scarce resources away from public safety, parks, and other essential services.
And then there’s the legal exposure. Proposition 1 creates a system where employers, large and small, can be dragged into court without just cause. Even if a business did nothing wrong, many would settle to avoid crippling legal fees. For small businesses, that’s a death sentence, and that means lost jobs.
One of the most troubling aspects of this debate is the chilling effect that Proposition 1’s supporters have had on local nonprofits. Many nonprofit leaders, who serve our most vulnerable neighbors, privately express grave concerns about the measure. But they are afraid to speak publicly for fear of retaliation from Proposition 1’s well-funded and aggressive campaign. If the very organizations tasked with feeding the hungry, housing families, and caring for those in need feel muzzled, how can voters make an informed decision?
Proponents claim costs won’t rise and small businesses won’t be affected. That’s simply not true. When labor costs increase, employers reduce staff hours, raise prices, or turn to automation. Consumers pay more, and employees face fewer opportunities. There are real-world examples in Seattle with restaurants adding as much as a 20% service fee to cover the wage and regulatory costs of the law.
Proposition 1 won’t hit billionaires or distant corporations. It would hurt Olympia’s nonprofits, local retailers, family-run restaurants, and health care providers. It would reduce workplace flexibility, limit opportunities for service workers, and force nonprofits to cut back on the critical services they provide.
Olympia voters deserve transparency and thoughtful policymaking, not rushed, one-size-fits-all mandates pushed by outside interests and fueled by dark money. At the very least, measures of this magnitude deserve a full, open vetting, not a hurried trip to the ballot.
Olympia is resilient and creative, but Proposition 1 puts that at risk. A “no” vote is a vote to protect our nonprofits, preserve our small businesses, and keep our city government focused on serving people instead of implementing expensive, untested mandates.
Cheryl Selby is the former Mayor of Olympia. Steve Hall is the former City Manager of Olympia.
The opinions expressed above are those of the writers and not necessarily those of The JOLT's staff or board of directors. Got something to say about a topic of interest to Thurston County residents? Send it to us and we’ll most likely publish it. Click here to email to us.
21 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Quadlok
Businesses that cannot pay their workers a living wage don't deserve to stay in business.
Also, show your evidence. You're providing unsourced anecdotes and baseless assertions, nothing more.
Thursday, October 16, 2025 Report this
JulesJames
When unions try to control wages with ballot measures overriding elected officials, we voters need to VOTE NO.
Thursday, October 16, 2025 Report this
Tanker1982
Thank you Mayor Shelby. Enlightening
Thursday, October 16, 2025 Report this
SpenceWeigand
Ridiculous argument Quadlok. The result of an "undeserving" business closing? Less money to the city coffers and a now unemployed employee. Since you seem to be the arbiter of a living wage, please share your evidence defining it.....without employing (pun intended) unsourced anecdotes and baseless assertions.
Thursday, October 16, 2025 Report this
CalvinJohnson
Proposition 1 is a reasonable, common sense approach to keeping Olympia a livable place for all working people. Its gradual phasing in over the next several years guarantees it is manageable for small businesses and local non-profits. All of Olympia benefits from Olympia Proposition 1. Vote YES.
https://olywip.org/olympias-workers-bill-of-rights-a-step-toward-fairness-and-stability-for-all-working-people/
Thursday, October 16, 2025 Report this
WhamboMPS
I think @Quadlok basically nailed it in his second sentence: "... show your evidence. You're providing unsourced anecdotes and baseless assertions, nothing more.
This opinion piece's authors, Ms. Selby and Mr. Hall, may be correct. Olympia's Proposition 1 could be a damaging law that I as a voter should reject. But reading this article I have no way to know whether that is true or not. Here are some of the claims they made in the article that weren't supported:
*There would be "bureaucratic costs" that would displace other spending. But how big is that spend? Is it ten million dollars? Or maybe it's just ten dollars! Even if it's a large cost, trade-offs are required in all governmental actions. What is the value of this spend compared to the alternatives?
* The City Council screwed up and "rushed the measure to the ballot." Says who? Compared to what? If true, isn't that an article that should be written accusing these elected officials of nonfeasance?
* The consequences of Seattle's similar, but narrower bill "have been severe." Really? How did you determine that it was "severe" and not just "annoying?" How does it compare to other periods in time or other comparable cities? It might be true, maybe Seattle has been really harmed by their similar law. But claiming something does not make it true. And applying a purposefully incendiary label of "severe" doesn't help anyone make a reasoned analysis. Back up your claim with information that supports your position.
* Nonprofit leaders are really concerned. Really? Who? You're telling that of all the nonprofit leaders in the city not a one of them who has "grave concerns" is willing to say so on the record? Presumably a "grave concern" would be one that is existential to their existence. Yet none will say this? This claim has no more credibility than Trump's "Lots of people believe..." statements.
* "Restaurants [are] adding as much as a 20% service fee to cover the... costs of the law." Oh my gosh - that sounds terrible! But how common is that? There are hundreds, probably thousands of restaurants in Seattle. If two of them added the claimed fees, then the author's claims that "Restaurants are adding..." would be grammatically correct! But would it be significant? Of course not! I am not saying that it was only two restaurants -- maybe it was 2,000! But the authors leave me to guess. And when they don't support their position with data and facts, then I am forced to discount their claims. 'Cause anyone can say anything...
In summation, this opinion piece is mostly demagoguery. There's lots of smoke but mighty little fire. I sure hope we got more enlightening discourse from these two former leaders when they were in positions of power.
Thursday, October 16, 2025 Report this
TheVirtualOne
Anyone who has ever been in business knows how damaging this would be if it were passed by voters. It would be the death penalty for anyone who has a business or wants to start one. That it ever made it to the ballot is a sign of how out of touch, weak, radical, and incompetent our local government leaders are.
Friday, October 17, 2025 Report this
Porter
Who wants more taxes and laws?
Friday, October 17, 2025 Report this
JohnFronono
Supporters of this proposition underestimate the ease of a business moving to Lacey or Tumwater.
Friday, October 17, 2025 Report this
GinnyBanana
I understand the economic forces that businesses and nonprofits are faced with. I've got experience with both. I also understand the demands of living with a low income and struggling to make ends meet. In France, employees such as waiters and clerks are paid a living wage with benefits. They see their jobs as careers and take pride in their work. There is low turnover in the workplace, employees stay on for decades. The business thrives because the employer and employees have vested interests in the workplace. Customers know there is pride by the quality of the service and the products. This is in contrast to many American businesses and services that treat employees as expendable budget line items. The result is shoddy work because the people are treated badly and therefore respond badly to their employer. Why not treat employees as the human beings they are and give them pride and a living wage? Improve the economy and the entire social fabric of our country. Why keep labor as a budget line item instead of treating labor as human beings?
Friday, October 17, 2025 Report this
CalvinJohnson
Thank you, WhamboMPS, for your concise, articulate analysis of the above editorial. Ms. Selby and Mr. Hall have shown they are very adept at telling a scary Halloween story. However, the election is two weeks away, so what are the facts?
Olympia Proposition 1 will give working folks a fair wage and stability to support their families and plan ahead for the future. It is endorsed by a number of local non-profits (South Puget Sound Sierra Club, Stonewall Youth,
Thurston Climate Action Team, YWCA of Olympia) and many small businesses (Rainy Day Records, Deschutes River Cyclery, Popinjay) including my own (K). The six year phase-in allows businesses to adapt to Proposition 1. Similar bills in other cities have been successfully implemented.
It has been shown time and again in communities across the country that raising the minimum wage is a net positive for local economies. Increased wages bring security and a new sense of pride in the workplace. It also increases consumer confidence and local spending.
The Chamber of Commerce and Republican Party (GOP) are always against raising the minimum wage. A former Mayor and former City Manager parroting their old, tired playbook of fear and hysteria is not what Olympia needs right now.
What Olympia needs right now is Proposition 1. Vote YES.
Friday, October 17, 2025 Report this
metalFish
There is a lot of oppositional reasoning that echoes the platitudes of 'proper channels' when it is the collaboration of workers with policy makers that's needed. I interpret this proposition as the avenue to actually realize the need for this collaboration between the Professional Management Class and Workers.
Some of the opposing talking points smell a lot like the rationalization of of an underpaid class--being condescended to because workers and especially restaurant workers just don't understand how hard it is to run a business. Newsflash: your workers run the business. Administrator levels need to revisit this FACT.
Friday, October 17, 2025 Report this
metalFish
RE: Quadlok and WamboMPS
https://olywip.org/olympia-workers-bill-of-rights-myth-vs-fact/
Friday, October 17, 2025 Report this
swvoltz
I sure hope some of you have actually read the proposition. It's long, It's wordy. There are so many little details in there that should scare the heck out of any employer. I can see considering raising Olympia's minimum wage. We can have that discussion. What I don't like is the myriad of conditions that will be placed on employers beyond the hourly pay issue. Read the entire thing.
Friday, October 17, 2025 Report this
Wesley
"Businesses that cannot pay their workers a living wage don't deserve to stay in business.
Also, show your evidence. You're providing unsourced anecdotes and baseless assertions, nothing more."
Ok. Please prove your claims that certain businesses don't deserve to exist. Please prove why, beyond wild-eyed claims, you get to determine such things.
Friday, October 17, 2025 Report this
Quadlok
I love that multiple people have tried the good old "I'm rubber and you're glue" tactic against me.
You know why I didn't post data? Because it should be goddamn axiomatic that no one is entitled to exploit anyone else. Everyone is deserving of a decent standard of living.
This is Kindergarten level ****. But then again the political right seems unable to remember any of those lessons, like keep your hands to yourself, don't lie, and don't be mean to people about things they can't control.
Friday, October 17, 2025 Report this
Raymoel
For a city to take on a national problem: disparity of income, lack of affordable housing for example, is daunting. Cities have a traditionally limited scope with respect to these problem and to try to fix them in this manner likely will have unintended consequences which are touched on but not proven in the piece. This is mission creep that will prove unsustainable even if you limit your view to projected city revenues. If you doubt the effect on business, ask business owners what they think with details about their stress and economies. If Seattle's more limited version led to business closures, can that be shown on a simple graph ie before and after?
Sunday, October 19, 2025 Report this
WaltzSpecialist2526
Evidence in response to Quadlock & WhamboMPS
•• your comment
–> my response
––> evidence
•• There would be "bureaucratic costs" that would displace other spending. But how big is that spend? Is it ten million dollars? Or maybe it's just ten dollars! Even if it's a large cost, trade-offs are required in all governmental actions. What is the value of this spend compared to the alternatives?
–> In context, when we're talking about "bureaucratic costs", we're talking about navigating the application and enforcement of Prop 1. With any city ordinance, the city has a duty to educate, enforce, and adjudicate. This would mean educating city staff, but also employers and employees about what the ordinance means and how it will be implemented. Given the vagaries and conflicts within the proposal itself, it would lead to almost certain conflict between employees and employers, which would lead to costly litigation. Also, I think it's common knowledge that legal costs are never "just $10". This money has to come from somewhere in the city budget, meaning money will have to be pulled from other services (yet to be determined if Prop 1 passes).
––> City Councilmember Dani Madrone spoke to the enforcement process (at 03:16:40) at the public hearing on October 7th:
https://olympia.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=2923
––> Thurston County Commissioner Wayne Fournier also speaks to this in a Chronicle article:
https://www.chronline.com/stories/opinion-lets-talk-honestly-about-prop-1-and-its-unintended-consequences,388203#4bx58lcwv3xyjkeoiybnurgqagjk4bla
•• The City Council screwed up and "rushed the measure to the ballot." Says who? Compared to what? If true, isn't that an article that should be written accusing these elected officials of nonfeasance?
–> Says our current Mayor, Dontae Payne. The city council did not "screw up" the process, but you could argue that the United Food and Commercial Workers (who wrote Prop 1) rushed the process by bypassing the research phase. The city was about to begin an analysis of Prop 1, including soliciting community engagement, to help inform the right approach to increasing the minimum wage in Olympia (aka not basing Prop 1's language on other cities like Seattle). UFCW bypassed this process by paying signature gatherers to put Prop 1 on the 2025 ballot. This effectively paused the city's research and community engagement process due to state election laws.
––> You can see Mayor Payne address this (at 03:40:50) at the Oct 7th public hearing here:
https://olympia.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=2923
––> City Councilmember Dani Madrone also speaks to this (at 03:14:01 and even more specifically at 03:14:36) and how Prop 1 was not properly stakeholdered before it was brought to the ballot:
https://olympia.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=2923
––> You can also hear Mayor Payne address this on The Olympia Standard podcast here:
https://theolympiastandard.com/2025/10/14/135-workers-bill-of-rights-prop-1/
––> You can also read another JOLT article discussing this:
https://www.thejoltnews.com/stories/good-intent-poor-execution,26598
•• The consequences of Seattle's similar, but narrower bill "have been severe." Really? How did you determine that it was "severe" and not just "annoying?" How does it compare to other periods in time or other comparable cities? It might be true, maybe Seattle has been really harmed by their similar law. But claiming something does not make it true. And applying a purposefully incendiary label of "severe" doesn't help anyone make a reasoned analysis. Back up your claim with information that supports your position.
––> Here's an article about how Seattle restaurants are adapting:
https://www.seattletimes.com/life/food-drink/seattle-restaurants-get-creative-to-make-numbers-work-after-wage-hike/
––> Here's an article about how Seattle's workers feel conflicted about the minimum wage hike:
https://www.seattletimes.com/life/food-drink/seattle-minimum-wage-debate-has-restaurant-workers-feeling-conflicted/
––> Here's an article explaining some reasons why Seattle's restaurants are so expensive:
https://www.seattletimes.com/life/food-drink/why-are-seattle-restaurants-so-expensive-5-takeaways-from-our-panel/
––> Here's an article about how California's minimum wage increase "backfired":
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/3831205/california-fast-food-wage-law-backfires/
•• Nonprofit leaders are really concerned. Really? Who? You're telling that of all the nonprofit leaders in the city not a one of them who has "grave concerns" is willing to say so on the record? Presumably a "grave concern" would be one that is existential to their existence. Yet none will say this? This claim has no more credibility than Trump's "Lots of people believe..." statements.
––> You can see (at 01:48:40) the Executive Director of the Olympia Union Gospel Mission, Mindy Roberts, speak to how Prop. 1 would force them to reduce the social services (like providing meals and beds to the unhoused) they're able to provide our local community:
https://olympia.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=2923
––> City Councilmember Dani Madrone also speaks to the severe impact Prop 1 will have on our local YMCA (considered a large business under the language of Prop 1), and the Thurston County Food Bank:
https://olympia.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=2923
––> A quote from the owner of Westside Tavern and Hash: "We cannot sustain another increase. If Prop 1 passes, we, without a doubt, will be closing our doors." You can read his testimonial at:
https://www.olytogether.com/restaurants
•• "Restaurants [are] adding as much as a 20% service fee to cover the... costs of the law." Oh my gosh - that sounds terrible! But how common is that? There are hundreds, probably thousands of restaurants in Seattle. If two of them added the claimed fees, then the author's claims that "Restaurants are adding..." would be grammatically correct! But would it be significant? Of course not! I am not saying that it was only two restaurants -- maybe it was 2,000! But the authors leave me to guess. And when they don't support their position with data and facts, then I am forced to discount their claims. 'Cause anyone can say anything...
––> Here's an article that provides 5 case studies of Seattle restaurants that closed (with great relevant secondary links):
https://www.seattletimes.com/life/food-drink/why-5-seattle-area-restaurants-are-pivoting-or-closing-in-2025/
–> As a former resident of Seattle, from my experience I'd say about 40-50% of the 100+ restaurants I went to over the course of the 3.5 years I lived there began tacking on this 20-25% service fee. It was normal to do a double-take when you got the check.
In response to these comments:
•• In summation, this opinion piece is mostly demagoguery. There's lots of smoke but mighty little fire. I sure hope we got more enlightening discourse from these two former leaders when they were in positions of power.
–> "I sure hope we got more enlightening discourse" sounds like you weren't here (in Olympia) when Cheryl Selby was in office or Steve Hall worked for the city... Makes me question where you're _literally_ coming from in this debate.
•• Businesses that cannot pay their workers a living wage don't deserve to stay in business.
–> To me, this reads incredibly young, short-sighted, and not "for the people". Businesses that won't be able to pay their workers a living wage under Prop 1 are nonprofits, small businesses (1-15 employees), and medium businesses like most local restaurants (16-499 employees). Businesses that will be able to pay their workers a living wage under Prop 1 would be large businesses like Target. I want less Targets in Olympia and more Compass Roses, if you catch my drift. (I have never worked at either of those businesses, for the record.)
___________
In general, I'm in my early 30s and have experience working for minimum wage in Olympia. I think raising the minimum wage is one tool we have to help low-wage workers meet the rising cost of living. But I'm voting NO on Prop 1 this year because I don't believe it will have a net positive impact on Olympia. I will be more inclined to vote yes on a future prop to raise minimum wage should it go through the proper process (research conducted on local economy, all local stakeholders have provided input prior to it being written, and the majority of our city council approves).
Tuesday, October 21, 2025 Report this
Quadlok
Lol siting the Washington Examiner in a discussion of minimum wage is like siting Der Stürmer about Jewish religious practice. The Seattle Times isn't much better nowadays.
More words does not make you more correct. It just shows you know your position is morally reprehensible and philosophically indefensible so you flood the zone with ****.
Wednesday, October 22, 2025 Report this
WaltzSpecialist2526
Lol totally bro. Sick debate
Thursday, October 23, 2025 Report this
Quadlok
Life isn't a debate.
You've been so deeply propagandized your whole life you aren't even capable of understanding that you have been. "Business" as a concept is just the same old exploitation in a new hat.
Thursday, October 23, 2025 Report this