City Council approves new laws protecting domestic workers

(Seattle Channel video of this afternoon’s council meeting; domestic-workers item is at one hour in)

Passed today by the City Council: What’s described as the nation’s first city laws “that specifically protect nannies, caretakers, house cleaners, gardeners, and other domestic workers,” according to the announcement from the bill’s sponsor, citywide Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda. Her announcement says the new protections for domestic workers include:

*Hiring entities must pay domestic workers the minimum hourly wage;

*Domestic workers must receive proper rest and meal breaks, including a 30-minute uninterrupted meal break if they work more than five consecutive hours for the same hiring entity, and a 10-minute rest break if they work more than four consecutive hours, or pay in lieu;

*A domestic worker who resides or sleeps at their place of employment will not be required to work more than six consecutive days without an unpaid 24-hour period of consecutive rest;

*Hiring entities will not be allowed to retain a domestic worker’s personal effects and documents; and,

*The legislation establishes a Domestic Workers Standards Board, which will be made up of workers, hiring entities, worker organizations and community members. The board will convene during the first quarter of 2019, and will be tasked with recommending how to implement new labor standards, such as retirement benefits, worker’s compensation and sick leave.

The new laws take effect July 1st of next year. You can read the full announcement here; the full text of the legislation is here.

26 Replies to "City Council approves new laws protecting domestic workers"

  • Nora Capron July 23, 2018 (10:40 pm)

    Does this ordinance do anything that isn’t already covered by State law? If no, then what’s the point of it?

  • M July 24, 2018 (5:58 am)

    I don’t know about everyone else but my house cleaner and Gardner already make mode money per hour than I do in my job. 

    • NSAlki July 24, 2018 (8:14 am)

      Clearly you can afford both so you must make more than they do. Most people cannot. Not sure who would object to anything in this law. Seems reasonable basic rights.

      • K July 24, 2018 (8:48 am)

        The law is confusing specifically the break provision as mentioned in a comment below, it will likely lead to nannies being misclassified as contractors, the provisions are basically unenforceable as there is no way to monitor compliance, and it creates a city beaucracy that is a redundant department to the state at a cost of $600,000 to city taxpayers.  But other than that no reason to object. 

      • Rick July 24, 2018 (9:18 am)

        Just subtract the break time from when the kid is taking a nap. After all,during nap time the nanny isn’t really doing anything during that time. Unless they’re watching the kid breathe while sleeping. Then that’s kinda wierd so you need to look for another nanny anway.

        • KM July 24, 2018 (9:57 am)

          They’re generally cleaning up the house, doing dishes, prepping meals, doing laundry, etc. Similar to what a parent would do while their child is sleeping. It’s not a break even if they aren’t doing those things, because they cannot leave the child alone.

          • heartless July 24, 2018 (11:42 am)

            KM, I agree. 

            I’d almost think Rick’s suggestion was a joke but then I remember the times we live in.

      • Rick July 24, 2018 (9:20 am)

        NSALKI: It’s not even in fine print. “Per hour”. 

    • Brian July 24, 2018 (10:05 am)

      So what? Pay people what they’re worth and take care of them. Why is that so difficult. 

  • Mike July 24, 2018 (7:03 am)

    Legitimate question, what does the council suggest for nannies watching over infants, toddlers and other small children?  Will families be required to have a second nanny for those 30 minutes?  You can’t leave small kids, toddlers or infants unattended for 30 minutes.

    • ws parent July 24, 2018 (8:31 am)

      That was the big question everyone was wondering about. Obviously you can’t leave the baby/toddler alone, and it’s unrealistic for parents to come home for lunch every day (especially if they take transit like the City wants them to). It appears the solution is the “pay in lieu” part of the law. So anyone with a nanny now has to pay for an  extra 0.5hr a day to cover the break he/she didn’t get.

  • Neil wilson July 24, 2018 (8:26 am)

    This ordinance does not create any legal protections not already provided in current labor and wage law.    It does create a new city commission though.

  • WSMom July 24, 2018 (8:46 am)

    Mike and WSParent I was thinking the same thing.  How can a nanny watching children leave them for 1/2 an hour?  It’s basically a job replacing the parent for the day and parents can’t just take a 1/2 hr uninterrupted break. 

    • heartless July 24, 2018 (11:40 am)

      In case the other comments didn’t make it clear, there’s a provision for that; it’s just payment in lieu of break.

  • Fed up worker July 24, 2018 (9:29 am)

    Okay, you all give up your breaks, OT pay, vacation and sick pay.  Or find a job that allows you to work at home so you can watch YOUR kids, mow YOUR lawn, do YOUR housework and YOUR shopping. 

  • Shaking My Head July 24, 2018 (10:30 am)

    God forbid the people working for you have the same rights you do…

    It’s unbelievable to me that people are against domestic workers getting literally the same rights every other worker has.  It’s unbelievable to me the council had to adopt special legislation to give one subset of workers literally the same rights every other worker has.  It’s unbelievable to me this is even a discussion.  

  • H July 24, 2018 (12:54 pm)

    Boy, some of these comments… Do people seriously believe the person caring for your children shouldn’t be paid when a child is sleeping because a parent wouldn’t? Or that a cleaner or yard care person earns too much? When did the concept of factoring in expenses (transit to job, taxes, seasonal demand fluctuations, supplies, etc and/or certification/training) into an hourly rate become so surprising? Factor business expenses (training, healthcare, retirement, building expenses, office expenses, taxes, supporting staff: hr, admin, etc) into your salary / pay and you’ll see that from a business perspective the “actual costs” of you, as an employee, are quite different than your take home salary. I’m a bit shocked reading some of the replies.

  • neil July 24, 2018 (1:40 pm)

    Domestic workers already have the same rights as all other employee’s and independent contractors.     What this ordinance does do is encourage  people to hire an employee and miss-classify them as an independent contractors, avoiding the payment of state and federal payroll taxes.  What the city council is doing but will not have the conversation an attempt to create a pseudo system to try and legitimize hiring undocumented workers.     The city does not understand the mechanics of the issue.  They do not understand how Social Security numbers and Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TIN’s)  are utilized by undocumented workers and employers who hire them.  Neither do they understand how all this impacts credit reporting standards.  This ordinance is a bad band-aid  which in reality conflicts with state and federal labor and wage laws.

  • wscommuter July 24, 2018 (3:40 pm)

    I think mostly this discussion misses the (perhaps ugly) truth that these bottom-of-the-economic-rung services have been, ironically, more purely supply/demand driven business models than many traditional businesses.  Being so unregulated until now, wages are paid without regard to the wage and hour requirements that impact more conventional employment.  There is an awkward formulation to the idea of a nanny getting a paid 10 minute break or 30 minute paid lunch, but really, what that means is that the employer just has to pay more (“or paid in lieu”).   Notwithstanding the sort of dumb solution the council has arrived at, the goal makes sense – fair wages consistent with other employment requirements imposed on more traditional businesses.  It is a matter of justice.  Of course, the inevitable consequence, this being a supply/demand situation, is that for many, the decision to hire a gardener or nanny is to some extent discretionary and the result will be that some of these people lose their jobs because the employer chooses to not pay the higher costs of employment.  This too will happen.  The dirty underbelly of our economy is that the only way we have cheap produce is that migrant workers pick our lettuce for much less than minimum wage.  And we have (relatively) cheap nannies and gardeners because the labor we don’t want to do ourselves we’re willing to pay someone else to do – to a point.   Might be a few more folks out cutting their own lawn now.  

  • MJ July 24, 2018 (4:24 pm)

    Many nannies/house cleaners are their own bosses and negotiate their own pay.  Enough already on adding regulation and growing the beauracracy.  

    • heartless July 24, 2018 (8:35 pm)

      Yes, I imagine there are some who don’t need this law.

      But aren’t there others who do?

      I mean, your argument is a bit like saying “most people  use seat-belts anyway, so we don’t need a law requiring them.”

      As for not wanting regulation in general?  I’d love to hear your rationale for that, because I am ALL for regulation.  People tend to be complete dicks, and I’m all for society keeping them in line (pardon my French).  

      • Helenweales July 26, 2018 (12:12 am)

        Thank you for your gracious commentary, and tireless efforts keeping the rest of us dicks in line. 

  • neil July 24, 2018 (7:25 pm)

    This ordinance allows an employer to pay less, because they should be paying the household workers as employees with the associated taxes, not as independent contractors.   The payroll taxes and associated reporting are what provides protections to the employee and employer. Really, this ordinance is about how we deal with the issue of undocumented workers.    If they are allowed to participate in the employer employee system, they will thrive.  The Seattle City council is too short sited, non-trusting, and too ideological to solve this problem.  They are fearful.

  • 1994 July 24, 2018 (8:32 pm)

    Seattle City council is trying to create a city-state with so many regulations. City council is creating duplication of ‘services’ and/or regulations that WA state offers/covers.  And then needing to hire additional employees to monitor the new program….

  • B.W. July 25, 2018 (10:06 am)

    My landscaper gets $40 for an hour of work and my housekeeper get $150 for two hours of work. I feel like that’s not a bad wage to make. And now the Seattle City Clownicle gets to spend $600k for another committee that does what exactly? More misappropriation of tax payer dollars by our city Clowns. I see Theresa is fitting right in with no financial responsibility. She’s been handed the keeps to the car and is working on wreaking it. 

    • CAM July 25, 2018 (9:47 pm)

      I’m going to presume that based on the numbers you are quoting you are hiring these individuals through an agency or a company of some sort and not contracting with them directly. The actual rate that an employee of one of those agencies earns is a mere fraction of that amount. 

Sorry, comment time is over.