The City of SeaTac Cannot Pass Laws That Regulate People in The SeaTac Airport.
The minimum wage went up last week in 13 states that didn’t wait around for Congressional Republicans to do the right thing.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/29/news/economy/minimum-wage-states/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Meanwhile, a King County judge ruled SeaTac’s minimum wage initiative doesn’t apply to airport workers, regardless of whether they work for the Port of Seattle or private companies.
I haven’t seen the opinion or the state statute the judge relied, but I don’t see how this will hold up in the State Supreme Court. The ruling says the city can’t regulate port operations. That law probably was aimed at blocking municipal ordinances limiting flight hours, imposing noise regulations, etc. The question is how expansive the law is.
Supporters of the initiative complain the ruling confers sovereignty like an Indian tribe’s on the port. Legislative intent controls statutory interpretation, and my guess is that wasn’t the legislature’s intent. So I would expect the State Supreme Court to conclude the law has a limited reach.
The question then becomes whether regulating wages on airport property falls within interfering with port operations. The answer to that might be different for port employees and employees of private companies, although that’s probably a distinction without a difference, as I doubt any port employees earn minimum wage.
Here’s a question for the port: Do city health regulations apply to the airport? In other words, can a SeaTac food inspector shut down an airport food vendor for not complying with city health regulations? And if not, then who is inspecting the airport food concessions? The port? The feds? Anyone? And if the City of SeaTac can enforce its health regulations on airport property, then why can’t it also enforce workplace safety and labor standards regulations on airport property? What makes wages different from public health or workplace safety?
No legal case is easy, including this one, and I don’t expect this to be a slam-dunk for the initiative’s defenders. The superior court judge, who wrote a 33-page opinion, obviously wrestled with it. The State Supreme Court will have to wrestle with it, too. But I’ll be surprised if they read that statute as broadly as the trial judge did. I doubt the port will succeed at persuading the state’s highest court to give it tribal status. Our legislature doesn’t like tribal independence, and the tribes didn’t get that from state governments, they got it from Congresses intending to protect them from state governments.