Bravo, Seattle City Council. You've done well.

As to Conlin: No.

They really need to correct the wording, it's for union workers, not real workers.

My city cares about it's people and that's what cities should do. I love Seattle. It's like an island of sanity in an increasingly insane world.

Too bad this isn't state wide. It puts Seattle-based businesses at a further disadvantage to their neighbors.

Really, Conlin? Yeesh.

Hey, KittenKoder, really laying on the union hate today, eh? Wanna go tell teachers they aren't "real workers"?

@6 Wait, teachers work?

According to PubliCola, Conlin explained his opposition as such:

"Conlin, the only “no” vote on the council, said he could not support the legislation because it gives management too much power to bargain away union workers’ rights, and because it creates tiers of companies where employees of larger companies get more time off than those who work at smaller businesses. “If you’re a barista and you work for a small neighborhood company, you may get no sick leave” while employees at larger companies get as much as nine days, Conlin said. “There’s no public health reason to suggest that those who work for larger businesses will get sick more often.”"

To me, that says he felt it didn't go far enough. Maybe Cienna missed that part? Was MTJ in the room, being a distraction?

@8, I didn't miss that part. I didn't include that quote because it's a bullshit, nonsensical argument--"Some people won't get paid sick leave and others will get more than some, so I vote no one gets any."

???

As many on the council noted, the ordinance wasn't perfect--but it was much better than nothing. Conlin, who I'm sure enjoys the benefits of taking paid sick leave, was advocating for nothing. Because he's either a coward or an idiot. Or both.

@9 - You typed:

"Conlin, of course, didn't justify his own vote for keeping roughly 190,000 Seattle workers without access to any sort of paid sick leave—a much greater form of inequality."

Just because you think his justification is bullshit (which I fully agree with you on) doesn't mean it didn't happen. Your further assertion that because you think it's bullshit, you didn't include it, and instead stated, as fact, that he didn't offer justification, is piss poor "journalism". It's stating lies as fact, and I would imagine you're better then that.

Actually, the Conlin quote at #8 does change my opinion on the matter, I forget that there are some small business employees forced to work for the unions so his angle is a much smarter one. Look, big union employees get a shit load of perks already, and every non-union or small union worker is getting shit on more because of these big union perks. If you really cared about the worker, then a union would not be needed at all nor would unions be able to force people to not work just because the union head wants an extra vacation. Sorry, but now I think Conlin is looking out for the less fortunate harder workers than any of the other politicians ... can't believe I said I support a politician but meh, we should be changing our minds when new facts appear instead of blindly following the moose.

Conlin is like the GOP on tax cuts for the Rich and killing off Medicare and Social Security to line his developer friends' pockets.

Great for campaign contributions, but bad for America ... And Seattle.

The eight votes were there, as Conlin knew full well, being council prez - his vote wasn't meant to change the outcome in the least, so motive probably something outside the range of Cienna's "coward or idiot" imagination. Was his "no" to offer cover to one or more of the others, a sop to those who didn't want anything passed at all? The overt lameness of his rationale would suggest it was something like that. I'm just a skeptical voter and reader. A reporter with sources and stuff could probably have found out.

@12 I can agree with that angle, but unlike most people, I choose issues, not politicians. ;)

@13 There is always more to the story, even the "reporters with sources" show bias and often exclude details and such. As much as it sucks, you have to read a hundred different articles by a hundred different people to get a whole picture.

What do YOU do for a living, KittenKoder, that's so much more "real work" than teaching in a public school? You're really dismissing what they do as not work?

Oh, wait, you probably are a "koder." Sorry those lazy teachers didn't teach you how to spell.

I'm not even close to rich, but I pledge $100 to any progressive politician who runs against Conlin in his next election.

I'll also pledge $25 to any progressive who runs against michaelp in his next election (including Will in Seattle).

@17 Actually .... yes ... and no, the lazy teachers didn't teach me to spell. ;) Though the k is a play on spelling, since the c version was taken for my first account I had to make some creative adjustment, and I like keeping the same name with all my accounts, easier that way.

Time to reminisce about school ... yep, I'm a product of public school ... mostly, I dropped out because I got tired of being taught the same thing over and over again, come on, an increase in grade level should be an increase in curriculum level as well, or is that just too much to ask for. Anyhow, back when I was in school, the teachers had to go on strike, most of them didn't want to, they were happy and called the union greedy. So, for homework us geeks (at the time we were the outcasts, a few grades later we became the "in" crowd ironically) did a project and learned the history of unions ... scary shit really, and we all agreed with our teachers (there were a few good ones) unions only care about unions, and the union leaders are lazy sponges who get paid for no work. Of course I didn't really care too much then, as I was happy to have a few days (turned into weeks) off from school ... the teachers lost a lot of pay, and only because the unions wanted them to get a raise, then the unions raised their dues, which unionized workers MUST pay, they have no choice in the matter, if you want a job that is unionized, you have to join. That's not right, that's not good for employees, that's not in any way shape or form watching out for the worker, that is forcing you to have their opinion and support their goals even when you disagree, it would be the same as saying "since you're a Democrat you have to agree with everything they say regardless of how wrong it is or you are not allowed to live here anymore."

@10, Your logic that I'm lying by omission is ridiculous.

It's my job to be a critical listener and reporter. That means weeding out the bullshit. Conlin's argument was bullshit and no, it's not my job to give his bullshit argument equal weight or time in my writing (and yeah, I'm sure he had noble closed door justifications, and I'm totes lazy for not caring about them, as GG suggested--because in the end it's what insidery insider shit that I can dig up that earns me the crown of King Reporter!).

People are free to disagree with me--and thank Gawd there's Publicola around to give you the full, bullshit quote--but I parsed down a half-hour of commmentary from the public and council members to what I thought was important.

Curtsy,
Cienna

@19:

You really have no idea what you're talking about do you? For example, your teachers didn't HAVE to go on strike - they CHOSE to go on strike, which means MOST of them (you know what a majority is, right?) VOTED in favor of striking. That's the way it works: if the strike authorization doesn't receive majority-vote approval (and in some locals it can be a super-majority), then guess what? - no strike. What you probably saw was a few of the teachers at your particular school who were "happy" in that they had cushy positions and didn't want to irritate administrators, but clearly there were a far larger number of teachers at other schools in that district that didn't share their blase attitude.

Oh, and I hope that project included the tactics used by employers to break unions, you know: the murders, beatings, shootings, blackmailings, mass-firings, etc., etc.

Cienna, I shouldn't be such an ass - I'm always hungry for pertinent detail on City Hall. You do the best you can with the beat you've got, and I should remember that.

@20 - your comment at 9 made very clear you did hear that Conlin offered up justification, but because you thought it was bullshit, you instead stated, as fact, that he didn't.

from dictionary.com:

lie
1    [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.
an inaccurate or false statement.
4.
the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.

What you stated in the original story was, by definition, a lie. When you stated that Conlin offered no justification, you lied. When you allowed PubliCola, and even better, Erica Barnett, to win on facts...well, I'm not sure what that's called.

You say it's not your job to "give his bullshit argument equal weight or time in my writing." I appreciate that. Advocacy journalism is just that.

But are you saying it is your job to pass off flat out lies as facts?

cienna, i don't understand how you can defend writing that conlin "didn't justify his own vote" when in fact, he did, and you knew it. you could write that his justification was bullshit, but to write that he didn't justify it is just crappy journalism and i'm surprised you're defending what you wrote --and then jabbing at publicola for reporting the story correctly? bad form!

@22, That is surprisingly touching. Thank you. To everyone else, I accept that my credibility is ruined.

*Single tear.*

25: what ruins your credibility isn't that you fucked up. All journalists do now and then. What ruins it is your inability to say "sorry, let me correct that." Instead you get snarky. Seems to be the Stranger way, unfortunately.

@25 - I was unaware that you had much credibility outside of Capitol Hill to begin with.