Efforts to pass worker's bill of rights, $20 minimum wage in Tacoma advance
Organizers with the United Food and Commercial Workers Union 367 chapter and the Tacoma Democratic Socialists of America on Tuesday submitted signatures for a ballot initiative that could establish a 'Worker's Bill of Rights.'
The two groups started the process of getting the initiative on the ballot in February, when they submitted a proposal to increase protections for workers in Tacoma with new policies like a $20 minimum wage. In submitting the roughly 10,000 signatures at city hall on June 24, UFCW 367 and the Tacoma DSA are one step closer in the city's initiative process.
After submitting the draft of their initiative in February, the organizers had about six months to collect valid signatures from at least 10 percent of people who voted in the last mayoral election. They told The News Tribune in March that they planned to have at least 8,000 by early July. It's now up to the county auditor to verify the signatures, and the city clerk to validate the petition.
As long as that happens, it would be up to the city council to enact or reject the initiative, according to the city. If the council enacts the petition, their approval would be the final say, eliminating the need to put the initiative to the voters. If council rejects the initiative, then it would be on the ballot.
According to the city, if the council rejects the initiative or fails to take action within 30 days, the initiative would end up on the ballot for the next municipal or general election that's at least 90 days from when the signatures are validated — which organizers estimate could take 30 days. That means there's a possibility it could end up on the November ballot, or it could be part of a special election that happens sooner.
If a majority of voters approve the initiative, it'll go into effect 10 days after the election results are certified.
'It's been much easier than we thought to get people to sign on to this,' union president Michael Hines told The News Tribune.
The organizers put forward two versions of the initiative in February, which are largely similar but Version 2 has stronger penalties for violations of the bill of rights and stronger language outlining worker protections for fair scheduling and hours. Colton Rose, an organizer with the union, told The News Tribune that after hearing from residents through the process of getting signatures, the union decided to pursue Version 1 — the one with more lenient penalties.
The Worker's Bill of Rights would require every employer in Tacoma with more than 500 employees to pay their staff at least $20 an hour, and any employer with between 16 and 500 employees must pay their staff at least $18 an hour. That rate drops to $17 an hour for employers with 15 or fewer employees.
Minimum wage in the state of Washington is currently $16.66 per hour, which also currently applies to Tacoma. Cities like Seattle and Bellingham have different rates, at $20.76 per hour and $18.66 per hour, respectively.
It also, among other things, would require employers to create a safety plan to protect workers and consumers in case of violence or a natural disaster, and would require them to give employees an estimate of their work schedules at least 14 days in advance.
As city and county officials work to validate the signatures, a process that could take 30 days, Rose said organizers are still in the process of collecting more signatures in case they fall short of the number of signatures required.
Hines said organizers are optimistic that the initiative will receive the support it needs from voters.
'I remember the days when you could be a single mom and a checker and pay your rent or buy a house, and that's pretty hard to do now based on what these companies are doing with the schedules,' Hines said. 'I think there's a lot of empathy from the community.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
44 minutes ago
- Forbes
Trump Media Board Member Who Led SPAC Deal Sells 90% Of His Shares
Eric Swider, one of seven board members at Trump Media & Technology Group (NASDAQ: DJT) and a leader in the deal to take Truth Social public, has sold around 90% of his company stock—netting around $4.4 million before taxes—since November, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Truth Social is seen on a mobile device with an image of President Donald Trump in the background in ... More Warsaw, Poland in February 2022. (Photo by STR/NurPhoto via Getty Images) NurPhoto via Getty Images Swider became CEO of the blank-check firm Digital World Acquisition Corp.—the SPAC that merged with Truth Social parent company Trump Media—in March 2023. After the merger was finalized in March 2024, former Congressman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., became CEO and Swider remained on the board. Swider received 153,000 shares when the merger closed, and another 26,000 in January 2025 through an incentive plan. In November 2024, Swider sold about 136,000 shares at $28.23 apiece, netting roughly $3.8 million. Since March 2025, Swider has made four additional sales—most recently 8,500 shares earlier in June—reducing his holdings to 17,500 shares. Swider and Trump Media did not respond to requests for comment. It's unclear why Swider has sold about 90% of his holdings, and he does not appear to have commented on the transactions. Contra No other Trump Media insiders have sold comparable amounts, according to SEC filings. President Donald Trump, whose 114.8 million shares are held in a revocable trust where he is the sole beneficiary and donor, has not reported any sales. Others, including Nunes, have only sold shares to cover tax withholdings, not directly receiving any cash proceeds. Big Number $4.8 million. That's how much Swider has made so far from Trump Media—counting stock sale proceeds, the current value of his remaining shares and a $45,000 cash retainer. Key Background Swider joined Digital World's board in 2021 and became CEO in 2023, as the SPAC pursued a drawn-out merger with Trump Media that took 29 months to complete. During that time, a former Digital World board member was convicted of insider trading, the company admitted to two years of unreliable financials and it paid $18 million in penalties to the SEC for failing to disclose early Trump Media talks. After the merger finalized in March 2024, turmoil continued: Trump Media's cofounders sued over allegedly diluted stakes, prompting a countersuit. The company also replaced its auditor after the SEC accused its accounting firm, BF Borgers, of 'massive fraud' involving more than 250 clients (Borgers agreed to pay a $12 million fine and an industry ban). Swider's term on Trump Media's board is set to expire in 2027. In a 2024 filing, Trump Media disclosed Swider failed to report a change in his stock holdings to the SEC within the required timeframe. What To Watch For In March, Swider and Nunes launched a new blank-check firm, Renatus Tactical Acquisition Corp I, targeting acquisitions in cryptocurrency, cybersecurity and dual-use tech—sectors with significant regulatory and government involvement, in which the Trump administration has major influence. Swider holds 50,000 shares directly and controls another 5 million through an LLC. Surprising Fact Trump Media warned in May that 'material misstatements' may have appeared in its financial filings, citing weak internal controls and a lack of SEC reporting expertise—though a company spokesperson told Forbes the filing was 'a routine disclosure that TMTG has repeatedly made in the past, and is typical for former shell companies, that does not in any way indicate an intention to restate any of TMTG's financial reporting.' News Peg Trump Media is in the midst of reshaping its finances, raising $2.3 billion from institutional investors in May to fund bitcoin purchases, registering a crypto ETF with the SEC and announcing plans Monday to buy back up to $400 million in shares. Forbes estimates Donald Trump's net worth at $5.2 billion, with $2.1 billion tied to his 114.8 million shares in Trump Media, as of the market close on Tuesday. Most of his fortune is now tied to crypto holdings. Editor's Note In November 2023, Trump Media sued 20 media outlets, including Forbes, for reporting that included calculations of its financial results while still a private company. The defendants have moved to dismiss the claims but the case is currently ongoing. Further Reading The 3 Easy New Ways Anyone Can Funnel Money Directly To Donald Trump's Businesses (Forbes) CEO Devin Nunes Made $47 Million While Truth Social Parent Company Reported $401 Million In Losses In 2024 (Forbes) Trump Media Shares Rise After Planning Fintech Brand—Trump's Net Worth Spikes Over $200 Million (Forbes) Truth Social Hosted Party At Trump's Mar-A-Lago (Forbes) Trump-Linked SPAC Spent $10.8 Million On Legal Fees Amid Regulatory Probes (Forbes) When It Comes To Truth Social, Republicans In Congress Aren't Buying What Trump's Selling (Forbes)


Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Says He Thinks Middle East War is 'Over'
President Donald Trump said the US would hold a meeting with Iran next week, but cast doubt on the need for a diplomatic agreement. Trump claimed that US bombing had "obliterated" Iran's key nuclear sites, including Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow facilities, and that the country's nuclear materials were buried under "granite, concrete and steel". The US and Iran are set to resume talks, with Trump citing Iran's foreign ministry assessment that its nuclear installations were "badly damaged" by US airstrikes. Bloomberg's Ethan Bronner reports. (Source: Bloomberg)


The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Why utility deregulation is the worst way to generate more electricity
The Trump administration, including the Department of Justice, is looking to ensure more electricity production through increased 'competition in the utility marketplace.' The president is right to be concerned that if we lack adequate electricity, we will not be able to build data centers and dominate artificial intelligence. The administration is evaluating whether utility competition using electricity market deregulation will increase electricity supply. But this notion is deeply misguided. The regions of the country that embraced deregulation are just the ones failing to keep up with growing demand. Contrary to the spin of the deregulation cheerleaders, it is the traditionally regulated states, like Virginia and Georgia, where the utilities are showing that they can generate enough electricity to attract those data centers. Furthermore, supporters of the deregulated electricity 'free markets' are not being honest when they say forcing electric utilities to compete with other energy providers benefits ratepayers. These deregulated electric states, currently about 20 of them, disadvantage consumers because their electric grids are overseen by organizations with the authority of government but run by people not elected, who cannot be sued and therefore lack real accountability. For example, the Texas political leadership and some conservatives like the Washington-based think tank R Street contend that the Texas grid is an example of the free market in action. But the conservative Texas courts have ruled consistently that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas — the agency which runs the state's power grid — is the monopoly electricity provider in the wholesale market, and, in language that conjures the defunct Soviet Union, that it is 'an arm of the state.' The Electric Reliability Council of Texas has failed just like the Soviet Union did. Following a deadly grid failure during the 2011 freeze, the state did nothing. The grid failure that followed in February 2021 left 246 dead and $4.2 billion in overcharges that the governor's appointees to Public Utility Commission of Texas enforced by suing to overturn an appellate court's decision to refund the $4.2 billion to customers. The Wall Street Journal also found that Texans had been overcharged $28 billion. If we are looking at ensuring the Lone Star State has enough energy, it must also be noted that the overcharges on Texans' electric bills have not gone toward building new power plants. They have gone to share buybacks, corporate bonuses, hedge funds and campaign contributions. The statewide performance fits exactly with the predatory behavior of a monopolist — less supply, higher prices. To be sure, the allure of 'free markets' is nothing new. To understand why President Trump and others are suddenly talking about creating competition in the electric utility markets, it is worth examining how they came about. Back in the 1990s, California and Texas led the way in deregulation, or breaking apart the old monopoly utilities to give consumers a choice of retail electricity suppliers rather than the one local utility, the monopoly in town, to provide electricity. The traditional, vertically integrated utilities are regulated by a commission accountable to voters, which sets electrical rates and determines how much infrastructure — like new generation and transmission lines — the utility can build and charge customers for. But the thinking by proponents of deregulation was that entrenched monopolies cost consumers too much on a daily basis, in part because the electric utilities were also compensated to maintain enough electricity capacity to meet peak demand several times a year. To save customers money by eliminating these costs for ensuring enough electricity no matter the weather, deregulated states created Soviet-style grid operators — as in Texas — to buy electricity wholesale according to the lowest price offered, be it from coal, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind or battery. But by the time the power reaches the customer, it is costing ratepayers more than in the traditionally regulated states because of charges layered on by government-mandated middlemen, and there is no independent regulator to ensure affordable pricing and reliability. In addition to higher electric bills for customers in deregulated electric markets, the lesson for the Department of Justice is the deregulated states are failing to bring online enough new electric generation. This is because deregulation supporters said that when a deregulated state or region lacked enough electricity, that 'market signals' would prod generators to invest in new power plants. But, again, it's not working in Texas, or any other deregulated state. Customers and taxpayers now pay large subsidies to keep older, less efficient power plants open. If the Justice Department wants lower prices and more electricity to power the artificial intelligence revolution, it needs to look at the states with traditionally regulated electric utilities. Following the Federalist principles, lawmakers should not disturb these conservative states with fully regulated electric systems, which were prescient enough to focus on low cost and reliable electricity supply under government oversight, rather than building Soviet-style grid operators that lack accountability. Edward Hirs is UH energy fellow at the University of Houston where he teaches energy economics.