Pass: 1,245 / 54.2% Yes votes ...... 1,051 / 45.8% No votes

See Also: Index of all Measures

Meaning of Voting Yes/No

A YES vote on this measure means:

A"Yes" vote by a majority voting on Measure C means that the annual permitting of hotels, subject to certain labor conditions, would become effective. It is likely that legal challenge will be filed against Measure C if it passes due to vagueness, over-breadth, and preemption among other grounds.

A NO vote on this measure means:

A "No" vote by a majority voting on Measure C means that hotels will continue to operate within the City of Emeryville subject to the same laws, ordinances and regulations as before.

Measure C would require a hotel to obtain an annual permit from the City to operate, and pay a fee to defray the costs incurred by the City enforcing the measure. The City would issue the permit if special labor standards are met.

First, each hotel employee must receive minimum compensation at the rate of $9.00 per hour and the average compensation for all hotel employees must be at least $11.00 per hour.

"Compensation" incudes wages, salary and health benefits. Measure C does not define what constitutes a health benefit and delegates to the City Manager the obligation to estimate the value of such benefits. "Employee" is broadly defined to include common law employees, independent contractors who provide services to the hotel, or workers who spend more than five hours per week for more than four weeks working at a hotel, and excludes any managerial or administrative employee receiving more than $50,000 per year in wages, salary, bonus, commission or other compensation.

Second, upon the sale of a hotel or change in the identity of the hotel employer, hotel employees must be retained for ninety days unless there is reasonable and substantiated cause not to hire or to discharge the employee. Measure C does not define what constitutes "reasonable and substantiated cause", but provides that "cause" shall be construed in accordance with judicial and arbitral precedent defining "just cause" for discharge. In the event of a layoff, an employee is entitled to reinstatement should any position open up within two years thereafter which the employee can perform.

Third, hotel employees who clean rooms are entitled to one and one-half times the minimum average compensation rate for time worked in any day if the employee is required to clean more than a specified amount of square footage of floor space or rooms in an eight hour day, or a prorated amount of floor space for employees who work less than an eight hour day. Measure C does not indicate whether this provision is in addition or in lieu of California's overtime laws.

Fourth, hotel employees are entitled to paid leave for jury duty.

Finally, the measure provides for enforcement of the measure by the City and private parties. A prevailing party would be entitled to recover costs and attorneys fees in addition to injunctive relief, damages and penalties.

A"Yes" vote by a majority voting on Measure C means that the annual permitting of hotels, subject to certain labor conditions, would become effective. It is likely that legal challenge will be filed against Measure C if it passes due to vagueness, over-breadth, and preemption among other grounds. A "No" vote by a majority voting on Measure C means that hotels will continue to operate within the City of Emeryville subject to the same laws, ordinances and regulations as before.

Respectfully submitted,

s/MICHAEL G. BIDDLE

City Attorney

Oakland Tribune

• Measure C would raise hotel workers' wages Employees, management face off over provisions on pay, overtime in Emeryville initiative - November 6, 2005

As an Emeryville voter, I wanted to share what these hotel housekeepers wrote to ask for your YES votes:

Dear Emeryville Voters,
"Thank you" to the good people of Emeryville who took the time to sign our LIVING WAGE initiative petitions! We have been good employees in the Emeryville hotels for years and years.
Like you, we work hard to support our families. We want our children to have health insurance and a chance to get an education. It's hard to do that on what we make cleaning hotel rooms. But we're not complaining. We are proud of our jobs. We take care of people when they are away from home.
Our initiative says that BIG HOTELS, with more than 50 rooms can afford to pay us a LIVING WAGE of $9.00 an hour and basic health insurance. It also says that when a hotel gets bought by new owners, current employees get 90 days to prove that we are good enough to keep our jobs. Our initiative doesn't affect any other business in Emeryville. Just the big hotels.
We are asking the voters of Emeryville to set a $9.00 living wage so that people who work full-time can earn a living, afford the essentials, and stay out of poverty.
We don't think that we are asking for too much. We are willing to put in the hours it takes, we just need a little more money for each of those hours we work.
Sincerely,
Ana Gutierrez
Lucia Rubio
Hotel Housekeepers
As a voter in Emeryville I am voting YES on Measure C. I hope you will join me.
s/DONALD D. CROSATTO

Proponent

• Our school rely on local tax revenue to hire outstanding teachers, keep class sizes small and support programs that enhance student achievement.
• Our city relies on local tax revenue to maintain firefighters and paramedics who respond to emergencies, keep police officers on patrol, repair streets and sidewalks and provide other critical services.

s/JASON D. CROUCH
Chair Elect, Emeryville Chamber of Commerce and Emeryville Resident
s/JOSEPH M. LUTZ
Emeryville Planning Commissioner and Emeryville Resident
s/PATRICIA JEFFERY
Local Business Owner and Emeryville Resident
s/NORA DAVIS
Community Leader and Emeryville Resident
s/ROBERT C BLAIN
Retired Emeryville Resident

• Measure C was written and sponsored by interests from outside Emeryville who want to dictate how Emeryville does business.
• Measure C isn't necessary. Every single hotel employee in Emeryville already earns a better wage than Measure C requires.
• Measure C will add new layers of bureaucracy and regulations that will slow economic development and deter investment in Emeryville.
• Measure C unfairly singles out hotel employees but doesn't offer any protections or benefits to other workers in Emeryville.

  Do we want to become like Oakland and Berkeley with layers of bureaucracy and regulation that force out businesses?

  Or do we want to encourage smart investment in Emeryville that brings good jobs and increased tax revenue to support our schools, police officers, fire fighters, street repair and other community services?

  Emeryville has experienced a renaissance in recent years. Now is not the time to let outside interests create barriers to further progress in Emeryville.

  The Emeryville Chamber of Commerce voted unanimously to oppose Measure C.

  Please vote No on Measure C.

These statements are ALL taken from the IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS PREPARED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Please consider this analysis when you decide how to vote.
s/DONALD D. CROSATTO
Proponent

II. ANY CITY COSTS TO BE COVERED BY PERMIT FEES
Each Large Hotel shall pay a permit fee annually to the City reflecting its share of any City costs in enforcing this Ordinance. This share shall be based on each hotel's portion of the total number of rooms at the hotels covered by this Ordinance, or based on such other formula as the City Council determines to be equitable. The Council by resolution shall set the initial permit fee based on the City Manager's projection of the City's likely costs, and then shall update such fee annually.

III. DEFINITIONS
The following definitions shall apply throughout this Chapter:

1. A "Large Hotel" means any hospitality facility with more than 50 guest rooms. A "Hotel" includes not only the facility's guest rooms and common areas but also any subcontracted or sublet restaurants connected thereto or operated in conjunction therewith.

2. "Employee" includes not only common-law employees of the operator, but also persons regularly engaged on the premises in providing services to hotel guests as a contractor, subcontractor, tenant, subtenant, licensee or sublicensee, or as an employee thereof. Workers who are not common-law employees of the operator shall not be deemed "regularly engaged" on the premises unless they spend more than five hours per week there for more than four weeks. The permittee shall remain ultimately liable for compliance with this Ordinance regardless of whether or not it is the common-law employer of the Employees. "Employee" does not include any managerial or administrative employees receiving more than $50,000 per year in wages, salary, bonus, commission or other compensation from the Hotel.

IV. ENFORCEMENT
A. If after notice and hearing the City Council finds a Large Hotel has violated its permit requirements, the Council shall revoke such permit or attach conditions to the renewal of such permit sufficient to remedy past violations and prevent future violations.
B. The City, any City resident or organization operating within the City, or any Employee of a Large Hotel believing the Hotel has violated any requirements of this Chapter shall be entitled to bring an action in Superior or Municipal Court for injunctive relief and to collect damages for all persons injured by the violation, and collect penalties for the City. Each workday during which the Hotel is in violation of this Chapter shall be deemed a separate violation for which the Hotel shall be liable for a penalty of at least one hundred dollars per day and not more than one thousand dollars per day, the amount to be determined by the court. A prevailing plaintiff in such an action shall be entitled to recover from the Hotel his expenses in pursuing the action, including reasonable attorneys fees. The City shall not be liable under this Ordinance for any plaintiff's damages or legal expenses. The remedies set forth herein are not exclusive of any other remedies available at law, and none is a prerequisite for pursuing another remedy.
C. No person may discharge or otherwise discriminate against any other person for making a complaint, participating in any of its proceedings, using any civil remedies to enforce his or her rights, or otherwise asserting his or her rights under this Chapter.
D. Any waiver by an individual of any provisions of this Chapter shall be deemed contrary to public policy and shall be void and unenforceable, except that employees are not barred from entering into a written valid collective bargaining agreement waiving provisions of this Chapter if such waiver is set forth in clear and unambiguous terms.
E. Each Large Hotel shall maintain for each Employee a record of his or her name, pay rate and, if the hotel claims credit for health benefits, the sums paid by the hotel for the employee's health benefits. By March 31st of each year the hotel shall submit to the City a copy of such records for the prior year. Failure to provide a copy of such records within ten days of the due date will result in a penalty of one hundred dollars per day.
F. Each Large Hotel shall give written notification to each current Employee, and to each new Employee at time of hire, of his or her rights under this Chapter. The notification shall be in each language spoken by more than 10 Employees.
G. Each Large Hotel in the City shall permit reasonable access to its workforce inside the Hotel to authorized City representatives and any organization assisting employees in the hospitality industry. Such access may be used solely for the purpose of monitoring compliance with this Chapter and investigating Employee complaints of noncompliance. This access shall include the right of City representatives to inspect and copy payroll records, which information shall be used solely for the purpose of enforcing this Ordinance.
H. If any provision or application of this Chapter is declared illegal, invalid or inoperative, in whole or in part, by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions and portions thereof shall remain in full force or effect. The courts are hereby authorized to reform the provisions of this Chapter in order to preserve the maximum permissible effect thereof.

V. FINDINGS
The People of the City of Emeryville believe it is proper to regulate employment conditions at large hotels first rather than trying to regulate all employers because they believe that (1) large hotels are better able to afford the proposed conditions than other kinds of employers; (2) many large hotels in the Bay Area are already meeting the employment conditions required by this Ordinance, unlike the situation in other industries; (3) large hotels provide jobs similar to the janitorial jobs already protected by a similar state law on worker retention, Labor Code sections 1060-65; and (4) large hotels are generally less likely to respond to such regulation by closing or reducing employment than other kinds of businesses, which can more readily move jobs offshore or to other locations, as large hotels wish to be here because of our city's location. Each of these factors alone is sufficient to warrant adoption of this Ordinance.