“We Had No Voice. It Was Profits Over Safety” : On Hazard Pay, Grocery Workers, And Smarter Business

Well-funded industry players could have decided frontline workers mattered the most. Instead, they paid lawyers to fight against them.

According to the U.S Department of Homeland Security, essential workers are those “who conduct a range of operations and services that are typically essential to continue critical infrastructure operations.”

Like all the grocery workers who help keep this country fed.

As COVID swept across the nation these past 20 months — WHO declared a global emergency in January 2020 — businesses could have elevated worker stories and backed them up with institutional policy changes, instead of relying on generic platitudes about caring about a “safe” workplace. They could have continued providing “hero pay” to frontline workers — as they did at the start of the pandemic — and continued to support their “heroes.”

They could have. But they didn’t. Instead, they litigated.

Walter was working at a Safeway in Pompano Beach, Florida during COVID. He says hazard pay was out of the question. Even when employees were sick or worried about getting sick, they were told, “You either come to work, or you get fired.”

Walter and his colleagues were riddled with fear of retaliation for speaking up or “asking too many questions.” He says policies were constantly in flux and changed on a whim, with managers demanding “proof of sickness” from doctors to get time off.

His Safeway was seeing high turnover. People were quitting rather than coming into an unsafe work environment; Walter says he knew laws were being broken and employees were being mistreated, but there was no recourse. When he did complain to management — asking if he caught the virus if they would pay his medical bills — he was ignored or told to “man up and help ‘serve the community.’ I felt like we had no voice. It was profits over safety.”

Let’s discuss a failing business practice that many industries engage in: choosing to pay lawyers instead of paying their workers.

To be clear, lawyers should be paid. This was true when I was at a law firm and it’s true now. All people deserve to be fairly compensated for their work regardless of the occupation. There’s no shame in that.

In fact, being a lawyer is one of the proudest accomplishments of my life.

The day I was sworn in as an attorney here in Seattle was 27 years to the exact day that my late father first arrived in the United States as an immigrant from the Philippines. Swearing to uphold the U.S. Constitution while seeing my parents’ faces light up with pride was one of the most moving experiences I will ever have.

When I call “paying lawyers” a failing business practice, I am talking about the decision to immediately litigate. Here’s how the formula plays out:

Step 1: Legislative branch proposes legislation.
With the purpose to help workers during an ongoing public health crisis (e.g., provide $4 hazard pay for grocery store workers on the frontlines during COVID-19).

Step 2: All constituents can participate in shaping the legislation.
After community meetings, stakeholder emails, and legal review, the legislation evolves, unanimously passes — and is signed into law.

Step 3: Immediately after the legislation becomes law, well-funded industry association files a lawsuit.
This is an attempt to overturn the law even after key stakeholders participated in the democratic process at the legislative level.

Step 4: Months and months of litigating occurs in the courts.
The grocery industry association is paying its estimated $500/hr. attorneys to air policy grievances after not getting exactly what they wanted during the legislative process.

Step 5: Almost a year later, a judge upholds the law as constitutional! This decision also provides support for other cities (of all sizes) to pass similar hazard pay legislation after withstanding legal scrutiny.

Step 6: After initially seeking an appeal, the well-funded industry association finally decides to cut its losses and drop its appeal.
With the law on the books, workers can count on their hazard pay as the unrelenting pandemic continues.

I had a front-row seat to how this ill-advised business plan played out as an Assistant City Attorney at the Seattle City Attorney’s Office. Alongside a great team, I helped successfully defend Seattle’s Grocery Store Hazard Pay Ordinance in NWGA v. City of Seattle in federal court.

“Receiving hazard pay throughout this pandemic gives me a lot more peace of mind knowing with certainty that I’ll receive financial support during this very uncertain and stressful time.” — *Mark, a Seattle grocery worker

While it is a gratifying victory, I can’t help but wonder whether there was a better investment to be made here.

The big-monied interests gambled on their attorneys’ out-of-touch legal strategy instead of choosing their workers. They invested in a litigation budget instead of investing in their labor. Whatever amount they spent on legal fees could have gone directly to in-house employees.

They chose to engage in billion-dollar stock buyback practices and executive compensation, instead of gladly providing $4 more in regular compensation for the people directly responsible for their record profits.

I am curious whether they’ve realized they made a bad bet and will learn from their mistakes …or will they simply continue the same misguided and predatory practice?

At the heart of it, these business decisions reveal what, and most importantly, whose story matters. Well-funded industry players could have decided that the frontline experiences of their workers mattered the most. Instead, they directed their money elsewhere.

The choice to immediately litigate is not a foregone business conclusion.

Some grocery stores didn’t fight hazard pay but expanded it beyond their stores in Seattle. Some businesses have also freely decided to invest in their workers without being reactive to legislation. Take the local Seattle burger joint Dick’s Burgers which recently announced they were raising its minimum wage to $19/hr, realizing that a liveable wage also means a sustainable business practice.

It’s hard to combat labor shortages in court proceedings.

Businesses receive a better return on their investment in choosing workers over a failed approach in the courts. It may not stop all future attempts, but the next time policies and legislation aimed to uplift workers come along, businesses should think long and hard about whether they’re spending their money wisely.

Choosing to support your workers isn’t only ethical, it’s good business.

Editor’s note: *Mark chose to be anonymous