Tom Douglas was right before he was wrong

Phase one of the minimum wage law in Seattle is in full effect and businesses haven’t closed! End of times didn’t happen! Similarly, people who were poor before, still find themselves struggling to get by. Poverty has not been eradicated.

The results of this experiment are a long, long time away; long enough, activists hope, that people will give up fighting it.

The results could be detrimental (for Seattle, the region, the workers – particularly low-skilled workers). The results could also be beneficial. I didn’t support the campaign because I fear the unintended consequences – particularly hitting youth unemployment and small businesses – but I hope I’m wrong. There are some in my camp who want to be right so they can say “I told ya so!” but I’m hoping I can say, “My bad! I was wrong!” because it would mean people weren’t hurt by the policy.

But we do know this: things will change. Businesses will change the way they operate. They have to. Don’t believe the myth that you can just change someone’s wage 60 percent without any changes to the business. That’s not how the majority of businesses work – large or small.

Earlier this week, Tom Douglas Restaurants added a 2 percent equity surcharge to their bills to accommodate these changes.

On his website, Tom Douglas originally blogged:

If you are reading this note, you have likely been to one of our restaurants and have seen the 2 percent surcharge funding the Mayor’s Wage Equity Surcharge (WES). After months of our team working together to craft the best plan for us to handle the wage increase, we felt the most competitive and least intrusive is to implement a surcharge equal to the increase in wages until all restaurants in Seattle are on the same playing field.

100 percent of this surcharge will be distributed to our staff in either wages or benefits. If there is a surplus, we will distribute it to current hourly staff at the end of the calendar year as a bonus and adjust the surcharge for the next calendar year.

The blog entry has been deleted and replaced after activists and supporters of the minimum wage complained, but nothing in that post is shocking nor offensive. Here’s an excerpt for his updated blog entry:

Thanks for reading my blog. You spoke and I’ve listened. Since posting my comments on 3/31 I have had many people tell me that they would prefer a clear picture of the debate and not my political comments that were unnecessarily snarky and snippy. I agree with you and have reframed my blog post to just the facts.

At the same time we are immediately removing the 2 percent wage equality surcharge we instituted on 4/1 so near future labor increases will be reconciled in the menu price increases as many of you have suggested you would prefer.

I’m glad he acknowledged the surcharge was a political statement because it was. And it was a valid political statement. Putting a 2 percent surcharge on a bill is saying, “Hey! You’re paying more not because I’m a bad guy but because the city passed a law that impacts my business. If you have complaints, talk to the city.”

For some reason, this was panned by minimum wage advocates. But we know that menu items are going up because of the policy change you implemented. Why are you upset that he’s pointing it out?

You’ve said all along Seattlites support this move (I generally believe they do); you’ve said customers can handle a small increase in price (I generally believe they can as well). So why the backlash? Own the changes you caused and knew would happen. I genuinely don’t know why this upsets you, but your outrage and quasi-bullying and name calling (without any substantive criticism of his actions) ends up stifling speech from business owner wanting to speak out against the wage increase or bring attention to the consequences.

Unfortunately, stifling speech is common in Seattle with some activists. When you demonize a business person simply for speaking out against the minimum wage, and not actually fight his or her reason, you’re stifling speech. Why do you find that acceptable? Why can’t you handle an open exchange of ideas, even ideas you disagree with? Attack the ideas, not the person. I’ve seen a stream of tweets attacking Tom Douglas personally.

You do realize Tom Douglas is an ally, right? He may not be happy with the extra hit his business is taking, but he treats his employees well, they seem genuinely happy to work for him, he’s a politically progressive guy and happens to be a great person.

Why are you scared to let people know about the consequences of your activism if you think everyone supports it? And why devolve into personal attacks meant to silence and bully?