EAP Pre-Draft Proposed Rule Language (Second Version)

(Submitted on 12/12/18 by Laural Poucher, Yokes Foods)

I operate a business in Washington state, specifically within the grocery, food and beverage industry. It is increasingly challenging to navigate labor laws that differ significantly federally, at the state level, and locally. A significant amount of our time is spent comparing and complying with numerous requirements on the same issue, just at different levels of government. This causes confusion for employers and employees, duplication issues, and a need for administrative policies that explain the difference between the federal, state and local rules.

I am proud to be able to invest in my employees, see them gain valuable skills and transfer them into leadership opportunities as they advance their careers. I am concerned that tying the salary overtime threshold to a range of 2 - 2.5 times the minimum wage will discourage my ability to provide more upward career growth opportunities. Adopting any multiplier of the minimum wage would create a wage gap between my employees and management. While the salary level needs to be adjusted, the proposed increase with no geographic considerations, automatic adjustments and only partial consideration of incentive pay will have a significant negative impact on the supermarket and convenience industry - a place where many associates receive their first management positions and no longer have to punch a time clock. In addition to a potential reduction in hours, workers that are reclassified as non-exempt employees will lose additional benefits; such as flexible scheduling, predictable take-home pay, and an increased opportunity to climb the ladder.

Our state law on salary overtime threshold is outdated and irrelevant because the federal requirement is higher. I agree that it needs to be updated, but the U.S. Department is Labor is already going through a process to update the federal law. The WA State Department of Labor and Industries should wait until the federal rulemaking process is finished, then align their rules with the federal rules. If the Department of Labor and Industries waits until the Department of Labor is finished, then Washington State will only need to go through the rulemaking process once instead of multiple times in order to meet the federal standard. This will save time and money for all parties involved in creating new state rules for the EAP exemptions.

I urge the department to pause rulemaking until the new federal standard is adopted, and then align our rules with the federal requirements.

Thank you for your time.

(Submitted on 12/12/18 by Jeff Roberts)

The proposed rules are not necessary and just another cumbersome regulation for restaurant owners to navigate. For my salary mangers the few hours of overtime they work each work are already factored into their salary. While I see asking someone to work 50 hours a week for $24,000 is not a fair proposal that is not the norm. Your proposed thresholds are way too high. Let the free market dictate wages. If employees are not being paid fairly or working too hard their are plenty of job openings in every industry for them to pursue. We currently pay in the mid to upper forty thousand are for our managers to work 42-45 hours a week. What gives you the right to tell us that this is not fair or subpar? You should lower the limits much lower than they are currently proposed or leave this alone altogether.

(Submitted on 12/12/18 by Shaun Brobak, Trackside Pizza, Crockett's Public House and Meridian Cafe)

My name is Shaun Brobak. I own/operate Trackside Pizza, Crockett's Public House and Meridian Cafe and am proud to employ 207 people in 2018.

If these rules were adopted, I would have no choice but to eliminate some salaried positions which would reduce, A. Those individuals bi-weekly take home pay when they move to an hourly position without overtime, and, B. Reduce and possibly eliminate opportunities for new management level employees to quickly enter in to restaurant management and develop those skills.

Successful restaurant management as a career requires results based experience and skills. We simply can not pay inexperienced managers the level of salary proposed. This proposal would also increase the pay gap between inexperienced and experienced managers. This proposal is actually harmful to those entry level managers it seeks to protect.

I appreciate the opportunity to express my thoughts on the updated pre-draft rules for the Executive, Administrative and Professional exemptions from the state Minimum Wage Act, including the update of overtime exemptions and the salary threshold.

I am a hospitality industry operator who is proud to provide jobs at all levels to people in my community. The hospitality industry is an industry of opportunity that offers everything from first-time jobs to lifelong careers. I want to continue to invest in my employees and provide them with opportunities to advance their careers in hospitality or elsewhere.

I am very concerned about tying the salary overtime threshold to a range of 2 – 2.5 times the minimum wage or a salary of $56,000 - $70,000 and adjusted annually. Adopting a salary threshold tied to any multiplier of the state minimum wage will create a wage gap between my employees and management and will ultimately harm jobs by eliminating middle-management positions.

I appreciate the Department’s willingness to consider a phase in, but the two suggested approaches perpetuate the challenges created by such a drastic increase in the salary threshold. I request the Department not pick winners and losers based on geographic location or size of business. Rather, the phase in should span at least four years to give all businesses ample time to implement changes and update their business practices. Over the last three years the hospitality industry has continued to struggle with the impacts of a 40 percent increase in the minimum wage contained in I-1433. To be clear, with these new pre-draft rules the Department is suggesting a nearly 300 percent increase in wages for our employees. As an employer, this increase will likely have a negative impact on the career ladder and opportunities in my business.

I ask L&I to align any proposed changes to these exemptions with federal rules. As a business operator, we need alignment at the local, state and federal levels of government to help reduce confusion.

I am a proud member of my community and want to continue to provide jobs for employees at all levels, including middle-management positions. I ask for L&I to consider the impact of these pre-draft rules on the hospitality careers and our community and economy.

(Submitted on 12/12/18 by Jeffrey Rose, Burger King Restaurants)

My name is Jeffrey Rose. I own/operate 8 Burger King Restaurants in Kitsap and Clallum Counties and am proud to employ 250 people in 2018.

If these rules were adopted as currently proposed, I would expect to move all salaried employee's to an hourly rate. This will restrict the upper management ability to go above and beyond their normal job activities and the ability to grow in their career.


Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on behalf of the updated pre-draft rules for the Executive, Administrative and Professional exemptions from the state Minimum Wage Act including the update of overtime exemptions and the salary threshold.

We understand that an update on this topic is appropriate; however, I would like to raise several concerns with elements of the updated pre-draft proposal. My first concern is about the future of the hospitality industry and its career ladder.

As a business operator, I am proud to be able to invest in my employees, see them gain valuable skills and transfer them into leadership opportunities as they advance their careers. I am concerned that tying the salary overtime threshold to a range of $56,000 - $70,000 adjusted annually or 2 – 2.5 times the minimum wage will discourage my ability to provide more upward career growth opportunities. Adopting any multiplier of the minimum wage would create a wage gap between my employees and management. Undercutting and harming my employees by removal of the middle-management career ladder rungs would not benefit them, my business or the state economy.

I appreciate the Department’s willingness to consider a phase in, but the two suggested approaches perpetuate the challenges created by such a drastic increase in the salary threshold. I request the Department not pick winners and losers based on geographic location or size of business. Rather, the phase in should span at least four years to give all businesses ample time to implement changes and update their business practices. Over the last three years the hospitality industry has continued to struggle with the impacts of a 40 percent increase in the minimum wage contained in I-1433. To be clear, with these new pre-draft rules the Department is suggesting a nearly 300 percent increase in wages for our employees. As an employer, this increase will likely have a negative impact on the career ladder and opportunities in my business.

I am asking L&I to wait for the federal government to update their rules before moving forward with this process. We need alignment at the local, state and federal levels of government.

I appreciate the opportunity to be a part of the solution and submit my comments to you.

(Submitted on 12/12/18 by Gurpaul Sandhu, Holiday Inn)

My name is gurpaul sandhu. I own/operate holiday inn Tacoma mall and am proud to employ 40 people in hotel.

If these rules were adopted, I would not be able to afford.

I appreciate the opportunity to express my thoughts on the updated pre-draft rules for the Executive, Administrative and Professional exemptions from the state Minimum Wage Act, including the update of overtime exemptions and the salary threshold.

I am a hospitality industry operator who is proud to provide jobs at all levels to people in my community. The hospitality industry is an industry of opportunity that offers everything from first-time jobs to lifelong careers. I want to continue to invest in my employees and provide them with opportunities to advance their careers in hospitality or elsewhere.

I am very concerned about tying the salary overtime threshold to a range of 2 – 2.5 times the minimum wage or a salary of $56,000 - $70,000 and adjusted annually. Adopting a salary threshold tied to any multiplier of the state minimum wage will create a wage gap between my employees and management and will ultimately harm jobs by eliminating middle-management positions.

I appreciate the Department’s willingness to consider a phase in, but the two suggested approaches perpetuate the challenges created by such a drastic increase in the salary threshold. I request the Department not pick winners and losers based on geographic location or size of business. Rather, the phase in should span at least four years to give all businesses ample time to implement changes and update their business practices. Over the last three years the hospitality industry has continued to struggle with the impacts of a 40 percent increase in the minimum wage contained in I-1433. To be clear, with these new pre-draft rules the Department is suggesting a nearly 300 percent increase in wages for our employees. As an employer, this increase will likely have a negative impact on the career ladder and opportunities in my business.

I ask L&I to align any proposed changes to these exemptions with federal rules. As a business operator, we need alignment at the local, state and federal levels of government to help reduce confusion.

I am a proud member of my community and want to continue to provide jobs for employees at all levels, including middle

(Submitted on 12/11/18 by David Rogers, Yakima Symphony Orchestra)

I attended the November 28th presentation in Yakima regarding new draft EAP rules and spoke briefly, representing a local arts organization. Per your request to address the specific questions articulated in the presentation, I offer the following response:

1. Assuming an effective date of January 1, 2020, should the department consider a phased-in implementation of the new threshold for employers based on employer size? What phase-in schedule should the department propose?

Under the current proposal at 2 or 2.5 times minimum wage, I would recommend a phase-in of at least ten years in order to allow non-profit organizations that are smaller and/or in less affluent areas of the state time to completely rethink and revise their business and fundraising models, and to implement necessarily significant changes in the manner in which and extent to which they are able to provide their services. If the threshold is lowered to 1.5 times minimum wage or below, this phase-in might be reduced to as few as five years. Our organization could have managed the lower threshold from the federal change proposed in 2016 with only limited short-term hardship, but we are likely unusual in that regard among non-profits in our community. The current proposal would require radical changes and significant downsizing on our part, and it would be likely to result in the departure of currently exempt employees who would find it impossible to do this work under non-exempt status; this kind of dramatic change in circumstances will require a lot of lead time in order for many such organizations to adapt and survive.

a. What method would you recommend to define employer size?

While we have a small roster of employees who work more regularly, our organization often hires as employees (in accordance with NLRB guidance) many musicians on a very temporary basis – i.e. for a single 2- or 3-day run of rehearsals and performances. In many surveys, we are asked for a total number of employees regardless of full- or part-time status, while others ask us to count every part-time employee as half-time, each of which has the effect of making us appear much larger than we actually are (an employee who actually works less than 0.01 FTE in a given year is counted as either 1.0 or 0.5 FTE). Though more complicated, it would be more accurate and fair to use total actual annual FTE to determine the size of an employer. Based on our current calendar year, this would give us a designated size of about 22 full-time employees, which more accurately reflects our actual total annual payroll size than the 118 or 230 employees generated by the other two means.

b. When would you recommend the updated threshold take effect for all employer sizes?

This depends entirely on the final threshold number: anywhere from five to ten years from initial implementation.

2. During a phase-in period and/or once the rule is fully implemented, should the department consider adopting a higher salary threshold in higher-wage cities, counties, or areas of the state?

I believe adopting a higher salary threshold than the one currently proposed, anywhere in the state, is a move in the wrong direction. Rather, the department should consider a lower threshold in lower-wage regions, and not just during a phase-in period. I suppose the current 2 or 2.5 times minimum wage may be appropriate middle-management compensation for the Puget Sound area; but in our part of the state these numbers to do not cover even top executives of some of our most important and impactful non-profit organizations. These organizations would have a hard time convincing their executives to remain in a non-exempt format (the paperwork alone would be a deal-breaker, never mind the extra non-mission-based fundraising required) and therefore would struggle to continue to provide services to their communities. This would further impoverish the most culturally, educationally and economically challenged areas of our state.

a. What method would you recommend for defining which areas would be subject to a different threshold?

The threshold could either be indexed periodically to a measurable indicator of regional affluence (median household or per capita income by county, for instance), so that the ratio of that indicator from county to county would be applied to scale back the minimum-wage multiplier in less affluent areas; or it could be assigned by way of a simpler ‘zone’ system based on a fixed set of ranges of that indicator (any area with a median income within a specified range would be assigned an appropriate fixed multiplier).

b. Would you recommend a different phase-in schedule apply to these higher-threshold areas? How should the implementation schedule differ?

If the threshold is different enough in each type of area to create roughly equal levels of hardship for all geographic areas in the state, there should be less need for variances in phase-in schedule based on geography; employer size would remain the primary basis for phase-in variations. If there are not sufficient differences in threshold to create geographic equity, then those areas facing greater short-term hardship should have more time to adjust to their new reality.

3. What definition of “primary duty” (found in WAC 296-128-505(4)) should be included in the rules?

Is it possible to include language here which recognizes the multiple hats that are worn by most executives and administrators of smaller non-profits? Many of our organizations do not have ‘customarily recognized departments’ or any simple primary duty – we share responsibility for multiple facets of administration and operations depending on our respective experience and expertise, and this flexibility tied to exempt status is invaluable to the organization.

4. What criteria for the duties tests, if any, should differ between the federal and state rules?

The federal rules do not differentiate the business and operating models of nonprofits from those of for-profit entities. Key elements of nonprofit management such as fundraising and patron/donor relations require a great deal of creativity and discretion and are central to the general business operations of a nonprofit; it would be helpful to have more explicit guidance to that effect in the Administrative Exemption section, rather than the grey areas left by the federal guidelines.

The larger message I would like to convey (echoing several other organizations represented at the Yakima meeting in November) is that non-profit organizations may need some special consideration under these new rules, especially if the current threshold proposal is maintained as a baseline. A number of non-profit organizations have made very intentional efforts to limit increases in executive compensation in order to achieve a fairer balance of compensation across the entire organization; some did this in response to the increases in minimum wage, but many of us were in fact already doing that prior to the higher minimum wage simply because it is the right thing to do. A demand that non-profit executives and administrators be paid inequitably high salaries in accordance with for-profit trends in order to maintain their exempt status undermines that good work and will serve to destroy whatever internal goodwill our efforts at fairer compensation may have engendered.

Our missions do not revolve around bottom-line profits, but rather around serving needs in our respective communities. Diminishing our ability to fulfil our respective missions, even with the best of intentions, will in the end harm our most inadequately compensated employees and our most underserved communities far more than they will benefit the currently exempt employees this measure is intended to help. I would love to be paid more for the many extra hours I put in, but on balance I am paid fairly, and I find it far more rewarding to see our mission succeed; and the more it does succeed the more equitably we will be able to increase all employees’ compensation across the board. Without a lower threshold I do not see a clear path to viability for our current mission given the economics of our region; and the problem is even more severe for smaller nonprofit organizations serving even less affluent areas.

The exempt threshold is certainly long overdue for an update. I strongly urge you to consider achieving this update in a manner that encourages adherence to the spirit of exemption without doing undue damage to the fabric of our nonprofit and other economic sectors (including agriculture, which is critically important to the survival of nonprofits in central Washington) for which a predictable eight-hour office workday over 52 weeks is the exception rather than the rule.

(Submitted on 12/11/18 by Steve Tammar, YMCA of the Inland Northwest)

Thank you for the opportunity to respond and I do so on behalf of the Washington State Alliance of YMCA’s.

The YMCA is a charitable, volunteer-led organization with 501 © (3) nonprofit status, with origins dating over 140 years, before in fact Washington achieved statehood. Collectively our YMCA’s serve on a daily basis over 788,000 men, women and children in 25 of the 39 counties in the state. In those communities we serve we also create jobs and provide employment opportunities. We have over 11,000 employees state-wide, pay $105 million in annual wages and an additional $24 million in benefits and payroll taxes.

To that end, the Executive, Administrative, Professional & Outside Sales Rulemaking (WAC 296-128-500 through WAC 296 – 128 – 545) stands to negatively impact both our workforce and our ability to continue to deliver on our charitable mission to those communities we serve.

Across our state, YMCA’s are committed to providing a safe, nurturing work environment and fully understand the need for competitive pay and benefits while providing work-life balance for our staff. We understand and support the intent of the rules laid out in the second draft, but the rules as presently proposed create an unnecessary hardship for our staff, our operations and our charitable mission. Those hardships include:

• The timing of instituting this in 2020 is problematic. This is the year we will see a 12% increase in the minimum wage which will undoubtedly lead to the need for greater efficiencies in our operations...or more simply put, some reduction in workforce. This will all but preclude our ability to take some staff to proposed minimums.
• When this was proposed by the federal government over two years ago, it was our own employees who had the most negative reaction. A good percentage of them would have seen their status change from exempt to hourly…they viewed this as both a loss of status and the confinement to set hours as a loss of flexibility…an interruption of the work life balance we have tried to offer.
• Our fifteen YMCA associations, all 501© (3) organizations, operate independently and autonomously and thus lack the scale to spread increased costs over large infrastructure. We rely on dollars earned and donated to be self-sustaining: These dollars include member dues, charitable giving and grants which allow us to pay staff and operate the programs and services we provide to the community. Given that we lack the ability to increase our revenue to account for rapid increases in labor costs, if the minimum salary level for exempt status is set too high many Y’s will be forced to cut back staff and/or cut services to the communities we serve impacting children, adults and seniors who need us most and rely on our services and our commitment to financial assistance.

The hardships aside, the Washington State Alliance of YMCA’s stands supportive of the intent of the rules changes and would propose the following:

• The updated rule to have an effective date of January 1, 2021 which will allow us to absorb the significant minimum wage increase and the ensuing wage compression issues that will be created.
• The salary threshold to be set at 1.5 – 1.75 times the state minimum wage ($42,120 - $49,140).
• Moving forward, the salary threshold and any ensuing increases be set relative to the Consumer Price Index, not on the minimum wage.
• Some consideration for regionalization…for instance the cost of living in Seattle is 110% higher than Spokane.
• A phase-in approach that would allow the top threshold to be reached over a five-year period, 2021 – 2025.
• Attention paid to aligning the state and federal job duties test.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our concerns around the impact of the proposed rules on the Y as charitable, nonprofit entities, while we share the mutual goals of supporting the hardworking people of Washington.

(Submitted on 12/10/18 by Emmanuel Reyes, Bella Casa Service Management, LLC)

Hi there,

I own a small business in the state of Washington. This initiative will really make small business struggle, we are paying increases on minimum wage as required by law, we now started to pay Paid Sick Leave, and if this initiative goes thru, it will really pose a negative financial impact on small businesses all across Washington. Plus, I don't think the feedback process is fair as there are more salary employees than employers in the state of Washington, so if all salary employees were to participate in the decision and all employers were to do the same, the result would benefit the employees no matter what.

I do think that employers should pay a fair price to salary employees for multiple reasons, in most cases, salary employees do work longer hours and have bigger responsibilities than a regular hourly employee but this initiative would prevent us from giving our salary employees well deserved bonus, paid vacations, voluntary paid sick time etc.

I really hope the state of Washington thinks and takes into consideration the feedback and voting system that will always favor the employees and not the employers, putting employers in a very tight financial situation.

(Submitted on 12/10/18 by Mark Kenworthy, Kenworthy Machine LLC)

Hi – What you are currently discussing does not affect our business, but the change we would much appreciate is to allow us in the private sector to offer our employees comp time in lieu of overtime pay, with employees receiving 1.5 hours of comp time for each hour of overtime worked. Public employees are provided with this benefit, and it is unfair that private sector employees cannot also have access to this benefit.

If I was writing the code, I would also allow the employee to cash out their current or saved comp time at any normal pay period, if the decide they want the $ instead of the time off. This would prevent any company for forcing employees to take comp time in lieu of overtime pay and provide employees with maximum flexibility in trading off comp time versus overtime pay.

Thanks for your consideration,

(Submitted on 12/8/18 by Rob MIssal)

THE COST OF LIVING AND WAGES ARE VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE WEST SIDE TO THE EAST SIDE.I AM ON THE EAST SIDE AND HAVE A 14 AC ORCHARD IF OVERTIME GOES TO 2.5 TIMES THERE WILL NOT BE A 40 PLUS HOUR WORK WEEK,WITH THE H2A WAGE AT 14 AN HR PAYING A WORKER 35 DOLLARS AN HR WHEN JUST 4 YRS AGO HE WAS MAKEING 10-11 DOLLARS PER HR. WON T HAPPEN.

(Submitted on 12/7/18 by Sandy Eslick, Permit Surveying Inc.)

I’m sorry but I feel that L&I and state should stay out of what to pay your people. Also the Prevailing Wages should be re-tracked. What happened to bidding for jobs and people wanting to advance by educating themselves for better pay & jobs…

(Submitted on 12/7/18 by Amy Gunnar, Portage Bay Cafe)

My name is Amy Gunnar. I own/operate Portage Bay Cafe in Seattle and am proud to employ 150-180 people in our four locations.

If these rules were adopted as currently proposed, I would not be able to continue to bring up managers from within. This step removes a middle ground wage that has been allowed us to move our staff from line cooks up to Sous and Chefs, while increasing their wages accordingly.

As a business operator in our state I wanted to ensure my voice is heard in the rulemaking process for the Executive, Administrative and Professional exemptions from the Minimum Wage Act, including overtime exemptions and an update of the salary threshold. As a member of Washington’s hospitality industry, I am particularly interested in preserving my ability to provide my employees with opportunities to advance their careers.

As written, the pre-draft rules propose to tie the minimum wage to the salary threshold to a range of $56,000 - $70,000 adjusted annually or 2 – 2.5 times the state minimum wage. Adopting a salary threshold tied to any multiplier of the minimum wage would erase those mid-career management positions that are critical to climbing the hospitality career ladder. Removal of the mid-career positions and leaving all managerial positions to upper management would undercut the workforce in an already tough labor market.

I appreciate the Department’s willingness to consider a phase in, but the two suggested approaches perpetuate the challenges created by such a drastic increase in the salary threshold. I request the Department not pick winners and losers based on geographic location or size of business. Rather, the phase in should span at least four years to give all businesses ample time to implement changes and update their business practices. Over the last three years the hospitality industry has continued to struggle with the impacts of a 40 percent increase in the minimum wage contained in I-1433. To be clear, with these new pre-draft rules the Department is suggesting a nearly 300 percent increase in wages for our employees. As an employer, this increase will likely have a negative impact on the career ladder and opportunities in my business.

I am proud to serve my community and provide all levels of jobs for my employees. I ask L&I to consider the overall economic impact and harm these updated pre-draft rules could have on our state’s economy. The hospitality industry is not the only sector that may have to drastically shift because of the outcome of these rules.

Thank you for the opportunity to be engaged with this process through the submission of my comments.

(Submitted on 12/7/18 by Ryan Suddendorf, Evergreens)

My name is Ryan. I own/operate Evergreens and am proud to employ over 200 people in Western Washington.

If these rules were adopted as currently proposed, I would be forced to raise prices to accommodate the higher wages and cut hours to maintain our financial goals. We currently pay well above minimum wage and provide other benefits such as a reimbursement for healthy living activities every month. We would have to remove those as a result of higher wages.

As a business operator in our state I wanted to ensure my voice is heard in the rulemaking process for the Executive, Administrative and Professional exemptions from the Minimum Wage Act, including overtime exemptions and an update of the salary threshold. As a member of Washington’s hospitality industry, I am particularly interested in preserving my ability to provide my employees with opportunities to advance their careers.

As written, the pre-draft rules propose to tie the minimum wage to the salary threshold to a range of $56,000 - $70,000 adjusted annually or 2 – 2.5 times the state minimum wage. Adopting a salary threshold tied to any multiplier of the minimum wage would erase those mid-career management positions that are critical to climbing the hospitality career ladder. Removal of the mid-career positions and leaving all managerial positions to upper management would undercut the workforce in an already tough labor market.

I appreciate the Department’s willingness to consider a phase in, but the two suggested approaches perpetuate the challenges created by such a drastic increase in the salary threshold. I request the Department not pick winners and losers based on geographic location or size of business. Rather, the phase-in should span at least four years to give all businesses ample time to implement changes and update their business practices. Over the last three years the hospitality industry has continued to struggle with the impacts of a 40 percent increase in the minimum wage contained in I-1433. To be clear, with these new pre-draft rules the Department is suggesting a nearly 300 percent increase in wages for our employees. As an employer, this increase will likely have a negative impact on the career ladder and opportunities in my business.

I am proud to serve my community and provide all levels of jobs for my employees. I ask L&I to consider the overall economic impact and harm these updated pre-draft rules could have on our state’s economy. The hospitality industry is not the only sector that may have to drastically shift because of the outcome of these rules.

Thank you for the opportunity to be engaged with this process through the submission of my comments.

(Submitted on 12/7/18 by Bryce Kerr)

Simply put… This is crippling people like me who are trying to run a business. With the minimum wage in Washington state already been the highest in the nation this proposal make it almost impossible to run my business. I would be forced to not have salaried employees. There is no way I can pay that salary.

I appreciate the opportunity to be a part of the solution and submit my comments to you.

(Submitted on 12/7/18 by Jay Larson)

My name is Jay Larson. I am a member of the leadership team at my hotel and am proud to employ more than 500 people in 2018 in Seattle.

If these rules were adopted, I would be forced to consider options to mitigate that could include not replacing positions or eliminating some promotional opportunities.

I appreciate the opportunity to express my thoughts on the updated pre-draft rules for the Executive, Administrative and Professional exemptions from the state Minimum Wage Act, including the update of overtime exemptions and the salary threshold.

I am a hospitality industry operator who is proud to provide jobs at all levels to people in my community. The hospitality industry is an industry of opportunity that offers everything from first-time jobs to lifelong careers. I want to continue to invest in my employees and provide them with opportunities to advance their careers in hospitality or elsewhere.

I am very concerned about tying the salary overtime threshold to a range of 2 – 2.5 times the minimum wage or a salary of $56,000 - $70,000 and adjusted annually. Adopting a salary threshold tied to any multiplier of the state minimum wage will create a wage gap between my employees and management and will ultimately harm jobs by eliminating middle-management positions.

I appreciate the Department’s willingness to consider a phase in, but the two suggested approaches perpetuate the challenges created by such a drastic increase in the salary threshold. I request the Department not pick winners and losers based on geographic location or size of business. Rather, the phase in should span at least four years to give all businesses ample time to implement changes and update their business practices. Over the last three years the hospitality industry has continued to struggle with the impacts of a 40 percent increase in the minimum wage contained in I-1433. To be clear, with these new pre-draft rules the Department is suggesting a nearly 300 percent increase in wages for our employees. As an employer, this increase will likely have a negative impact on the career ladder and opportunities in my business.

I ask L&I to align any proposed changes to these exemptions with federal rules. As a business operator, we need alignment at the local, state and federal levels of government to help reduce confusion.

I am a proud member of my community and want to continue to provide jobs for employees at all levels, including middle-management positions. I ask for L&I to consider the impact of these pre-draft rules on the hospitality careers and our community and economy.

(Submitted on 12/7/18 by Michael Ellinghouse, HuHGot Mongolan Grill)

My name is Michael. I own/operate HuHGot Mongolan Grill and am proud to employ 40 people in 2018.

If these rules were adopted, I would be put into a position of changing all salaried employees to an hourly wage. The states continued mandates of increasing wages makes it difficult or impossible for smaller business to invest in or expand their businesses.

I appreciate the opportunity to express my thoughts on the updated pre-draft rules for the Executive, Administrative and Professional exemptions from the state Minimum Wage Act, including the update of overtime exemptions and the salary threshold.

I am a hospitality industry operator who is proud to provide jobs at all levels to people in my community. The hospitality industry is an industry of opportunity that offers everything from first-time jobs to lifelong careers. I want to continue to invest in my employees and provide them with opportunities to advance their careers in hospitality or elsewhere.

I am very concerned about tying the salary overtime threshold to a range of 2 – 2.5 times the minimum wage or a salary of $56,000 - $70,000 and adjusted annually. Adopting a salary threshold tied to any multiplier of the state minimum wage will create a wage gap between my employees and management and will ultimately harm jobs by eliminating middle-management positions.

I appreciate the Department’s willingness to consider a phase in, but the two suggested approaches perpetuate the challenges created by such a drastic increase in the salary threshold. I request the Department not pick winners and losers based on geographic location or size of business. Rather, the phase in should span at least four years to give all businesses ample time to implement changes and update their business practices. Over the last three years the hospitality industry has continued to struggle with the impacts of a 40 percent increase in the minimum wage contained in I-1433. To be clear, with these new pre-draft rules the Department is suggesting a nearly 300 percent increase in wages for our employees. As an employer, this increase will likely have a negative impact on the career ladder and opportunities in my business.

I ask L&I to align any proposed changes to these exemptions with federal rules. As a business operator, we need alignment at the local, state and federal levels of government to help reduce confusion.

I am a proud member of my community and want to continue to provide jobs for employees at all levels, including middle-management positions. I ask for L&I to consider the impact of these pre-draft rules on the hospitality careers and our community and economy.

(Submitted on 12/7/18 by Susan Mendenhall, IHOP)

My name is Susan Mendenhall. I own/operate 2 IHOP restaurants and am proud to employ 90 people in Tri-Cities.

If these rules were adopted as currently proposed, I would be forced to demote salaried manages to hourly, reducing the number of hours; thus pay that they receive.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on behalf of the updated pre-draft rules for the Executive, Administrative and Professional exemptions from the state Minimum Wage Act including the update of overtime exemptions and the salary threshold.

We understand that an update on this topic is appropriate; however, I would like to raise several concerns with elements of the updated pre-draft proposal. My first concern is about the future of the hospitality industry and its career ladder.

As a business operator, I am proud to be able to invest in my employees, see them gain valuable skills and transfer them into leadership opportunities as they advance their careers. I am concerned that tying the salary overtime threshold to a range of $56,000 - $70,000 adjusted annually or 2 – 2.5 times the minimum wage will discourage my ability to provide more upward career growth opportunities. Adopting any multiplier of the minimum wage would create a wage gap between my employees and management. Undercutting and harming my employees by removal of the middle-management career ladder rungs would not benefit them, my business or the state economy.

I appreciate the Department’s willingness to consider a phase in, but the two suggested approaches perpetuate the challenges created by such a drastic increase in the salary threshold. I request the Department not pick winners and losers based on geographic location or size of business. Rather, the phase in should span at least four years to give all businesses ample time to implement changes and update their business practices. Over the last three years the hospitality industry has continued to struggle with the impacts of a 40 percent increase in the minimum wage contained in I-1433. To be clear, with these new pre-draft rules the Department is suggesting a nearly 300 percent increase in wages for our employees. As an employer, this increase will likely have a negative impact on the career ladder and opportunities in my business.

I am asking L&I to wait for the federal government to update their rules before moving forward with this process. We need alignment at the local, state and federal levels of government.

I appreciate the opportunity to be a part of the solution and submit my comments to you.

(Submitted on 12/7/18 by Tom Douglas)

My name is Tom Douglas. I own/operate Restaurants and am proud to employ 900 people in Seattle.

You all are killing our ability to stay solvent in the current marketplace. With the current rules in place and the enormous additional expenses added to our employee cost over the past few years we are unprofitable for the first time in our 29 years of operations. Stop trying to socialize our state and then expect us to operate as capitalist. They do not work together! I am well known for being a terrific and fair employer. You have to stop cutting our legs out from under us.

I appreciate the opportunity to express my thoughts on the updated pre-draft rules for the Executive, Administrative and Professional exemptions from the state Minimum Wage Act, including the update of overtime exemptions and the salary threshold.

I am a hospitality industry operator who is proud to provide jobs at all levels to people in my community. The hospitality industry is an industry of opportunity that offers everything from first-time jobs to lifelong careers. I want to continue to invest in my employees and provide them with opportunities to advance their careers in hospitality or elsewhere.

I am very concerned about tying the salary overtime threshold to a range of 2 – 2.5 times the minimum wage or a salary of $56,000 - $70,000 and adjusted annually. Adopting a salary threshold tied to any multiplier of the state minimum wage will create a wage gap between my employees and management and will ultimately harm jobs by eliminating middle-management positions.

I appreciate the Department’s willingness to consider a phase in, but the two suggested approaches perpetuate the challenges created by such a drastic increase in the salary threshold. I request the Department not pick winners and losers based on geographic location or size of business. Rather, the phase in should span at least four years to give all businesses ample time to implement changes and update their business practices. Over the last three years the hospitality industry has continued to struggle with the impacts of a 40 percent increase in the minimum wage contained in I-1433. To be clear, with these new pre-draft rules the Department is suggesting a nearly 300 percent increase in wages for our employees. As an employer, this increase will likely have a negative impact on the career ladder and opportunities in my business.

I ask L&I to align any proposed changes to these exemptions with federal rules. As a business operator, we need alignment at the local, state and federal levels of government to help reduce confusion.

I am a proud member of my community and want to continue to provide jobs for employees at all levels, including middle-management positions. I ask for L&I to consider the impact of these pre-draft rules on the hospitality careers and our community and economy.

(Submitted on 12/7/18 by Reggie Matto)

My name is Reggie. I own/operate a hotel and am proud to employ 15 people in Washington.

If these rules were adopted, I would lose money. It's getting too hard to operate as a small business and more payroll/taxes will cause a loss in my hotel. We have a service sector and such high wages are too high for the service of the job

I appreciate the opportunity to express my thoughts on the updated pre-draft rules for the Executive, Administrative and Professional exemptions from the state Minimum Wage Act, including the update of overtime exemptions and the salary threshold.

I am a hospitality industry operator who is proud to provide jobs at all levels to people in my community. The hospitality industry is an industry of opportunity that offers everything from first-time jobs to lifelong careers. I want to continue to invest in my employees and provide them with opportunities to advance their careers in hospitality or elsewhere.

I am very concerned about tying the salary overtime threshold to a range of 2 – 2.5 times the minimum wage or a salary of $56,000 - $70,000 and adjusted annually. Adopting a salary threshold tied to any multiplier of the state minimum wage will create a wage gap between my employees and management and will ultimately harm jobs by eliminating middle-management positions.

I appreciate the Department’s willingness to consider a phase in, but the two suggested approaches perpetuate the challenges created by such a drastic increase in the salary threshold. I request the Department not pick winners and losers based on geographic location or size of business. Rather, the phase in should span at least four years to give all businesses ample time to implement changes and update their business practices. Over the last three years the hospitality industry has continued to struggle with the impacts of a 40 percent increase in the minimum wage contained in I-1433. To be clear, with these new pre-draft rules the Department is suggesting a nearly 300 percent increase in wages for our employees. As an employer, this increase will likely have a negative impact on the career ladder and opportunities in my business.

I ask L&I to align any proposed changes to these exemptions with federal rules. As a business operator, we need alignment at the local, state and federal levels of government to help reduce confusion.

I am a proud member of my community and want to continue to provide jobs for employees at all levels, including middle-management positions. I ask for L&I to consider the impact of these pre-draft rules on the hospitality careers and our community and economy.

(Submitted on 12/7/18 by Lisa Haberthur)

My name is Lisa. I own/operate a restaurant and am proud to employ 20 people in Vancouver, WA.

If these rules were adopted as currently proposed, I would end up having to close my business.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on behalf of the updated pre-draft rules for the Executive, Administrative and Professional exemptions from the state Minimum Wage Act including the update of overtime exemptions and the salary threshold.

We understand that an update on this topic is appropriate; however, I would like to raise several concerns with elements of the updated pre-draft proposal. My first concern is about the future of the hospitality industry and its career ladder.

As a business operator, I am proud to be able to invest in my employees, see them gain valuable skills and transfer them into leadership opportunities as they advance their careers. I am concerned that tying the salary overtime threshold to a range of $56,000 - $70,000 adjusted annually or 2 – 2.5 times the minimum wage will discourage my ability to provide more upward career growth opportunities. Adopting any multiplier of the minimum wage would create a wage gap between my employees and management. Undercutting and harming my employees by removal of the middle-management career ladder rungs would not benefit them, my business or the state economy.

I appreciate the Department’s willingness to consider a phase in, but the two suggested approaches perpetuate the challenges created by such a drastic increase in the salary threshold. I request the Department not pick winners and losers based on geographic location or size of business. Rather, the phase in should span at least four years to give all businesses ample time to implement changes and update their business practices. Over the last three years the hospitality industry has continued to struggle with the impacts of a 40 percent increase in the minimum wage contained in I-1433. To be clear, with these new pre-draft rules the Department is suggesting a nearly 300 percent increase in wages for our employees. As an employer, this increase will likely have a negative impact on the career ladder and opportunities in my business.

I am asking L&I to wait for the federal government to update their rules before moving forward with this process. We need alignment at the local, state and federal levels of government.

I appreciate the opportunity to be a part of the solution and submit my comments to you.