Seattle policy debates are heating up! And attending hearings, meetings, and pulling together my research reminds me that I made the right choice to earn a masters in Public Policy. A public meeting last week provided additional confirmation.
 |
The room wasn't as full as The Chamber expected but it
was surely full of heated debate. You can kind of
see me sitting behind the camera on the right side. |
The Seattle Chamber of Commerce hosted a 'forum' (term used very loosely since it turned into a bit more of an open mic, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, just different than what it may have been marketed as) with six panelists to discuss the details and respond to questions about the proposed paid sick leave ordinance for all city employees. Seattle would be following in the path of San Francisco, the state of Connecticut, Washington D.C. and Milwaukee. As both a public health and a social justice issue, paid sick leave is the right thing for the city to mandate.
The panel featured three ardent supporters of the policy (all women) who each offered compelling stories about why the legislation is necessary: a school nurse, the owner of Cupcake Royale and the Policy Director from the
Economic Opportunity Institute. However, there were certainly some angry voices from the other side of the issue including the director from the
Washington Policy Center's Center for Small Business (as the Center states, they 'promote sound public policy based on free-market solutions), a representative from the
Seattle Society for Human Resource Management and spokesman from the
REAL coalition (which you would hope would advocate for strong benefits packages for workers which include paid sick leave...) and a small business owner who operates several H and R Block franchises.
From an observer's standpoint (granted, as an observer with a very strong alliance to mandated paid sick leave policies), there was one overarching pattern that delineated the speakers and their allegiances. Those in favor of the legislation shared stories, personal anecdotes, and appealed to a call for social justice and public health. Those opposed said there simply wasn't enough data. They wanted the empirical evidence. And this was repeated over and over and over again without citing exactly why they were insisting on time-consuming economic analyses when they have been done on cities with policies already in place.
To be honest, it felt like a stalling tactic and one that didn't have the teeth to compete against the woman who stood up and shared that she couldn't take time off when her child is sick. She very simply explained that this jeopardizes her job and results in the loss of a full day's income. Data is important but I believe it really does make a difference to hear personal anecdotes about how a policy will impact an individual family. It's why I'm making sure to have both numbers and stories to back up what women have told me throughout the summer.
On a slightly different note, after the panel, I chatted briefly with the school nurse who had shared such powerful anecdotes from her time in the school system. She spoke about children who would come to her sick but beg her not to call their parent, knowing they couldn't leave work to come pick them up.
Not only was she a compelling speaker, but her public health background marks her an expert who understands human needs. I told her how strong a panelist she was and that she should consider running for office. Knowing how few women think they 'can' or 'should' become involved in electoral politics, I've decided to make sure I tell someone when they strike me as such. After all, wasn't it that recent
NYT's article where research suggested that women run for office to 'accomplish something' and because someone else tells them they'd be good at it?
