I have been tossing about a number of different things to write about for a little while, and finally settled on this one. I will lay out one issue recently voted on, show arguments made on both sides, and what is starting to happen as the result.
The issue I’m focusing on is Washington State Initiative 1183. For those outside the state, Washington State has an initiative process. From the FAQ on the Washington Secretary of State’s site on Initiatives: ‘The Washington State Constitution reserves to the people the right to approve or reject certain state laws through the process of initiative or referendum. A registered voter, or group of voters, desiring to qualify an initiative or referendum for the ballot must gather signatures on petitions in order to do so.’ I –1183 was one of three initiatives on this year’s general election ballot. The initiative dealt with the sale of ‘spirits’ i.e., hard liquor.
Prior to this, sale of spirits was controlled by the state. Either state run stores or ‘contract liquor stores’ could sell spirits. Some of the revenues were used to help fund alcohol and drug treatment and prevention programs. The initiative eliminates the state run liquor stores, removes the liquor control boards power to set prices and oversee the the contract liquor stores, directs the state liquor store assets to be sold and the store locations to be auctioned. Stores or individuals must pay a fee to obtain a liquor license. I summarized the state Attorney General’s statement on the initiative for brevity. You can read the full statement here.
Arguments for the passage of this initiative (provided in the Washington State Voter’s Pamphlet) can be summarized as follows: This will get the state out of the business of selling liquor (where it doesn’t belong). Additional revenue will be generated through the licensing fees that can be used to pay for education, health care, and public safety. Arguments against the initiative can be summarized this way: This initiative will quadruple the number of stores selling liquor leading to more problem drinking to include drunk driving, which will overburden police and first responders. The major beneficiary if this passes are the big chain stores. Again, you can review the full statements of each side can be found with the full statement of the initiative at the link above.
I – 1183 passed with approximately 60 percent voting for the initiative. I did not vote for this, as one thing I did not hear mentioned (by either yes or no groups) was the cost of transitioning both in money and jobs. Looking through the voter’s guide, the only statement regarding jobs and cost was a ‘one time cost’ for unemployment, sick leave and vacation time buyout of $28 million during 2012 and 2013’ mentioned in the impact statement. Why would I look at jobs? High unemployment, and a difficult economy cause me to focus on this. My title refers to the fact people probably did not look at the potential effect on jobs.
I came across this article discussing the fallout from passage of I – 1183. One of the major impacts listed is the loss of over 900 jobs next year. Looking at which jobs are affected, it’s the store clerks, warehouse distribution workers, and store managers. Some may say they were ‘on the public dole’ and that they need to learn to ‘find jobs like the rest of us’, but that is not how to treat people, no matter what you think of the policy behind it. The salaries of the people currently marked to lose their jobs is between $10 and $21/hour. Will there be additional people hired at the new stores? Probably, but not as many, and the benefits for those people will most likely be less than the state employees. Will stores like Albertsons, Safeway, and Costco hire additional people to deal with the additional stock and sales? I doubt it.
Now, do I think the state should have been involved in the liquor sale business in the first place? No. What I’m getting at (or the bottom line) is: jobs are jobs, no matter what. Whether you are employed by the federal government (in the case of the military, bureaucrats, and federal civil servants like myself), state government (in the case of these state liquor store employees), local government or a private company, everyone tries to find the best possible employment opportunity available. And it is an opportunity, no matter how you look at it.
Looking at this issue caused me to ask this question: what is the purpose of a business? Looking back 100 – 150 years ago, stores were designed with two purposes; to provide the owner with a living, and to provide needed goods and services to the community. I have no doubt the owners and executive boards of the ‘big chain stores’ are making a very good living. I’m not sure, however, if those stores are providing ‘needed’ goods and services. There’s an idea of service, of helping others found then (not that there weren’t people trying to cheat each other – that’s human nature for you) that is missing today.
Now, if people are willing to spend their money in those places, I’m not going to get mad at them. Everyone’s made their choice, and making their choice, and we need to deal with it. It would be better for everyone involved, however, if we started looking at what may occur when we make certain choices. We just may be taking opportunities, or even a living, from our neighbors. There are faces behind those numbers. We would do well to remember that.
