It’s understandable why some Spokane voters would be attracted initially to the feel-good goals of Proposition 1, also called the “Worker Bill of Rights,” which will be on the Nov. 3 election. The devil truly is in the details, though, and the controversial measure ultimately would have a crippling effect on economic development efforts here, driving companies away and stifling job growth.

We urge voters to educate themselves about the measure, ignoring its enchanting Sirens’ song allure, and then vote “no.”

Prop. 1 is a proposed amendment to the Spokane City Charter that, through its four components, would create enforceable rights to a family wage, to equal pay, and to not be wrongfully terminated, and also would make corporate powers subordinate to “people’s rights.” 

It will be worded just about that simply on the ballot.

However, the myriad of problems that would be created if it’s approved should be readily apparent to anyone who takes the time to read the proposed amendment thoroughly and also the opposing points of the broadly-backed Alliance to Protect Local Jobs. They can be viewed at protectspokanejobs.com.

Here are a few of the major concerns to consider.

Aside from its dubious constitutionality, which remains to be determined, the proposition is vaguely worded and would open the door to a no-doubt steady stream of lawsuits, including against the city, with city taxpayers footing the bill for those.

The overall cost of implementing and enforcing Prop. 1 clearly would be substantial. For that reason, city voters also will be voting on two related measures that will ask them whether the city should reallocate funds from other programs or seek other funding sources to implement the measure if it’s approved. 

The Worker Bill of Rights is an initiative of Envision Worker Rights, a sister political committee to the idealistically misguided Envision Spokane group. The former group contends in a purported fiscal impact analysis on its website that adopting Prop. 1 would produce a net fiscal gain for the city and that the community overall would benefit economically. It bases that finding mostly on the economic impact of the family-wage component, which would pertain to all employers with more than 150 workers, and theoretically would drive up tax revenues and disposable income.

But its conclusions are nonsense, as the melding of real-world market forces with Spokane’s still fragile economy soon would show.

Arguably the most outrageous component, the one that would make corporate powers subordinate to people’s rights, would strip employers of their right to challenge family-wage determinations and, thus, to reasonably defend themselves against lawsuits. That component, by itself, seems unlikely to survive state Supreme Court review.

The vast majority of employers here, we would argue, want to pay their workers a decent wage and strive to treat them fairly in all other respects. Using a city charter change to try to strictly regulate those workplace decisions is wrongheaded and certain to do far more harm than good.