Or to be able to hire a staff so that he doesn't do the work at all. There are some jobs that are so low, the cost of them is so low, that he couldn't afford to hire the people to do it if he had to pay prevailing wages in every instance. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Well, we do monitor our bids. And when bids come in, just as some of them are ridiculously high, we investigate them. 78 BILL NO. 960823 If they are ridiculously low, we do the same thing. We must take the lowest responsible bid. But when a bidder comes in and the bid is outlandish, we won't accept it.
Because that's not really a savings, because you are still going to have to pay money to come in and finish the work at a level that we can accept. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Exactly right. Exactly.
Just one other addendum to your story on the contractor who lost in federal court. That individual was awarded the bid initially as the lowest responsible bidder; correct? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Yes.
Correct. And at some point in time during the course of that contract, he snuckered us. How did we catch him? How did we catch that individual to bar him or to remove him from the contract and wind up in federal court in the first place? 79 BILL NO. 960823 If we followed the process of the lowest responsible bidder, he would have never got the job in the first place. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Well, no. 6 DEPUTY
That was brought to my attention by -- Local 98 submitted a document to my office with some allegations against the contractor which we weren't aware of before. In fact, his violations were in Jersey. And my office had investigated and found those allegations to be true. And then we took them to Commissioner Applebaum's office.
And the violations in Jersey were committed after the award of the contract, during the course of the work. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: The violations were actually --
In New Jersey. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: -- they were prior.
No. You are missing my point. The violations in New Jersey that were brought to your attention, were they or were 80 BILL NO. 960823 they not violations that were done during the course of the contract, the Jersey contract? DEPUTY
Yes. That's my point. My point is that the individual who got the New Jersey bid, one, he is the lowest responsible bidder, then began to do the bid, then began to do the work. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: No. No. 12 The contractor never was awarded the contract.
In the City of Philadelphia, it was never awarded the contract. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Right.
In New Jersey, where he did the violations he did, whatever violations he did, he did in the course of a contract that he was duly awarded. DEPUTY
So he was, in that case in New Jersey, the lowest responsible bidder who turned out not to be a very responsible contractor because he didn't pay prevailing wages and he did other things to falsify records and other 81 BILL NO. 960823 things to show that he was being a prevailing wage rate payer. Okay? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Correct.
So now he comes to Philadelphia and he bids, and he is the lowest responsible bidder again. Now, without those violations that we became aware of from New Jersey, we would have wound up awarding him that contract. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: You are correct.
And it is possible -- not definite, but possible -- he would have continued his practice in Philadelphia of falsifying records, paying people below prevailing wage, and pocketing the money. DEPUTY
And I guess that's what we are trying to avoid by strengthening this legislation to ensure that individuals like that do not get contracts with the city, and we don't have to wind up in federal court in the first 82 BILL NO. 960823 place. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: That's why we all support this ordinance, with the adjustments and amendments that we are suggesting to.
What I want to do is -- again, and I appreciate your patience with me, Commissioner, because we had these long discussions on the telephone about these issues which I raised earlier. This is -- I think you agree because you are supporting the bill -- extremely important, to ensure that not only do we get the best value -- I won't say that -- the best value for our dollar, but also people get a wage they can raise their families on. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: You are correct.
Thank you very much. Any questions for these witnesses? Thank you very much. DEPUTY
Thank you. Mr. Gillespie. And if Mr. Shields would like to come up, too, if he is here, or 83 BILL NO. 960823 Mr. Harris. Could you please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
My name is Pat Gillespie. I am the Business Manager of the Philadelphia Building Trades Council. And I am here to, firstly, applaud you, Councilmen and women, in endeavoring to correct and improve on an Ordinance that will, hopefully, prevent the city from being bottom feeders when it comes to contracting services and contracting work out. The object, and the stated object, of the prevailing wage law is to see to it that a standard is followed, that wages and fringe benefits are paid, and that the work that you are contracting out to have performed are performed by men and women who are trained and qualified to do that work. So the impact of these curative steps in the Ordinance that will help the city's prevailing wage procedures, we applaud and we support. Also, I would like to encourage you to pursue the service work. Because by merely 84 BILL NO. 960823 saying, well, it is hard to administer, or that it is going to cost more money, kind of flies in the face of an ethical approach to running government. Again, on a smaller project where -- and smaller work, where you have people doing janitorial service, which I guess the hourly wage rate may be or dollars an hour, it is kind of 9 difficult to pay the mortgage and pay the tuition 10 payments and pay other things on 9 and 10 dollars an hour. But what the city is saying by saying they can't, that would be too expensive for them to pay for those janitorial services, they are saying, well, then, these folks, we have to pay them less. I mean, I always laugh at the objection -- the standard objections initially by the procurement officer was that it would hinder utilization of minority contractors. I mean, that's been stated against Davis Bacon since Davis Bacon was enacted. And we have proven that that is not a fact. As a matter of fact, especially in the service sector of industry in Philadelphia, I would think that it would do more to -- how would 85 BILL NO. 960823 you say? -- raise everyone's boat if we start looking after folks who tend to our services, like the janitorial things. So I applaud you for doing that. And, if need be, I am willing to be interrogated.
"Ethical approach to running government." "Hinder utilization of minority contractors." Would you say that there is absolute equality among qualified workers to membership in the building trades?
Is there any bar based on race or gender to people being card-carrying union members in building trades? 86 BILL NO. 960823
I am not hearing you, I guess. Would you ask the question again.
Maybe I can speak for Mr. Gillespie when I answer this question. I carry a card in Local 98, which is the electricians union. When you are busy working on the job, it don't matter if the guy next to you or woman next to you is black, white, or Puerto Rican. You have to do the work, and you do it, and you get done.
But you have that luxury. I want to talk to Mr. Gillespie. And he has building trades, and he has an idea of who constitutes the membership of the various constituent unions. And now, Mr. Gillespie, I ask you whether, in your estimation, minorities and women are fairly represented in the constituent unions of the building trades.
Are there any bars and barriers still up that prevent their free interaction into the unions?
Not that I am aware of. We made great strides in including people into the building trades unions.
This is relatively new, or has it always been like that?
No, it is not relatively new. I have been working at this since 1982. And the percentage makeup of the Philadelphia Building Trades right now is, there are 42 percent African-Americans in the Philadelphia Building Trades membership.
Where are they in this room to? Where are they? Out there working? So are you going to say to me --
Well, excuse me a minute. Is your point that -- because I am hearing a tone in your voice, Councilwoman. And if the tone is that the building 88 BILL NO. 960823 trades is just a bunch of white guys from the suburbs, that is not correct.
Let me help you before you put too much on this record and attribute it to me. Okay? You better work on what I say, not what my tone seems to say. I need help on a lot of things, fighting, running, and things physical; not thinking and not talking. So I can make you understand me. I am asking you whether you have minorities and women represented in your union in the same rates as they participate in the work force? What we in affirmative action call work force utilization data.
Yes. As a matter of fact, I think we have a pretty good -- I am kind of taken back by the question because of all the strides that we have made in this regard, as I stated for the record. 89 BILL NO. 960823
The impact, this gives you an opportunity to brag a little bit. Put upon the public record where we were and where we are now, and you can take credit for the games.
There is always credit and blame enough to go around. Don't worry about that.
Well, the blame gets put upon the Business Manager of the building trades when things go on. I have to include the credit to the various Business Managers in the trades who have their apprentice coordinators going out weekly in the evenings to various schools to let children know what this is they have to study --
-- in order to be candidates for apprenticeship. 90 BILL NO. 960823
Will you share with us, perhaps at a later date, a written record of where you were ten years ago, where you were five years ago --
-- and where you are now? Then that way we won't have your opinion versus my opinion; we will be working with some facts.
Fine. I would be happy to do that. Also, just for your edification, you can look to our program with the Philadelphia Housing Authority that we instituted. It was an initiative of the Philadelphia Building Trades Council member unions that has put through a training program a number of residents, most of whom are women, to familiarize themselves with the construction industry, as they help repair apartments and make them habitable for other tenants.
And I am aware of that, and I applaud you for it. It is the kind 91 BILL NO. 960823 of thing, in fact it is the exact kind of thing, that I think needs to be talked about, put upon the public record so that it can be replicated. Now, I don't want you to interpret my tone. You interpret my words. Calm yourself down. This is not a fight. You and I may be on the same side of this issue. But I am going to ask the question, and then I am going to listen to your answer. But I am going to ask the question.
Well, the other project I could point to, where the building trades made commitments for inclusion, especially neighborhood inclusion -- which is a little more difficult because you have to select members who not only are of a certain gender or race, but who then live in a certain zip code. And we are down to that kind of sophistication, without jeopardizing other members' rights to a job.
Now, we raised this issue years ago -- it might have been me who raised it -- about how offensive it is to be an 92 BILL NO. 960823 unemployed resident of public housing, and watch some guy get out of a raggedy car, with a Jersey tag, and carry gallons of tar to the top of a 5 two-story public housing development. So we are not -- and that has been as recently as in the last few years that I have said that.
Well, more than likely it was a non-union roofing contractor, too, if he was getting out of a raggedy car.
They are probably cheating him. The other project I would like to point to, of course, is the Convention Center, where we received national acclaim for our inclusion program, and it is used as a model. The CoreStates Center, the --
Wait a minute. Let's talk about the Convention Center. Because the Convention Center was slowed down as we fought over participation of race from this Council. I do not say, I do not say, that 93 BILL NO. 960823 gains have not been made. These gains have always been hard fought and bitterly won, and we have miles to go before we sleep. This work is not yet completely done.
Well, the point of this ordinance that we're discussing --
Yes. The proposal will be to ensure that the policing of the prevailing wage statutes is done more efficiently, and will, hopefully, prevent -- at the risk of offending gypsies -- the gypsy-type contractor who doesn't have a root or any kind of substance in our communities. And that's why we embraced this. Quite frankly, there is a whole school of thought -- and I don't want to get into this -- that one of the problems that organized labor is having is that we are becoming victims of our own success. Because we come before governing bodies and say, look, everyone, regardless of collective bargaining, should be paid a fair wage. That's, in effect, what we are saying here. 94 BILL NO. 960823 Now, there is a school of thought saying, you know, maybe we should just go out and organize them, and then demand it from someone else and make everyone union. And I know there are a lot of people who subscribe to that. But insofar as inclusion into the building trades of multi-cultural work force, it is there, and it has been there for quite some time. And it is something that I am proud of.
I am proud of the effort that we have begun. I assure you that there is much work that remains to be done. And this record is an opportunity for us to again publicly commit to the ideal of inclusion and removing barriers which do still exist, which have historically existed, and which have kept people out of labor unions. I wish it were otherwise. I wish it were otherwise. But it is not so, and it will not be different because we sit here and revise history.
Well, Councilwoman, I am not revising history; I am just stating the facts of what we are and who we are, and what we do to 95 BILL NO. 960823 accommodate that problem that you stated.
Thank you very much. Any other questions for Mr. Gillespie? Mr. Harris. Mr. Gillespie, the request was made that you send any written documentation reports to the Chair.
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Robert Harris. I am the Assistant to the President of Service Employees International Union, Local 36. We are the union in Center City that cleans all the office buildings. And, actually, we clean City Hall, the Municipal Service Building.
You do a very 96 BILL NO. 960823 good job, too, I must say. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Those are our members. I have with us one of our organizers.
My name is Joe Shields. I am an organizer with SCIU, Local 36.
Mr. Chairman, I would love to see a perfect world, and I would love to see this ordinance passed in its original state. But I know that's not the real world, and I know there are amendments and things that happen during the course of the political process. I would just like to refute some of the things that were said by Mr. Appleman.
I'm sorry, Mr. Applebaum. I really don't know the gentleman. And I believe that he is not totally representing the people who really need the representation, and those are the people in the service industry. These are the people who can least afford not to have a prevailing wage or not to have a living wage. I feel that this bill, or this 97 BILL NO. 960823 Ordinance, should pass in its original state, and have the service portion of this Ordinance intact. We represent about 4,500 members throughout the Center City and surrounding area. And once Mayor Rendell took over and put into his -- into place privatization, we picked up City Hall, we picked up the Municipal Services Building, and some of the other city services that were privatized. And, fortunately, we do have a prevailing wage set in the City of Philadelphia that provides our members with a living wage and benefits. I can't see having an Ordinance 15 passed that would jeopardize that type of activity that we already have in place. So we're asking that the committee look into putting this bill through in its original state. And, Councilwoman Clark, on behalf of Brother Gillespie, Service Employees International Union, Local 36, we are part of the building trades. Our membership is about 65 percent black. And out of that 65 percent, maybe 70 percent 98 BILL NO. 960823 are female. So on behalf of our Brother Gillespie, yes, the building trades do have a block of minority participants that participate in the building trades. So I just wanted to put that on the record in support of our brother.
Before I recognize Councilwoman Clark, what I would like to talk about, obviously the perfect world of having this bill passed intact is in jeopardy. So one of the issues that we have been discussing is the issue of threshold. The Commissioner and Deputy Mayor Murphy indicated a number of about $200,000 threshold. Could you comment on and recommend, if you feel a need to, another threshold, or discuss the issue of thresholds in general?
Well, we feel that $200,000 is a little steep. We could probably agree to support a bill where that number may be cut in half. That's stretching it. 99 BILL NO. 960823 But in a nonperfect world, we would probably have to lick our wounds and keep getting up. I just think $200,000 is a little steep, especially in the service industry. They spoke about a company called Team Clean, Donna Ali. You know, $200,000, you know, would probably put Donna Ali out of the ballpark.
Councilwoman Verna is suggesting, would like to know, of your 4,000 members, how many work under current city contracts, and what are those contract levels? Are they all within the prevailing wage, $200,000 or more?
All of our contracts -- to answer your question, Councilwoman, we have about, I would say, upwards numbers of 200 to 250 people who are members who work under city privatized contracts. All of those contracts are over that number of 200,000.
Mr. Harris, how 100 BILL NO. 960823 does your union compare to sheet metal workers? Do you think the sheet metal workers are 65 percent black and 70 percent female?
Does the fact that your members are concentrated in janitorial services suggest anything to you?
I would just like to say that unions in the Pennsylvania area are made up of a lot of different organizations. The building trades, the actual trades, the sheet metal, the glaziers, those kinds of trades, are predominantly in areas where females may not be a part of that.
How about minorities? How about black men sheet metal workers?
Then you really 101 BILL NO. 960823 don't have an informed opinion, do you, Mr. Harris?
My opinion is that I know my membership of 4,500 members are predominantly --
I can get you a better number than that. 1199C is probably 95 percent black and 97 percent female. But I am talking about building trades.
We are affiliated with the building trades, and I would not be on record in telling you something that's not true.
Okay. Well, lets you and I discontinue this conversation. Because we are just spreading opinions; we are not spreading facts. We are spreading opinions. And I am not likely to persuade you, 102 BILL NO. 960823 and you are not likely to persuade me. You will go away thinking what you think, and you have not told me one thing that causes me to think otherwise.
Sure you were. Sure you were. You addressed the comment to me. You were trying to change my opinion.
No. No. I was trying to state to you that Local 36 is part of the building trades, and that we have about --
And that you are 65 percent black. And of the 65 percent who are black, 70 percent of them are women. So --
You said 70 percent of your -- 65 percent of your membership is black. That's what you said to me.
So how is that 103 BILL NO. 960823 different than what I said? Why are you saying no?
I don't believe I said no. 5 If you want to run the tape or the record back, you will see that I did not say no. 7
So your union is comprised of large numbers of black men and women who clean buildings.
And who do an outstanding job of cleaning this building, which is the only one that I can speak to.
And I think that is admirable. And I am certainly glad you are making a living wage. Nothing about whatever we do to this is going to require anybody to roll you back to less than what you are making. Nothing about anything we do to this bill will require any employer to roll back your wages. Nothing. Did you think so?
Is that what's keeping you up? Are you afraid that that's about to happen to you?
I am not afraid of anything on that line. It is just a matter of making sure that you protect the interests of your membership; that's what I'm here to do.
Thank you, Councilwoman Clark. Do you have anything, sir, to add?
My name is Steve Lashinski. I am an organizer at ACORN. It is always tough being the guy at 4 o'clock, so I will try to go quick. I am from an organization called 105 BILL NO. 960823 ACORN. It is a 5,000-member, community-based organization a lot of people are familiar with. We have been working at this issue of wages for a long time. We have organized the Philadelphia Jobs and Living Wage Coalitions, a coalition of over 30 organizations of union, religious, community-based, and other organizations. So on behalf of ACORN, we definitely want to congratulate this committee for bringing this issue forward. I think it is a great issue, and one to be raised, and a really important one, especially now at this time. We want to just sort of touch on briefly, since the issue has been raised, an opportunity to talk about the issue of wages, and as it relates to neighborhoods, neighborhood development, and the relationship it has to issues of city assistance, contracts that are given out, both, you know, service contracts as well as professional contracts in general. And to do that, I am going to submit -- I am not sure how to do this -- a report that many of you have seen, called Left Behind: The 106 BILL NO. 960823 Minimum Wage and the Real Cost of Living in Philadelphia. And the point of it is to point out, to take a typical family and look at what kind of wages they would need to make in order to pay for things in Philadelphia, like health care and housing and transportation. And we give three examples. For a family the size of a one parent and one child, in order to pay for things in Philadelphia, like food and clothing, they really would need to be making almost $10 an hour. Anything less than that shows that they would not be able to afford just basic necessities. And this doesn't take into account movies, going on vacation. It doesn't take into account like a sick day that you don't get paid for. This is just five days a week. For a family size of three, a parent and two children, that's 13.30 an hour. And for a family size of four, it is 16.59 an hour. And the reason to bring that up is to really talk about the perspective of what happens with wages in community, and what happens when people don't have, don't make those kind of wages. 107 BILL NO. 960823 Which is why the issue of service contracts and service work is really, really important and really fundamental in what you are talking to. So we believe that the service contracts have to be included in prevailing wage, especially with the transition our economy has been making from, unfortunately, white collar, maybe building-trade-type jobs, as you have seen, to a very high service-based industry that's happening in Philadelphia.
Okay. Really, we know that there has been a lot of discussion about where this bill is going. And, frankly, the testimony that I submit may or may not have anything to do with what finally happens. The only thing we want to raise is the point about thresholds, and what that is. Because the question that's being asked is, well, at 108 BILL NO. 960823 what point do you want to trigger this in? And I think that takes further examination. I think you really want to look at how many contracts are given out for that trigger at 5,000, 10,000, 50,000 dollars. We appreciate SCIU being here to and representing their membership. We would like to speak on behalf of the people who may not be part of that membership, but are still doing service work and part of this. And what you are doing when you allow a company to come in and pay somebody 7, 8 bucks, 9 dollars an hour, what that person is going to do -- you all know, with Welfare Reform, people are required to take these jobs. That's why employers can offer work cleaning toilets at $6 an hour, because people have to take it. So they take it. And yet what they also do in order to survive is, they go on Food Stamps and they get medical assistance. And who pays for that? Well, we do, because we are taxpayers. So not only are we paying taxes to give to the company to have the contract, but then we end up subsidizing their employees through these 109 BILL NO. 960823 tax breaks. And not only in terms of receiving medical assistance or Food Stamps, but people who don't pay utility bills, and we have to subsidize them. And nobody would want their gas cut off in November, but a parent has to make a choice. We would like you to look at this report to see what happens when a parent ends up at the end of the month making that kind of choice. So we subsidize not only publicly through Public Assistance, but we subsidize privately by paying into these other areas. And so that what you are considering is very, very important. And we really advocate taking a really hard look at thresholds, and who you leave behind and who ends up paying for that. At a further time we would love to talk about the earlier testimony you heard from the Mayor's Office. And maybe to quote Councilwoman Clark, is to compare facts, not opinions. A bill similar to this that passed in Baltimore did have requirements with contracts. And they did a study to see what happened to those 110 BILL NO. 960823 contracts. So, in fact, the position that the Mayor is taking is false with regards to the effect of the contracts driving those businesses away. And we would really encourage members of the Council to take a look at that study. We would be happy to provide that. The last thing we would like to do, besides wishing you luck on the League of Cities this week -- and we know that you will make Philadelphia proud -- is continue to work with you on Bill 970586, which was submitted two months ago. And that makes reference to a living wage. Because, really, the question -- and I think, Councilwoman Verna, you have asked this before -- is, well, how many workers is this all affecting? And the number compared to the overall work force is small. With the living wage ordinance you have an opportunity to impact a tremendous number of workers. And what those workers do when they get paid a dollar, 2, 3 dollars an hour more is, they go home to our districts, to their 111 BILL NO. 960823 neighborhoods, and they buy more food at local grocery stores, and they take their children to movies in our neighborhoods, and they build up our neighborhoods. Really the strength of the city's economy is its workers. And you have an excellent opportunity to help that work force by passing this and other related ordinances. So we thank you for your time, putting up with that speech that I promised I wouldn't make. I am open to questions, or I just want to thank the committee.
They will get those. If you leave them on the table, they will circulate them for you.
Circulate them? Oh, yeah? I am probably going to find them in the waste basket. All right. Thanks a lot. 112 BILL NO. 960823
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the room to testify on this bill? Commissioner, come on up. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Procurement Commissioner Louis Applebaum. I would just like to comment on the testimony of Mr. Harris of the service industry as it relates to Donna Ali and Team Clean. My comments and thoughts were to assist Donna Ali, who is a minority owned -- owns a minority-owned company called Team Clean, to not have her go to the extent of maintaining the records and the administrations of a prevailing wage such as certified payrolls, monthly audits, submitting documents. And I know Donna Ali very well. She is doing a very good job. And that type of a requirement upon her company would be hurtful, and not helpful, and that's why I mentioned that. So my comment was to assist Donna Ali, and not to hurt her at all. Thank you.
Could you explain 113 BILL NO. 960823 Donna Ali's contract with the city. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Donna Ali is a minority subcontractor to Collin on this particular building. And her employees, as they relate on this building, are paid the rates that we have indicated in our contracts. So there are no 9 problems there. But if Donna Ali goes out and gets a smaller contract, a direct bidder with the City of Philadelphia under a smaller contract, if this Ordinance was passed as it is to, she would have to maintain and submit to us certified payrolls, be audited by the Deputy Mayor's Labor Standards Department, and it would put a major burden on her company that she really doesn't need.
What's the level, if you know, of Donna Ali's contract now as a subcontract with the city, if you know? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Well, she is part of the contract here and also -- well, she had the MSB Building of last. All of those contracts that she had as a subcontractor were all in excess of 200,000. 114 BILL NO. 960823
As part of the general contract? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Right. We are not talking about carving hers out; we are looking at that as one.
So if she came in, her or any other minority or nonminority contractor, came in as a sub to a contract above $200,000 -- COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: They must comply to the prevailing wage. It is only when they are direct bidders, not part of a big contract, that we are talking about.
Commissioner, just one question. Maybe I am asking this for both of us. If she is a sub to Collin, he has to fill out the things anyhow; right? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Collin is a million-dollar company who has all of the accountants -- 115 BILL NO. 960823
But he fills them out for her employees; correct? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: He maintains the record in his house, under his computer. Donna Ali doesn't do that; it is his responsibility to submit the information. He is responsible for it. He does it. He pays the payroll for her. DEPUTY
I think I can clarify that. The responsibility of filling out the certified payroll is the subcontractor. And the prime's responsibility is to submit those, make sure they are correct, and then submit them to our office.
But what you are saying is that the level of her contract makes it appropriate for her to do that. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Right.
Because of the 116 BILL NO. 960823 amount of money involved. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Right. But under where she would go direct, under smaller contracts, she would not have that obligation.
But under the current bill, with the $2,500 threshold, she would have a problem? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Every job that she would get direct with the city, she would have to go through hoops. We are trying to prevent her from going through the hoops. DEPUTY
Plus, in addition, if I can, in response to Mr. Harris, since this Administration has been in, almost all of the contracts that his companies have been awarded have had prevailing wage included, even without it being required by law. Along with the Procurement Department, we have come up with a wage for that and a benefit package. So all of them do require that, even without it being required by the Ordinance.
Thank you very much. 117 BILL NO. 960823 Is there anyone else? It is the consensus of the committee, we would like to apologize to Miss Ali for putting all her business information on the record. We could use Miss Smith or Miss Jones. But she does do good work here in City Hall. Identify yourself.
Yes. My name is Harry Foy. I am the President of the Electricians Union, Local 98. And just in respect to the minority issue -- and I just want to clear the record so that we have an understanding of the way we actually access people into our local union -- we have two methods of coming in. And that's through the normal channel, which is the apprentice training facility, which is always open every year, and which we are more than willing and we always do accept a great number of minorities. But we also attack that on another avenue, and that is through organization. And just to point out, in this last year, Local 98, just as 118 BILL NO. 960823 of about three weeks ago -- and I don't know where the situation stands right now -- offered memberships to Bell Atlantic technicians. I believe there was 47 people involved in that organization. 42 of them, I believe, were African-American men. As well as that, we have had an active campaign to organize -- we have organized Chism Electric, an African-American-owned company, all African-American employees. I believe I swore in seven gentlemen about a month ago. Towns Electric, another African-American contractor, with all African-American employees, on an active campaign to organize that entire shop and give all those men representation at the collective bargaining table. So we do make a very honest attempt to make sure that every walk of life is represented in Local 98. And I feel the same matter is true of the building trades.
Could you just add one other thing that I happen to be aware of -- because I have a close contact with your union, and I do recommend a lot of people over there. And you 119 BILL NO. 960823 guys have helped a lot of community issues and community improvement projects. Your apprenticeship, your formal apprenticeship program, I believe when Mr. Dougherty took over as Business Agent and your Administration came in, was it the minority apprenticeship -- or the minority membership was about 7 percent, 8 percent.
We are on a constant mode to make sure that all walks of life are represented in our local union and represented under our collective bargaining agreements.
Mr. Foy, I thank you for coming to the table and for putting numbers on the table. Three years ago your membership was 7 percent, and now you are 14 percent. That's a 200 percent increase.
That is exactly the kind of hard measurement that we need to do. Now, I don't want you to get angry, and I don't want to be angry with you, because that's not going to solve our problem. But between us, if we are well motivated, we can increase those numbers even further, can't we?
It is not a problem. We are on the same side of the issue. What you want to do is recruit and work 121 BILL NO. 960823 people who are skilled electricians.
Now, let me give you a personal story. My daddy was a member of the United Mine Workers. And in our house John L. Lewis was pretty close to God. When my father worked in the coal mines, he worked 39 years sometimes up to his waist in water. And minutes were spent when he came 15 top side just coughing up dust. So I know the difference that union labor makes on a family's outlook. I am not against paying a living wage. I would be stuck in the woods of West Virginia, trying to get to the hard road, but for the living wage that United Mine Workers paid my father. I am absolutely for it. But I am equally certain that it is not as easy to be a union card-carrying member if you are a minority. 122 BILL NO. 960823 And until that playing field gets level, we are always going to have to ask these questions, how are you doing toward reaching the ideal.
And it will not change the legitimacy of the question.
Thank you, Councilwoman. Thank you, Mr. Foy, for your testimony. That will conclude our group of witnesses for this bill. What I would like to do now is to formally offer the amendments that Deputy Mayor Murphy had made in his statement, and recognize Councilman Mariano for two amendments that he would like to add to this bill.
Thank you, Councilman. The first part is include, the first amendment is include, "service contracts above the threshold of $100,000." And the second -- 123 BILL NO. 960823
So the record is clear, the suggestion is being made that all of the amendments that Deputy Mayor Murphy offered to the bill, with the exception of the exclusion, which is now going to be included, the issue of service contracts at a threshold of $100,000. And do you have a comment on that?
Councilmember Clark has made the record clear that she would like to see it fixed at 200,000. And in the public meeting we will have that vote. And the second amendment deals with , Section E of the bill. And Councilmember Mariano would like to offer that amendment, also.
, Section 19 E, Contractor Contracts. "The contractor contracts on the performance of city work entered into by the city with any contractors and all contracts entered in and between such contractors and subcontractors for such work."
That's the way it reads now. The amendment will be added to include 124 BILL NO. 960823 the following language.
This is the amended part. "Including contracts or subcontracts requiring the off-site fabrication and/or manufacture of nonstandard items produced specifically for city work and work performed at fabrication plants, barrow pits, job headquarters, tool yards, et cetera, which shall be deemed city work for coverage purposes of this ordinance; the fabrication of sheet metal ducts or similar products for heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems shall be deemed to be work directly upon city work whenever they are custom fabricated for a specific city work project over such fabrications within the scope of work covered by prevailing working conditions."
Those are two amendments that are being offered at the hearing level. I would like to give an opportunity for the Administration to put on the record what I suspect will be opposition. But in fairness to the Administration, we would like to have that record 125 BILL NO. 960823 clear, if you are willing to or if you are interested in offering rebuttal to the amendment. DEPUTY
I am sorry. I am Gerald Murphy, Deputy Mayor for Labor, City of Philadelphia. That issue was brought to our attention earlier and reviewed by the City Solicitor's Department, and found that it is not applicable under Davis Bacon to enforce -- do any enforcement off the construction site, fabrication or any supply. It would technically be considered a supply or service, because it is materials. And Davis Bacon doesn't govern materials; it only governs the construction work on site, not away from the site. And since this is off site, one, Davis Bacon wouldn't be applicable. Two, it would basically be a material contract and a supply contract, not a construction contract. 126 BILL NO. 960823 Three, we wouldn't be able to enforce it because it is away from the site. So my inspectors couldn't go out and do the enforcement of the site, especially if it is located outside of the city or outside of the state. And, four, there would be a difficulty for us to determine a wage for that. We would have to revert back to the Service Contract Act. And if you look at the Service Contract Act, the total package per hour for that job would be about $21, including benefits, which is about $19 lower per hour than what the local sheet metal union pays their employees here. So we have a problem with that amendment to the bill.
So the record is clear, the rationale for, at least my support for, that particular amendment is that on specific public work sites, when you are dealing with other trades, carpentry, plumbing, wiring, electrical work, the raw material is brought to the site and actually fabricated there. The shelves are built, the walls are built, the pipe is laid, the wires are laid. 127 BILL NO. 960823 The problem that we find with the particular sheet metal issue is that almost 100 percent of the product to be installed arrives on the site pre-prepared. And that, I think, makes it a different situation than the raw material lumber being delivered and having the carpenters build the shelving, as opposed to the finished duct work product arriving by truck and being installed. And that's where we believe there is a bit of a difference for this particular trade. DEPUTY
Well, the plumbing, there is plumbing that is fabricated away from the site and brought to the site, and there are union shops for plumbers. So you would have a lot of unions or different suppliers coming by and saying, "Ours is customized, as well." So that is not necessarily true, that they are the only trade doing that.
I don't want to make the record unclear. I am not saying that is the only trade. This particular trade expressed this specific serious concern that they feel is part of 128 BILL NO. 960823 what their problem is. And we can, again, have discussion, as long as the record is clear. And if you want to make comment on the threshold level, that's -- DEPUTY
It is one we just basically couldn't enforce, because it is not applicable under Davis Bacon.
The service, again, as Commissioner Applebaum said, the 200,000 is where we currently do it, even without anything requiring us to do so. And anything with service included, obviously, the Administration would like the record to read that they would like deleted anything referring to service.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Mariano for a motion to amend Bill No. 970591. Or at least not to make the formal motion, but to read into the record what the amendment will be to that bill. 129 BILL NO. 960823
This is the gas station. Section 1, 970951. What we are changing, pursuant to Section 14-103 of the Philadelphia Code, the Philadelphia Zoning Maps are hereby amended by changing the zoning designation of certain areas of land located between the block bounded by Roosevelt Boulevard, Ramona Avenue, Adams Avenue, from the existing partly Class R-15 residential and partly Class C-2 commercial, as indicated in Map A set forth below, the single designation of Class R-5 residential, as indicated on Map B set forth below. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately." That's it.
Thank you very much. That will be formally voted on in our Public Meeting. That will now conclude our Public Hearing. (Public Hearing adjourned.) - - - 130 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING of the COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Wednesday, December 3 1997 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Rules, held in Room 400, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 970740, 970670 970591, 960512, 960823 - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Vice-Chair COUNCILWOMAN AUGUSTA A. CLARK COUNCILWOMAN ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO - - - 131 PUBLIC MEETING
The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Clark for a motion to approve Bill No. 970740, the North Philadelphia Health System Ordinance.
Mr. Chair, I move that we report this bill out with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first consideration at our next Stated Meeting of Council. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor. There are none opposed. Bill No. 970740 will be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Clark for a motion on Bill 960512, with a Rules suspension. 132 PUBLIC MEETING