Councilwoman Gilmore Richardson. Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING
Councilman Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING Squilla.
Aye. The ayes are 17; the nays are zero. A majority of members present voting in the affirmative, the bill passes. Mr. Decker, please read the title of Bill No. 200365.
An ordinance amending Chapter 9-2500 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Fire Suppression System Workers," to provide for additional licensing requirements for fire suppression system workers.
This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally. Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING Mr. Decker, please call the roll.
I'm sorry, Mr. President. I'd like to make a comment before the vote.
Certainly. I'm sorry. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Bass.
Thank you, Mr. President. It has been brought to my attention -- I've spoken directly with the President of the Steamfitters Union, and I did want to address some of the concerns around there being opportunities for training, for this training to be received by those who are not members of the sprinkler fitters. So obviously that is of great concern to all of us. We want to make sure that the training is available and open to the general public who want to receive this training and certification, and I have been assured Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING that that was actually the case. So what I'd like to do today is vote my -- cast my vote as a yes and monitor the situation, and if we find that there is a problem, then we can always come back and revisit this matter in the near future. So today I am going to be a yes on this, and I know that there's a lot of concern, a lot of worry, but I do have the word of the president of the union that this is going to be open to all individuals who are interested in receiving this training. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Anyone else? (No response.)
Thank you. Mr. Decker, call the roll. Mr. Decker, are you having problems?
Councilwoman Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING Bass.
Aye. Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING
I also want to make a comment before I vote, and I want to thank Councilwoman Bass for that clarification. I spent 12 years chairing the Committee on License and Inspections and working with many union officials on public safety issues and improvement in their profession. I have a problem philosophically with voting for anything that only gets certified through a union hall when we've had such robust conversations around access for black and Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING brown folks into these unions. And I will also monitor the situation, but I'm going to vote no, because I don't think that the timing because of the delay in the implementation requires us to move forward and so we can guarantee that to the folks who testify and in the spirit of what we've tried to do around inclusion. So my vote is no.
Aye. The ayes are 16; the nays are one. A majority of all members present having noted in the affirmative, the bill passes. Mr. Decker, please read the title of Bill No. 200303. Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING
An ordinance amending Chapter 9-4100 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Promoting Healthy Families and Workplaces," to establish leave time for public health emergencies, modify existing provisions concerning the paid sick leave, and making technical changes.
Thank you, Council President. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the countless workers, unions, businesses, community organizations that helped me and my office craft this public health emergency bill and have made sure that it would reach workers who need it the most. This was truly a collaborative process that was guided by extensive conversation with stakeholders to ensure that small businesses who are struggling are not negatively impacted by this bill. For this reason, we added Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING language that clarifies that small businesses will not be impacted by this bill. Most of these businesses have already had paid leave regulations mandated by the federal legislation. My bill targets businesses of more than 500 employees who are exempt from the federal legislation, as well as other workers that fall outside of the FFCRA and CARES Act, including nannies, healthcare workers, seasonal workers, nursing home aides, and gig economy workers. This bill underwent multiple rounds of amendments to address the concerns of the business community. One of these amendments clarified that businesses already providing comparable paid sick time off do not have to provide any additional two weeks' worth of leave. The workers that this bill covers have gone seven months without adequate paid sick leave. These workers are more likely to be people of color, more likely to be low-wage workers, and Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING more likely to be women. We know that while everyone can get sick, not everyone can afford to stay -(Background noise.)
Councilwoman, I'm sorry, but we lost a lot of what you were saying.
All right. I'll go up. Furthermore, as restaurants, college campuses, movie theatres, childcare facilities, and other public venues reopen, protecting these workers is critical to ensuring a safe reopening Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING and limiting the spread of COVID-19 in Philadelphia. I also want to emphasize the importance of enforcement, because as we know, the bill's value has a real life impact. It is our -- to our constituents. I'm sorry. My office has been working closely with the Labor Department and was in contact with them as early as this week to ensure that this bill should pass. Information on public health emergencies will be easily accessible and the bill will be widely enforced. And, lastly, I want to recognize the co-sponsors of the public health emergency relief bill, Councilmembers Gym and Henon. Councilmember Gym's support has been invaluable, and Councilmember Henon's office has been instrumental in pushing this legislation forward every step of the way. I urge you all to vote in favor Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING of this bill. When we protect our front-line workers, we protect Philadelphia. There's so much more work to do in the months to come to protect Philadelphia workers, and I look forward to collaborating with all of you as we are back in Council. Thank you, colleagues, and thank you, Council President.
Yes. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
Thank you, Council President. Councilmember Brooks, thank you for your work in this legislation. As you know, as a member of the Public Health and Human Services Committee, I voted this bill out of committee as amended, and that was based on knowledge Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING of what this bill would do and protect those who are not already protected by federal law and the CARES Act, and I commend you for that work. But my concern is when we made that amendment, that amendment was based on understanding that the amendment to the Bill 200303 will be comparable to the earned paid leave bill that was passed by Councilmember Greenlee in 2015. And so when I look at 10(b) of your bill, you make reference to the fact, and I'll read, "Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to require a hiring entity to change existing policies or provide additional paid leave if the hiring entity's existing policy provides an amount of leave that satisfies or exceeds the amount of the public health emergency leave under this Chapter and such paid leave can be used for the same purposes and under all of the same conditions as set forth for the public health emergency leave under this Chapter." Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING My question and concern is that the perspective that we voted this out of committee was under the belief that if you were a company that already provided the type of leave required under this legislation, you would not have to provide any additional leave on top of that, especially considering this time period of COVID and all the things we're doing. And so my question is, is that correct?
That is correct. If you already provide adequate or comparable benefits, you don't have to do anything additional.
Okay. So then the question is -- and when I read that section from 10(b), I left out one word, which is the word "sick," because in the early part of that language, it talks about paid leave and then it talks about paid sick leave and then it also says paid leave again. So I do understand the concern that many people Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING have raised, that if you have existing paid sick time and you get sick and you want to be able to use this legislation, you should not have to go into your vacation time, but my concern is for those entities -- and we'll say those are newer companies, because most newer companies have paid time off, which include sick, vacation, and other type of time -- that this legislation could provide the perspective that if you already provide paid time off for your employees at the level that's required under this bill or more, then you may have to provide additional time, and that's why in the legislation that was passed by Councilmember Greenlee in 2015 -- and I'll read that legislation. It says, "Any employer with a paid leave policy, who makes available an amount of paid leave (including but not limited to vacation days, sick days, short-term disability benefits, floating holidays, parental leave, personal days, or PTO) Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING sufficient to meet or exceed the accrual requirements of this Section, and that may be used for the same purposes and under the same conditions as time under this Chapter, is not required to provide additional time." And so the question is, we have these two interpretations, and I want to make sure that those that have paid sick leave and vacation time don't have to go into their vacation time to address this bill, and I understand that, but my concern is for those -- and I'll call them newer companies that have a lump sum amount. This legislation, because it uses the word "sick," gives a perspective that if you have paid time off, that you may have to provide additional time on top of what you already provide which is already in the bill. And so that question is what causes some concern, because when we voted this out of committee, the understanding was this legislation would be like the earned paid Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING legislation that was passed with Councilman Greenlee. I do understand we want to make sure that if you are an employee and you have paid sick leave and vacation time, you don't have to go in vacation time, and I understand that perspective for why that word "sick" is for that perspective, but it does not clarify that if you have paid time off, then you may have to provide additional time on top of the time that you already provided which is required under this bill. So I need some clarification.
I believe that the language is clear. We want to be sure that people are not forced to take vacation time if they get sick and need to stay home. So the Labor Department has ensured us that we can clarify that a worker would not have to take their vacation time, but can use their paid sick time in this regulation.
I understand Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING that. I understand that perspective. That's why I laid out the question I did, that if you work for a company and you have paid sick time and paid vacation time, and I agree with you, that you should not have to go into your paid vacation time if you use up all your sick time, and I understand that. I understand that part of the legislation. My question is if there's a company that has paid time off that provides it at a level that's at this bill's level or higher, there's some ambiguity about having to provide additional time on top of that, and that's why the issue of the lack of clarity. The lack of clarity is that if you are paid sick time, we don't want you to have to go into your vacation time. I understand that. I'm talking about companies that have paid time off, or PTO, where all your time is lumped together. It's not clear if they're already providing that level of time Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING that's required under this bill, that you may have to provide additional time on top of that, and that's where the ambiguity comes up.
So like it was drafted by the Law Department, but I will say that if an employer has paid time off as opposed to sick time, if the employer can make the determination how they're using their time, whether it's called paid time off or paid sick time, but a lot of the organizations that we're talking about that are affected by these bills have sick time separate from vacation time. So that's why we kept the language in that still said that it was paid sick time.
And I totally understand that. For those companies that have paid sick and paid vacation, we don't want people who come down with COVID to have to use up all their sick time and then go into their vacation time. Totally understand that. Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING That's why I understand that part of what you're saying. My concern is those companies that have paid time off which include vacation and sick. Are you saying that they're going to have to provide additional time on top of what's provided? Because the language of this bill says nothing established shall be construed, but you have language that says paid leave and paid sick leave. So that's where the question is. That's why some clarity would be beneficial that would say that if you have paid leave, like we did in Councilmember Greenlee's bill, that you do not have to provide additional time if you're providing the time at the level required or above of this legislation.
Just to save time, Council President. I'm sorry. This is Councilman Oh. I have the exact same question, the exact same issue. Maybe it's because Councilman Green and I are both lawyers, but the drafting of the Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING language makes it unclear and confusing to me. So I have the exact same question.
Councilman, are you suggesting that you have to be a lawyer to understand this job?
I mean, I understand your concern, but the language was drafted by the Law Department, and they assured me that it was clear. I mean, and there will be other regulations that will be put in place based on the Office of Labor to clarify these specific questions, but this language was drafted by the Law Department.
So because we're actually getting ready to get cut off shortly, so I want to get as much in as substantive. Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING So I had a conversation with the Office of Labor, and the Law Department weighed in. They said there is language that could be interpreted in different ways. It could be interpreted that technically you might have to add additional time, but then they also -the intent is not there. So I guess based on the interaction with the Law Department, who represents us all, both the Administration and City Council, in conversations with them by regulation, because it has to be -- this particular program needs to -- I understand it's going to take at least a month or maybe more, that there can be clarity in the regulations as it relates to the establishment of this particular provision that will ultimately have to be enforced by the executive branch. And the only other option is to amend it to incorporate that language, because they did say it could be viewed as an Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING additional 14 days on top of your comparable sick time. So my concern is about -- all due respect to the Law Department, and I respect Marcel quite a bit, they are human. I've had times when I wasn't clear and didn't necessarily agree with some of the things that they've done. So we got a couple of options, either amend it or try to get some clarity through regulation, because I'm saying all this to say that we are going to be cut off shortly, and I don't want this not to be a part of the public discussion, because this is an important one.
I just want to finish my comment. Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING As a former member of the Law Department, we're all human, but we also have different interpretations, and lawyers, when other issues come up, may need to clarify and provide additional information. So I voted to get this bill out of committee. I support the legislation. I support what Councilmember Brooks is trying to do, because there are a number of people, especially based on people that testified in public comment, who are not covered under the federal CARES law, but as long as there's a commitment from Councilmember Brooks on the record and others that we will define what is considered and addresses the issues and concerns that we're raising, that can be defined so we don't have issues where someone is not able to use this legislation in the way it's supposed to be intended for their benefit because of the lack of interpretation, because I also don't want to have that situation Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING where someone is trying to use the legislation, has an incorrect perception and they're tied up as an individual in a back and forth of legal issues and they're not able to use the benefit that they need, especially in this time of emergency.
I will bring this concern up to the Law Department again, but we will clarify this with the Office of Labor, which we already stated earlier in terms of the ambiguity. I can promise that I'll continue to look through that piece, but -- yeah. I will talk to the Law Department and make sure that this is cleared up in the regulations through the Office of Labor.
Council President, this is Councilmember Gym. I just wanted to very briefly state that I wanted to thank Councilmember Brooks for the hard work that she and her team put into this bill. It is very clear that Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING this is an area that regulation can absolutely clarify. Bills are narrowed in regulation. They're never expanded in them. They can provide clarity and we can address some of these issues. But I do hope that we could take a vote given the fact that there's the timeliness, the bill does not go on beyond the year, and it's important that we get this addressed. And I think that our departments, the Department of Labor in combination with people who are impacted, can resolve this pretty clearly, because I think the intent of the bill is clear and that there's no reason to add undue burdens, and that will be very clearly clarified in regulation and I'm sure by the Councilmember and in all public discussions of this bill. Thank you.
Council Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING President, if I can make one last comment, if that's okay. I'm willing to work with Councilmember Brooks on the regulation to clear up the issues as well with the Law Department.
Okay. Anybody else? Because Councilwoman Gauthier and Councilmen Oh and Thomas, you were teed up, but are you okay? Because like they may have already cut us off. 64 is going to -- the feed is going to leave us any minute now.
Will it be simpler and cleaner just to amend the language and then we wouldn't have to worry about regulations? It will just be amended.
The issue is, there's going to be a long debate about the amendment. I don't know. Councilwoman has indicated the willingness to -- she said what her intent is as it relates to the bill. Councilman Green is willing to Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING work. It sounds like most of the people -- I'm just, you know...
I mean, this is a lot of -- there's a spotlight on this, and Councilwoman Brooks has indicated that her interpretation is that it would not be on top of the comparable or more than comparable time for a particular company. Councilman Green has indicated, along with a couple of other members. So if it's okay, if we can take a vote, and if we don't want to take a vote, we want to come back -- I'm getting a text from the Office of Labor. They said they're going to clean it up. Okay, guys? Councilwoman Gauthier and Thomas, is it okay if we proceed with the vote? Because I know you're teed up. I don't want to cut anybody off.
Yes, Council President. I was hoping -- and I'm pretty sure Councilmember Gauthier Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING agrees -- we were hoping to be recognized in speeches of the majority, not during this.
Hi. This is Cindy Bass. I apologize for the delay. But just as I'm thinking, similar to my statement earlier in reference to giving this bill the opportunity to move forward but certainly being willing to revisit it if it is not regulated and organized in a way that's going to be helpful to everyone, I will vote on this bill today. I will vote to support this bill today, but certainly look forward to working with the sponsor and with anyone else to make sure that the language is Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING clear. I really feel -- I have to say, I really do feel uncomfortable voting for something where the language is unclear and we know this going into it, but because, once again, I did give deference to the sprinkler fitters earlier, I am willing to give that same support to my colleague, in the hopes that we'll come out at the other end and that this will be something that is supported by all sides. So I just wanted to be on the record for that.
Council President, I'll make sure I'll get all of this clarified in rules.
Okay. Let's go. Mr. Decker, call the Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING roll. (Background noise.)
Councilwoman Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING Gilmore Richardson.
No. He's got to speak. Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING
Thumbs up. So Councilman Oh is voting aye. Councilman Oh is voting aye. Councilman O'Neill.
Aye. The ayes are 16; the nays are one. A majority of members present Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING voting in the affirmative, the bill passes. Real quick, Mr. Decker, please read the title of Bill 200364.
An ordinance amending Title 17 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Contracts and Procurement," by adding a new Chapter 17-2300, entitled "Public Hearing Required Prior to Execution of a Labor Agreement with City Workers Represented by the Fraternal Order Of Police With Respect To The Workers' Terms And Conditions Of Employment," by establishing certain definitions; and requiring a public hearing within thirty days prior to the City entering into or amending a labor agreement with City workers represented by the Fraternal Order of Police.
The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Gilmore Richardson.
Thank Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING you, Mr. President. I would like to offer an amendment to Bill No. 200364. A copy of the amendment has been circulated to all members of Council, and I move for the adoption of the amendment. (Duly seconded.)
All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. Bill No. 200364 has been amended, and Bill No. 200364, as amended, will be placed on our Final Passage Calendar at our next session of Council. Mr. Decker, 200368.
An ordinance amending Title 10 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulation of Individual Conduct and Activity," by adding a new Chapter 10-2500, entitled "Prohibited Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING Physical Contact by Peace Officers," to prevent unnecessary death or injury via asphyxiation by prohibiting certain physical contact by peace officers.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Johnson.
Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to offer an amendment to Bill No. 200368. A copy of the amendment has been circulated to all members of Council. I move for the adoption of the amendment. (Duly seconded.)
Thank you. It's been moved and properly seconded. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
Those opposed? (No response.) Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING
The ayes have it. Bill No. 200368 has been amended, and Bill No. 200368, as amended, will be placed on our Final Passage Calendar at our next session of Council. Thank you very much. Mr. Decker, do you have any additional resolutions?
A resolution authorizing the Committee on Education to conduct -(Background noise.)
A resolution authorizing the Committee on Education to conduct hearings exploring the benefits of the School District of Philadelphia mandating conflict resolution training at all curriculum levels, introduced by Councilwoman Gilmore Richardson.
The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Gilmore Richardson. Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING
Thank you, Mr. President. I move the adoption of the resolution. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and properly seconded. All those in favor say aye. (Aye.)
And a resolution authorizing the Committee on the Environment to conduct hearings to investigate challenges and solutions to street litter and waste disposal systems in the wake of COVID-19 in the City of Philadelphia, introduced by Councilwoman Gilmore Richardson.
The Chair again recognizes Councilwoman Gilmore Richardson. Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING
Thank you, Mr. President. I move the adoption of the resolution. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and properly seconded. All those in favor say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it, and that resolution is adopted.
And a resolution authorizing the City Council Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development, and the Homeless to hold hearings on the role and responsibilities of Philadelphia's Landlord-Tenant Officer position; the policies and procedures it manages in the eviction process, particularly around writs of service; and clarifying oversight, ethics, and public Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING accountability for the Landlord-Tenant Office, introduced by Councilwoman Gym.
Thank you very much, Council President. I move for the adoption of the resolution. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and properly seconded. All those in favor say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it, and that resolution is adopted.
And a resolution authorizing the City Council Committee on Public Safety and the Special Committee on Gun Violence Prevention to hold hearings to review and examine the perpetrators of the last 100 shootings in Stated Meeting September 10, 2020 9/10/20 - STATED - 2ND READING Philadelphia, as well as exploring the source of the guns used to commit violent crimes and the role of the criminal justice system in the offender's life, introduced by Councilman Jones.
Thank you, Mr. President. I move for its adoption. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and properly seconded. All those in favor say aye. (Aye.)