Committee Hearing, March 1, 2011

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA2 COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND3 HUMAN SERVICES4 5 6 Room 400, City Hall7 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, March 1, 20118 10:20 a.m. 9 10 PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO, CHAIR11 COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO12 COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN WILLIAM K. GREENLEE13 COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN14 15 BILL 080474 - An Ordinance enacting a new Chapter 9-3300, entitled "Promoting Healthy16 Families and Workplaces," to provide that certain employees are entitled to paid sick17 leave, all under certain terms and conditions. 18 - - -19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1

Good2 morning. I'd like to call the Committee3 on Public Health and Human Services to4 order. We'd like to welcome everyone to5 the Chamber.6 We will note that we have a7 quorum in the presence of Councilman8 Goode, Blondell Reynolds Brown and9 Councilman Kenney and myself.10 We now ask the Clerk to read11 the title of the bill.12

Bill No. 080474, an13 ordinance enacting a new Chapter 9-3300,14 entitled "Promoting Healthy Families and15 Workplaces," to provide that certain16 employees are entitled to paid sick17 leave, all under certain terms and18 conditions.19

Thank you20 very much.21 The Chair recognizes Councilman22 Greenlee for comments, and the Chair then23 recognizes Councilwoman Brown for24 comments.25 3 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741

She's2 on -- do you want to go first?3 The Councilwoman is on the4 Committee.5

I'll defer6 to you.7

Thank8 you, Councilwoman.9 Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll10 be brief, but I just want to get on11 record a couple of things.12 First, truth be told, when I13 first was a co-sponsor of this bill, I14 wasn't totally there yet. I wasn't sure15 that this was the right way to go. But16 since '08 -- and I emphasize '08 -- that17 this was introduced, I've read the18 materials that have been given out, I've19 seen what other cities have done, and20 what I think had the biggest impact on me21 was that I think we've all seen the ads22 on the buses and the ads on television23 where it's emphasized that people, when24 they're sick, they need to stay home.25 4 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 Well, if there's truth in advertising, in2 Philadelphia, there should be a3 parentheses, "but if you're one of4 40-plus percent or 210,000 people in the5 City of Philadelphia, you don't get6 paid." And there seems to be just an7 unfairness about that, and I think one of8 the things that government should do is9 try to fix things that are unfair.10 And let me just make real11 clear. None of us, nobody, wants to see12 businesses close in Philadelphia. We all13 understand the burden of running14 businesses, and we understand there's bad15 economic conditions for businesses. But16 you know what? There's bad economic17 conditions for workers too, and when they18 make that -- when they have to make that19 choice of whether to stay home if they're20 sick or their family member is sick or21 get paid, that's close to an untenable22 choice for a lot of people.23 I just want to make it clear24 that we're listening to businesses. We25 5 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 had a meeting with businesses last week2 and have proposed a number of amendments,3 the amendments that they want, the4 amendments that they put forth. So we're5 listening. With all due respect, I'm6 asking businesses to also listen to us,7 to listen to the people that are here8 today and listen to their problems, and9 listen to what has happened in other10 cities to know that it very well would11 not have the negative effect here that12 they're saying it would. In other words,13 what we're trying to do is find a fair14 middle ground, which is what I think we15 try to do in all issues.16 And one other thing I just want17 to raise. This is not just a money18 issue; this is a health issue. It's a19 health issue for the person obviously20 that's sick or for their family member.21 It's also a health issue for their22 co-workers. And maybe most important in23 a lot of industries, it's a health issue24 for the citizens of Philadelphia. If25 6 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 you're in a restaurant, if you're in a2 hotel, you work in those places, if you3 come in sick, you spread that illness not4 just to your co-workers but you spread it5 to other people. And I know this will be6 brought out, but I just want to bring out7 one stat.8 The research after the 20099 H1N1 pandemic in the U.S. suggested that10 more than 25 percent of private-sector11 employees contracted the disease because12 of others who came to work while13 infected. Twenty-five percent. That's a14 whole lot of people.15 Again, there will be issues16 brought out about abuse of it. I think17 that will be refuted by a lot of the18 statistics that happened in other places.19 But just to sum it up, I think20 the reason I'm for this bill, and I hope21 that hopefully in the not too distant22 future we have this bill enacted, is the23 reason that I think a lot of us put forth24 legislation, for one simple thing, it's25 7 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 the right thing to do.2 Thank you, Madam Chair.3 (Applause.)4

Thank you5 very much, Councilman Greenlee.6 We'll now call on Councilman7 Darrell Clarke, who is the sponsor of the8 bill.9 I just want you to know, I'm10 sick, but I'm here today. Okay?11

Thank you,12 Madam Chair. I have to talk to the13 Council President about providing a sick14 day for you.15 Madam Chair and members of the16 Committee and members of the audience,17 first I'd like to thank all of you for18 being here today. This is a very19 controversial issue, as witnessed by the20 members and the diverse nature of the21 individuals in the room today, but22 sometimes when there are controversial23 issues, you need to have discussion about24 that particular issue. Sometimes it's25 8 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 not the most opportune time.2 Representing the district that3 I represent, which has a very diverse4 interest, I represent significant numbers5 of restaurants, significant numbers of6 businesses. I have friends on this side7 of the room, friends on that side of the8 room. I also have represented a9 significant number of people who work at10 those particular restaurants and those11 particular businesses who, on the other12 side of the coin, find themselves without13 the ability to have sick leave.14 I think that we were elected as15 Councilmembers to deal with issues that16 are controversial, which is why we're17 here today. I don't know where we will18 ultimately end up, but I hope that we19 will ultimately end up in a place where20 people can recognize the facts and people21 can recognize the need to do something22 about this particular issue, and I hope23 that we can, in a reasonable way, in a24 way that it doesn't hurt any of the25 9 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 parties in any significant way, that we2 can come to a consensus.3 As I listened to my President4 the other day, he talked about the shared5 pain or the shared responsibility for6 doing things that weren't necessarily in7 individuals' own personal interest, but8 doing things that assist all of us as9 Americans.10 So as we move ahead in this11 debate, I think you will hear compelling12 information probably on both sides of the13 coin, but at the end of the day, I hope14 that we can come up with a way to pull15 all the information together, to pull all16 of the minds and the individuals in this17 room together and come up with a program18 that works, that does not create a19 burdensome situation for businesses but20 also gives an opportunity to people to21 earn sick leave. And the key word is22 "earn," because I think that that's a23 very significant way, not necessarily a24 process, that if you were there for two25 10 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 years and you, frankly speaking, didn't2 come to work, you still got sick time,3 which is the case in some particular4 jobs.5 So I think that this is the6 discussion that needs to be had, and7 hopefully after the information, we will8 be in a position to move forward.9 So thank you. Thank you, Madam10 Chair.11

Thank you12 very much.13 (Applause.)14

The Chair15 recognizes Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds16 Brown.17

Thank you,18 Madam Chair.19 Good morning. What we know20 fundamentally is that when women thrive,21 families thrive. And when families22 thrive, cities thrive.23 Context and facts are extremely24 important, and for me, the facts are25 11 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 very, very compelling and bear repeating.2 From a general perspective, 413 percent of all workers do not have the4 ability to earn paid sick days to take5 care of themselves or their loved ones.6 Fact. Eighty percent of Americans7 believe employees should be allowed to8 earn some amount of sick time and that9 people should not have to choose between10 their jobs and a loved one.11 And always, always, always when12 it comes to women, the hair is cut in13 half. Sixty percent of working14 low-income mothers lose pay when they15 take time off to care for their children.16 Working mothers have to endure that every17 single day of their lives.18 Forty-nine percent of working19 mothers must relinquish pay to care for20 sick children. Jobs in traditionally21 female sectors often lack any sick time.22 That's not rumor. It's not hearsay.23 It's fact.24 Seventy-six percent of low-wage25 12 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 workers do not have access to paid sick2 leave. The majority of those workers3 work in food service or care for children4 and loved ones.5 So the facts are very, very6 compelling. The good news is that all7 sides have been working and talking8 cooperatively, because in the business9 we're in, you have to, have to, have to10 keep talking and make incremental11 breakthroughs on where you might find12 some common ground.13 So we need to say thank you for14 the work that has been done to bring us15 to this point, particularly around the16 amendments that are really a reflection17 of discussions of last week with all18 parties involved. And as the sponsor of19 the bill has said, we're prepared and20 willing to do the work even on the tough21 issues. We just have to work our way22 through them.23 Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.24 (Applause.)25 13 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741

Thank you.2 Thank you very much.3 Any other comments from members4 of the Committee?5 Councilman Goode.6

Thank you,7 Madam Chair.8 I was not prepared to make9 remarks, but I think I'll take this10 opportunity to talk about some of what I11 expect to happen here today and what I12 don't want to happen here today.13 When I came to this Council14 roughly 11 years ago, I came as an15 economic development practitioner.16 Economic development to me meant17 something different, I think, it meant to18 other people, particularly other19 practitioners, who simply thought that20 giving money to big business and21 developers, and if it trickles down, was22 a good thing. To me, it always meant23 more. So I fought for economic24 opportunity for disadvantaged workers and25 14 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 for businesses and for neighborhoods, and2 that's what economic development means to3 me.4 Over the years I've been here,5 we've dealt with a number of different6 issues, anti-smoking, the trans fat7 issue, menu labeling, living wage and8 benefits issues, and all the time --9 sometimes the business community was10 silent, sometimes it wasn't, but there11 were at least some people who said that12 it's going to lose jobs, it's going to13 cause businesses to move. In each of14 those cases, it did not.15 Part of my purpose here is to16 make sure as we sort through what's good17 for the economy or not good for the18 economy, that we talk for real about it,19 that we rely upon actual data that was20 done, studies of legislation where it was21 done in other cities in terms of what's22 good and what's not good.23 So as people come to the table24 today and talk about the fact that we25 15 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 were in an economic recession, let's talk2 about the fact that that recession was3 not created by workers; that recession4 was created by --5 (Applause.)6

That7 recession was created by private-sector8 greed. That recession was not created by9 government regulation; that recession was10 created because of the lack of government11 regulation.12 So as you come to the table to13 talk about economic growth, know that14 you're talking to an economic development15 practitioner.16 Thank you, Madam Chair.17 (Applause.)18

We thank19 you very much. And I'd just like to add20 a caveat, that it was this Council in21 2000 that tried to stop the economic22 greed, but we were not listened to.23 The Chair will now call on the24 first panel. It will be the25 16 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 Administration, represented by Mr. Alan2 Greenberger, Deputy Mayor for Economic3 Development and Director of Commerce.4 (Witness approached witness5 table.)6 DEPUTY

Good7 morning, Madam Chairman and members of8 the Committee on Public Health and Human9 Services. 14 I'm Deputy Mayor for Economic Development15 and the Director of Commerce. 17 The bill we are discussing18 today has the laudable goal of ensuring19 that all workers employed in the City of20 Philadelphia are able to take time off21 from work to address their own health22 needs and those of their family without23 having to lose pay for doing so. 7 The cost of this legislation to8 businesses, however, and particularly to9 small businesses is very high. As we10 begin to emerge from the worst recession11 in 70 years, the economic strength of the12 City, though stabilizing, remains at a13 significantly reduced level than from14 before the start of the recession. 3 Between 2000 and 2009, the4 total number of jobs in Philadelphia5 decreased by about seven percent, or6 46,400 jobs. 12 We are working very hard to13 reverse these trends. As this14 Administration has been proud to talk15 about in various settings, we've had a16 number of successes in the area of job17 creation and job retention in recent18 months. 25 19 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 No one disputes that mandating2 employers to provide sick leave benefits3 to employees raises the cost of labor for4 businesses that do not already provide5 such benefits, because to maintain6 productivity, employees have to replace7 the employee on leave, who is paid, with8 a second employee, who is also paid. In9 considering this proposal, we should keep10 our focus on the fact that we operate in11 a regional economy. 5 Philadelphia suffers from a6 reputation among some, often not7 deserved, that the City is not business8 friendly. 10 This proposal, as one more cost to11 businesses already dealing with the12 difficult economy and perhaps the sense13 that they already pay a premium to do14 business in the City, would not only15 impose another real burden, but would16 also add to the reputation we should be17 eager to dispel. 25 21 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 When comparing Philadelphia to2 the surrounding suburbs, the jobs numbers3 clearly indicate that many businesses4 consider the City's tax structure and5 other regulatory burdens a disadvantage6 to doing business here. One way to7 evaluate the economic vitality of an area8 is to look at the ratio of jobs to the9 population in the area. In Philadelphia,10 there is a 36 percent concentration of11 jobs to population, meaning that there12 are 36 jobs for every 100 people in the13 City. In the Philadelphia metropolitan14 area, excluding the City itself, there is15 a 51 percent concentration of jobs to16 population, meaning 51 jobs for every 10017 people. 22 We have spoken to a number of23 businessowners and representatives of24 business organizations and, in25 22 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 particular, representatives of a number2 of small- and medium-sized businesses,3 who told us that they have very4 significant concerns about the burdens5 that would be placed on them by this6 bill. Owners of small- and medium-sized7 companies said they might have to reduce8 the pay of their employees or reduce jobs9 to cover the cost of paying replacement10 workers to do the work of employees who11 would make use of their sick leave and12 still be paid for that time. When labor13 costs increase, businesses will look to14 save money elsewhere. 24 Some firms that offer employee benefits25 23 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 like healthcare and profit sharing may be2 inclined to convert employees to3 independent contractors at an hourly rate4 to avoid offering the sick leave days5 proposed, which would actually reduce6 worker benefits. 10 The feedback we have received11 from affected businesses is consistent12 with studies on the effect of the13 imposition of requirements such as this14 elsewhere.

"24 We've heard from several25 24 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 businesses that employ contract workers2 who are assigned on a temporary basis to3 work in businesses throughout the City4 and region. 13 I've also discussed why14 adopting this proposal specific only to15 Philadelphia would make us16 anti-competitive. National or even17 statewide requirements would, of course,18 overcome much of this problem. Although19 there are no state or federal20 requirements to provide paid sick leave,21 the Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA,22 is a federal regulation that allows23 workers who have been employed for over24 one year and whose companies employ at25 25 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 least 50 people to take up to 12 weeks of2 unpaid leave for certain medical3 situations for the employee or the4 employee's immediate family. S. that have paid sick leave9 regulations, however, are San Francisco10 and Washington, DC. Although advocates11 for this proposal will tout the supposed12 success of this measure in San Francisco13 and one study suggesting the limited14 impacts on jobs in that city, a15 comparison of that city's economic16 situation with Philadelphia is simply17 unhelpful. Philadelphia's competitive18 position within its regional economy is19 very different from San Francisco's20 position in the Bay Area. For example,21 Philadelphia and San Francisco have a22 similar number of jobs. However,23 Philadelphia has more than twice the24 population of San Francisco. 77 percent, respectively. 14 In addition to the jobs and15 population differences between the16 cities, there is a large gap between the17 number of residents with college degrees18 in each of the cities. Educational19 attainment is an important factor in20 employer location decisions and also an21 indicator of the types of jobs available22 in any city. 2 Over 50 percent of the population over 253 years old has a college degree in San4 Francisco. In DC, that number is about5 46 percent. In Philadelphia, only 226 percent of Philadelphians in that age7 group have college degrees. Because8 those with college educations are able to9 compete in the marketplace for jobs that10 already offer benefits such as sick11 leave, the impact of a requirement to12 provide sick leave benefits in a city13 with a highly educated population will14 have far, far less of an impact on the15 local economy and local businesses. 22 It is also important to note23 that although proposals such as this have24 been adopted in those two cities, similar25 28 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 proposals have been considered but not2 adopted in many more cities and states3 where it has been proposed and advocated4 for, such as New York City and the states5 of California, Connecticut, Illinois,6 Massachusetts, as well as the7 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 12 I also note that even if we13 believe that now is the right time to14 adopt this measure in some form, the15 proposal that is pending in Council is a16 very aggressive approach. 22 For example, the bill provides23 very little differentiation between the24 sizes of employers that must provide sick25 29 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 leave benefits. Even an employer with2 only one or five or ten employees must3 provide significant benefits. The only4 division provided in this bill is that5 businesses of ten or fewer employees must6 provide up to five paid sick days a year7 as opposed to the nine a year that must8 be provided by larger employers. 16 The bill does not provide an17 exemption for employers whose employees18 have bargained for their benefits package19 through a collective bargaining20 agreement. Union employees sometimes21 choose to seek higher pay rates or other22 employment benefits in exchange for23 agreeing to take less or no paid sick24 leave in their union contract. 5 The definition of "employee" in6 this bill is extremely broad and includes7 interns, temporary employees and seasonal8 workers.

12 The bill covers anyone who works more13 than seven work days in a year, even if14 those days are sporadic. 19 The proposal is also extremely20 generous in allowing new employees to21 accrue time. In most employment22 situations, employees do not accrue23 time-off benefits immediately,24 particularly if they are probationary25 31 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 employees, and often do not have the2 right to use such benefits immediately3 even if they are accruing time. This4 proposal allows employees to accrue time5 immediately upon employment and use such6 time starting on the 30th day after7 employment. 10 As I noted at the beginning of11 my testimony, the intent of helping12 workers, particularly low-income workers,13 support their families with the benefit14 of paid leave is something we can all, in15 general concept, support. 22 Councilman Clarke has proposed23 the creation of a Jobs Commission, the24 purpose of which would be to study25 32 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 whether we are maximizing our potential2 to promote and incentivize economic3 development and jobs creation. 12 Thank you for the opportunity13 to provide this testimony on this very14 important issue. )17

Thank you18 very much.19 We ask you for order. We ask20 you for the respect of all persons making21 comments or testimony, whether you agree22 or disagree. We'll have some decorum in23 this room today.24 Are there any questions on25 33 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 behalf -- Councilman Goode.2

Thank you,3 Madam Chair.4 Good morning, Mr. Greenberger.5 DEPUTY

Good6 morning.7

On of8 your testimony, you state,9 "Philadelphians would like jobs with good10 benefits, but first and foremost,11 Philadelphians simply want and need12 jobs."13 What does that statement mean?14 DEPUTY

It15 means that we're a city that16 underperforms on the number of jobs that17 we have in the City relative to our18 population, and that the incredibly19 important thing right now is to increase20 the number of jobs in Philadelphia.21

So you were22 talking about the Administration's23 position on job creation; you were not24 talking about what Philadelphians want?25 34 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 DEPUTY

Yes.2

Okay.3 Because in the last election, there was a4 ballot question that asked whether City5 Council should be allowed to set6 standards in terms of wage and benefits,7 and it was overwhelmingly approved. So I8 would contend that Philadelphians want9 job quality, not just jobs but job10 quality with living wages.11 (Applause.)12

My first13 question to you -- I heard you reference14 an analysis of San Francisco, and it15 seems that you pulled a quote out of that16 analysis as opposed to actually saying17 what that analysis concluded. So what do18 you believe that analysis concluded in19 terms of its impact on businesses?20 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:21 There are several analyses that are22 available, not just the one I cited, and23 some of those analyses suggest that --24

I want you25 35 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 to deal with the one that you cited.2 DEPUTY

The3 analysis is mixed in its picture.4

Didn't the5 analysis say that six out of seven6 businesses were not negatively impacted?7 DEPUTY

I8 don't remember whether it was six out of9 seven. I thought it was two-thirds.10

So11 two-thirds of the businesses, according12 to what you're saying, were not13 negatively impacted?14 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:15 Right. And in San Francisco,16 approximately two-thirds of the17 businesses already provide sick leave18 benefits.19

And so if we20 can provide sick leave benefits to as21 many people as possible, then this should22 be done on some level. Would you agree23 with that?24 DEPUTY

Yes,25 36 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 and only if it doesn't come at the risk2 of businesses making decisions to either3 cut back on the number of jobs they are4 providing or to leave the City. And5 that's where our issue is. It's not with6 the intention of the bill; it's with7 whether it makes us less competitive in a8 regional economy.9

What10 analysis have you actually done in terms11 of why businesses move out of the City?12 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:13 Businesses move out of the City for a14 number --15

What16 analysis have you done?17 DEPUTY

We18 have --19

I don't need20 anecdotal evidence. What I need is21 actual analysis of why businesses really22 move out. I mean, if you're going to23 talk about Philadelphia residents or24 Philadelphia businesses, have you25 37 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 actually done polling? Do you have data?2 Do we actually know the reasons why3 businesses move out or why jobs leave?4 DEPUTY

We5 have heard over many years from hundreds6 of businesses, hundreds of businesses,7 why -- what they use to make decisions.8

That's9 anecdotal evidence. You will never10 arrive at a conclusion in terms of how11 you should possibly even offer amendments12 to this bill or provide paid sick leave13 to as many people as possible until you14 actually know why businesses move out and15 how it's actually going to affect jobs.16 Is that true?17 DEPUTY

Yes,18 but I do think we know why businesses19 leave or why they choose to stay.20

Anecdotally.21 DEPUTY

And22 it's not the same story every time.23

Anecdotally.24 What analysis have you done in25 38 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 terms of pay and benefits within the2 region?3 DEPUTY

We4 do not have a comprehensive analysis to5 give you.6

So you talk7 about competitive advantages and8 disadvantages and you say the purpose9 behind your testimony is to make10 Philadelphia more competitive, but11 Philadelphia is not necessarily behind12 other parts -- ahead of other parts of13 the region in terms of pay and benefits.14 You would probably conclude that most in15 the region have better pay and better16 benefits, wouldn't you?17 DEPUTY

I18 don't know that the rest of the region19 has better pay or better benefits.20

If you don't21 know, you can say you don't know.22 DEPUTY

I23 don't know that the rest of the region24 has better pay or better benefits.25 39 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741

So you don't2 know whether we're competitive or not3 competitive?4 DEPUTY

I do5 know that we have a much higher tax6 burden in the City of Philadelphia. We7 hear about that all the time. And I know8 that we have a higher regulatory burden,9 and we hear about that all the time.10

But you11 don't have an analysis of pay and12 benefits?13 DEPUTY

I14 don't have that with me, no.15

Okay. I'm16 going to ask you a very broad question.17 What is economic development?18 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:19 Economic development is fundamentally20 business formation and expansion that21 results in more jobs.22

Economic23 development is defined as business24 creation, more businesses, job creation,25 40 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 more jobs, also as per capita income2 increase.3 DEPUTY

Yes.4 That's true.5

Do you know6 how we rank within the region in terms of7 pay?8 DEPUTY

I9 don't have that statistic in front of me.10 It's probably not very good.11

Is it safe12 to say that with a 25 percent poverty13 rate, that you're concluding that we14 cannot focus on job quality because it15 will make us uncompetitive?16 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:17 That's our concern in this instance, yes.18

With a 2519 percent poverty rate and with 41 percent20 of Philadelphians not having paid sick21 leave, are you saying that we are not in22 a position to focus on job quality?23 DEPUTY

I'm24 saying in this instance, we believe that25 41 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 the presence of jobs should outweigh the2 presence of this benefit right now.3

But there's4 no analysis that says that this will5 impact jobs at all?6 DEPUTY

It's7 hard to predict what people are going to8 do. I mean, this is -- we hear -- we9 have conferences with business groups and10 with individual businesses. We hear them11 tell us what they think they were going12 to do, but obviously what they're going13 to do is a matter of when the law is in14 effect. Then they make their decisions.15

What public16 policy does the Administration promote in17 terms of job quality?18 DEPUTY

I19 think we would -- as far as this bill is20 concerned, we would be thrilled to see21 this pass at a higher level of government22 so that it doesn't put the City in a less23 competitive situation. That's what our24 concern is here. It's not the facts of25 42 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 the bill.2

My question3 is, what specific public policy does the4 Administration promote in terms of job5 quality? What's the Administration's6 position on job quality?7 DEPUTY

We8 would like to see the highest level of9 job quality within the context of not10 losing jobs as a result of it.11

Do you12 oversee the workforce development13 systems?14 DEPUTY

It's15 part of the group that I coordinate with,16 yes.17

Within the18 workforce development systems, are there19 criteria for responsible employers and20 criteria for good jobs?21 DEPUTY

I22 don't know enough of the specifics about23 everything that's written in the24 workforce system to be able to answer25 43 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 you.2

You oversee3 workforce development?4 DEPUTY

I5 don't oversee it. They coordinate with6 the agencies of development that report7 to me. I'm not in charge of the8 workforce development system, if that's9 what you mean.10

I guess the11 question I would ask is, if you don't12 oversee workforce development, then where13 does your knowledge of workforce14 development come from?15 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:16 Well --17 (Applause.)18 DEPUTY

I19 was an employer for 22 years with a firm20 that had -- and I was the managing21 partner of a firm that employed anywhere22 from 20 to 40 people.23

Let me tell24 you about your workforce development25 44 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 system that you oversee. There's2 criteria for a responsible employer.3 There is criteria for what a good job is.4 There is actually the adoption of a5 self-sufficiency standard. So the6 Administration is actually contradicting7 its own workforce development policy, and8 part of the problem is is that the9 workforce development system has never10 been linked and directly connected to job11 creation and economic development.12 DEPUTY

And13 that's something we're very concerned14 about. We totally agree.15 (Applause.)16

But as we17 grow economically and come back from18 recession, that's the best time to look19 at issues of equity, to look at who20 responsible employers are and are not, to21 look at what good jobs are and are not,22 and to actually practice fairness, and23 there's no way you can actually realign24 the workforce development system or grow25 45 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 this economy or believe that as we come2 back from recession that it can and3 should not be done without addressing all4 of those issues. That's the responsible5 thing to do, which is why workforce6 development was placed under you, so that7 it would all be coordinated.8 Thank you, Madam Chair.9 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:10 Thank you.11 (Applause.)12

The Chair13 recognizes Councilwoman Brown.14

Thank you,15 Madam Chair.16 (Applause.)17 COUNCILWOMAN TASCO:18 Councilwoman Brown.19

Councilman20 Goode referenced in his opening statement21 that there have been a number of bills22 that have come before City Council around23 business that potentially impact our24 business community, and he referenced the25 46 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 menu labeling bill. I'm going to use the2 menu labeling bill as an example.3 DEPUTY

I'm4 sorry. The what?5

Menu6 labeling bill.7 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:8 Thank you.9

In March10 '07 I introduced that bill, and the11 principle pushback we got, not from the12 Pennsylvania Restaurant Association but13 from the national Restaurant Association,14 is that it will cause the loss of jobs in15 many of our chain restaurants. Like this16 bill, it took close to two years to get17 movement and ultimately secure the votes18 to pass the bill, which then went to the19 Mayor's desk and he signed the bill. And20 the research that's already been done by21 the Department of Health on the impact of22 menu labeling, one is that counter to the23 argument we heard in March '07, job loss24 has not been what was -- the notion of25 47 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 job loss has not proven to be true, which2 was the argument given to us March '07.3 So it supports the notion that typically4 when we want to act as a body on issues5 that impact families and/or workers, the6 notion that is going to lead to the loss7 of jobs is a misnomer. So I put that on8 the record as an in-your-face example9 where that ultimately was not held to be10 true.11 Secondly, you mention in your12 answers to Councilman Goode that you13 would like to see a higher level of14 government pursue this legislation. Has15 there been any discussion in the16 Administration to have someone at the17 state level take a harder look at this so18 that maybe we could have a statewide19 policy around this issue?20 DEPUTY

I'm21 not aware of whether that's happened in22 this new Administration, but I think it23 should, and ideally, this is exactly the24 kind of thing that should happen at the25 48 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 federal level, because then the playing2 field is totally equal.3

Lastly, we4 know that this process requires us to5 make tweaks along the way, because it's6 always about getting to a better bill,7 not killing a bill. We don't want to8 participate in that process.9 (Applause.)10

So with11 that said, you referenced seasonal and12 temporary workers as well as interns.13 Based on my conversation with the author14 of the bill, there is strong indication15 that that would be excluded. The16 definition of "employee," seasonal,17 temporary workers, as well as interns,18 would be excluded for the bill. So in an19 attempt to get to a better bill, where20 might the Administration fall with21 regards to that?22 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:23 We're happy to talk about any and all24 such amendments to this bill. I mean, we25 49 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 recognize that as we pointed out in the2 testimony, there are a number of things3 that we think probably have pushed way4 too far. We continue to believe that5 this is not the right time, but we're not6 going to shut down discussion. We want7 to have that discussion. So we're quite8 happy to entertain any and all proposals.9

Thank you10 for your testimony.11 Thank you, Madam Chair.12

Thank you.13 (Applause.)14

The Chair15 recognizes Councilman Greenlee.16

Thank17 you, Madam Chair.18 Just quickly, because I know19 there's a lot of people that want to20 testify today. Just a follow-up on what21 Councilwoman Brown said just to take it22 one step farther. There's a lot of23 amendments that are going to be -- very24 well might be offered today based both on25 50 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 your testimony and on the conversations2 we've had with businesses. I guess the3 question is kind of what the Councilwoman4 asked, but maybe even more specific. Is5 the Administration open at some point, if6 a lot of these concerns are answered, to7 supporting this bill or are you always8 going to say, it's not the right time?9 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:10 Well, never say never and don't always11 say always. We're open to seeing what12 you have in mind, and we'll have a13 serious discussion about it and we'll try14 to make some decisions.15 I mean, I want to reiterate, we16 think that at this point in the economic17 recovery, we're extremely concerned about18 anything that looks like it might19 diminish the number of jobs available in20 the City, but without being able to look21 at exactly what the amendments are, I22 don't want to say that we're not going to23 look at this or take it seriously.24

And just25 51 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 generally -- and I know neither one of us2 are historians, but we've read stuff.3 The issue of it's not the right time,4 hasn't that really been said every time5 somebody tried to pass something to help6 workforce?7 (Applause.)8 DEPUTY

As9 Councilwoman Brown has said about the10 menu, people have said it about that.11 People will say it about a lot of things,12 and I think our job, my job and yours, is13 to distinguish between those that are14 likely to be true and those that are15 likely not to be true.16

And along17 those lines, last question, you reference18 on bottom of the Urban Institute,19 that study. The quote you make, if I'm20 right, isn't that just a general opinion?21 I don't think that's based actually on22 the San Francisco law, right? Isn't that23 generally what they thought could happen24 if -- it says a large body of research,25 52 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 but I don't think it was on the San2 Francisco bill, was it?3 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:4 Well, I thought it was on the San5 Francisco. I was looking specifically at6 the San Francisco one, but I won't swear7 to that. I don't have the thing8 memorized.9

Because10 the reason I say it, I understand there11 are studies that show that the effect was12 relatively minimal. From what I13 understand, only 2.8 percent of14 businesses reduced vacation leave, for15 example. That was one of the things that16 was a concern, and that most businesses17 did not make any changes in San18 Francisco. I know it's talked about San19 Francisco and Philly are different.20 Obviously they're different, but I still21 maintain there's businesses in San22 Francisco and Philadelphia, there's23 workers in San Francisco and24 Philadelphia, people get sick in both25 53 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 places.2 DEPUTY

All3 true. Here's -- I mean, all true, and4 the only other statistics that I'll bring5 into it is that, I mean, we talked6 earlier about the number of jobs we have7 per hundred people, 36, lower than our8 region. In San Francisco and, by the9 way, in Washington, it's just the10 opposite. San Francisco has nearly twice11 the number of jobs per hundred that we12 do, 69 per hundred, and they outperform13 their region. So their ability to have14 additional regulation does not15 necessarily make them uncompetitive with16 the region.17 In Washington, DC the number is18 astonishing, 116 jobs per hundred19 population, also vastly outperforming the20 region. And so we see numbers like this21 and we're simply concerned that these are22 places that are doing this that are23 outperforming us on job count24 dramatically, not just by little bits,25 54 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 and they're outperforming their regions,2 and this is the genesis of our concern,3 not the substance of the bill itself,4 minus the amendments that we've talked5 about.6

Okay.7 All right. Thank you. Thank you,8 Mr. Greenberger.9 Thank you, Madam Chair.10

Thank you.11 Any other questions?12

Madam13 Chair?14

Councilman15 Clarke.16

Thank you,17 Madam Chair.18 A couple of quick questions. I19 just wanted to get some clarity on some20 of your testimony and some of the21 information that I heard.22 First, when did we implement23 the sales tax, the additional one24 percent?25 55 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:2 Wasn't that --3

A couple of4 budget seasons ago?5 DEPUTY

--6 two years ago? Two budget seasons ago, I7 would have said.8

And at that9 time, we were very concerned given the10 economy, and the economy was actually on11 the downward spiral as opposed to what12 was suggested in a hearing the other day,13 the Jobs Commission, that it was14 improving. And there were significant15 concerns raised that it was going to be a16 job killer, probably some of the same17 people who will be here testifying today18 against this particular bill.19 Do we have any evidence that20 that has happened?21 DEPUTY

We22 don't, and we don't have it one way or23 the other, and the hardest part that we24 all struggle with is that none of us are25 56 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 in a position to know what didn't happen.2 Now, this is a bad economy. We3 see the effects of that bad economy4 happening in the City of Philadelphia.5 We see it happening in the region and in6 the nation. So it's hard for us to7 compare, let's say, broader economic8 growth in the region versus slower9 economic growth in the City. We don't10 have --11

Well, can't12 we --13 DEPUTY

We14 don't know.15

Can't we16 talk about -- one of the primary issues17 was the fact that if there was a one18 percent increase in the sales tax as19 opposed to the outlying counties, the20 people, the Best Buys would jump over the21 line automatically, said we're going to22 set up shop because people will drive out23 there.24 I mean, shouldn't we be able to25 57 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 determine whether there was any evidence2 of that in two years?3 DEPUTY

I4 think that's probably harder to determine5 than we may think, because people's6 buying strength is suppressed everywhere.7 People haven't been buying lots of8 things. So they haven't been buying them9 here, they haven't been buying them in10 the suburbs. And what we don't know11 is -- we don't have the research base at12 the moment to know whether people have13 made choices about buying or kind of not14 buying because -- and going outside of15 the City, let's say, to buy a car, for16 example, although I think the car17 probably impacts if you bring it back to18 the City. But we don't know how many19 people are going outside the City to buy20 something that they would otherwise buy21 in the City in an environment in which22 people aren't buying too much stuff.23

So we don't24 have any evidence that we can point to25 58 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 for something that has happened,2 implemented, say, two years ago, but yet3 we can speculate what could conceivably4 happen with something that we haven't5 even done yet?6 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:7 We're trying to operate from the best8 information we have. You're right. We9 don't have that --10

That's what11 I'm trying to say. You're suggesting12 that somehow if we do this, that it13 can -- and it may. I don't know. It14 could possibly negatively impact15 businesses that are here in the City of16 Philadelphia without any evidence17 whatsoever, but yet we have something18 that we did, this Council and this Mayor,19 implemented a couple of years ago and20 there's no evidence at all to suggest21 that that had a negative impact on22 business. And I'm just --23 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:24 Well, here's the part we don't know. For25 59 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 example, we know that the economy is not2 good. We know that people aren't buying3 as many things, as many services as they4 bought pre-recession. We have a higher5 unemployment rate in the City than we do6 in the region and in the state.7

We've had8 that for quite some time prior to the9 recession.10 DEPUTY

So11 here's the point: We don't know whether12 that higher unemployment rate is the13 result of slower economic growth in the14 City or faster decline.15 COUNCILMAN CLARKE:16 Mr. Greenberger, that's a stretch. Come17 on.18 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:19 Well, these are all interrelated.20

We've had a21 higher unemployment rate in the City of22 Philadelphia probably --23

Twenty24 years.25 60 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 DEPUTY

And2 now it's even higher.3

So to4 suggest somehow that --5 DEPUTY

It's6 even higher. It's too high. I mean, I'm7 not saying that -- it's very hard to8 establish cause and effect between --9

And I agree10 with you, which is why I don't understand11 how you can speculate as to the effect of12 this particular proposal on the table.13 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:14 Because, one, this is -- I mean, we have15 to go with what, A, businesses tell us is16 going to happen. It does make sense. It17 does make sense. And sometimes, as18 Councilwoman has pointed out, sometimes19 they're right and sometimes they're not.20 It does make sense that if they're21 directly burdened with higher costs,22 they're going to figure out a way to23 adjust for it, and there's a number of24 ways they could adjust for it. They25 61 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 could -- some will probably ignore it and2 face the consequences, assuming that3 there's an enforcement mechanism behind4 it. Some may reduce hours or reduce over5 some period of time the amount of6 employment they have. Others may suggest7 reducing salaries, and some may leave the8 City and take their jobs with them.9

Point of10 information.11

Point of12 information from Councilman Goode.13 COUNCILMAN GOODE:14 Mr. Greenberger, or they also could15 become more profitable.16 DEPUTY

I'm17 sorry?18

Or they also19 could become more profitable.20 DEPUTY

And21 on what basis?22

On the basis23 of investing more in their human capital24 and having more productivity and becoming25 62 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 more profitable.2 DEPUTY

If3 they get more business as a result, of4 course. And some of them, by the way,5 will obey the law.6

They also7 could become more profitable from more8 productivity, from investing in their9 human capital in a better way.10 DEPUTY

To11 the extent that sick leave is used, yes,12 that could be.13

Okay. Thank14 you.15 (Applause.)16

Thank you,17 Councilman.18 Mr. Greenberger --19 DEPUTY

Oh,20 sorry.21

That's22 okay. I know we're coming at you from23 all sides.24 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:25 63 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 That's all right.2

You3 suggested in New York a similar proposal4 was put on the table, and I think -- I5 don't know if you said it failed, but it6 didn't proceed.7 DEPUTY

I8 don't know all the details. I just know9 that proposals were put on the table and10 not adopted.11

The12 information that I got, that there was a13 majority of the members of Council who14 supported it and it was only pulled off15 the table because the Council President16 at the time. It wasn't because it didn't17 have the support among the New York City18 Council to proceed.19 Do you have any evidence of20 that?21 DEPUTY

No.22 What happened in New York?23

Yeah.24 DEPUTY

No.25 64 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 I don't know what happened.2

Can you3 look on that? Because that's the4 information I got.5 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:6 Yeah, I'd be happy to.7

The support8 was there. So it was just simply the9 Council President, for whatever reason,10 saying we're not going to move on this11 bill, we're not going to give the12 Councilmembers an opportunity to proceed.13 DEPUTY

I'll14 be happy to find out about that, sure.15

Because16 that's important when you talk about17 comparable cities. And I understand the18 demographics in San Francisco are19 somewhat different, but the demographics20 in New York are a little different also21 but probably closer aligned because of22 the northeastern city. So if we look at23 the fact that based on the information I24 received, that the support was in fact25 65 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 there for New York, that probably would2 be a good comparison.3 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:4 Yeah. I'd be happy to look at it.5 They're certainly a more likely6 comparison than San Francisco.7

Okay. The8 industries that have the highest rate of9 individuals who are not -- well, let me10 start out first, would you agree that11 certain industries benefit as it relates12 to being located in population centers?13 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:14 Sure.15

All right.16 Based on the information I received, the17 industries that have the highest18 incidence of individuals who don't have19 the ability to earn sick leave are20 restaurants, retail and healthcare.21 DEPUTY

That22 makes sense.23

Would you24 suggest that those particular businesses25 66 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 tend to gravitate to high population2 centers?3 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:4 Certainly they gravitate to markets, yes,5 and probably in many cases gravitate to6 higher population centers or where7 obviously they believe a need exists.8 They tend to be --9

I mean,10 restaurants need people to eat at the11 restaurants.12 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:13 That's right.14

Retail15 needs people to buy.16 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:17 Right, but it doesn't stop restaurants18 from existing in all sorts of places.19 It's just that the number of them that20 might exist there that exist -- the21 number of restaurants that exist in a22 small town is going to be obviously less23 than the number of restaurants that exist24 in a big town. So they're all looking25 67 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 for enough market --2

So are you3 suggesting that the restaurants on Walnut4 Street would move to the suburbs?5 DEPUTY

No,6 I don't think so. As I said --7

I do happen8 to represent that area, so I have a9 little knowledge that the traffic10 patterns associated with Friday and11 Saturday night tend to be people coming12 into the City, not people going out of13 the City.14 DEPUTY

I15 don't anticipate that they're going to16 move to the suburbs.17 (Applause.)18 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:19 Here's what I do anticipate: As I said,20 there are going to be some businesses21 that just don't do anything and hope they22 don't get caught. I think that most23 businesses will either abide by the law24 and figure out some way of adjusting25 68 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 their business models to account for2 whatever they think it ultimately costs,3 whether that's in reduced number of jobs,4 reduced salaries, other benefit changes.5 I think that's what will happen. I think6 the broader picture and whether --7 because in a lot of these places, by the8 way, are one-off establishments who9 possibly rely, as you said, restaurants,10 retail, who rely on a specific market.11 And so the restaurant that's succeeding12 on Walnut Street doesn't sit around and13 say, Well, I'm going to just -- now I'm14 going to take my restaurant and be15 elsewhere. They understand they've16 developed an audience base. It does17 occasionally happen, but it probably18 doesn't happen for economic reasons. It19 happens because somebody has a change in20 their point of view about life. I mean,21 Georges Perrier said he was going to, you22 know, run a restaurant somewhere else.23 That wasn't, I think, an economic issue.24 That was like, I just want to be there,25 69 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 not here.2

Right.3 DEPUTY

But4 restauranteurs, there are many5 restauranteurs who open up multiple6 places of business. We're concerned that7 if they perceive the regulatory burden;8 in particular, something like this, which9 probably, as you say, affects their10 business to a greater degree than it11 affects other business, if they're12 thinking about opening another place and13 feel either discouraged by the regulatory14 climate or the cost of this, they may15 choose not to. That's a possibility.16 And I think the other -- there17 are two other burdens that I would note.18 One is that there are businesses that19 have multiple locations both in the City20 and outside the City, and there is a21 concern that I know that many of them22 have expressed with some regulatory23 overlay that puts them in a position of24 offering different things to different25 70 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 workers within the same corporate2 structure. We've heard that on a number3 of issues that make them nervous and make4 them, you know, think twice about whether5 they want to either bring or expand their6 operations in Philadelphia.7 And then I think the last one,8 which I admit is a matter of debate and9 some speculation, and, that is, when does10 the business climate in Philadelphia --11 it is perceived as not a very12 business-friendly city. That's something13 that we're living with, unfortunately.14 And when do we -- we have to measure all15 of these regulatory burdens against that16 story line, because we will never know17 what businesses didn't come here because18 they simply believed, mythology or not,19 that this was a hard place to do20 business. And we're very concerned about21 that.22 I hear -- now, obviously, do we23 have -- it's hard to prove what didn't24 happen. So I can't tell you that I got25 71 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 the lineup of 20 businesses that said2 they're not coming here, but I have -- I3 do hear from businesses with regularity4 related to development projects about5 nervousness about the business climate6 here, and it shows up in the lack of7 national retailers that are here. It8 shows up in the lack of out-of-town9 developers who are here.10

I hear,11 because I represent a number of those12 businesses, but --13 DEPUTY

I14 know you do.15

And I will16 give credit to the Administration over17 the last year that they've actually18 introduced and what we've introduced and19 the Administration has supported20 legislation that has improved the21 regulatory process. We've consolidated a22 number of the licenses as it relates to23 the ability to get a license to a24 developer to start their businesses. And25 72 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 so we've done a number of things, and I2 fully anticipate over the next year --3 and I haven't seen the Five Year Plan,4 but I suspect in the Five Year Plan that5 there will be, in one of those outlying6 years, the continued reduction in7 business taxes proposed by the8 Administration.9 So we understand the nature as10 it relates to the business friendliness11 of the City of Philadelphia, and I think12 that we've been trying to address that,13 but we also have to look at creating the14 climate that's friendly to the employee,15 which I think is very important. Would16 you say that that's the case?17 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:18 Yeah, and we're looking for the right19 balancing act between the two. It's a20 hard one. This debate is a legitimate21 debate.22

All right.23 Thank you, Madam Chair.24

Thank you.25 73 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 The Chair recognizes Councilman2 Kenney.3

5 As with all these issues, it's6 very complicated, because it involves7 apparently doing what's right relative to8 the cost of doing what's right. We've9 passed a number of pieces of legislation10 over the course of the last number of11 years, including menu labeling and12 Councilman Goode's $10,000 tax credit for13 firms who hire people who are reentering14 society after being incarcerated, which15 is, I think, a groundbreaking piece of16 legislation that we all supported. 24 So when you deal with -- we25 74 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 passed also groundbreaking legislation on2 creating B corporations, where3 corporations voluntarily applied to a4 nationally recognized company that5 determines their sustainability goals,6 their treatment of employees, their7 benefits levels and all those things, and8 that's a voluntary process that gets them9 the opportunity to apply for City tax10 credits. So in some ways, we mandate; in11 other ways, we incentivize. 10 I go to my gas station where I11 get gas once a week or whatever, and the12 man has eight pumps, and under federal13 regulations, they're called vapor-capture14 nozzles. So the federal government15 mandated the purchase and installation of16 vapor-capture nozzles. 3 There's another provision where4 if you want to sell pre-packaged food,5 it's a $150 license fee or permit fee --6 license fee. 5 So I would throw into the mix6 here the analysis of these fees that we7 charge small and medium businesses but8 also large businesses that maybe are able9 to absorb them better. 7 So it's not just the tax8 structure. It's not just the competitive9 nature of the suburbs. It's what we10 whack people with on an annual basis to11 get businesses started and to stay in12 business. 16

One of the17 areas that we've lost -- and maybe you18 can explain why you think this is the19 case, because Councilman Clarke was20 looking for concrete examples of21 businesses that are no longer in the22 City, and one of the things that popped23 into my head are car dealers. I don't24 think we have -- I can't tell you if we25 79 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 have ten or less in the City, and the2 rest of them have kind of congregated3 around the City ring, still taking4 advantage of the population5 concentration, but benefiting from the6 lower taxes that they need to charge,7 whether it's sales tax or otherwise.8 Could you just, on that9 particular industry, could you just give10 me your feeling on why we don't have car11 dealers as much as we used to have in the12 City?13 DEPUTY

I14 think you probably hit it right. Car15 dealerships tend to be big land consumers16 as well, because they're running service17 operations, parking, used cars, all the18 rest of it, and land, despite the amount19 of vacant land we have, aggregating20 enough land to do that with reasonable21 access to the bigger population market22 that they want to serve, not so easy to23 find, particularly not so easy to find24 land that's --25 80 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741

Can't find2 land here within the confines of the3 City?4 DEPUTY

It5 looks like --6

We got --7 DEPUTY

Oh,8 it looks like we've got a lot of land, I9 agree with that.10

Which is11 not paying any taxes.12 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:13 Listen, I agree, it looks like we've got14 a lot of land. But, for instance, if you15 talk to PIDC about, for instance,16 industry land, which is sort of a lot of17 this is a version of, car dealerships I18 mean, because parking, distribution,19 service, all that stuff, the aggregate20 amount of land that we actually have21 available to that is dramatically smaller22 than the actual land that's sitting23 around. I mean, there's tons of land24 around. Getting it into production is25 81 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 often hard. A lot of it came from2 polluting industries from a long time ago3 where there are a lot of costs associated4 with mitigating it.5 So I think some of them -- and6 obviously I haven't done any kind of7 analysis about car dealers in particular,8 but I think some of it comes from land9 availability, wanting to be where they10 think possibly populations with more11 money might be and recognizing that12 people from the City will still come out13 and buy the cars, because if you need a14 car, you're going to have to get it15 somewhere, and at least down in the Auto16 Mall area, we still have some17 concentration of auto dealers, but --18

Not in the19 City.20 DEPUTY

Not21 as much as it used to be?22

Not in the23 City either.24 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:25 82 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 Well, down in the Auto Mall there is.2

Okay. All3 right. But that was --4 DEPUTY

But5 there's not as many of them as there used6 to be. So your analysis is correct. And7 you don't see hardly any in the8 neighborhoods.9

And, again,10 this is a different subject than what11 we're dealing with, the bill, but it's an12 example of an industry that no longer or13 rarely exists in the City.14 My reiterated point and my last15 point to you is that in addition to16 balancing the needs of the worker and the17 needs of the employer, we have to look at18 what we charge these people to stay in19 business and maybe we free up enough20 money to provide those extra added21 services.22 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:23 Well, I think it's a fair point and we're24 certainly -- look, it's a big city.25 83 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 There's lot of regulations. There's lots2 of fees. Every city has them. You're3 right, this is a complex balance of4 imposition of fees, regulations and the5 opportunity to sort of do business.6

But on the7 cost of fees and regulations, if we were8 to reduce over a period of time, in9 addition what Councilman Clarke mentioned10 about getting the business taxes down on11 a downward trend, don't you believe that12 those opportunities or that action would13 create opportunities for employment so14 people would pay wage taxes, they would15 buy homes, they would spend money in the16 community?17 DEPUTY

Sure18 it could.19

But in many20 ways, the government itself creates a lot21 of the problems because of what we charge22 people to be in business. Not just the23 overall tax levels, not just the sales24 tax, not just the wage tax, but all those25 84 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 annual things that we charge people that2 could give them an opportunity to employ3 someone and pay these benefits.4 DEPUTY

And,5 you know, I don't know -- I didn't come6 here prepared to know how much the City7 collects in fees every year for these8 various businesses, but I think it is9 worth the analysis.10

Thank you.11 Thank you, Madam Chair.12

Thank you.13 Councilman Greenlee.14

Very15 quickly. I just thought of this as we're16 all talking here. I know,17 Mr. Greenberger, you're the Director of18 Commerce and your testimony is going to19 be geared towards commerce, business. I20 understand that, and I think the folks21 from the Administration here come from22 that angle. This is the Committee on23 Public Health and Human Services. I24 think this bill was referred to this25 85 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 Committee for that reason.2 Again, I know this isn't your3 field, but would you also agree that the4 health aspect is a part of this whole5 issue, is a part of the bill?6 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:7 Certainly. There is a piece of it that's8 part of it, and it's more true in some9 businesses than others, yes.10

And you11 may not know this. Has the12 Administration involved their13 health-related individuals, like14 Dr. Schwarz or anybody?15 DEPUTY

Yes.16 I've at least had conversation with17 Deputy Mayor Schwarz.18

Can you19 say what his opinion is on anything? The20 reason I asked it, I called him twice and21 he never called me back. So I have to22 ask you.23 DEPUTY

I24 think his primary concern -- and it's25 86 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 indicative of something like the H1N12 from a year or two ago -- is that when3 there are true health emergencies, he's4 very concerned that people need to stay5 home and that the bigger -- there's a6 much bigger health risk when people are7 not staying home and are sick with8 diseases that can spread very fast. That9 was the one thing that he made very clear10 to me.11

Certainly12 a big issue, but somebody has the flu and13 they give it to other people, that's14 still a health issue, right?15 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:16 Yeah.17

It may18 not be a pandemic like H1N1. And I know19 this isn't your field.20 DEPUTY

No,21 but obviously it varies with the kind of22 business. If I'm coming in with a cold23 one day and people are generally staying24 away from my office and my phone,25 87 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 probably can manage that, but you come2 into a restaurant, very different3 feeling.4

Right.5 It is different.6 I bring that out, I just want7 to make clear that the health aspect I8 hope is being considered by the9 Administration, too.10 DEPUTY

It11 is.12

Thank13 you.14 Thank you, Madam Chair.15

Thank you.16 Just let me ask you a question.17 How does your office interact with PIDC18 and in looking at the impact of any and19 all economic development legislation20 coming through the City? As I've21 listened to you, you've talked about we22 have heard, someone has told us, but do23 you have an R&D arm to your department24 that analyzes, even going back to the25 88 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 menu labeling, to see what the testimony2 was and what really actually happened?3 Same thing for smoking. I mean,4 everybody was going to go to Montgomery5 County and Delaware County to smoke. I6 think the businesses have increased their7 business because there is no smoking,8 which I enjoy.9 DEPUTY

Me,10 too.11

And so12 what I'm saying, how do we, rather than13 anecdotally as we've talked about this14 morning, give facts to your testimony to15 say, Well, we've heard, but this is what16 we know?17 If businesses are leaving the18 City, do you do an exit interview? Why19 are you leaving? What could we have done20 better to keep you here? That way, you21 know and understand why businesses are22 leaving.23 I mean, the notion that we're24 business unfriendly, it just floats in25 89 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 the air, but I don't know if there's any2 documentation to say that we are3 unfriendly.4 I just think we need to have a5 better research arm. It might be better6 for some of these organizations that are7 doing research on whether or not we8 should have ten Councilmembers or four to9 be able to do the economic analysis that10 we need, which is certainly more11 important to the success and the health12 of the business community in13 Philadelphia. It would be very helpful14 to us.15 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:16 Well, thank you for bringing that up.17 You had two questions. Let me answer the18 second one first, because I think that's19 the more critical one.20 We have one, two people at best21 who do research for us. That is not22 enough. Something that I'm very23 concerned about is that we do not have24 enough research strength within the City25 90 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 and certainly within the Commerce2 Department. As staff and resources have3 been cut, obviously we've had to put4 those resources where we think they're5 doing the most good, but I'm very6 sensitive to the fact that we don't have7 a systematic and really strong research8 core. I want more. I want to be able9 to -- even if I have to shift some10 employees around, I want to develop that11 strength. It's not good enough. And12 I'll say that just totally straight up.13 It is not good enough. We can do some,14 and we do some.15

Thank you.16 DEPUTY

Can17 I answer the other --18

Just a19 point of information on that. I mean, we20 worked mostly with Department of Human21 Services over the last number of months22 to create or recreate a relationship with23 Temple School of Social Work and the Fox24 School of Business to talk about human25 91 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 services, business models and business2 processes and workload and just3 state-of-the-art stuff that's coming out4 of these schools. I can't imagine that5 one of our other institutions, either Fox6 School of Business or Wharton or someone7 else, wouldn't put some of their senior8 graduate students on something for a year9 to do something like that to get it on10 their resume, number one, and to help us11 in a pretty low cost or no cost effort.12 DEPUTY

In13 fact, we're organizing around just that14 very thing. Some offers have been made,15 for example, from, I think, Penn Law for16 a group of interns. So we're going to17 try to take advantage of that.18 The other thing that we're19 doing is, this is a very active20 conversation with the Private Sector21 Outreach Board, which consists, I think,22 you --23

We just24 have to get them implemented.25 92 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 DEPUTY

--2 to try to get help from private3 businesses who do have this capacity to4 put it on loan to the City and sort of5 strengthen this piece of it.6 But I have to say, I want all7 that. I want all that. I want the8 interns, I want the Private Sector9 Outreach Board, but I also want there to10 be a kind of sustained capacity within11 the City, because you'll always have12 questions, we'll always have questions13 about the data.14

But the15 sustained capacity could be established16 by institutionalizing those17 relationships, not just on an ad hoc18 basis.19 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:20 Correct.21

We should22 have -- I don't care what you call23 them -- the Mayor's Scholars, whoever it24 is, that these kids come into this City25 93 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 from -- either live here or come in from2 outside. They matriculate through here,3 and then the last year of graduation or4 last year of graduation from graduate5 school, that they come and they become6 something that's sought after, that they7 come in here and contribute, because8 they're on the cutting edge of9 everything. I mean, we're somewhat10 dinosaurs, some of us, because we're11 doing the same thing for the last 20, 3012 years. Those kids, whether they're in IT13 or human services or finance, they're on14 the cutting edge of it all.15 So I would institutionalize16 that annually. I wouldn't just do it on17 an ad hoc basis.18 DEPUTY

I19 agree completely. That is the point, to20 institutionalize it.21 To your second question -- or22 your first question, you asked a question23 about PIDC.24

Is there a25 94 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 coordination between the two2 organizations?3 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:4 Well, in fact, this is Tuesday, so every5 Tuesday morning we have a6 first-thing-in-the-morning coordination7 meeting with PIDC, three of their senior8 leaders, four of ours. Every single9 Tuesday we go through pretty much every10 both real estate and economic -- the11 major economic development project in12 town that might interact with them as a13 transactor of financial services, and we14 go through this every week. And I would15 say that we're talking to people at16 PIDC -- I talk to people at PIDC in the17 leadership every day, and that model18 exists at our staff levels as well. So19 the level of coordination is very high.20

And it's21 to talk about doing business a new way?22 DEPUTY

It's23 trying to get projects to happen mostly.24 It's trying to say, Here's a project.25 95 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 Teva Pharmaceuticals, to use an example2 that's out in the public world. What3 does it take to make sure that that4 happens, what does it take to close that5 transaction, what problems are being had,6 because obviously there's a lot of7 investment and a lot of jobs at stake.8 COUNCILWOMAN TASCO:9 Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown.10

I am11 compelled to join the chorus on how12 valuable hard data, documented research,13 matters, and, again, I'll use the menu14 labeling bill as my closest example,15 because the pushback was enormous, both16 locally and statewide and nationally.17 When I asked the Health Department to18 show me by district, map for me by19 district the high incidence of high blood20 pressure and diabetes and then shared21 that with a couple of colleagues as I was22 trying to build support, it was hard data23 based on work that they had done that24 actually showed on a map where you had25 96 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 those incidence of high blood pressure.2 It actually moved the needle for me in3 gaining support, and it was based on hard4 data from, in this case, the Health5 Department.6 So it really, really, really7 does matter when we're trying to move8 legislation in this body to back it up9 with solid evidence, because then it10 makes the argument credible. I mean, you11 fast forward 12 months later and now12 citizens are actually appreciative of the13 notion that they can go into a restaurant14 and see how much calories, fats, et15 cetera, are in their food, which kills16 the notion that was brought to us and17 many of my colleagues that restaurants18 would suffer unfairly.19 So it's simply to underscore20 the ask that we actually institutionalize21 backing up arguments with solid evidence22 when we're trying to do or not do23 something.24 Thank you, Madam Chair.25 97 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 (Applause.)2

Councilman3 Goode.4

Thank you,5 Madam Chair.6 Continuing that theme, before I7 ask my final question, the two or three8 research staff people that you have, do9 they conduct their own research or do10 they find other people's research?11 DEPUTY

I'd12 say it is probably mostly using other13 research that's out there in order to get14 quicker answers.15

But do they16 conduct their own research?17 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:18 Well, by that you mean actually manage a19 research study, go out and talk to20 people? We do that, but I would say more21 of the information that we garner comes22 from research that's done by others.23

Have you24 conducted any research on the City's25 98 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 challenges to economic competitiveness?2 DEPUTY

I3 don't think we've done it in the way that4 you're suggesting, no.5

So whether6 it is anecdotal or not, the last question7 is, within the context of your own8 argument, can you cite for me the top9 five challenges of the City's economic10 competitiveness?11 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:12 Yeah, I think I can. I think it comes13 from several different corners. I mean,14 the most obvious one is tax -- we'll call15 it tax and fee structure. I think that's16 one of them.17 I think the other ones that are18 germane to business are possibility a19 little less obvious, but here's what I20 think they are. There are direct21 services that are provided by cities,22 this city and any city, to businesses,23 whether that's regulatory process,24 permitting process, assistance with25 99 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 transactions, that sort of thing. So2 they're the direct services.3 There is -- quality of life, I4 think, is a huge thing in business, the5 quality of educational attainment to the6 citizens, safety of the City, cleanliness7 of the City. I character all of that as8 quality of life. Businesses look for9 that, particularly businesses that are10 intending to make what they hope -- what11 we hope is a longer term investment in12 the City. They're interested not just in13 what's the City like when we get there,14 but is the City going to be stable and a15 good place when we are looking possibly16 to sell our businesses or to get out.17

I'm still18 taking notes. Go ahead.19 DEPUTY

So20 quality of life is a third one.21 Fourth one I think has to do22 with what I sometimes refer to as23 indirect services, meaning it's the24 quality of the public environment, are we25 100 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 handling our transactions with2 transparency, are the transactions that3 we're doing and the way we do them4 consistent throughout the City, which I5 think is a very important thing, because,6 again, businesses look for7 predictability.8

And the9 fifth one?10 DEPUTY

The11 fifth one, I think, relates to advocacy.12 Do we -- are we -- and when I say "we,"13 this is like the big we, in government,14 all of us. Are we sufficiently15 advocating for businesses as the heart of16 job creation and economic development.17

That was18 very eloquent. You said nothing about19 pay and benefits. Did you notice that?20 DEPUTY

I21 did notice that.22

Thank you,23 Madam Chair.24 (Applause.)25 101 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741

Thank you2 very much.3 Councilman Greenlee.4

Last5 thing, I promise.6 Just more of just a point of7 information, I guess. Following up on my8 issue that I talked about with9 Dr. Schwarz, I understand from10 Mr. Carter, Councilman Clarke's legal11 counsel, that he formally requested12 Dr. Schwarz to appear three weeks ago and13 has not heard anything.14 Now, I know that's not your15 call, but I think that it's important to16 get on the record that I'm concerned that17 the Administration is just considering a18 part of this issue and not the total19 part. Okay? And I hope that's20 communicated to the right people.21 (Applause.)22 DEPUTY

It23 will be communicated. Thank you.24

Thank25 102 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 you.2

We thank3 you for your testimony. My frustration4 with eight-year-term Administrations is5 that we set up programs and systems and6 when the new Administration comes in,7 they get rid of that system. I would8 hope that our Commerce Department, which9 is so important to the development of10 this city, and having the research arm11 that is extremely important to this city,12 can be organized in a way that is13 institutionalized and that whoever may be14 Mayor in four years, that that arm stays15 in place to continue with the research16 and development that we need when we get17 legislation about the City. We need to18 know what the information is. And you19 need to know.20 And so I hope that you can in21 your next term please institutionalize22 the department so that it's much more23 helpful, so that when you come or whoever24 the succeeding person might be comes in25 103 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 with facts and figures and not a lot of2 anecdotal information.3 DEPUTY

We4 share that goal. Thank you for that5 support.6

Thank you.7 (Applause.)8

Any more9 questions?10 (No response.)11

Thank you12 very much. We appreciate your time.13 The next panel will be Marianne14 Bellesorte of PathWays --15 (Applause.)16

-- Dr.17 Robert Drago, Institute of Women's Policy18 Research; Dewetta Logan, Smart Beginnings19 Early Learning Center. And I do believe20 we have by Skype Donna Levitt, Director21 of San Francisco Office of Labor22 Standards Enforcement, and Needum23 O'Briant, SEIU.24 (Applause.)25 104 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 (Witnesses approached witness2 table.)3

We'll have4 these panelists testify and then we'll do5 the Director of San Francisco, Office of6 Labor Standards at the end.7 Thank you so much for your8 patience and thank you for coming in to9 testify today.10

And thank you11 so much for your great questions on this12 issue. I'd like to say we have one13 substitution. Dr. Amy Traub is going to14 be speaking from the Drum Major Institute15 and Dr. Drago will come a little bit16 later. Amy has a train that she needs to17 catch shortly, so we want to get her in18 now.19

So it's up20 to you.21

Okay. Great.22

Thank you.23

So --24

Is this --25 105 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741

Oh, I'm sorry.2 Go ahead.3

Go ahead.4 Who is testifying first? Who has the5 train?6

Amy has the7 train, but we're going to go as a panel8 still.9

Okay. So10 she can do hers first, if you want. It's11 up to you. You decide.12

Thank you. I13 appreciate this change in the schedule.14 That's so helpful.15 Good morning. My name is Amy16 Traub and I am Director of Research at17 the Drum Major Institute for Public18 Policy. The Drum Major Institute is a19 non-partisan think tank focused on20 improving policy in and for America's21 cities, and we're based in New York City.22 One of our primary projects at23 DMI is to examine public policies that24 have been successful at improving25 106 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 people's lives and explore where else2 they could be replicated to good effect.3 Guaranteeing paid sick leave to all4 working people, as most developed5 countries do and as the City of San6 Francisco has done very successfully, is7 one of the most cost-effective and8 beneficial policies that we've9 encountered.10 In 2010, the Drum Major11 Institute conducted a study analyzing12 Philadelphians' access to paid sick leave13 and projecting the impact of a paid sick14 leave guarantee on Philadelphia's15 economy. We found that two out of every16 five private-sector workers in17 Philadelphia cannot take a single paid18 day off when they're ill, and I have19 submitted copies of that study along with20 my written testimony.21 Our research further indicates22 that guaranteeing paid sick leave will23 not impact employment or business growth24 in Philadelphia. In the three years25 107 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 since San Francisco implemented its paid2 sick leave law, job growth there has3 consistently been higher than in4 neighboring counties without such a law,5 and that's despite the nation's deep6 recession. Indeed, a growing body of7 research finds little evidence to support8 the argument that job growth or business9 growth has been harmed by establishing10 paid sick leave as a citywide standard.11 Instead, the policy provides a meaningful12 benefit to workers, while improving13 public health and workplace productivity.14 In places where paid sick leave15 has been implemented, there's a16 significant divergence between the17 predictions of economic doom beforehand18 and the actual impact. For example, in19 San Francisco, the restaurant industry20 trade group initially asserted that the21 policy would substantially increase small22 business costs and would discourage23 employment. Yet, now that the policy has24 been in place for a number of years, the25 108 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 Golden Gate Restaurant Association calls2 the law successful and, quote, "the best3 public policy for the least cost," and4 they have acknowledged that employees5 have not abused paid sick leave. A top6 official at the San Francisco Chamber of7 Commerce, another original opponent of8 paid sick leave, admitted that, quote,9 "it has not been a huge issue that we10 have heard from our members about. I11 don't think it's quite on the minds of12 employers." So employers have13 implemented this and now they're not even14 paying attention anymore, because it's15 just part of the cost of doing business.16 Rather than predicting negative17 outcomes once again, I suggest that18 looking at the concrete evidence of how19 this policy has operated in practice is20 the best way to predict the impact in21 Philadelphia.22 (Applause.)23

Now, it's true that24 Philadelphia is not the same city as San25 109 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 Francisco. It is a larger city and it's2 a city with a different mix of3 employment. Compared to Philadelphia, a4 much larger proportion of San Francisco's5 workforce can be found in the sectors6 least likely to provide paid sick time,7 such as the restaurant industry and8 construction. Meanwhile, a much larger9 proportion of Philadelphia's workforce10 than of San Francisco's is in the11 industries of healthcare and education,12 sectors in which a greater percentage of13 employers already provide paid sick time.14 This indicates that if paid sick leave15 harmed job growth, the effects would be16 magnified in San Francisco as compared to17 Philadelphia. Yet, even with a larger18 proportion of the workforce affected, San19 Francisco's paid sick leave ordinance had20 little negative impact on business.21 We have also heard this morning22 that Philadelphia is different than San23 Francisco and Washington, DC, which has a24 more limited policy, because those cities25 110 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 have a lower unemployment rate. And I'll2 cite the same numbers that3 Mr. Greenberger mentioned earlier this4 morning. In December of 2010, 11.25 percent of Philadelphians were out of6 work compared to 9.2 percent of San7 Francisco residents and 9.7 percent of8 people in Washington, DC. Clearly, these9 cities are all suffering from the10 lingering effects of our national11 recession and none of them has an12 acceptable rate of unemployment, but it's13 notable that despite the burden that14 opponents say paid sick leave places on15 business, the cities that have enacted16 this policy are actually performing17 better economically. Their lower18 unemployment rates are another piece of19 evidence indicating that this policy is20 not harming business or employment.21 A healthy workforce and a22 healthy business environment are not23 mutually exclusive.24 And so I thank you for the25 111 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 opportunity to provide this testimony.2 I'd be happy to answer any questions,3 including about what our experience has4 been in New York City.5 (Applause.)6

Thank you7 very much. Usually we let the entire8 panel make a presentation, but since you9 have to leave, Councilwoman Brown has a10 question.11

I thank12 you very, very much for your documented13 hard data. Please just state quickly14 what length of time did you collect this15 data? Maybe you stipulated it in your16 testimony. I was not being a good17 listener. But what length of time did18 you collect this data that you testified19 on today?20

The data on21 Philadelphia uses data from the Bureau of22 Labor Statistics. That's the U.S.23 Department of Labor. It's the quarterly24 census of employment and wages on 2009.25 112 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 So that provided information about the2 percentage of Philadelphians employed in3 different industries in 2009. And I4 analyzed that data in conjunction with5 national level data about the proportion6 of workers in each industry that have7 paid sick leave, and that's how we got8 the numbers on how many employees in9 Philadelphia lack the benefit.10 Now, on San Francisco, it's a11 different set of data. The data on San12 Francisco's economic performance and the13 fact that they've actually done better14 than the surrounding counties after they15 implemented a law that was supposedly16 going to harm their competitiveness, that17 data came from the State of California18 Employment Development Department, and19 there we looked at employment between the20 first two quarters of 2006, which was21 immediately before the paid sick law was22 enacted, through the first two quarters23 of 2010, which was the last period that24 data was available for when we did this25 113 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 study.2

Well,3 thank you very, very much. It's very4 compelling. Thank you.5

Thank you.6 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Madam7 Chair?8

Yes.9 Councilman DiCicco.10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.11 Thank you for the opportunity to ask a12 question.13 I was out of the room for a14 while at a briefing. This question may15 have been asked.16 When you compare the17 legislation that's being proposed here18 and compare it to the legislation that19 was enacted in San Francisco, are there20 any significant differences in the21 formulas that are in this bill as to how22 you get to accumulate sick time? Any of23 the details in this bill, do they differ24 in any sense significantly or25 114 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 insignificantly with San Francisco's2 bill?3

I would say that4 the differences are not -- the5 differences are small. There are6 differences. And, of course, now you7 have a number of amendments that you're8 considering as well, so that would change9 what the bill is here in Philadelphia.10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: With the11 amendments, would there still be any12 differences between the two?13

I have not had an14 opportunity to analyze all of the15 amendments yet.16

If I could17 jump in. I'm sorry. This bill is almost18 exactly what San Francisco offered19 originally. The differences are very20 minor. I think the biggest difference is21 in the time that workers can begin using22 the sick time. In this bill it says they23 can begin using it after 30 days. In San24 Francisco it's after 90. And I believe25 115 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 that is in one of the amendments that was2 offered today.3

Would you4 please identify yourself for the record?5

I'm very6 sorry. I'm Marianne Bellesorte, the7 Senior Director of Policy at PathWays PA.8 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No other9 major differences in terms of the process10 by which the individuals other than the11 30 days versus the 90 days?12

There are no13 other major differences that I know of.14 Dr. Drago will be speaking later, also15 knows a lot about this bill and about the16 San Francisco bill, and he may be able to17 address anything I've missed, but I'm18 pretty sure they're the same otherwise.19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.20 Thank you, Madam Chair.21

Thank you.22 Councilwoman Brown.23

Thank you24 for your testimony.25 116 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741

I'm going2 to ask a question, which I probably don't3 know what I'm asking. But are there4 areas of employment where the level of5 employees is down because people don't6 work in those businesses that do not7 provide health insurance? Is there any8 research or correlation to that?9

I'm not sure I10 understand the question.11

Well, I12 guess I'm saying, if you have a high13 unemployment rate in a certain area, say,14 retail rate, and the retailers are15 looking for employees but they're not16 getting them, would one of the reasons be17 because they don't offer the benefits,18 health benefits? Would that be a reason19 for an employee --20

Economic theory21 would say that if there are people22 looking for jobs and jobs available and23 people are not taking those jobs, that24 the level of benefits and the level of25 117 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 pay would make those jobs more2 attractive.3 Is that an answer?4

Yeah, I5 guess it's an answer. We don't have any6 documentation, but I was just thinking7 about that.8

No. That's not9 something I've covered in my research,10 but basic theory is that people will go11 to jobs with better benefits and higher12 pay, and raising pay and improving13 benefits are ways to attract workers.14

Thank you.15 Any other questions?16 (No response.)17

Thank you18 very much for your testimony, and stay as19 long as you like. We'll now go to20 Ms. Bellesorte.21

Thank you very22 much. Again, I'm Marianne Bellesorte. 25 118 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 You all have in front of you, I2 think, about ten pages of testimony, and3 I can promise you they are well worth4 reading. They are as good as anything5 you'll find on the New York Times Best6 Seller List, and I hope you will read7 them, but I'm not going to read them all8 out loud to you right now. 14 I'm here today as a15 representative of both PathWays PA and16 the Coalition for Healthy Families and17 Workplaces. 7 Through our work, we've seen8 many families struggle towards9 self-sufficiency and observed firsthand10 how state and local policies affect their11 success. 15 One of the issues that we have16 heard today already is that this is not17 the right economy in which to be offering18 earned sick time. However, studies have19 shown in the many countries that do offer20 sick time to all of their workers that21 sick time has no impact on unemployment22 rates. 11 This is not a one-size-fits-all12 bill. There are many ways that employers13 can adjust to their current policies to14 fit this minimum standard. 20 While the Administration's21 testimony argued that earned sick days22 would cost money to businesses, studies23 and practical experience show the24 opposite. 7 Also, I know there is a concern8 about costly payroll requirements to meet9 the needs of paid sick days. However, if10 an employer is already tracking employee11 hours to determine pay, taxes and other12 requirements, they really only need to13 add one more line to what they're already14 doing. Presumably we don't have any15 employers here who are pulling $20 out of16 their pocket every once in a while and17 saying, Here you go, thanks for working18 for me today. 21 We know in fact that employers22 who offer their employees the opportunity23 to earn sick time say it ultimately24 improves their bottom line, citing fewer25 122 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 absences, lower health costs and higher2 rates of worker retention. 9 The costs of going to the10 emergency room add up quickly, as I'm11 sure you all know. Just one12 hospitalization for asthma, which can13 often be avoided with preventative care,14 can cost up to $13,000. 20 The experience of San Francisco21 shows that, in practice, earned sick days22 have not proven detrimental to the23 economy even during the recession. Many24 studies show that San Francisco had25 123 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 better employment rates than in the2 surrounding counties even during the3 recession. 6 The bill put forth in Council7 today, without amendments, is almost8 exactly the same as the original San9 Francisco bill, which passed with few10 changes in 2007. In addition to San11 Francisco, Washington, DC and Milwaukee,12 Wisconsin have also passed earned sick13 days laws. Last year, legislators and14 advocates were advancing sick days15 initiatives in 26 states and cities as16 well as in Congress. We've heard already17 today the passage in other cities has18 really been held up as a result of19 political pressure. 6 One thing to really consider as7 you look at this bill is to remember that8 while five -- I'm sorry; while two in9 five Philadelphians lack earned sick10 time, five out of five working11 Philadelphians can be exposed to illness12 as customers or patients at13 establishments that do not offer sick14 time. 24 As the 2009 H1N1 pandemic25 125 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 recently showed, going to work or school2 while sick increases the likelihood of3 spreading infection and creates4 significant public health risks. 15 Something that could be a simple stomach16 flu to you or to me could and has been17 deadly to the elderly and infirm in18 nursing homes, in hospitals and in places19 all across the country.

24 In closing, I'd like to say25 126 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 there are many families in Philadelphia2 who have to make a choice between work3 and family that never should need to be4 made. )12

Thank you13 very much.14 Next.15

Good morning.16 My name is --17

Would you18 speak into the microphone, please.19

Good morning.20 My name is Needum O'Briant. I work as a21 security officer at a commercial building22 here in Philadelphia.23 In December of 2009, I got a24 terrible migraine headache. I felt sick.25 127 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 My supervisor had sent me home, but I2 went to the emergency room instead. The3 doctor told me that I had gotten the4 swine flu. I couldn't believe it, but to5 be honest, I was more worried about my6 job.7 At the company where I work at,8 after four days, you automatically be9 terminated.10 I need my job. I can't afford11 to lose it. I have a family to support.12 I knew I had to make a tough decision.13 Even though the doctor told me14 I should be home for five to seven days,15 I only took three, because I knew the16 fourth day will cost me my job. So after17 three days of unpaid time off, I went18 back to work. I didn't feel 100 percent,19 but I knew I had no other choice.20 I ended up getting sick two21 weeks later, but, again, I knew that I22 couldn't skirt the policy, so I did go23 back to work.24 Eventually I got better, but if25 128 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 I hadn't, I might end up losing my job.2 Security officers are proud to3 be a part of the City defense system to4 help to keep people safe, but we need5 paid sick leave to take care of6 ourselves, our family and for the people7 who rely on us to be at our best, alert8 and focused on our jobs. When I'm sick9 at work, I'm not at my best, and I risk10 spreading illnesses to my co-workers and11 the people I'm sent to protect.12 But none of us can afford to13 lose a day of pay. We've got children,14 families to take care of. It's already a15 struggle for us to pay our bills and to16 keep a roof over our heads and our17 families.18 (Applause.)19

That's why we20 really need you to pay this bill, to help21 us get the sick leave we deserve and to22 take better care of our family and23 ourselves. Thousands of security24 officers like me are counting on City25 129 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 Council members to do the right thing and2 pass this bill. It's a matter of justice3 and respect and hard work.4 (Applause.)5

And thank you6 for your time and consideration.7 (Standing ovation.)8

And we9 certainly thank you for taking your time10 to come to testify on this piece of11 legislation.12 Any questions?13 (No response.)14

The next15 person, please.16

Good afternoon. My17 name is Dewetta Logan and I'm the owner18 of Smart Beginnings Early Learning19 Center, which is a childcare facility20 located in West Philadelphia.21 As a small businessowner, I22 support workers the opportunity to earn23 sick days to care for themselves and24 their families, which is why I'm25 130 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 promoting Healthy Family and Workplace2 Act, Bill No. 080474.3 I currently provide five paid4 days to my staff of seven, which is5 consistent with the small business6 requirements of the pending bill before7 you today. I have found these practices8 to be invaluable for the success of my9 business. Offering paid sick days to my10 employees have increased the productivity11 at Smart Beginnings by allowing us to12 produce consistent quality childcare.13 When an employee is sick, she or he can14 stay home and get better rather than come15 into the center and spread illness to16 other workers and the children we take17 care of every day.18 (Applause.)19

Employees are able20 to get better more quickly if they are21 able to take the day off and rest than22 trying to work sick. Moreover, earned23 sick leave will help decrease the24 emotional stress for employees who work25 131 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 sick because they can't afford to lose2 their income and jeopardize paying their3 bills.4 Paid sick days has also been a5 benefit to my bottom line by reducing6 staff turnover. The cost of replacing7 workers, including advertising positions,8 interviewing and training new employees,9 are greater than the cost of offering10 paid sick days to retain current11 employees. As a small businessowner, I12 can tell you it's a huge burden to hire13 new staff and it hurts to lose dedicated,14 hard-working staff. Although when I do15 need to hire new staff, I am able to16 recruit very well-qualified candidates to17 work at Smart Beginnings because I offer18 this benefit that workers do value. I19 have found that offering this policy20 makes me more competitive as an employer21 in the daycare industry.22 My employees use their paid23 sick time wisely and responsibly and have24 had no -- and have in no way taken25 132 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 advantage of using them. Providing this2 policy has helped me create a workforce3 that feels respected and valued and,4 therefore, they are committed to their5 jobs. I found that this policy certainly6 creates loyalty and longevity in my7 employees, which is extremely valuable to8 me.9 I just wanted to touch on10 something else before I end my statement.11 Earlier today we talked over at the press12 conference and some people did pose the13 question, how can I afford to do this,14 and for me the question was not how can I15 afford to do this, it was how do I run a16 successful business without feeding into17 the lives of those people who feed into18 me. And I can't imagine not providing my19 staff the same opportunities that most20 employees have, to take care of21 themselves and their loved ones. And so22 for me the question is, are they not23 worthy.24 (Applause.)25 133 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741

I come from a2 social work background, and I did social3 work for about 15 years. So many of the4 people that I seen were people who were5 laid off, who lost their job, because6 businesses' bottom line was business.7 And it can't be the bottom line. We have8 to care more about the people who create9 the business for us. Although we may be10 the think tank behind the business, we11 don't do the business. So it's important12 for us to care about the people who care13 about and do the work for us.14 Some people ask would this be a15 burden. I heard the gentleman earlier16 mention about whether it would be a17 burden. Again, I say that people will18 take the advantage when they feel like19 you're taking advantage of them, and it's20 not until the workforce can provide21 employees with decent and fair working22 privileges that -- well, let me just23 repeat that.24 Until the workforce provides25 134 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 its employees with decent and fair2 working privileges, our greatest burden3 to -- our greatest burden will be to our4 economy, with increased unemployment and5 welfare rolls.6 I think that, again, for me7 business is about establishing8 relationships, not with just the people9 who bring their child to me, but also for10 the people that work for me. And so we11 have to stop seeing these individuals as12 things and start valuing the work that13 they do, because without them, there is14 no business. So if the businesses want15 to go --16 (Applause.)17

-- and go out to18 the suburbs or they want to go to the19 Main Line, I don't know that that region20 can support the business that they're21 trying to put out there. Here in the22 City, there is an influx of people who23 need jobs. So we really need to focus on24 the people and not the money.25 135 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 (Applause.)2

So to sum that up,3 paid sick days will make my workforce4 stronger, healthier and more productive.5 As a businessowner, community6 member and a resident of Philadelphia, I7 strongly urge you to support this bill.8 Thank you for your time.9 (Applause.)10

Thank you11 very much. We appreciate your testimony,12 and you're in a field where you have13 little people, in a field where a lot of14 people have not provided the kind of15 benefits that you have provided, which16 gives you a certain amount of security17 knowing that your employees will be there18 every day and you don't have to worry19 about a high turnover.20

Yes.21

Because22 children like stability and parents like23 stability.24

Well, they need it.25 136 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741

And they2 need stability. So we thank you so much3 for your testimony.4 Are there any questions or5 comments from anyone else?6 (No response.)7

Thank you8 all for your testimony. We appreciate9 your coming in. Thank you.10 (Applause.)11

We have12 Donna Levitt, Director of San Francisco13 Office of Labor Standards Enforcement by14 Skype. Something we're learning, too.15

Can you hear me?16

Yes.17 Proceed.18

Well, good19 morning. Thank you to the Philadelphia20 City Council for inviting me to provide21 testimony. It's an honor to do so. My22 name is Donna Levitt and I am in the City23 and County of San Francisco's Office of24 Labor Standards Enforcement.25 137 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 On a personal note, I hail from2 Wilmington, Delaware, so I don't feel too3 far from home.4 I'm going to talk to you5 briefly about the paid sick leave6 ordinance that was passed by the voters7 in San Francisco in November of 2006. So8 we now have four years of experience9 enforcing that ordinance. It was the10 first of its kind in the country. The11 legislative findings in San Francisco12 found similar to what I think your13 plannings are in Philadelphia, that many14 workers lack paid sick leave and came to15 work sick, worsening their health16 conditions and exposing others, and that17 without paid sick leave, children went to18 school sick because parents couldn't19 afford to stay home with them. Sometimes20 older siblings missed school in order to21 stay home with their younger sisters and22 brothers, and children stayed sick longer23 and exposed others in the classroom, and24 all findings that our paid sick leave25 138 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 ordinance was created to address.2 Our law, like your proposal,3 requires that all employers provide paid4 sick leave to all employees who perform5 work in San Francisco, including6 part-time and temporary workers. Like7 yours, for every 30 hours worked, one8 hour of paid sick leave is accrued.9 There's some differences. Our10 law takes effect 90 days after an11 employee's first day of work, and our law12 has the same accruals, 72 hours for13 employers who have more than ten14 employees and 40 hours for businesses15 with ten or less employees, but our cap16 on accruals is different. Ours is a17 rolling cap. Yours is much more18 straightforward. It's an annual cap on19 usage.20 Although some employers were21 alarmed when our law was passed, our22 office immediately convened a rule-making23 process that included all stakeholders,24 most prominently the Chamber of Commerce25 139 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 and the community advocates who had put2 the measure on the ballot, to address a3 number of issues that weren't clear in4 our original ordinance. The rules and5 regulations that were developed and the6 Frequently Asked Questions document are7 all posted on our website. We've gotten8 a lot of compliments on how they --9 (Skype transmission breaking10 up.)11

So many of the12 issues that are addressed in the13 Philadelphia legislation that you are14 considering have benefited from our15 experience. For example, how to treat16 salaried exempt employees, I think, is17 clear now going forward. That's an18 example of the kinds of things we had to19 work out.20 Your legislation, as I said,21 provides for a cap on the number of days22 of paid sick leave a year rather than a23 rolling cap that an employee can accrue,24 which will be much easier for employers25 140 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 to handle.2 In conjunction with the Mayor's3 Office of Economic and Workforce4 Development, our office rolled out a5 robust multi-lingual community education6 plan targeting employers and employees7 about their rights and responsibilities.8 We did a lot of presentations to employer9 groups. We did merchant walks. We had10 signs in bus shelters, and we also11 contract with a collaborative of12 community organizations who do outreach,13 particularly immigrant communities in the14 city. We've collaborated with other city15 departments, like the Department of16 Public Health, who did a special mailing17 to restaurant owners about the importance18 of paid sick leave and preventing the19 spread of communicable disease. And we20 partnered with the school district to21 send out information to parents and22 guardians at the time of the H1N123 outbreak scare to remind parents and24 guardians of paid sick leave provisions.25 141 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 As a consequence of involving2 stakeholders in the education campaigns,3 the implementation of our law has gone4 quite smoothly. Businesses have not5 reported compliance with the law to be a6 major problem. As I think you're aware,7 the recent Institute for Women's Policy8 Research studies show that two-thirds of9 employers now support our law. It found10 that not all of the available sick days11 have been taken. In fact, the average in12 San Francisco is similar to a national13 average in other parts of the country14 that obviously have no sick leave laws.15 The first four years that our16 law has been in effect, we've received17 140 complaints from workers. The18 majority of those complaints involved19 workers who took time off when they were20 sick or caring for someone who is21 sickened and weren't paid. One hundred22 ten of those cases have been resolved,23 resulting in $100,000 in back pay and24 penalties collection. The cases are25 142 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 generally easy to resolve. They involve2 a small amount of money.3 Here in San Francisco we were4 able to easily create the sick leave5 ordinance with enforcement of our minimum6 wage ordinance. So we have not hired7 additional staff, although there was8 additional work.9 We do continue to field a good10 number of phone calls and e-mails, public11 inquiries both from employers and12 employees, and we continue to do outreach13 and education.14 In summary, I hope our15 experience is valuable for you as you16 consider your legislation. We consider17 it simply to be good public policy. It's18 good for workers and their family. It's19 good for employers, and it's good for the20 community and the community's public21 health.22 Should you choose to implement23 a paid sick leave ordinance, we will24 gladly make ourselves available to25 143 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 provide any assistance that might be2 helpful.3 So thank you again for the4 opportunity to address you, and if you5 have any questions, I'd be happy to6 answer.7

Thank you8 very much for taking time out to testify9 before this Committee. We appreciate the10 testimony.11 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You were12 thanked. Can you hear us?13

No, I couldn't14 hear. I can hear you, but I couldn't15 hear the Councilwoman.16 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The17 Chairwoman thanked you for testifying.18

Any19 questions?20 (No response.)21 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank22 you so much, Donna.23

No problem. Good24 luck to you all.25 144 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 (Applause.)2

Okay.3 Thank you. We appreciate that testimony,4 and we will move forward now with the5 next panel. Mr. Wonderling, Greater6 Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce; the7 Hotel Association, Mr. Ed Grose; Kathy8 Black, Coalition of Labor Union Women;9 and Liz McElroy, AFL-CIO.10 (Witnesses approached witness11 table.)12 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You have13 two panels mixed together.14

Okay.15 Well, I'm sorry. We'll take this panel16 and we'll come back to you. Okay? So17 we'll take Mr. Wonderling, Mr. Grose and18 the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.19 Looking at the panel list, we20 will include the Asian American Chamber,21 Hispanic American Chamber, Northeast22 Chamber of Commerce, along with the23 Philadelphia Chamber and the Hotel24 Association.25 145 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 Is there anybody else with this2 panel?3 (No response.)4

Thank you5 very much.6 Good afternoon. Proceed with7 your testimony.8

Thank you and9 good afternoon, Chairwoman Tasco and10 members of the Committee on Public Health11 and Human Services. 3 We come here today in4 opposition to Council Bill 0804745 currently in its present form that would6 mandate paid sick time for virtually7 every business in Philadelphia. 11 I am aware that this bill was12 introduced in 2008 and that several13 meetings have taken place between the14 sponsors of this bill and members of our15 business community. 24 Consideration of this bill has25 147 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 been held off for two years, and we2 believe with good reason. The bill, as3 written, is particularly onerous on small4 businesses already struggling to keep5 afloat. 7 percent. It is our15 belief based on correspondence that we16 have gathered from our members that this17 bill undoubtedly will cost jobs. Members18 such as Ken Kaiserman, a businessman in19 Philadelphia who has 165 employees, he20 said he'd have to dismiss all of his21 part-time personnel rather than pay the22 cost of providing sick leave. 2 The bill has also had a similar3 negative effect across the board for4 companies that have employees in multiple5 jurisdictions. 11 Concerns expressed by our12 members touched many other provisions of13 this bill. And I will note for the14 record that we have not had a chance to15 review the amendments that were recently16 filed, but we'd be willing to do so in a17 cooperative manner. 7 Other members have complained8 that allowing sick time to be used for9 care of, quote, "family members," close10 quote, was too vague in the bill in its11 present form and could have severe12 financial consequences. 17 Other Chamber members have said18 making employers responsible for all19 costs associated with providing a20 doctor's note in cases of multiple-day21 absences was just too onerous. 5 Now, some supporters of the6 legislation have cited San Francisco, and7 we heard testimony to that effect prior8 to our time this morning, and that the9 District of Columbia also has paid sick10 leave bills. Well, this is true. But11 we've also heard that the San Francisco12 Chamber of Commerce has supported this13 legislation. 11 There's been a fair amount of12 discussion this morning already, and13 perhaps more in written form later today,14 about the various analyses that were15 being relied upon in support of the16 legislation. First, for the record, the17 base analysis done by the Urban Institute18 was essentially phone and personal19 interviews of only 26 enterprises in San20 Francisco, non-profit enterprises,21 for-profit enterprises that emanated from22 a web search. 4 Also, analysis had indicated --5 and I think it was referenced earlier in6 testimony today -- that there wasn't7 actual real dollar cost to those8 businesses in San Francisco to implement9 this legislation. 15 Studies that have been16 referenced referred to a net economic17 benefit, and indeed there are18 projections, projections only, in San19 Francisco that the net broader macro20 economic benefit net would be21 approximately $12 million. 2 So regardless of these other3 cities, we strongly believe that there4 should be an appropriate role for5 government on all policy, and encourage6 entrepreneurship, encourage job creation7 and encouraging the right types of jobs8 for all Philadelphians. We firmly9 believe that there's dignity in all work,10 and pledge to continue to work with this11 Council in any matter that involves our12 business communities. 18

Thank you19 very much.20 Next.21

Good afternoon. My22 name is Ed Grose and I am the Executive23 Director of the Greater Philadelphia24 Hotel Association, which represents 8725 154 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 hotels around the region, including all2 of the hotels in Center City. I'm here3 today to express the hotel industry's4 concern regarding Bill No. 0804745 introduced by Councilmen Clarke and6 Greenlee, which require Philadelphia7 employers to grant paid sick leave and8 allow employees to use their sick pay to9 care for family members.10 I'd like to start off by11 pointing out that several larger hotels12 already have policies in place that are13 more favorable to the standards listed in14 the legislation. However, for smaller15 hotels to grant nine sick days a year16 would be a major financial burden. When17 an employee calls out sick, in most cases18 other employees must work overtime or an19 expensive temporary worker replaces them20 for that day.21 The members of the Greater22 Philadelphia Hotel Association also feel23 that it should be an individual company24 decision to decide to adopt a more union25 155 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 sick policy. The policy proposal on Bill2 080474 will increase labor costs for our3 hotels. If they are forced to absorb the4 increase, the result will be in higher5 prices for customers, fewer people6 visiting and spending less vacation7 dollars in Philadelphia, and the8 reduction in the number of jobs available9 in our industry.10 There are over 11,000 hotel11 rooms in Philadelphia currently,12 employing 10,750 people, 80 percent of13 whom are Philadelphia residents, making14 an average living wage of $24,000.15 GPHA works closely with16 agencies such as Philadelphia OIC,17 Congreso de Latinos workforce development18 and Philadelphia Academies, Inc. to19 ensure a diverse workforce from the20 front-line employees to upper management.21 Our employees look like Philadelphia, and22 these are the jobs that will be in danger23 if this proposal passes.24 Philadelphia hotels currently25 156 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 generate over $125 million annually in2 tax revenue for the City and Commonwealth3 through real estate, wage, liquor, use4 and occupancy and amusement taxes. In5 fact, there are few, if any, taxes that6 are not paid by hotels. But our industry7 is in trouble. The second largest hotel8 in Philadelphia recently foreclosed and9 others in Center City are dangerously10 close as well. As most in the region are11 just barely turning a profit, now is not12 the time to make it more difficult to do13 business in Philadelphia.14 This past Sunday there was an15 article in the Philadelphia Inquirer16 stating that more hotels are needed to17 support the expanded Pennsylvania18 Convention Center, but new hotels will19 not be built in Philadelphia if their20 owners believe it is hard to do business21 here, and this legislation will be22 another roadblock to making a profit.23 Because of these reasons, the Greater24 Philadelphia Hotel Association is not25 157 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 supportive of Bill 080474.2 Thank you very much.3

Thank you.4 Next.5

We don't have6 testimony. We join the Greater7 Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce on their8 testimony, and I do have some comments9 from some of our members that I would10 like for them to be heard, since I11 represent their voices.12 One of our members wrote, The13 bill will devastate most small14 businessowners and add to the economic15 challenge that already exists. We are16 against the paid sick leave bill --17

Could you18 speak more into the mike and a little19 slower. We have ears that don't hear20 that fast.21

I will do that.22 Again, for the record, the23 Hispanic Chamber has joined the Greater24 Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce25 158 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 testimony, but I will be reading some of2 the comments received from members as to3 allow their voice to be heard.4 One of them wrote, This bill5 will devastate most small businessowners6 and add to the economic challenge that7 already exists. We are against the paid8 sick leave bill, as it would create9 unnecessary burden on our company. We10 already have a great benefits plan for11 our employees, and they have sick leave,12 holidays, vacations, health, dental,13 vision, bonuses and a pension plan. We14 do not think it's fair to add extra time15 for sick leave. This bill will devastate16 most small businesses.17 Another wrote, Our company has18 implemented PTO as a way of compensation19 for full-time employees. Our package20 well exceeds the requirements of the21 bill. We found that employees tended to22 utilize sick time whether sick or not23 anyway, which caused some disruption with24 unscheduled time off. With PTO, we25 159 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 require advanced notice of time off and2 unscheduled absences. Real emergencies3 and illness, in parentheses, decrease4 significantly. Employer has better5 control of personnel absences.6 I think that's enough. Thank7 you.8

Would you9 list your name for the record. I don't10 know if we heard it.11

I'm sorry?12

Your name13 for the record.14

Varsovia15 Fernandez. Thank you.16

Thank you.17

Thank you,18 Councilpersons. My name is Mary19 Faustino. I'm with the Asian American20 Chamber of Commerce, and we would like21 you to know that we support the Chambers22 of Commerce in their pursuit to be23 against the mandated sick day.24 Thank you.25 160 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 (Some audience members booing.)2

Next.3

Madam Chair,4 Al Taubenberger, President, Northeast5 Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, and6 members of the Committee, thank you for7 the opportunity to speak on Bill 080474.8 We come here today in9 opposition. This bill, if enacted, is a10 serious threat to the economic well-being11 of all businesses in the City of12 Philadelphia, especially small13 businesses, which have been adversely hit14 during the recession and ongoing15 recovery.16 The bill is overreaching. It17 seeks to improve the public health of all18 Philadelphians solely by improving19 mandatory paid sick. This is, of itself,20 far short of a goal which is very worthy.21 The health of the public is22 largely a personal matter. No amount of23 sick time alone is going to solve all of24 these problems. The bill is an example25 161 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 of government interference in the2 marketplace. It is not a healthy -- this3 is not health and safety legislation.4 This is government dictating business5 policy. What is next? The setting of6 price of goods and services in the City?7 Some of the language in the8 bill is certainly debatable, to say the9 least. For example, providing the10 minimal number of paid sick leaves is11 affordable for employers and good for12 business. Basically what is that based13 on?14 Mandatory paid sick time would15 be the death knell for many small16 businesses and a major disincentive to17 large businesses located here or thinking18 about locating here. In addition to all19 costs associated with operating a20 business in the City of Philadelphia,21 this legislation clearly tells22 businessowners how to run their business.23 In doing some research as well24 and deeper thinking and analyzing25 162 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 research that has been done from both the2 Drum Major Institute and the Institute of3 Women's Policy, the summary is that no4 positive impact on job growth is obtained5 by passage of these bills. This is the6 conclusion of both. The Institute of7 Women's Policy Research on did an8 analysis particularly on the San9 Francisco bill, and their findings have10 been that 14 percent of the11 respondents -- and these are employees --12 have not received any additional13 increases or bonuses during the time of14 this legislation. Work demands on15 employees -- this is from the employees16 once again -- have increased17 dramatically, 21 percent so, and 1518 percent experienced layoffs.19 Now, this is a very, very20 serious matter, but I look at it also not21 only from perspective of a Chamber of22 Commerce President. I look at it as a23 potential if I were bringing my business24 into Philadelphia, and that's something25 163 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 that's not talked about as much, whether2 we would have job loss or not. I think3 we may, but I will tell you this -- and4 this is not measurable -- the fact is5 that a business deciding to come to6 Philadelphia probably won't because7 already of our onerous tax structures,8 fees and so on and additional burdens9 that is placed in fettering economic10 growth, because economic growth comes11 when it's unfettered, when businesses12 have the opportunity to work in the13 marketplace. Because bottom line, the14 price of any services or goods are what15 the market will bear. This is an adverse16 impact to business development in the17 City, and we are opposed.18 Thank you.19 (Some audience members booing.)20

I'd like21 to -- please, we're going to have22 civility here today.23 I'd just like to ask you, Ed,24 and we've talked about the employees who25 164 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 work at the hotels and that they do come2 from Philadelphia. They reflect the3 diversity of this city.4 What is the sick leave policy5 now? You heard a daycare worker talk6 about how important it is to have7 stability and to have employees who enjoy8 coming to work and know if they do get9 sick, they can go out, and she doesn't10 have the turnover and hiring new people.11 What is the difference with the12 Hotel Association? I mean, how do you13 handle if a person is a long-time14 employee, has been there and gets sick?15 What happens to that person? I don't get16 a sense that you all just throw them17 away. What do you do?18 (Some audience members19 talking.)20

I'll wait until21 they're finished.22

No.23 Please, let's let Mr. Grose answer his24 question.25 165 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741

Well, from the2 conversations I've had with my members, I3 find it varies based on the size of a4 hotel. The larger hotels and a very5 large hotel chain in town, they have PTO6 policies which actually exceed this7 legislation, and other than the 30-day8 requirement, they require 90 days.9 Other hotels, if it's a smaller10 property such as an independent hotel,11 they don't have as much flexibility.12 Like if you look at the big Marriott in13 town, they have over 800 employees. So14 if one calls out sick, it's not that much15 of a burden. As long as the employee16 gives two hours' notice, they can call17 out sick and get paid for that day and18 someone will replace them.19 But for a smaller hotel, if you20 consider a hotel with, say, 30 rooms,21 they have only a few housekeepers and if22 one calls out sick, then there's the23 burden of replacing that, because when24 someone checks in, they want the room25 166 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 ready. So they have to make sure that to2 provide good service that that person is3 replaced.4

But if the5 employee doesn't show up, they get fired?6

No. That is not7 the case.8

What is9 the case? What is the policy?10

Well, like I said,11 it varies depending on the property.12 Each hotel handles it differently, but13 I'm not aware of anyone who has a tough14 policy such as the security guard who15 testified earlier. You know, that's just16 not the case. We're the hospitality17 industry. We take care of our own. Some18 of the hotels are not able to match19 what's in the legislation.20

So you're21 saying some of the terms of the bill may22 be onerous on some of your members?23

Yes, depending on24 size. I don't think -- if you take some25 167 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 of the smaller hotels, yes, that is2 onerous.3 You know, some of the things4 that came up in my discussions were the5 56-hour requirement such as like what6 Mr. Wonderling testified on. That would7 hurt them for seasonal employees and8 part-time help. I understand that was9 addressed in the amendment, but I haven't10 had the opportunity to review the11 amendments yet.12

All right.13 Thank you. Maybe we ought to give them a14 copy of the amendments at least.15 Have you seen the amendments?16

I have not.17

Proposed18 amendments?19

We have not20 seen any amendments.21

I have not seen the22 amendments.23

Are you24 going to give them to them, Mr. Sponsor25 168 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 of the bill?2

The3 question is do you -- I'm sorry, Madam4 Chair. The question is should we give5 them a copy of the amendment?6

Yes.7

It would be8 helpful.9

I'm a very10 candid person, and understanding the11 process, how it works around here,12 providing an opportunity to review the13 information is obviously something that14 we should do, but in all honesty,15 sometimes when you prematurely provide16 information to people who are opposed at17 what it is you're attempting to do, then18 those people will sometimes come up with19 other issues, which is why I thought it20 was important when asked in the hallway21 by a member of the business community is,22 conceivably if they had seen the23 amendments earlier, then maybe the24 testimony wouldn't have been what it was,25 169 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 but from my perspective, I found that if2 you get the testimony on the record and3 then we address certain amendments to4 respond to those amendments, then it's a5 matter of record as opposed to putting6 the amendments out there without having a7 record and then people say, Well, I'm8 still not in support of it. And I guess9 it's more a strategic issue as it relates10 to a procedural issue.11 And I say all that to say I12 guess at this point, given that we have13 enough testimony on the record as it14 relates to the challenges associated with15 the proposed bill both from the16 Administration and from the business17 community, I guess at this point it's18 appropriate to share the amendments. And19 I hope you understood that long response20 to a very short question.21

So we are22 okay to give them a copy?23

Yeah, Madam24 Chair. I mean, bottom line is, I think25 170 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 that the amendments that have been2 proposed by the working group are based3 on several of the real concerns and4 substantive concerns raised by members of5 the industry, members of the Chambers.6 And I think they're legitimate concerns,7 and I think those amendments reflect a8 response.9

Councilman10 Goode.11

Actually,12 before we give them amendments, can I ask13 one question?14

Sure.15

A simple16 question.17 We've worked with the Chambers18 of Commerce on several different19 occasions and we will work together20 again. We won't always agree, so I think21 that it's important that we be honest22 with one another in terms of this23 legislation, not just this proposed bill24 but this type of legislation in terms of25 171 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 paid sick leave.2 Do you want this legislation --3 I'm going to give you three choices --4 dead, delayed or amended? I'll take an5 answer from all of you.6

I'll answer7 that question. So on your first point,8 we've all been unanimous representing a9 diverse business community that we oppose10 the bill in its present form.11

That means12 dead.13

That's how14 you're clarifying it.15 As to delay --16 COUNCILMAN GOODE:17 Mr. Wonderling, you are a former18 legislator, so "amended" does not mean19 dead.20

No. Its21 present form, we oppose the bill.22

But my23 question was three choices, dead, delayed24 or amended.25 172 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741

See, I would2 argue that the first is a choice. The3 second two are process. We oppose the4 bill in its present form. If delay5 requires a process to understand the6 amendments that have already been7 discussed, that the business community is8 represented here could have input into9 those amendments, then that creates a10 different type of a dynamic and process11 for us to continue to examine the policy.12

So I'm going13 to take that as possibly amended. Is14 that fair to say?15

That's fair to16 say.17

Okay.18 Possibly amended. So is the issue19 timing?20

No.21 There's --22

See, people23 have raised the issue of us being in an24 economic recession and the fact it's bad25 173 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 timing. So is the issue timing?2

I think it's3 in part timing. I believe that if we4 were in a robust recovery with very low5 unemployment rates, you would have a6 different employment mix. The mix of7 companies would have full time, part time8 or PTOs, perhaps would be different and,9 therefore, perhaps we'd look at it10 differently.11 But I also think too there is12 an underlying point that Al Taubenberger13 made from the Northeast Chamber, and,14 that is, what is the role of government15 and what is the role of those entities16 outside the government.17

I'm getting18 there.19

Okay.20

And I think21 the amendments will bring us closer22 anyway, but in terms of getting a bit23 closer, the issue for you is part timing24 and possibly amendments will change25 174 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 something.2 Can you define for me the3 difference between business costs and4 business investments?5

Well, there's6 various ways to define it. There's an7 accounting way to define that, and, that8 is --9

You can10 start there.11

Well, there's12 a cost, and that cost could be everything13 from a paper clip to an advertisement on14 a billboard to a compensation plan for a15 particular employee.16 An investment in the17 traditional sense means you take some18 form of capital, working capital, in the19 form of cash or credit and you invest in20 plant and material and enterprise for a21 return.22

So could23 this be viewed as an investment in human24 capital?25 175 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741

Not in the2 strictest sense in the accounting sense.3 It is a term of art that has been used4 when we talk about policy, proper5 investments in infrastructure, education,6 et cetera, et cetera, but in the7 strictest sense and what has been of8 concern to our members is how you define9 these costs. As I said earlier in my10 testimony, the San Francisco experience11 was that over $30 million of the cost to12 implement was a direct cost to those13 enterprises.14

I'm asking15 for a differentiation between costs and16 investments. You first gave me putting17 it in an accounting model. Just please18 tell me in your mindset, can this be19 viewed as an investment in human capital20 that leads toward profitability? Is it21 possible?22

So let's23 clarify from the bill and your term24 "investments in human capital." The25 176 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 private sector and the not-for-profit2 sector make investments in human capital3 all the time. For example, this business4 community is in the process of asking5 countless numbers of enterprises to6 invest in summer internship programs.7

My question8 is more specifically --9

Those are real10 dollar investments.11

My question12 is more specifically, can paid sick leave13 be viewed as an investment in human14 capital that leads to profitability? Is15 that possible?16

Anything is17 possible, but I don't think the data has18 indicated at this point that there's been19 a correlation in local ordinances that20 have been passed in San Francisco and in21 DC in particular that have enhanced the22 profitability of those enterprises23 required to comply with the local24 governmental mandate.25 177 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741

It also has2 not hurt the profitability. It also has3 not led to --4

I don't think5 there's a conclusive answer either way6 based on evidence that I've seen.7

Do you agree8 that most of the testimony today was9 anecdotal evidence; it was not data10 driven?11

Well, I'm not12 going to comment on other folks'13 testimony. That's for you --14

You agree15 that your own testimony was anecdotal as16 opposed to data driven?17

Our testimony18 was based on listening to our members and19 investigating the impact on our members.20 We're a member-driven organization like21 the other folks here, and we're here22 reflecting, whether it's anecdotal or23 analytical, the concerns expressed by our24 individual members that are active in our25 178 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 associations.2

Before I3 jump back to the specific issues of4 timing and possible amendments and5 whether anecdotal information is relevant6 or not, this is actually an important7 question for me. I want you to take it8 seriously. What do you actually believe9 led to the economic recession?10

I'm sorry?11

What do you12 believe led to the economic recession?13

I am not a14 trained economist. I'm just a citizen,15 and I believe that there were a whole16 host of factors, many beyond one17 individual or institution's control.18

All right.19 Are any of your members trained20 economists?21

We have22 several economists that are members of23 the Chamber of Commerce.24

Did you ask25 179 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 them what they believe led to the2 recession?3

Well, again,4 we're all privy to the same economic data5 that would suggest there are a number of6 variables that led to the recession -7 governmental policies, decisions made by8 the private sector, individual bad actors9 in each of the government and10 non-governmental sectors, world events,11 future prices of oil, you name it. But12 we're not here to demonize individuals or13 sectors or organizations, and, again, as14 a private citizen, I'm not at all15 qualified to comment on what caused this16 Great Recession.17

But, once18 again, similar to when I questioned the19 Deputy Mayor for Economic Development, I20 asked what may have led to the economic21 recession to you. Since you're not a22 trained economist, although there was a23 lot of talk about business and job loss24 and economic competitiveness, and when25 180 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 you name a number of things that may have2 caused the economic recession, you did3 not reference pay and benefits.4

Not by design;5 just by --6 (Applause.)7

Council, as a8 citizen speaking off the cuff, I also did9 not mention, for example, very low10 savings rate during the last 20 years by11 individuals in this country.12

But the13 topic we're discussing today is benefits.14 In preparation for your testimony, each15 of the Chambers spoke with several of16 their members. You said some of your17 members are economists.18 Is it important as we try to19 recover from the economic recession,20 whether we're quite sure or not or agree21 or not what caused the economic22 recession, that we not repeat those23 mistakes? And from my standpoint, there24 are a few things that are true about what25 181 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 led to the economic recession. One is2 that it did have something to do with3 greed and that, two --4 (Applause.)5

And that,6 two, it had more to do with the lack of7 regulation of industry --8 (Applause.)9

-- than too10 much regulation of industry. And we11 could debate economic theory all day, but12 we can debate how we create more jobs, we13 can debate how we create more businesses.14 It's not possible to debate how we15 increase our per capita income unless we16 have a living wage policy. It's not17 possible to debate how we grow the18 economy without having discussion there19 be more economic players, without20 building capacity of all the players in21 the game.22 We talk here about the balance23 between business and workers. We24 shouldn't have to have that conversation.25 182 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 All the conversations we have should2 include a very healthy model for what's a3 responsible employer, what's a good job,4 what people actually need to survive in5 order that they don't have to rely upon6 government social services.7 (Applause.)8

That's part9 of what your tax dollars pay for, is10 social services that might not be11 necessary if we had a more balanced12 approach economically, period.13 So the last thing I will say14 is, if I ask the question not what caused15 the economic recession, but the same16 question I asked the Commerce Director.17 Is this actually, the issue of pay and18 benefits, one of the major challenges to19 the City's economic competitiveness or is20 it taxes, regulation, schools and a21 number of other things before you get to22 the issue of pay and benefits?23

They're all24 important issues --25 183 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741

They're all2 important, but pay and benefits -- the3 question I'm asking is, pay and benefits4 is not at the top of the list, is it?5

Each business6 views each issue differently.7

Where did8 that come from?9

It's based10 on -- we have members all the time11 that --12

Did you take13 a survey and someone checked pay and14 benefits first?15

Well, not on16 this precise bill, no.17

Thank you,18 Madam Chair.19

Thank you.20 (Applause.)21

The Chair22 recognizes Councilman Greenlee.23

Thank24 you, Madam Chair.25 184 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 Just a couple different --2 first, Mr. Wonderling, you referred to3 that meeting we had last week, February4 23rd. Most of the amendments that are5 being offered today were as a result of6 that meeting, and as I said in a press7 conference earlier today, I just -- I8 guess my statement would be, we're9 listening to the business community and10 trying to make the necessary adjustments.11 We're just asking you to listen to us,12 too. It goes both ways, I think. And I13 hope you do, that you're at least open.14 And you answered Councilman Goode's15 question I think possibly amended. I16 hope you're at least open to seeing that17 we're trying to reach some kind of middle18 ground that's certainly not to hurt19 businesses but to also help the workers,20 and I think there is a way to do both.21 Now, one thing you say -- and I22 don't think you read it, but I hadn't23 heard this argument before, that you talk24 about -- I think you were talking about25 185 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 San Francisco and you said one of the2 people that were hurt by this -- or not3 helped, I think is the word you used,4 hospitality workers such as waiters and5 waitresses, and you say it is a financial6 hardship for them to give up the tip7 income that would be lost if they did not8 come to work.9 Can you explain that a little10 bit? I mean, if they don't come to work,11 that's their choice, because they're12 sick. So how are you saying that that --13

Well, it's the14 broader point, that any bill or ordinance15 that mandates behavior of the16 non-governmental sector, the17 not-for-profit sector, the for-profit18 sector that involves part-time employees19 is going to require the employer and the20 employee to make choices, and what we21 learned, anecdotally I might add, in22 talking with the folks from San23 Francisco, that it did have an impact on24 take-home wages, whether it be on the25 186 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 base pay or in the form of gratuities.2

For the3 employee?4

Correct.5

But isn't6 that the choice of the employee? I mean,7 if they're ill, they understand that8 they're not going to get tips that day.9

That's10 correct.11

Okay.12 And as far as I know, they're not13 complaining. I haven't heard them14 complain.15

I don't know.16

Even in17 San Francisco or here. I just want to18 make clear.19

Okay.20

That's21 not a group that seems to be opposing22 this bill.23 Mr. Grose, if I could just ask24 you, I guess, a similar question to25 187 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 Mr. Wonderling. Is there a place that2 you think we can get where you could see3 yourself supporting this bill, or are you4 just saying it's a mandate and you're5 against the mandate?6

Well, I'd have to7 see the revisions to comment on that, and8 I would have to take the revisions --9 again, I'm a member organization. I have10 to put the -- I would have to put it out11 to my members to decide. I work for the12 hotels, not the other way around.13

I hear14 you. Now, for your organization -- and15 maybe, Mr. Wonderling, I could ask this16 same question -- you have employees that17 actually directly work for you, right?18 Do they get sick leave?19

Yes, they do.20

They do21 get sick leave. So you're giving sick22 leave to your employees, but you're23 opposing mandatory sick leave for other24 workers, probably a lot of them lower25 188 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741 income than your workers?2

Well, therein3 lies the crux of the matter in addressing4 Councilman Goode's question. I think5 underlying this initiative is, I think, a6 discussion on principle and philosophy,7 and, that is, what is the role of the8 local government in terms of dictating9 the terms of the employer-employee10 relationship for not-for-profits that11 employ a heck of a lot of people in the12 City and for-profit entities,13 particularly the smaller entities. And14 our point is that we think those15 decisions are better left to the16 not-for-profit and the for-profit17 employers in the City and not being an18 unfunded mandate from the government.19