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
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
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
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
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
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
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.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
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
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
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
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
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
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,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
--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
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
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 of12 information from Councilman Goode.13 COUNCILMAN GOODE:14 Mr. Greenberger, or they also could15 become more profitable.16 DEPUTY
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
Thank you,17 Councilman.18 Mr. Greenberger --19 DEPUTY
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.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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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