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
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
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
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
Thank you,23 Madam Chair.24 (Applause.)25 101 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741
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
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
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
Is this --25 105 3/1/11 - PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 0804741
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
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
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 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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Actually,12 before we give them amendments, can I ask13 one question?14
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'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
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
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
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
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 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 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
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
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
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