I recognized them earlier -- Councilman Cohen and then Councilwoman Miller.
Tell me if this is working. You know, whenever we discuss tax breaks in Philadelphia, and it's frequent, when the money is going to corporate groups, we always have visitors coming from other areas of the country to tell us how good it is. I can just tell you it's very 55 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 refreshing to have somebody here to speak on behalf of some advances on behalf of ordinary people, working people. (Applause.)
And we want to thank you for that. Incidently, when this matter was discussed in New York, did you have visitors like yourself coming from another city, testifying?
We had several witnesses from Baltimore that we brought in to testify because they were the first city to implement the law.
Yes, to testify on the progress of privatization in Philadelphia.
Not during these hearings but during other hearings. It was a 56 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 pleasure to meet him.
We often heard from David L. Cohen when he was the Chief of Staff for Mayor Rendell. But, apparently, the income from the city job wasn't high enough, and he's now back in private practice. Let me ask you first, your city budget includes school teachers, doesn't it?
I think, relatively speaking, the budgets of Philadelphia and New York are comparable when you take into account the fact that New York City has a population 4-1/2 times what that is in Philadelphia. And if we assume that you were budgeting $16 million, we'd have to divide that figure by about 4, 4-1/2, or 5 to get a picture of what it might cost in Philadelphia. And the cost of to million in Philadelphia was once described by Mayor Rizzo -- and this was a long time ago -- by his Finance Director as saying, "Don't bother me with little trivialities," because in a budget of several 57 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 billion dollars a sum of a few million is meaningless, except when it comes to providing additional benefits for working people. Now, when a working person -- I assume you went into the area of -- when working people earn money, doesn't that money get spent in neighborhoods businesses?
Absolutely. That was one of the arguments that we made. They never calculate that. Most of the people in New York city that are affected by this legislation are city residents. They're going to recycle those dollars into the city's neighborhoods, the local merchants, who will then of course pay tax to the city. So you're absolutely right. I think that it actually is a net gain for the city rather than a loss. Because in New York City, we have a lot of civil servants who live outside the city of New York, many of these contract employees who live within the city's borders and spend their money there.
You know I just think -- I think you're absolutely right. That's 58 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 why when then there's tax on Social Security, among the strongest supporters, in addition to senior citizens and families that have senior citizens, are local businesses.
Because they know that when a worker gets money, he or she doesn't get enough money to salt it away; it goes right back into the economy.
And these are working-class people that tend to shop in their neighborhood. They don't get tend to go to New Jersey or out to suburbia to shop; they tend to shop in their neighborhoods. With the extra income, they patronize local stores. And it will, in turn, of course, enhance the city's economy and tax base.
And the last point, Mr. Chairman, and it may be more in the form of a comment. I, for the life of me, can't understand how anybody can argue against a living wage of $8 an hour. (Applause.) 59 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586
Well, I always thought that paying people a living wage for an hones day's work was as American as apple pie. Apparently, the values have changed so much in American that now we have a newspaper in New York City called The Daily News that used to be the working-class newspaper that called my plan to pay people $8 an hour a radical idea. That's how bad things have come in terms of balance and looking at this stuff. I mean, I think it's a sad commentary on people that are running this country and people that are running these newspapers when they consider a decent wage a radical idea. Something is wrong somewhere.
Did the labor leadership in New York City support this bill?
All labor leadership was strong in its support strongly, as well as the community-based groups, and some 60 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 business people. There are people in the business world that have vision and have compassion and realized that's what good for workers is also good for the economy. A living wage is good for the economy, it's good for families, it's good for business. There are a lot of people with myopia in this country. (Applause.)
Thank you, Councilman. That is a great segue into our next panel.
Councilman, before you leave, I think Councilwoman Miller has a question.
Thank you, Councilman Nutter. I have two questions of you, Councilperson. What kind of impact did this bill 24 have on small and minority businesses in New York? 61 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586
None that I know of. We had -- we didn't have opposition. There was some concern from minority contractors at the beginning of the process. But at the end of the day, there was broad-based support. We already have a prevailing wage law that affects all construction contracts in the city and throughout the state of New York. And I maintain that the argument from the General Contractors Association made is the best argument for paying workers a living wage. If you're a small contractor, you want to be able to have -- you want employees that are happy, that have high morale, they're not throw-away workers, they could pay their rent, they could put food on the table because eventually they'll perform better, and you'll continue to get contracts. If you hire people and pay them a minimum wage, and they can't pay their rent, they can't put food on the table, those workers are not going to be happy campers. So it makes no sense not to pay them a living wage. (Applause.) 62 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586
So, therefore, the passage of this bill in New York did not drive small and minority businesses out of business?
Okay. I have one other question. Did it have an impact on whether businesses continued to want to do business in New York or not even be interested in coming to New York at all
None whatsoever. As I said before, the interesting thing about the bill is that there has not been a reduction in the number of bidders for these contracts. The competition remains stiff in those four areas, by the way. There hasn't been a contractor who has come forward and said, I can't pay these wages, I'm can't not going to make any money. They're paying decent wages, and they're making money, as we maintained they would.
Okay, one other question. Of the $16 million that New York put aside, and you said you think they may have spent about 5 million. 63 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586
I think -- I mean may -- you know, we -- all I can tell you is that we're trying to find out exactly what it is.
Okay. Well, what did they spend it on, whether its 5 million, 10 million, or 16 million?
Probably maybe the bids went up a little bit because the contractors increased their bids. That's really -- that's the assumption behind the increased spending, that the city's going to have to pay a little bit more for contracts, that's the assumption. I don't believe it happened. I don't believe it has happened. As I said before, Councilmember, if it did drive up costs, we would have a lot of people pointing fingers and saying, We told you so. People like Albanese are going to drive contractors out of business in this town. It hasn't happened, and I'm looking forward to seeing the data.
Thank you. (Applause.) 64 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586
Have you seen -- noticed any companies cutting down on the number of employees as a result of having to pay the higher wage? Have you seen a decline in productivity?
'Cause they have cut the number of employees to raise the wage?
We haven't seen any of that, we have not seen any of that, and I don't believe we will.
One other question I have. This bill impacts full-time and part-time employees in New York?
All employees that work for contractors under those -- in those four categories, whether they be part-time or 65 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 full-time.
Seeing no other questions, Councilman Albanese, thank you very much for coming to Philadelphia.
The next panel will be a group of labor leaders or representatives from various labor constituencies: Mr. Tom Cronin, Mr. Joe Rauscher, Joe Shields, Art Dougherty, Joe Fisher, Wendell Young, Reggie Muldon, Van Cooper, Kathryn Black, Rosalyn Spiegel and Rita Rosella. (Applause.)
I also have on my list a J.J. Johnson, from Service Employees Union. If we could have all of those labor representatives come forward. (Members of labor representatives panel come forward.)
Welcome to all of you. Please identify yourselves for the record. I'm sure that in the great labor 66 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 tradition, you have figured out amongst yourselves who's going first, and I will not attempt to make that decision. UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: (Inaudible, off mike.)
We are going to try to do this in some semblance of order. We're usually accused of being labor and not too organized, but I think we're going to be very well-organized.
With that, I would like to start off with the President of the American Postal Workers here in Philadelphia, Art Dougherty. Art? (Applause.)
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the living-wage bill. 67 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 And, basically, I just want to echo what Councilman Mariano and Councilman Cohen and Councilman Ortiz have already said. Basically, are we in a race to the top or are we on a race to the bottom? And, in fact, I'm proud to be here on behalf of the 4500 members of the American Postal Workers Union here in Philadelphia. (Applause.)
And I want to thank the brothers and sisters in ACORN for raising this issue and pursuing it in a diligent way. (Applause.)
In fact, lowering the wages puts pressure on good employers, like the Postal Service. That's not to say that we don't have disagreements with the Postal Service over specific issues such as privatization. But the fact is, the Postal Service and the American Postal Workers Union require that the Postal Service pay a living wage. Every employer in the City of Philadelphia who doesn't meet that requirement puts pressure on the Postal Service to lower their wages. We are in favor of the living wage in 68 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 Philadelphia. We recently -- and we're having a demonstration on May 27th, at 30th Street. I want to invite all Councilpersons and people from ACORN to attend our demonstration. (Applause.)
We have recently lost 200 jobs in Philadelphia at the air mail facility basically as a result of privatization and contracting out. And we are opposed to the lowering of wages. And, basically, the debate over a living wage and health care is, as Councilman Cohen has said, really unfathomable to me. So I would urge the Council people to adopt this living-wage proposal. Thank you.
Thank you, Art. Now I'd like to introduce Rita Rosella from HERE Local, the Hotel Employees/Restaurant Employees Local 274. (Applause.)
Just an aside. Rita's 69 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 whole slate of local officers were reelected yesterday, so you'll be dealing with Pat Coglin (ph.) and a full slate of Local 274 officers for three more years.
Thank you, Joe. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to be here today.
I'm Rita Rosella from Local 274 Hotel Employees/Restaurant Employees. We do support this bill. We urge you to pass it. It would have a great impact on the lives of many of our members who, as you know, are employed at Veterans Stadium and the CoreStates Center, as well as many other areas. But in this particular instance, those City contracts and this bill would affect those members. They don't make 7.90 an hour. In fact, they make lifetime commitments for part-time jobs. Many of those people have been down there for 20 years. They work other jobs to subsidize the income that they make. The reason that it is tolerable down 70 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 there is because they have a union contract. Yes, they have a pension fund. Yes, we fight for them, and they grievance procedure, and that is why it's tolerable. But would this affect their lives in a great way? Yes, it would. And do we urge you to support it? We do. (Applause.)
As the Councilman said, they do vote in the area. In the Vet alone, there are over 600 of our members who return season after season. So thank you, ACORN, for giving us the opportunity to be here, and Joe Rauscher and labor. And, again, we'll be watching this, and we are urging your support on it. Thanks.
Thank you. Miss Rosella, quick questions for Miss Rosella.
You mentioned that you have some of your members, I guess, who contract with whatever company is down at Veterans Stadium. 71 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586
That's a different hearing. Are there other members that work or have contracts with other parts of the City government?
Sure. The CoreStates Center is one off the top of my head right now.
Right, we don't own the CoreStates that's right not the CoreStates Center.
Okay. 72 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586
Mr. Chairman, the foods service at the prison is contracted out. (Inaudible, off mike.)
Yes. Could you supply us with, unless you know it off the top of your head, the current wage scales and any kind of benefits your union employees get at particularly the Vet and the airport? CoreStates, I would have to check because I don't think that's a City-owned facility.
That's correct, that was my mistake. I could supply that information to you. At this moment in time, I don't have it.
And, also, any kind of benefits they get or don't get.
Following 73 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 Councilperson Fernandez's question, I suppose -- just a ballpark figure, what does somebody make selling beer down the Vet?
$6 an hour. How much does beer cost down the Vet? I don't drink it.
Okay, so two beers your hourly pay's done, that's pretty much it. (Applause.)
Mr. Chairman, on that note, the woman that sells peanuts and hot dogs down the Vet, how many beers can you sell an hour? I mean, I just graduated college the last couple of years so my ciphering's not that good. I'm sure Councilman Cohen's looking at me, and his computer's already working. How many beers can you sell an hour, Dave? Now, it wasn't Connie Mack's -- it was Baker Bowl when you worked down there. (Laughter.)
But what was it, 74 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 beers an hour? The ratio's incredible. SO I mean if we can't do 7.90 an hour for the poor person that's stuck in a part-time -- a part-time union, job by the way that's represented greatly, and we're not even talking about health-care benefits, are we, Rita? Do you get any health-care benefits?
When you supply all of that to Councilwoman Fernandez, can you give us all of that so we can how much the health-care benefit package is and everything.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Miss Rosella. (Applause.)
Mr. Chairman and panel, I would now like to introduce Kathy Black. Kathy is the Regional Director or the Regional President of CLUE here in the Philadelphia, the Coalition of 75 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 Labor Union Women, and she's also a member of the staff of District Council 47. Kathy? (Applause.)
Thank you, Joe. Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today and speak to you in support of living-wage Bill No. 970586. My name is Kathy Black. I am President of the Philadelphia Chapter of the Coalition of Labor Union Women, better known as "CLUE," and the Health and Safety Coordinator for District Council 47. CLUE is a national organization of union women, with chapters in dozens of cities around the country, which works to improve the lives of working women through national legislation and local action. Our national president, Gloria Johnson, has spoken publicly in support of living-wage ordinances generally. And our sister chapters in other cities -- notably Los Angeles, Oakland and Boston -- have been coalition partners working for passage of bills similar to this one, as we have been active here in Philadelphia. 76 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 On behalf of thousands of union women in the Philadelphia area, I am here today to voice our absolutely enthusiastic support for the Philadelphia wage bill. On average, union women make about 30 percent more than women in similar nonunion jobs. And, for the most part, this means we make a living wage. It also means we are more likely to experience pay equity with men in similar occupations. However, this is not the case for the vast majority of women workers in this country. Nationally, the median annual earnings for year-round full-time women workers were only 73.8 percent of men's earnings. There's been a gradual closing of this pay gap over the last years, 18 but when I say "gradual," it means it will be 19 another 35 years or so, at this rate, before the 20 wage gap is closed. Minority women, of course, fare much worse, earning only 67 percent of what men earn. And, unfortunately, here in Philadelphia, women fare even worse than that. Statewide, women earn an average of only 65.5 percent of men's earnings 77 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 placing, placing us an embarrassing 38th among the 50 states in pay-equity ranking. Nationwide, women make up almost 60 percent of low-workers; that is, those who are making less than 6.15 an hour. In 1995, 77 percent earned less than $25,000 a year. And that's a whopping percent higher than the 9 percentage of men working for those wages. 10 Once again, Pennsylvania lags behind 11 these national averages as well. In 1995, 74 12 percent of our state's working women were earning 13 these poverty wages. And while these statistics 14 are Statewide and not Philadelphia-specific, 15 frankly, there's no reason to believe that we do 16 not conform to the State model. 17 Given the level of the poverty in our 18 city, as you're going to be hearing about from 19 other speakers today, it's a safe bet that 20 Philadelphia statistics would not be any better. 21 These wage gaps exist in part because 22 women and people of color are still segregated 23 into a few low-paying occupations. More than half 24 of all women workers hold sales, clerical, and service jobs. Studies show that the more an 78 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 occupation is dominated by women or people of color, the less it pays. Part of that wage gap results from differences in education and experience, but a significant portion cannot be explained away by any of those factors. It is attributable strictly to discrimination. In other words, certain jobs pay less simply because they are held by women and people of color. Many of the jobs that would be affected by this proposed law are exactly these kinds of jobs -- low-paid service and clerical positions, a large percentage of which are likely to be filled by Philadelphia women. Many of these women will be single mothers struggling to provide adequate child care, food, shelter, and clothing for their families. They cannot possibly do so on 5.15 an hour, no matter how many hours they work -- (Applause.)
-- no matter how many part-time jobs they manage to string together, and no matter how much family support they might have. Although we're calling 7.90 a living wage for purposes of this bill, those of us who 79 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 are making comfortable middle-class salaries know, if we're honest, that attempting to support a family of 4 on $16,000 a year is excruciatingly difficulty. Also, parenthetically, as a Philadelphia homeowner and a single parent, I make a lot more than that. I make a comfortable middle-class living, I'm the sole support for two teenage girls, one of whom is in college, and I'm barely making it. And how these women do it on $16,000 or less is just a miracle. (Applause.)
Even opponents of minimum-wage increases are the first to admit that the increase over the past years haven't kept 17 pace with inflation, not even close. 18 As a homeowner and taxpayer and citizen 19 of this city. I want to see my city government 20 provide greater accountability how tax dollars are spent. I do not want my tax dollars spent subsidizing low-wage jobs which force Philadelphia families to live in poverty. (Applause.)
Passage of a living-wage 80 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 ordinance will not eradicate poverty and pay inequity in Philadelphia, but it will help. It could help lift thousands of families above the threshold where they must make weekly choices between paying the rent or the electric bill. (Applause.)
Between buying school shoes or groceries. It will send a message to citizens and businesses that the City's elected officials oppose pay discrimination, that they're concerned about the welfare off or poorest citizens, that they recognize that families cannot thrive on poverty wages, and that they believe that they have an obligation to voters and taxpayers to use their hard-earned dollars in a socially- responsible manner. The members of CLUE calling you to vote yes for a living wage for Philadelphians. We ask to make sure that Philadelphia joins the 19 other cities who have passed similar legislation. Philadelphia voters are watching, the nation is watching. Please make us proud.
Thank you. (Applause.) 81 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586
Next, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce Joe Shields, from SEIU, Service Employees Union Local 36. Joseph? (Applause.)
Good afternoon. My name is Joe Shields. I'm an organizer with SEIU Local 36. On behalf of SEIU Local 36, I'd like to thank you for being here today and for holding this hearing and for ACORN's work and all of the communities and religious organizations and labor unions that have come together to fight for a living wage for the workers of the City of Philadelphia. We strongly support this bill that's before City Council. Our union has done a great amount of work trying to see this ordinance pass. And SEIU has also taken the front road in terms of organizing a Statewide effort for a living wage for workers. We represent some of the lowest-paid workers in Philadelphia, the people that are struggling to take care of their kids, the people that are struggling to put food on the table, the people that are struggling to just get by. 82 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 And the only reason that they're able to get by is because they make a living wage 'cause they're union (unintelligible.), and they took the responsibility for themselves to fight for something and to win a living wage. (Applause.)
Unfortunately, not everybody in this city and not every worker in this city is in that situation. We are currently organizing a massive suburban campaign of janitors in suburban Philadelphia where most of our work has gone in the last 5 to 10 years, where people make as low 60 to $80 a week, where $20 of their paycheck each week goes to SEPTA just to get to and from work. (Applause.)
These are people who are struggling -- janitors who are struggling just to get by. And, again, they're standing up for themselves and taking the responsibility on themselves to earn and to fight for and to win a living wage. And, basically, as we see it, the question before City Council is: Are you going to 83 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 go with them? Are you going to step up to your responsibility to do what workers have already started to do to win a living wage for themselves and support their effort? It's our taxpayer dollars that are going to the City contracts, tax abatements, the different dollars that have supported corporations and businesses in this city. And all we're asking for is a small piece of that back. (Applause.)
At a meeting last week with religious leaders and clergy on living wage in our suburban organizing campaign, our president, Mike Russo, said it simply: "We're not looking to get rich, we're just looking to live." (Applause.)
We hope Council hears our concern and takes the responsibility that they should be taking and acts on this ordinance and passes a living wage. Thank you. (Applause.)
Mr. Shields one quick question. As I had asked Ms. Rosella, can 84 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 you tell me some of the contractors that your members work for, that have contracts with the City of Philadelphia?
My understanding is that most of the contracts with the City is with (unintelligible) and cleaning companies. In City Hall, the janitors here are with Local 36. I don't have all the available information in terms of who the various City contracts are with, but like I said, most of the contracts that we have and most that our janitors have are long-term employees. So the effect of the living wage, quite honestly, would be negligible on our membership. It's more --
Because they're already making more than a living wage or close to it. The issue with us is sort of sending a message to the City of Philadelphia and setting a standard. Largely most of our work that we've lost, and that has gone out in the public sector -- in the private sector. It's gone out to the 85 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 suburbs. And that's really where our battle is, below sub-poverty wages, where people are making 5.50, you know, an hour without any health benefits or anything like that. I can get more of that information as well.
It would be helpful if you know of other places where SEIU workers are working for contractors and those contractors have contracts with the City of Philadelphia. It would be helpful to have that kind of information.
I was just reminded that the hotel workers also represent the people in the Convention Center.
Next, Mr. Chairman and committee, I would like to introduce Rosalind 86 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 Spiegel, who's with the Jewish Labor Committee. Rosalind? (Applause.)
Thank you, Joe. And thank you, ACORN, for arranging this today. Thank you, City Council, for these hearings. And for all my colleagues here in the labor movement, Kathy, thanks for those remarks about women. I think that's important to know. My name is Rosalind Spiegel. I'm the Area Director of the Jewish Labor Committee here in Philadelphia. It's a national agency and we have an office here. I just have a brief statement. Respect for the dignity of labor and support for workers' rights stems from biblical commandments and the social justice imperative in the Bible and other ancient Jewish sacred texts. There are repeated decisions in the Talmud concerning workers. And many decisions were interpreted in order to favor workers in the (unintelligible). Take, for instance, the issue of shared compensation for work. Linking wages to a living 87 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 wage would sustain a flexible realistic wage, wages that would be spent in our community and only strengthen our economy. A living wage reflects the Talmudic principle that everything should follow local use or custom. These incomes can add whole range of benefits to minimum-labor standards and prevent employers from making agreements less favorable from prevailing wages and benefits. The living wage adds just enough compensation to lift a worker out of poverty according to our local customs and economic conditions. How can we, in good conscience, allow employers come into the City and pay Philadelphians poverty wages? Can this be considered fair compensation for work? How can it be good for Philadelphia if an employer pays a wage so low that it's own employees can't buy the services they are provided? Obviously, we can't rely solely on business to ensure the conditions that would lift families out of poverty, but we can and should rely on you, the government that represents us. 88 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 On behalf of the Jewish Labor Committee, we urge you to pass the living-wage bill. (Applause.)
Next, Mr. Chairman and committee, it's my great pleasure to introduce a good friend and one of the driving forces of this legislation, somebody that's been there every time people less fortunate than ourselves, less fortunate than union members, have needed a friend, and he's always been there. And I don't even think I have to mention his, name but I'll do it anyway. The head of District Council 47, Thomas Cronin. (Applause.)
Also known as the movie star for Blue Cross, right? (Laughter.)
Let me just add that if I can stay in Joe Rauscher's good graces, the next time I want an introduction, I want you to be the person to introduce me somewhere. Mr. Cronin. 89 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586
Thank you, sir. Members of City Council, ladies and gentlemen, that we are assembled here today on behalf of a campaign called "Living Wage" as we stand on the threshold of the 21st century says volumes about the priorities of America's economic management for the last two decades. For I can assure everyone, and most of us in this chamber need no such assurance, that the name "Living Wage" is not an exaggeration, hyperbole or even mild rhetoric. It is, rather, a plain fact of brutal irony, perhaps even an indictment of an economic system out of control. (Applause.)
Millions of Americans are working to maintain a level of poverty. That is the definition of despair and a formula for disaster. Is that the new American dream? A type of debt-soaked high poverty that is a half step above outright indigence? Full-time employment at a single job at the current minimum wage guarantees economic failure. A minimum wage of 5.15 per hour is an obscenity that flies in the face -- 90 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 (Applause.)
-- of the landmark legislation that originally created minimum-wage protection. The minimum-wage level in the United States is a burden that is destroying hope. City Council Bill 970586 is a first big step for Philadelphia to begin to fight through this dilemma of guaranteed poverty. (Applause.)
It is the City of Philadelphia standing firm and stating that if you do business with us, you pay us a fair wage. (Applause.)
It is saying that the government of almost 1.5 million people will not be a party to enforce poverty. (Applause.)
And this is how the living wage will succeed city by city, region by region. We are saying to Washington that a great nation demands economic justice, that communities across the country are dealing with a problem that can no 25 longer be avoided. 91 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 Bill 970586 will not harm Philadelphia. There are entrenched interests. Doom-sayers who will always claim that a fair wage will destroy a competitive economic environment. But, in fact, a fair wage creates a healthy environment and is really essential for one. Living wage is the ultimate family-value issue. It is the ultimate community issue. With Bill 970586, Philadelphia has an opportunity to leverage economic fairness and to join with other communities in sending an unmistakable message to Congress. We must take advantage of this opportunity and pass this bill. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you, thank you very much. I don't know, Mr. Rauscher, whether you saw or not that Wendell Young had come in so -- he had come in behind you. Just one very basic question. And any of the union leaders or representatives can respond. I got the impression, from some of the 92 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 questions asked back and forth, that some of the union workers may make more than what's being proposed as a living wage, some apparently make less. Do we have any estimates or any information on what the general wage rate is for union people in this city? And would you generally be affected by this directly, or is there more an indirect effect if not benefit?
It's more an indirect benefit. It's our role of being part of the community and to look out for people that are less fortunate than ourselves.
So while some of your members may very well make more, you are lending your support to the effort to drive wages generally and kind of, in the phraseology of "a rising tide lifts all boats."
I mean, as wages go up, there is some benefit to the union movement even if you're not directly affected.
Just as though the labor movement was instrumental all the time with the 93 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 minimum wages.
And I think another point to make is the fact that we believe that this particular bill will make a healthier community and a healthier tax base. Certainly, when you have a healthier tax base, I think you have better and improved city services. That's certainly one thing. (Applause.)
Above and beyond that, and I've often said this, that the first principle of the trade union movement, the labor movement, is solidarity. And so although our folks in our union, for the most part, make well above this wage, I believe it is in our self-interest as well as in the interest of labor movement of solidarity that the interest of one is the interest of all. So that if we can help workers, no 23 matter where they are, no matter what occupation, whether they're organized or unorganized, make a decent standard of living, I believe that that 94 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 improves the quality of life for all people. (Applause.)
Hi. Mr. Rauscher, and then perhaps, Tom, you could also view this. Let me start with Mr. Cronin. Do you know of any City employees that make less than the living wage?
I would say that with respect to the City employees in District Council 47, I do not think that that is the case. However, there may be workers that are in District Council 33 jurisdictions that may come close to that. I'm not sure. I know there is someone from District Council 33 that may be here right now. There are folks that are here that could give you the more accurate information on that.
And also HERE, as you heard testimony, they're below that level in some areas.
Okay. 95 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586
And SEIU is a little below in some areas or right on that borderline. So, yeah, it's -- we do have some union members that fall in this category.
Could you provide to the Chair that information, including the building trades?
'Cause I'd like to know, you know, the numbers in each union that fall below the 7.90 an hour plus health benefits. Because that's what this bill provides for.
So I'd like to know, you know, within unionized employees in the City --
You know, the numbers and from what unions and from what kinds of jobs that fall below that.
See, you're not just talking about City employees now, you're talking about -- 96 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586
Well, I'm particularly concerned about City employees, but that could be part of this since all of these unions are a part of the AFL-CIO, right?
Well, I mean, what I'm saying, Councilwoman, is that unionized employees, I believe, that are represented by private nonprofits in some cases that may make less than that wage.
Well, my one question is: Of any City employees on the City payroll, are there any that -- I know they all get health benefits. Are there any that are not getting the 7.90 an hour? My second question is: In the union movement of people providing services within the City, which unions and what types of employees and how many are not getting the 7.90 or do not get health benefits?
You'll have that 97 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 information.
As you stated, Mr. Chairman, there's always somebody comes late as far as the labor movement, but you can't get too mad at him because he's turning out sons that just happen to run for City Council positions. One is doing that right now in California, so Philadelphia might be next, so be nice to him. With that, I'd like to introduce a Vice President of the AFL-CIO, the President of the largest United Food and Commercial Workers Local in the state, and a good friend of many in this room, Wendell W. Young, III.
Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. Thank you, Joseph, Tom, and the other supporters. I'll be very brief, I'm not going to make a big speech, just a small one.
Before you get started, though, I'd like the record to reflect that I only announced that you were here. I did 98 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 not announce that you were late. Your brother to your left announced that you were late. You are always on time.
Even when I'm on time, I'm late. I'm about my father's business many times, so. . . So what happens is -- I also want to put in a plug for WHAT-1340 on the a.m. dial. (Applause.)
We do that every Friday from 7 in the morning till 10. The living wage, as enhanced in Bill 14 970586, is something that is necessary not only in city government and in Philadelphia, but is necessary in most companies that I do not represent and some companies I represent because of competition. The historic battle we're having three years now with Wal-Mart is a battle of a company coming in, making -- giving 5.15- to $6-an-hour wage increases, not giving increases other than 5 and 10 cents, turning over whole workforce in months to months, and they are making millions and millions of dollars throughout this country. 99 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 (Applause.)
I hear on every show the people who live in poverty, who have a problem with drugs, and health and welfare and benefits that have been stripped away from them, and we wonder why we have crime when we have people making $40 million a year, $50 million, and closing and consolidating companies. We're hearing what's happening to the Bell system now. Yes, there's a lot of progress, but people are getting hurt time and time again. They work two and three jobs. The City should set an example, it should be an example, especially in Philadelphia where this democracy started. All throughout this country -- and probably previous testimony has shown that living-wage bills are sponsored in City Councils in government -- in some instances, in state government. I urge the Council to consider this, to be leaders, to let the message go forth that we're tired of people working two and three jobs at McDonald's and things like that. (Applause.) 100 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586
That the City should set the example so that we could let the charge out. There's many of us that don't have to worry about the living wage. We don't make enough. I looked at my contracts. In 1978, started at $6 an hour, and after months, we 8 were making $12 an hour. 9 Know what? We haven't progressed 10 much. We have trouble just keeping within the 11 contracts that we presently have. 12 So I urge that this City Council take 13 the leadership in Pennsylvania and show the world 14 that we're progressive council, a progressive 15 city, and vote for the 7.90 plus benefits for Bill 16 No. 970586. Please do it. 17 Thank you. 18 (Applause.) 19
Are there any 20 questions for Mr. Young? 21 I think Councilwoman Fernandez has a 22 question for Mr. Rauscher. 23
When you prepare 101 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 that information, could you be sure to include employees that live in the City of Philadelphia? In other words, the unions might have people all over the region. So in your numbers, include only unionized members who live in the City of Philadelphia.
I don't really have a question for Mr. Young; it's sort of a question for Mr. Cronin and Mr. Rauscher. It's just an observation, it may be a question. When I started out in the labor movement in my early 20s, there was a lot of division, and we have Mr. Cronin sitting here who is losing employees, he's losing members, and it's being picked up by the guy from SEIU over there. So that's how you know, and I tried to 102 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 explain this to the reporters over there, that labor is here, and that they have nothing to gain here. Because he's going to be losing the work that the Mayor, in his infinite wisdom, and this Administration understand that has to be subbed out. And privatization, we won't talk about that, Mr. Matthews isn't here. But we all understand -- we in labor understand that, but very many times, the things we understand that we learn at the breakfast table or at the dinner table, a lot of people don't understand. So you got to understand, if labor's here, there's religious people here, there's community groups here. And, believe me, the building trades are here through me 'cause it's something that's important to the building trades because it's part of the labor movement in the whole. Pat Gillespie talked to me before I came in here, and he said, Look, Rick, I don't want to come down and testify because I'm busy doing something, but I want you to let everybody know we're for this. 103 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 This would not affect the building trades whatsoever, but it affects the labor as a whole. If we can get Cronin and the gentleman from SEIU and Pat's person there, Rita Rosella, and everybody in the same room, that's what labor's about now. So that shows you how important this issue is and why we have to move forward. And as sit here today, we're going to just get all kinds of phone calls and all kinds of people are going to be telling us about how terrible it is, how this is the worst bill. I mean, there is nothing wrong with this bill. The Councilman from New York came up here and spoke, and he spoke from the heart. Everything -- I talked to him before he came to this room. I said, Christ, Councilman, I'm scared about this because they've been telling me -- he said, Rick, I went through it. I spoke with Councilman Roach (ph.) in Boston, I went up to see him, who, by the way, was the police commissioner in Boston before he was a councilman, so you figure that one out, and he cosponsored this legislation to help poor people, 104 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 970586 okay? He told the same thing in November, when I was up there, that Sal told us today, that Rauscher and Ortiz are saying here today. So if labor's on this and political people are on this, I can't tell my colleagues -- and this is probably going to be -- again, I know I said this a couple hours ago, this is the most important vote that we will ever make. So shame on anybody, before they start telling us about deals they're doing, shame on anybody that can't make vote today to get this out of committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (Applause.)