COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF LABOR AND CIVIL SERVICE Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, June 17, 2024 2:08 p.m. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JIM HARRITY, CHAIR COUNCILWOMAN NINA AHMAD COUNCILWOMAN KENDRA BROOKS COUNCILWOMAN KATHERINE GILMORE RICHARDSON COUNCILWOMAN RUE LANDAU COUNCILWOMAN QUETCY M. LOZADA
All right, everyone. We're about to get started. We got a bunch of my colleagues that have come out to participate so we're going to let whoever wants to participate and my colleagues to participate because that is democracy. All right. Good afternoon. Welcome to this hearing of the Committee on Labor and Civil Service. I note that the hour has come and a quorum of the Committee is present. I will now I guess take attendance. Vice-chair O'Neill I know is excused. Councilwoman Brooks.
Majority Leader Katherine Gilmore Richardson is on her way. Councilwoman Rue Landau, my buddy.
And, Councilman O'Rourke is joining us. Thank you, sir. Appreciate everybody coming out here today. I appreciate everybody coming here. I know this is the middle of the day on a Monday. I appreciate you coming out and voicing your opinions. This is what it's about. It's about you guys having a chance to -- everybody having a chance to speak and get their opinions heard. So right now we're going to go into a quorum of the Committee being present. This hearing is now called to order. This is the public hearing of the Committee on Labor and Civil Service regarding Resolution No. 240514. Mr. Palmer, will you please read the title of the resolution.
Resolution 10 240514, authorizing the City Council Committee on Labor and Civil Service to hold public hearings on the Administration's proposed Return to Office Policy and the impact on the City's workforce.
I would like to note that Majority Leader Katherine Gilmore Richardson is in the house.
Thank you. All right. Before we bring up the first panel, I'd just like to read a statement because we're getting a lot of questions in regard to City employees testifying and anything that may happen because of that. So I'll remind all individuals here to testify that everyone, including City employees, have a First Amendment right to express their opinion. For City employees in particular, there is no retaliation for expressing those opinions, especially as they relate to working conditions and other policies adopted by the City. I hope that everyone will keep this in mind as they testify today. Mr. Palmer, call the first panel to testify.
Camille Duchaussee, Chief Administrative Officer. (Witnesses approached Witness table.)
Good afternoon, Chairperson Harrity and members of the Committee. I am Camille Duchaussee, Chief Administrative Officer of the City of Philadelphia. Joining me today are Michael Zaccagni, Director of Office of Human Resources; Joseph Brasky, Interim Commissioner Department of Public Property; and Rocky Shepalittie(ph), all right, Director of Safety and Loss Prevention. I appreciate the opportunity to address you today regarding the decision to return all employees to full-time in-office work on July 15, 2024. This decision, while impactful, is one made by the Administration with full consideration of the factors affecting City of Philadelphia employees and the City's operations, strategic objectives and commitment to becoming the safest, cleanest, greenest city in the nation with access to economic opportunity for all as well as an employer of choice. The decision to establish work location as an in-office requirement is an employer's prerogative and not a mandatory subject of bargaining. While this is a point of contention as you will likely hear from some of our labor partners, our position is supported by longstanding case law. As stewards of the City's mission and vision, it is incumbent upon the Mayor to make decisions that best serve the interests of the City and the City's workforce as a whole, even when such decisions may be difficult or unpopular. While we value input from employees and welcome constructive dialogue on work- related matters, certain decisions are made in the best interest of the City and based on the Administration's discretion, vision and philosophy. Work location is one such decision that falls within the purview of management authority and the decision to return the full workforce to in-person reflects a strategic investment in cultivating a work environment that thrives on team work, creativity and shared purpose, serving the residents of the City of Philadelphia. (Audience interruption.)
That's going to happen a lot, yeah. We endeavor to maximize and capitalize on the spontaneous conversations, impromptu brainstorming sessions and the face-to-face collaboration that fosters a dynamic work culture that cannot be fully replicated in virtual settings. The landscape of work has changed and is evolving. Driven by a number of factors such as technology changes and shifting societal and employment practices regarding the navigation of personal and professional demands, remote work options have proliferated. However, a critical concern in the calculus of remote work versus in-person decision-making is the fundamental difference in service delivery and public administration obligations between other employers and organizations and municipal governments. This difference -- (Audience interruption.)
This difference is a significant factor in our decision to require in-person work. The shift to more prolific remote work arrangements made in response to the COVID-19 pandemic is an example of how shifts in managing work location are necessary to respond to the strategic objectives and responsibilities of the City. Remote work enabled employees to fulfill their responsibilities in the midst of an unprecedented public health threat and emergency. Now, we are again adjusting the conditions with which we are faced in Philadelphia to ensure we provide culturally informed -- I'm sorry. Now, we are again adjusting to the conditions with which we are faced in Philadelphia to ensure we provide culturally informed services to residents and our resident workforce. Returning all employees to full-time in-office work is a decision not made lightly nor is it one that is taken without careful consideration of the implications for our workforce. We recognize that -- (Audience interruption.)
All right. Listen, I'm not going to do this. We got a lot of people that are going to testify. We are going to respect everybody who is testifying regardless of whether you like what they have to say or not. Your chance to speak will come up sure enough, so let's let everybody speak or I will clear the room. Thank you.
Thank you. We recognize that employees may have concerns or preferences regarding their work location and we are committed to addressing these concerns to the best of our ability. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that work location changes are not intended to disregard the preferences or the well-being of our employees but are driven by them and the City's operational requirements, objectives and municipal governance priorities. Mayor Parker has been clear about her priorities, creating a government that people can see, touch and feel, and establishing the work location as an in-office requirement is an intentional decision aimed at optimizing collaboration, communication and productivity within City departments. The in-person interactions and spontaneous exchanges that occur in a shared office environment are invaluable for fostering teamwork, maximizing innovation and a sense of belonging among employees. Furthermore, the physical presence of employees in the workplace enables more effective supervision, on-the-job training and professional development opportunities which are essential for organizational efficiency and sustainability. Mayor Parker has also clearly communicated that addressing workplace inequity is also at the heart of this decision. Face-to-face interactions facilitate more coaching and mentorship, which are essential for individual growth and access to opportunity. By maximizing in-person work time, we are prioritizing belonging, equal access to invaluable engagement and exposure and support. And we cultivate a culture that values and leverages differences and fosters a more inclusive and equitable workplace culture, rather than normalizing more narrow virtual versions of ourselves. Furthermore, in making this decision the inability of the majority of the City of Philadelphia's workforce to exercise the option to work from home or remotely was remarkable and influential. The bold and robust plan for making the city of Philadelphia the safest, cleanest, greenest city in the nation with access to economic opportunity for all and an employer of choice also includes changing and improving the way resident and business services are delivered. Our government will operate within an informed framework which is influenced by a workforce that is accessible and experiencing the communities and conditions they are entrusted with serving and improving. Functions such as educating, emergency response, public health and social services, permitting community engagement, cleaning and greening and contracting access benefit from direct and organic interaction with our communities and other stakeholders who experience our city. Philadelphia is the poorest big city in the nation and in order to solve its problems, all approaches, all strategies and all resources and resource management practices will be brought to bear. Cultural competence is an important dimension of responsible service delivery, especially in a diverse and multi-cultural city like Philadelphia. Recognizing and respecting the cultural backgrounds, values and preferences of residents is critical for building trust, rapport and mutual understanding. Cultural competence goes beyond the virtual and digital services which are a valued part of effective service delivery. It is a value upon which the decision to generally return to in-person assignments was based. The City of Philadelphia's workforce is currently over 26,000 employees. Of that number, approximately 4,300 employees or 7 percent are working either remotely 8 or using a hybrid schedule.
More 9 specifically, excluding our 10 colleagues working in the Police, 11 Fire and Prison Departments, 12 12 percent of the non-supervisory and 13 15 percent of the supervisory 14 members, which is roughly 840 15 employees of District Council 33; 16 and 57 percent of Local 2187, 47 17 percent of Local 2186, which is 18 roughly 1970 employees for District 19 Council 47; as well as 46 percent 20 of our exempt workforce are working within a work-from-home or remote situation either fully or partially. We endeavor to make the adjustments necessary to minimize the impact of the increased onsite hours. Actions taken in this regard already include those benefits announced during the Mayor's press conference, which for our represented employees require Union negotiation. We will continue to engage our Union partners and employees to identify and implement, where feasible, additional benefits which improve employees' ability to maximize the value of their paychecks and realize a healthy and safe work experience where in-person work is not perceived as inherently antithetical to equal employment opportunity and diversity, as has been unfortunately and repeatedly represented. The decision to default to in-person work locations for the City of Philadelphia's workforce was not driven by a decline in productivity. Instead this decision was made to enhance the collaborative environment and improve service delivery to our residents and ensure equitable access to resources and support for all of our employees. The impact -- sorry, the impact of remote work, working from home on the workforce is multi- faceted. While virtual work offers approximately percent of our 13 workforce flexibility and work 14 location, it presents challenges 15 related to engagement, mental 16 health equity and community 17 competence and connection and 18 effective supervision and 19 mentorship to more than 20 percent 20 of our workforce. We would believe that in-person interactions foster a stronger sense of community and facilitate better communication, which are essential for the effective functioning of our City's operations. This decision has been subject to significant scrutiny before its implementation as well as claims ranging from a lack of notice to irreparable harm to recruitment and retention. While we disagree with many of these claims, we are undeterred in our commitment to working with our labor partners and employees to mitigate challenges to the full return to in-person and onsite work locations. We're committed to supporting our employees and cultivating a work experience where equal employment opportunity and diversity, equity, inclusion are centered regardless of the location where the work is performed. We welcome and look forward to today's testimony from our Union partners and our colleagues. All voices are important to informing and shaping workplace culture. While their testimony will be personal and from the perspective of individual experiences and personal preferences, we will continue to accept and use all information and feedback to build our commitment as an employer to create and improve the work environment. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today. I am available to answer the Council's questions.
No? All right. Good. So we're going to move on. I have a few questions and my colleagues have a few questions. My first question: In what way would the City's Return to Office Policy improve customer service?
So at the end of the day, we are looking at a number of initiatives to improve our resident service delivery. One of the things that I think is essential in improving service is making sure that that service is informed by the residents that will receive the service, to whom we're providing that service, being in person, allowing us to be in the spaces and the places where not only are we interacting with our residents but we're also interacting with our colleagues who have that same interaction or our colleagues that support the service delivery. So at the end of the day, we believe that having an informed workforce, a culturally competent workforce, a workforce that is seeing, understanding, experiencing, speaking with, engaging with our residents, as being residents themselves, I think all of that improves the way we deliver services.
Okay. And is there an equity issue in allowing some City workers to work virtually or hybrid schedules while other City employees only have the option of working in-person?
So there are two facets to this question, right. At the end of the day, there is data, there is anecdotal information that suggests that the benefits of networking and the benefits of exposure and opportunity, the benefits of being in a room when a conversation is happening has much more to do and much more influence on promotion opportunities than the application itself in some cases than the qualification determination itself. And so, from an equity perspective there have been longstanding concerns and institutional concerns that we've had relative to who you know and who's in the room having more opportunity than our underrepresented employees. And so, being in person allows us to make sure that we are maximizing those opportunities for all of our employees.
All right. And just one more question. I mean, just to get to the bottom line, has the work-from-home hybrid schedule, has it been working? Are we seeing -- (Cheering.)
Are our numbers comparative to before we had hybrid work? So in other words, are we servicing the same number of people? Are we servicing more people? (Cheering.)
So in response to the question is it working, are we providing services to our residents right, is our workforce able to receive training, are they able to promote, are they able to qualify, the answer to that question is yes -- (Audience interruption.)
-- but at the end of the day, leadership does not have to be satisfied with the status quo. They don't have to be satisfied with the yes. (Audience interruption.)
They can be satisfied with doing more. They can be satisfied with making sure that there is more consideration, more exposure, that we improve equity concerns that we have throughout the City, that we improve service delivery. (Audience interruption.)
Okay. All right, everybody. Everybody let's try to be a little civil here. I love you all, you are my people, but I will clear the room. Please let's let everybody say -- I want to hear what they have to say because I want to make an informed opinion of this matter. And I'm asking questions because we need to know the answers. So please allow them to at least answer the question. I believe the question ultimately you said yes, correct?
Yes. And I also added that it is important from a leadership perspective determinations may be made in order to improve service, in order to improve equity, in order to improve compliance with equal employment opportunities, right. And so, while the Mayor has been very clear we are at war with the status quo, we want to make sure that we're doing better, not the same.
Okay. I'm going to pass it on now to my colleagues starting over here. Majority Leader Katherine Gilmore Richardson.
Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the resolution that you provided for this Committee this afternoon and thank you very much to our first panel for your testimony and all full transparency so that I can be very clear on where I come from on this issue. My sister is a member of AFSCME Local 2187 and -- (Cheering.)
-- my brother-in-law is a member of D.C. 33. (Cheering.)
So for my own purposes, I just would like to get some information on the record so that we have this when we go back to the transcript. In reviewing the testimony, you stated that there are a total of 1,969 employees of D.C. 33; is that correct? And then 841 employees --
Non-supervisory -- let me go back. 88 percent of the non-supervisory and 85 percent of the supervisory members are totaling 841 employees of D.C. 33, and 42 percent of Local 2187 and 53 percent of Local 2186 are totaling 1,969 employees of D.C. 47; and 54 percent of the exempt workforce are working from home fully or partially?
So that would be a total of 2810 employees, give or take, total?
Okay. Excellent. And then of those employees, I have a question relative to when they were hybrid. And so, how long have those employees been hybrid? Did that start with COVID or did it happen prior to that time?
So prior to COVID, and Mike can correct me if I'm incorrect, prior to COVID we did not have a citywide remote work policy. The remote work policy that was in place prior to COVID was specific to our exempt and nonrepresented employees.
Okay. And so, my next question is relative to the Collective Bargaining Agreements. This type of circumstance, would this typically be something that is negotiated in a Collective Bargaining Agreement to make this decision for employees to return to work?
No, work location is not something that we would typically bargain.
Okay. And my next question is relative to the timing. As a working parent, as a mother I have three children. My sister who works for 2187 has five children between the ages of 1 and 10, including a set of 1-year-old boys. Why was the decision made to do this on July 15th in the middle of the summer -- (Cheering.)
-- recognizing that the summer schedule is -- we all know this -- as working parents is much different than the school year schedule that begins in September.
Now, this is just me, this is personal to Katherine. If Katherine had to make this decision, Katherine would have gone to the Unions and had a conversation with them first. Katherine would have waited until September 15th once school is back in -- (Cheering.)
-- because school resumes prior to Labor Day for the Philadelphia Public School System this year. And so, my question is on the timing --
Understood. So we agree that having a conversation with the Union is important and we did have a conversation with the Union. We attempted to have several conversations with our Union partners. We do have a fundamental difference of opinion, and I think that is pretty much what was the impetus behind those conversations not moving in such a partnered fashion, right, in a collaborative fashion. But at the end of the day the decision of the when, we thought about that for quite some time. I don't know that there would have been a particular time in the year that would have impacted one group, one community differently than another community. At the end of the day, getting through the school year not disrupting the school year earlier, we thought that was an important consideration. Also, not invoking this in the very beginning of July when we know that there was a lot of vacation time that was probably planned, that was a considerable influential part of the decision- making. And then really lastly, ensuring that there was sufficient -- there was notice, right. So regardless of when the decision was made, ensuring that we had at least 60 days in advance knowing that this had been a topic of conversation even throughout the campaign. We wanted to make sure that there was sufficient notice. And so, really the notice, the timing, not disrupting the middle of the school year, those things went into the consideration.
Sure. I just wanted to put that on the record particularly relative to child care and parents who have children. July 15th is very difficult for individuals who must now look for child care in the middle of the summer. It's very difficult to find quality child care even in 60 days. (Cheering.)
And I say that as someone who when I was a staffer here in Council, my father died, my grandmother died and then my mom fell and broke her hip six weeks later. I had to look for quality child care for my 8-month-old baby in the middle of the summer, and she did not start until September because that's how long it took me to find child care. And I had to bring a playpen into my office at City Hall in order to work.
This is a personal issue for me. I do feel that we are all seeking to achieve levels of productivity within our teams and provide the best quality of service to the residents of City of Philadelphia. I know we all share that goal, but I do believe that the timing should be considered, particularly for those who are working parents who have young children. (Cheering.)
I will return. I will reserve the balance of my questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to offer as well that I appreciate Majority Leader Gilmore Richardson's perspective. We deal with personal -- personally I've had a very similar -- I have three children, had a very similar path in terms of both parents being ill and needing care and the difficulty of finding care. But at the end of the day, those issues can happen at any time during the year, right. And so, they're very difficult to navigate. In terms of taking those types of personal matters into consideration, they're just absolutely difficult to navigate, to find the perfect time to do this.
Okay. I'm going to go to my colleague Kendra Brooks, followed by Councilwoman Nina Ahmad and then Councilman Anthony Phillips, Rue Landau and so on. All right.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. So I'm kind of on the same lines. I want to know when the Work-from-Home Policy was presented? When was the Union notified? Did they know this before May 20 when the announcement came out or was it at the same time everyone else found out?
Our Union partners were specifically notified on the same day as the press conference. (Audience interruption.)
I will also share that there were conversations prior to that press conference with all of our Union partners making them aware that we were returning -- they did not have the date, but we've had conversations well before the official press conference where the date was established.
And this is a concern to me, because like my colleague I'm a mom too, my children are much older now, but still July is like the worst, in the middle of the summer to try to figure out what you're going to do with children if you had not already made plans. And summer camp plans start in January and February, so that's problematic. In your testimony you talked about legal precedence. So can you tell me the names of the legal case precedence that you're relying on -- (Cheering.)
-- when you said that the work from home is non-bargainable. So I would love to know what the legal case precedence is for my team to look into that.
We certainly can have our Labor team provide that information to you. (Audience interruption.)
I don't want to take up so much -- I have another line of questioning. So when an employee makes an ADA accommodations request, what is the average time it takes to get employee requests from implementation to accommodation? As being the Chair of Disabilities, I've experienced a lot of questioning around ADA compliance here in City Hall. So what is the time frame for that and how will that work for folks having to return to work on July 15th?
So our process doesn't change. The ADA or reasonable accommodation request process does not change. In terms of what is the average time, I don't have that information available for you. That is handled on a department-by-department basis. And as I'm sure you can understand that different departments handle and have different processes relative -- and it also depends on what is the nature of the request that is being made. So to the extent that we can gather that information and provide it to you, we certainly will do that.
It would be very helpful because I would hate for folks to be penalized because reasonable accommodations were not made if people had already been assigned or assigned work-from-home way prior to the COVID pandemic because this mandate is for everyone. So I really would make sure that we have our reasonable accommodations in place --
-- before we make decisions that can impact our workforce.
So our policies do not impact reasonable accommodations. A reasonable accommodation is an accommodation because it at times operates outside of our policy. If policy was the only driver for an accommodation, it wouldn't be an accommodation. So if there is a reasonable accommodation that an employee has on file and is being implemented, that is not impacted by this policy.
So is there any precedent around reasonable accommodation since this is like a new Administration? And I know this is something that had been bargained in the past, and I'm just concerned like -- so reasonable accommodations you said upon -- suppose this Administration does not agree with the reasonable accommodation request that a person was already allotted for prior to, how do we plan on dealing with that? And is there a time frame because there are folks that were doing this for years and we're asking them to come into office places that may not be able to accommodate them? Is there a time frame to speed up this accommodation for them to get to work or it's going to be provisions made for people to still work from home?
So we are very much aware that this is a concern. We are completing reasonable accommodation training for not only our supervisor managers but our HR professionals as well. We want to ensure that the practices that are not subject to the Administration's consideration but they are subject to the law. We want to ensure that we are following the law, we are making sure that reasonable accommodation is -- we are handling that process consistent with ADA. And to the extent that a particular appointing authority or this Administration in particular will influence an existing accommodation because of this new policy, that is inconsistent with ADA. Now, what that doesn't do, that does not remove from the City's ability or any employer's ability to determine what is an effective and responsible accommodation. It may not be work from home if that's what this is -- what we're kind of leading to here. We're going to continue to do what we've been doing, which is ensuring that we are engaging our employees who come to us and ask us for a reasonable accommodation because they have a medical need to do so. If we have departments or any individual that's acting inconsistent with the ADA, we're going to ensure that that gets to our attention and that we manage it the same way we would manage any other concern that is raised inconsistent with Human Resource practice.
And on another note, can you tell us any details about the child and adult, elder care, programs that have been suggested by the Administration? Do we know where it will be, who's eligible and how many children can be cared for under the program?
At this time I can't elaborate or provide specifics. It is at the -- (Audience interruption.)
-- end stages of the contracting process. As soon as we have that completed, we will ensure that there is a full bulleted kind of short form information, and we will also have those vendors onsite to provide training on how to use the benefit.
And do you have any idea when this will be announced to employees?
I don't have a date for you when it'll be announced. (Audience interruption.)
And one other question: Where's the money coming from to pay for these benefits for elder care and child care? (Cheering.)
They're coming from the General Fund, so the money is already allocated --
Good afternoon. Thank you for being here. Just following up on Chair Harrity's question about the cost- benefit analysis of doing this move. You said that it has been working. So the reason for you wanting to change it is to improve on services or improve on customer service. It sounded to me like do you actually have evidence-based ways of knowing? (Cheering.)
So productivity in and of itself was not the driver for this decision. The driver for this decision was a leadership philosophy. The leadership philosophy is simple. We believe having our employees, having our colleagues in-person leads to better communication, leads to better mental health -- (Audience interruption.)
-- leads to more equity, inclusion, leads to more compliance, better compliance with our equal employment opportunity responsibilities. At the end of the day, we know that we're not going to have, I think, consensus in this room about whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. But at the end of the day as a leader, as an Administration, there are benefits to ensuring that my colleagues are in my presence. There are employees in the CAO's office who I have not met. And in so doing, there are opportunities that are lost, opportunities for conversations and exposure so I have a better understanding of what their experiences are, what their competencies are and where we can benefit from them.
So the reason I asked if it's evidencebased is because we used to have that system before, right. Primarily it was in person, and I know that particularly for caregivers who happen to be mostly women and single parent households -- (Cheering.)
-- the flexibility that these hybrid schedules allow you is invaluable. (Cheering.)
If we want, particularly focusing on women, if we want them to be their full economic potential, work to their full economic potential, we have to make family-friendly workplaces -- (Cheering.)
-- that is evidence-based that that will be an economic boom for the City. (Cheering.)
Councilmember Ahmad, we do agree with you in that workplace decisions that create flexibility, that create opportunities for underrepresented communities to thrive and take advantage of opportunities is what we're shooting for. But at the end of the day, if we're defining workplace balance, if we're defining a workplace that works for women, specifically as a place where I can be home and I can do all of the things that I typically would do while at work, that that is the definition of success, I don't know that we agree on that. At some point, I think we do have to honor the fact that we want our employees to be -- we want individuals to be healthy. That includes their mental health as well. That doesn't include -- (Audience interruption.)
That does not include doing every single thing that you can do at one time. That does not include taking care of our home, our personal responsibilities as well as our professional responsibilities in the same hour. So we do want to ensure that we are creating spaces where our employees can thrive.
So I'll go back to again evidence- based. It is evidence-based to say that people work actually longer when they have hybrid schedules. (Cheering.)
They give more to their job. But I want to pivot to another point that was made when you were talking about the ADA, making those provisions. You said it was based on the Department chair or the Commissioner, right, meaning what the accommodations were needed it was going to be job-specific. Why is it that we're not allowing our Supervisors and Commissioners to decide with the worker how this would work? Why is it a blanket -- (Cheering.)
I just want to make sure I understand what the question --
Just one second. At the end of the day, we have to disaggregate our data to understand the particular situation.
So one department versus another can have very different needs and very different needs for people's interaction. To take away that ability from the Supervisor or the Commissioner who knows their workforce, who knows the requirements seems to be not allowing leadership to flourish.
So at the end of the day, I want to make sure that we're clear in that the policy does allow for supervisors and managers to exercise flexibility in a number of ways. We have workplace flexibilities outside of working from home. And so, those flexibilities remain. They are untouched by the policy. And so, to your point as a supervisor, manager, as an appointing authority, I know my staff. I know what their individual issues are. I know what our work responsibilities are and how I might be able to leverage the other work flexibilities that remain in the Civil Service Code regulations and again realize some of those flexibilities that allow for a work and home balance.
So I'll end by saying we need to recognize the world has changed.
So we need to recognize how we have operated. So I'll leave it at that. (Cheering.)
All right. We're going to have Councilman Phillips, then Councilwoman Landau, Councilwoman Lozada and end with my man Nicolas O'Rourke if he has anything.
Thank you, Chairman Harrity. Thank you, Camille, for your testimony. Last week I provided some closing comments to our recess on City Council about how throughout my entire life no 5 matter what circumstances I've been in the DNA that I have in me still pulls at how can we all get along, how can we all work together. I recalled a story, some of our Council colleagues were here, about how I was bullied for several years. And one got to the point where I was bullied in middle school and I got jumped. And those same people who jumped me, I found a way a week later to figure out how can I ask them how can we figure out how we can move forward and how can we become better together. This pains me, right. And I'll tell you why. I'm looking at hundreds of people in this room and I recognize tough decisions have to be made. And for me, my DNA always pulls to how can we build consensus, how can we find a way to do the work of the Lord together for the City of Philadelphia. So the question that I have, and I hope that the Administration and everyone that's on your team is open to this, is there still an opportunity for your team, the Mayor and Administration to build some level of consensus with D.C. 47, D.C. 33, 2187 on this particular issue?
So that door never closed, right. We stand firm on this decision this is a management right and that it is not subject to negotiation, but that in no way closed the door to having conversations about the impact of this decision on the Bargaining Unit, on our employees and how we might be able to partner on ways to mitigate that impact. That door never closed. We opened it from the beginning and it never closed. (Audience interrupted.)
Gotcha. Well, that's good to know because I know leadership and some of the folks in the public comment are going to provide some ideas of how we can make this work better for all of us and still meet the expectations of the Administration. And so, the goal here is to make Philadelphia a better place to live, work and play.
And my hope is that today's hearing will be helpful so that we can work together and really come out of this, maybe not all saying that we got everything, but we found a way to come to a happy medium so that all of us can be productive for what we're here to do, to serve people in the City. So thank you so much. (Cheering.)
Thank you. Thank you so much for being here and answering our questions. I want to first thank you for in your testimony explaining more the numbers of the folks who are really working from home. I believe the Mayor in her public statements have said something like 85 percent of the people are already back to work, and that number never really made sense to me. And your testimony helped a little bit. Majority Leader Gilmore Richardson already added up that there's 2,810 members of D.C. 33 and D.C. 47 we believe who are working from home, but it also didn't add in the 46 percent of exempt. So there are more people who are working from home and it wasn't 85 percent are already back and this is just going to affect a small group of people.
I'm sorry. I know that wasn't a question, but at the end of the day that is an accurate percentage. The 80 percent that the Mayor cited in her press release is accurate.
Because it includes Police, Fire, a whole bunch of people who were never working -- not working, whoever --
It is representative of -- so her statement was that 80 percent of the City of Philadelphia's workforce is working in person and that is accurate.
I understand it's accurate. I also understand that for those of us who were trying to dig down and find the real numbers, it's now clearer for me as to where these numbers --
Sure. And it includes people who were never working from home?
Yes. It includes the entire workforce, which is how you would need to consider for a percentage of our workforce.
So I want to talk about the City currently has approximately a 16 percent vacancy rate of positions 17 that we're trying to fill. I had 18 the honor of overseeing two 19 agencies where I got to work with 20 many 2187 members, some 2186, a few D.C. 33, just a smattering of exempt. Great experience for me, wonderful, super flexible. I also, like our Majority Leader, at that time, different times, had a little kid, had a dad who had a deteriorating condition, was juggling everything and couldn't see it at the time because this was all pre-pandemic but sure would have loved to have the flexibility of a work-from-home schedule where I actually could have been able to do my job and also handle my life's pressures at the time. If the City already has approximately percent vacancy 14 rate and we've already heard of 15 many people who are talking about 16 leaving their jobs if they have to 17 come back five days a week, 18 including the exempt employees, not 19 just the folks who are in this 20 room, how is the City going to handle filling those vacancies in a very quick manner? (Cheering.)
Thank you, Councilmember Landau. Mike Zaccagni, HR Director, worked with you a number of times over the years. Yes, we're already seeing -- and I think I testified to this a little bit at our Council hearing seeing us turn a corner. Last year we hired I believe close to 3,000 employees, which was about a 30 percent increase over FY19, which was the last full fiscal year before the pandemic where we hired I think about 2,000. And we are on track to do the same thing this year. So we're doing a lot of work -- (Audience interruption.)
We're doing a lot of work around recruitment. We're doing a lot of work of trying to change our profile to everyone out there and really draw people here because we have a lot to offer. Even if we disagree on remote work, hybrid work, we do agree that we need a work-life balance. And when I hear Councilmember Ahmad, working longer hours, that's not what we want our workforce to do. We want our workforce to have a balanced life. We want our workforce to have an integrated life so that's a big focus of us. And one of the things -- (Audience interruption.)
And one of the things that we're looking to do is hopefully continue to turn that corner. Out of about the -- and again, I think we're down to, and it's not something to be proud of, I think we're down to about 5600, 5700 vacancies which is still way too many. I think in FY19 we were about 2000, 2500 vacancies. That's where we want to get to. Out of the first top 10 positions of information that we get from departments from our workforce planning process, there's about positions that account for half of that, and you can probably guess what those positions are. And we can certainly share that with you. And again, that's coming from our meetings with departments. So we're really focusing on trying to turn that corner and continue to generate eligible lists from candidates that we're attracting to the City, so we're putting a lot of effort and have been over, I guess, about the last year or so into doing more around that, including as Camille mentioned changing some of the benefits that we're offering, especially around things like family sick leave. This still has to be discussed with the Union because we're not going to make any changes and benefits without making sure that goes through the process that it has to go through, but we are looking at making changes because we do -- and it's not a secret here that as a developed nation, we lag far behind just about every other developed nation, not city, nation for supporting family-friendly work policies. And there's a big change we have to make. And it's not just here. It's across the nation. So we're trying to do our little piece here in making our benefits more sound, making our benefits more focused. So as we try to create better flexibility with our leave policies, that's one of the things that we're also trying to do in order to attract additional candidates to the City.
Can I ask one quick follow-up question. The Mayor has talked about renovating new space so that people can come back to the office. Is there enough space for current employees? (Audience interruption.)
Okay. I'm going to ask Joe Brasky, our Interim Deputy of Public Property to come up. (Witness approached Witness table.)
Thank you, Councilmember. Yes, we're working closely with the MDO's office -- NCO, CAO's office. We're coordinating to make sure everybody has a place to return when they come back. Yeah, we're still gathering information but we are in good shape. (Audience interruption.)
I don't understand if we have a 20 percent vacancy rate how is there not enough space if people come --
We didn't say there's not enough space. There is space. A lot of space became storage areas during the pandemic and we are in the process of clearing that stuff out. So we do have space and we're evaluating and we're confident everyone will have space July 15th.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilmember Landau. The Chair now will recognize Councilmember Lozada. Very quickly I just wanted to put on the record a quick point of information, if you will, for the numbers that were stated. We're seeing that there's a 26,000 employee workforce based on the numbers in the paperwork. 80 percent of 26,000 is 20,800 people that are working in person. So the percent would be the 5,200 that work hybrid. Based on the testimony that we received, 2,810 are members of D.C. 47 and 33. So my question is, and then I'll go right to Councilmember Lozada, is it 2,390 exempt employees that are also working remotely or hybrid?
No, 11 there's not 2,000 employees who are 12 working hybrid. But you also need 13 to take into account that it's a 14 26,000-plus as a denominator, and 15 that you don't have a full 16 accounting here because the 17 non-represented employees is not 18 reflected in this number. 19
No, right. But meaning the numbers just don't make sense. If you're saying -- (Cheering.)
And I'm really just -and I told our Chairman that I did have a point of information. I did not want to interrupt Councilmember Landau's line of questioning. But if you just quickly did the numbers based off the percentages that you all are speaking about, the numbers do not make sense. And if it's 26,000-plus, then that means each of these numbers would be more. And so, I would make the request that if you could provide to the Chairman --
-- of the exact vacancy rate, what departments the vacancy exists. I know this is in the detail, but we need this current information. How many individuals work in person, how many work hybrid, how many are members of D.C. 47, how many are members of D.C. 33 and how many exempt employees are working from home so that we're not using percentages and we're looking at numbers. (Cheering.)
So to be clear and to put it on the record, I just want to identify that you do not have all of the numbers of all staff here. And so, to do quick math here it wouldn't make sense to do quick math based on what's here.
And out of respect for the Chairman, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to pass it back to you because you have returned to the hearing. But I would just like to request the questions that I ask, the answers to those questions so that we have clarity. I'm not even, you know, arg -- I'm just going off of the numbers that were provided in the testimony and --
And so, we can absolutely provide you those numbers, every breakdown of bargaining unit, exempt, non-represented, what number of employees is working, in-person schedule, onsite and what number of employees, the raw numbers, what number of employees are working a hybrid or fully remote schedule.
Right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Mr. Chair, we were at Councilmember Lozada.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Majority Leader Gilmore Richardson. That was pretty much my question, right. I would like to see the breakdown --
-- of what are these positions, who are these people that we're looking to return, who are the people that are actually still at home. I'd also like to follow up on the line of questioning around flexibility, right. One size shoe doesn't fit all. And so, I know you all mentioned that you would leave that up to the leadership of the department. But what are we putting in place or what procedures are we putting in place so that we're protecting the worker so that they don't become a target because their leadership doesn't appreciate the fact that they can't come to work the way that other people come to work? (Cheering.)
So what I want to make very clear is that the decision of where a person works, that decision has been made, right. There were no changes made to the work flexibilities that are existing for the City of Philadelphia's workforce. Whether it is alternate work schedules, core hours, flexible start and stop times, all of those things remain. And to your point of how do we ensure that our supervisors, our managers are able to work with -- bless you -- able to work with our individualized concerns of our workforce, that remains. We still want our supervisors and managers to work based on an individual need for their employees.
I get that. But I think you mentioned to one of my colleagues that or one of my colleagues mentioned the times have changed. What we learned from COVID is that life changed for people --
-- and so, some of the policies that we have in place still don't meet the needs of some folks, especially when you're asking them to come back within a 30-to-60-day period, right. And so, for a single mom, 30 days, 60 days is not enough to make a life change like that for themselves and their children. And they may become -- although all of those policies are put in place, they may become the target of a senior person in this department that now targets them because they can't seem to adjust quick enough or as fast as we are asking them to respond. (Cheering.)
That's all I'm saying, that let us think about those things proactively so that we're not then putting people in compromised situations where we are now risking losing potentially a good employee, right, because we can't seem to adjust or we've not been flexible enough for them. That's one. And my second question is around facilities. We know as the Chair of Public Property, I know that there are some spaces in City government that are not appropriate for us to bring employees to work in because they are in poor condition. So if we're talking about bringing back such a large workforce, are we prepared within those 30-to-60 days to be able to prepare those spaces to appropriately welcome employees back?
We are not bringing back our employees into spaces that are unsuitable for their work. (Applause interruption.)
I've visited a lot of our spaces, right. And a lot of them even where we do have people that are working in right now, they are not appropriate space for us to be in. I just want us to be -- (Cheering.)
Let's have honest, transparent conversation and let us accept that some of our spaces need to be updated and they need to be appropriate so that we can bring people back to work in safe spaces, right, in clean spaces, in spaces where we are not going to impact their mental health. Because if we're saying that we're looking at their mental health, based on testimony --
-- we want our people's mental health to be on point, then we need to make sure that those spaces are spaces where they are going to be productive, where they're going to be able to provide services to our residents when they call or for them to be able to be good colleagues to one another. If I'm in a space that's a mess, then I'm not going to want to work. I'm not going to be productive. I'm going to be angry all the time. And so, let us make sure that we're looking at that as well. And if we're not ready to bring back such a large group of people all at the same time, then let's bring them back in phases where we're correcting the spaces or making the spaces appropriate as we bring people back. That's all I'm saying. I'm asking that we recommend that we look at it.
Just one. The refrain still sticks with me that work has changed. And one of the things that I have been saddened by is our inability across the country, certainly here as well, to adjust to a global shift in how we live and work and all of that. That having been said, part of this conversation has come with a number of folks expressing a readiness to go ahead and pick up and go elsewhere and work elsewhere. This is a common refrain across the country, certainly here as well. What are the City's estimates for how many additional vacancies that this particular policy will actually create beyond what already exists? What is the plan towards that and do you have any estimates about that?
Right. So we don't have hard numbers of folks who have said, we don't know, we are -- (Audience interruption.)
-- not staying, right. We have anecdotal information that suggests that there are folks who will make a decision that this is not conducive to their ability to work for the City of Philadelphia. We are going to continue to do what we have been doing. We are forecasting that. We are putting considerable funds and resources behind recruitment, around retention, around benefits improvement, around where we're sourcing information, around how we are determining what our compensation package looks like. So to the extent that -- we have no data to that because it has not happened yet, but to the extent that we can make decisions to improve our look as an employer, we're going to continue to do that so that we can recruit and we can retain. And one thing I will say is that we agree work has changed. The amount of service that we have to provide to our residents, the touchpoints that we have to make, the impact that we have every single day -- I'm preaching to the choir, I know this -- on our residents, that has changed. And we have to be nimble. We have to be resilient. We have to be able to provide those services in a culturally competent way.
Heard and thank you. I will just simply say that it was interesting to hear or striking at least for me to hear you say that the decision was driven not by productivity numbers but simply a leadership philosophy.
And while I'm a deep respecter of leadership and that's a craft that has to be honed and all of those things, sometimes you can have leadership crafted in a world that no longer exists. (Cheering.)
And there should be no love lost or any shame in choosing differently when it becomes clear that this is not the most effective or prudent approach to go with. So I just want to suggest that. Thank you so much. (Cheering.)
All right. Thank you, everyone. My colleague Councilwoman Brooks has one more question and then we're going to move to the next panel.
Thank you so much. I'm going to put them all together as one. So there's research that exists that says a full office work schedule has a negative impact on health. And how does the Administration reconcile its stated mental health improvement goals with the state of this academic research on this subject? (Cheering.)
And Part 2 of that is how does this apply to folks who were hired to work from home for the City?
Okay. Sure. You can take the second part first. (Audience interruption.)
All right. Still working -- (microphone). You would think I know how to handle these by now after as many times I've been here. So for the people who were hired during the pandemic, we looked at our postings, especially for civil service and also for exempt employees. So we posted and we promoted work-life balance. We did not specifically state that there would be hybrid work or remote work. And the same thing from the standpoint of our exempt employees, even though I think mentioned hybrid, we said it was at the discretion of the appointing authority as to whether that would be something that would be available. So what we communicated from the standpoint of those postings was that this is what's happening now. This is something that's flexible. This is something that can change.
So just to be clear, people who were hired to work from home, they're also being mandated to come back?
They took the job under the guise that they were able to work from home or work remotely and those people are being mandated to come into the office now after they took a job where they expected to work remotely?
So that is correct. That is correct. Again, it's a work location change. And while nothing in a solicitation for a job is a contractual stipulation, we understand that there are folks who made a decision to accept positions with the understanding that there was a hybrid or work- from-home opportunity, that location decision has changed simply as the location of your office could have changed, right. So I do understand that. We absolutely understand that. But to answer your question directly, yes, there are people who the understanding was that the position they were hired for would allow them to work in hybrid schedule and that is not the case. And so, I also wanted to kind of speak to you introduced the fact that there is data that suggests that it is inconsistent with, I guess, mental health to not have some sort of a hybrid schedule. I would offer that there's also data, a Surgeon General report -- (Audience interruption.)
-- that suggests the opposite, that there are definitely negatives to kind of prolonged isolation related to virtual -- (Audience interruption.)
All right. Let's calm down now. We're going to get through this. We're about to move on to the next panel. You will have your voice heard. Just let the people finish. We are taking notes so we get the information.
We are happy to provide that Surgeon General report, and we understand that we're not going to agree that there is a catch-all to a panacea for this situation. At the end of the day, there are negatives associated with hybrid and virtual work situations.