COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, May 5, 2010 10:15 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE, CHAIR COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY BILLS 090580, 100080 and 100081 RESOLUTIONS 090610 and 100088 - - - 2
Good morning, everyone. This is the Committee on Law and Government. For the record, we have a quorum with Councilman Kenney, the Vice-Chair of the Committee, Councilman Goode, Councilman DiCicco and myself. For the record, I want to announce that at the request of the sponsor, Bill Nos. 100080 and 100081 and Resolution 100088 are all going to be continued until Wednesday, June 2nd at 10:00 a.m. Ms. Marconi, will you please read the bill and resolution we'll be hearing today.
Bill No. 090580, an ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of the proposal set forth in a Resolution approved by Council proposing an amendment of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter confirming Council's power to enact ordinances that 3 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. (i) require the City, City contractors and recipients of City financial assistance to provide their employees a minimum level of pay and benefits, and/or that require certain or all City contracts to include provisions mandating compliance with such a requirement; and (ii) provide remedies for violations, including debarment from doing business with the City or receiving financial assistance for a specified period of time; and authorizing Council to specify procedures for such debarment by conferring powers and duties on existing City agencies, including Council, or by creating new agencies for such purposes; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election.
Resolution 090610, resolution proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter confirming 4 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. Council's power to enact ordinance that (i) require the City, City contractors and recipients of City financial assistance to provide their employees a minimum level of pay and benefits, and/or that require certain or all City contracts to include provisions mandating compliance with such a requirement; and (ii) provide remedies for violations, including debarment from doing business with the City or receiving City financial assistance for a specified period of time; and authorizing Council to specify procedures for such debarments by conferring powers and duties on existing City agencies, including Council, or by creating new agencies for such purposes; and providing for the submission of the amendment of the electors of Philadelphia.
Thank you. Thank you very much. First of all, any statement by members of the Committee? 5 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. (No response.)
Seeing none, the first witness, the Administration, Mr. Armbrister. Good morning. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning, Chairman Greenlee and members of the Committee. It is morning. My name is Clarence Armbrister. I'm Chief of Staff to Mayor Michael Nutter, and I'm here today to testify on behalf of the Nutter Administration on Bill No. 090580 and Resolution No. 090610, which together constitute a proposed change to the City's Home Rule Charter. First, let me say that Mayor Nutter shares many of the concerns addressed by the proposed legislation and we commend Councilman Goode for his efforts in connection with trying to 6 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. secure for employees of entities that do business with the City a fair and decent wage. State and federal minimum wage requirements have for far too long been simply inadequate. We agree that it is important that the City stand up for workers at the low-income spectrum of the workforce. We do have a few concerns about the legislation that I would like to address. The first relates to one specific aspect of how the draft might be read to apply to City workers. The second relates to the financial impact of this proposal with respect to City contractors. In 2005, the Council adopted the 21st Century Minimum Wage ordinance, which set forth requirements in The Philadelphia Code for the payment of a local minimum wage in certain instances. The ordinance requires the City to pay all City employees 150 percent of the federal minimum wage. One hundred 7 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. and fifty percent of the federal minimum wage constitutes the City's minimum wage. 88 per hour. The ordinance also requires the City to include, in certain City service contracts and certain other agreements such as leases, a requirement that the contractor or lessee pay certain of its employees the City minimum wage. For example, the ordinance requires that non-profit entities that have more than five employees and that have service contracts with the City for more than $100,000 in a 12-month period must pay its employees who do work in connection with such contracts at least the City minimum wage. In addition, the ordinance 21 requires that if the entity provides health benefits to any of its employees, it must provide to all of its full-time, year-round workers the minimum level of health benefits it provides to any of its 8 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. employees. Contracts subject to the ordinance must include those minimum wage and minimum benefits requirements. Around the time of the adoption of the ordinance, the City Solicitor provided a legal opinion stating that, in his opinion, Council has the legal authority under the Charter to mandate that the Administration implement parts of the ordinance, but not the authority to require implementation of other parts of it. More specifically, the Solicitor opined that Council does not have the power to set pay and benefit rates for City employees, except for certain high-level officials like department heads, with respect to whom the Charter explicitly grants salary-making authority. The Charter's delegation to the executive and the administrative branch to set pay rates is quite explicit in the Charter. This makes sense, as determining rates of pay 9 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. is part and parcel of the Mayor's role in determining how to spend money in budgets approved by City Council. With respect to the ordinance's requirements applicable to City contractors, the Solicitor has determined that the parts of the ordinance 9 applicable to contracts subject to the Charter's lowest responsible bidder requirements are enforceable, as are the parts applicable to contracts approved by Council. The parts setting forth requirements applicable to professional service contracts, however, are not. This Charter change proposal would significantly alter the Charter in this respect. It would establish that Council has the authority to set a minimum pay rate and a minimum level of benefits for City employees.
It would also establish that Council has the authority to set a minimum level of pay and a minimum level of benefits for the employees of anyone who contracts with 10 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. the City. These represent significant changes in the structure of our government. I will now address our concerns with the legislation. We are in agreement that all of our full-time City employees should be paid a decent wage. Based on an analysis performed several years ago, when the City was not fully implementing the terms of the ordinance with respect to City employees, it was estimated that doing so would cost approximately an additional $2 million per year. This cost was due to the need to increase the pay of largely seasonal employees in the Recreation Department and Fairmount Park. Subsequent to that analysis, the City increased the pay for those positions in accordance with the terms of the ordinance. 88 minimum wage required in the ordinance. 11 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. So based on the current terms of the Minimum Wage ordinance, adoption of the Charter change, which would give Council the authority to mandate the minimum wage requirements for City employees, the ordinance would have no 8 immediate financial impact in connection with City employees. We have been advised by the Law Department, however, that the Charter proposal is ambiguous as to whether it would permit Council to not only set a single minimum wage applicable to all City employees, but also to set varying levels of minimum pay for different classes of employees. For example, it is unclear whether Council could set the minimum pay for laborers in the Streets Department or the minimum pay of Police Sergeants or of all Parks and Recreation Department employees. In our view, a Charter change allowing Council such authority would simply go too far. When the framers of 12 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. our City Charter wrote its provisions regarding who would establish the pay levels of City workers, they very consciously decided to centralize authority for determining the level of pay of virtually all City workers in the executive and administrative branch. The reason for this was accountability. Currently, the determination of the wage and benefits levels is primarily a function of collective bargaining between the City Administration and the four unions who represent the vast majority of our City employees. The levels of pay of City employees established in contract negotiations is one of the most public aspects of policy making by City officials. Accountability for such decision-making is vested almost exclusively in the Mayor. If he or she makes decisions that the public does not like, the public knows who to blame. If Council had the authority to set minimum wage and benefit levels for 13 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. different classes of City employees, this would make accountability for these decisions more diffuse. The Mayor would still have some authority in this area in the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements and Council would have a significant role in setting minimum wage levels. Diffusion of responsibility for these types of decisions is precisely what the drafters of the Charter were trying to avoid by centralizing decisions on City spending. If Council has the authority to set minimum levels of pay and minimum levels of benefits, there will be enormous pressure on Council from the City unions and indeed from individual employees to increase levels of pay. We expect that members of Council, who have often advised us that they choose to remain neutral during collective bargaining negotiations, would prefer not to have the authority to establish minimum levels of pay by class of City 14 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. employee.
Accordingly, the Administration would like to offer an amendment to clarify that Council's powers with respect to the pay of City employees would be limited to establishing a single minimum level of pay and benefits and not varying levels of pay by class of employee. We also have concerns about the Charter change insofar as it would grant Council the authority to establish minimum wage and benefit requirements for City professional service contractors. Our concern here is fundamentally one of financial constraints. Full implementation of the current minimum wage requirements of the ordinance in connection with City professional services would present a significant financial challenge at a time when we simply do not have a lot of flexibility in determining how to spend our funds. 15 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. Based on an analysis performed several years ago and a more recent analysis performed since we received notice of this hearing, we estimate that full implementation of the provisions of the ordinance in connection with social service contracts would require an increase in costs of approximately $9 million per year, or $45 million over the life of our Five Year Plan, to cover increases in pay alone. We have not yet determined what increase in costs might result from the requirement that all employees of the contractor be provided health benefits at the minimum level of benefits provided to other employees of the entity. These costs would be borne almost entirely in the area of contracts with providers of behavioral health and mental retardation services. These are services funded almost entirely by funds from the Commonwealth. The services are also generally provided as entitlements 16 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. to the recipients of the services and, therefore, cannot be reduced by the City to reduce costs. The City almost certainly would not be able to look to the State to fund the services at a higher rate based on the City's own requirement that the pay and benefit of some employees of the contractor be increased to the amount of the City's minimum wage and benefit requirements. Accordingly, full implementation of the minimum wage requirements now, as we are working so hard to fill our current budget deficit and balance our budgets going forward, could cause significant financial hardship to the City. As I said at the beginning of my testimony, we commend Councilman Goode for his leadership in this area, and during our time of greater financial security, we would not hesitate to wholeheartedly support implementation of the measure. At this moment, we can only say that if the measure is adopted, 17 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. we will have to work carefully to ensure that implementation does not significantly harm our financial situation going forward. That concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Mr. Armbrister. Maybe I could just ask one, and it's a general question. I think this came up at another hearing about a year ago. And certainly we all understand, because it's that time of year, about budget restraints and all, but is it really -- and I think fairness always has to come into here somewhere, and I know you said you will work with Councilman Goode on this, but is it really fair that we have employees that maybe they work for a contractor but they're still -- it's connected with the City that have such minimal benefits in pay? I mean, is that really -- that's just the fair process. I understand the financial 18 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. restraints, but we also have to mix fairness in here, don't we?
Well, yeah. Fairness -- and I don't want to parse this. Certainly the Mayor shares the concern, and I expressed that at the beginning of the testimony, and I think about this time last year he expressed some of the concern about the situations and basically have advised us that where we can, we should try to encourage those with whom we contract to make sure they pay decent and fair wages. Now, the reality is, though, that oftentimes they have the privity of a relationship with their own employees and we are not at the table as it relates to the negotiations with their own employee. So to the extent that we can, we can try to influence them. The Mayor is certainly aware of that. He wants to be helpful in that, but we just want to make sure that people recognize that there is going to be a 19 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. cost to that, and we're prepared to try to work with Council, work with our contractors to make sure that we can, to the extent that we're not involved in the negotiations with them, try to make sure that we maintain those costs.
And I understand that, and I appreciate that. Again, just to wrap up -- I know Councilman Goode probably has questions or comments, but I think we also have to recognize the situation those workers are in, too.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 20 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. Good morning, Mr. Armbrister.
Thank you for your testimony. The amendment to the Charter resolution is acceptable to me. I have no problems with it.
The legislative intent was never to create more than a single minimum wage standard, definitely not per class of City employee. But I do have a few questions for the record regarding The Philadelphia Code, some of which you addressed in your testimony, but I would like to create a difference of context for it. The first is, wasn't my legislative intent clear that the wage and benefit standard should be applied to non-competitive bid and professional service contracts?
I'm sorry. I didn't hear -- 21 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc.
I said wasn't my legislative intent clear that the minimum wage and benefits standard should be applied to non-competitively bid and professional service contracts? In other words, when the bill was signed into law and as the new Administration came in and an amendment was signed into law, wasn't it clear at that point that my legislative intent was that it be applied to non-competitively bid and professional service contracts?
That it was your intent? I think that's probably correct, yes.
And because that provision is within the bill and its amendments were considered to be not legally enforceable? 22 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc.
I think the Solicitor had opined that they were beyond the authority of the Council at that time.
So how long have the wage and benefit standards been applied to competitively bid contracts?
I think since shortly after the ordinance was put into effect.
-- to get the Street Administration to actually implement the ordinance. And you mention this in your testimony but again for the record, what has the financial impact on the City been for that contract provision?
We're getting the information, but we think at a minimum, I think in my testimony I think it said it was a couple of million 23 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. dollars was calculated at that time and primarily as it relates to City employees and the seasonal workers.
I was referring more to the competitively bid contracts, not the City --
Oh, the competitive. I don't know. We're going to try to get that information.
So as far as we know, there's been no financial impact whatsoever with regard to competitively bid contracts?
If the wage and benefits standard had been applied to non-competitively bid contracts and professional service contracts, then we would already know what the financial cost would be; is that true?
Okay. There 24 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. are provisions within The Philadelphia Code already within the original resolution that allow for waivers?
Exemptions as it relates to State and federal law and the waivers as it relates to hardship cases.
So the Administration can in fact control the financial impact through the waiver process, if necessary?
That is correct, and I think previous Administrations have done that.
So, in fact, there should not be a concern about a 25 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. financial impact because you essentially, as you put the provision within the competitively bid contracts, if you're putting out requests for proposals for non-competitively bid contracts and professional service contracts, you can in fact put that minimum wage and benefit requirement within there with the waiver provisions as well?
That would be within the Administration's control, that's correct.
So it's a manageable situation. And without a Charter amendment, though, there would continue to be pretty much a blanket waiver as it applies?
Well, I'm not sure it's been a blanket waiver, but I know --
Does the minimum wage and benefit provision exist in all RFPs? 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc.
I don't know that it does and I would guess that it may not.
If it does not exist in over 90 percent of RFPs, then it's pretty much a blanket waiver.
But I'm not going to concede the factual point, but certainly the premise might be correct.
So let's just agree that without the Charter provision, there could be conceivably a blanket waiver, but, more importantly, that a case-by-case waiver is the more appropriate way to do it than a blanket waiver?
That certainly is a way that we can manage it, Councilman.
Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions? 27 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. (No response.)
We have it already. So it will be offered at the meeting. Thank you. The next witnesses on my list are Service Employees International Union, SEIU. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Natalia, you're a veteran at this. I guess you should start. Please identify yourself for the record and you can proceed. And is it Ms. Trayhamn?
We have 28 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. your testimony, too.
Okay. Hello. My name is Audra Trayhamn. I'm a Member Leader for SEIU Local 32BJ. Our union represents over 120,000 janitors, building engineers, security guards and food service workers across the eastern seaboard, 16,000 in the State of Pennsylvania, 8,000 of whom live and work in the City of Philadelphia. Throughout the years, our union has worked tirelessly to ensure that workers like myself earn the type of wages we need to take care of ourselves and our family, that we have the type of benefits that will protect the health of our children and that our rights are protected at our jobs. But 32BJ understands that we are more than just union members. We are also tax-paying citizens of the City of Philadelphia, residents of its many neighborhoods and that our needs go way beyond just those 29 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. of the workplace. It is just those reasons we have engaged in fights on issues such as transit fare hikes and inclusionary housing. Those campaigns were never easy, and while we have had some great wins, we have also had our losses, but regardless of the outcome, the one thing that remains true is that no matter the campaign and no matter the issue, we have always had the ability to speak to our elected officials about our concerns. I have on more than one occasion sat down with City Council members to talk about one campaign or another. Sometimes those conversations were good and sometimes they weren't. We don't always agree, but it's the opportunity to at least be able to have those discussions to make everyday people such as myself powerful in a democracy. We are here today for the same reason, to protect our ability to have a dialogue on issues that matter the most to us. 30 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. I support Bill 090580 and 090610 because my tax dollars should not go to pay people property wages and undercut the standards that I fought so hard for to win. These bills are important to me as both a worker and a taxpayer. Government should lead by example. If my tax dollars are going to be spent on development, I expect that jobs created will be good jobs that pay a decent wage and provide health benefits to ensure that workers such as myself are not being exploited and are able to take home our fair share. Yet as we have seen in the past, particularly in cases of City subcontractors work, even bills passed with the best intentions if not enforced become irrelevant, that the City Council should have the power -- and already has the responsibility -- to ensure that legislation as passed is doing what it's supposed to do once on the books. The hard-working men and women of 31 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. Philadelphia need to know that the laws that are passed are being implemented, and as our elected officials, you are the only ones we can turn to. Our ability to work our concerns through this body allows us not only to participate in the democracy process of the City but also protect our rights as workers. Otherwise, who would we talk to? How would my voice be heard? It is the body that gives me the opportunity to make a difference. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to testify today and for your support on Bill 090580 and 090610.
Thank you for your testimony. Any questions or comments? Councilman Goode.
Just thank you for your testimony. I look forward to working with you in the future and moving forward. Thank you.
Thank you, 32 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. Councilman.
Thank you. Our next witness is Philadelphia Security Officers Union. Mr. Rodriguez, you're becoming a veteran in this place. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
We might have to start wondering about you now. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Thank you. My name is Fabricio Rodriguez and I am the Lead Coordinator for the Philadelphia Security Officers Union. We represent the 135 security officers at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Seated next to me I'd like to point out is Bernardo Dickerson, the 33 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. Vice-President of the Philadelphia Security Officers Union. Yesterday we testified about the issues we're facing at the Museum. I just wanted to clarify the relationship between the City and the Museum to answer some of the concerns I think Councilman Goode brought up about subcontracts in our City and waivers granted to some of those subcontractors. The Philadelphia City Council created the Museum almost 100 years ago with an act. And if you look at the lease that the Museum has with the City, it says that the City of Philadelphia is responsible for the security of the building, the upkeep and the maintenance, and that the City is obligated to cover those costs. The subcontractor, Allied Barton, and the Museum of Art have been able to make an argument -- I'm not sure how -- that they're not a City-related agency, and so so far, the Philadelphia minimum wage is not being applied there. 34 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. 54 an hour with no benefits whatsoever. 03 per hour with no benefits. So I just wanted to put some context on that situation. The Philadelphia Museum of Art is our city's most iconic monument. It is the face of our city. It is known the world over for its renowned collections and its groundbreaking exhibitions. However, it's also a place of hardship and poverty. These ugly things are hidden from public view, and the responsibility for this suffering has been accepted so far because of federal -- the inadequacies of federal and state minimum wage. They are masked by subcontracted relationships and arrangements. I don't think anyone from the Mayor's Office was in Council when we testified yesterday, and so for their 35 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. benefit, I want to briefly reiterate some of the things that our members spoke about. Yesterday we had testimony from Dynnita Bryant, Lashan Stewart and an organizer, Eduardo Soriano. Dynnita Bryant, who is a full-time worker at the Museum of Art, spoke about how her condition eczema, which is easily controlled and cheap to control, still debilitates her due to her low wages and lack of healthcare. It puts her out of work sometimes for more than a week at a time. She has to count on getting her medication from her relatives and her neighbors who have the same condition and them sharing out pills with her. Lashan Stewart told us about how she's paying -- how paying out of pocket for healthcare has driven her deep into debt. We heard the story of Charles Shaick, a man who has been guarding our city's most precious cultural treasures 36 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. for the last 35 years and has to work full time at the age of 79 to keep from going hungry. Eduardo, our organizer who met with him, told us a story about how a tooth fell out of Charles Shaick's mouth and bounced across the table during their meeting. Charles cannot afford the procedure to fix his teeth. He has to have them periodically glued back into his face. The lives of good, hard-working Philadelphians should not be this way. City Council should have the power to change this. You are the legislative body closest to the people. You are, in the pure sense, our representatives. You are us. You come from our neighborhoods. You know our problems. But I and the members and supporters of our union do not come here today to ask for your sympathy. We come to ask for your solidarity and offer ours in return. If passed, or finally I guess 37 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. sanctified, the Philadelphia minimum wage bill will increase the wages for the security guards at the Museum of Art by at least $2,375 per person per year.
That means more than $320,000 flowing into your districts from raising the standards at one work site alone. That's not even talking about the custodians in the facility or the food service workers, because we don't even know how badly they're treated. The healthcare provisions in Councilman Goode's bill will have an effect on -- will affect the lives of our members in a way that's impossible to estimate. We are certain that it would save each of our members thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs each year. The increased wages and savings will be enough to send a security guard's child or a security guard to the Community College of Philadelphia for a year. That's what we're talking about here. This will also lower our city's 38 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. costs for workers whose primary healthcare is our health clinics and emergency rooms. This will help reduce our city's budget deficit. The power to make that -- make sure that Philadelphia businesses pay their fair share should be your power. We know that there's not clarity on whether City Council should have that power, but we came here today to offer our support in making sure that you have working people supporting you and amending the Home Rule Charter. Thank you.
Councilman Kelly. I forgot to mention the presence of Councilman Kelly. 39 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rodriguez, one of the things you forgot to mention in that, the Art Museum is actually -- the building itself is owned by the City of Philadelphia.
I just want to ask you, did you receive any support or what is the feelings of the Board of the Art Museum?
Thank you for asking that, Councilman Kelly. I know that Councilman Greenlee has led a lot of discussions on the Board level. We reached out to the Board and to the leadership of the Museum several times over the last three years. We haven't had any direct discussions. I would like to point out you're right, the building is owned by the Museum, which the Museum's budget shows worth $171 million. The City pays 40 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. the Museum's utilities, worth another 3.6 million, and they are slated to get another 2.6 million as a direct contribution. So they're pretty City related, I would say.
Yeah. They've been cut over the years. They actually should be over $5 million. That's what it was years ago, but they've been cutting it ever since. Thank you very much for your testimony.
And just for the record, Mr. Rodriguez, so everybody knows, the latest on your particular situation is, the NLRB ruled in the union's favor that that was a fair election, and I think recently Allied Barton did at least go on record saying that they are finally going to accept reality, let me say that, and start negotiating. I don't know if they've 41 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. actually done any of that yet, but they did make that statement, if I'm correct, right?
That's correct, Councilman Greenlee. We have set the first date for negotiations, also passed this prologue. We are still asking for Council's support to make sure that they actually want to make progress. So we made a request that the allotment to the Museum be moved to a 500 class grant so that Council can monitor whether worker improvements are actually being made there, and we hope you'll support us on that.
Thank you. And, again, thank you for all you do, and the same with SEIU. For the people who really need help a lot, you guys work really hard, so we appreciate it.
I have 42 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. one more person on my witness list, Mr. William Arnold. Is he here? Come to the table, identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. (Witness approached witness table.)
Sure. Hello. My name is William Arnold. I'm a resident of the City for over 30 years. I live on East Clearfield Street in Port Richmond. And when it comes to fairness, my idea of fairness -- I've never worked for the City government and I've sat and watched City employees and everybody else get more and more that's funded by people that are frequently making less than that. So my idea of fairness is that public sector employees should receive wages, pensions and benefits that are not 43 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. above those in the private sector for comparable work. The politically connected should not receive more than anybody else. That is my idea of fairness. Last night Mayor Nutter was on television. He was talking about the budget process, and he said people continue to want firehouses, libraries, police service. They don't want the libraries closed. They want all those things. But I didn't hear him say that they wanted to pay the people that were working for the City or that had contracts with the City more money. I didn't hear him say that they wanted them to continue to get larger pensions than is available in the public sector. That's not what the people want, I don't think. That's certainly not what this taxpayer wants. I think we're moving in the wrong direction with this bill. I not only call it misguided, but 44 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. misdirectional. There should be a balance. We should be moving towards not overpaying and overpensioning the City employees. These labor costs are the root cause of the financial problems the City now has.
Sir, just for the record, this bill does not deal with the City employees. That was the amendment that was taken out. It deals with people who contract, just for the record.
Yes. Thank you. Yes. Okay. Exactly. But this is actually spreading the problem that you have with the City to beyond the City. In other words, it's completely going the wrong way. It's saying, Okay, we've taken care of ourselves, now let's reach out tentacles out further and do the same thing and spread the same problem there.
So I do understand that, yeah, this is going to raise all those labor costs, and then with the waivers, there's going to be the politically connected pay for play and backroom deals, which to me sounds very shady, very shady. And so to make a long story short, I would say as a taxpayer of this city, that after painting the taxpayers of this city into a financial corner, it is sad that some members of this Council seem only concerned with how to best apply a second coat. That is the conclusion of my testimony. I'll be happy for any questions or comments.
Anyone 46 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. else here to testify on this bill or resolution?
Oh, you have questions. I'm sorry. Councilman Goode.
Are you aware of what the minimum wage standard is for the City of Philadelphia?
As of today, yes. I had forgotten. The Mayor read it at some point, but, no. Somebody said 10.50 an hour.
So your testimony was not really related to the minimum wage standard?
I wouldn't say 47 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. that. What I did say was that wages for public sector employees and those that have contracts, the politically connected contracts with the City, politically connected usually, right?
My question was, before you decided to testify, did you know what the minimum wage standard was?
Okay. It's 10.88. So if someone works 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year, that's 2,080 hours. Do you know what their annual salary would be?
10.88. Eleven times 40 is 440, times 50 is about 22, 22 thousand dollars. 23
Now, I go to work 48 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. tonight --
And do you believe that someone who works 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year should not receive at least 22, thousand dollars in pay? 7
That's the 9 question. You can answer it or you 10 cannot answer it. Do you believe that -- 11
Thank you 13 very much for your testimony. I 14 disagree. 15
I go to work 16 tonight for 7.75. I work four hours 17 tonight, 7.75 an hour is what I get. I 18 don't want money pulled out of my pocket 19 to give somebody else that's got a 20 contract with the City 10.88 an hour or 21 more, plus pay for his health insurance, 22 no. Don't want to. There's plenty of 23 other people in the City probably feel the same way. Nor would I really feel comfortable with a bill that said I 49 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. should get $10 an hour, because that's not how I think.
Don't worry, we won't put that bill in. Don't worry.
Okay. So you know where I'm coming from. Is there anyone else?
-- testimony. Anyone else here to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, that concludes the public hearing, and we will commence with the public meeting in just one minute. Good morning again. This is now the public meeting of the Committee on Law and Government. The Chair recognizes Councilman 50 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc. Goode regarding Bill No. 090580.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 5 090580 be reported out of the Committee with a favorable recommendation, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. (Aye.)
Hearing none, Bill No. 090580 has been reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules of Council are suspended to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair once again recognizes Councilman Goode regarding an amendment for Resolution 090610. 51 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the amendment to Resolution No. 090610 as submitted by the Administration and circulated to all members of the Committee be approved. (Duly seconded.)
Hearing none, the amendment is adopted. Again, Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Resolution No. 19 090610, as amended, be reported favorably out of Committee. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. (Aye.) 52 5/5/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090850, etc.
Hearing none, Resolution 090610, as amended, has been reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. Being no further business before this Committee, that concludes our meeting for today. Thank you all very much for coming. (Committee on Law and Government concluded at 10:55 a.m.) - - - 53 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on May 5, 2010, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)