COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Friday, April 25, 2025 10:21 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN KATHERINE GILMORE RICHARDSON, CHAIR COUNCILWOMAN KENDRA BROOKS, VICE-CHAIR COUNCILWOMAN CINDY BASS COUNCILWOMAN RUE LANDAU COUNCILMAN ANTHONY PHILLIPS
Good morning. I now note that the hour has come to begin today's hearing. Clerk, will you please call the roll to take attendance. Members that are in attendance will please indicate that you are present when your name is called.
And I am present. A quorum of the committee is present and this hearing is now called to order. This is the public hearing of the Committee on Law and Government regarding Bill No. 6 250065. Clerk, will you please read the title of the bill and the resolution.
Bill No. 11 250065, an ordinance amending Title 9 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulation of Businesses, Trades and Professions," by revising Chapter 9-4100, entitled "Promoting Healthy Families and Workplaces," Chapter 9-4300, entitled "Wage Theft Complaints," and Chapter 9-4500 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Protections for Domestic Workers," and by adding new chapters, entitled "Protecting Victims of Retaliation" and "Enforcement of Worker Protection Ordinances," to add and revise definitions; remove provisions related to the wage theft coordinator; add requirements and remedies related to written contracts, meal times and breaks, leave time, contract termination, and other protections for domestic workers; establish for claims of retaliation under above-referenced chapters and Chapter 9-4700 of The Philadelphia Code ("Wrongful Discharge from Parking Employment") the elements of proof and procedures, remedies and penalties for enforcement; authorize creation of a worker justice fund for victims of retaliation; add requirements for employer record keeping and provision of notice of employee rights under above- referenced chapters and Chapter 23 9-4700; revise and clarify procedures, remedies and penalties associated with administrative and civil enforcement under above- referenced chapters and Chapter 4 9-4700; provide for annual reporting to Council on enforcement of the City s worker protection laws, including information regarding noncompliant employers; authorize revocation of City licenses and contracts awarded to employers found in violation of the City s worker protection laws; authorize visa and deferred action certification on behalf of immigrant workers; and make related technical changes; all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Before we begin and proceed with the first panel, I'd like to recognize the Vice-Chair of Law and Government, Councilmember Brooks, for opening remarks.
Thank you so much. Today I want to thank you all for joining me here today to consider the POWER Act. The name of this legislation, POWER, stands for Protect Our Workers Enforce Rights, and that is exactly what this bill is designed to do. Here in Philadelphia we have made steady progress over the past 10 years in setting a standard for safe, dignified workplaces in our city. Labor unions, pro-worker organizations, pro-worker Councilmembers have worked together to pass laws like the Wage Theft ordinance, the Domestic Workers Bill of Right, Fair Workweek and Paid Sick Leave. As a former domestic worker I know from experience that workers, especially women of color, who work inside people's homes are exposed to all kinds of abuse, exploitation and disrespect. If we want to do right by these workers, we must give our Department of Labor the tools they need to enforce the labor laws we have passed. All of these laws have established basic legal protections for working people in Philadelphia: Protections against wage theft, which is still the largest form of theft in this country, protections against harassment and abuse, which is especially important for workers who do their jobs inside of people's homes, and protections of paid time off so workers aren't forced to go to work sick. But as I have said before, these laws are meaningless unless we have the tools to enforce them. We have learned from workers on the ground that employers are violating these laws. And even worse, when workers try to speak up for their about their rights or bring attention to the violation, employers often retaliate against them with termination or threats of deportation. This behavior is illegal, unacceptable and is a direct attack on the most cherished principle of labor unions and the labor movement, the right to speak out for fair treatment on the job. The POWER Act is supported by a broad coalition of local and national proworker organizations, including the Philadelphia AFL-CIO, the Philadelphia Black Worker Project, the National Domestic Workers Alliance and the national leadership of SEIU. Since January of this year, workers across our country has faced a growing list of threats to their livelihood and well-being. The Trump administration is aggressively gutting the Department of Labor, rolling back workers' rights and attacking our immigrant neighbors. We have the chance today to take a stance against Trump's anti-worker agenda and to stand with working-class Philadelphians who are looking to us for leadership. Thank you so much. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Before we proceed with the hearing, the Chair would like to recognize the presence of two additional Councilmembers who are not members of the Law and Government Committee but who are here to partake in today's proceedings. And we want to thank Councilmember O'Rourke and Councilmember Harrity for their presence this morning. Prior to recognizing either one of you, does anyone on the committee have remarks? (No response.)
Okay. Would any of you like to be recognized? The Chair recognizes Councilmember Harrity.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, everyone. You know, they say I'm the regular guy on Council. And sometimes that's kind of true because I don't get certain things. To me the way I was brought up, the way I was raised I just think automatically that people should have these rights. But the fact of the matter is that not everybody does. 250 years in 2026, that's how old this nation will be. And in that 250 years we have had domestic workers that whole time. We just called them something else, slaves, indentured servants. 250 years you think we would have moved on from things like that, but the fact of the matter is that our domestic workers are treated like second-class citizens. And for me, a guy coming from the neighborhood, that's not right. You know, Martin Luther King said, Injustice to one is injustice to all. And I believe that. And I believe that this injustice has been going on for far too long and it's time for us to change it. We have that power. You have that power, my colleagues. That's why I'm asking you to please think about this. Think about it hard. Think about if one of your family members was a domestic worker, wouldn't you want them to have the same rights you have. They're not asking for anything else. They're not asking for more. They're asking for the same, that's it, the same. So please I ask you, I encourage you let's pass this today out of committee. Send it to the whole body and get this over and done with so we can give these people some dignity. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you. Thank you very much. Councilmember Harrity, we certainly appreciate you being here and for always, always being there for the labor community. And obviously, I too have to share that my mother was born in 1945 in Ridgeland, South Carolina and migrated to Philadelphia with her parents in the early 1950s. They bought a small house on Seybert Street that we still have today for $3,000. And my mother told me stories when she was still here about how she was a domestic worker and how my grandmother was a domestic worker for people who lived, as they called it then, on the other side of Girard Avenue. And they cleaned houses to make money for the family. And I will never forget the sacrifice that my mother and my grandmother and so many of the women in our church made so that we could be here today. So I just have to put that on the record that both my mother and my grandmother from South Carolina now family here in Philadelphia were both domestic workers. So thank you, Jimmy, for being here. (Applause.)
Would you like to be recognized Councilmember O'Rourke? Chair recognizes Councilmember O'Rourke and then Councilmember Landau and we need to get started. Okay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just echoing the sentiments that you shared, I am honored to be here today as the grandson of a domestic worker, one who took me with her when she went to go clean some of the biggest houses I've ever seen in my life. If I got a sense of preference or taste, it's because I got to see rich homes that she dusted and their kids that she also raised. So I'm reminded of his words, they have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn. But without our brain and muscle, not a single wheel can turn. We can break their hearty power, gain our freedom when we learn, that the union makes us strong. Solidarity forever/solidarity forever. Solidarity forever/for the union makes us strong. Thank you, Madam Chair. (Applause.)
Okay. Chair recognizes Councilmember Landau.
It's official. I can't follow that. I just -- we started late. I want to get us started now. Welcome everybody. Thank you all so much for being here. We're excited to hear your stories, your voices and your testimony.
Thank you. Thank you very much, Councilmember Landau. We will now move to proceed with Panel 1. Clerk, will you please call the first panel we have to testify on Bill No. 250065.
Okay. Please approach the witness table. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony. And we ask that if you have written testimony that has already been submitted -- if you have written testimony that has already been submitted, we ask that you summarize your testimony as much as possible. Thank you -- one moment please. Okay. We're going to pause for a quick moment. May you approach the table please. All right. Thank you very much. We will now proceed with the first member of the panel to testify. Adriana.
Good morning. My name is Adriana George. I am an organizer for the National Domestic Workers Alliance and We Dream a Black Philadelphia Chapter. We are an organization that organizes nannies, caregivers and house cleaners for better working conditions. We are Black, Brown and immigrant women of color who work in the privacy of other people's homes. And because of this isolation, it means the labor abuses often go unnoticed. I was a nanny for 14 years so I know firsthand what it means to care for others while lacking basic job protections. And I also know what happens when workers stand up for themselves. This is why we fought for and won the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights in 2020. This law, which is the best of its kind in the country, gives domestic workers working in Philadelphia protection that they had never been afforded before. But the story did not end there. As we work to have this law be respected, employers fail to recognize their responsibilities under the law, leading to denied contract, lack of paid rest breaks and wrongful termination. When domestic workers asserted their rights, their risk retaliation, like getting fired without advance notice, blacklisted from jobs and risk threats of immigration deportation. This is a clear violation of our bill of rights, but employers are not being held accountable because there are no consequences. This tells us that law means nothing without enforcement. Philadelphia has made historic progress, including passing the Domestic Workers Bill 11 of Rights, but the law is only as strong as its enforcement. Bad employers continue to exploit workers knowing there are no 15 consequences for violating labor laws. Since 2022 we have been working to fix these problems. We have come up with a commonsense solution to the POWER Act. The POWER Act will provide enforcement of the Philadelphia labor laws, including the Bill of Rights, ensuring real accountability for violations. It will strengthen retaliation protection so employers have real consequences when they take negative action against workers who stand up for their rights. If the City does nothing, domestic workers remain without the tools necessary to actually make rights real in their workplace. Councilmembers, this is your opportunity to take a stand. We know that you support workers, but today you have a chance to prove it. Passing the POWER Act means saying loud and clear in Philadelphia, worker protections are real and violations will not be tolerated. Let's get this done. I thank you. (Applause.)
Please proceed. State your name for the record and proceed with your testimony. And if you've already submitted written testimony, please summarize your testimony. Okay.
Good morning, Committee members and City Council. My name is Munira Edens and I'm a worker justice organizer with the Philly Black Worker Project. We are a worker center that fights for dignity, justice and respect of the low-wage Black workers here in the city. Today I am here to thank our Councilmembers who co-sponsored this POWER Act that will protect workers, enforce already existing labor laws and improve the workplace where our members want to thrive. Not only will this legislation support improving the workplace, but it will bring cohesiveness to the already recently passed labor laws. A lot of our members already have many barriers against them that bad bosses like to hold against them, preventing them from prospering at their jobs. Passing the POWER Act is crucial. Many of our members are formerly incarcerated. And when they come home, they often enter into low-wage jobs that exploit them because of their past. This is another form of racial injustice because we know that Black people experience incarceration more than any other group in this city. Our people must be protected at work when they return, and the POWER Act will increase those protections. Recent laws that are already supposed to be readily accessible in most workplaces aren't. Without more accountability, bad bosses will continue to curtail the law and workers will pay the price. We know that this legislation will not only benefit the working people, but it will strive to make workplaces fair and safe. We know that good bosses support their workers and our POWER Act. So let's enforce the law for the bad bosses. Thank you for being here today and we urge you to vote yes to passing the POWER Act. (Applause.)
Thank you. MS. (INAUDIBLE): (Spanish translation). INTERPRETER: Good morning. My name is (inaudible) and I'm a mother, community leader and a member of the Restaurant Workers Committee. I am here because we need a law that protects and supports workers. We need the POWER Act. Many years I worked in restaurants. I also suffered sexual harassment and gender-based violence in the workplace. I can't even put into words how terrible it is to be harassed at work. I began to have health problems due to the stress caused by going to work there. In the end I had no help or options and I had to leave my job. Why should I have to leave when I am the one being harassed. There are a few places where one can go for help and ones that exist are overcrowded. We need a strong and legitimate Office of Worker Protections so that workers like me have real options when we suffer. With fast-paced culture and the customer-is-always- right attitude, restaurant workers are already so vulnerable to exploitation. Bosses think we're replaceable so they steal our wages and deny us sick time. With the POWER Act, the City can actually enforce laws when our bosses retaliate or harass us. Today I'm here to ask for better laws to protect all workers and to have a capacity to provide help to more survivors of sexual harassment and gender-based violence. We need the City to support us. We are in your hands. No more harassment, no more retaliation, no more gender-based violence. (Applause.)
Good morning. My name is Jen Stowe and I'm the Executive Director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance representing the country's 2.2 million caregivers, nannies and house cleaners who are historically cut out of all labor protections because of the history of enslavement in this country. In 2020, domestic workers in Philadelphia won one of the most comprehensive bills of rights in the country, which inspired workers in city governments across the nation. But without enforcement, those rights have remained out of reach. The POWER Act stands to rectify that wrong and provide a template for other localities. Across the country enforcement gaps are a major barrier to worker protections. From wage theft to misclassification, workers face the same struggles. In a moment where federal government is rolling back worker protections and dismantling the Federal Department of Labor, the POWER Act sets a national precedent for how local governments can protect vulnerable workers, particularly Black, immigrant and low wage workers. From my work with national organizations, I know that all eyes are on Philadelphia as you vote to protect workers when the federal government is doing the opposite. Philly will set the bar for how cities can protect workers with dignity, respect and justice at the center. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you very, very much for your testimony. Are there any questions for this panel? Chair recognizes Vice- Chair Brooks.
Thank you so much. My question is, why have the domestic workers supported this POWER Act so much when it doesn't fully just apply to them?
So the question is this: The POWER Act, why are you guys so invested in it when it doesn't just apply to you, it applies to a broader range of people? So what makes this the perfect thing for you guys to be a part of in such an active way?
We know what it means. Domestic workers know what it means to be victimized, to be exploited. We are interested in raising the floor for all workers. We also know that our workforce has a history of being unprotected, exploited and we want all work to be valued. We believe in the protection and respect and dignity of all work, so that's why we're interested in the POWER Act for all workers. (Applause.)
Thank you. Thank you all so very much for your testimony and for being here today. We will now proceed with Panel 2. May the Clerk please call the witnesses for Panel 2.
Okay. Thank you so much for being here. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. Thank you for permitting us to testify. My name is Cara Leheny. I am the First Deputy Director of the Department of Labor. The Office of Worker Protection, one of our offices, enforces the ordinance that this bill seeks to amend. We appreciate the intent of this bill and we also want to express our gratitude to Councilmember Brooks and her office for meeting with us and for hearing our feedback on the bill and for incorporating some of that and we look forward to working with the Councilmember to achieve the goals of this legislation. If you have any questions, I'm happy to address them.
Okay. Thank you very, very much for your testimony and thank you to the Law Department and just all the work that you do with us, even on the FOP legislation. We appreciate you so very much. I have just two questions just to see sort of how from an enforcement perspective how this would work. So let's say a family in the city hires a nanny, right. Let's say they're not aware that this legislation is in place. If a complaint is filed against them with the city, how much could they theoretically owe?
Sure. Thank you for that question. I know that there's been some recent amendments to the bill so hopefully my numbers -- I'm going to get the right numbers correct. But under the proposed bill if the nanny works for the family for 30 work days or more, they would owe potentially $3,750 at least. This is assuming that they didn't know about the bill or didn't provide a contract. That would be $3,000 for failing to have a contract. And if they didn't provide notice to the nanny because maybe they didn't know about the legislation, that would be $750 for failure to provide the notice. So that's the 3,750. And I do have to add, there are other ways that you can violate the ordinance. So it's possible there would be more financial exposure.
Okay. So you're saying assuming they don't know. So will the education part be on the city? Will we have an education campaign and just make sure folks are aware of the legislation? How will that part of it work? I know we typically do that. Even with the budget we're talking about the BIRT education as an example with the exemption going away.
We do do outreach. It is hard to reach individual families. There's the business community and there are connections, there are entities that we can connect with to try to get the education out that way. With workers, we can work with the various community organizations. We also do go out and, you know, try to go into parks and things and approach people that look like they're, you know, doing the work. Admittedly, it is hardest to reach the individual family that may not be already linked in through some of those organizations. And that's something we're going to have to think about how can we do that.
Okay. And my last question would be presuming that something occurs, right, and they weren't aware, how would the family then say we weren't aware? How does that work?
There's nothing in the legislation as I understand it -- and again, I know there were some very recent amendments. So if I missed something, I apologize --
That's why I'm asking because of the most recent with the amendments. I'm asking because of the cure period issue. That's why I'm asking.
Yes, that has to do with the private right of action I believe, the cure that you're referring to. And if so, I'd like to call up someone from the Commerce Department, a colleague from the Commerce Department because she -- we don't -- the Department of Labor, we don't have a role in that private right of action piece. But Commerce obviously, as you know, in working with the community at large can provide some feedback on that, if that's all right.
Okay. That'll be great. I just want to get this on the record for the multitude of colleagues that had a question regarding that portion specifically based on the amendments that were just circulated last night. I just want to get that on the record.
Okay. That would be great. And then how does the City currently enforce wage theft? And how, if any way, does this bill 21 change that?
Well, the bill does define -- does use some language from the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. And we have been advised by the Law Department that the City is preempted from enforcing that so we can't enforce that part of the legislation. Legally we're foreclosed from doing so.
Because of the Commonwealth -- because of a preemption issue?
Yes, and I believe that there are also references more generally to federal and state laws generally. And again, without knowing which laws we're talking about, we can't address whether or not there's a bar to our being able to enforce them. Some federal laws preempt, you know, state or local action.
I see. Okay. Are there any additional questions for this witness and for this panel?
The Chair recognizes Councilmember Landau and then Councilmember Phillips.
I'm now confused. So I know that this has been a long time coming and there's been a lot of vetting from the Law Department on these bills. Is any part of this package preemptive?
Is any part of this POWER Act law currently preempted that you know of?
That I specifically know of, the reference to enforcing the Minimum Wage Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, we are not -- we are preempted. We cannot legally enforce that. There are other issues raised by Law regarding what Council can legally mandate the executive branch to do, I don't consider that a preemption issue. It's not a preemption issue. It's vis- -vis state or local law.
It's not a preemption issue. The second thing is not a preemption issue?
Pardon me. You said the second thing is not a preemption issue, but the minimum wage reference is a preemption --
Okay. Thank you. Chair recognizes -- I'm sorry. Councilwoman Landau, are you good?
Okay. Chair recognizes Councilmember Phillips.
Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Under the amendments, the threshold for being included in the bad actor database has been raised to three or more violations. How does the Department of Labor ensure that this threshold doesn't allow repeated or minor violations to go unchecked, especially when the cumulative harm to workers in the community might be substantial?
I'll do it again. I realized I wasn't really into the mic. I'll do it again. Under the amendments, there is currently included in the bad actor database has been raised three or more violations. How does the Department of Labor ensure that this doesn't allow repeated or minor violations to go unchecked, especially when the cumulative harm to workers and the community might be substantial? So essentially, how do we make sure that after the three or more violations, how are you going to plan to service them as quickly as possible when the violation takes place to make sure --
Councilmember, we endeavor to investigate any complaint that comes to us as expeditiously and completely as possible and then to hold employers who are violating the ordinance accountable and to provide the remedies that exist under the law. That part of the bad actors database is to basically publicly call out those employers who are continuously violating or have continually violated. In terms of our ability, we obviously can't preemptively stop someone from violating the ordinance. What we do endeavor to do is to do our best to work as quickly as possible and completely as possible to achieve the best results under our authority.
And really quickly so we can continue onto the panels, does the Department of Labor currently have the staff and resources necessary to carry out these investigations, to respond to complaints in a timely way and oversee the bad actor database?
We are in the process of filling some vacancies in the office. We've had some turnover, but we are in the process of filling it and we anticipate that when those vacancies are filled we're going to be able to achieve those goals, and, you know, we look forward to doing that.
Got you. And then also -- I'm not sure this is you. Actually, it is you. So there are going to be some small businesses that are going to have to respond to these things, right. Just for the public to understand a little better, can you talk about the mediation process that comes with this bill in terms of if there is a complaint that's filed, a small business has to particularly respond to that complaint, how are you going to help them? What does the mediation process normally look like?
Thank you for that question. I would like to call up my colleague Deputy Director of Office of Worker Protection Olive Kuhn. They have more experience with that process. Thank you. (Witness approached witness table.)
Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Olive Kuhn. I'm the Assistant Compliance Director for the Office of Worker Protections. So I'm going to talk about what --
Yeah. What is the mediation process going to look like under --
I don't believe that the mediation process changes too much under this new ordinance. So if it's okay, I'm going to talk about how we currently do things.
So basically, the way the mediation process works is that when employers are notified of an investigation, they are also notified that they have the option to mediate which means to come into compliance with the ordinance 8 before a determination is issued that finds them in violation -- well, that could find them in violation, right, depending. And so, a mediation would look like the employer providing our office with whatever information we need to figure out what they need to do to come into compliance. And then they can come into compliance, meaning like pay the worker, notify their workers, whatever it is that they failed to do without an official determination being issued against them. This is something that is done at the office's discretion. It's not done in every case. And speaking in very general terms because every case is a snowflake, but generally an employer that mediates a complaint one time and then we have another complaint against them with the same ordinance, we would maybe not consider mediation if they seem to be violating the same ordinance 11 over and over.
So real quickly, if someone comes in with a complaint saying that my rights have been infringed upon around my leave time, your office will immediately notify -- when do you notify the employer -- how many days does it take for you to get that letter out to them? And then once you notify them how long under this law -- just so the public understands, I've read it, but how long will it take for the employer to get to resolve that issue?
So we do currently have complaints in queue for about 90 days right now. Once they're assigned to an investigator after those 90 days, which is a window right now, it's not exactly 90 for every case but that's where we're hovering at, the investigator will do an intake with the complainant, make sure they understand their full narrative of the violation, collect any of their supporting evidence and then at that point, if the office looks at the complaint and says, yes, this looks like a possible violation, yes, this complaint is valid, then we issue a notice of investigation and request for information to the employer. The employer has 30 days to respond to that. Generally, it's during those 30 days that they would indicate to the office that they would like to mediate. And we would go from there.
Do you have record of how many employee -- I got to stop. Do you have record in these type of cases how often the percentage of an employee responding wanting to go through mediation?
I can give you the numbers for 2023 if you give me a minute. I don't have 2024 calculated just yet.
Thank you all so much. That was important for me, for everyone to hear because there's been people -- we want to have the employer have the opportunity to get to mediation, right. And I think sometimes there was some confusion of whether or not the employer had the mediation part. And now, you were able to talk more about that for folks who were concerned. Thank you.
Councilman, we know that there is limited time and there are more speakers. If you would like, we can provide that information to you in a follow-up. Is that all right?
22 Okay. And then how many didn't 23 respond, do you know?
Okay. Got you. So is there a large number of employers that don't respond at all?
So plenty of employers respond, but we end up going through the whole investigation process and determination.
Thank you. First, I want to start, Olive, thank you so much. Before your time, I used to run the City's Commission on Human Relations and I know the pressure and what it's like to run the city agencies where people are filing complaints in order to have their rights enforced, especially with a small staff and very few resources. So thank you so much for what you do. It's very difficult work and you certainly don't have enough tools in your toolbox I am sure to make this happen. And I appreciate your giving us an understanding of what happens when someone files a complaint with your office and kind of the interactive process that you have between the employee and the employer. So I think that was very helpful for us to know and we absolutely see the need for more resources, and it's loud and clear for me and many of us on Council to hopefully rectify that. So I just wanted to thank you for that. I want to go back to you, Cara, for the interpretation of the minimum wage law. I believe there's two interpretations of what we would see as preempted. We in Philadelphia are not allowed to set a higher minimum wage. If we could, trust me we would do it. And I believe Jimmy Harrity would do it in five minutes if we possibly could. We would absolutely do that. We are not allowed to do that. But we are allowed to enforce the law as is. We're allowed to recognize it. We're allowed to memorialize those terms in our law in order to make sure that we just have it there as a placeholder, especially after we will finally increase it in the state. I don't see this as any kind of violation or anything that would be preempted there. Just simply, we're not allowed to raise the minimum wage.
Councilmember, you've known me as a city lawyer for years, but I am no longer with the Law Department. I cannot practice as a lawyer. I am relating what we have understood is Law's conclusion. I did not have this level of discussion with them so I'm not in a position to respond. And I apologize, but I'll be in violation of some ethical rules if I offer my own legal interpretation.
Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilmember. And are there any additional questions for this panel? (No response.)
I'm just going to put on the record if we could get some level of advice from the Law Department regarding the preemption issue in particular, that would be very helpful. Maybe you can't speak to the second issue and I know that's not under your wheelhouse, but I'm just putting this on the record for the Administration and the Law Department, that we need some memo regarding the preemption issue that has been brought up at this hearing. Okay. Thank you very much for being here and thank you for your testimony.
Thank you, Chairperson, and we will certainly get that. We'll convey that to Law.
Please. Okay. Thank you very much. We will now proceed with Panel 3. Please approach the witness table. You will then state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony. Can the Clerk call the names.
Rhiannon DiClemente, Danny Bauder, Ed Grose Zak Pyzik and Ashley Miscevich. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good afternoon, Chairwoman Gilmore, Richardson, Vice-Chair Brooks and members of the Committee. My name is Ashley Miscevich, and I'm here on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadelphia. The Chamber supports City Council and the City's goal of advancing fair workplace protections and we appreciate the attention this Council continues to give to workers rights. However, we're concerned that as currently drafted the POWER Act would create significant legal, financial and operational challenges for employers of all sizes, but particularly small- and mid-sized businesses, while undermining Philadelphia's competitiveness and job growth. We appreciate Councilwoman Brooks' engagement with our stakeholders. Our conversations have been productive and the amendments proposed so far are a step in the right direction. That said, even with these changes the bill remains fundamentally stacked against all employers and not just bad actors. This concern is shared by several of the city's diverse chambers who have also expressed opposition due to the disproportionate burdens this bill 23 would place on small and minority- owned businesses. Philadelphia already has some of the highest taxes and most stringent regulations in the country. It is one of the most challenging cities to operate a business. We are simply asking for fairness and equity in how workplace ordinances are crafted and implemented and above all, the standards are fair to fair employers. While our full written testimony outlines several areas of concern, I want to highlight the most pressing issues that remain. This bill even after the recent amendments would create significant legal and operational challenges without adequate checks and balances. The first issue being on private right of action. We appreciate the inclusion of a 15-day cure period, but as written it does not function as a true cure period. It provides no notice to the employer, no administrative involvement and no real opportunity to resolve the issue before litigation. It simply delays a complaint. This approach doesn't support good faith compliance. A true cure period should give an employer actual notice of an issue and a meaningful opportunity to resolve it before litigation proceeds. If the goal is resolution and not litigation, then the structure of this provision needs to be much clearer and fairer for all parties involved. Second, the rebuttal presumption of retaliation assumes guilt and places an unreasonably high burden on employers --
Excuse me, Ashley. I'm sorry. Can you please speak a little slower? It's too quick for the interpretation.
Absolutely. My apologies. Certainly. Presumption of retaliation assumes guilt and places an unreasonably high burden on employers, requiring them to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a routine decision wasn't retaliatory, even if they weren't aware that the protected activity had occurred. This flips due process and sets a standard that is far stricter than federal or peer guidelines. This is especially the case because the trigger for presumption protected activity is written so broadly that it could be deployed against a good faith employer for routine activity. To avoid fines and potential blacklisting by the city, the employers only recourse would to be prove its innocence in a proceeding where the deck is stacked against it. This is not a fair worker protection. This is putting the ball in the employer's goal line just because. Is this the climate we want for employment in the city of Philadelphia? We also maintain concerns around the extended statute of limitations, recordkeeping, the bad actors list and those are detailed in our written testimony. Our central concern is that this bill, even with amendments, still creates a framework that is unfairly tilted against employers, and particularly those without in house or HR teams. Other cities like Seattle, Chicago and LA have taken a more balanced and comprehensive approach, requiring not just cure periods but also administrative exhaustion and clearly defined terms and ensure due process and fairness. These frameworks are designed to resolve issues collaboratively and equitably before escalating to litigation, giving employers a meaningful chance to address their concerns. Written testimony and proposed amendments reflect these models in full, but the amendments currently under consideration only borrow selective elements of these ordinances without adopting the structure necessary to create true balance. Our goal throughout this process has been to strike a balance preserving the integrity of the bill sponsor's intent to protect workers while ensuring employers aren't fairly penalized in this process. Instead what we see is an environment that continues to place all the burden on businesses across the board. We urge this Committee to not advance this bill in its current form. Instead we support the creation of a task force bringing together business, labor and enforcement agencies to review existing laws, identify gaps and propose evidence-based reforms that work for both workers and employers. We believe a collaborative, data-driven process is a better path forward, one that can ensure meaningful protections for workers while supporting a strong and inclusive Philadelphia. I thank you for your time and happy to answer any questions after my colleagues.
Good morning. My name is Ed Grose, and I'm the Executive Director of the Greater Philadelphia Hotel Association, which represents 100 hotels throughout the region and virtually all hotels in Center City. Philadelphia hotels employ 10,500 people, over 80% of which are Philadelphia residents. This year we will generate $123 million in tax revenue to the City of Philadelphia and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. GPHA appreciates the opportunity to testify regarding this matter. While we appreciate Council's continued focus on creating quality jobs, we have a number of concerns regarding the proposed changes to the City's various workers rights ordinances. Given the scope, length and potential impact of the bill on all employers throughout the city, we respectfully request that the Committee hold this bill so further work can be done to ensure that the sponsor's goal of protecting workers is met, while minimizing any unintended consequences to employers. Today I will focus my attention on the primary issues with which I and my members are most concerned. First is the private right of action authorized by the legislation. This provision would not only allow workers but third parties to file lawsuits without any preliminary complaint or engagement with the designated enforcement agency. While we are appreciative of the proposed amendment that would create an opportunity to cure an alleged violation, we would respectfully request that the proposed amendment period of 15 days be extended to 30 days. Many small- and medium-sized businesses often lack the legal or human resources capacity to investigate and resolve these types of issues while still running the day-to-day business. We believe that a 30-day opportunity to cure an alleged violation before requiring a business to hire legal counsel and incur thousands of dollars in defense expenses against a private cause of action is a reasonable compromise. Therefore, we respectfully request that the bill be amended to provide employers a 30-day opportunity to cure the alleged violation before private right of action may be filed. Our next major area of concern relates to the presumption of violation by an employer and the heightened evidentiary burdens outlined in the ordinance. The legislation provides for a presumption of unlawful retaliation for employers accused of retaliation against an employee. Under the legislation this presumption is only rebuttable with clear and convincing evidence, a higher standard of proof. Not only is the employer presumed to be in violation of the law, but this bill would require the employer to prove its innocence under a heightened evidentiary standard. We urge Council to adopt a safe evidentiary standard required in most civil court cases and allow for employers to overcome the presumption of a violation by preponderance of evidence rather than the heightened standard proposed of clear and convincing evidence. In light of the above, presumption of unlawful retaliation and heightened evidentiary standard to rebut it, the proposed ordinance's sweeping definition of adverse action is unattainable. Adverse action is so broadly defined that many day-to-day staffing and scheduled decisions could be presumed unlawful retaliation. Any action that negatively affects a compliance compensation terms or conditions is overly broad and fails to take into account the realities of operating businesses whose staffing needs are dependent on public demand, which can often be cyclical and fickle. For example, if a waiter at a restaurant files a complaint alleging of a violation of a Fair Workweek law and then later they see their number of shifts reduced because summer weekends are not as busy, under the law this would be considered an adverse action against the complainant. The restaurant would be presumed guilty of their violation and would have to prove by heightened standard that this was not retaliation.
While we support the efforts to hold employers accountable for improper retaliatory behavior, this bill 8 sweeps many perfunctory and standard business management practices into the realm of improper retaliation. Lastly, we are concerned with the extension of statute of limitations to three years. This significant expansion of time in which a former employee can file a claim significantly increases legal exposure, insurance cost and general uncertainty. With the natural turnover of the workforce through attrition, retirement or career advancement with other employers, the longer the time period between the alleged violation and the filing of the claim, the more difficult for its employers to defend against it. An overarching concern with this bill is that it does not distinguish between de minimis violations of the law and serious violations. GPHA places tremendous value on our team members. 6 billion tourism economy possible. We support Council's efforts to ensure that Philadelphia's workers are protected from unscrupulous employers whose business model relies on the exploitation of their workforce like we have heard today. However, this legislation is meting out consequences, fails to distinguish between de minimis and material violations. I'm going to go off script here for a second. I believe our industry is an opportunity for people. Just last week, there is an African American woman who is one of my board members. She started out at her hotel as a housekeeper and she is now the general manager of a hotel making north of $200,000 a year. Last week she was promoted out of that position. So when I hear stories like I've heard from our earlier testimonies, the difference between us and them is great. I will take the benefits and the upward mobility of our hotels and I'll put it up against any of these industries and that we treat our people well. They are important to us. They are important. They are vital to the economy of Philadelphia. I'm going to go back on script and finish. Once again given the length, breadth and scope of coverage of this proposed bill, we respectfully request that it be held in Committee so that the stakeholders can continue to work with Council to further refine the language of the bill. With international tourism falling considerably and the World Cup in 2026 celebrations putting Philadelphia in the global spotlight, we can't afford to get this wrong. Worker protections and the city's economic future are inextricably linked and we need to get this done right, not just done fast. Thank you for your time today.
Good morning Chairperson -- can you hear me? Good morning, Chair --
Good morning, Chairperson Gilmore Richardson, Vice-Chairperson Brooks and members of the Committee on Law and Government. My name is Zak Pyzik and I am the Senior Director of Public Affairs at the Pennsylvania Restaurant and Lodging Association, the PRLA. PRLA represents countless small businesses in the city, including the more than 6000 restaurants and 100-plus hotels in Philadelphia. PRLA represents small businesses across every neighborhood in this city and in every region of the Commonwealth. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about Bill No. 250065, Councilmember Brooks' POWER Act. While I do very much value this opportunity, I should note that there are many other business groups impacted by this legislation that would have also welcomed the chance to address concerns and thoughts on this proposal. It's disappointing to our members and the business community we've been engaged with to see such significant and substantial legislation move so quickly as initially drafted. PRLA opposes the underlying legislation. While we wholeheartedly support efforts to improve workplace protections, fairness and transparency, this bill, without revisions, introduces a sweeping set of mandates, liabilities and legal uncertainties that would negatively impact the hospitality industry here in Philadelphia. Over the past year, we've seen meaningful steps towards a more collaborative relationship between city government and the business community. We've welcomed efforts at streamlining, permitting, reducing red tape and together, we've all worked to restore Philadelphia's reputation as a place where businesses can thrive. Unfortunately, this bill 13 in our opinion goes in the opposite direction. The only parties likely to benefit from this legislation as written are attorneys and litigators who will be suing the many businesses that we represent, not small business owners and not workers. Our industry believes in fair pay, safe workplaces and open communication between employers and employees. That said, the approach taken in this legislation far exceeds the scope of what we believe was even initially intended and creates a regulatory minefield that many restaurants and hotels simply won't survive. I'm confident saying many other businesses in the city share these same concerns. While we oppose the legislation in its current form, we do support several key amendments that would make practical improvements to the proposal. We respectfully urge Council to work in collaboration with stakeholders to develop a more balanced framework, one that protects workers without threatening the viability of the very businesses that employ them. As currently drafted, the bill allows employees and even third parties to bring lawsuits directly against employers without first seeking resolution and comprehensive remedy through the city's enforcement agency. This will increase the risk of immediate litigation, even for minor or inadvertent violations. Furthermore, it will enable class action lawsuits and forum shopping. And most importantly in our opinion, the bill discourages real resolution 12 and places legal counsel ahead of actual dialogue and collaboration between employer and employee, all while simultaneously stacking the deck against employers. The business community is suggesting amendments that require exhaustion of administrative remedies, limit third party standing and involvement in litigation, the addition of a 30-to-60-day cure period for good faith employers and reduces the statute of limitations from three years to one year. These steps would help ensure due process, reduce opportunistic litigation and still preserve various worker protections. In the current form, the bill extends retention requirements and presumes guilt in the absence of documentation. This is unworkable for industries like hospitality which face high turnover and operate on slim margins.
Even the most well- intentioned operators would struggle to defend themselves against what we believe is a guilty-until-proven-innocent standard established in this bill, many who likely haven't even had time to digest, explore and unpack such a comprehensive and significant policy proposal. We support amendments to restore a two-year recordkeeping requirement and maintain Philadelphia's current statute of limitations. The bill imposes an unreasonably high burden of proof and would likely punish businesses for making what would otherwise be seen as legitimate HR decisions. PRLA supports amendments to narrow the presumption window, require a clear definition of retaliation and protect businesses with documented performance records. Supporting these amendments ensures that commonsense management is not ultimately mischaracterized as retaliation. The legislation allows the city to create a public bad actor list and revoke business licenses even for technical first- time violations. This approach could severely damage the reputations of responsible businesses and could create a chilling effect on businesses. We support eliminating the bad actor database and limiting license revocation to only the most egregious repeated violations. And if eliminating the bad actor database isn't an option, the business community supports very serious conversations around exploring changes and improvements to ensure that reputations of good companies and operators are not collateral damage due to poorly written policy. 9 out of 10 restaurants that we represent have fewer than 50 employees. 7 in 10 restaurants are single-unit independently-owned businesses. Over 40% of Pennsylvania restaurants are women- owned. The restaurant industry employs more minority managers than any other sector in the economy. Hospitality, like Ed noted earlier, is an industry of opportunity. It has long served as the training ground and the launching pad for Philadelphia's working families, entrepreneurs and immigrant communities. The legislation before us risks turning that opportunity into a liability. Moving forward, we respectfully ask that Council chooses a path of balanced reform, one that values worker protections and economic vitality. The current approach is a punitive approach that stifles growth, discourages compliance and undermines our recovery. PRLA urges City Council to hold off on making any immediate decisions on this proposal, as we believe there's a lot more work that needs to be done and more conversations necessary. Furthermore, we respectfully urge this Committee to reconsider the current bill and work collaboratively towards what could be a more practical, data- informed framework. Given the significant and complex changes proposed in the POWER Act in this legislation, we respectfully urge Council to refrain from advancing the bill. Doing so risks adding another layer of regulatory uncertainty for employers, particularly small- and mid-sized businesses, and could further deter job creation, retention and long- term investment in our city. We believe a more collaborative and data-driven process is a better path forward, one that can ensure meaningful protections for workers while supporting a strong and inclusive economy for all Philadelphians. Let's protect workers. Let's also support responsible and good-acting employers. Thank you for your time today and thank you in advance for your consideration.
Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. I'm going to ask that everyone please summarize your testimony. I have a hard stop today that I've had in advance of today and I need everyone to please summarize your testimony because we have 10 additional witnesses and we still have amendments that we need to try to work through today. Okay. Please summarize your testimony. Thank you for being here. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony. MS. DiCLEMENTE: Good morning. My name is Rhiannon DiClemente. I'm an attorney with Community Legal Services. Each year CLS represents over 2000 low-income workers in Philadelphia. Alongside our partners, we have supported legislation to strengthen worker protections, including wage theft, paid sick leave and the domestic worker bill of rights. These laws protect over 700,000 Philadelphia workers. Since its creation, the Office of Worker Protections has seen yearly increases in the number of reports filed by workers alleging wage theft, violations of paid sick leave and other labor law violations. In the first half of 2024 alone, the office recovered over a quarter million dollars for Philadelphia's workers. We know that by and large our business community wants to follow the law and support their workers. But unfortunately, despite the office's enforcement efforts, bad actors continue to exploit workers and flaunt the agency's authority. CLS saw this firsthand. After we were contacted by two home health aides, we helped them file 8 wage theft complaints with the Office of Worker Protections. The employer stalled the investigation by refusing to provide the requested documents and information to investigate the claim. Even after the office found the employer in violation of the law and ordered it to pay the workers, the employer ignored the order and never paid. The office was unable to enforce its order due to limitations under our current law. Unfortunately, this is not a one-off case. This is why it's vital that our Office of Worker Protections has strong enforcement tools. Workers need to trust that if they stand up for their rights, often facing the risk of retaliation in doing so, that the office will be able to protect them, investigate violations of our laws and hold employers who are found in violation accountable. The POWER Act would create a new Chapter 9-6600, entitled Enforcement of Worker Protection Ordinances" that lays out a single streamlined process for the office to receive complaints, investigate violations of the law and ensure compliance. This change will make the agency's decision-making process more transparent and efficient. It will also make it easier for both workers and employers to understand their rights and obligations during an investigation by the agency. The Act will also allow the office to use its resources strategically to improve overall compliance with the law. The Act authorizes the office to start an investigation on its own and to expand an investigation from an individual complaint into an entire workforce to remedy widespread violations. This way the office can have a greater impact in high- risk industries, where vulnerable workers often face barriers that make them unlikely to file 14 complaints. The POWER Act also prohibits employers from retaliating against workers who report labor violations. It creates a rebuttable presumption of retaliation where an employer takes negative action against an employee, for example, cutting their hours or firing them within 90 days of that worker asserting their labor rights. It also authorizes the office to fast track investigations into retaliation so that they can better protect workers who stand up for their rights. Finally, the POWER Act gives the office stronger enforcement tools for egregious situations such as the bad actors list.
This is for employers who remain delinquent after an order is issued and they've had the right to appeal and haven't and they refuse to pay the worker the money that has been determined to be owed to them. It also includes employers who have been found to have violated our laws repeatedly. Without effective enforcement, our labor laws are just words on paper and do not achieve their intended purpose of protecting workers rights. We ask that City Council vote yes on the POWER Act to ensure that our policy wins are reality for the hundreds of thousands of working people who power our great city. )
Good morning, Chairwoman, Committee members. My name is Daniel P. Bauder. I live in Roxborough, and I'm President of the Philadelphia Council AFL-CIO. (Applause.)
We're short on time folks. Philadelphia Council has a history of supporting legislation like this, Fair Workweek, paid sick leave, et cetera. Even though the majority of those bills and ordinances in this current bill, the POWER Act, don't really affect union members or workers that have a collective bargaining agreement, the reason that the Labor Council supports initiatives like this so fervently is that we believe deeply that all workers deserve respect and dignity on the job regardless of whether or not they have a union. I recognize that Council is very deep in the budgeting process currently. And I want to say that on behalf of both the Council but also this coalition of organizations and unions in support of the POWER Act, we want to work in partnership with Council to make sure that the City's Labor Department has the resources they need to properly enforce this and other labor protection bills. Finally, I want to emphasize the need for worker protections like the POWER Act in light of the relentless attack on workers that we are seeing from Washington, from oligarchs, both elected and unelected. I've submitted my testimony, my written testimony, so I'm not going to belabor the point, but the Philadelphia Council strongly urges this Committee to move the POWER Act out of Committee with a positive vote. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. And, yes, very much appreciate you all coming in and for all the work that everyone has been doing on this legislation. And you see we're actively doing the same thing, so we are listening. And not only that, we have read your testimony. I want you to know I stayed up until midnight last night going through all of this, and all the team members here, all the Council team members know that based on the time of my emails. So we appreciate you all coming in. And, Danny, appreciate the opportunity to touch base this morning. I will pass it to Vice- Chair Brooks, but I just wanted to get on the record because someone brought this up to me and I want to get this on the record, that this legislation even though it states that it's regarding domestic workers, that it is broader than that, does it impact additional industries and which industries does this impact outside of just domestic workers? MS. DiCLEMENTI: The legislation builds on all of our existing worker protections, so it includes wage theft, paid sick leave, including the domestic worker bill of rights. So any employer that would be covered by our existing wage theft laws, our existing paid sick leave laws would extensively be subject to these enforcement changes and retaliation changes that are being made. So really what we're trying to do is streamline the enforcement process and make the retaliation protections consistent again across all of our existing labor laws here in Philadelphia.
No, and I received that. But my specific question was regarding the industry's impact can you put it on the record? That's what I'm asking. Okay. And then I'm going to pass it to Vice-Chair Brooks once you respond.
Councilperson, I'm happy to jump in on that question. From our perspective -- I'm certainly not an attorney, but based on the feedback we've been getting from our members in our industry, I mean it seems that this goes well beyond just domestic worker protections. I mean, this impacts the broader business community in Philadelphia undoubtedly, restaurants, hotels, the broader travel tourism industries, anybody. Like my peers said on this panel here, anybody who is impacted by wage theft, workplace retaliatory claims, Fair Workweek would likely be impacted in some form by this legislation.
Thank you. And then lastly, what I would like to get on the record is did you all offer amendments or your thoughts, concerns in advance to the sponsor of the legislation?
Hi, yes. Ashley. We did. And I think that a good bit of them were included and we do appreciate the consideration. However, some of the amendments given the way in which they would apply to the bill 8 as it's written, really don't operate in the function that it was intended to. Private right of action is a great example. A cure period was added. However, it's not a standard cure period. All it does is give a 15-day window for the employer to respond. It doesn't require them to be in notice of the violation. It doesn't require for any other claim to be filed. And so, essentially that employee could go 15 days without saying a word, but the employer then after that 15th day would be held liable for that and they would be open to litigation. And so, our goal here is to really provide the employer a real opportunity to respond and remedy before they're open to frivolous lawsuits. And I say that as in there's no requirement for the employee to file a claim. They can immediately pursue litigation after a 15-day period. But again, there's nothing that requires a notice to be given to them as it is currently written.
Okay. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Councilmember Phillips and then Vice-Chair Brooks.
I just want to quickly recognize before we turn it over to the Vice- Chair, that Tony Taliaferro and their students from Roxborough High School, they're here today. (Applause.)
Tony Taliaferro is running the program to teach young people about civics and engagement and the history of service in Philadelphia and beyond. So thank you so much, Tony, for bringing the students today. (Applause.)
Thank you. Thank you very much. We appreciate all the young people coming in and seeing democracy in action. Thank you all so very much. The Chair now recognizes -- okay. I'm going to recognize Vice-Chair Brooks and then we'll proceed. Thank you.
I just want to get some things on the record. I had several questions, but I'm going to hold on my questions because we are pressed for time. And I think it's important for me to put this on the record because -- we have been working on this piece of legislation since September. And in good faith, we have always been in communication with stakeholders. So I want to put the timeline that we put out and how we have corresponded with people and the names for the record, because I feel as a former domestic worker the level of disrespect. You gave a story about a woman that worked up through your organization to become a leader. I worked up as a domestic worker -- (Applause.)
I worked hard to become a domestic worker to sit here right now, and I take great honor in saying that I handle legislation, that I include all stakeholders even when I have never been included in rooms. I take huge respect in saying that I listen to everyone and take everything you say in consideration, and I really get very upset when people are disingenuous or try to make me feel like I'm incompetent and did not do my job, so I'm going to put this on the record. (Applause.)
In September, we had a press conference introducing this legislation. In October, our first outreach to Bellevue Strategies, which is the lobbyist organization that handles a lot of its organizations that we were familiar with. February 6th, the POWER legislation was introduced and emailed to business organizations. February 11th, we emailed additional business organizations. February 17, the Chamber confirmation of awareness happened. February 28th, we met with the Mayor's legislator team asking for a meeting, and the meetings were delayed for a month. March 3rd, office emails the Chambers asking if they could have a follow-up. March 4th, Frank DiCicco Association asked for a meeting. March 5th, the Chamber confirms the meeting with the office and the membership meeting to discuss the POWER Act. March 6th, hearing gets delayed with official fiscal impact study, which no one else was ever asked to do anything like that. March 7th, meeting with the Chamber of Commerce that asked to move the hearing and we asked for March 6th documents. March 13th, meeting with another meeting with Frank DiCicco & Associates. April 12th, we emailed a reminder about the March 26th deadline to the Chamber and DiCicco Association. April 8th, the Chamber sent us policy statement with no amendments. April 10th, the office asks for amendments again. April 10th, the office meets with the Mayor's leg team, the Department of Labor and the Department of Commerce. April 14th, Frank DiCicco & Associates asked for one meeting with all stakeholders. April 15th, the office asked for amendments again, and Frank DiCicco & Associates respond and says, not until closer to a meeting. April 18th, Friday evening, 8:00 p.m. the Chamber sends over amendments. April 21st, a meeting with the business stakeholders, another act to delay this hearing. The Chamber sends over requested materials on April 22nd, and April 23rd we finalized these amendments. I don't know what good faith looks like. (Applause.)
Let's settle down. Remember, we're still on a time frame.
I'm not going to question anything that you just acknowledged. That is a correct timeline. And it does take us a significant amount of time to go through a 44-page bill, one, and to get consensus with our stakeholders and to make sure that we've done our checks and balances in what we're submitting. That is the only thing I can offer to that. We appreciate the time that your office has given. We felt as though we've had really productive conversations. This is a very significant bill period, plain and simple, right. And so, I think that for us just making sure that if we are as an organization to sit here and represent our members, we're doing our due diligence, okay.
And I just want to acknowledge that everything that you said is correct. That is a correct timeline. We wanted to make sure that we were doing right by our members, making sure we had consensus on our position, making sure that we had consensus on the amendments, and we were giving you a product that we could stand behind and defend.
No, I appreciate that. As you can see, my legal team, we're still trying to make sure we're meeting those amendments. But I'm going on the testimony that I heard and I heard several implications that made it seem like I did not do my job.
Councilwoman, can you -- is this on, is this working now, this mic. Certainly understand your timeline. And if I may respectfully just kind of add to Ashley's comments. From the Association's perspective, like Ashley noted, it admittedly does take us some time to engage stakeholders and get adequate and significant feedback to actually provide you and other legislators as we navigate this. First and foremost, I want to thank you. We met earlier I guess that was this week. We met earlier this week. Appreciate that. I know you've been engaged with our friends over at Frank DiCicco & Associates. From our perspective, just to kind of give you this landscape a little bit in case it's helpful, you know, we're representing restaurants, hotels of all sizes. And so, we're engaging your quick service restaurants to your fine dining restaurants. We're engaging operators with 50, 100-plus employees to operators that have less than 50 employees, as you might imagine. They all have different perspectives, depending on where you might operate in the city, how many employees you have. A significant amount of the timeline and activity from our perspective kind of happened in February. I think the bill was proposed in February. I think Ashley said 46 pages. I must have been looking at it with larger font because it was like closer to 49 for me. But it's only April, you know, from our perspective, and the bill was introduced in February. So for us, and I hope you'll forgive us, but for us that's very little runway to adequately and accurately and really genuinely engage the full restaurant and hospitality issue. We're talking more than 6000 restaurants, 100-plus hotels. We appreciate your time and your efforts to engage with us, but I hope you know we are trying to judiciously but also genuinely engage our members in the industry and get their perspective on how this would impact them.
No, I get it. You guys have to handle the, you know, you have to meet the needs of your members, but I too have to meet the needs of the constituents in the city of Philadelphia, including the business community. And you guys have paid folks to do this job. Most of these folks took a day off from work to fight for their rights. And you might not care or it might be like whatever, but many of these people make less than $20 an hour. So $7 an hour, tip wages, all of that makes a huge difference in the life of families. So I understand that you have to meet the needs of your constituents, but we also have timelines here in City Council. We have timelines in the community and we have to continue to work together. And I mentioned this between us and behind doors meeting, but for you to come and put on record like me and my team did not do their job I don't operate like that. But if this is how we're going to do this, we can and I just don't appreciate that. (Applause.)
All right. Now, we're going to move on. We're going to move on. And I am actively working to try to work through the challenges with this legislation in realtime so that, one, that the intent is there but also that we are addressing some of the concerns that I do believe are valid. This is a give and a take. It's a sausage-making process of legislation. I didn't get to be here for years doing 24 this for no reasons. I'm trying to do all of that right now under the time constraints that we have. So we are going to move on so that we can hear from the last panel and then also the folks that signed up to give public comment. But I just ask that everyone understand that this is a delicate process that we have to work through, not only as legislators who represent people, and a majority of us in here the entire city of Philadelphia, but we also have to be cognizant of what we do know to be true in this city based on the information we do receive as legislators, and that includes projections stating that we'll have 0% job growth over the next five years in this city. So it's a balance and we're going to get through it. And I also ask that everyone please remain respectful in these chambers because this is a proceeding. So we're going to move on to Panel 4. I ask that the Clerk call the witnesses for Panel 4. If you have already submitted -- I apologize. If you have already submitted your written testimony, I ask that you please summarize because we still have to break to work through the amendments and our time is very limited.
Alex Bernard and Jennifer Zavala. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Thank you for your time. Don't worry. I'll be pretty quick here. My name is Alex Bernard and I'm the owner of Winsome Barbershop in Callowhill. Winsome is a small barbershop with a diverse team that includes myself plus six other full-time barbers. I take pride in the fact that I go above and beyond what is required by law to provide for my team in order for them to feel comfortable and secure in both their work and their lives. Everyone at my shop who works at least four days a week is offered 40 hours of PTO per year as well as a 401K retirement package. In addition, I offer multiple performance bonuses that increase their earning potential. While all of these things are far from common in my industry and are by no means required, I see them as necessities and am proud to be an employer who offers more than the bare minimum for my staff. While I know that I could keep literally tens of thousands of dollars in my pocket every year by not offering these unrequired benefits, I truly believe these employee-focused expenditures pay for themselves in retention and a happy work environment. All this leads to the reason I am here today testifying in favor of the POWER Act. It's because I don't only take pride in providing for my employees, I also take pride in the business community that my barbershop exists in. I want Winsome to exist in the city with a world-class business environment surrounded by fellow entrepreneurs with a similar amount of honor and who care for the well- being of the employees they are responsible for. I do not want my barbershop to get lumped in with a culture of bad business actors who abuse their employees' time via committing wage theft, are too cheap or unorganized to uphold simple recordkeeping systems or who simply want to exist in the shadows without the threat of being held accountable. The more I learn about the POWER Act and its ability to give domestic workers bill of rights some much needed teeth as well as reading the weak refutations of its detractors, it's become abundantly clear to me that the passing of this legislation boils down to just a few simple questions, which I'll pose to those in attendance today: Do you care about having good businesses in Philadelphia? Do you think employees of Philadelphia should go home after a long day of work feeling fulfilled and well cared for? And do you enjoy getting paid on time and in full for the work that you do? If you answered no to any of these, I personally don't believe you belong owning a business in Philadelphia. And if your answer to these questions was yes, which I genuinely hope they were, then voting in favor of the POWER Act should be a no-brainer. (Applause.)
Hello. Thank you for having me. My name is Jennifer Zavala. I own Juana Tamale in South Philadelphia and I'm a 30-year industry vet. I am here to speak in support of the POWER Act because we are long overdue for legislation that protects workers, not just in theory but in action. At every level we see exploitation baked into our systems. It is workers labor, ideas, energy, that keeps every industry alive. Yet time and time again workers are the ones left unprotected, the ones who are overworked, underpaid, retaliated against or overlooked. This is the system. Exploitation doesn't just look like a bad boss or toxic work culture. It looks like the way tariffs and trade policies shift the weight of economic burden onto the workers while corporate interests remain shielded. It looks like industries that ask for more output, more hours and more sacrifice while offering no 17 protection in return. It looks like the city allowing employers to exploit workers with no recourse. And if we don't resist exploitation, if we don't name it, if we don't legislate it, if we don't hold it accountable, we cosign on it, not just for ourselves but on a national and global level. This bill is about power, real power, and who gets to hold it. Right now it's not the people doing the actual work and that must change. The POWER Act gives workers tools. It gives them rights, but it also sends a message. We will not allow retaliation and abuse to be the cost of speaking out and I know this all too well. As a restaurant owner, I want my workers to feel that they can speak up and create changes that make the workplace better. To me, that is a sign of a healthy business. I urge you to not just pass this bill, but to fund it, enforce it and stand behind it with urgency that the worker exploitation demands. Because if we don't take the stand now, we're agreeing to systems that see people as expendable. Thank you so much. (Applause.)
Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony and thank you for being here and taking time away from your small businesses and our great city to join us here in Council chambers. We appreciate you being here. Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
Okay. Seeing none, if the Clerk would please call the next witnesses.
That concludes the scheduled panel so we'll now move on to public comment. If I call your name and you would still like to offer comment, please come up. But if not, you may stay seated. Haley Daniera, Jorge Nicole, Craig Horton and Andy Moholt. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
All right. Please state your name for the record and proceed with a summarized version of your testimony. And then after this, we need to break so that we can go through this process.
Good afternoon, Committee members and City Council. My name is Craig Horton. I am from Philadelphia and have worked here in the surrounding counties through temp agencies for about 10 years. I'm also a member of the Philly Black Worker Project, where I found space to talk about my issues at the workplace and think about how we can make them better. I am here today to tell my stories to get the POWER Act passed. This legislation will keep the employers honest. I have worked for people who have sat there and cut corners then fired workers as a result. (Inaudible) is where I worked through the temp agency, which was best packing. I was there from November 2020 to December 2021 as a forklift driver. During that time, I never saw any OSHA regulations. There was a guy that I worked with, passed out on the truck. We called the supervisor over the radio. He reprimanded us for doing so. People would get injured. It was one young lady that got injured, had a six-inch scar on her forehead. When she sued, they fired her. What concerns me is the backlash workers get from speaking on their rights. With this POWER Act, when workers rights are violated we have to have a time frame for these responses. Response times need to be quicker. Bosses don't wait to retaliate. Our legislation names 90 days after incident and it will still be retaliation. It is experiences like this is why we need the POWER Act. If I had to go back into temp work with the POWER Act, I am confident that they would not be able to pull a wool over my eyes like they did before. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you for being here today. We certainly appreciate your participation at this hearing.
Hi. Yes. Good morning. My name is Andy Moholt. I'm a union steward for OPEIU Local 32 here representing the standardized patients of Jefferson University. We're the -- thank you. First of all, I want to say we stand here in solidarity with all the workers here. Thank you for being here today. We unilaterally support the POWER Act. The reason why we are here today is to talk specifically about healthy family leave. I was actually a guest of Councilmember O'Rourke's hearing for the budgetary address by Mayor Parker a few weeks ago. To handle this exact issue, I understand that it's going to be handled in a different amendment. But there's an issue with the healthy family leave ordinance in that there's an exemption for members of a collective bargaining agreement. So the way it's affected us is that we basically got our union and then Jefferson took away all our sick leave, which is kind of insane that a hospital took away our paid sick leave, but that's what they did. Now, they're trying to make us use a doctor's note to use the sick leave, which is crazy because that makes us have to pay a co-pay back into the system just to prove that we're sick, which is a little ridiculous. So we're here specifically to advocate for that. Again, I know it's going to be handled in a different amendment, but we also want to say, like I said, we're here in solidarity with all the workers and we support the POWER Act. And we just wanted to advocate for the change in the exemption to make sure that workers under a collective bargaining agreement can still get their healthy family leave. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony and thank you very much for being here. Okay. Are there any further witnesses, panels or comments today? (No response.)
Okay. Seeing none, we will now conclude this portion of the hearing for Bill No. 250065. We will break prior to going into the public meeting, so we are taking a break and we'll come back into the public meeting shortly. Thank You. (Recess.)
Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you all so very much for being here. I just want to take a point of personal privilege to thank our Council staff, all the technical staff, the Law Department, our stenographer, translator, reporters who were here, but each and every one of you who stayed, but I just want to thank the team members who did the work for the last three hours. We thank you all so very much. (Applause.)
And to my colleagues who helped us work through this process, I want to say thank you to each one of you for staying and for being here. We certainly appreciate you. What I'm going to do is now ask the Clerk to call the roll to take attendance. Members that are in attendance will please indicate you are present when your name is called.
I am present. Thank you. A quorum of this Committee is present. Prior to recognizing Councilmember Brooks for a motion on the amendment to Bill No. 5 250065, I'm going to take this opportunity to read the summary of the amendments to the POWER Act for the record and then I'll recognize the Councilmember for the motion. Summary of amendments to POWER Act: Burden of proof, placing the burden of proof on workers to prove that they did not receive the required notice of rights before any extension of the statute of limitations. The POWER Act statute of limitations are equal to those used by the federal government for similar laws as well as those in Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle and many other cities as referenced in 9-66075. Clarifying that an employer is liable for retaliation only when an employee's protected activity is a factor in adverse action against them as referenced in 9-65033. Removing a requirement that an employer's adverse action against a worker be for just cause as in 9-65034. Requiring the disclosure of the identity of a complainant and if It is necessary to allow the employer a fair opportunity to respond to an allegation, 9-66034. Removing an employer's intent to harass the complainant from the definition of what constitutes an adverse action against the worker, 9-65011. Increase employer flexibility, narrowing the definition of protected activity by requiring that a worker show that the employer knew about the worker's action before the worker receives protection against retaliation, 9-65024. Requiring that a person to whom a worker makes the complaint be affiliated with the company for the action to qualify as a protected activity as noted in 9-650111. Bad actors database, requiring that a company make three or more labor violations before they are placed on the bad actors database, as referenced in 9-66082A. Requiring the location of the employer be listed on the bad actors database so as to protect the brand of a franchisor or other locations that do not have violations. Removing the requirement around the address of employers, 9-66082B.2. Allow the removal of an employer from the bad actors database when there is a meaningful change in the ownership, as noted in 9-66082B.3. Enforcement, permitting the administration to extend the timeline for an employer to send records involved in a complaint as 9-41082. Reinserting the proper party term to narrow the complaints that the Department of Labor investigates, 9-43016. Remove the notice requirement under the retaliation provision of the POWER Act, 9-6506. Clarity that all changes to recordkeeping and statute of limitations will take place going forward to provide employers time to adjust to POWER Act provisions will be added by Law Department. Created a small employer carve-out for notice related presumed damages under the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, 45074B.4. Additional amendments and the promoting health families and workplaces, protecting victims of retaliation and wage theft complaints requiring notice and a 15-day cure period before private right of action can be brought unless willful misconduct or retaliation. For the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, requiring written notice and a 30-day cure period for damages and penalties concerning written contract notification of bill of rights and recordkeeping. The Chair now recognizes Councilmember Brooks for a motion on the amendment to Bill No. 11 250065.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I offer an amendment to Bill No. 250065. A copy of the amendment has been circulated to all members of this Committee. I move that the amendment for Bill 19 No. 250065 be approved. (Duly seconded.)
The Chair notes for the record that Councilmember Phillips seconds the motion. It has been moved and properly seconded that the amendment to Bill 3 No. 250065 be approved. All those in favor of the motion will signify by stating aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Brooks for a motion on Bill No. 250065 as amended.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 20 250065 as amended be reported from this committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
The Chair notes for the record that Councilmember Phillips seconds. It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 10 250065 as amended be reported from this committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended as to permit first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. All those in favor will signify by stating aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. There being no further questions from members of the committee and no other witnesses -- (Applause.)
-- and no further names for public comment, this concludes the business before the Committee on Law and Government today. Thank you all so very much. (Committee on Law and Government concluded at 3:15 p.m.) C E R T I F I C A T I O N I, hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence noted are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me in the foregoing matter, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. __________________________________ TANEHA CARROLL