>>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
TODAY IS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5,
2019.
THE HOUSING, HEALTH AND WORKERS
RIGHTS COMMITTEE COME TO ORDER.
I AM COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA,
THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE.
AS WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST FEW
MEETINGS, WE HAVE TWO SECTIONS
OF THE AGENDA TODAY.
THE FIRST SECTION WILL BE
DEVOTED TO SEATTLE CITY LIGHT.
WE WILL HAVE A CONVERSATION
WITH BAKER TILLY ON THE OUTSIDE
FINANCIAL AUDIT AND WE HAVE
ABOUT 30 MINUTES FOR THAT ITEM.
WE DO HAVE PUBLIC TEST MONEY
FOR FOLKS WHO SIGNED IN TO
TESTIFY ON THAT FIRST ITEM.
I WILL DOUBLE CHECK BECAUSE
LOOKING AT THE NAME IT, I THINK
YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THE SECOND
ITEM WHICH IS THE HOTEL
LEGISLATION.
THE SECOND ITEM WE WILL BRING
UP WILL BE RELATED TO THE HOTEL
SAFETY PROTECTIONS.
IT WILL BE RELATED TO EMPLOYEES
BEING PROTECTED FROM INJURY ON
THE JOB AT JOB RETENTION.
THESE ARE THREE OF THE
ORDINANCES THAT THE HOTEL
SAFETY AND HEALTH CARE WORKERS
RIGHTS PROTECTION ORDINANCE HAS
CONSIDERED.
THERE ARE FOUR COMPONENTS AS
YOU KNOW.
WE WILL NOT BE DISCUSSING
HEALTHCARE TODAY BECAUSE WE
HAVE HEARD FROM MANY OF YOU
THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE
ADDITIONAL TIME TO WEIGH IN
WITH US ON POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS
TO THE HEALTHCARE SECTION.
THAT WILL COME UP NEXT WEEK ON
SEPTEMBER 16.
WE WILL ALSO NOT BE VOTING ANY
OF THE HOTEL LEGISLATON OUT OF
COMMITTEE TODAY.
WE HAVE ALSO HEARD FROM SOME OF
YOU WOULD LIKE TO HEAR MORE
ABOUT THE AMENDMENTS.
WE WILL HAVE A CONVERSATION AND
AS WE HAVE DONE IN PAST
MEETINGS, WE WILL ATTEMPT TO
TRY TO VOTE ON ANY AMENDMENTS
IN COMMITTEE BUT NOT VOTE THEM
OUT OF COMMITTEE.
THAT WAY ALL OF THE LEGISLATION
WILL STAY IN THIS COMMITTEE.
WE WILL THEN TAKE UP THOSE
THREE PIECES IN ADDITION TO
HEALTHCARE.
NEXT WEEK WITH THE INTENTION TO
BUT THIS OUT NEXT WEEK.
JUST TO REITERATE, AMENDMENTS
MAY BE CONSIDERED ON SAFETY
PROTECTIONS, PROTECTING
EMPLOYEES FROM INJURY, AND JOB
RETENTION.
THREE SECTION.
WE WILL THEN HOLD THOSE BILLS
IN COMMITTEE WITH THE INTENT TO
BRING BACK HEALTHCARE NEXT
WEEK.
AND THOSE THREE BILLS WITH THE
GOAL TO VOTE THEM OUT OF
COMMITTEE NEXT WEEK.
WE ARE VERY EXCITED ABOUT ALL
OF THE TESTIMONY YOU WANT WANT
TO SHARE.
BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE FOLKS
KNOW THE PSA GOING INTO THE
DISCUSSION THAT WE WILL HAVE
AGAIN ANOTHER WEEK IS YOU ALL
REQUESTED EMMA TO CONTINU TO
PROVIDE US WITH FEEDBACK.
>>> SO THE FIRST ITEM ON
TODAY'S AGENDA IS, THE FIRST
SECTION ON TODAY'S AGENDA IS
RELATED TO SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
OUTSIDE FINANCIAL AUDIT, WE
WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON
THOSE ITEMS.
SPECIFICALLY.
I DO HAVE FOUR PEOPLE SIGNED UP
UNDER THE FIRST ITEM BUT I
THINK THAT MIGHT BE, YOU MIGHT
WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE SECOND
ONE.
AND, DIANE, MICHAEL CLARK?
YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE
HOTEL, CORRECT?
I AM SEEING NOT'S.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO
TALK ABOUT SEATTLE CITY LIGHT?
OKAY.
SO WHAT WE GO AHEAD AND GET
INTO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE.
THAT WILL CLOSE LOOK TESTIMONY
FOR THE FIRST SECTION ON
SEATTLE CITY LIGHT'S.
THE AUDIT.
THAT WE WILL INVITE OUR GUESTS
TO COME ON UP AS WE READ INTO
THE RECORD ITEM NUMBER ONE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING
HERE TODAY.
WE HAVE THE FIRST 30 MINUTES
DEDICATED TO A SEATTLE CITY
LIGHT AUDIT UPDATE.
>> THE CITY LIGHT REPORT, FOR
EVERYTHING ON DISCUSSION.
>> OCCAM.
INC.
YOU GUYS FOR BEING HERE.
WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND
INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND WE WILL
GET YOU TO YOUR PRESENTATION.
ú>> GOOD MORNING.
I AM MIKE SIMMONS, THE
CONTROLLER FOR SEATTLE CITY
LIGHT.
>> KIRSTY GRANGER.
I AM THE CFO OF SEATTLE CITY
LIGHT.
>> AARON WORTH MINUTE WITH
BAKER TILLY.
>> THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR
COMING.
YOU HAVE COME A DISTANCE TO BE
HERE.
WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT THIS
ANNUAL AUDIT OF SEATTLE CITY
LIGHT'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AND AS YOU KNOW, THE AUDIT IS
CONDUCTED ANNUALLY.
BY AN INDEPENDENT OUTSIDE
AUDITOR.
BAKER TILLY IS AN ACCOUNTING
FIRM THAT IS CONDUCTING THIS
YEAR'S AUDIT AND HAS WORKED
WITH PREVIOUS AUDITS TO MAKE
SURE WE ARE TRACKING HOW THINGS
ARE GOING AT SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
FROM AN OUTSIDE PERSPECTIVE.
DO YOU WANT TO OPEN UP FROM
COMMENTS ON SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
ON THIS ISSUE?
>> WE DO THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THIS.
I APPRECIATE YOUR INTEREST IN
LISTENING.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD.
>> AGAIN, MY NAME IS AARON
WORTH MINUTE WITH A CRITELLI.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT THE 2018 FINANCIAL
STATEMENT AUDIT.
THIS PRESENTATION, PART OF
WHICH REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS
WILL BE SIMILAR TO FORMAT PRIOR
YEARS.
WHAT I WANT TO DO FIRST IS TELL
YOU WHAT EXACTLY IS AN AUDIT?
WHAT COMPRISES AN AUDIT.
GO TO THE INTERNAL CONTROL
COMMISSION AND GO THROUGH THE
AUDITOR MEDICATION GOVERNANCE,
WHICH ARE THE REQUIRED
COMMUNICATIONS WE NEED TO HAVE
AS PART OF THE AUDIT PROCESS.
AND THEN OPEN UP TO ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
>> EXCELLENT.
>> SO THIS YEAR, I WOULD SAY
THE AUDIT WENT WELL.
THIS YEAR, THERE WAS A NEW
PEOPLESOFT IMPLEMENTATION WHICH
CAUSES NEW WORK FOR THE AUDITORS
AND FOR MANAGEMENT.
YOU HAVE A NEW SYSTEM
INTEGRATION, GETTING UP TO
SPEED ON THOSE THINGS.
I WOULD SAY THIS ACTUALLY, WE
WERE PREPARING FOR ISSUES AND
WE THINK THIS YEAR'S AUDIT WENT
WELL.
WE HAD FOUR WEEKS OF FIELDWORK
CONDUCTED.
ONE OF WHICH WAS PRELIMINARY
FOR THE FALL.
THEN WE CONDUCTED THREE WEEKS
OF FINAL FIELDWORK IN THE
SPRING.
THE LAST DATE OF FIELDWORK WAS
MARCH 29 AT A BIG THING TO NOTE
IS THAT WE DO NOT HAVE ANY
ADJUSTING JOURNAL ENTRIES AS
PART OF THIS YEAR'S AUDIT,
WHICH IS ALWAYS GOOD.
THE AUDIT WAS PERFORMED IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERALLY
ACCEPTED AUDITING STANDARDS.
THE STANDARDS WE ARE REQUIRED
TO FOLLOW AS AUDITORS WHEN WE
CONDUCT EVERY AUDIT.
IN ADDITION, BECAUSE YOUR
ENTITY AND THE CITY RECEIVES
FEDERAL FUNDING, WE WERE
REQUIRED TO ALSO CONDUCTOR
AUDIT IN CONFORMANCE WITH
GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS.
THOSE ARE ADDITIONAL STANDARDS
WE HAVE RELATIVE TO DO CARE,
SUPERVISION, CONTINUING
PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION,
INDEPENDENCE AND QUALITY
CONTROL.
ARE AUDIT OBJECTIVE IS TO
OBTAIN REASONABLE ASSURANCE
THAT YOUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
ARE FREE OF MATERIAL A
STATEMENT
AT THE END OF THIS OR'S AUDIT,
PLEASE REPORT THAT YOUR
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS HAVE
RECEIVD A MODIFIED OPINION.
THAT IS ALSO KNOWN AS A CLEAN
OPINION, WHICH IS THE HIGHEST
LEVEL OF ASSURANCE THAT WE CAN
PROVIDE AS AUDITORS.
TAKING A LOOK AT THE AUDIT, IF
WE WERE TO BREAK DOWN THE AUDIT
INTO SEGMENTS, YOU WILL SEE
WHERE WE SPENT OUR TIME, MOST
OF OUR TIME.
SO TO GIVE YOU SOME
PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD SAY
ROUGHLY 30% OF THE WORK THAT WE
DO IS SPECIFIC TO INTERNAL
CONTROLS.
AND I.T.
RELATED TO THOSE CONTROLS.
THAT IS WHERE WE SPENT 30% OF
OUR TIME.
SO WHAT WE WILL ACTUALLY DO IS
GO OUT AND DETERMINE WHAT ARE
THE MAJOR PROCESSES AT CITY
LIGHT?
RECEIVABLES AND BILLING.
WORK ORDERS.
FIXED ASSETS.
DISBURSEMENTS.
EXPENDITURES.
THINGS LIKE THAT.
WE WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE
PROCESSES, DOCUMENT WHAT ARE
THE REQUIRED INTERNAL CONTROLS,
AND THEN WE WILL TEST TO MAKE
SURE THAT, ARE THOSE INTERNAL
CONTROLS PRISON FOR THE
PROCESS?
AND MORE PORTLY, ARE THEY
EFFECTIVE IN WORKING?
AND SITUATIONS WHERE THEY ARE,
WE CAN PERFORM LESS SUBSTANTIVE
TASKS.
IF WE DO FIND A BOOK DONE IN
CONTROLS OR A LACK OF INTERNAL
CONTROLS, WE WOULD SPEND MORE
AUDIT TIME DEVOTED TO THAT
AREA.
FOR 40% OF WHAT WE DO ARE,
CONSISTS OF SUBSTANTIAL TEST.
TAKE A LOOK AT CASH
INVESTMENTS, TAKING A LOOK AT
FAIR VALLEYS AND THOSE
INVESTMENTS.
TAKING A LOOK AT YOUR
RECEIVABLES.
THINGS TO THAT EXTENT.
AND THE LAST 30% OF WHAT WE DO
IS SPECIFIC TO AUDIT PLANNING.
AND FINANCIAL REPORTING.
TAKING A LOOK AT ANNUAL
FINANCIAL REPORT.
LOOKING BELOW AT THE WORK PLAN,
YOU WILL SEE AGAIN WE SPENT A
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME ON
I.T.
INFRASTRUCTURE.
THAT MAKES SENSE BECAUSE WHEN
YOU LOOK AT THE BALANCE SHEET,
FIXED ASSETS MAKE UP A MAJORITY
OF YOUR BALANCE SHEET.
FINANCIAL REPORTING, AGAIN,
PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION.
THIS LETS YOU KNOW WHERE
EXACTLY DO WE SPEND OUR TIME
RELATIVE TO THE AUDIT.
TAKING A LOOK AT INTERNAL
CONTROLS, I DO WANT TO STATES
THAT WE GIVE AN AUDIT OPINION
BASED ON YOUR FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
WE DO NOT PROVIDE AN OPINION ON
INTERNAL CONTROLS.
HOWEVER, AS WE CONDUCTOR AUDIT,
WHEN WE IDENTIFIED MATERIAL
WEAKNESSES IN CONTROLS, OR
SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES
RELATIVE TO CONTROLS, WE ARE
REQUIRED TO COMMUNICATE THOSE.
AND ALSO CATEGORIZE THE
SEVERITY OF THAT INTERNAL
CONTROL DOWN.
SO THE FIRST CATEGORY, IT WOULD
BE A MATERIAL WEAKNESS.
BASICALLY, WHAT THAT MEANS IS A
LACK OF CONTROL OR A BREAKDOWN
IN CONTROL RELATIVE THAT THERE
COULD BE MORE THAN A REASONABLE
POSSIBILITY THAT THE LACK OF
CONTROL WOULD LEAD TO MATERIAL
MISSTATEMENT IN YOUR FINANCIAL
STATEMENT.
PLEASE REPORT THAT WE DID NOT
IDENTIFY ANY MATERIAL
WEAKNESSES.
THE SECOND CATEGORY IS A
SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY WHICH IS
LESS SEVERE THAN A TURTLE
WEAKNESS.
HOWEVER, IT IS ENOUGH TO
WARRANT YOUR ATTENTION AS
GOVERNANCE.
SO THIS YEAR IT IS OUR
UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS STATE
AUDITOR HAD ISSUED A POINT OF
SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY ON CASH
AND INVESTMENTS FROM A CITY
PERSPECTIVE.
SO ONE THING WE NEED TO KNOW AS
A DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY, THE
CITY DID HAVE INTERNAL CONTROLS
OVER THE ACCOUNTING FINANCIAL
STATEMENT PREPARATION FOR CASH
AND INVESTMENTS RELATIVE TO A
SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY IN THOSE
CONTROLS.
UNDERSTANDING A STATE AUDITOR
HAS COMMUNICATED THAT, THE
AUDIT MIGHT STILL BE IN
PROGRESS.
WE ARE HOPING TO ISSUE SOON BUT
BECAUSE WE ARE A DEPARTMENT THE
CITY TAKES CARE OF OUR CASH AND
INVESTMENTS, WE NEED TO SHOW
THE STATE AUDITOR POINT AS
WELL, WHICH MIGHT INCLUDE
WRITTEN CONFIRMATION OF THAT.
MOVING ON TO OUR REQUIRED
COMMUNICATIONS, ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT I WANTED TO POINT
OUT, YOU WILL SEE YOUR STANDARD
ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES.
WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS TAKE A
LOOK AT THOSE PROCEDURES AND
POLICIES, AUDIT AGAINST THOSE
AND LET YOU KNOW IF WE HAD ANY
FINDINGS.
ONE EXAMPLE OF THIS WOULD BE
CAPITALIZATION POLICY.
ANOTHER ITEM TO POINT OUT ARE
ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES.
OFTENTIMES WE WILL HAVE
GOVERNING BODIES OR USERS OF
THOSE FINANCIALS ASK ABOUT,
WHAT ARE THE MOST CONCERNING
PARTS ABOUT FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS?
IS THERE SOMETHING TO VOTE ON,
WHERE WOULD THAT BE WITHIN THE
FINANCIALS?
I OFTEN SAY OR ALMOST ALWAYS
SAY IN EVERY INSTANCE IT
PROBABLY HAS TO DO WITH AN
ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES.
WITHIN THE STATEMENTS, THERE
ARE ESTIMATES FOR YOUR PENSION
LIABILITY, FOR ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLES AND YOUR UNBILLED
REVENUES.
ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION
LIABILITY, SELF-INSURANCE.
WHERE CERTAIN TIMES YOU WILL
HAVE SPECIALISTS, SO FOR
INSTANCE IF YOU TAKE A PENSION,
YOU WILL HAVE AN ACTUARY
DETERMINE WHAT THE LIABILITY IS
AND YOU WILL PUT THAT WITHIN
YOUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
WE AS AUDITORS NEED TO LOOK AT
THE ACTUARY AND MAKE SURE IT IS
COMPETENT.
MAKE SURE THEY HAVE GOOD
QUALIFICATIONS TO BE ABLE TO DO
THE WORK.
WE WILL REVIEW THE REPORTS AND
FINDINGS AND USE THAT AND TEST
YOUR LIABILITY.
JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF THIS IS, SO
FOR INSTANCE, YOUR PENSION THE
CITY LIGHT PROPORTIONATE SHARE
OF THE CITY RETIREMENT
LIABILITY WITH A 7.5% RATE IS
232 MILLION.
BECAUSE THESE ESTIMATES ARE SO
SUBJECTIVE DUE TO THE VARIABLES
USED TO CALCULATE THEM,
ACCOUNTING GUIDANCE REQUIRES
YOU TO SHOW BUT THIS LIABILITY
WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS WITH 1%
HIGHER IN THE DISCOUNT RATE AT
1% LOWER.
SO IF WE DECREASED THAT
DISCOUNT RATE TO 6.5%, YOUR
LIABILITY WOULD INCREASE TO BE
HUNDRED AND 33 MILLION.
LIKEWISE, IF YOU MOVED IT THE
OTHER WAY TO 8 1/2%, THAT
LIABILITY WOULD MOVE DOWN TO
$157 MILLION.
SO AGAIN, THAT IS A PRETTY BIG
SWING.
SO CAN I SIT HERE TODAY AS HER
AUDITOR AND SAY WITHOUT A DOUBT
YOUR LIABILITY AS IT STANDS
TODAY IS 232 MILLION?
I CAN'T DO THAT BUT WHAT I CAN
TELL YOU IS THAT BETWEEN 147
AND 333 I WOULD SAY YES.
THAT IS A REASONABLE
DETERMINATION.
A REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF WHERE
THE LIABILITY STANDS TODAY
BASED ON THE BEST INFORMATION
WE HAVE.
SO AGAIN, JUST KNOW WHAT
ESTIMATES ARE WITHIN THESE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
THE MORE IMPORTANTLY, KNOW THE
LIMITATIONS OF THIS ESTIMATES.
>> SOME EVERYTHING ABOUT THE
LIMITATIONS AND THE FINANCIAL
AUDIT HERE, HOW ARE WE TO
CATEGORIZE THE FINANCIAL
ESTIMATES THAT WE ARE HEARING
ABOUT IN THE PRESS RELATED TO
THE BILLING ESTIMATES THAT MANY
OF THE CONSUMERS ARE DEALING
WITH?
THE OVERBILLING AND POTENTIAL
SURPRISE BILLS THAT PEOPLE
RECEIVED?
I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS
PROBABLY A DIFFERENT CATEGORY
AS IT RELATES TO WHAT THE
CONSUMER IS EXPERIENCING VERSUS
THE ESTIMATES THAT CITY LIGHT
IS ASSUMING.
BUT HOW DOES THAT FACTOR INTO
WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS
CATEGORIZED AS SOMETHING YOU
ARE LOOKING AT OR OUTSIDE OF
THE SCOPE?
>> SO THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION.
SO PART OF WHAT WE DO, WE ARE
REQUIRED WHEN WE DIVIDED
OPINION, WE PROVIDE IT ON A
MATERIAL BASIS.
WHAT WE WOULD DO IS WE LOOK AT
ALL THESE ESTIMATES AND WE
DETERMINE, ARE THESE MATERIAL?
WE LOOK AT THEM AS SUCH.
WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE
WOULD SEE IN THE ALLOWANCE FOR
THE ACCOUNTS.
ASSUMING THERE WAS A QUESTION
ON RECORDED RECEIVABLES AND
REVENUES.
IF THERE WAS A QUESTION OF
WHETHER THAT WILL BE PAID IN
THE FUTURE, THAT WOULD BE PART
OF THIS ALLOWANCE.
WE WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT THAT
AND DETERMINE ITS REASONABLE
BASED ON MANY FACTORS.
PROBABILITY OF COLLECTIONS
GOING FORWARD, LOOKING BACK,
WHAT IS COLLECTIONS RATE THAN
IN THE PAST?
NOW, IF THERE WAS THE SYSTEM
CONVERSION ALLOWED BACK THAT
YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, THERE
MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME
OVERBILLING'S.
WE WOULD TAKE A LOOK TO SEE, OR
THOSE MATERIAL IN NATURE?
WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THOSE?
UNDERSTANDING AS OF RIGHT NOW,
WE WOULD NOT DEEM THOSE
MATERIAL BUT MANAGEMENT IS
DEFINITELY LOOKING AT THOSE.
AND WE WOULD HAVE CONCERN IF WE
SAW THAT THOSE WERE MATERIAL.
BUT THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE,
THE ESTIMATE WE HAVE RIGHT NOW,
WE FEEL IT IS REASONABLE.
IN RELATION TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO KNOW
WHAT THE THRESHOLD IS FOR WHEN
IT BECOMES MATERIAL.
WE ARE JUST BEGINNING TO
SCRATCH THE SURFACE ON THE TYPE
OF OVERBILLING ESTIMATE THAT
SOME CONSUMERS HAVE
EXPERIENCED.
OBVIOUSLY THERE IS A CLASS-
ACTION LAWSUIT.
WE HAVE AN AUDIT THAT HE
AUDITOR OF THE CITY IS
CONDUCTING.
THEY WILL BE PRESENTING IN THE
COMMITTEE AT THE BEGINNING OF
NEXT YEAR THAT WE HAVE ASKED
FOR AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MID
YEAR TO LOOK INTO THESE
ESTIMATES.
SO COULD YOU MAYBE STAY IN
TOUCH WITH US OR GET BACK TO US
AT SOME POINT SOMETHING BECAUSE
MATERIAL?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
A LOT OF TIMES WE GET
QUESTIONS, WHAT IS MATERIAL?
I WISH I COULD GIVE THE LATTER
DEFINITION BUT THE BEST
DEFINITION WE HAVE SEEN IS, IT
WOULD BE AN AMOUNT THAT WOULD
AFFECT THE DECISIONS BASED ON
THE USERS OF THE FINANCIALS.
I COULD TELL YOU, IF YOU TAKE A
LOOK AT YOUR INCOME STATEMENT
AND CHANGE YOUR OPERATING
REVENUES BY ANNUAL OPERATING
REVENUES BY 40 MILLION, COULD
THAT CHANGE OR AFFECT THE
DECISIONS OF THE USERS OF THE
STATEMENTS?
MY GUESS IS YES.
THAT IS THE BEST MATERIAL.
NOW, TAKE A LOOK AT THE BALANCE
SHEET.
YOU HAVE $1 BILLION IN ASSETS.
THAT LET'S YOU DIDN'T RECORD OR
MISSED RECORDING AN ASSET OF $2
MILLION, $1 BILLION WITH
ASSETS.
WOULD YOU VIEW THAT AS
MATERIAL?
MY ANSWER WOULD BE NO.
I WOULDN'T CALL THAT MATERIAL.
WHEN WE LOOK AT MATERIAL, WE
WANT TO REALIZE THERE ARE TWO
COMPONENTS.
THE QUANTITATIVE WHICH WE JUST
SPELLED OUT BUT ALSO
QUALITATIVE.
BUT YOU MIGHT HAVE A SUPER
LARGE DOLLAR AMOUNT RELATIVE TO
A FIXED ASSET ADDITION.
HOWEVER, GIVEN THAT YOU'RE
DEALING WITH $1 BILLION OF
ASSETS, YOU PROBABLY WOULDN'T
THINK $2 MILLION IS MATERIAL TO
THAT.
BUT FOR THE INCOME STATEMENT,
$2 MILLION OF REVENUE RELATIVE
TO SYSTEM SALES OR SOMETHING
LIKE THAT, YOU MIGHT VIEW THAT
AS MATERIAL.
AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT BOTH
THE QUANTITATIVE AND
QUALITATIVE.
>> GOOD QUESTION THAT.
>> AS PART OF THE AUDIT, IF WE
HAD ANY SIGNIFICANT
DIFFICULTIES, WE WOULD NEED TO
DISCLOSE THIS.
WE DID NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT
THE FACULTIES AS PART OF THIS
YEAR'S AUDIT.
IF WE HAD ANY UNCORRECTED
MISSTATEMENTS, WE WOULD NEED TO
DISCLOSE THOSE AND AS SUCH,
SIMILAR TO EVERY YEAR, WE DO
HAVE A LISTING OF WAIVED
ENTRIES THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED
AS PART OF THAT REPRESENTATION
LETTER.
THIS RESULTS AGAIN, THIS
CONCEPT OF MATERIALITY
OFTENTIMES AS BOOKS ARE CLOSED,
THE CLIENTS MAY HAVE A SMALL
ENTRY THAT MIGHT COMES IN.
THEY DO NOT WANT TO CHANGE THE
ENTIRE SET OF FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR A MATERIAL SMALL
ENTRY.
WE AS AUDITORS NEED TO KEEP
TRACK OF THOSE TO DETERMINE IF
YOU HAD 12 OF THOSE, AND YOU
TAKE A LOOK AT THEM ALL, WHAT
WOULD THE EFFECT BE ALTOGETHER?
IS THAT MATERIAL?
AND YOURS WERE NOT.
BUT WE DO NEED TO KNOW IS WE
NEED TO KEEP A COLLECTION OF
THOSE AND REPORT THOSE TO USE
YOU CAN SEE WHAT THOSE AMOUNTS
ARE.
THEY WERE NOT MATERIAL.
>> IF WE HAD ANY DISAGREEMENTS
WITH MANAGEMENT, WE WOULD NEED
TO DISCUSS THOSE.
THIS IS DEFINITELY A YEAR-ROUND
AUDIT PROCESS.
WE WORK WITH MANAGEMENT CLOSELY
THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, WHETHER IT
IS DUE TO ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
CHANGES, SYSTEM ISSUES, SYSTEM
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES.
SO I THINK PART OF THE REASON
YOU GET TO THE END OF THE AUDIT
AND YOU DON'T HAVE
DISAGREEMENTS, WE HAVE HAD THE
THING THROUGHOUT THE YEARS.
WE HAVE CONCERNS AND WE WILL
TALK TO MANAGERS ABOUT THIS.
IT CAN BE A PRETTY SEAMLESS
AUDIT.
IF WE HAD ANY OTHER FINDINGS OR
ISSUES, CERTAINLY WE WOULD
DISCLOSE THIS.
I JUST KNOW THAT IF I DIDN'T
HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE, THIS
IS NOT BE THE FIRST TIME YOU
FOLKS WOULD HEAR ABOUT IT.
I WOULD WE TALKED YOU HAD OF
TIMES TO HAVE THOSE DECISION.
THERE SHOULD EVER BE A HUGE
SURPRISE WHEN WE GET TO THIS
MEETING.
>> IF WE HAD ANY MATERIAL
ADJUSTING JOURNAL ENTRIES, WE
WILL DISCLOSE THIS.
THERE WERE NO MATERIAL
ADJUSTMENTS AS PART OF THIS
YEAR'S AUDIT.
MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIONS.
ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS YOU HAVE
RECEIVED ARE THE MANAGEMENT
REPS.
WHAT THOSE ARE IS
REPRESENTATIONS MANAGEMENT
MAKES AS PART OF THE AUDIT
PROCESS.
THE REPRESENTATIONS ON
ESTIMATES.
THERE ARE REPRESENTATIONS ON
FRAUD, INTERNAL CONTROLS.
SPECIALISTS.
THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO IF YOU HAVE IT, I SUGGEST,
TAKE SOME TIME TO TAKE LOOK AT
THOSE REPRESENTATIONS.
I WOULD SAY EVERY YEAR THAT IT
GETS LONGER AS MANAGEMENT
BECOMES MORE ACTIVE AND
INVOLVED.
IN THIS AUDIT PROCESS.
AS THEY TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
>> IF MANAGEMENT HAD ANY
CONSULTATIONS WITH ANY OTHER
AUDIT FIRMS, WE WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO BE NOTIFIED OF
THAT.
SOMETIMES I CAN ALSO BE KNOWN
AS OPINION CHOPPING.
BUT WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY
DISCUSSIONS THAT YOUR
MANAGEMENT HAVE.
INDEPENDENCE.
INDEPENDENCE CONTINUES TO BE A
LARGER FACTOR AS PART OF
AUDITORS AND THE AUDIT WORK
THAT WE DO.
AS IT PERTAINS TO SEATTLE CITY
LIGHT, AND THE EMPLOYEES.
LASTLY, WE WANT TO THANK THE
DEPARTMENT FOR ALL OF THE HELP
THEY HAD.
THIS YEAR WAS A BUSY YEAR.
A HUGE GENERAL LEDGER
IMPLEMENTATION.
A LOT OF WORK WENT INTO THAT.
TRYING TO KEEP EVERYTHING
RUNNING.
AND HAVING AN AUDIT CONDUCTED
BUT WE APPRECIATE ALL OF THE
WORK THEY DID.
WE DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO WORK FOR THE
ORGANIZATION.
AND WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN IT
UP TO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU
FOLKS HAVE.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM
SEATTLE CITY LIGHT?
>> WE JUST THINK, WE ARE
APPRECIATIVE OF THE
RELATIONSHIP WITH AKER TILLY.
THEY BRING GOOD INSIGHT AND
PROFESSIONALISM TO THIS.
>> I DO HAVE TWO QUESTIONS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS
BEFORE I GET INTO IT?
>> JUST A QUESTION.
THANK YOU FOR THAT
PRESENTATION.
IN TERMS OF OUR BOND RATING AND
OUR CREDIT WORTHINESS AND HOW
WE ARE DOING AS AN INSTITUTION,
DID YOU MAKE ANY CONCLUSIONS
THERE?
TRENDING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION
BASED ON THE SQUEAKING CLEAN
AUDIT HERE?
OR IS IT OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF
THE KIND OF THINGS YOU WOULD
DO?
>> SO GREAT QUESTION.
THAT IS A LITTLE OUT OF THE
SCOPE OF WHAT WE DO RELATIVE TO
FINANCIAL HEALTH.
BUT ONE THING I CAN CERTAINLY
TELL YOU IS HAVING AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WITH A
CLEAN OPINION DEFINITELY GOES A
LONG WAY.
BUT THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT
FACTORS THAT THOSE RATING
AGENCIES LOOK AT.
THEY WILL LOOK AT DEPOSITION
RELATIVE TO YOUR ASSETS.
THEY LOOK AT, DO YOU KEEP YOUR
RATES CURRENT?
THEY LOOK AT MANY DIFFERENT
FACTORS BUT THE FIRST STEP IN
THAT IS HAVING ANNUAL FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AUDITED, WHICH DON'T
INCLUDE ANY OFFICIAL STATEMENT.
FOR SUBSEQUENT DEBT ISSUES.
AND YOU HAVE A CLEAN OPINION.
SO AGAIN, THAT DEFINITELY GOES
A LONG WAY.
THAT IS A GOOD FIRST STEP.
>> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
I JUST HAVE TWO QUESTIONS.
ONE IS, YOU MENTIONED THE
ESTIMATES THAT ARE BEING ASSUMED
AT SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
CURRENTLY, WITH THE CURRENT
POLICY AROUND COLLECTIONS.
THIS IS THE POLICY THAT WILL BE
THE UPDATED SOON.
WE IN MY OFFICE AS SEATTLE CITY
LIGHT KNOWS, WE ARE LOOKING AT
WHAT OTHER CITIES HAVE DONE TO
TRY TO GET AWAY FROM A
COLLECTIONS POLICY WHEN THERE
IS A DEBT ISSUE.
WHEN PEOPLE ARE BEGINNING TO
PAY ON A REGULAR BASIS TOWARD
THAT DEBT.
I WOULD LOVE FOR THERE TO BE
DEBT FORGIVENESS IS SOME OTHER
MUNICIPALITIES HAVE DONE.
SO DOES THAT, WOULD THAT FACTOR
IN THE FUTURE AUDITS YOU DO?
OR DOES KNOWING THAT POLICY
CHANGES ON THE HORIZON CHANGE
ANY OF YOUR CONCLUSIONS HERE?
>> SO YOU ARE RIGHT.
NO UTILITY IS EXACTLY THE SAME
RELATIVE TO THOSE TYPES OF
THINGS.
BUT WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS, WHAT
WE WILL DO, ASSUMING THE POLICY
CHANGES, IT IS OUR
RESPONSIBILITY TO GO IN AND
TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
WE WOULD MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE
FOLLOWING YOUR POLICIES.
OTHERWISE, THAT WOULD BE A
RECOMMENDATION WE HAVE THAT WE
NOTICE THAT YOU ARE NOT
FOLLOWING POLICIES.
BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE WAY
WE WOULD LOOK AT IT, WE WOULD
TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR AND
ALLOWANCE FOR THE ACCOUNTS AND
HAVE A POLICY RELATED TO THE
ESTIMATE.
ANY CHANGES IN YOUR POLICY, WE
WOULD THEN WANT TO MAKE SURE IT
WORKED ITS WAY INTO OFFSETTING
YOUR RECEIVABLE BALANCE WITH A
VOLATILITY OF WHETHER IT WILL
BE PAID OR WAIVED OR FORGIVEN.
BUT WE WOULD DEFINITELY LOOK AT
THAT AS IT PERTAINS TO THE
ESTIMATE ON YOUR ALLOWANCE FOR
THE ACCOUNTS.
>> LAST YEAR WE HAD SIGNIFICANT
NUMBERS OF CONCERNS THAT WERE
RAISED ABOUT THE OVERRIDES IN
THE CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION
COSTS'S.
THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE
APPEARING TOO MUCH IN THE
CONVERSATION TODAY.
ANECDOTALLY, DO YOU BELIEVE
THAT WHAT YOU THOUGHT WAS A
COURSE CORRECTION ON SOME OF
THOSE CAPITAL OVERRIDES?
>> COULD YOU GIVE A LITTLE
EXAMPLE OF WHAT OVERRIDES ARE?
>> WE HAD SOME MAJOR PROJECTS
THAT WE HAD TAKEN ON IN THE
LAST TWO YEARS.
SOME OF THOSE HAD SIGNIFICANT
COST OVERRIDES.
AND I AM WONDERING IF THAT WAS
A FACTOR IN YOUR FINANCIALS.
>> WHEN IT COMES TO THAT, ONE
OF THE THINGS WE LOOK AT IS
CONTROLS.
OTHER BUDGETS?
THESE ARE ACTUAL.
BUDGETS BE PERFORMED AFTER
PROJECTS ARE DONE?
THAT IS A CONTROL.
AND INVESTIGATED.
WHY WERE THE COST OVERRUNS?
YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE
VALID REASONS.
ONE THING WE DO IS MAKE SURE,
ARE THERE THINGS BEING
COMPLETED?
YES THERE ARE.
IS THE ACTUAL BUDGET COMPARISON
BEING LOOKED AT AND EVALUATED?
IT IS.
TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, I THINK ANY
OVERRUNS HAVE BEEN VALID AND
HAVE SUPPORT FOR THEM.
NOW, WE DON'T LOOK AT EVERY
CASE AND INSTANCE BUT THE
BIGGEST THING IS THAT THERE IS
A CONTROL IN PLACE.
THOSE VARIANCES ARE
INVESTIGATED AND INVESTIGATED
ON A TIMELY BASIS.
IT IS NOT UNCOMMON TO HAVE
BUDGET OVERRUNS FOR MANY
DIFFERENT REASONS.
YOU AS A GOVERNANCE, I WOULD
JUST WANT TO SURE THAT, WHAT
WERE THE REASONS FOR THE
OVERRUNS?
DOES IT MAKE SENSE?
DO YOU CONTINUE TO SEE THOSE?
BECAUSE THERE MIGHT BE A
QUESTION, IS THERE AN ISSUE
WITH BUDGETING?
DO WE NEED TO REEVALUATE HOW WE
BUDGET?
TRY TO FIGURE OUT SEEMS.
IS THERE A CONSISTENT REASON
WHY WE ARE OVER?
AND IF SO, IDENTIFY WHAT THOSE
ARE.
BUT NOTHING CAME TO OUR
ATTENTION OF NOTE.
BEING A MATERIAL ISSUE BY ANY
MEANS.
BUT WE DO LOOK AT SOME OF THE
CONTROLS AROUND THAT OVERALL.
>> AND THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE
MOVING FORWARD, JUST THIS WEEK
WE PASSED A RESOLUTION, AN
EFFORT IN FULL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TO ALLOW FOR US TO ENTER INTO
THE WESTERN MARKET.
I KNOW THAT THIS IS A NEW
MARKET FOR US.
WE WILL BE LOOKING AT TREATING
OUR ENERGY ACROSS THE WEST
COAST.
IT IS AN EXCITING OPPORTUNITY
TO PUT THE GREENER ENERGY
PRODUCT OUT OF THE MARKET SO
FEWER ENTITIES, MUNICIPALITIES
AND PRIVATE SECTOR ARE HAVING
TO CONSUME CARBON EMITTING
ENERGY.
SO WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT THIS.
BUT WE ALSO KNOW WE NEED TO
CLOSELY TRACK OUR PARTICIPATION
IN THAT.
NEXT YEAR, ASSUMING THAT WE
WILL BE WORKING WITH YOU ALL
AGAIN, WILL THIS BE AN ISSUE
THAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT IN YOUR
AUDIT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE
WITHIN THE CONFINES?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
WHEN WE LOOK AT OUR OTHER AUDIT
CLIENTS THAT ARE ALREADY DOING
THESE TYPES OF THINGS, LIKE
SACRAMENTO.
AND EVEN IN THE TEXAS MARKET OR
SOME OF THESE OTHER LARGER
AREAS, WE SEE THIS ALL THE
TIME.
SO THE GOOD NEWS IS, WE
DEFINITELY ARE EQUIPPED TO
AUDIT THESE THINGS.
CERTAINLY WE WILL BE LOOKING
FOR DERIVATIVE POSITIONS THAT
NEED TO BE RECORDED.
KNOW.
THIS WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT
CHANGE FOR THIS UPCOMING AUDIT.
WE WOULD DEFINITELY TAKE A LOOK
AT IT, WE WOULD TESTED.
AGAIN, WE WOULD GO RIGHT DOWN
THE LINE.
WHAT CONTROLS SHOULD BE IN
PLACE?
WHAT ARE THOSE CONTROLS?
WE WILL TEST THIS.
WE WILL SEE IF THERE'S ANY
BREAKDOWN AND LASTLY, LET'S SAY
THERE ARE DERIVATIVES, WE WILL
MAKE SURE THEY ARE REPORTED AT
FAIR VALUE WITHIN THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND THE DISCLOSURES
ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE PARTIES
AND ALL OF THE DIFFERENT
OPTIONS.
BUT YES, IT WOULD DEFINITELY BE
A MAJOR POINT OF EMPHASIS FOR
THIS UPCOMING AUDIT.
>> EXCELLENT.
THANK YOU.
THAT CONCLUDES MY QUESTIONS.
SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS, WE
WANT TO EXTEND A HUGE AMOUNT OF
APPRECIATION FOR YOUR WORK.
WE KNOW YOU HAVE, PEER AND
TRAVELED FOR THIS PRESENTATION.
YOUR TEAM AS WELL HAS DONE A
TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK.
THANKS TO YOU, SEATTLE CITY
LIGHT FOR CONTINUING TO ENGAGE
IN THIS TRANSPARENT AUDITING
PROCESS AND WE WILL LOOK
FORWARD TO SHARING WITH YOU ANY
FUTURE POLICIES AS IT RELATES
TO COLLECTION CHANGES, ANY
CHANGES TO THE BILLING
ESTIMATES THAT MAY COME FROM
THE CITY AUDITORS REPORT THAT
WILL COME TO OUR COMMITTEE.
WE BELIEVE IN FEBRUARY OF NEXT
EAR.
AND TO ENGAGE WITH YOU AS WE
ENTER INTO THE WESTERN BALANCE
MARKET.
>> SOUNDS GREAT.
>> I CAN'T SAY YOUR REPORT WAS
EARTH SHATTERING BUT THAT IS
NOT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IN
AN AUDIT.
>> LESS IS MORE.
>> THINK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
WHEN WE GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO
PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR THE SECOND
ITEM, SECOND SECTION OF THE
AGENDA WHICH INCLUDES THREE
ITEMS.
WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE
SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY
AND I HAD A FEW PEOPLE ASK, HOW
MUCH TIME ARE WE GOING TO
ALLOW.
WE REALLY WANT TO TRY TO GET
THROUGH THIS PUBLIC TESTIMONY
IN HALF AN HOUR.
WE HAVE EXACTLY 31 PEOPLE
SIGNED UP.
SO LET'S DO ONE MINUTE PER
PERSON.
AND RECOGNIZE THAT WE REALLY
VALUE YOUR TIME AND YOUR
COMMITMENT HERE IF YOU COULD
STAY WITH HIM AT ONE MINUTE.
WE WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
MUCH OF WHAT WE WILL HAVE TO
TALK ABOUT TODAY, WE GET TO
TALK ABOUT AGAIN NEXT THURSDAY.
SO WITH THAT, WE WILL GO AHEAD
AND TAKE FOLKS IN THE ORDER
THEY SIGNED UP HERE.
AND VANDER HEY?
DN'S WALLY?
JURGEN OSWALD AND MICHAEL CLARK
ARE THE FIRST FOUR PEOPLE
SIGNED UP TO TESTIFY.
WE WILL PUT A MINUTE ON THE
TIMER HERE.
AND JUST BY WAY OF REMINDER, SO
WE ARE FOLLOWING ALL THE RULES,
YOU WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT THREE ITEMS ON
TODAY'S AGENDA.
HOTEL JOB RETENTION, DETECTING
HOTEL EMPLOYEES FROM INJURY,
AND HOTEL SAFETY PROTECTIONS.
THESE ARE INCLUDED IN TODAY'S
AGENDA AS ITEMS NUMBER TWO,
THREE AND FOUR.
CANCEL BUILT 119556, CONSTABLE
119554, AND COUNCIL BILL 119
557.
ON TODAY'S AGENDA, WE ARE NOT
TALKING ABOUT HEALTHCARE BUT I
THINK IT WEAVED IN AND OUT AS
PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT
BEFORE.
LET'S KNOW THAT WE HAVE ANOTHER
WEEK TO CONSIDER HEALTHCARE
LEGISLATION AND IF YOU DO HAVE
COMMENTS ON THESE THREE BILLS
TODAY, IT WOULD BE VERY TIMELY.
WITH THAT, THANK YOU FOR
SIGNING UP FIRST.
WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE,
GOOD MORNING.
>> I AM THE DIRECTOR OF SALES
AT THE HILTON SEATTLE.
I HAVE BEEN IN THE INDUSTRY FOR
35 YEARS IN A VARIETY OF HOURLY
MANAGEMENT ADDITIONS.
THE PANIC BUTTON LEGISLATION
UNDERSCORES THE RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE HOTEL INDUSTRY TO ENSURE
THE SAFETY OF OUR VALUED TEAM
MEMBERS.
THE LATEST DEFINITION WE HAVE
SEEN, THE TERMINATION OF WHO IS
COVERED AND WHO IS NOT, IT IS
IRRESPONSIBLE TO PASS A LAW
WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING OR
SPECIFICALLY SAYING WHO IT
APPLIES TO.
ADDITIONALLY, I URGE YOU TO
LEARN MORE ABOUT WHAT THE HOTEL
INDUSTRY ALREADY HAS TO ENSURE
THE SAFETY OF ALL OF OUR
EMPLOYEES.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE.
DIANE?
HELLO, DIANE.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I NAME IS DIANE AND I AM THE
MANAGER AT THE HILTON SEATTLE.
I WORKED IN THE HOSPITALITY
INDUSTRY MY ENTIRE LIFE.
THE SAFETY OF OUR EMPLOYEES IS
ALWAYS TOP PARITY.
THAT IS WHY WE HAVE SUPPORTED
AND PROVIDED PANIC BUTTONS TO
ALL OF OUR ASSOCIATES.
EVERYONE IS CONCERNED ABOUT
OVERTIME ALKYLATION, WHICH IS
NOW THREE TIMES PAID FOR
ADDITIONAL TIME SPENT.
WHY ARE WE THE ONLY INDUSTRY
BEING ATTACKED?
WE HAVE ALL HEARD YOU SAY THAT
THIS OVERTIME IS NECESSARY.
BUT WHAT MAKES IT THREE TIMES
MORE PAID TO ASSOCIATES SAFE?
>> THANK YOU.
IN THE PAST, YOU FOLKS ARE ALSO
WELCOME TO COME BEHIND THE
SECURITY FOLKS IF YOU DO WANT A
DIFFERENT VIEW.
I KNOW IT IS AWKWARD THERE.
YOU ARE WELCOME TO COME BEHIND
THE GATE HERE.
YOU ARE WELCOME.
>> THANK YOU.
>> SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU.
>> NO WORRIES.
MORNING, COUNCIL MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS JURGEN AND I WORK.
OVERTIME, THE CALCULATION IS
THREE TIMES THE HOURLY WAGE.
WHY?
WHAT MAKES THE HOTEL INDUSTRY
SO DIFFERENT FROM OTHER
INDUSTRIES?
>> YOU ARE SELLING THIS
ORDINANCE AS PART OF PROTECTING
HOUSEKEEPERS.
HOWEVER, YOU ARE ALSO RIPPING
IN NON-HOTEL EMPLOYEE SMALL
BUSINESSES.
THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH
HOUSEKEEPING.
SO LET'S FINALLY REMOVE THOSE
ANCILLARY BUSINESSES FROM THIS
LEGISLATION.
THE LATEST DEFINITION, IT
LEAVES IT UP TO THE RULEMAKING
PROCESS.
IS IN IT IRRESPONSIBLE TO PASS
A HALF-BAKED LAW?
IF THAT IS THE CASE, LET'S NOT
RUSH IT, PLEASE.
BUT PLEASE BE DILIGENT AND
CONTINUE TO WORK ON THESE
ORDINANCES SO WE CAN REALLY GET
A PRODUCT THAT MAKES IT GOOD
FOR EVERYBODY.
AND DOESN'T LEAVE ROOM FOR
INTERPRETATION.
THAT IS IMPORTANT NOT TO RUSH
THE PROCESS.
THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE IT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND MICHAEL CLARK?
>> HELLO, MICHAEL.
>> GOOD MORNING.
>> MORNING.
CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> I AM MICHAEL CLARK AND I AM
ALSO ON THE BOARD OF THE
SEATTLE HOTEL ASSOCIATION.
I'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE SO I
WON'T REVIEW I 33 YEARS IN OUR
INDUSTRY.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT SAFETY AND
WELL-BEING OF EMPLOYEES IS A
TOP READY FOR THE ASSOCIATION.
FOR ME PERSONALLY, THE WELL-
BEING OF EMPLOYEES WORKING IN
MY HOTEL.
IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN
MATTERS THIS.
I CONTINUE TO BE CONCERNED
ABOUT THE OVERTIME CALCULATION
NOW AT THREE TIMES FOR THE
EXTRA TIME IS SPENT CLEANING.
OR NOT MANDATING FOR ANOTHER
POSITION IN OTHER INDUSTRIES,
ANY OTHER BUSINESS.
IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
AND I HAVE HEARD YOU SAY THAT
IT IT IS NECESSARY FOR EMPLOYEE
SAFETY BUT IF THAT IS SO
CRITICAL, WHY AREN'T HOTELS
WITH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS REQUIRED TO PAY
THREE TIMES?
IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
INTERPRETING THE VOTER APPROVED
PROTECTION OF HOUSEKEEPERS TO
EXTEND TO ARRANGE NONEMPLOYEE
AND BUSINESSES DOESN'T MAKE
SENSE.
IT IS TIME TO LOOK AT THAT AND
REMOVE THAT.
AND THE LATEST DEFINITION WE
HAVE SEEN LEAST THE
DETERMINATION OF WHO IS COVERED
AND WHO IS NOT UP TO THE WILL
MAKING PROCESS.
IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE TO PASS
THAT WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING WHO
SPECIFICALLY IT APPLIES TO.
YOU ARE WELCOME AT MY HOTEL ANY
TIME IF YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO
BULK UP UNDERSTAND WHAT WE DO.
I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE YOU.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> WELCOME COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ AS COSPONSOR OF THAT
LEGISLATION.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING
HERE.
THE NEXT THREE PAPER ARE CHAD
McKAY, MICHAEL HIRSCH, AND
HOBART.
>> FOLKS, IF YOU WANT TO LINE
UP THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
>> GREAT.
GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS CHAD McKAY, I AM THE
CEO OF HOSPITALITY, A FAMILY
BUSINESS BASED OUT OF
NORTHWEST.
I'M HERE TODAY TO SPECIFICALLY
TALK ABOUT THE ANCILLARY HOTEL
BUSINESSES AND WHY INDEPENDENT
GROUPS ARE BEING CAUGHT UP IN A
WAR AGAINST THE HOTELS.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND, HEALTHCARE
IS GOING TO BE A COMPONENT OF
THIS.
OF WHY THE GAUCHO, WHICH IS 17
ROOMS, WHICH WOULD BE EXEMPT
FROM LEGISLATION BUT THE
RESTAURANT, L GAUCHO, WOULD BE
INCLUDED IN THE LEGISLATION.
I THINK IT IS POORLY WRITTEN.
I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE REALLY
LOOKED AT.
WE LOOK AT THE HEALTHCARE
COMPONENTS, I KNOW THAT IS
LATER.
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WORKING
20 HOURS WITH FAMILY.
ADDING $20,000 OF LABOR COST.
ALMOST $20 PER HOUR FOR THOSE
EMPLOYEES.
THAT IS AN INCREDIBLE BURDEN.
FINALLY, THE ACA, YOU ARE
PUTTING US INTO A
DISCRIMINATORY NONCOMPLIANCE
WITH ACA.
I DOING CONTRIBUTIONS FOR ONE
LOCATION DIFFERENT FROM
ANOTHER.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAD.
MICHAEL?
>> FOLLOWED BY HOBART AND
BRANDON.
>> GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL
MEMBERS.
THANK YOU.
I REPRESENT THE FAMILY OWNERS
OF 13 POINTS.
AND SEE OWNERSHIP GROUP OF THE
LODGE SPORTS GROW.
WE HAVE TWO IMPACTED PROPERTIES
AND I AM ASKING FOR A
CONVERSATION, A DIALOGUE ABOUT
THE ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESS.
THE LANGUAGE REMOVAL.
I HAVE REACHED OUT AND ASKED
FOR DIALOGUE.
WE HAVE SERVED THE CITY FOR 53
YEARS.
WE ARE NOT WORLDWIDE, WE ARE
NOT NATIONWIDE.
WE ARE LOCAL AND LONGTIME
FAMILIES AND MYSTIFIED AS TO
HOW A SAFETY INITIATIVE THAT
BEGAN FOR HOTEL EMPLOYEES HAS
NOW REACHED THIS POINT INTO
APPARENTLY THE ONLY POOR
DECISION THAT WAS MADE WITH THE
LOCATION OF OUR BUSINESS.
WITH THE IMPACT.
HERE WITH THE HOTEL.
THE HELLO LOCATION.
I WANT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION
AS TO HOW TO REMOVE IT OR WHAT
THE UNDERLYING GOAL IS AND
INCLUDING US IN THAT.
AND SEE HOW WE CAN HELP TO BE
PARTNERS IN ACHIEVING THE CITY
SCHOOLS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> HELLO.
I AM AN OWNER OF A COMPANY
CALLED A BMS.
AUDIOVISUAL MANAGEMENT
SOLUTIONS.
WITH SUPPLIERS AND HOTELS.
BEEN IN THE HOSPITALITY
BUSINESS FOR 30 YEARS IN
SEATTLE.
25 YEARS.
OUR EMPLOYEES ARE NOT HOTEL
EMPLOYEES.
WE ARE A SUPPLIER OF HOTELS.
I DON'T SEE HOW THIS PARTICULAR
EGISLATION INCLUDES ANCILLARY
BUSINESS.
WE ARE ALSO, I WOULD CONSIDER A
SMALL BUSINESS.
IT IS DIFFICULT FOR SMALL
BUSINESS TO OPERATE IN SOME OF
THESE PARAMETERS.
I THINK IT SHOULD BE LOOKED AT
AGAIN AS TO HOW ANCILLARY
BUSINESS IS DIRECTLY IMPACTED
IN THIS REGULAR LEGISLATION.
BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
SO FOLLOWING ANNA, ONE A
SECOND, BREANNA.
AFTER YOU WILL BE JOHN, PAM,
AND THEN DESIREE?
I AM REALLY SORRY.
YOU CAN ALL CORRECT ME WHEN YOU
COME UP.
>> THANK YOU.
MY NAME IS DEANNA FOX.
I AM THE DIRECTOR.
>> WE WILL START YOUR TIME
AGAIN.
>> I AM THE HR DIRECTOR AT BMI
HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT.
WE EMPLOYED 200 PEOPLE IN THE
CITY OF SEATTLE.
THE ISSUE I WOULD LIKE TO
COMMENT TODAY IS THE ORDINANCE
ADDRESSING SQUARE FOOTAGE
LIMITS AS WELL AS OVERTIME PAY
IF WORKERS EXCEED THE SQUARE
FOOTAGE.
THE COUNCIL IS CLAIMING THE
PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION IS
TO INCREASE SAFETY IN THE
WORKPLACE FOR SEATTLE WORKERS.
I BELIEVE IF THAT WERE TRULY
THE INTENTION, THIS ALSO WOULD
PROVIDE AN ORDINANCE THAT
COVERED ALL SEATTLE WORKERS.
THEIR ARM WORKERS IN SEATTLE
CLEANING OFFICE BUILDINGS,
MEDICAL FACILITIES, SCHOOLS, I
WOULD ASK, WHY AREN'T THEY
RECEIVING THE SAME PROTECTIONS?
WHY ARE WE TARGETING ONE
INDUSTRY?
I WOULD ALSO ASK WHY ALL OF
THESE EMPLOYEES HERE IN THE RED
SHIRT, WHY AREN'T THEY
RECEIVING THOSE SAME
PROTECTIONS IF THE INTENTION IS
TRULY TO PROVIDE PROTECTION OR
INCREASE SAFETY IN THE
WORKPLACE FOR HOTEL WORKERS.
WHY IS IT BEING EXEMPTED?
>> THANK YOU.
>> DON?
JOHN?
PAM AND THEN DESIREE.
>> MADAM CHAIR, AND MEMBERS, MY
NAME IS JOHN AND I'M THE
DIRECTOR OF THE RETAIL INDUSTRY
OF SEATTLE.
THE WRECK GRASSROOTS RENOVATION
OF OVER 30 RETAILERS IN THE
CITY.
WE APPRECIATE THE WORK OF THE
CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE TO
NARROW THE DEFINITION OF
ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESSES.
HOWEVER, THE CURRENT DEFINITION
STILL POTENTIALLY EXTEND THE
ORDINANCE TO BUSINESSES THAT
ARE NOT CLOSELY RELATED TO THE
OPERATIONS OF THE HOTEL.
IN WHICH THEY ARE LOCATED.
SPECIFICALLY, WE URGE THE
COMMITTEE TO COMBINE CLAUSES
ONE AND TWO WITH AN AND AND
ELITE CLASS III RELATED TO
RESTAURANTS.
THIS CHANGE WOULD REDUCE THE
INCENTIVE FOR RETAILERS TO
RELOCATE TO NON-HOTEL SPACE
WHILE STILL ACHIEVING THE GOAL
OF IMPROVING HEALTHCARE FOR
HOTEL WORKERS.
WE BELIEVE IT IS IMPORTANT FOR
THE COMMITTEE TO MAKE THIS
CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE RATHER
THAN RELY ON LESS EDITABLE
RULEMAKING PROCESSES.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> WELCOME.
DESIREE AND THEN SHEILA ORDONEZ
AND BRIAN'S ON.
>> HELLO.
YOU GOT IT?
MY NAME IS PAMELA HINCKLEY AND
I AM HERE REPRESENTING OUR
RESTAURANT, LOLA.
WE RENT SPACE IN THE HOTEL.
THANK YOU TO THE COMMITTEE FOR
YOUR CONTINUED EFFORT ON WORKER
SAFETY.
BUT WE DO HAVE SEVERAL CONCERNS
ABOUT HOW THE PROPOSED
LEGISLATION IS STRUCTURED AND
ASKED THE COMMITTEE TO RETHINK
THE INTENT.
MISS MOSQUEDA STATES IN HER
AUGUST 20 NEWSLETTER THAT HOTEL
WORKERS ARE SOME OF THE MOST
VULNERABLE WORKERS.
WE DISAGREE.
OUR RESTAURANT TEAMS ARE
EXPERIENCING DANGEROUS
CONFLICTS ON THE CONDITIONS ON
OUR SEATTLE STREETS EVERY DAY.
WE HAVE OFFERED SELF-DEFENSE
CLASSES, MENTAL HEALTH
COUNSELING, AND TRAININGS FROM
THE SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
AND THE MID TO PROTECT OUR
EMPLOYEES.
AN ORDINANCE THAT JUST PROTECTS
HOTEL WORKERS IS BIASED AND
UNFAIR.
WE ALSO DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE
LOGIC OF INCLUDING THE
ANCILLARY BUSINESSES IN THE
LEGISLATION.
THE BUSINESS THAT LOLA IS
DRIVEN BY, BEING A COMMUNITY
RESTAURANT, WITH LESS THAN 5%
OF OUR REVENUE COMING FROM THE
HOTEL.
I WILL SAVE THE HEALTHCARE
THING.
>> THANK YOU.
>> SHEILA, BRIAN AND NICOLE
GRANT.
>> HIGH.
GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS SHEILA AND I AM THE
ASSISTANT INTEGER AT THE
MEDITERRANEAN AND.
I'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR HOTELS
FOR OVER A DECADE.
THAT GOES THE SAME FOR MY
MOTHER, SISTER AND AUNT.
THE COMPANY I WORK FOR EMMA
REPRESENT, IT IS A GOOD WORKING
PLACE WHERE WE ARE IN FAVOR OF
HELP, LISTEN TO EACH EMPLOYEE.
THEIR SAFETY IS OUR SAFETY.
IT HAS, WE HAVE SUPPORTED,
PROVIDING PANIC BUTTONS TO
EMPLOYEES AS PART OF SAFETY.
WE ARE A SMALL AND FAMILY-OWNED
BUSINESS.
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE
OVERTIME CALCULATION.
THAT IS THREE TIMES PAY FOR THE
ADDITIONAL TIME SPENT CLEANING.
ABOUT THE WORKLOAD BEING
CRITICAL TO THE HEALTH OF
WORKERS.
WHY ARE THEY ALLOWING TO BE
WEIGHED AT THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT?
I DO THINK WE SHOULD BE EQUAL
AND FAIR.
THIS LEGISLATION STARTED SAYING
IS THE ABOUT PROTECTING HOTEL
HOUSEKEEPERS BUT IT HAS
DEVELOPED AND IT SEEMS TO ME IN
MY FAMILY THAT IT IS MORE ABOUT
FORCING WORKERS TO JOINING A
UNION.
FOR SMALL BUSINESS, YOU'RE
JEOPARDIZING THE RIGHT TO STAY
IN BUSINESS.
IF THE GOAL IS TO HELP HOTEL
WORKERS, THIS IS NOT IT.
THANK YOU.
>> JUST BEFORE YOU, I THINK WE
HAVE RYAN.
EXCELLENT.
AFTER NICOLE, IT WILL BE ANNIE.
>> MY NAME IS BRIAN AND I HAVE
BEEN IN THE SERVICE INDUSTRY
AND THE SEATTLE LIGHT FOR 30
ODD YEARS.
THIS IS HOME.
WE ARE NOT THE ENEMY.
I COULD SAY THE SAME THINGS
EVERYONE ELSE HAS HAD.
THE LEGISLATION HAS BIG
PROBLEMS.
AND YOU GUYS KNOW THAT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT SOMETIMES IT
IS AS INVITATION TO MAKE A
POLITICAL STATEMENT EVEN THAT
THE COURTS ARE GOING TO HAVE A
PROBLEM WITH IT LATER.
IT WOULD BE SO MUCH BETTER.
WE ARE NOT THE ENEMY.
IF YOU SAT DOWN IN GOOD FAITH,
OPEN-MINDED, WENT OVER THE
PROBLEMS AND BRAINSTORMED
TOGETHER FOR SOLUTIONS, WE
COULD SPEND OUR TIME WITH OUR
FAMILIES AND OUR COWORKERS,
DOING REAL THINGS INSTEAD OF
FIGHTING THE STUFF IN COURT OR
SHOWING UP IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
WERE KNOWN OF US WANT TO BE.
WE ARE NOT THE ENEMY HERE.
THE FAMILIES I REPRESENT OR
WORK FOR HAVE OWNED AND
MAINTAINED PLACES.
FOR 30 ODD YEARS.
TO PROMOTE FROM WITHIN, IT IS A
CAREER PATH FOR PEOPLE.
THEY TAKE VERY GOOD CARE OF
EMPLOYEES.
IF YOU GUYS EVER WANT TO COME
TALK TO US.
OR SEE US OR LEARN ABOUT IT.
I WISH YOU WOULD.
THANK YOU.
>> [APPLAUSE]
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBERS, COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA, I WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THIS
LEGISLATION.
IT HAS BEEN A LOT OF WORK AND
A LONG TIME.
WE ACTUALLY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO
BE HERE DOING THIS RIGHT NOW.
BECAUSE THE SAME NIGHT A HOTEL
LOCAL, A GLEEFUL RACIST AND
SEXIST WAS ELECTED TO BE THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
WE ALSO PASSED JUST LAOIS THEM
TO TAKE THESE CHANGES TO THIS
INDUSTRY.
SINCE THAT TIME, THERE HAVE
BEEN MORE POSITIVE INFORMATION.
THERE HAS BEEN THE NEED TO
COMMIT.
THERE HAVE BEEN EVEN BETTER
POLICIES PAST IN OTHER AMERICAN
CITIES.
THERE HAVE BEEN HORRIBLE
ATTACKS ON IMMIGRANTS IN THIS
COUNTRY THAT HAVE MADE IT CLEAR
YOU NEED TO FIGHT FOR IMMIGRANT
WORKERS IN NEW AND STRONG WAYS.
SO I KNOW THE MULTIBILLION-
DOLLAR HOTEL INDUSTRY HAS
FOUGHT THIS POLICY AND DRUG IT
THROUGH THE COURTS BUT THIS IS
THE TIME TO PASS IT FOR THE
WORKERS BECAUSE LIVES ARE
AFFECTED.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ANYWISE FOLLOWED BY DOUG.
>> HELLO.
I AM ANYWISE AND I AM THE
LOGISTICS DIRECTOR AT MLK
LIVER.
PRIOR TO THAT, I WORKED IN THE
HOTEL INDUSTRY FOR 7 YEARS.
DURING THAT TIME, I WORKED IN
MANY DEPARTMENTS FROM THE FRONT
DESK TO SALES TO HOUSEKEEPING.
I WAS ACTUALLY NOT A HIRED
HOUSEKEEPER BUT WAS ASKED TO
WORK AS ONE BECAUSE WE WERE
EXPERIENCING VERY HIGH TURNOVER
IN THAT DEPARTMENT.
DURING MY TIME AS A
HOUSEKEEPER, I STRIPPED AND
CLEANED UP THE 25 ROOMS AT A
TIME.
IT WAS STRENUOUS AND SOMETIMES
PAINFUL WORK.
I TOOK A LOT OF ADVIL DURING
THAT TIME.
THIS LEGISLATION STRENGTHENS
THE WORKLOAD PROTECTIONS
CONTAINED IN I 124 AND RANCHERS
WORKERS HAVE AGENCY AND WORKING
IN A SAFE PACE.
IS ONLY SUPPORT THIS
LEGISLATION NOT ONLY BECAUSE IT
WILL BRING OVERDUE PROTECTIONS
TO SOME OF OUR MOST VULNERABLE
WORKERS BUT ALSO BRING JUSTICE
TO THE 77% OF SEATTLE VOTERS
WHO PASSED I 124 IN 2016.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[APPLAUSE]
>>> GOOD MORNING.
I NAME IS KATIE CAROL AND I'M A
MEMBER OF LABORERS LOCAL 242, A
CONSTRUCTION UNION.
I DAD WORKED CONSTRUCTION FOR
30 YEARS.
HE ALSO WORKED AT THE COAL
PLANT.
HE HAS HAD TO NEED REPLACEMENT
AT A HIP REPLACEMENT.
THE PERSON WHO REPLACED HIM AT
THE COAL PLANTS DIED IN A
TRAGIC WORKPLACE ACCIDENT IN A
CALL RUNOFF POND IN DECEMBER OF
LAST.
THAT WORKER WAS 28 YEARS OLD.
AND YET, THE HOTEL HOUSEKEEPING
INDUSTRY IS MORE DANGEROUS AND
MORE PRONE TO INJURY THAN BOTH
COAL MINING AND CONSTRUCTION.
DANGEROUS WORK NECESSITATES THE
HIGHEST SAFETY STANDARDS.
ONE OF THE WAYS WE CAN LIMIT
WORK LACE INJURY AND MAKE
PLACES SAFER IS BY AND
LAMENTING SAFETY STANDARDS
THOSE CONTAINED IN AN
INITIATIVE 124.
HOTEL HOUSEKEEPERS ARE EVERY
BIT AS DESERVING OF WORKPLACE
SAFETY STANDARDS AS
CONSTRUCTION WORKERS ARE.
THANK YOU.
[APPLAUSE]
>> IT LOOKS LIKE WE WILL DO
SOME INTERPRETATION?
ARE YOU GUYS A GROUP?
>> EXCELLENT.
I'M SO SORRY.
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME, I AM FROM CHINA.
I WAS A HOUSEKEEPER AT A HOTEL
FOR YEARS.
THE JOB IS VERY HARD ON MY
BODY.
BUT I WORK.
THE MANAGER MAKES IT VERY HARD
TO CLEAN THE ROOMS QUICKLY AND
THEY MAKE US VERY STRESSED OUT.
IN THE PEAK SUMMER SEASON, A
COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, THE
MANAGER FORCED US TO WORK SIX
DAYS OVERTIME.
I GOT ATTACKED ONE DAY.
I WAS VERY DIZZY.
I COULD NOT BREATHE.
AND I COULD NOT STAND OVERTIME.
IT GOT SO BAD.
I I HAD TO GO ON MEDICAL LEAVE.
IT WAS NOT RECOGNIZED BY THE
GOVERNMENT.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO DO
HOUSEKEEPING WORK.
ANYMORE.
I WAS ABLE TO KEEP MY JOB AFTER
ONE YEAR OF MEDICAL LEAVE.
THEN THEY FIRED ME.
PLEASE PASS THIS LAW.
PLEASE, STRONGER HOUSEKEEPER
WORK.
PROTECT AND DON'T LET WHAT
HAPPENED TO ME TO HAPPEN TO
ANYBODY.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[APPLAUSE]
>> THE NEXT FOLKS ARE MAGGIE,
JEREMIAH AND JACQUELINE.
>> MAGGIE, WELCOME.
>> THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, COUNCILMEMBERS.
MY NAME IS MAGGIE AND I WORKED
IN HOSPITALTY FOR 10 YEARS.
SOME OF IT AS A RESTAURANT
SERVER IN A NONUNION MARRIOTT
HOTEL.
ONE NIGHT I WAS WORKING THE
BACK SECTION OF THE RESTAURANT
AND ONE OF MY TABLES WERE HIGH-
PROFILE GUESTS, FORMER VICE
PRESIDENT CHENEY AND HIS
DAUGHTER CONGRESSWOMAN LIZ
CHENEY.
I ALSO HAD A TABLE OF TWO
ALDERMEN WHO WERE DRINKING AND
GETTING UNCOMFORTABLY TOUCHY.
ONE ASKED FOR ME TO BLESS THE
MEAL AND GRABBED MY HAND.
KEPT REACHING OUT TO TOUCH MY
ARMS AND WAIST WHEN I WAS
SERVING THEM.
THEY NOTICE THE CHENEY'S AND
TRY TO CATCH THEIR ATTENTION SO
OUR MANAGER CALLED SECURITY TO
ESCORT THEM OUT OF THE
RESTAURANT.
ON THEIR WAY OUT, ONE PULLED ME
INTO A SMOTHERING HUG IN FRONT
OF ALL OF MY MANAGERS.
I BROKE AWAY AND REST OF THE
KITCHEN, SLAMMING THE DOOR.
SAYING GROWS AND TRYING TO
SHAKE OFF THE ACHY FEELING.
RATHER THAN RISK UPSETTING THE
GUEST'S, AND CALL HIM OUT, OUR
SECURITY MANAGER FOLLOWED ME
INTO THE KITCHEN AND
REPRIMANDED ME, SAYING I HOPE
YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT ME LIKE
THAT.
I FELT DISGUSTED, ASHAMED AND
UNPROTECTED.
WOMEN AND MEN WORKING IN
SEATTLE'S HOTELS TELL ME
STORIES OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT
FAR WORSE THAN THIS.
THAT THEY EXPERIENCE EVERY DAY
IN THE CITY.
THEY ARE EXPECTED TO BEAR THEIR
SHAME AND SILENCE AND LIVE WITH
THE FEAR THEY FEEL WHEN THEY
SEE THE WRESTLERS WALK BACK
INTO THE HOTELS AND
RESTAURANTS.
THIS ISN'T RIGHT.
THE LEGISLATION YOU PASSED
NEEDS TO PROTECT AS MANY
WORKERS AS POSSIBLE IN THE
CITY, INCLUDING RESTAURANT
WORKERS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAGGIE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR BRAVERY.
JEREMIAH.
JACLYN.
>> HELLO.
GOOD MORNING, COUNCILMEMBERS.
I HAVE HEARD TALK OF FAMILY-
OWNED BUSINESSES A NUMBER OF
TIMES TODAY.
I WANT TO BRING UP THAT THE
WORKERS WHO OPERATE, THEY ALSO
HAVE FAMILIES AND WE DESERVE
QUALITY AND SAFETY HEALTHCARE.
IN TIME TO BE WITH OUR FAMILIES
AS WELL.
WITHOUT OUR FAMILIES, WE
WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO OFFER THE
SAME QUALITY OF EMPLOYMENT TO
THESE BUSINESSES.
I WORKED AT THE EDGEWATER FOR
15 YEARS.
16 YEARS IN THE HOSPITALITY
INDUSTRY.
THE EDGEWATER IS OWNED BY THE
NOBLE CORPORATION.
I WORKED FOR ANOTHER NOBLE
HOUSE IS THIS, THE UNIVERSITY
DISTRICT.
THEY SAID CONTRACTED OUT THE
RESTAURANT AND SERVICES.
AS SUCH, THEY OFFERED MUCH
LOWER IF NONE AT ALL, HEALTH
INSURANCE OR BENEFITS AT ALL TO
THEIR EMPLOYEES.
SO I JUST THINK THE
COUNCILMEMBERS SHOULD LOOK TO
PREVENT THESE HOTELS FROM
GIVING LOOPHOLES TO THE
BUSINESSES THAT OPERATE THEIR
RESTAURANTS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> JACLYN?
WELCOME UP.
HONG?
>> GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL
MEMBERS.
I AM JACLYN WE.
A RESIDENT OF BEACON HILL AND
AN ALUMNI OF THE PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON AND A
BOARD MEMBER OF OCA PACIFIC
AMERICANS ADVOCATES OF SEATTLE.
WE ARE DEDICATED TO THE SOCIAL,
ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL
ADVANCEMENT OF ASIAN AND
PACIFIC ISLANDER AMERICANS.
WE SUPPORT THE PASSAGE OF THREE
BILLS AS PART OF A NATIONAL
ORGANIZATION, WE ARE REFUSING
TO HOST A CONFERENCE IN SEATTLE
TO STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH
HOTEL WORKERS.
EVERYONE DESERVES A SAFE PLACE
TO WORK AND ACCESS TO
HEALTHCARE.
EVERYONE DESERVES A WORK
ENVIRONMENT WITHOUT FEAR OF
SEXUAL HARASSMENT.
WE HAVE HOTEL AND SERVICE
WORKERS TAKING TIME ON THEIR
DAY OFF TO TEST FIVE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF HAVING A SAFE
WORKPLACE.
THESE WORKERS AND SURE THE CARE
OF HOTEL GUESTS, AS WELL AS
THAT OF THEIR OWN FAMILY.
THEY ARE THE BACKBONE OF THE
CITY'S ECONOMY AND DESERVE A
SAFE WORKPLACE AND HEALTHCARE.
WE HOPE TO SEE THE PAST OF ALL
THREE BILLS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
STEPHAN?
I THINK YOU'RE UP.
DID I MISS SOMEONE?
>> HONG.
I'M SO SORRY.
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
AND THEN STEPHAN.
>> WELCOME BACK.
>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY.
MY NAME IS HONG AND I AM A
HOUSEKEEPER AT THE DOUBLETREE
HOTEL.
I WORKED THERE FOR 5 YEARS.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT
NATURE OF HOUSEKEEPERS.
WE ARE PAID BY THE HOUR., THE
ROOM, NOT THE HOUR.
HOUSEKEEPERS ARE PAID BY THE
NUMBER OF ROOMS.
YOU NEED TO FINISH AND EIGHT
HOURS.
HOUSEKEEPERS WERE GIVEN A
CERTAIN NUMBER OF ROOMS PER
DAY.
AFTER THE HOUSEKEEPERS HAD
INJURIES, LIKE MY COWORKER, SHE
IS NOT RECOGNIZED FOR THE WORK
INJURIES.
THIS IS PERSONAL.
IN THE HOUSEKEEPER LOST THEIR
ABILITY TO GO BACK TO WORK.
THIS IS THE REASON WE ASK THE
COUNCIL TO PASS IT.
IT IS IMPORTANT.
THAT IS THE PENALTY?
SO EVERYBODY, WE CARE ABOUT THE
PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY.
IF WE LOSE OUR ABILITY TO WORK.
IT HURTS THE COMMITTED.
EVERYBODY HAS A RESPONSIBILITY.
THAT IS WHY I URGE EVER READY
TO PASS IT IN THE PROTECTION
LAW TO PROTECT OUR HOTEL
WORKERS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, HONG.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> I NAME IS STEFAN WITH LOCAL
EIGHT.
FIRST I WANT TO THANK YOU
COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR CONTINUING
TO DIG IN AND MAKE SURE THIS
LEGISLATION IS THE STRONGEST
POSSIBLE LEGISLATION IT CAN BE
TO PROTECT HOTEL HOUSEKEEPERS.
YOU HEARD FROM DON EARLIER.
SHE CAN NO LONGER WORK IN A
HOTEL BECAUSE OF THE INJURIES
THAT SHE HAS SUSTAINED OVER
YEARS OF DOING THIS
HOUSEKEEPING WORK.
YOU HEARD FROM MAGGIE ABOUT HER
EXPERIENCE OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT
ON THE JOB.
SO THESE PROTECTIONS MEAN A LOT
TO FOLKS IN REAL LIFE IN THEIR
DAY-TO-DAY EXPERIENCES.
AND WE STRONGLY SUPPORT YOU IN
FINDING THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE
LEGISLATION FOR HOUSEKEEPERS
FOR RESTAURANT AND HOTEL
WORKERS.
WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT THE
AMENDMENT CONVERSATIONS THAT
YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TODAY.
WE ARE OPEN TO HAVE A
CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW TO PHASE
IN SOME OF THESE PROTECTIONS
FOR REALLY SMALL BUSINESSES WHO
WILL NEED SOME TIME TO BE ABLE
TO DEAL WITH THIS.
BUT OVERALL, WHAT IS IMPORTANT
IS THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WORK IN
THE HOTELS AND THE BUSINESSES
THAT SERVE OUR HOTELS EVERY DAY
CAN GO HOME TO THEIR FAMILY AND
BE THERE FOR THEM AND BE SAFE
AND HEALTHY.
THANK YOU FOR ADVANCING THAT
AGENDA.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I WAS LOOKING AROUND TO SEE
IF THERE WAS ANYBODY ELSE WHO
INTENDED TO SIGN UP FOR THIS
AND DIDN'T GET CALLED.
>> HELLO, TERRY.
WELCOME BACK.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS
IT JUST LIKE WE GO AHEAD AND DO
LINE UP AND WE WILL GET YOU
SENT IT.
SORRY IF I MISSED YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR HAVING US
TODAY.
I HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO
THIS MORNING.
I NAME IS TERRY AND I AM THE
OWNER OF A RESTAURANT LEASE IN
THE SHERATON HOTEL.
I HAVE NO EMPLOYEE CORRELAION
WITH THE HOTEL.
I HAVE, I AM A RESTAURANT
ENTITY ON MY OWN.
I WOULD REALLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO
REVIEW THE ANCILLARY REVIEW YOU
PLACED IN THIS LEGISLATION.
WHEN I HEAR ALL THE PEOPLE
COMPLAINING ABOUT THE WORK, I
AGREE WITH THEM.
A BETTER WORK ENVIRONMENT IS
WHAT WE TRY TO PROVIDE TO
EMPLOYEES.
YOU HAVE TO REMOVE THIS
ANCILLARY WORDING.
AND YOU FOLLOW-UP.
I FORGET HIS NAME.
BUT I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO TALK
TO YOU AND HOW WE DO IT.
WHY THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
US.
YOU ARE MISSING APPLES AND
ORANGES.
PLEASE REVIEW THIS AND REMOVE
ANCILLARY FROM YOUR
LEGISLATION.
THOSE OTHER REPERCUSSIONS OF
THOSE WORDS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> LAST CALL.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE
TO TESTIFY WHO DIDN'T GET A
CHANCE TO SIGN UP?
OKAY.
SEEING NOBODY JUMPING IN.
THANK YOU FOR RAISING YOUR
HAND.
TERRY, WE WILL GET YOU SIGNED
UP AND WE WILL GET YOUR NAME AS
WELL.
>> HELLO.
GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY.
DON'T MIND ME I AM SLIGHTLY
SHY.
SO I WORK FOR, I AM NEW TO
THIS.
BEAR WITH ME.
I WORK FOR THE SEE SUITES AND I
HAVE BEEN A HOUSEKEEPING
BREAKFAST ATTENDANCE SINCE JULY
OF LAST SUMMER.
I LOVE SEEING MY GUEST HAPPY
AND SMILE.
IT IS GREAT WHEN THE GUESTS ARE
HAPPY AND ENJOY THE FOOD AND
SERVICES BUT FRUSTRATING WHEN I
COME HOME AND MY FEET ARE
ACHING AND MY BACK IS HURTING
AND I AM TIRED.
I DON'T HAVE TIME FOR MYSELF OR
MY FAMILY.
AND I HAD TO GET THE NEXT DAY
AND HIT THE GROUND RUNNING.
THE WORST TIME FOR MYSELF.
MY HEALTH IS FADING AWAY.
I JUST GOT OUT OF THE HOSPITAL
THIS WEEK.
BECAUSE I AM JUST SUPER
STRESSED OUT BECAUSE OF THIS
JOB.
I GIVE 1000%.
NOT 100.
I GIVE MY BLOOD, SWEAT AND
TEARS TO THIS PLACE.
FOR THESE PEOPLE TO ACT LIKE
THEY DON'T GIVE TWO CRAPS ABOUT
ME AND I'M DEDICATING MY WHOLE
EVERYTHING JUST GIVING THEM MY
ALL HEART.
I HAVE TO COME HOME WITH AN
ACUTE BACK AND THEY TELL ME
THEY DON'T CARE?
THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME.
I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BE
STRESSING ABOUT A SECOND JOB
RIGHT NOW.
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT I AM
FACING.
BILLS ARE PILING.
YOU KNOW, IT IS RIDICULOUS.
THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> ANYBODY COMING TO TESTIFY
AGAIN TODAY?
WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE
PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE WILL MOVE
INTO ITEMS TWO, THREE AND FOUR
ON THE AGENDA FOR FOLKS HERE TO
RESENT.
THANK YOU CENTRAL STAFF ARE
BEING HERE.
WHEN WE GO AHEAD AND HAVE YOU
READ INTO THE RECORD ITEMS TWO,
THREE AND FOUR.
>> CONSTABLE 119556, AND
ORDINANCE RELATING TO
EMPLOYMENT IN SEATTLE FOR
DISCUSSION AND A POSSIBLE THAT.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE,
119554 AND ORDINANCE RELATING
TO EMPLOYEES LIMITING ROOM
CLEANING WAS FOR CERTAIN
EMPLOYEES FOR DISCUSSION AND A
POSSIBLE THAT.
AND FINALLY, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER
FOUR, CONSTABLE 119557.
AND ORDINANCE RELATING TO
EMPLOYMENT IN SEATTLE,
REQUIRING THEM TO TAKE CERTAIN
ACTIONS TO PRESENT, PREVENT
HARASSING CONDUCT BY GET FOR A
POSSIBLE VOTE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
CENTRAL STUFF, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR THE
RECORD?
>> KARINA BULL, CENTRAL STUFF.
>> DAN, CENTRAL STUFF.
>> EXCELLENT.
I WANT TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER
PACHECO AND COUNCILMEMBER
BAGSHAW FOR BEING HERE.
THANK YOU FOR BEING THERE FOR
PUBLIC TESTIMONY AS WELL.
I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO
RECOGNIZE YOU.
I ALREADY THANKED THE OTHER TWO
COUNCILMEMBERS.
JUST A REMINDER FOR FOLKS AS WE
GET TEED UP WITH SOME OF THE
MATERIALS ON THE SCREEN FOR
PEOPLE TO SEE THE VARIOUS MMS
WE ARE CONSIDERING ON THESE
THREE BELLS.
THIS IS THE EIGHTH TIME THAT WE
ARE HEARING THE HOTEL WORKER
LEGISLATION IN THIS COMMITTEE.
IT FEELS A LOT BECAUSE WE HAVE
HAD A LOT OF WORK TO DO.
WE HAVE ALSO RESPONDED TO A LOT
OF FOLKS ASKING US FOR
ADDITIONAL TIME.
WE ARE,AS YOU HEARD,
DISCUSSING THE POSSIBLE BILLS
TODAY AND WILL BE CONSIDERING
VARIOUS AMENDMENTS ON THESE
THREE PIECES OF LEGISLATION
WITH THE INTENT TO AMEND THE
UNDERLYING BILL AND KEEP IT IN
COMMITTEE AND VOTED OUT NEXT
THURSDAY ALONG WITH HEALTHCARE.
WHICH WILL BE A ROBUST
úDISCUSSION.
BUT WE WANT TO TO MAKE SURE WE
INCLUDED MUCH OF THE FEEDBACK
WE HAVE HEARD FROM VARIOUS
STAKEHOLDERS AND DIVERSE, IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT FOLKS KNOW THAT
THEIR REQUESTS FOR BOTH THE
LANGUAGE AND FOR ADDITIONAL
TIME WAS HEARD AND
INCORPORATED.
WE ARE TODAY CONSIDERING THREE
BELLS, SAFETY, INJURY AND
WORKLOAD.
AND RETENTION IN COMMITTEE.
WILL BE TRACKING AS HE SAID, A
HEALTHCARE CONVERSATION NEXT
THURSDAY AND WE WILL WITH EVERY
INTENT POSSIBLE GET THAT, AS HE
SAW THE DRAFT LEGISLATION WAS
AMENDED IN COMMITTEE.
THREE WEEKS AGO NOW.
AND WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT IF
THERE IS ANY ADDITIONAL
AMENDMENTS, THAT WE GET THOSE
SENT TO THE COMMITTEE FAR IN
ADVANCE OF NEXT WEEK'S
CONVERSATION.
THE BILLS THAT ARE IN FRONT OF
US TODAY ARE PRESENT NOT OUR
THOUGHTS, NOT CENTRAL STAFF'S
THOUGHTS ON A WHIM BUT IT
REPRESENTS MULTIPLE
CONVERSATIONS WE HAVE HAD WITH
STAKEHOLDERS ACROSS THE BOARD,
INCLUDING COMING DIRECTLY FROM
MANY OF YOU ON COUNSEL.
I WANT TO THANK A HANDFUL OF
FOLKS, ESPECIALLY STARTING WITH
OUR CENTRAL STAFF WHO HAS BEEN
DILIGENTLY ENGAGED WITH US ON
COMMITTEE AND ON THE FULL
COUNSEL IN TERMS OF OUR
THOUGHTS AND DESIRES OF YOU
HAVE RESEARCHED SOME OF THOSE.
THEY HAVE COME DIRECTLY FROM
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT.
I WANT TO THINK IN A BOON AND
JOHN LANE OF THE HOTEL MANAGERS
AND RESTAURANTS WHO HAVE BEEN
MEETING WITH US REGULARLY TO
GET THIS POLICY FULLY THAT IT
AND WE UNDERSTAND THERE ARE
POINTS OF DISAGREEMENT BUT WE
WILL KEEP MEETING WEEKLY.
WE WANT TO FINISH AND THANK YOU
TO THE TEAM AT UNITE FOR
ENGAGING WITH US WEEKLY AS WE
HAVE BEEN CONSIDERING NOT JUST
HOW THIS LEGISLATION COMPARES
TO INITIATIVE 124 BUT WHAT IT
LOOKS LIKE A TO OTHER CITIES
AND MUNICIPALITIES THAT HAVE
PASSED SIMILAR LEGISLATION AND
LEARNING FROM THOSE
MUNICIPALITIES.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO ENGAGE
WEEKLY AS WELL.
WE UNDERSTAND THERE IS ALSO
POINT OF DISAGREEMENT.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK TO TRY
TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE
QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP.
AND WANT TO THANK THE FOLKS WHO
HAVE HELPED TO PROVIDE YOU BOTH
WITH FEEDBACK AS YOU ARE
REPRESENTING A LARGE NUMBER OF
INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS.
ALSO, AS IT RELATES TO SAFETY
PROTECTIONS AND WORKLOAD, IT IS
REALLY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT
WE HAVE BEEN ENGAGED WITH THE
KING COUNTY SEXUAL ASSAULT
RESOURCE CENTER AND THE KING
COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE.
THEY HAVE BEEN HEAVILY ENGAGED
WITH US AS WE THINK ABOUT
SAFETY PROTECTIONS FOR WORKERS
SO THAT NO ONE IS IN A
SITUATION WHERE THEY, WHERE
THEY ARE EXPERIENCING
HARASSMENT OR ASSAULT, UNWANTED
TOUCHING OR COMMENTS LIKE THE
CONVERSATION WE HEARD TODAY IN
PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
THAT WHEN THAT OCCURS, WE HAVE
THE APPROPRIATE PROTECTIONS IN
PLACE.
THANK YOU TO THE KING COUNTY
SEXUAL ASSAULT RESOURCE CENTER
AND KING COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S
OFFICE.
WE WANT TO THANK AS WELL THE
ACLU WHO HAS BEEN ENGAGED WITH
US OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS AND
I BELIEVE IS SENDING AN UPDATED
COMMUNICATION OUR WAY REGARDING
SOME OF THE PROTECTIONS THAT WE
HAVE PUT INTO PLACE WHEN AN
INCIDENT HAS OCCURRED.
HOW WE HANDLE THAT CURRENTLY
AND HOW WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE
SOME OF THOSE PROTECTIONS FOR
WORKERS SUSPENDED.
THEY HAVE BEEN TREMENDOUS TO
WORK WITH AND WE APPRECIATE THE
CONCERNS RAISED AND THAT THEY
HAVE WORKED WITH US TO HELP
ADDRESS WAYS TO MITIGATE THOSE
CONCERNS AND PUT FORWARD ROBUST
LEGISLATION IN FRONT OF YOUR.
THANK YOU TO THE ACLU.
I WANT TO THANK AS WELL ONE
AMERICA AND THE REFUGEE WOMEN'S
ALLIANCE FOR THEIR ENGAGEMENT
WITH US AS WE THINK ABOUT WHO
THESE WORKERS ARE AND
COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO HAS BEEN
GREAT ABOUT REMINDING US AS
WELL OF YOUR INDIVIDUAL
EXPERIENCES.
THE EXPERIENCE WE HEARD FROM
ANY OF THE FOLKS WHO HAVE COME
TO TESTIFY.
A LOT OF THE WORKERS WHO WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT PROTECTING OUR
WOMEN.
PEOPLE OF COLOR AND IMMIGRANTS.
HAVING ONE AMERICA AND THE
REFUGEE WOMEN'S ALLIANCE
PROVIDING US WITH FEEDBACK HAS
BEEN VERY HELPFUL.
I WILL SAVE ALL OF OUR
ADDITIONAL THANK YOU'S FOR THE
ROBUST NUMBER OF STAKEHOLDERS
WHO ARE INVOLVED.
INCLUDING THE CITY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE WHO HAS BEEN HELPFUL
WITH BEDDING VARIOUS LANGUAGE.
I WANTED TO BRING THAT UP SO
FOLKS KNEW HOW LARGE THE
STAKEHOLDER ENAGEMENT HAS
BEEN.
IT HAS NOT BEEN ONE-SIDED OR
JUST ONE TIME.
IT IS BEEN ONGOING.
WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT SOME OF THE
PIECES THAT WE WILL CONSIDER
TODAY ON THE VARIOUS AMENDMENTS
REFLECT THIS PERSPECTIVES WE
HAVE HEARD FROM BOTH ACADEMICS
AND COMMUNITY EXPERTS AND FOLKS
ON THE GROUND.
IT IS SO WITH THAT, I SEE THE
COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
>> JUST TO HAVE A TRANSPARENT
AND OPEN DIALOGUE, I APPRECIATE
ALL OF THE COMMENTS YOU HAVE
MADE.
THAT I KNOW THAT MANY COUNCIL
MEMBERS AT THIS TABLE HAVE BEEN
WORKING FEVERISHLY TO NEGOTIATE
OUTREACH, TO LISTEN TO AS MANY
OPINIONS AS POSSIBLE.
I STILL GET CORRESPONDENCE AND
CALLS FROM, PARTICULARLY THE
SMALL BUSINESS COMMUNITY,
SAYING WE HAVE DONE AND AN
ADEQUATE JOB.
SO MAYBE YOU COULD REFUTE THAT
OR RESPOND TO IT BECAUSE I GET
THOSE CALLS AND I HAVE GOTTEN
THEM AS EARLY AS TODAY.
AND YOU KNOW, THIS KIND OF
LEGISLATION, YOU ARE NOT GOING
TO PLEASE EVERYONE.
I HAVE BEEN AROUND THE BLOCK
ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT BUT ARE YOU
CONFIDENT WITH THE LEVEL OF
OUTREACH, LISTENING FOR EXAMPLE
TO THE RESPONDENTS WHEN WE GET
TO THE LETTER OF THE ADVISORY
COUNCIL THAT WE GOT.
IT WAS, IT REFUTES WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING A BIT ABOUT THE LEVEL OF
OUTREACH.
I HAVE BEEN SOMEWHAT REMOVED
FROM IT.
I JUST DON'T KNOW.
SO THAT IS NOT A GOTCHA KIND OF
QUESTION BUT OPENLY TALK ABOUT
THE POSITION OR THE OUTREACH
THUS FAR?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> I APPRECIATE YOU RAISING
THAT.
ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD
SUGGEST IS THAT AS WE DO
OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT, WE
KNOW THAT IF THE CONVERSATION
HAPPENS, IT DOESN'T EQUAL A BUY
OFF.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT NO ONE
IS HEARING YOU SUGGEST THAT.
BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ENGAGING
WITH A BROAD SET OF
STAKEHOLDERS AS I MENTIONED,
EVERYONE FROM UNITE HERE TO THE
HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY, WE ARE
NOT JUST MEETING THE HOTEL
INDUSTRY, THEY ALSO REPRESENT
THE RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION AS
WELL.
THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY AS IT
RELATES TO HOSPITALITY
SERVICES.
SO THAT IS NOT ALL-
ENCOMPASSING.
THERE'S NOT ONE PERSPECTIVE
JUST LIKE THERE IS NOT ONE
PERSPECTIVE ON LABOR PER SE.
BUT WE HAVE RECEIVED A NUMBER
OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE WRITTEN US
WITH SOME FEEDBACK.
SOME HAS BEEN RADICAL AT TIMES.
WE HAVE TRIED TO WORK ON SOME
OF THOSE AMENDMENTS AND I THINK
WHAT YOU WILL SEE SPECIFICALLY
TO SAFETY PROTECTIONS, WE HAVE
INCORPORATED FEEDBACK FROM
FOLKS LIKE THE ACLU WHO HAVE
RAISED CONCERNS INITIALLY AND
THEN WE HAVE TRIED TO INCLUDE
SOME OF US.
WHAT YOU WILL SEE AS WELL WHEN
IT COMES TO SOME OF THE
LANGUAGE WE ARE CONSIDERING
TODAY, AGAIN, I'M NOT
SUGGESTING THAT EVERYBODY HAS
BOUGHT IN BUT WHAT YOU WILL SEE
FROM US TODAY IS AMENDED
VERSION OF ANCILLARY BUSINESS
FOR EXAMPLE SO THAT WE ARE
BEING PRETTY NARROW IN THE
DEFINITION OR MORE NARROW IN
THE DEFINITION OF WHO IS BEING
APPLIED TO.
YOU WILL SEE AS WELL WE THINK
ABOUT HEALTHCARE NEXT WEEK, WHO
IS BEING INCORPORATED AND WHO
IS NOT.
IT IS SPECIFIC TO THE CONCERNS
THAT HAVE COME UP AROUND
PHASING IN SOME OF THESE
PROTECTIONS.
WE HAVE SOME AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
THAT YOU PROBABLY, WE WILL, I
THINK YO WILL APPRECIATE.
SO IT IS RELATED TO PHASING IN
SOME OF THESE PROTECTIONS FOR
OUR SMALLEST EMPLOYERS.
SO THAT IS ONE PIECE I WOULD
OFFER.
COUNCIL MEMBER GONZALES?
>> I THINK YOU HAVE DONE A GOOD
JOB OF SUMMARIZING IT.
I THINK THAT WHEN WE DO
COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND
ENGAGEMENT OF SEE, REGARDLESS
OF THE ISSUE, IT IS DIFFICULT
TO SATISFY EVERYONE.
AND IT IS OFTEN THE CASE THAT
THERE ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE
JUST SORT OF CAUGHT ON TO A
PARTICULAR ISSUE AND MAY
DISAGREE WITH THE POLICY
DISCUSSION.
ULTIMATE OUTCOME.
THAT LEADS TO A FEELING THAT
PERHAPS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
WASN'T THERE.
BUT IN THIS CASE, THE REALITY
IS THAT THIS BILL, THIS
INITIATIVE PASSED ORIGINALLY IN
2016.
THERE WAS A LENGTHY RULEMAKING
PROCESS WHERE A LOT OF VARIOUS
SIZED BUSINESSES AND
STAKEHOLDERS WERE INCLUDED FROM
BOTH THE LABOR SIDE, WORKER
SIDE AND THE BUSINESS SIDE.
THEY THEN SORT OF ULTIMATELY
LED TO THIS ENTIRE PROCESS AS
YOU HEARD COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA MENTION.
WE HAVE HAD A COMMITTEE
MEETINGS AND ROBUST PUBLIC
TESTIMONY FROM A VARIETY OF
DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS IN THIS
CHAMBER.
WE SAW THAT AGAIN TODAY.
AND WE CONTINUE TO ALSO RECEIVE
A LOT OF INPUT VIA EMAIL AND
PHONE CALLS FROM A VARIETY OF
STAKEHOLDERS.
I CONSIDER ALL OF THAT TO BE
ENGAGEMENT.
AND DO FEEL WE ARE IN A PLACE
NOW WITH THE SUBSTITUTE BILLS
THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER TODAY,
AND AN ADDITIONAL SUBSTITUTE
BILL WE WILL CONSIDER NEXT
WEEK.
I THINK AS SPONSORS OF THE
BILL, WE HAVE MADE SOME
REVOCATIONS THAT I THINK ARE
REASONABLE TO THE ORIGINAL
INITIATIVE THAT WAS PASSED IN
2016.
I THINK A REFLECTIVE OF SOME OF
THE FEEDBACK WE HAVE HEARD THAT
HAS BEEN CONSISTENT AMONGST THE
INDUSTRY.
AND CONSISTENT AMONGST THE
WORKER REPRESENTATIVES AND
LABOR.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN EVERYBODY GOT
WHAT THEY WANTED.
BUT IT DOES MEAN THAT HE MADE
OUR BEST EFFORTS TO LISTEN AND
BE RESPONSIVE IN THE PERIOD OF
TIME WE HAVE ALLOTTED TO HAVE
THIS IMPORTANT POLICY
CONVERSATION ABOUT THESE WORKER
PROTECTIONS.
FOR ME, MY NORTHSTAR HERE IS TO
MAKE SURE THAT ULTIMATELY WE
HAVE A SET OF BILLS THAT WILL
PROTECT WORKERS AND THAT I
STILL FILL IS A STRONG SET OF
LABOR PROTECTIONS FOR THE
SECTOR OF WORKERS.
I BELIEVE THAT WE WILL BE ABLE
TO ACCOMPLISH THAT WITH A
VERSION OF SUBSTITUTE BILLS WE
WILL BE DISCUSSING TODAY.
>> THAT, PERHAPS SOME OF THE
AMENDMENTS WE WOULD CONSIDER
TODAY, HELPED SPEAK TO SOME OF
THE FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED AND IF
WE COULD GO AHEAD AND WALK
THROUGH THESE.
FOR COUNCIL COLLEAGUES, WELCOME
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN FOR BEING
HERE.
IF, WHAT YOU GET FROM CENTRAL
STAFF IS A HANDOUT ON EACH ONE
OF THE BILLS WE ARE
CONSIDERING.
WE WILL START WITH THE HOTEL
RETENTION LEGISLATION.
EACH ONE OF OUR COUNCIL
COLLEAGUES, DO WE HAVE THIS
TABLE ALREADY?
>> SO MAY I? JUST TO BE CLEAR,
YOU SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THIS
PARTICULAR CHART THAT SAYS
SUBSTITUTE BILL JOB RETENTION
D4.
THIS IS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO.
RIGHT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> AND WHAT WE WOULD LIKE
COUNCIL COLLEAGUES TO FOCUS ON
WITH THIS, BUT WE WILL DO HIS
HANDOUTS THE TABLE FOR EACH
BILL SO THAT THE DOCUMENTS
DON'T GET CONFUSED.
BUT WE WILL SEE WITH THIS
TABLE, IT IS A CONVERSATION
SPECIFIC TO A SUBSTITUTE BILL,
WE TRY TO INCORPORATE SOME
FEEDBACK THAT MANY COUNCIL
COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN WORKING ON
AND I WILL SAVE MY THANK YOU'S
FOR VARIOUS MEMBERS AND A
MINUTE.
BUT WE WILL ASK CENTRAL STAFF
TO WALK US THROUGH BUT THE
TABLE INCLUDES SO YOU CAN SEE
BASICALLY WHAT THE AMENDMENTS
ARE TO AN UNDERLYING BILL THAT
HAS A TECHNICAL AND THESE TWO
MAJOR POLICIES.
THESE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
INCLUDED.
>> ALL RIGHT.
SO AS THIS CHART SHOWS, THERE
ARE FIVE CHANGES THAT ARE
IDENTIFIED.
THE FIRST CHANGE RELATES TO THE
DEFINITION OF ANCILLARY HOTEL
BUSINESS.
JUST TO GROUND EVERYONE IN THE
HISTORY OF THIS CONCEPT OF
ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESS, IT
STARTED WITH INITIATIVE 24.
WHERE IN THE DEFINITION OF
HOTEL, IT ALSO INCLUDED
CONTRACTED LEASED OR SUBLET
PREMISES OPERATING IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE BUILDINGS
PURPOSE.
FOR THIS LEGISLATION, THERE WAS
A NEW TERM THAT WAS USED TO
DESCRIBE THIS KIND OF THIS.
ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESS.
THAT IS WHAT THIS REVISION
ADDRESSES.
THERE WAS ORIGINALLY A
DIFFERENT DEFINITION.
DIFFERENT THAN 124.
THIS VERSION D4 HAS A
DEFINITION THAT IDENTIFIES
THREE DISTINCT KINDS OF
BUSINESSES.
ONE, IT COULD BE A BUSINESS
THAT ROUTINELY CONTRACTS WITH
THE HOTEL FOR SERVICES IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE HOTEL'S
PURPOSE.
NUMBER TWO, IT COULD BE A
BUSINESS THAT LEASES OR SUBLET
SPACE AT THE SIDE OF THE HOTEL
FOR SERVICES IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE HOTEL'S PURPOSE OR
THREE, IT COULD BE A BUSINESS
THAT PROVIDES FOOD AND
BEVERAGES TO HOTEL GUESTS AND
THE PUBLIC WITH AN ENTRANCE
WITHIN THE HOTEL PREMISES.
SOMETHING TO NOTE FOR THE FIRST
TWO KINDS OF BUSINESSES IS THAT
THEY ARE DEFINED BY THE HOTEL'S
PURPOSE.
JUST NOT DESCRIBED IN THE
LEGISLATION.
THE IDEA IS THAT THE OFFICE OF
LABOR STANDARDS COULD DEVELOP
CLARIFICATION AND
INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE
HOTEL PURPOSE IS.
THROUGH A RULEMAKING PROCESS.
>> THIS IS I THINK THE ONE THAT
WE HAVE WORKED ON THE LONGEST
AND THE HARDEST.
I JUST WANT TO ENSURE THE
GENTLEMAN WHO IS CURRENTLY
LOOKING AT HIS CELL PHONE THAT
THAT WE HAD NOT BEEN MEETING
WITH HOTELS, I THINK WE HAVE.
I HAVE BEEN TALKING TO PEOPLE
REGULARLY ABOUT THIS.
TRYING TO GET THIS IS RIGHT AS
WE POSSIBLY CAN.
I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
SOMETHING.
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA, YOU AND
I SPOKE ABOUT 5:00 AND SHORTLY
AFTER THAT CONVERSATION, I DID
GET AN EMAIL FROM THE HOTEL
REPRESENTATIVE THAT ASKED US TO
HAVE AND INSTEAD OF OARS IN THE
LANGUAGE.
SO THE IDEA IS THAT A BUSINESS
THAT CONTRACTS WITH THE HOTEL
FOR SERVICES IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE HOTEL PURPOSES IS
ACTUALLY ON SITE.
SO THE CONCERN WAS IF WE HAVE
THIS LANGUAGE IN WITHOUT SAYING
AND LEASES OR SUBCONTRACTED
SPACE THE SIDE OF THE HOTEL,
THAT IT COULD BE INTERPRETED
THAT ANYBODY THAT DOES ANY WORK
FOR THE HOTEL REGULARLY AND
CONTRACTS IT WOULD BE INCLUDED
RATHER THAN JUST FOCUSING ON
THE HOTEL WORKERS.
SO I WANTED TO BRING THAT UP
TODAY, THAT WHERE WE HAVE
NUMBER TWO, THAT IF IT WERE TO
SAY ROUTINELY CONTRACTS WITH
THE HOTEL FOR SERVICES IN
CONJUNCTION WITH HOTELS PURPOSE
AND LEASES OR SUMMED CONTRACTS
SPACE ON THE SIDE OF THE HOTEL,
THAT I BELIEVE WE WOULD HAVE
THE SUPPORT OF THE ORGANIZATION.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER.
IT WAS REALLY HELPFUL TO WORK
WITH YOU ON THIS.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
ONGOING ENGAGEMENT WITH OUR
OFFICE.
AND YOUR OFFICE HAS BEEN VERY
HELPFUL WAS TRYING TO BRING
STORM AND BRING LANGUAGE.
WE HAVE ALL BEEN WORKING
DILIGENTLY TO DO OUTREACH TO
THE VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS ACROSS
THE BOARD TO THAT LANGUAGE.
YOU AND I HAVE A SIMILAR GOAL
HERE.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT FOLKS
WHO ARE WORKING IN THIS AREA,
IN THIS INDUSTRY, CAN,
INCLUDING THE TYPE OF INDUSTRY
THAT WAS MENTIONED WHERE SHE
WAS WORKING IN A RESTAURANT AND
INTIMIDATED AND HARASSED, THAT
THOSE FOLKS IN THE INDUSTRY, IN
THE HOTEL INDUSTRY ACTUALLY
HAVE THE PROTECTIONS.
OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A DEFINITION
WE ARE TRYING TO APPLY ACROSS
VARIOUS PIECES OF LEGISLATION.
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE HAD
LANGUAGE THAT WE FELT
COMFORTABLE WITH APPLYING
ACROSS THE BOARD.
I THINK THAT ADDING AN AND
DEFINITELY CHANGES THE SCOPE OF
WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AND
REALLY MAKES IT SOMETHING THAT
I CAN'T SUPPORT.
AND I APPRECIATE THAT NOT
EVERYBODY IS HAPPY WITH EVERY
SINGLE WORD THERE, INCLUDING
THAT BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT
ANYONE INDUSTRY IS HAPPY WITH
IT.
AT THE LANGUAGE YOU AND I
WORKED ON, THAT IS REFLECTED IN
THE CHART, IS WHAT I AM
COMFORTABLE WITH.
IT IS ALL ALIGNED WITH THE
GOALS AND VALUES WE HAVE BEEN
TALKING ABOUT AND WE WOULD
RESPECTFULLY NOT BE ABLE TO
SUPPORT THAT.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT.
>> CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION?
>> I WANT TO UNDERSTAND.
I WASN'T SURE WHERE YOUR AND
WENT?
>> G4?
>> THE WORD OR?
>>> IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE
CHART, IT WOULD SAY THAT ANY
BUSINESS THAT ROUTINELY
CONTRACTS WITH THE HOTEL FOR
SERVICES IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE HOTEL'S PURPOSE AND LEASES
OR SUBLET SPACE THE SIDE OF THE
HOTEL.
I BELIEVE THAT IT DEALS AND
ADDRESSES WITH SOME OF THE
CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE HEARD
FROM THE HOTELS.
NOT JUST TODAY BUT PREVIOUSLY.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF OUR CHEF IN
THE HAT IS STILL HERE.
BUT THE POINT WE ARE TRYING TO
ADDRESS HERE IS THAT IF IT IS
AN ENTITY THAT IS JUST
SUBLEASING SPACE, BUT THE
EXAMPLE WE HAVE USED IS A STORY
BILL COFFEE OUTSIDE OF THE
ALEXIS HOTEL.
IT DEFINITELY SUBCONTRACTS OR
CONTACTS AND LEASES SPACE BUT
IT IS PRIMARILY JUST LEASING
SPACE.
IT IS NOT PRIMARILY THERE FOR
THE GUESTS.
IT IS FOR ANYBODY.
IT SERVES COFFEE TO THE PUBLIC
BECAUSE THEY WALK BY THE
STREET.
I THINK WE HAVE DONE WELL TO
ADDRESS THAT IN HERE BECAUSE
THAT IS NOT IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE HOTEL PURPOSE.
IT IS SIMPLY PROVIDING COFFEE
TO PEOPLE IN THE STREET.
THEY ARE LEASING IT.
WITH THE CONCERN I HEARD LAST
NIGHT WAS IF IT IS OFFERING
FOOD AND BEVERAGES AND WITHIN
THE HOTEL AND IT IS CLEARLY
DESIGNED FOR BOTH PUBLIC AND
THE HOTEL GUEST, THAT YOU WOULD
WANT THE AND THERE TO FOCUS ON
WHAT IS AT THE HOTEL SITE
ITSELF.
NOT CONTRACTING FOR WINDOW
WASHING AS AN EXAMPLE.
THERE IS NOT A LOCATION IN
THERE WITHIN THE HOTEL.
I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT WE
HAVE COME SO CLOSE HERE, WE
HAVE COME SO FAR OVER THE LAST
FEW MONTHS TO ARRIVE AT THIS
DEFINITION BUT I WANT TO
CONTINUE TO JUST LISTEN TO
PEOPLE THAT HAVE SOME CONCERNS
AND HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY BEFORE
NEXT WEEK TO SEE IF WE COULD
FINE-TUNE THIS A BIT.
>> THE SAME LANGUAGE THAT WE
ARE LOOKING AT HERE IS WHAT I
SHARED WITH THE VERY FOLKS
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT YOU
TALKED TO AFTER 5 PM.
AT 9 AM YESTERDAY.
WE ASKED FOR FEEDBACK AND THAT
FEEDBACK WAS NOT OFFERED.
I THINK THE EXAMPLE OF STORY
BILL IS A GOOD EXAMPLE WHERE
THEY DO NOT HAVE AN ENTRANCE
INTO THE HOTEL.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT IS THE
EXAMPLE THAT WOULD NECESSARILY
GET CAUGHT UP HERE.
IT IS ANOTHER GOOD EXAMPLE OF
WHERE BISCUIT IT AROUND THE
CORNER WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN
THIS DEFINITION.
THAT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR
US AS WE CONSIDERED
LEGISLATION.
>> THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE
FEEDBACK ON THIS WAS GIVEN IN
THE MORNING YESTERDAY.
AND WE DID NOT HEAR THAT
SPECIFIC FEEDBACK.
I THINK AT THIS POINT, I AM NOT
COMFORTABLE WITH IT.
COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT AND THEN I SEE YOU,
MIKE O'BRIEN.
>> SO AGAIN, I WANTED TO THANK
YOU FOR HAVING SO MANY
MEETINGS.
I KNOW YOU ARE WORKING.
MANY PEOPLE ARE WORKING HARD ON
THIS.
I HAVE TRIED TO ATTEND AS MANY
AS POSSIBLE.
I EXPRESSED IN ONE OF THE
EARLIER HEARINGS, MY CONCERN
ABOUT JUST STEPPING BACK FROM
IT.
INCLUDING ANCILLARY HOTEL
BUSINESSES PERIOD.
I SAID I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT.
BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION IS,
THAT SAFETY AND THE HEALTH
CONCERNS OF HOTEL WORKERS, THAT
ISSUE ABOUT BAD ACTORS COME UP
BAD PATRONS, I UNDERSTAND THAT
AND I UNDERSTAND 124 THERE WAS
INCLUSION ON INSULAR
BUSINESSES.
BUT THE ISSUE OF HARASSMENT AND
BAD ERRORS AND THAT KIND OF
STUFF, THAT APPLIES TO THE
HOTEL WORKERS.
FOR THE ANCILLARY BUSINESSES IT
IS ABOUT THE HEALTHCARE PIECE?
CORRECT?
THAT IS WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED
ABOUT.
THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE
SAME KINDS OF BAD ACTS BY THE
PATRONS.
SO IS THE REASON WE ARE
INCLUDING ANCILLARY BUSINESSES
PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE
HEALTHCARE TREND?
TRYING TO INCLUDE AS MANY
EMPLOYEES IN HEALTHCARE PIECE
OF IT?
OR ARE THEY SUBJECT TO THE SAME
KINDS OF HARASSMENT AND
MISCONDUCT THAT THE HOTEL
WORKERS ARE?
>> I CERTAINLY 2 FOR 2 THE
SPONSORS OF THE SUBSTITUTE TO
SPEAK TO THEIR INTENT.
BUT I JUST, FOR CLARIFICATION,
THE MATRIX THAT KARINA IS
WALKING THROUGH IS WITH RESPECT
TO THE JOB RETENTION BILL.
WE ARE NOT YET UP TO EITHER THE
HARASSMENT OR CONDUCT BILL THAT
IS COMING LATER TODAY OR THE
HEALTH AXIS TO MEDICAL CARE
WHICH IS COMING NEXT WEEK.
>> THAT WOULD APPLY TO ALL.
>> RIGHT NOW WE ARE JUST
LOOKING AT THE JOB RETENTIO
BILL.
THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE JOB
RETENTION BILL.
>> LET ME ASK MY QUESTION VERY
SPECIFICALLY.
WE ARE INCLUDING ANCILLARY
BUSINESSES BECAUSE IT IS A
CARRYOVER LANGUAGE FROM I-24
AND WE ARE REQUIRED TO?
OR ARE WE CONCERNED ABOUT
HEALTHCARE BENEFITS?
OR HARASSMENT?
WHY ARE WE INCLUDING THEM?
WHAT IS THE POLICY BEHIND IT?
IS IT CARRYOVER LANGUAGE?
BECAUSE I AM HEARING A LOT OF
TESTAMENT ON THE HEALTH AND
SAFETY OF HOTEL WORKERS.
I AM IN ON THAT BUT I AM
STRUGGLING WITH THE INCLUSION.
I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE.
THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF PUBLIC
TESTIMONY ASKING ABOUT IT.
BUT I AM TRYING TO SEE WHAT IS
DRIVING THAT.
IS IT THE HEALTHCARE PIECE?
>> I MEAN, I THINK IT IS A YES
AND.
I THINK THESE ARE FUNDAMENTALLY
NOW POLICY QUESTIONS FOR THE
CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER.
I WOULDN'T SAY THE HEALTHCARE
BILL IS THE DRIVER OF THESE
DECISIONS.
I WOULD THINK THAT WE HAVE TO
LOOK AT EACH OF THESE BILLS
SEPARATELY, IDENTIFY WITH THE
INTENT OF EACH OF THESE
SEPARATE BILLS IS AND THEN MAKE
A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER,
WHO SHOULD BE COVERED BY THESE
PARTICULAR LABOR REGULATIONS.
IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY
OTHER POLICY QUESTION WE HAVE
HAD TO DEAL WITH ALL OTHER
TYPES OF LABOR STANDARDS THE
CITY HAS PASSED.
BEFORE TODAY.
SO WHEN THIS, IN THIS CONTEXT,
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT JOB
RETENTION IN PARTICULAR.
THERE WERE JOB RETENTION
PROVISIONS IN AN INITIATIVE 124
ORIGINALLY.
IT HAD INCLUDED ALL ANCILLARY
HOTEL BUSINESSES REGARDLESS OF
SIZE, TYPE OF BUSINESS, OR
GEOGRAPHIC SPATIAL LOCATION.
AND WHAT WE HAVE DONE NOW IS
COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT
DEFINITION WITHIN THE JOB
RETENTION COMPONENTS THAT
NARROWS THE SCOPE OF A ABILITY
OF WHICH ANCILLARY HOTEL
BUSINESSES WOULD BE COVERED
UNDER THE HOTEL JOB RETENTION
PORTION OF THE ENTIRE PACKAGE.
SO THIS IS A POLICY DISCUSSION
SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO, DO WE
BELIEVE IT IS A, IS IT FAIR TO
HAVE JOB RETENTION COMPONENTS
APPLY TO NOT JUST HOTELS BUT
HOTEL BUSINESSES THAT ARE
PROVIDING A HOTEL SERVICE TO
HOTELS FOR HOTEL PURPOSES?
WITH THE SAME JOB RETENTION
PROTECTIONS.
THAT IS THE POLICY QUESTION
BEFORE US AND IS ONE OF THE
COSPONSORS, I CAN SAY IT IS
FAIR TO DO THAT.
AND THAT IS WHAT IS REPRESENTED
IN THIS NUCLEAR LEGISLATIVE
BILL.
>> COMES MEMBER O'BRIEN?
>> I JUST WANT TO SPEAK TO
COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW'S
QUESTION.
BETWEEN ONE AND TWO.
FOR ME, THE CRITICAL PIECE ON
THE JOB RETENTION BILL, WE HAVE
HAD A LOT OF OTHER BILLS.
THERE IS NOT A PATH WHERE THE
FOLKS CLEANING THE ROOMS, IF
THEY ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE
HOTEL, THEY GET TREATED ONE MY.
BUT IF YOU SUBCONTRACT THE WORK
THEY DON'T.
THAT IS WHY THAT TYPE OF WORK,
THEY DON'T HAVE AN OFFICE IN
THE HOTEL.
THEY DON'T RE-SPACE WORKERS
THAT ARE CONTRACTED.
THAT IS WHY I SUPPORT YOUR
ANALYSIS, COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA, THAT UNDERMINES,
UNDERLINES THE ATTEND OF THE
BILL.
>> IS A MEMBER O'BRIEN, SPEAK
TO ME ABOUT WHAT PARTICULAR
EFFORTS, WE ARE NOT TALKING
ABOUT CONTRACTING OUT THROUGH
HOTEL CLEANING SERVICES.
ARE THERE OTHER COMPANIES THAT
YOU HAVE EITHER SPOKEN TO THAT
ARE WORRIED THEY WON'T BE
INCLUDED AND THEY SHOULDN'T BE?
>> A LITTLE BIT, TO KARINA'S
QUESTION ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES
HOTEL SERVICES.
I WOULD SAY THAT GENERALLY THE
TYPES OF THINGS THAT I THINK A
HOTEL PROVIDES, I DON'T KNOW
WHEN I GO TO A HOTEL IF THE
PERSON WHO CLEANS MY ROOM, THE
PERSON WHO PARKS THE CAR, I
DON'T USUALLY BRING A CAR TO A
HOTEL, BUT IF THOSE WORKERS ARE
GETTING AT PAYCHECK WITH THE
NAME OF THE HOTEL ON IT OR IF
THEY ARE A THIRD PARTY.
BUT I THINK THOSE PEOPLE ARE
WORKING FOR THE HOTEL.
BY THE THAN INDIRECTLY.
THEY SHOULD RECEIVE THE
BENEFITS OF THIS.
THE FEAR WOULD BE THAT THERE
ARE HOTELS IN OUR COMMUNITY
THAT WANT TO TREAT EMPLOYEES
REALLY WELL.
AND THEY DO.
BUT MEANS THAT SOMETIMES IT
COSTS MORE TO DO THAT.
IF THERE IS ANOTHER HOTEL
COMPETING WITH THEM, TO AVOID
THIS OR THAT, THEN THEY HAVE A
RACE TO THE BOTTOM.
I WANT TO PREVENT THAT.
I THINK THIS LEGISLATION IS
CRAFTED AND IT ALLOWS FOR THE
BISCUIT SITUATION TO HAVE MORE
FLEXIBILITY.
I LOVE THAT WE GET TO SAY THAT
ON THE MICROPHONE BECAUSE THAT
IS THE NAME OF THE BUSINESS.
IT ALLOWS THAT FLEXIBILITY
WHICH IS DIFFERENT.
IT STILL PROTECTS THE CORE
WORKERS THAT I SEE.
BUT YOU KNOW, WE ARE DRAWING A
LINE SOMEWHERE.
I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE,
MICHAEL AT LEAST IN SETTING
POLICY IS TO BE FAIRLY
PERMISSIVE IN DRAWING THAT LINE
TO CAPTURE AS MANY THE HOTEL
WORKERS, WE MIGHT CATCH A FEW
THINGS THAT WEREN'T INTENDED
AND WE WILL TRY TO BE AS CLEVER
AS WE CAN BUT I THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT NOT TO DRAW THE LINE
THE OTHER WAY WILL RELEASE A
BUNCH OF WORKERS THAT SHOULD BE
PROTECTED AND DON'T.
ONE OF THE REASONS, HOW MANY
MEETINGS HAVE WE HAD?
THERE'VE BEEN A LOT OF
CONVERSATIONS GOING ON.
WE ARE GETTING TO A POINT WHERE
I WAS FEELING LIKE THE LINE IS
BECOMING PRETTY CLEAR.
IT IS PROBABLY NOT PERFECT BUT
I THINK IT MIGHT BE CLOSE TO AS
GOOD AS WE CAN DO FOR NOW.
>> COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ?
>> I THINK ON THIS PARTICULAR
DEFINITION, I FEEL LIKE I KEEP
TRAVELING IN A TIME MACHINE
BACKWARDS.
I WOULD AGREE WITH
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN , I FEEL
LIKE WE HAVE DRAWN THE LINE AS
CLOSE AND AFFINITIES AS WE CAN
TO STILL GIVE ME THE SENSE OF
CONFIDENCE THAT THIS BILL AND
THE OTHER THREE BILLS THAT HAVE
YET TO BE DISCUSSED ARE STILL
PROVIDING THE STRONGEST
PROTECTION THAT WE CAN TO THIS
INDUSTRY OF WORKERS.
AND SO I ALSO CANNOT SUPPORT
THE ADDITION OF AND BETWEEN ONE
AND TWO.
I DO BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE
OVERLY RESTRICTIVE IN TERMS OF
REQUIRING COVERAGE OF
BUSINESSES THAT BOTH CONTRACTS
AND LEASE OR SUBLET SPACE OF
THE SITE OF A HOTEL FOR
SERVICES IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE HOTEL'S PURPOSE.
THE REALITY IS THAT THERE ARE,
THERE IS A WAY TO WORK AROUND
THAT THAT WOULD CREATE A
DYNAMIC IN MY MIND THAT WOULD
MAKE IT ALL TOO EASY FOR HOTELS
TO CONTRACT A LOT OF HOTEL
SERVICES OUT WITH THIRD-PARTY
CONTRACTORS.
AND THEN NEVER SUBLEASE OR
LEASE OR OTHERWISE PROVIDE
THOSE THIRD-PARTY VENDORS AND
CONTRACTORS WITH SPACE THE
HOTEL IN ORDER TO AVOID
COVERAGE OF THIS BODY OF
LEGISLATION.
I WORRY THAT IT IS SORT OF AN
EXCEPTION THAT SWALLOWS THE
RULE.
SO I AM VERY WORRIED ABOUT
THAT.
FOR THAT REASON, I CAN'T
SUPPORT THAT PARTICULAR
PROPOSAL AS MADE BY
COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW.
THE SECOND THING I WOULD SAY
HERE AND KARINA, MAYBE YOU CAN
TALK TO THIS A BIT.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION
IN THE LEGISLATION WITH REGARD
TO HOTELS PURPOSE BUT MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE ARE
REFERENCES AVAILABLE IN THE
RULEMAKING PROCESS THAT DEFINE
HOTEL PURPOSES IN A MANNER THAT
WOULD PERHAPS ALLAY SOME OF THE
CONCERNS THAT COUNCILMEMBER
BAGSHAW HAS ARTICULATED WITH
REGARD TO THE EXAMPLE SHE
PROVIDED AND SUPPORTS OF HER
POTENTIAL ORAL AMENDMENT TO ADD
AND AS IT RELATES TO THE TYPE
OF BUSINESSES THAT WOULD BE
REASONABLY CONSIDERED TO BE
PROVIDING A HOTEL PURPOSE.
SO WINDOW WASHING EXAMPLE IS
THE EXAMPLE THAT COUNCILMEMBER
BAGSHAW PROVIDED.
MY READING IS SOME OF THE MIXED
CODES AND DEFINITIONS,
INCLUDING THE STATE STATUTE,
WOULD NOT INCLUDE THAT TYPE OF
A BUSINESS ACTIVITY AS BEING
REASONABLY RELATED TO A HOTEL
PURPOSE.
PERHAPS YOU CAN WALK US THROUGH
AT THE TABLE A LITTLE BIT MORE
ABOUT HOW THE MIXED CODE AND
OTHER POTENTIAL REFERENCES
ALLOW US TO LOOK AT HOTEL
PURPOSES.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT WILL BE THE
DEFINITIVE ANSWER BUT IT IS
ILLUSTRATIVE AND INFORMATIVE TO
AT LEAST MY RATIONALE AND
THINKING.
IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO OTHER
COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC
AS WELL.
>> I DON'T HAVE THOSE
REFERENCES BEFORE ME BUT
THINKING JUST BASED ON MEMORY
OF THE NEXT INDUSTRY CODE, IT
DEFINES A HOTEL AS A BUSINESS
THAT PROVIDES SHORT-TERM
LODGING ACCOMMODATIONS AND IT
SAYS THAT THE HOTEL CAN ALSO
PROVIDE A RANGE OF GUEST
SERVICES.
IT DISCREDITS EXAMPLES OF WHAT
THOSE GUEST SERVICES CAN BE.
FOOD SERVICES, BEVERAGE
SERVICES, SPA SERVICES, IT CAN
GO ON AND PROVIDES A LONG LIST.
TO MY MEMORY, IT DOESN'T
INCLUDE SOMETHING LIKE
MAINTENANCE SERVICES, WHICH IS
WHAT I AM HERE YOU SAY WITH
WINDOW WASHING.
IT IS WHAT I WAS HEARING
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ SAY
WHICH WAS NOT FITTING WITHIN
HER CONEPTUALIZATION OF WHAT I
HOTEL PURPOSE IS.
I DON'T OF THE STATE STATUTE
BUT ONE CAN THINK ABOUT WHAT
COMPRISES GUEST SERVICES.
LET'S WAS OF SERVICES DIRECTLY
BENEFIT THE GUEST.
ONE MIGHT POSIT THAT WINDOW
WASHING IS INDIRECT.
THAT IS MORE OF A MAINTENANCE
ACTIVITY.
>> I WAS JUST WEDNESDAY,
LOOKING UP THE MIXED CODE
REALLY QUICKLY, IT TALKS ABOUT
THIS INDUSTRY IN THE CONTEXT
OF, THE FACT THAT THE INDUSTRY
COMPRISES OF ESTABLISHMENT,
SHORT-TERM LODGING, FACILITIES
KNOWN AS HOTELS.
AND THE MOTOR HOTELS, RESORT
HOTELS, THE ESTABLISHMENT IN
THE INDUSTRY MAY OFFER FOOD AND
BEVERAGE SERVICES, RECREATIONAL
SERVICES, CONFERENCE ROOM AND
CONVENTION SERVICES.
LAUNDRY SERVICES, PARKING AND
OTHER SERVICES.
AGAIN, I THINK THERE IS AN
OPPORTUNITY HERE TO REALLY RELY
ON SOME OF THESE INDUSTRY CODES
AND STANDARD IN NATIONAL TO
REALLY ADDRESS THE DRAGNET
ARGUMENT THAT IS BEING MADE BY
SOME FOLKS IN THE INDUSTRY IN
TERMS OF TYPES OF BUSINESSES
THAT COULD OSTENSIBLY BE
CAPTURED BY THIS DEFINITION.
I HAVE NOT FOUND THAT TO BE
PERSUASIVE BASED ON MY
UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE CODES
ARE DEFINING THE HOTEL INDUSTRY
AND HOTEL PURPOSE.
AND IF I HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
LOOK IT UP QUICKLY, I WILL ALSO
LOOK AT THE RCW'S THAT DEFINE A
LITTLE BIT'S WITH THE CONTEST
AS WELL.
THE HOTEL INDUSTRY.
IT SORT OF ALIGNS WITH WHAT I
HAVE SEEN IN THE MIXED CODES.
>> GOOD NEWS.
TWO PIECES OF GOOD NEWS.
ONE IS ON THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION ON RETENTION, WE
ONLY HAVE A SUBSTITUTE BILL TO
CONSIDER TODAY.
THAT IS THE GOOD NEWS.
WE DON'T HAVE MULTIPLE MEMBERS.
THE OTHER PIECE OF GOOD NEWS IS
THAT THIS IS PUBLICLY THAT
MEATIEST OF THE CHANGES IN A
SUBSTITUTE BILL.
AND WITH THAT SAID, I WOULD
LOVE TO SEE IF THAT HAS HELPED
ADDRESS SOME OF THE QUESTIONS
AND FOR US TO MOVE THROUGH SOME
OF THE POTENTIAL CHANGES TO THE
SUBSTITUTE BECAUSE WE DO HAVE
TWO OTHER PIECE OF LEGISLATION
TO POTENTIALLY CONSIDER TODAY.
I DO APPRECIATE WORKING WITH
YOU AND YOU RAISING THAT.
ANY FINAL THOUGHTS ON THIS?
BEFORE WE MOVE ON?
>> THANK YOU.
I THINK THAT WE WILL END UP
WITH A POSITION WHERE THERE
WILL BE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT
QUITE HAPPY WITH THIS.
I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS OF
GOING THROUGH IT, THAT I
BELIEVE PROGRESS IS BEING MADE.
AND COUNCIL MEMBER,
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ, I
APPRECIATE YOU LOOKING AT THE
DEFINITION FROM THE INDUSTRY
ITSELF.
THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO
DO.
TO PROTECT WORKERS ACTUALLY IN
THE HOTELS, WITHIN THE HOTELS.
PROVIDING THE SERVICES.
THAT IS CLEAR, WHEN WE GET INTO
RULEMAKING, WE ARE FOCUSED ON
CARING FOR THE WORKERS WITHIN
THE HOTELS THAT ARE DOING THE
WORK TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES TO
THE GUEST'S.
I THINK WE HAVE REACHED THAT
EQUILIBRIUM.
AT LEAST WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT.
I TOLD YOU LAST NIGHT THAT I WAS
GRATEFUL THAT WE HAD, AS FAR AS
WE HAD.
I WILL SUPPORT YOU IN THAT.
IF WE COULD MAKE SURE WE ARE
CLEAR.
THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A
CERTAIN GROUP OF PEOPLE AND
TRYING NOT TO EXTEND OUT BEYOND
úTHE WALLS OF THE HOTEL.
THAT CAN BE HANDLED IN
RULEMAKING I BELIEVE.
WE HAVE REACHED A COMPROMISE.
>> THANK YOU.
THIS CONVERSATION HAS BEEN
HELPFUL FROM A LEGISLATIVE
INTENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO?
>> I JUST WANT TO QUICKLY
ADDRESS THE POINT BY
COUNCILMEMBER HARRELL.
LAST NIGHT I WAS READING JUST
THE ORDINANCE INITIATIVE
ITSELF.
I WANTED TO USE THAT AS MY
THOUGHT PROCESS IN TERMS OF
GUIDING MY DECISION-MAKING THIS
MORNING.
IN IT, IT DOES STATE WHAT
VOTERS SUPPORTED WAS, IT IS
APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY TO
PROTECT EMPLOYEES IN THE HOTEL
INDUSTRY.
THOSE WHO CLEAN ROOMS, CHANGE
THE SHEETS AND DICE THE
VEGETABLES.
I SAY DICE THE VEGETABLES
BECAUSE I WAS WRESTLING WITH
HEARING THE CONCERNS OF
RESTAURANTS.
HOW WE, THE ANCILLARY BUSINESS
TO FINISH IN ITSELF.
IT IS WITH THAT IN MIND THAT I
ALSO AM NOT NECESSARILY
SUPPORTIVE OF INCLUDING THE AND
AND FRONT OF THE ONE INTO.
IT MIGHT BE WORTH EXPLORING THE
AND WHERE THE THREE IS BECAUSE,
SO WE DEFINE IT AS A HOTEL
BUSINESS RESTAURANT.
MORE SPECIFICALLY AND TARGETED,
I THINK THAT I HAVE QUESTIONS
WITH REGARDS TO HOW, ENTRANCE
WITHIN THE HOTEL PREMISES.
AND WHETHER HOTEL GUESTS AND
THE PUBLIC.
I AM HOPING TO THIS DISCUSSION,
AS WE CONTINUE TO GO TO THE
ANCILLARY BUSINESS DISCUSSION,
THAT WE CAN CLARIFY WHAT THE
INTEREST IS DEFINED AS.
BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS STILL
TO ME IF IT VAGUE.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE AS WE GO
THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT WE CAN
WITHSTAND BOTH THE LEGAL
SCRUTINY THAT IS TO COME BUT
ALSO THAT WE ARE INCLUSIVE OF
AS MANY WORKERS AS POSSIBLE IN
TRYING TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS
THAT WE HEAR BROADLY FROM
COMMUNITIES AS WELL AS
STAKEHOLDERS AND TRY TO BE AS
CONSISTENT TO IT VOTERS
APPROVED, MYSELF INCLUDED.
WITH THAT IN MIND, I AM TRYING
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE PUT THAT
OUT THERE.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT REMINDER
OF WHAT WAS IN THE INITIATIVE
AND FOR THOSE WHO DICE THE
VEGETABLES, WE WILL CONTINUE
THE CONVERSATION.
IT DOES SOUND LIKE, ESPECIALLY
WITH COUNTRIES CLOSING
COMMENTS, WE CAN MOVE THROUGH
THE REST OF THE POTENTIAL
CHANGES IN THE SUBSTITUTE HERE.
AND IT SPEAKS TO THE SMALLER
BUSINESSES THAT YOU WILL SEE
EXEMPTED.
>> FOR THE RECORD, I WAS GOING
TO COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW.
I WAS SITTING HERE STRUGGLING
WITH THE SEMICOLON.
I PROBABLY HAVE THE LEAST
AMOUNT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE
OFFICE OF LABOR STANDARDS
ABILITY TO DO RULEMAKING THAT
ENCOMPASSES ALL OF THESE
CONCERNS.
I WOULD JUST, I HAVE TOLD YOU I
HAVE SAID IT PRIVATELY AND
PUBLICLY.
IT IS BASED ON MY CONCERNS
ABOUT DEFERRING ANY OF THIS.
I ASKED EARLIER, WHO ARE THESE
BUSINESSES?
IT IS NOT WINDOW WASHING
APPARENTLY.
BUT WHAT, I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE
EASY TO COMPILE BUT APPARENTLY
IT'S NOT.
SO I COULD GET A GOOD LOOK AT
WHAT THESE ANCILLARY BUSINESSES
ARE.
GERM ANCILLARY BUSINESSES, I'M
THINKING OF RESTAURANTS.
BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT
INCLUDES.
I WAS HOPING TO GET, DURING THE
COURSE OF THE WORK, A GOOD
DESCRIPTION IFTHESE BUSINESSES
ARE BEING AFFECTED.
IS THE CORE PURPOSE.
I WAS TRYING TO GET A FEEL FOR
IT.
AS WE MOVE FORWARD THROUGH
THIS, I'M HOPING WE CAN DEFER
LESS TO RULEMAKING AND MORE
LANGUAGE IN HERE TO SPECIFY
WHAT THE INTENT IS.
>> YOU HEARD, AS YOU HEARD, WE
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
COAST THAT COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALES IS READING FROM.
WE WILL WORK ON GETTING THAT
CIRCULATED TO FOLKS IN THE NEXT
WEEK.
SO GREAT.
>> COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE ALWAYS
WELCOME TO COME UP WITH THEIR
OWN DEFINITION OF HOTEL PURPOSE
IF THEY WISH TO DO SO.
>> SO LET'S MOVE ON TO THIS.
>> CHAIR, I WANT TO RESPOND TO
COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO'S AND
SOFT FLOODING OF THE IDEA OF
ADDING AND AND BETWEEN NUMBER
TWO NUMBER THREE.
AND I COULD NOT SUPPORT THAT IS
IF IT DOES COME FORWARD.
AND THE REASON I CANNOT
SUPPORTED IS, AGAIN, I AM GOING
BACK IN A TIME MACHINE.
ADDING AND AND TO ANCILLARY
BUSINESSES WOULD LIMIT THIS
PARTICULAR DEFINITION AND
COVERAGE OF ALL OF THESE LAWS
TO ONLY FOOD AND BEVERAGE
WITNESSES.
THAT IS HOW THE LANGUAGE WOULD
READ.
SO IT WOULD SAY, ANY BUSINESS
THAT ROUTINELY CONTRACTS WITH
THE HOTEL FOR SERVICES IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE HOTEL
PURPOSE.
LEASES OR SUBLETS AT THE SITE
OF THE HOTEL PURPOSE.
AND PROVIDES FOOD AND BEVERAGES
TO HOTEL GUESTS WITHIN THE
HOTEL PREMISES.
SO THAT MEANS THAT ALL THREE OF
THOSE FACTORS AND CRITERIA NEED
TO BE PRESENT IN ORDER FOR AN
ANCILLARY BUSINESS TO BE
COVERED, WHICH WOULD COMMIT THE
DEFINITION OF ANCILLARY
BUSINESS.
AND THE COVERAGE OF THESE
PROTECTIONS TO ANCILLARY
BUSINESSES THAT ARE LIMITED TO
THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE INDUSTRY
ONLY.
FOR THAT REASON, I WOULD ONLY
SUPPORT IN AND BETWEEN TWO AND
THREE TO THE EXTENT THAT IT IS
PROPOSED EVENTUALLY.
>> SO I WOULD SAY THANK YOU TO
ALL OF YOU FOR ENGAGING WITH US
ON THIS.
I DO THINK THAT AS
COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW HAS
MENTIONED, WE HAVE COME A LONG
WAY IN OUR CONVERSATIONS ON
THIS.
WE WILL SHARE WITH THE FULL
COUNSEL THE RCW'S THAT THE
FOLKS IN THE INDUSTRY HAVE
DEFINED THEMSELVES.
IT WILL BE AN ILLUSTRATIVE PART
OF OUR CONVERSATION FOR NEXT
WEEK.
THIS IS REALLY AN EFFORT TO TRY
TO WALK THE FINE LINE BETWEEN
VARIOUS STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK
THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED AND TO
IDENTIFY A STRATEGY FOR US TO
MOVE FORWARD SO WE FEEL WE ARE
LIVING THESE VALUES WE HAVE
BEEN TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF
WHICH INDUSTRIES ARE INCLUDED.
I THINK COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ
HAS SPOKEN OUT ELOQUENTLY
ABOUT THE WHY.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT FOLKS
COMING TO OUR CITY BEHAVE WELL
IN THEIR ROOMS AND HAVE THE
SAME PROTECTIONS, INCLUDING
THIS POLICY THAT WE WOULD
EXPECT IN ANY CITY THAT OUR
FRIENDS GO TO AS RESIDENTS OF
THE CITY OF SEATTLE.
WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE COMING
INTO THE CITY AND THINKING IT
IS PART OF THE HOTEL, I CAN ACT
AND BEHAVE IN CERTAIN WAYS.
WE WANT THIS TO BE VERY CLEAR
IN TERMS OF OUR INTENTION TO
PROTECT WORKERS IN THIS ARENA.
AND SO I WILL ASK US TO GO
AHEAD AND HERE THE REST OF THE
POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS INCLUDED
IN THE JOB RETENTION BILL
BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO OTHER
PIECES TO CONSIDER AND ONE OF
THEM THAT I AM EXCITED FOR YOU
TO HEAR ABOUT, THE COUNCIL
RESIDENT IS ON THE SIZE OF THE
EMPLOYEES.
I THINK THAT WILL HELP ADVANCE
THE CONVERSATION SPECIFIC TO
SMALL BUSINESS.
KARINA?
>> AS YOU PREVIEWED THE NEXT
REVISION REGARDS THE SIZE OF
ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESSES
COVERED BY THE LEGISLATION.
THE SIZE WOULD BE INCREASED
FROM THE BASELINE OR THRESHOLD
OF 20 EMPLOYEES WORLDWIDE TO 50
OR MORE EMPLOYEES WORLDWIDE.
OR BY CREATING AN EXEMPTION FOR
ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESSES THAT
HAVE FEWER THAN 50 EMPLOYEES
WORLDWIDE.
>> GOOD COMMENTS.
QUESTIONS?
>> I ASSUME THAT IS JUST A
DIRECT RESULT OF LISTENING TO
COMMUNITIES.
LISTENING TO SMALL BUSINESSES
AND REALIZING THERE IS A
BALANCE OF TRYING TO COVER AS
MANY EMPLOYEES BUT RECOGNIZE
SMALL BUSINESSES HAVE
STRUGGLES.
>> THAT IS RIGHT.
AND ALSO I THINK IT IS IN
RECOGNITION OF US TRYING TO
HAVE HARMONY ACROSS VARIOUS
PIECES AS WELL.
>>
>>> THE NEXT REVISION IS
REGARDING EMPLOYER RECORDS.
IT DOESN'T ADD ANY RECORDS IN
THIS LIST HOWEVER, IT DOES GIVE
OFFICE OF LABOR STANDARDS THE
ABILITY TO ADD MORE RECORDS
THEY FEEL ARE MATERIAL AND
NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE
TERMS OF THIS CHAPTER OF THIS
LEGISLATION.
RECOGNIZING THAT ALL RULEMAKING
PROCESSES DO INVOLVE
STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK AND GO
THROUGH A COMMENT PERIOD AS
WELL.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT?
>> I AM SEEING ON.
THE NEXT REVISION IS IN THE
REMEDIES SECTION.
AND THIS, IN THE REMEDIES
SECTION, THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO
PLACES WHERE IT IS REFERENCED
THAT THE DIRECTOR OF OFFICE OF
LABOR STANDARDS SPECIFY THAT
THE CIVIL PENALTIES AND FINES
CAN BE MADE, PAID TO THE AGREED
PARTY, THE EMPLOYEE, RATHER
THAN PAID TO THE CITY.
THIS OFTEN HAPPENS ALREADY.
MANY IN THE OFFICE OF THEY WERE
STANDARDS SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENTS, THE LANGUAGE IN THE
LAW ACTUALLY ALLOWS THE
DIRECTOR TO IMPOSE THAT KIND OF
PAYMENT OF THE CIVIL PENALTY
AND FIND TO THE EMPLOYEE IN AN
ORDER IF IT CAN'T BE SETTLED.
AND IT APPEARS TWICE IN THE
LEGISLATION AND IN ONE PLACE,
IT SAYS THAT THE DIRECTOR CAN
DO THIS.
IN THE SECOND PLACE, IT SAYS
THAT THE DIRECTOR MAY SPECIFY
THAT ALL CIVIL PENALTIES AND
FINES ARE PAYABLE TO THE
AGGRIEVED PARTY.
IT DOESN'T ALIGN, THE TWO
SENTENCES DON'T MATCH.
SO IT SEEMS WISE TO REMOVE ALL
SO THAT THEY MATCH AND IT
ALLOWS THE DIRECTOR TO
CALIBRATE THE ALLOCATION OF
CIVIL PENALTIES AND FINES.
THE DIRECTOR DOESN'T HAVE TO
HAVE ALL OF THE PENALTIES AND
FINES GO TO THE AGREED PARTY.
IT COULD BE 50% GO TO THE CITY
AND 50% TO THE AGREED PARTY.
ONE OF THE REASONS IT IS SO
IMPORTANT TO HAVE SOME OF THESE
CIVIL PENALTIES AND FINES GO TO
AN EMPLOYEE WHO HAS BEEN HARMED
BY NONCOMPLIANCES THAT FOR SOME
OF THESE REQUIREMENTS, THERE IS
NO MONETARY COMPENSATION TO THE
EMPLOYEE IF IT IS NOT FOLLOWED.
THERE IS NO NOTICE THAT AN
EMPLOYER PUTS UP SAYING THAT
úPOSSESSES ARE CHANGING HANDS,
THEN THE EMPLOYEE DOESN'T GET
ANYTHING FOR THAT.
THE EMPLOYER CAN GET DINGED AND
HAVE TO PLAY MONEY TO THE CITY
BUT NOT THAT THE RIGHTS OF BEEN
COMPROMISED.
>> QUESTIONS?
I AM SAYING NONE.
>> I TOLD YOU I HAD GOOD NEWS.
THAT THE FIRST ONE WAS THE
BIGGEST PIECE OF THE
LEGISLATION.
>> THE LAST REVISION IS
REGARDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE
AND IT CREATES TWO EFFECTIVE
DATES.
THEY ARE BOTH FARTHER INTO THE
FUTURE THAN THE LAST VERSION,
WHICH WAS JANUARY 1, 2020.
THE FIRST ONE CREATES A DELAYED
IMPLEMENTATION FOR ANCILLARY
HOTEL BUSINESSES THAT HAVE
BETWEEN 50-250 EMPLOYEES.
AND THE CONTRACT LEASE OR
SUBLEASE WITH THE HOTEL AS OF
THE DATE THAT THIS LEGISLATION
PASSES.
THOSE TYPES OF BUSINESSES WILL
HAVE UNTIL JULY 1 OF 2025.
TO BEGIN COMPLYING WITH THIS
LAW.
ALL OTHER BUSINESSES, INCLUDING
THE VERY LARGE ANCILLARY HOTEL
BUSINESSES THAT DO A CONTRACT
LEASE AND HAVE MORE THAN 250
EMPLOYEES, THE PROVISIONS WILL
TAKE EFFECT ON JULY 1, 2020.
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS IS A
MEMBER OF BRIAN AND PACHECO,
YOU HAVE WORKED ON SOME OF THIS
LANGUAGE.
DID YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON
THIS?
>>
>> YOU'RE GIVING ME MORE CREDIT
THAN I DESERVE BUT I APPRECIATE
THIS ADDITION.
I THINK IT, WE RECOGNIZE THAT
THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS
LEGISLATION WILL HAVE IMPACTS
ON BUSINESSES, INCLUDING
FINANCIAL IMPACTS.
AND FOR BUSINESSES THAT ARE
INDEPENDENT AND OPERATING IN
HOTELS AND ARE ACTUALLY SERVING
A FUNCTION WE HAVE SEEN IN A
HOTEL LIKE A RESTAURANT, GIVING
THEM SOME TIME TO RENEGOTIATE
THE LEASE OR RENEW A LEASE AND
ALLOW FOR THEM TO FIGURE OUT
THE COST IMPLICATIONS TO THE
BUSINESS.
AND THE PROCESS OF DOING THAT
MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.
I CAN IMAGINE SCENARIOS WHERE
THEY MIGHT SAY HEY.
I CAN'T PAY AND AS MUCH FOR
RENT BECAUSE I AM SPENDING MORE
ON MY EMPLOYEES NOW.
AND THEY WOULD NEGOTIATE IT AT
THE HOTEL.
I THINK THAT IS INTENDANT
CONSEQUENCE.
HAVING, THIS IS ONLY FOR
BUSINESSES THERE TODAY.
BUSINESSES COMING, BE AWARE
THAT THESE WILL BE IN PLAY.
TO GIVE THEM THE FLEXIBILITY.
I APPRECIATE YOUR ENTHUSIASM.
>> THANK YOU FOR RAISING IT.
>> ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS
WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS?
>> DITTO.
>> SHORT AND SWEET.
I APPRECIATE YOU ALL RAISING
THIS AS WELL.
WE UNDERSTAND THERE MIGHT BE
EXISTING CONTRACTS IN THE
WORKS.
WE DON'T INTEND TO TRY TO TELL
FOLKS THEY NEED TO RENEGOTIATE
THAT.
I THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE
AMENDMENT THAT HAS COME FROM
SMALLER BUSINESS PARTNERS AS
WELL.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT
FORWARD.
WE ARE HAPPY TO INCLUDE IT.
THE CONCEPT WAS TRY TO INCLUDE
ALL OF THE VARIOUS AMENDMENTS
THAT ARE IN CONJUNCTION WITH
YOU ALL IN ONE SUBSTITUTE FOR
US TO CONSIDER TODAY.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON
THE HOTEL JOB RETENTION BILL AS
A PACKAGE?
>>> OKAY.
SEEING NONE.
SO ALL RIGHT.
>> I SHOULD MAKE AN OVERALL
COMMENT.
I DON'T KNOW IF PEOPLE ARE
AWARE OF ONE PART OF THE
PROCESS.
RELATIVE TO REMEDIES AND
INVESTIGATIONS.
THAT IS, THERE IS REALLY NO
REMEDIATION PROCESS.
NO MANDATORY REMEDIATION.
IT IS VERY ADVERSARIAL.
THE HEARING EXAMINER DOES NOT
HAVE THE ABILITY TO MANDATES
WITHIN THE PURVIEW.
I HAVE ASKED THE EXAMINER TO
POSSIBLY CONSIDER LEGISLATION
REQUIRING MEDIATION BECAUSE
OFTEN, PARTICULARLY FOR SMALLER
BUSINESSES, YOU HAVE TO SETTLE
THIS AND SOMETIMES THEY MIGHT
NOT BE ABLE TO GET ALL OF THE
EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM AND IT IS
VERY ADVERSARIAL.
WE ARE TRYING TO SEE IF THERE'S
REMEDIATION.
I AM NOT SUGGESTING CHANGE BUT
I WANT COUNCILMEMBERS TO
RECOGNIZE THAT THE PROCESS IS
SOMETIMES UNNECESSARILY
ADVERSARIAL WHEN ALL OF THE
PARTIES ARE TRYING TO DO THE
RIGHT THING.
>> AND I KNOW THAT WE HAVEN'T
HAD A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT
THIS.
I THINK IT IS HELPFUL FOR YOU
TO RAISE THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE
BEEN BROUGHT UP.
I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
YOU ON THAT PROCESS OUTSIDE OF
THIS DISCUSSION.
I KNOW THAT THERE IS ONGOING
WORK THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE
DONE SO SEEING THAT AS A
SEPARATE ELEMENTS OF THIS, AM I
CORRECT?
I WOULD LOVE FOR US TO CONSIDER
VOTING ON THE SUBSTITUTE BILL
HERE.
AGAIN WITH THE RECOGNITION THAT
THE BILL WILL REMAIN IN
COMMITTEE AND WE WILL TAKE IT
UP FOR A POTENTIAL FINAL ACTION
ASKED THURSDAY.
I AM SEEING NODS.
THIS IS GOOD.
SO WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO
MOVE THAT THE COMMITTEE
CONSIDER AMENDING COUNCIL BILL
1195 56.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> LET'S SEE.
>> YES.
>> 119556.
WITH THE SUBSTITUTE BILL,
VERSION D.
>> VERSION D4?
>> I MOVED TO AMEND CONSTABLE
119556 BY SUBSTITUTING VERSION
D 2 FOR VERSION D 4. ANY
OPPOSED?
NONE?
ANY EXTENSIONS?
>> I ABSTAIN.
>> THE BILL IS AMENDED.
BY A VOTE OF 5-0 WITH ONE
ABSTENTION.
ALL RIGHT.
MOVING ON.
LET'S MOVE TO THE THIRD AGENDA
ITEM WHICH HAS BEEN READ INTO
THE RECORD.
THIS IS ALSO BILL 119554.
>> AND FOR FOLKS FOLLOWING
ALONG, WE HAVE A CHART ON THE
SCREEN THAT IS SUBSTITUTE BILL
PROTECTING HOTEL EMPLOYEES FROM
INJURY.
BRIDGING D2 VERSUS PROPOSED
VERSION D3.
WE WILL BE WALKING THROUGH THE
LANGUAGE INCLUDED IN VERSION D3
THAT WILL INCLUDE VARIOUS
AMENDMENTS FOR US TO CONSIDER
AS A SUBSTITUTE BILL.
>>> THE CHAIR IS READY AND I
WILL BE HAPPY TO WALK THROUGH
THE MATRIX.
THE FIRST ISSUE, I JUST WANT TO
EMPHASIZE THIS IS ABOUT
PROTECTING HOTEL EMPLOYEES FROM
INJURY.
THIS IS MERELY ABOUT
HOUSEKEEPING AND IT SETS
WORKLOAD LIMITS AND ESTABLISHES
NEW RATES OF PAY FOR
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE
HOUSECLEANERS ARE CLEANING
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF HOTEL ROOMS
THAT ARE IN EXCESS OF THAT
MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE.
>> THAT IS WHAT IS INCLUDED IN
THE SUBSTITUTE.
YES.
THERE IS ANOTHER AMENDMENT THAT
WILL FOLLOW.
I WANT TO SPEAK TO IT AT THIS
POINT.
SO THERE ARE ALSO CHANGES THAT
ARE CAPTURED IN THIS MATRIX.
NONE OF THEM HAVE ANYTHING TO
DO WITH ANCILLARY BUSINESSES
BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE CAPTURED
IN THE STILL.
IT IS ALL ABOUT HOUSECLEANING
NOT ABOUT THE OTHER BUSINESS
ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE PREMISES.
WE ARE INVITING SERVICES, ETC.
SO THE FIRST ROW, WHICH HAS TO
DO WITH SECTION 1427 050 E. IT
IS ON PAGE 6 OF THE BILL IF YOU
ARE FOLLOWING ALONG IN THE BILL
ITSELF.
THIS ON 8-15, THIS COMMITTEE
PASSED SOME LANGUAGE THAT
CLARIFIED THAT WHEN
HOUSECLEANING EXCEEDS THE
MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE, WISH
WAS ESTABLISHED AT 5000 FT.B2,
THEY WOULD BE PAID FOR 3 TIMES
THEIR REGULAR RATE OF PAY ONLY
FOR THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT WAS
SPENT ON THE FLOOR SPACE IN
EXCESS OF THE 5000 FT.B2.
THE CHANGE IN THIS BILL IS
INTENDED TO CLARIFY AND BETTER
ARTICULATE THE POLICY
OBJECTIVE.
THERE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A
TEACHER.
IT IS A TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.
AS I MENTIONED, THERE IS AN
AMENDMENT THAT MIGHT BE OFFERED
THAT COULD AFFECT THE
SUBSTITUTE BUT THE SUBSTITUTE
ITSELF IS SUPPOSED TO BE
CLARIFYING LANGUAGE.
>> IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, I
WILL MOVE TO THE NEXT ONE.
>> ANY QUESTIONS ON RATE OF
PAY?
>> NO.
>> THE ONE THING WE RAISED
YESTERDAY WAS THE IDEA IS THAT
IF YOU JUST WERE 5000 FT.B2,
THAT IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF
SPACE IF YOU ACTUALLY HAD TO DO
CLEANUP ON SPACE, BUT AT THE
END OF THAT DAY, IF SOMEBODY
SAYS, IF YOU NEED TO STAY FOR A
COUPLE OF HOURS BECAUSE THERE
ARE EXTRA ROOMS, YOU GET PAID
TRIPLE TIME IF YOU WORK OVER
AND ABOVE THE 5000 FT.B2.
WE BROUGHT UP YESTERDAY,
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA JUST
STEPPED OUT, LET'S SAY THAT WE
HAVE WORKED FIVE DAYS IN A ROW.
DONE OUR 5000 FT.B2, BUT WE HAV
AN OPT IN LIST.
IT CAN BE AN ON-CALL LIST.
ANYBODY CAN BE ON IT.
IF AN EMPLOYER SAYS WE'VE GOT
MORE ROOMS TO CLEAN, 70s ON
VACATION OR SICK WHATEVER.
IF YOU COME BACK IN ON THE
SIXTH DAY, YOUR PAID TIME AND A
HALF, NOT TRIPLE TIME.
THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT
COUNCIL MEMBER, WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT OVERTIME.
IN THE EXAMPLE THAT YOU AND I
USED YESTERDAY.
IT IS THAT IF SOMEBODY, AN
INDIVIDUAL WORKS 5000 FT.B2 FOR
5 DAYS IN A ROW, BUT CHOOSES TO
WORK A SIX DAY, BECAUSE THEY
ARE ON AN OPT IN LIST.
ON THE SIXTH DAY, THEY ARE PAID
TIME AND A HALF.
NOT TRIPLE TIME.
>> SO LONG AS THEY ARE CLEANING
UNDER 5000 OR UP TO 5000 FT.B2.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE TRUE
UNLESS THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT PROVIDES
OTHER MULTIPLIERS.
BUT THEY WOULD BE ON THE 5000
ON THE SIXTH DAY.
>> THEY GET TRIPLE TIME.
>> I WAS SO THANKFUL FOR YOUR
QUESTION.
YESTERDAY, IT MAY BE LOOK BACK
INTO THIS.
IF I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION
CORRECTLY, I AM SORRY I HAD TO
STEP OUT.
YOU ARE CORRECT.
ON THE SIXTH DAY, IF THEY ARE
NOT WORKING MORE THAN THE
SQUARE FOOTAGE AMOUNT, AND THE
ACTUAL OVER TIME IF THEY
ALREADY WORKED 40 HOURS THAT
WEEK WOULD BE TIME IN HALF.
JUST LIKE IT IS AT THE STATE
LEVEL.
THIS DOESN'T CHANGE ANY OF THE
STATE-LEVEL POLICIES.
I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT
UP.
IT ALSO HELPS US.
I'M NOT SURE IF COUNCIL MEMBER
GONZALES HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK
AT IT BUT IT HELPS US FRAME UP
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT OVER TIME
TRADITIONALLY.
HAVE YOU WORKED MORE THAN 40
HOURS A WEEK?
SO WE ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING TO
CHANGE THAT OVERTIME POLICY.
IT IS TIME AND A HALF IF YOU'VE
WORKED MORE THAN 40 HOURS OF
THE WEEK.
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
I THINK THAT WE SHOULD TALK
ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THAT POLICY VERSUS WHAT WE ARE
TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE.
>> I AM HAPPY TO CHIME IN HERE.
SO I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT IN
THIS PARTICULAR, ON THIS
PARTICULAR ISSUE TO REALLY
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN OVERTIME
AND WHAT I SEE AS THE POLICY
GOAL, WHICH IS THE INCENTIVE TO
ASSIGN EXCESSIVE WORKLOADS THAT
HAVE NEGATIVE HEALTH AND SAFETY
IMPACTS ON HOTEL WORKERS.
AND SO YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS
HAS BEEN MISCHARACTERIZED AS
OVER TIME IN THE ORDINARY SENSE
THAT, WHEN YOU DEFINE OVERTIME
IN STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.
AND THAT IS NOT EXACTLY WHAT WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT.
SO THIS IS REALLY THE RATE OF
PAY FOR PURPOSES OF CREATING A
DISINCENTIVE TO ASSIGN
EXCESSIVE WORKLOADS FOR AN
OVERBURDENED SECTOR OF THE
WORKFORCE.
SO A WAY TO DO THAT, SIMILAR TO
WHAT WE HAVE DONE AND OTHER
LABOR STANDARD LAWS, INCLUDING
SECURE SCHEDULING AND OTHER
AREAS, IS TO EFFECTIVELY COME
UP WITH AN ENFORCEMENT
STRUCTURE OR MECHANISM TOOL IF
YOU WILL THAT EFFECTIVELY WORKS
AS A PENALTY IN THE EVENT THAT
YOU DO EXCEED, IN THIS CASE THE
5000 SQUARE-FOOT ASSIGNMENT.
SO WE ARE MAKING A POLICY
DETERMINATION THAT THAT IS ONE
THRESHOLD IN WHICH WE HAVE MADE
A DETERMINATION THAT ANYTHING
IN EXCESS OF 5000 WOULD RESULTS
IN ADDITIONAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS
TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF
THIS WORKFORCE.
I WANT TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE
CONVERSATION OF, THIS IS
OVERTIME.
YOU KNOW, THE BILL DOESN'T
ACTUALLY SAY OVERTIME.
THE ORIGINAL INITIATIVE DIDN'T
SAY OVERTIME.
IT HAS JUST BEEN SUBTLY
CHARACTERIZED AS OVERTIME.
WHAT I THINK WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT HERE IS, SHOULD THEIR BE
AS A MATTER OF POLICY A
FINANCIAL PENALTY OF SORTS TO
THIS INCENTIVIZE EMPLOYERS FROM
ASSIGNING EXCESSIVE WORKLOADS TO
THIS PARTICULAR WORKFORCE.
FOR ME THE ANSWER THAT QUESTION
IS YES.
THERE SHOULD BE.
AND THE QUESTION IS, WHERE DO
WE SET THOSE LOVERS TO CREATE
AN EFFECTIVE INCENTIVE TO
PRIORITIZE AND PROTECT THE
HEALTH AND SAFETY.
THE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH
AND SAFETY OF THIS WORKFORCE?
THAT IS WHAT IS REPRESENTED
HERE.
WE WILL HAVE A CONVERSATION
AFTER ADOPTION OF THE
SUBSTITUTE BILL ABOUT WHETHER
THE 5000 FT.B2 THRESHOLD IS SET
AT THE RIGHT AREA, AS YOU JUST
ALLUDED TO.
5000 FT.B2 IS PRETTY
SIGNIFICANT.
>> THAT IS A LOT OF WORK.
>> A LOT OF WORK TO DO AND A
DAY.
WE WILL HAVE A CONVERSATION
AFTER WE ARE DONE WITH THE
DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER WE
HAVE SET IT AT THE RIGHT LEVEL
BASED ON ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO?
>> I WAS GOING TO BUILD ON
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ'S POINT.
LAST NIGHT , WE REREAD THE
INITIATIVE, JUST THINKING ABOUT
WHAT VOTERS SEND US, DIRECTIVE
TO DO.
IT SAYS AGAIN, IT BEARS
REPEATING.
APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY TO
PROTECT HOTEL EMPLOYEES.
I AM ENCOURAGED THAT THE
DISCUSSION CONTINUES AND WE ARE
THINKING ABOUT 5000.
IS THAT, THAT IS A LOT OF
SPACE.
5000 FT.B2.
SO I AM ENCOURAGED TO SEE THE
CONVERSATION CONTINUE.
I WILL LEAVE IT THERE.
>> A CONTEXT QUESTION AGAIN.
THANK YOU FOR INDULGING ME.
THE 5000 FT.B2, THAT IS A HEAVY
LOAD FOR A DAY?
FOR A WORKER WORKING ONE DAY.
THAT IS REALLY PUSHING THE
LIMIT.
THAT IS NOT TWO OR THREE DAYS.
THAT IS MONDAY.
CORRECT?
>> THAT IS AN EIGHT HOUR SHIFT.
SO THE OVERTIME PIECE THAT I
WAS TALKING ABOUT, FROM A
PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, IF THEY
DO IT IN ONE DAY AT EIGHT
HOURS, 5000 FEET, BOOM.
IT JUST HAPPENED TO BE, TO COME
OUT THAT WAY.
IF THEY WORK TWO MORE HOURS,
DOES THAT KICK IN?
>> THAT IS OVERTIME LAWS.
OVERTIME LAWS ARE TRIGGERED
BASED ON A 40 HOUR WORK WEEK.
IF YOU WORK 41 HOURS, YOU ARE
NOW IN TIME AND HALF LAND.
THIS LANGUAGE ONLY APPLIES IN
THE EVENT THAT THE WORKLOAD
ASSIGNED TO THE WORKER EXCEEDS
5000 FT.B2.
REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF
TOTAL WEEKLY HOURS, WHICH WOULD
BE SUBJECT TO STATE LAW.
>> LET ME KEEP GOING.
THAT IS CERTAINLY HELPFUL.
I APPRECIATE YOUR INDULGENCE.
IF THEY WORK 85,000 FT.B2 IN ON
DAY, EIGHT HOURS, BUT THEN ON
DAY 2, SO IF THEY ARE ASKED TO
WORK TWO MORE HOURS ON THAT
MONDAY, LET'S SAY IT'S MONDAY-
FIVE, THEY HAVE DONE 5000 FT.B2
SO THEY ARE TIRED.
THEY COULD BE IN PAIN.
BUT IF THEY WORK FOR 2 HOURS ON
THAT DAY, WHAT ARE THEY PAID?
>> IF DOING THOSE TWO
ADDITIONAL HOURS ON MONDAY
AFTER THEY HAVE CLEANED 5000
FT.B2 IF THEY CONTINUE TO
PERFORM ROOM CLEANINGS, THEY
WILL BE PAID THREE TIMES THE
NORMAL HOURLY COMPENSATION FOR
THOSE TWO HOURS.
>> BUT WHAT IF THEY WORK SIX
HOURS NEXT DAY THOUGH.
I AM HEARING IT IS 40 HOURS FOR
THE WEEK.
IT IF THEY WORK, YOU DON'T KNOW
IF THEY WORK 40 HOURS FOR THAT
WEEK YET.
>>> YOU CAN TO GIVE IT AS THE
CLOCK RESETTING WITH EVERY
EIGHT HOUR SHIFT.
WITH EVERY WORKDAY.
SO IF THEY WORKED 10 HOURS ON
MONDAY, MAYBE THEY WILL GET
PAID THREE TIMES THEIR HOURLY
RATE FOR 2 HOURS.
FOR CLEANINGS BEYOND 5000 FT.B2
TUESDAY, YOU START ALL OVER
AGAIN.
IF YOU GET TO SATURDAY, THEY
ARE ON THE SIXTH SHIFT OF THE
WEEK.
THEY HAVE WORKED 40 HOURS,
MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.
SATURDAY IS ALL OVERTIME.
THEY WILL BE GETTING THEM IN A
HALF FOR ALL HOURS THEY WORK ON
SATURDAY IF ON SATURDAY THEY
CLEANED 5000 FT.B2 FROM 8-4. AN
THEN THEY CLEAN AN ADDITIONAL
2000 FT.B2 OVER TWO HOURS, THEY
WILL BE PAID THREE TIMES THEIR
OVERTIME RATE.
SO IF THEY MAKE $20 PER HOUR,
THEIR OVERTIME RATE WILL BE
$120 FOR THE EXTRA TWO HOURS.
>>> YOU DID THE MATH WAY
FASTER.
IT WILL BE $30 AN HOUR.
THEY WOULD BE PAID THREE TIMES
$30 AN HOUR.
>> IF THEY DO, IN THE INDUSTRY,
DO SOME DUE 5000 FT.B2 IN LESS
THAN EIGHT HOURS?
IS THAT A COMMON PRACTICE?
>> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?
>> SOME COULD DO 5000 FT.B2
HELLO IN LESS THAN EIGHT HOURS.
>> CORRECT.
SO WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT
EMPLOYEE IF THEY DID IT IN SIX
HOURS?
FOR THOSE REMAINING TWO HOURS?
ARE THEY COMPENSATED THREE
TIMES?
>> THEY CONTINUE TO CLEAN MORE
THAN 5000 FT.B2, YES.
THEY WILL BE COMPENSATED.
ADDITIONALLY.
THE IDEA THAT
>> THREE TIMES?
SO THE TRIGGER OF TRIPLE TIME
IS 5000 FT.B2, REGARDLESS AS TO
THE HOURS.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER GONZALES WAS
SAYING IT WAS A SEPARATE ISSUE
FOR OVERTIME.
NOT A QUESTION OF HOW LONG,
EXCEPT HOW LONG ARE YOU WORKING
MORE THAN 5000 FT.B2.
EVEN IF THAT IS ALL OF YOUR
WORK.
IF ALL OF IT IS DONE AND IN
EIGHT HOUR DAY.
>> ONE THING I THINK WOULD BE
HELPFUL, COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ
IS CORRECT.
THE TERMS WE USE MATTER.
I THINK I HAVE USED OVERTIME
FOR SHORTHAND WHEN IT WAS NOT
NECESSARILY OVERTIME AT ALL.
WHAT I AM TRYING TO PHRASE THIS
IS INJURY PREVENTION PAY.
IF YOU THINK OF INJURY
PREVENTION PAY AS BEING THREE
TIMES THE AMOUNT.
THAT MEANS WE ARE PREVENTING
INJURIES FROM OCCURRING BEYOND
THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE AMOUNT.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH
OVERTIME BECAUSE AS YOU TALKED
ABOUT IN THE LAST MEETING, IF
PEOPLE WANT TO SIGN UP FOR
OVERTIME, THERE IS A LIST THEY
CAN ADD THEIR NAME TO.
IF THEY GET CALLED IN FOR THE
SIXTH DAY AND THERE WORKING
MORE THAN 40 HOURS IN A WEEK,
THEY WILL GET ONE AND HALF
TIMES.
THAT IS A GOOD EXAMPLE ON THAT
SATURDAY THEY ARE COMING IN.
THAT IS TRADITIONAL OVERTIME.
BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A VERY
SPECIFIC INDUSTRY WHERE WE KNOW
THAT THE MANUAL LABOR OF
CLEANING ROOMS HAS LED TO
HIGHER RATES OF BACK INJURY
THEN COAL MINERS AND
CONSTRUCTION WORKERS.
WE ARE TRYING TO FIND THE RIGHT
LEVEL TO HELP PREVENT INJURY IN
THE FUTURE AND HAVE A
DISINCENTIVE FOR FOLKS.
THE --
>> I GET THE REASONS.
I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND
THE MECHANICS.
IF THEY WORK 5000 FT.B2 IN FIVE
HOURS, THE NEXT THREE IS TO
TIME.
THAT IS THE POLICY.
I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW
THAT PLAYS OUT.
>> I WILL BOTTOM LINE IT AGAIN.
THIS IS NOT OVERTIME.
TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION IN
CONTEXT OF THE ATTACHING IT TO
HOURS.
WHAT HAVE BEEN MULTIPLIED THREE
BY, IN THE EVENT THAT 5000 FT.B
IS HIT IN TWO HOURS, AND FIVE
HOURS, AND EIGHT HOURS, THE
TRIGGER IS THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE
FOOTAGE THAT IS BEING CLEANED.
IT IS CALCULATED BASED ON
ADDITIONAL HOURS IT TOOK TO
CLEAN MORE THAN 5000 FT.B2.
>> IF YOU REMEMBER INITIATIVE
124.
THEY HAVE LANGUAGE SIMILAR TO
WHAT WE SEE IN OAKLAND AND LONG
BEACH.
THEY HAD AN INJURY PREVENTION
PAY.
I WILL USE THAT TERM.
IT CALCULATED FOR THE ENTIRE
DAY.
WE HAD THAT ORIGINALLY TO GO
BACK AND CALCULATE FOR THE
ENTIRE DAY.
OVER THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AMOUNT.
NOT BECAUSE IT WAS OVERTIME BUT
BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A
DETERRENT FROM HAVING TO WORK
THAT MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE.
SO OAKLAND, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY
HAVE A 4000 FT.B2 LIMIT.
IF YOU WORK MORE.
IF YOU CLEAN MORE, THAT IS WHEN
YOU'RE INJURY --
>> THE MANAGEMENT OF HOTELS
WILL CONFINE 5000.
>> I JUST THINK IT MIGHT PLAY
OUT THAT WAY.
I'M ALL FOR, I DON'T WANT THEM
WORKING MORE THAN 5000 IF AN
EMPLOYER WANTS TO PAY FOR THAT.
THAT IS FINE.
BUT I AM TRYING TO SEE HOW IT
PLAYS OUT FOR THE SAFETY OF THE
WORKERS.
THAT IS FINE.
I NEED TO KNOW WHEN IT KICKS
IN.
BECAUSE THEN IT BECOMES TO SEE
HOW IT IS MANAGED.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT?
I BELIEVE WE ARE ON THE FIRST
BOX.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I THINK I CAN MOVE QUICKLY
THROUGH AT LEAST THE REST OF
THEM.
SO THE SECOND ROW, 1427 110.
THE EMPLOYEE RECORDS.
THIS IS A TECHNICAL ERROR TO
CATCH UP THE LIST OF RECORDS
WITH THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT
WERE INSERTED IN THE PREVIOUS
D2 VERSION THAT WAS PASSED ON
815.
I DON'T THINK THERE IS
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES THAT I CAN
ANSWER QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE.
THE THIRD ITEM, 1427 170 EIGHT.
REMEDIES.
KARINA ALREADY TALKED THROUGH
THE PREVIOUS BILL, STRIKING THE
WORD ALL.
TO ALLOW THE CELEBRATION OF THE
PENALTIES AND FINES, ALSO IN
REMEDIES, THAT IS A CLERICAL
ERROR WHERE WE DIDN'T NOTES
THAT THE THREE TIMES, WHICH WAS
INSERTED IN THE PREVIOUS
VERSION, WE HAVE NOW MADE THAT
CORRECTION.
AND THE LAST ROW IS THE
EFFECTIVE DATE, 1427 260.
THIS CHANGES THE EFFECTIVE
DATES FOR THE LEGISLATION TO
JULY 1, 2020.
IN LIEU OF WHAT HAD BEEN THERE
PREVIOUSLY JANUARY 1, 2020.
THAT WAS BASED ON INPUT FROM
OLS WHO WERE TELLING US ABOUT
THE REALISTIC TIME IT WOULD
TAKE TO ESTABLISH DIRECTORS
RULES.
>>> ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT?
I DO APPRECIATE THE MORE
REALISTIC TIMEFRAME FOR WILL
MAKING.
ALL OF THE CONVERSATIONS WE
HAVE HAD TODAY, WE DO RECOGNIZE
THAT THIS IS A PATTERN YOU'LL
SEE IN THE VARIOUS PIECES OF
LEGISLATION THAT COME BEFORE US
TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE HAVE
ENOUGH TIME TO GET THOSE RULES
CORRECT.
THAT THEY HEAR FROM
STAKEHOLDERS.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
ON VERSION D3 AS A WHOLE?
COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW?
>> ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE HERE,
WE HAVE GOT JULY 1, 2025.
>> 250?
WILL WE KEEP THAT JULY 1, 2025?
>> THIS WILL BE JULY 1, 2020?
>> SO IN THIS BILL, THERE ARE
NO ANCILLARY BUSINESSES LARGE
OR SMALL WHO ARE AFFECTED.
SO FOR ALL EMPLOYERS, IT ENDS
UP BEING THE SAME EFFECTIVE
DATE OF JULY 1, 2020.
>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS
PARTICULAR LAW APPLIES TO
HOTELS.
>> CORRECT.
>> SO ONE CATEGORY OF EMPLOYER
WITH AN EFFECTIVE DAYS.
ONE SET OF PROTECTIONS.
>> INC.
YOU, COUNCILMEMBER HARRELL.
>> I AM GOING TO GO AHEAD AND
SEE IF WE CAN MOVE TO AMEND
THIS.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO AMEND
COUNCIL BILL 19554 BY
SUBSTITUTING VERSION D2 FOR D3.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THIS BILL HAS BEEN AMENDED TO
INCLUDE VERSION D3 AS ADOPTED
AND WE WILL KEEP THIS IN
COMMITTEE UNTIL NEXT WEEK.
WITH A VOTE OF 4-0. ALL RIGHT,
WE HAVE ONE MORE ITEM.
IT IS STILL IN OUR COMMITTEE.
WE HAVE NOT MOVED TO ITEM 4 YET.
>> CENTRAL STUFF, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO WALK THROUGH
>> THE AMENDMENT WOULD CHANGE
THAT MAXIMUM FLOOR SPACE AMOUNT
TO 4500 SQUARE FEET.
IN LIEU OF 5000 SQUARE FEET.
IT WILL REDUCE THE THRESHOLD
WHERE WORKERS BEGIN TO BE PAID.
>> I JUST LOVE TO HEAR THE
BACKGROUND ON THIS.
IT'S THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE
SEEN 4500 SINCE WE BEEN TALKING
ABOUT 5000.
TELL ME HOW IT MOVED WITHIN THE
PAST 24 HOURS.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER.
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ, DID YOU
WANT TO TEE UP A CONVERSATION
AROUND THIS AND I WILL CHIME
IN?
>> SURE.
I THINK WHAT I SPENT SOME TIME
DOING IS GETTING A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING OF THE OTHER TWO
JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE LAWS IN
THIS SPACE, THOSE PARTICULAR
LEGISLATIVE STRUCTURES,
INCLUDING A 4000 SQUARE-FOOT
THRESHOLD FOR THE, IN THAT
CASE, TIME AND A HALF RATE OF
PAY AND IN THAT CASE IT
INCLUDES TIME AND HAVE PAY FOR
THE ENTIRE HOURS AS OPPOSED TO
JUST THE DELTA BETWEEN THE
NUMBER OF HOURS, ADDITIONAL
HOURS IT WOULD TAKE TO DO MORE
THAN 4000 SQUARE FEET.
WE WERE AT 5000 SQUARE FEET AT
THE LAST TIME WE MET, AND I
THINK THAT IN LOOKING AT THAT
4000 SQUARE-FOOT PRECEDENT THAT
IS SET IN LONG BEACH AND
OAKLAND AND THEN ALSO LOOKING
AT SOME ADDITIONAL DATA RELATED
TO THE RATES OF INJURY AND THIS
PARTICULAR INDUSTRY, I'VE BEEN
PERSUADED TO END UP SOMEWHERE
IN THE MIDDLE BETWEEN
4,005,000.
I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF
STATISTICS HERE RELATED TO THIS
PARTICULAR QUESTION, SO JUST TO
START WITH, THERE HAS BEEN SOME
ARTICLES WRITTEN ON THE
NATIONAL AVERAGE HOTEL ROOM
SIZES AND -- BECAUSE THERE'S A
LOT OF ACTIVITY HAPPENING IN
HOTELS, SO THE AVERAGE HOTEL
ROOM SIZE IS 330 SQUARE FEET.
THERE WAS AN ECONOMIC IMPACT
ANALYSIS DONE BY THE CITY OF
LONG BEACH IN 2018.
HOTEL OPERATORS WITHIN THE CITY
OF LONG BEACH INDICATED THAT
HOUSEKEEPERS CURRENTLY CLEANED
BETWEEN 13 TO 15 ROOMS PER
SHIFT, DEPENDING ON THE ROOM
SIZE AND WHETHER THE ROOMS
CLASSIFY AS STAYOVER OR
CHECKOUT.
IF WE ASSUME BETWEEN AN AVERAGE
OF 14 ROOMS PER DAY TIMES 330
SQUARE FEET, THAT'S ABOUT 4620
SQUARE FEET, AND SO THAT WAS
SOMETHING THAT SAT WITH ME IN
THE LAST 24 HOURS IN TERMS OF
EVALUATING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE
THRESHOLD.
IN ADDITION, THERE WAS A 2010
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL
MEDICINE STUDY ON OCCUPATIONAL
INJURY DISPARITIES IN THE U.S.
HOTEL INDUSTRY THAT FOUND THE
HOTEL EMPLOYEES HAVE HIGHER
RATES OF OCCUPATIONAL INJURY
AND SUSTAIN MORE SEVERE
INJURIES THAN MOST OTHER
SERVICE WORKERS.
THAT INJURY RATE WAS HIGHEST
AMONGST HOUSEKEEPERS AT 7.9%.
WHEN YOU -- AND AMONGST
HOUSEKEEPERS IS 10.6% RATE OF
INJURY, WHICH IS A
DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT.
THE STUDY FOUND THAT HOTEL
WORKERS WERE NEARLY 40 PERCENT
MORE LIKELY TO BE INJURED ON
THE JOB THEN ALL OTHER SERVICE
SECTOR WORKERS, AND THE STUDY
ALSO FOCUSED ON UNIONIZED HOTEL
INDUSTRY AND CALLED OUT THE
FACT THAT INJURY RATES WOULD BE
MUCH HIGHER FOR A NONUNIONIZED
FIELD IN THE EVENT OF THE
EVALUATION OF THOSE INDUSTRIES.
AGAIN, IN THIS STUDY, 98%, IT
ALSO EMPHASIZED 98% OF
HOUSEKEEPERS OF A TOTAL OF
12000 WERE FEMALE WITH 45% OF
THOSE BEING FLAT, LATIN ACTS,
AND 20% IDENTIFYING AS ASIAN.
I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT
FOR US TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS NO
QUESTION, THAT THERE IS A HIGH
RATE OF INJURY HERE.
THE QUESTION IS AT WHAT
THRESHOLD FROM A POLICY
PERSPECTIVE WE WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE IS SAFER IN THIS
INDUSTRY THAT WOULD EFFECTIVELY
REDUCE THOSE INJURY RATES AS
IDENTIFIED IN THAT 2010 STUDY.
IN ADDITION, PUGET SOUND DID A
SURVEY IN 2016 THAT IDENTIFY
DATA FROM THE BUREAU OF LABOR
STATISTICS SHOWING THE INJURY
RATE FOR HOUSEKEEPING AS THE
COUNCILMEMBER HAS MENTIONED
PREVIOUSLY IS HIGHER THAN BOTH
COAL MINING AND BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION AND THE PERCENTAGE
OF HOUSEKEEPERS EXPERIENCING
PAIN IS MORE THAN THREE TIMES
THE PERCENTAGE OF THE GENERAL
POPULATION THAT EXPERIENCES
BACK PAIN.
IMPACTS OF THESE INJURIES
INCLUDE TROUBLE SLEEPING,
CHRONIC PAIN, AND INTERFERENCE
WITH DAILY ACTIVITIES.
AGAIN, I THINK IF THE COURSE
FIRST QUESTION IS, IS THERE A
HIGHER RATE OF INDUSTRY HURT
FOR THIS SECTOR WORKERS, I
THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT IS,
YES.
THE QUESTION THEN BECOMES,
WHERE DO WE SET THE THRESHOLD
TO CREATE A SAFER WORK
ENVIRONMENT AND BEGIN TO REDUCE
THAT HIGHER INJURY RATES THAT
WE SEE MANIFEST ITSELF WITHIN
THIS PARTICULAR INDUSTRY.
DOING THE MATH, THAT WAS THE
FIRST QUESTION.
THE SECOND QUESTION WAS THE
MATH, AND THAT IS WHAT LED ME
TO THE 330 SQUARE FOOT AVERAGE
ROOM SIZE FOR SORT OF AN
ASSUMPTION THAT ABOUT 14 ROOMS
ARE CLEANED A DAY LEADING ME TO
4620, WHICH SUPPORTED MY
POSITION AROUND 4500.
>> SO I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, WE
ARE ALL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
HOW WE PROTECT THE WORKERS.
NO QUESTION ABOUT THIS.
ONE THING I'M INTERESTED IN IS
HOW DO YOU MAKE THAT
DETERMINATION?
IS IT 4500 OR 4620.
SOMEBODY COMING OUT WITH
ENGINEERING DESIGNING, DESIGN,
THE ACTUAL DRAWINGS, IS SOMEONE
IN THERE WITH A MEASURING TAPE?
I DON'T WANT TO BE SILLY ABOUT
THIS, BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT TO
PUT US IN THE SITUATION WERE
EITHER ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER IS
SAYING, IT REALLY WASN'T 4620.
IT WAS 4500.
YOU ARE NOT GETTING PAID EXTRA
TODAY.
I'D LIKE TO HEAR MORE FROM ALL
SIDES BEFORE I START MAKING THE
DECISION ABOUT WHAT THE ACTUAL
NUMBER IS, WHETHER IT'S REDUCED
BY 4500 OR 500.
ONCE AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO KNOW
HOW IT'S GOING TO WORK OUT
FUNCTIONALLY.
WHO IS MAKING THOSE DECISIONS?
>> I THINK THOSE CONCERNS EXIST
REGARDLESS.
I THINK THAT'S WHY WE HAVE --
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT
WILL BE UP TO THE OFFICE OF
LABOR STANDARDS IN THE
RULEMAKING PROCESS TO MAKE A
DETERMINATION AS TO HOW THAT'S
GOING TO BE EVALUATED.
WHETHER IT'S 10000 SQUARE FEET
OR 100,000 SQUARE FEET OR ONE
SQUARE FOOT, WE ARE GOING TO
HAVE THAT SAME COMPLEXITY OF
UNDERSTANDING WHO IS MAKING THE
DETERMINATION.
>> I HEAR YOU LOUD AND CLEAR, I
JUST LIKE TO KNOW FROM THE
STANDPOINT OF THE WORKERS AND
FROM THE HOTEL YEARS HOW THEY
ARE GOING TO MAKE THOSE
DECISIONS, AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR
FROM THEM PRIOR TO MAKING A
DECISION TO REDUCE THIS 500
FEET.
>> GREAT.
I HAVE SOME COMMENTS ON THAT.
WAS I READING YOU CORRECTLY
THAT YOU HAVE COMMENTS?
>> SURE, I WILL GO FIRST.
APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENT.
GIVEN THE FACT THAT I TRY TO
CHECK IN WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS
AS WELL, THE ONLY THING I CAN
REFERENCE FROM THIS IS JUST THE
EXPERIENCE.
NUMEROUS TIMES YOU LIVED
EXPERIENCES.
IT SHAPES YOUR DECISION-MAKING
PROCESS.
MY MOTHER, WHEN I FIRST SAW THE
5000 SQUARE FEET, MY MOTHER WAS
A HOTEL WORKER, SO I THOUGHT,
BOY, THAT'S A LOT OF SQUARE
FEET.
>> AND A LOT OF PATH ROOMS
DEPENDING ON HOW MANY UNITS YOU
ARE CLEANING.
>> AND SO I AM ALL FOR MORE
SQUARE FEET.
I APPRECIATE THE DUE DILIGENCE
THAT YOU'VE DONE, COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALES.
I'M OKAY WITH MOVING FORWARD
WITH 4500 SQUARE FEET, JUST
BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THAT'S A
LOT, AND I JUST KNOW THAT
FIRSTHAND.
>> SO I WANT TO THANK AS WELL
THOSE HAVE DONE RESEARCH IN THE
OFFICES AND WHO HELPED TO
DREDGE UP THESE NUMBERS.
WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT WAS GOING
ON IN LONG BEACH AND IN
OAKLAND, WE HAVE THE REFERENCES
TO THE MUNICIPAL CODES HERE.
WHAT YOU SEE IS OF ONE OF THE
FIRST LINES IN THE LEGISLATION.
HOTEL EMPLOYEES SHALL NOT BE
REQUIRED TO CLEAN MORE ROOMS
ACCOUNTING FOR 4000 SQUARE
FEET.
SO THE QUESTION FOR US WAS, WHY
4000 SQUARE FEET?
WHEN WE DID THE RESEARCH AND
THE DATA AS THE COUNCILMEMBER
HAS POINTED TO AND SAID THAT
THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF ROOMS
THAT ARE CLEANED ARE BETWEEN 13
TO 15 ROOMS, 13 ROOMS TIMES 330
SQUARE FEET IS 4290.
AT 15 ROOMS AT 330 SQUARE FEET,
IT WOULD BE 4950.
SO IF OUR INTENT IS TO PREVENT
INJURY, IF WE GO BACK TO THE
TERMINOLOGY, THAT'S THE WHOLE
REASON WE HAVE THREE TIMES PAY
FOR INJURY PREVENTION PAY.
WE WANT TO PREVENT WORKERS FROM
GETTING TO THAT THRESHOLD.
AT THE 5000 SQUARE-FOOT MARK,
WE WOULDN'T ACTUALLY BE
PREVENTING PEOPLE FROM GETTING
TO THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE
THRESHOLD WHERE WE SEE INJURIES
CREATED.
>> WE HAVE SOME DATA ON THAT.
5000 SQUARE FEET, THAT'S WHEN
INJURIES ARE MOST LIKELY TO
OCCUR.
>> I WILL DOUBLE CHECK ON THAT.
AS WE THINK ABOUT THE AVERAGE
NUMBERS OF ROOMS, THAT ONE
INDIVIDUAL CAN BEAR GIVEN THE
TYPE OF WORK THAT IS BEING
CONDUCTED, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR
US TO LOOK AT WHAT IS THE
AVERAGE AMOUNT AND HOW MUCH
MORE BEYOND THAT ARE PEOPLE
BEING ASKED TO WORK.
THAT'S WHY THE 13 TO 15 ROOMS
ARE REALLY IMPORTANT AS THE
THRESHOLD RIGHT NOW, AND GIVEN
THE NUMBER OF WORKERS THAT WE
SEE WITH HIGH RATES OF BACK
INJURIES IS OCCURRING BECAUSE
OF THIS AVERAGE NUMBER, WE WANT
TO SET THE THRESHOLD SLIGHTLY
LOWER TO ACTUALLY PREVENT THOSE
TYPES OF INJURIES.
SO, COUNCILMEMBER --
>> OF JUST GOING TO ADD, I
THINK THAT'S WHY I WENT TO THE
PROCESS OF ARTICULATING AND
DESCRIBING THE 2010 STUDY, SO
THAT THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF
INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE STUDY,
WHICH IS A PEER-REVIEWED STUDY.
THAT TALKS ABOUT WITH THE
STATUS QUO IN THE INDUSTRY IS
AS IT RELATES TO HIGHER RATES
OF OCCUPATIONAL INJURY FOR
HOTEL WORKERS, AND WHEN YOU
LAYER THAT PARTICULAR DATA WITH
THE INFORMATION WE HAVE FROM
THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
DONE IN THE CITY OF LONG BEACH
IN ADDITION TO SOME INFORMATION
RELATED TO JUST THAT NATIONAL
AVERAGE HOTEL ROOM SIZE OF
BEING 330 SQUARE FEET, I THINK
YOU CAN DRAW THE REASONABLE
CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS A
REASONABLE CORRELATION BETWEEN
THE NUMBER OF ROOMS CLEANED AND
THE RATES OF INJURY AND,
SPECIFICALLY, THE SQUARE
FOOTAGE THAT IS REPRESENTED BY
THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ROOMS
CLEANED, AND SO IN MY MIND WHEN
I AM ABLE TO JUST SORT OF
COBBLED THOSE PIECES OF
INFORMATION TOGETHER AND THEN
DO THE MATH, THAT'S WHAT LED ME
TO BELIEVE THAT 4500 WAS A MORE
REASONABLE THRESHOLD TO CREATE
A SHIFT IN THE STATUS QUO IN
THE INDUSTRY THAT WOULD PROMOTE
A LOWER RATE OF INJURY.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE A
CRYSTAL BALL.
I CAN'T DETERMINE WHETHER ALL
OF THIS IS GOING TO MAGICALLY
HAPPEN, AND NO ONE IS GOING TO
EXPERIENCE RATE OF INJURY OR
HAVE LESS RATES OF INJURY, BUT
AS A POLICYMAKER, THIS IS THE
BEST INFORMATION THAT I HAVE
AVAILABLE TO ME RIGHT NOW THAT
WILL ALLOW ME THE OPPORTUNITY
TO MAKE REASONABLE CONCLUSIONS
AND INFERENCES FROM THE
INFORMATION THAT IS AVAILABLE
TO US IN THIS SPACE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> WE DON'T HAVE A DIRECT
LONGITUDINAL STUDY SPECIFIC TO
THE CITY OF SEATTLE THAT WOULD
PROVIDE YOU -- OR ME A CLEAR
QUESTION AROUND THE DATA.
>> THANK YOU.
I'M APPRECIATIVE OF THAT, AND
IT'S RECOGNIZED THAT THIS IS
FORTHCOMING TODAY.
IT'S THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD
IT.
I WANT TO TALK WITH THE FOLKS
THAT ARE REPRESENTED IN THE
HOTEL YEARS THEMSELVES, SO I
WILL ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON HIS
PART TODAY, BUT I DO WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE, WE ARE DOING THE
BEST THAT WE CAN HEAR TRYING TO
FIND A POINT WHERE PEOPLE ARE
PROTECTED AND AT THE SAME TIME
IF YOU ARE TRYING TO AVOID ALL
INJURIES, WE DON'T DO THIS
WORK, RIGHT?
SO WE WANT TO COME UP WITH
SOMETHING THAT'S REASONABLE AND
THAT WE CAN POINT TO AND SAY,
YES, THIS IS WHERE WE WANT TO
END UP.
SO I WILL WANT TO DO A LITTLE
MORE RESEARCH ON IT, AND I WANT
TO THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT AND
FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD AND WE
WILL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT IT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER BAG
SHOP.
>> AND THANKS TO ALL OF YOU FOR
TALKING ON THIS.
I'M STILL GOING TO MOVE
FORWARD.
I WOULD LOVE TO AMEND THE
SUBSTITUTE VERSION THAT WE JUST
ADOPTED BY AMENDING SUBSTITUTE
VERSION D WITH AMENDMENT TO.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
ANY OPPOSED?
NINE.
ONE.
AMENDMENT TWO, VERSION D THREE
HAS PASSED BY A VOTE OF 3-0
WITH 1 ABSTENTION.
WE WILL KEEP THIS LEGISLATION
AS AMENDED IN OUR COMMITTEE FOR
CONVERSATION NEXT THURSDAY AS
WELL.
GREAT.
OKAY.
WE HAVE ONE MORE ITEM.
FOLKS, WE ARE RUNNING ABOUT 10
MINUTES LATE.
I'M WONDERING, CAN WE KEEP YOU
HERE AS WE WALK THROUGH THIS
NEXT ITEM?
>> YES.
>> ALL RIGHT.
CENTRAL STAFF, THANK YOU FOR
MOVING US ON FRONT TO THE LAST
AND FINAL BILL FOR OUR
CONSIDERATION.
WE HAVE ONE SUBSTITUTE VERSION
FOR US TO WALK THROUGH AND THEN
THREE POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS.
>> THIS IS COUNSEL BILL 119557,
HOTEL SAFETY PROTECTIONS.
THIS IS VERSION D-5, WHICH HAS
REVISIONS FROM THE LAST VERSION
THAT WAS PASSED, DETHREE, ON
AUGUST 15th.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF REVISIONS
HERE.
THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT THERE HAS
ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSION OF SOME
OF THEM AT THE TABLE DURING THE
JOB RETENTION ORDINANCE.
FIRST, ANCILLARY TO HOTEL
BUSINESS.
THERE IS A REVISED DEFINITION
THAT REFLECTS THE DAY SAME
DEFINITION THAT WAS ALREADY
DISCUSSED WHEN THE JOB
RETENTION BILL WAS UNDER
CONSIDERATION.
THE NEXT CHANGE REGARDS THE
DEFINITION OF PHYSICAL INJURY.
BODILY INJURY, BODILY HARM.
THESE ARE TERMS THAT WERE IN
THE DEFINITION OF VIOLENT OR
HARASSING CONDUCT IN THE
PREVIOUS VERSION.
THOSE TERMS ARE NO LONGER IN
THE REVISED DEFINITION OF
VIOLENT OR HARASSING CONDUCT,
SO THERE IS NO NEED TO DEFINE
THEM, SO THEY HAVE BEEN
REMOVED.
>> ON THIS WHEN I JUST WANT TO
SAY A SPECIAL THANK YOU TO THE
KING COUNTY SEXUAL ASSAULT
RESOURCE CENTER AND THE KING
COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE FOR
SOME OTHER HELPFUL FEEDBACK ON
THE FRAMING AND THE LANGUAGE
HERE.
>> NEXT IS A REVISED DEFINITION
FOR VIOLENT OR HARASSING
CONDUCT, WHICH PROVIDES MORE
DISTINCT PARAMETERS AROUND WHAT
THESE WORDS MEAN, AND NOW TO
DETERMINE WHAT CONSTITUTES THAT
KIND OF CONDUCT.
FOLKS WOULD LOOK TO THE REVISED
CODE OF WASHINGTON FOR THE
SPECIFIC TERMS OF ASSAULT,
HARASSMENT, SEXUAL CONTACT
WITHOUT CONSENT.
BOTH ARE DEFINED SEPARATELY AND
INDECENT EXPOSURE.
NEXT IS EMPLOYER COVERAGE.
THIS, AGAIN, CREATES A
DIFFERENT THRESHOLD NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES FOR ANCILLARY HOTEL
BUSINESSES AND PREVIOUS
VERSIONS OF THIS LAW, THERE WAS
A DEFINITION OF ANCILLARY HOTEL
BUSINESS.
THERE WAS NO THRESHOLD NUMBER
OF EMPLOYEES FOR COVERAGE.
THIS VERSION CREATES A
THRESHOLD OF 50 OR MORE
EMPLOYEES WORLDWIDE.
NEXT REGARDS PANIC BUTTONS.
THIS IS A SHIFT, AND PREVIOUSLY
ALL EMPLOYERS, HOTEL EMPLOYERS,
ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESSES WERE
RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING PANIC
BUTTONS.
IN THIS VERSION, HOTEL
EMPLOYERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR
DIRECTLY PROVIDING PANIC
BUTTONS TO HOTEL EMPLOYEES WHO
ARE ASSIGNED TO WORK IN A GUEST
ROOM OR DELIVER ITEMS TO A
GUEST ROOM.
AS FAR AS ANCILLARY HOTEL
BUSINESSES IS CONCERNED, HOTEL
EMPLOYERS ARE PROVIDING ACCESS
TO A PANIC BUTTON FOR THOSE
EMPLOYEES.
ONE MIGHT IMAGINE THERE IS A
FOOD DELIVERY EMPLOYEE COMING.
THEY GO TO THE FRONT DESK.
THEY PICK UP THE PANIC BUTTON,
AND THEN THEY GO TO THE ROOM.
THE HOTEL EMPLOYER IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR RESPONDING TO
AN ACTIVATED PANIC BUTTON.
AND ALL EMPLOYERS, ANCILLARY
HOTEL BUSINESS, AND HOTEL
EMPLOYERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR
NOT TAKING ADVERSE ACTION
AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE FOR
ACTUALLY USING THE PANIC
BUTTON.
EVERYONE NEEDS TO FEEL
COMFORTABLE.
THERE IS ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO
DEFINE ADVERSE ACTIONS WHEN
THOSE TYPES OF BEHAVIORS ARE
PROHIBITED BY THE EMPLOYER.
ALSO, FOR CCING WORK AND
LEAVING THE AREA TO PERCEIVED
DANGERS.
CHANGES THAT ENCOURAGE USE OF
THE PANIC BUTTON WITHOUT
RETALIATION.
>> DO I RECALL WE HAVE A
LANGUAGE THAT SAYS WE HAVE
ACCESS TO THAT THESE ARE MADE
AVAILABLE TO PEOPLE BUT THERE'S
NOT A REQUIREMENT THAT SOMEONE
CARRY IT?
>> CORRECT.
IT IS PHRASED AS HOTEL
EMPLOYERS SHALL PROVIDE ACCESS.
>> SO AS LONG AS THEY ARE
IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE, THE
HOTEL EMPLOYER HAS ON THEIR
PART.
IN THE ANCILLARY WROTE HOTEL
BUSINESS ARE STILL KNOWING WHAT
THEIR RIGHTS ARE TO GET A PANIC
BUTTON.
THAT IS, CERTAINLY, SOMETHING
THAT ANCILLARY BUSINESSES WILL
NEED TO DO.
NEXT IS A REVISIO TO THE
SIGNAGE PORTION OF THIS LAW.
HOTELS ARE REQUIRED TO INSTALL
A SIGN IN THE BACK OF GUEST
ROOM DOORS ALERTING GUESTS TO
THE PROTECTIONS OF THIS LAW.
HOTELS HAVE ALREADY PUT UP A
HOTEL OR PUT UP A SIGN THAT
ALERTS GUESTS 21425.
THIS LAW WILL HAVE A DIFFERENT
CITATION.
IT WILL BE 1426.
THIS RECOGNIZES THAT HOTELS
HAVE SPENT TIME, ENERGY, AND
FUNDING ON INSTALLING THOSE
LINES.
IF THEY ALREADY HAVE A SIGN
THAT REFERENCES 1425, INSTEAD
OF 1426, THAT IS OKAY, PROVIDED
THAT WHEN THE HOTEL GOES AND
UPDATES THOSE SIGNS, THEY NEED
TO MAKE SURE THAT 1426 IS CITED
ON IT.
OKAY.
NEXT REGARDS THE EMPLOYER'S
REQUIREMENT TO DEVELOP A POLICY
AGAINST VIOLENT AND HARASSING
CONDUCT BY GUESTS.
THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE
EMPLOYER TO DISTRIBUTE THAT
POLICY TO GUESTS UPON CHECK
INS.
THIS SIMPLY IDENTIFIES THAT THE
DIRECTOR THROUGH RULEMAKING CAN
IDENTIFY OTHER MEANS FOR THE
EMPLOYER TO GIVE THE POLICY TO
GUESTS AND SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES OTHER THAN CHECK-
IN, ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE NOT,
IF A GUEST IS NOT INTERACTING
WITH AN EMPLOYEE UPON CHECK IN,
IF THERE'S ANOTHER METHOD OF
DOING THAT.
WE HAVE FIVE PAGES LEFT AND
ABOUT A FEW MINUTES.
>> WE ARE ALL EAGER TO GET
THROUGH THIS.
I KNOW THAT I'M HERE TILL
12:30.
EMPLOYER REQUIREMENTS FOR
GUESTS WHO ARE ACCUSED OF
VIOLENT AND HARASSING CONDUCT.
EMPLOYERS ARE REQUIRED TO TAKE
NECESSARY STEPS.
THAT'S JUST THE LANGUAGE
CHANGE.
AT THE MINIMUM, EMPLOYERS
PREVIOUSLY WERE REQUIRED TO
DISCONTINUE AND THE LANGUAGE
HAS BEEN MODIFIED TO NOT ASSIGN
EMPLOYEES TO WORK IN THAT GUEST
ROOM OR MAKE DELIVERIES TO THE
GUEST ROOM, AND AN ADDITIONAL
PROVISION THAT EMPLOYERS MAY
ASSIGN EMPLOYEES TO ENTER A
GUEST ROOM TO CONDUCT A SAFETY
CHECK WITH SOME CONDITIONAL
LANGUAGE THAT WOULD ONLY TAKE
PLACE WHEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THAT KIND
OF ROOM ENTRY.
EMPLOYEES WOULD GO INTO THE
ROOM FOR A SAFETY CHECK WOULD
BE IN A TEAM, AND THEY COULD
DECLINE THAT ASSIGNMENT IF THEY
WANTED TO.
>> I WANT TO TAKE A QUICK
SECOND TO THINK THE HOTEL
ASSOCIATION.
WE WANT TO MAKE PEOPLE FEEL
LIKE THEY HAD THE FREEDOM AND
FLEXIBILITY TO DO WELLNESS
CHECKS.
WE HEARD ONE EXAMPLE FOR
INSTANCE CAME AFTER THE
SHOOTING IN LAS VEGAS, AND WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS
A PROVISION THAT IS CLEARLY
CALLED OUT AND APPRECIATE THEIR
ENGAGEMENT WITH US ON DRAFTING
THIS AMENDMENT.
>> NEXT REVISION IS FOR
EMPLOYER REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
EMPLOYEE WHO IS THE ALLEGED
VICTIM OF GUEST MISCONDUCT.
IT HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED
IN THE PREVIOUS VERSION THAT
THE EMPLOYER NEEDS TO REASSIGN
THE EMPLOYEE TO A DIFFERENT
WORK AREA, AND ADDITIONAL
LANGUAGE ADDS THAT THIS WOULD
ONLY HAPPEN UPON THE EMPLOYEE'S
REQUEST OR CONSENT TO EMPOWER
THE EMPLOYEE TO BE A
PARTICIPANT IN THE REASSIGNMENT
PROCESS AND ALSO TO MAKE SURE
THAT ANY REASSIGNMENT IS
EQUIVALENT OR BETTER THAN WHERE
THEY WERE ALREADY WORKING.
SO, AGAIN, GOING TOWARD
REDUCING RETALIATION AGAINST
THE EMPLOYEE.
ALSO, RECOGNIZING THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE EMPLOYEE
PARTICIPATION IN THIS
REASSIGNMENT.
SOME WERE CHANGES.
THERE IS A COPY OF THE NOTICE
PROVIDED TO THE GUESTS, AND
THEN THE OTHER CHANGES TO THAT
SECTION ARE PURELY TECHNICAL.
BUT WE ARE STILL ON THAT
SECTION.
OKAY.
EMPLOYERS ARE REQUIRED TO
PROVIDE EMPLOYEES UP TO 16
HOURS OF PAID TIME.
THERE'S NEW LANGUAGE CLARIFYING
THAT THIS PAID TIME IS IN
ADDITION TO ANY TIME THAT IS
PROVIDED PURSUANT TO STATE LAWS
FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, OR
STALKING.
THAT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO
PSS T AS WELL, WHICH
INCORPORATES THAT PAID TIME.
ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT
PERMITS EMPLOYERS TO REQUIRE
REASONABLE NOTICE OF AN
EMPLOYEE'S INTENT TO TAKE THE
PAID TIME, SO THEY ACTUALLY LET
MANAGEMENT KNOW I AM TAKING
THIS TIME RATHER THAN WHAT
MIGHT BE INTERPRETED AS A NO
CALL, NO SHOW.
THE EMPLOYER WILL NOT INQUIRE
ABOUT THE PAID TIME EXCEPT AS
PROVIDED BY ANY FORTHCOMING
RULES AT OFFICE OF LABOR
STANDARDS.
THE LAST CHANGE IN THIS SECTION
IS THAT OFFICE OF LABOR
STANDARDS WILL ESTABLISH A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
WITH A PARTICULAR KIND OF
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION TO
PROVIDE ACCESS TO A COMMUNITY
ADVOCATE.
SO I WILL UNPACK THAT A BIT.
FIRST, THE IDEA OF A COMMUNITY
ADVOCATE WAS IN THE PREVIOUS
VERSION AT THIS CALL TO SUPPORT
ADVOCATE.
IT HAS A NEW NAME THAT BETTER
REFLECTS WITH THIS PERSON.
COMMUNITY ADVOCATES ARE ALREADY
KNOWN FOR PROVIDING
CONFIDENTIAL SERVICES TO FOLKS
THAT REACH OUT TO THEM.
COMMUNITY ADVOCATE HELPS
EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE AN
ALLEGATION THAT MIGHT NOT RISE
TO THE LEVEL OF THE CRIME
VICTIM ADVOCATE THAT'S REQUIRED
UNDER STATE LAW, AND THEY ALSO
CAN HELP THE EMPLOYEE NAVIGATE
THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THIS
PARTICULAR HOTEL LIST LOCATION.
ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH
THE COMMUNITY-BASED VICTIMS
ADVOCACY PROGRAM WITH
CONFIDENTIAL ADVOCACY SERVICES
TO GO AHEAD AND PROVIDE ACCESS
TO THE COMMUNITY ADVOCATE 24/7.
THIS HELPS SET THE CRITERIA FOR
HOW OLS IS GOING TO MAKE THIS
SERVICE AVAILABLE.
UNDER THE NOTICE AND POSTING
SECTION, THERE IS A NEW RIGHT
TO MAKE SURE THAT OLS POSTER
ALSO INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO
REPORT VIOLENT AND HARASSING
CONDUCT BY GUESTS AND
EMPLOYEES.
SO A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.
WE MADE SURE THAT IT WAS ADDED
TO THE LIST OF NOTICE OF RIGHTS
ON THE POSTER.
NOTABLY ALSO, THERE IS THE
REMOVAL OF RECORDS RELATED TO
ALLEGATIONS OR INCIDENTS OF
VIOLENCE AND HARASSING CONDUCT
BY GUESTS.
THE RECORDS ARE, FOR THE MOST
PART, FOCUSING ON THE
EMPLOYER'S RESPONSE TO A
SITUATION WHEN AN EMPLOYEE OR
SOMEONE HAS REPORTED GUESTS
MISCONDUCT.
SO EMPLOYERS DO NEED TO KEEP A
RECORD OF THE WRITTEN POLICY
AGAINST VIOLENT AND HARASSING
CONDUCT.
EMPLOYERS NEED TO KEEP A RECORD
OF THE WRITTEN NOTICE THAT IS
PROVIDING TO THE GUEST AND TO
THE EMPLOYEE WHEN CONDUCT IS
REPORTED.
LET'S SEE.
THE STANDARD TERMS THAT THE OLS
DIRECTOR CAN ISSUE RULES
REQUIRING ADDITIONAL RECORDS TO
HELP IMPLEMENT THE LAW.
NOTABLY, SOMETHING THAT WAS
ADDED LAST TIME, NOT MAKING
SURE THAT EMPLOYERS KNEW THAT
THEY WERE NOT REQUIRED TO KEEP
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION OF A
GUEST ALLEGED TO HAVE ENGAGED
IN THIS MISCONDUCT.
THIS REVISION GOES FURTHER TO
SAY THAT EMPLOYERS SHALL NOT
INCLUDE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
OF GUESTS WHO HAVE ENGAGED IN
THIS MISCONDUCT IN TERMS OF HOW
THEY ARE KEEPING RECORDS TO
SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THIS LAW.
AT LAST --
>> I THINK IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT, BECAUSE WE HAD A LOT
OF QUESTIONS ABOUT LISTS AND
RETENTIONS OF RECORDS AND STUFF
AND THIS MAKES IT CLEAR THAT WE
ARE NOT CREATING LISTS.
COUNCIL MEMBER GONZALES.
>> I THOUGHT YOU WERE --
>> YES.
I THINK WE HAVE COLLECTIVELY AS
A GROUP DONE A LOT OF THINKING
ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE,
AND I THINK THAT THE POLICY
MOTIVATION HERE IS TO REALLY
MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE STAYING
FOCUSED ON WHAT ACTIONS THE
EMPLOYER HAS TAKEN TO COMPLY
WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW AND
THE LANGUAGE OF THE LAW, AND SO
I THINK THESE ARE REASONABLE
MODIFICATIONS TO THE LANGUAGE
TOO, AGAIN, STAY LASER FOCUSED
ON WHAT THE EMPLOYER HAS DONE
TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW.
SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE OF THE
PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION OF THE
GUEST THAT WAS ACCUSED, AND SO
REALLY I THINK WE STILL HAVE
MAINTAINED THE INTEGRITY OF THE
INTENT OF INITIATIVE 124 IN THE
SPACE WHILE ALSO CREATING A
REASONABLE PATHWAY FORWARD THAT
WILL ALLAY OR HAS ALLAYED SOME
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS
THAT WERE BEING EXPRESSED BY
THE ACLU OF WASHINGTON AND
OTHERS AND I KNOW THAT ACLU OF
WASHINGTON IS ENGAGED VERY
CLOSELY WITH BOTH OF OUR
OFFICES AND APPRECIATE STAFF
TIME IN HAVING THOSE MANY
CONVERSATIONS.
WE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE
ACLU OF WASHINGTON REACTING TO
AND PROVIDING ADDITIONAL
FEEDBACK TO THIS SECTION IN
PARTICULAR OF THE COUNCIL BILL
AND WANTED TO JUST TAKE A
MOMENT TO READ THE RELEVANT
PARTS FROM THE ANIMAL WITH THE
CHAIR'S PERMISSION.
THEY WROTE, WE HAVE GREATLY
APPRECIATED YOUR ONGOING
ENGAGEMENT TO US TO PROVIDE
AMENDMENTS BASED ON THE MOST
RECENT DRAFT OF A POSSIBLE
AMENDMENT THAT WE HAVE SEEN.
WE BELIEVE OUR CONCERNS HAVE
BEEN ADDRESSED AND ARE HAPPY TO
SUPPORT PASSAGE OF THIS
ORDINANCE.
THEY GO ON TO SPECIFICALLY
ADDRESS THE COMPONENTS OF THE
SUBSTITUTE BILL THAT ARE
RESPONSIVE TO THE REQUESTS.
IT IS DIRECTLY THE OUTLINES TO
BEING STRICKEN IN THE
SUBSTITUTE VERSION.
I'M REALLY HAPPY THAT WE WERE
ABLE TO BOTH STAY TRUE TO THE
INTENT OF INITIATIVE 124 AND
OUR COLLECTIVE INTENT TO
PROTECT WORKERS IN THIS SPACE
FROM THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR
WHILE ALSO BALANCING THE NEED
FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS
FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE
NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE
A FULL VETTING OF POTENTIAL
ALLEGATIONS.
I'M REALLY HAPPY THAT WE'VE
BEEN ABLE TO DIG IN AND I
COMMEND YOU AND YOUR STAFF IN
PARTICULAR FOR ALL OF THE
TREMENDOUS WORK THAT YOU HAVE
DONE TO GET US HERE.
>> THANK YOU.
A HUGE APPRECIATION.
VERY EXCITED TO SEE THIS.
I WILL JUST READ ONE MORE LINE.
WE APPLAUD THE COUNCIL'S
RECOGNITION OF THE SERIOUS NEED
FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR PROTECTION
AND HEALTH AND THE HEALTH OF
THE HOTEL WORKERS WHO ARE
TYPICALLY WOMEN AND OFTEN
PEOPLE OF COLOR.
WE STRONGLY SUPPORT AND
APPRECIATE YOUR LEADERSHIP ON
THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE, SO THAT'S
A HUGE CONGRATULATIONS TO THE
ENTIRE COMMITTEE AND THE FULL
COUNCIL AS WELL, BECAUSE WE
CONSTANTLY BEEN ENGAGED IN
ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW WE
CAN GET TO OUR FAVORITE PHRASE.
I REALLY APPRECIATE SENDING
THIS CLARIFICATION OVER, SO
THANK YOU FOR READING THAT.
>> THE TIMING COULD NOT BE
BETTER.
>> TODAY.
>> I KNOW YOU HAVE ONE MORE
PAGE.
>> YEAH.
VERY QUICKLY, THERE IS
ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE SAYING THAT
EMPLOYERS SHALL MAINTAIN THE
CONFIDENTIALITY OF ALL OF THESE
RECORDS AND LIMIT ACCESS TO
MANAGEMENT AND.
>> RESOURCES STAFF.
MOVING ON TO THE ENFORCEMENT
SECTION.
THERE HAS ALREADY BEEN
DISCUSSION OF HOW THE DIRECTOR
CAN SPECIFY THAT ANY AMOUN OF
CIVIL PENALTIES AND FINES ARE
DUE TO THE PARTY RATHER THAN
JUST TO THE CITY.
THERE WAS LANGUAGE THAT WAS
EDITED BACK IN REGARDING A CAP
ON FINES THAT WAS TAKEN OUT IN
THE LAST VERSION.
NOW IT'S BACK.
AS IS REFLECTIVE THROUGHOUT
THIS LEGISLATION, THE PENALTIES
HAVE BEEN DOUBLED.
LAST, THE EFFECTIVE DATE
REFLECTS THE SAME CONCEPT THAT
HAPPENED WITH JOB RETENTION
ORDINANCE WHERE THE DATE IS
PUSHED FORWARD TO JULY 1st AND
FOREMOST EMPLOYERS.
THERE IS -- EVEN FURTHER INTO
THE FUTURE, EFFECTIVE DATE JULY
1, 2025 FOR ANCILLARY HOTEL
BUSINESSES THAT HAVE BETWEEN 50
AND 250 EMPLOYEES AND THAT
CONTRACT WITH THE HOTEL.
>> SO THAT IS ALL OF THE
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO COUNCIL
BILL 119557.
THE SUGGESTION HERE WOULD BE
THAT WE TAKE ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS ON THIS AND
POTENTIALLY CONSIDER A VOTE ON
THIS SUBSTITUTE VERSION.
THERE IS POTENTIALLY THREE
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT WE
WOULD ENTERTAIN IF THE COUNCIL
MEMBERS ARE INTERESTED IN
AMENDING THE STRIKER BILL.
SO IF THERE -- ARE THERE ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE
SUBSTITUTE THAT WE'VE DESCRIBED
IT TODAY?
OKAY.
SEEING NONE, THANK YOU, KARINA,
FOR WALKING US THROUGH THAT AND
CENTRAL STAFF FOR YOUR VERY
COMPREHENSIVE MEMO ON THIS.
AGAIN, THANKS TO THE
STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING ACLU,
ONE AMERICA, THE KING COUNTY
SEXUAL ASSAULT RESOURCE CENTER
AND KING COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S
OFFICE FOR SPECIFICALLY
ENGAGING WITH US ON THIS
LEGISLATION AND TO UNITE HERE
AND THE HOTEL ASSOCIATION FOLKS
WHO PROVIDED US WITH FEEDBACK
AS WELL.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO AMEND
COUNCIL BILL 119557 BY
SUBSTITUTING VERSION D-24
VERSION D-5 THAT WE JUST WALKED
THROUGH.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
ANY OPPOSED?
NONE.
GREAT. SO THE UNDERLYING BILL
HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED BY A VOTE
OF 4-0. WE DO HAVE THREE
POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS.
I BELIEVE COUNCILMEMBER BACK
SHOT, THE FIRST AMENDMENT THAT
WE WOULD BE WILLING TO
ENTERTAIN IS AN AMENDMENT FROM
YOU.
AMENDMENT TWO.
ARE YOU STILL INTERESTED IN
DISCUSSING THAT?
>> I THINK THAT NOW WITH THAT
WE HAVE RECEIVED WORD FROM ACLU
THAT THEY ARE HAPPY WITH THE
DIRECTION THAT WE ARE GOING, I
THINK IT'S BEEN ADDRESSED.
>> EXCELLENT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK TO
CONTINUE TO ELEVATE THOSE
ISSUES AS WELL, AND I'M REALLY
HAPPY THAT WE GOT TO A
RESOLUTION ON THE ISSUES YOU'VE
BEEN CALLING OUT.
THE NEXT AMENDMENT THAT WE HAVE
IS AMENDMENT TO FROM
COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO.
I BELIEVE YOU HAVE HANDED OUT
COPIES OF THE AMENDMENT THAT WE
HAVE HERE.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO IT
FIRST, OR WOULD YOU LIKE
CENTRAL STAFF TO COMMENT?
>> SURE.
SO JUST GIVE IN, AGAIN, THE
INTEREST OF WHAT I WAS TRYING
TO INTERPRET FROM WHAT VOTERS
HAD GIVEN US, I JUST THOUGHT 14
DAYS, GIVING MORE FLEXIBILITY
TO THE INDIVIDUAL THAT'S BEEN
IMPACTED AND AFFECTED BY AN
INCIDENT WOULD NEED MORE TIME,
WHETHER THAT'S TO CONSULT WITH
AN ADVOCATE, AN ATTORNEY, OR
LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND SO I
WANTED TO PROVIDE MORE
FLEXIBILITY AND UNDERSTANDING
THAT SOMETIMES SOME DAYS MAY BE
DIFFICULT TO SEE SOMEONE.
I WANTED TO EXPAND THAT TO
INCLUDE 14 DAYS.
>> AND I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU
BRINGING THIS FORWARD FROM THE
PROTECTION OF WORKERS AND THE
EXPERIENCE OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE
BEEN IN SITUATIONS LIKE THAT.
WE KNOW THAT, AS YOU SAID, IT
TAKES TIME FOR PEOPLE TO COME
FORWARD AND SOMETIMES PROCESS
WHAT'S HAPPENED TO THEM.
THE AMENDED THAT YOU PROPOSED
DOESN'T CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF
HOURS THAT AN INDIVIDUAL CAN
TAKE TO ACCESS THE SERVICES,
BUT THE TIME WINDOW IN WHICH
THEY HAVE TO ACCESS IT.
WE ARE KEEPING TRUE TO THAT 16
HOURS, BUT THEY CAN TAKE THAT
TIME WITHIN TWO WEEKS.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> EXCELLENT.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON
THAT?
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALES.
>> THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE THIS AMENDMENT
THAT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE AN
EMPLOYEE ADDITIONAL TIME TO
CLAIM THEIR 16 HOURS OF PAID
TIME UNDER THIS PARTICULAR
LEGISLATION.
I JUST WANT TO BE REALLY CLEAR
THAT THIS ONLY APPLIES TO THOSE
16 HOURS OF PAID TIME THAT ARE
AWARDED UNDER THIS PARTICULAR
COUNCIL BILL BUT WOULD NOT
PREVENT OR PROHIBIT OR
OTHERWISE RESTRICT OR LIMIT THE
EMPLOYEE'S ABILITY TO STILL DO
A POLICE REPORT CONTACT,
COUNSELORS, CONTACT LAWYERS.
THIS IS JUST RELATED TO THE.
OF TIME IN WHICH THE EMPLOYEE
HAS TO CLAIM THOSE 16 HOURS OF
PAID TIME AS OPPOSED TO
CHANGING ANY SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS
THAT THE EMPLOYEE MIGHT HAVE TO
OTHERWISE PURSUE EITHER
CRIMINAL OR CIVIL REMEDIES
AVAILABLE TO HIM OR HER UNDER
EXISTING STATE AND CITY LAWS.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> I THINK THE COUNCILMEMBER
SAID SOMETHING SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENT THAN THAT, AND I JUST
NEED TO MAKE REALLY CLEAR THAT
THIS IS NOT CHANGING THOSE, AND
SO IT'S NOT THAT IF YOU DON'T
DO IT WITHIN TWO WEEKS YOU'VE
LOST ALL REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO
YOU, IT'S ONLY AS IT RELATES TO
THE 16 HOURS OF PAID TIME FOR
THIS PARTICULAR BILL.
>> CORRECT.
AND SOMETIMES I FORGET THAT I'M
IN A TABLE FULL OF ATTORNEYS.
>> AT LEAST TWO.
>> BUT, CORRECT.
THE INTENT IS TO PROVIDE MORE
FLEXIBILITY.
>> EXCELLENT.
I KNOW WE HAVE JUST A FEW MORE
MINUTES UNTIL FOLKS HAVE TO
DISAPPEAR.
I'M GOING WITH YOU I THINK TO
THE NEXT MEETING.
THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO
CLARIFY IS THAT WE HAVE
RECEIVED REALLY HELPFUL
FEEDBACK FROM THE EMPLOYER'S
SIDE AS WELL, JUST LIKE WE DO A
STICK AND SAFELY.
IF ANY TIME IS BEING TAKEN TO
ACCESS THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED
UNDER THIS SECTION THAT THEY
PROVIDE NOTIFICATION TO THE
EMPLOYER SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW
THEY NEED TO ADVISE THEIR
EMPLOYER THAT THEY ARE TAKING
THIS TIME.
THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THIS DRAFT
AS WELL.
>> 'S GREAT.
LET'S TALK A LITTLE ABOUT
PROCESS HERE.
LET'S ASSUME THE WORST HAPPENS.
WE HAVE ANY LANGUAGE ANYWHERE
IN OUR CURRENT LEGISLATION OR
AMENDMENTS ABOUT ENCOURAGING
THE EMPLOYEE TO TELL THE
EMPLOYER IMMEDIATELY ABOUT
WHAT'S GONE ON.
WHERE ARE WE NOW WITH THAT
LANGUAGE.
>> THERE IS REASONABLE NOTICE
THAT'S IN THE LEGISLATION NOW.
IF I'M UNDERSTANDING QUESTION
CORRECTLY.
>> SOMETHING HORRIBLE HAPPENS
TO AN EMPLOYEE, HOW ARE WE
ENCOURAGING THAT REPORTING SO
THAT THE EMPLOYEE EVER TELLS
THE EMPLOYER AS PROMPTLY AS
POSSIBLE THAT SOMETHING
HAPPENED.
>> , YOU WERE IN THE MEETING
WHERE WE DISCUSSED THE NEED FOR
NOTIFICATION AS EARLY AS
POSSIBLE.
CAN YOU SPEAK TO WHERE THAT'S
AT?
>> YET, THE BILL PROVIDES THAT
THE EMPLOYER IS NOT ALLOWED TO
ASK ABOUT OR INQUIRE INTO THE
SPECIFICS OF WHAT KIND OF
CONSULTATIONS THE EMPLOYEE MAY
HAVE MADE WITH A SUPPORT PERSON
OF ONE STRIPE OR ANOTHER.
>> I'M SORRY.
>> FOR THE TIME THAT THE
INCIDENT HAPPENS, HOW ARE WE IN
INDICATING TO LET THE EMPLOYEE
LET THEM KNOW -- LET THE
EMPLOYER KNOW.
>> WHERE AS THE EMPLOYER IS NOT
ALLOWED TO ASK, THE EMPLOYEE IS
SUPPOSED TO GIVE REASONABLE
NOTICE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO
BE TAKING THE 16 HOURS OF TIME
OR UP TO THAT AMOUNT OF TIME.
>> JUST ROLLED BACK TO THE
INCIDENT ITSELF.
SO SOMETHING HORRIBLE HAPPENS
AT MIDNIGHT, HOW ARE WE
ENCOURAGING THE EMPLOYEE TO LET
THE EMPLOYER KNOW ABOUT THE
INCIDENT ITSELF, NOT AFTERMATH
AS FAR AS CONSULTATION OR
GETTING ASSISTANCE BUT JUST TO
LET THE EMPLOYER KNOW THAT
SOMETHING HAS HAPPENED.
>> I THINK THAT'S HELPED TO THE
EMPLOYEE TO DECIDE.
I THINK TO MY RECOLLECTION, THE
BILL DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT SUCH
NOTIFICATION HAPPENED.
>> THERE IS LANGUAGE THAT WE
CLARIFIED IN THE LEGISLATION SO
THAT AN EMPLOYER DOES KNOW IF
TOMORROW MORNING AT 8:00 A.M.,
THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE TWO
HOURS TO CALL THE RESOURCE
SUPPORT PERSON THAT HAS BEEN
REFERRED TO THEM THAT THE
EMPLOYER HAS NOTIFICATION.
THAT'S A VERY REASONABLE
REQUEST.
CAN YOU POINT TO US WHERE
THAT'S AT IN THE LEGISLATION?
>> I THINK I'VE HEARD THAT THE
LANGUAGE IS REASONABLE NOTICE.
>> 365 DAYS AFTER THE EVENT,
PROBABLY NOT REASONABLE, BUT I
DON'T THINK THAT I'M HEARING
FROM COUNCIL STAFF THAT THERE'S
ANY OTHER LANGUAGE BESIDES
REASONABLE NOTICE.
>> THERE'S TWO REPORTS HERE.
TWO KINDS OF NOTICE.
THE FIRST KIND OF NOTICE IS TO
THE EMPLOYER THAT THIS REALLY
BAD THING HAPPENED, THE GUEST
MISCONDUCT.
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, --
>> AND THEN THERE IS THE PAID
TIME.
>> RIGHT.
>> THERE IS NO LANGUAGE THAT
SAYS THAT THAT HAS TO HAPPEN
WITHIN A CERTAIN TIMEFRAME.
THE NEXT NOTICE IS IF IT HAS
BEEN REPORTED, THE NOTICE OF I
WANT TO USE MY PAID TIME, AND
SO WHAT'S BEEN ADDED TO THE
LEGISLATION IS REASONABLE
NOTICE.
OLS CAN HELP DEFINE WHAT THAT
IS, AND IT CAN SAVE TIME FOR A
FOUNDATION FROM WHICH TO BUILD
ON FOR THAT REASONABLE NOTICE.
>> THAT WAS MY INTENT.
WHEN WE PASSED INITIATIVE 1432
ON SICK AND SAFELY, WE HAD A
ROBUST CONVERSATION WITH WORKER
ADVOCATES AND BUSINESS
ADVOCATES TO FIGURE OUT WHAT
THAT REASONABLE NOTICE WAS SO
IF SOMEONE WAS TAKING SICK OR
SAFE LEAVE, THERE WAS AMPLE
NOTICE WHEN POSSIBLE.
WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT AN
INCIDENT LIKE THIS OR GETTING
SICK OR HAVING AN ACCIDENT, YOU
DON'T OFTEN GET A HEADS UP, AND
SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT
THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF
FLEXIBILITY, BUT THEY DID THAT
IN RULEMAKING AT L&I AND OUR
INTENT IS TO MIRROR THAT HERE.
>> IS ON PAGE 10 OF THE BILL.
IT'S UNDER SECTION 1426,
SUBPARAGRAPH A AND ITEM NUMBER
5. EMPLOYERS MAY REQUIRE
EMPLOYEES TO PROVIDE REASONABLE
NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE PAID
TIME PROVIDED FOR IN THE
RELEVANT SUBSECTION, BUT
EMPLOYER SHALL MAKE NO
INQUIRIES ABOUT THE UP TO 16
HOURS OF PAID TIME REFERENCED
IN THAT SUBSECTION EXCEPT AS
MAY BE PROVIDED IN RULES.
>> THANK YOU FOR FINDING THAT
FOR US.
I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ASK
FOR THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE HERE
TO CONSIDER THE AMENDMENT,
WHICH IS AMENDMENT NO.
3.
>> SECOND.
>> ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF AMENDING
VERSION D-5 WITH AMENDMENT
THREE.
THAT AND THEN IT HAS BEEN
INCLUDED BY A VOTE OF 4-0.
COUNCIL MEMBER BACK SHOT, THANK
YOU FOR BEING HERE.
I HAVE ONE MORE AMENDMENT,
WHICH IS FINE IF YOU LEAVE.
IT'S A HELPFUL AMENDMENT FOR
SOME OF THE SMALLER BUSINESSES,
AND I WILL BE IN OUR MEETING
ROOM MOMENTARILY.
COUNSEL, CENTRAL STAFF, WE HAVE
ONE LAST AMENDMENT THAT COMES
FROM COUNCILMEMBER GONZALES AND
MYSELF ON THE IMPLEMENTATION
FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.
DO WE HAVE THAT HANDED OUT AS
WELL?
OKAY.
AND THIS IS RELATED TO THE
EMPLOYER COVERAGE.
CENTRAL STAFF, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO WALK THROUGH THIS FOR US?
>> YET, SO THERE IS TWO PLACES
IN THIS BILL WHERE THE CEMENT
WOULD BE SEEN.
IT'S IN THE EMPLOYER COVERAGE
SECTION AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE
SECTION.
THE AMENDMENT WOULD COVER ALL
ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESSES
REGARDLESS OF EMPLOYEE SIZE BY
REMOVING THE THRESHOLD COVERAGE
REQUIREMENT OF 50 OR MORE
EMPLOYEES WORLDWIDE, AND IT
WOULD CREATE A SINGLE
IMPLEMENTATION DATE OF JULY 1,
2020 BY REMOVING THE DELAYED
IMPLEMENTATION DATE FOR CERTAIN
ANCILLARY HOTEL BUSINESSES.
SO THIS TAKES THE PROPOSED
LEGISLATION BACK TO WHERE IT
WAS IN D-3.
>> SO IN MY PERSPECTIVE AND
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CHIME IN, I
WOULD CONSIDER THIS A TECHNICAL
AMENDMENT.
I THINK WHAT WE HAVE DONE WAS
BORROW THE LANGUAGE FROM THE
PREVIOUS BILL WHEN WE LOOKED AT
THE IMPLEMENTATION DATE FOR
SOME OF OUR SMALL BUSINESSES AS
IT RELATES TO RETENTION AND WE
HAD COPIED AND PASTED IT WHEN
WE ALL KNOW, AS COUNCILMEMBER
PACHECO HAS MENTIONED, THAT
EVERY EMPLOYEE SHOULD HAVE
THSE PROTECTIONS UNDER THE
LAW, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE ARE NOT PHASING IN THIS
TYPE OF PROTECTION, WHETHER IT
IS SOMEONE ACCESSING THE NEW 16
HOURS OR WHETHER IT'S THEIR
ABILITY TO COME FORWARD AND
EXPRESS WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM.
WE THINK THAT THESE PROTECTIONS
FOR WORKERS IN TERMS OF SAFETY
AND FREEDOM FROM HARASSMENT AND
INTIMIDATION SHOULD BE IN PLACE
FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON
THAT?
SO IT'S KIND OF A CLEANUP
LEGISLATION, A CLEANUP
AMENDMENT, I WOULD SAY.
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON
THAT?
>> NO, NO.
>> OKAY.
ANY ADDITIONAL VERIFICATION
FROM STAFF I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE
THAT WE INCLUDE AMENDMENT FOUR.
>> SECOND.
>> ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS?
SEEING ON.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE
SAY I.
>> OPPOSED?
THAT GETS US THROUGH THE THIRD
PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
IT IS FOUR MINUTES AFTER 12:30.
I APPRECIATE YOU ALL STAYING
HERE.
WE HAVE THESE THREE PIECES OF
LEGISLATION THAT HAVE BEEN
AMENDED.
THIS WILL BE CONSIDERED THE
BASE FOR THOSE PIECES OF
LEGISLATION.
WE WILL KEEP THOSE IN COMMITTEE.
WE WILL TAKE UP THE HEALTHCARE
BILL IN ADDITION TO THESE THREE
AFTER WE CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO
THE HEALTHCARE BILL AND,
IDEALLY, PASS THEM OUT AS A
FULL PACKAGE.
IT'S BEEN REALLY GREAT WORKING
WITH ALL OF YOU.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR EMINENCE
THAT YOU BROUGHT FORWARD TODAY,
AND THANK YOU FOR THE
COSPONSORSHIP OF THESE EFFORTS.
WE WILL CONVENE AGAIN AT 9:00
A.M.
ON SEPTEMBER 19th, AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO SEEING YOU ALL AGAIN
SOON.
>> THANK YOU.
I JUST WANTED TO --
>> I'M SORRY, CAN I CLARIFY
SOMETHING?
I SAID SEPTEMBER 19th.
I MEANT SEPTEMBER 12th.
MY MISTAKE.
>> THAT'S OKAY.
WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IS JUST
FOR THE SAKE OF THE KNOWLEDGE
OF THE PUBLIC.
WE HAD A CONVERSATION EARLIER
TODAY WITH COUNSEL CENTRAL
STAFF IN WHICH WE INDICATED THE
POSSIBILITY THAT FOR THAT
SEPTEMBER 12th COMMITTEE
HEARING THERE MIGHT BE SORT OF
AN ALL NERVOUS CLEANUP BILL IF
COUNSEL CENTRAL STAFF HAS
ENOUGH BANDWIDTH TO GET TO IT
THAT WILL BE TECHNICAL IN
NATURE THAT WILL FOCUS ON
THINGS LIKE WORD CONSISTENCY,
GRAMMAR, OTHER QUALITY CONTROL
THINGS.
I DON'T WANT FOLKS TO BE
STARTLED IF THEY SEE SORT OF A
NEW SET OF AMENDMENTS THAT
THEY'VE NEVER SEEN BEFORE AND
ARE WONDERIN IF THEY ARE GOING
TO BE CHANGES THAT IT WOULD BE
INTENDED TO BE JUST A TECHNICAL
CLEANUP, MAKE SURE THAT THE
QUALITY CONTROL HAS BEEN IN
PLACE SINCE WE HAVE BEEN
SPENDING THE TIME FOCUSED ON
THE SUBSTANTIVE POLICY ISSUES
AND THEY WOULD RELATE TO THAT
AND NOT AS MUCH TIME ON DOING
THE ORDINARY QUALITY CONTROL
CHECKS, SO JUST WANTED FOLKS TO
BE AWARE THAT THAT MIGHT BE
SOMETHING IF THERE IS TIME FROM
COUNSEL CENTRAL STAFF.
DID I APPROPRIATELY
CHARACTERIZE THAT?
>> THANK YOU.
SO WE WILL HAVE A LONG LIST OF
THANK YOUSE AS WE GET INTO THE
FINAL PASSAGE OF THOSE FOUR
PIECES OF LEGISLATION.
I WANT TO THANK BOTH OF YOU,
AGAIN, AND SPECIFICALLY WE HAVE
TALKED ABOUT OUR STAFF DOING A
TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK.
THANK YOU TO BREANNA THOMAS
FROM YOUR STAFF, COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALES FOR HER WORK ON THIS
AS WELL, AND FOR ALL OF THE LAS
WHO ARE ENGAGING WITH US AND
YOUR OFFICE FOR WORKING WITH US
ON THESE VARIOUS AMENDMENTS.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK
YOU.
CENTRAL STAFF, WE REALLY
APPRECIATE YOU WORKING OVER THE
NEXT WEEK WITH US ON VARIOUS
CONSIDERATIONS TO THE
HEALTHCARE BILL AND IF THERE
ARE ANY CLEANUP PIECES ON THESE
PIECES BEFORE WE VOTE THEM OUT
NEXT WEEK, I APPRECIATE THAT IN