Orders and directives. Committee members attend through video and participate to the same extent as if physically present. While the comments will be available for each item. Cable 26 and sfgovtv are streaming the call in number across the screen. Comments and opportunities to speak are available at 415 6550001. Once connected and prompted to the access code which is 145 4314683. Then press pound and press pound a second time to be connected to the meeting. When connected you will hear the discussions. You will be muted and in a listening mode. When your item of interest comes up, dial star three to be added to the speaker line. Call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turndown your television, radio or streaming device. Everyone must account for time delays between the live meeting and the streaming coverage. You may submit Public Comment in the following ways. Email me, the clerk of the government audit and oversight committee. Joh nca rroll at sfgov. Org. You will be included in the legislative file as part of the matter. Your written comments may be sept bsent by u. S. Post office. Items acted upon today will apbe on the june 30, 2020 agenda unless otherwise stated. Please call items, one, two, three, four. 1 through 4 ordinance fixing compensation for persons employed by the city and county whose compensation is subject to charter a8. 409 in job codes not represented by an employee organization. The First Amendment memorandum of understanding between the city and county and teamsters 856 to provide appropriate differential over subordinate classifications and onetime payment to employees in classification 2496. Imaging supervisor. First p the First Amendment to the 20192022 memorandum of understanding to provide onetime payment to include a firearms instructor premium and ordinance for the memorandum of understanding between the city and county. Miscellaneous to update night shift differential and include onetime payment to employees in specified classifications. Members of the public wishing to comment on these items call the public number and enter the access code 145 4314683. Press pound twice to connect and press star followed by 3 to speak. Mr. Chair, i am in receipt of a memo requesting these four be considered as Committee Reports for consideration by the board of supervisors early on the jun. Mr. Chair. Than thank you, mr. Clerk. Welcome carol from the department of Human Resources to present these items. Thank you, mr. Chair, members of the committee. These four items in front of you, one of them is a byproduct of 2019 negotiations that was put into a separate process, that being the firearms premium agreed upon between the supervising probation officers of the city. This is a premium paid while performing the duties of firearms instructor which happens periodically in that group. There are two items. Teamsters item and the Service Employees International Union local 1001 item that are byproducts every classification of the radiology series. That provides services at zuckerberg General Hospital and elsewhere. The study was i was implemente. We have two clerical amendments to adjust the rate of the supervisor of the classifications to deal with an item left out which is the swing and night shift differentials for these classifications. The unrepresented ordinance. No new additional spending in the ordinance. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Than thank you for all your k on these m. O. U. S. Before we go to Public Comment, colleagues any questions or comments . Seeing none, why dont we go to Public Comment on these items. Operations is checking to see if there are callers in the queue. Please let us know if they are ready press star and three to be added t to the queue. Wait until you are prompted to begin at the beep. On cable 26 or sfgovtv call in by the instructions on the screen by dialing 415 6550001. Enter 145 4314683pound twice and star three to be added to the queue. Do we have any callers . We do not have any callers in the queue for these items. Thank you, operations. Thank you, mr. Clerk. Hearing no callers on Public Comment is now closed. I would like to move to recommend these items as Committee Report for the june 23rd meeting of the board of supervisors. Mr. Clerk please call the roll. The motion that these be forwarded as Committee Reports vice chair peskin. Aye. Haney. Aye. Chair mar. Aye. There are three ayes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Clerk please call items 5 and 6 together. Two resolution authorizing the mayor to cast assessment ballots in the affirmative to the proposed renewal and expansion of property and business improvements district to be named the Castro Community benefit district with respect to certain parcels of Real Property owned by the city subject to assessment in the district. Members of the public call 415 6550001. Enter access code 145 4314683. Press pound twice to connect to the meeting. Then the star key followed by 3 to enter the queue to speak. These are on the agenda as Committee Reports. Welcome chris from the office of economic and Work Force Development to present. Good morning. Thank you for hearing these items today. I am the Senior Program manager. Today i am here presenting two resolutions authorizing the mayor to cast a ballot for the City Property based district Castro Community benefit district and the same for the Fishermans Wharf cbd. On may 29th the department of elections mailed ballots to Property Owners in the cbds. Initially, on may 29 one ballot was sent for the Fishermans Wharf and six to the city of county for the castro cbd. Within the past 36 hours we received information that was confirmed two parcels in the castro have been purchased and are owned by the city and county of San Francisco. We recommend including these in the resolutions. First would be parcel 3501006, for 1,008. 08. 116 of the budget at 1939 market. 3501007. 1,039. 55. That is. 127 of the cbd budget. The new total for the city owned parcels in the cbd 74,211. 99 or 9. 051 of the total cbd budget. This proposed amendment would have on page 2 line 11 for item 5 the number 6 become 8. The table page 3 line one add two row one for each parcel. With the corresponding information and the total online 16 for item 5 should be updated to 74,211. 99. Percentage should be updated to 9. 051 . For the Fisherman Wharf cbd the one parcel is 5,868. 67,. 848 of the total assessment budget. If the board passes these the city can vote in both elections. We both elections. We will answer questions from the committee. Thank you very much. Colleagues questions or comments . A clarifying clerical question. I may have missed it you are can requesting to five and six to add parcels. No, just agenda item 5. I wanted to at that i did receive a request from supervisor mandelman whose district includes cass pro benefit district Castro District that we move the amendment that was verbally presented today. Mr. Clerk maybe we could go to Public Comment. Any callers on the line . Mr. Chair, operations will check for callers in the queue. For those connected to the meeting please press star and three to be added to the queue to speak. If you are on hold continue to wait until you are prompted to begin at the beep. If you are watching on 26 or through sfgovtv, if you wish to speak please call in by following the instructions on your screen. 415 6550001 and enter 145 4314683. Press pound twice and star followed by three to enter the queue to speak. Any callers on this item . Yes, i have one caller in the queue. Thank you. You have two minutes. Caller the item on the reemployment ordinance. Right now we are on agenda items 5 and sixty the government oversight and audit to authorize the mayor to cast ballots in the affirmative for proposed cbd formations in districts in the castro and fishermens wharf. Are these items you are calling on . Caller i will pass for now in the queue. You are referring to item 8 that is coming up. Any other callers . Thank you very much. Thank you, operations. Hearing no further callers, Public Comment is now closed. I would like to move that we accept the amendment to item 5 that was verbally presented. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. On the motion to amend offered by supervisor mar to add additional parcels to agenda item 5, peskin. Aye. Haney. Aye. Chair mar. Aye. There are three ayes. Thank you, mr. Clerk. I would like to move to recommend item 5 as amended and item 6 as Committee Reports for the june 23rd meeting of the board of supervisors. On this motion mr. Clerk please call the roll. On the motion offered by chair mar. Vice chair peskin. Aye. Haney. Aye. Chair mar. Aye. There are three ayes. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, please call item 7. Resolution urging the department of Public Health to work with the office of the chief medical examiner to conduct epidemiological post motemcovid19 testing and Contract Tracing of deceased San Francisco residents and urging the office to conduct surveillance swabbing of all decedentses to properly identify and certify deaths from the covid19 virus and monitor community spread. If you wish to call on this, please call the Public Comment number and enter 145 1314683. Press pound twice on to connect and star and three to speak. Thank you, mr. Clerk. Supervisor peskin, the floor is yours. Thank you, chair marand supervisor haney and thank you to doctor Susan Phillip and michelle rip be from the office of the chief medical examiner who are joining us in this virtual meeting. I want be to thank them for working with my office. I do have amendments to suggest. This was brought to me through my former colleague david chu who indicated this type of surveillance swabbing of deceased individuals under the corner of al lameadda county has been going on for some time early in the covid19 pandemic and i contacted the Coroners Office pathologist in that county and came up with this piece of legislation that is before us. I have some suggested changes but i would like to start by introducing duketor sues wa r comments. Thank you, supervisor peskin and mr. Chair and to the committee for the invitation. Yes, the purpose of this resolution is something that we feel is very important at the department of Public Health. The intent is to ensure we understand all of the epidemiology of people deceased in San Francisco related to covid19. This is important for a couple of reasons. First and foremost we want to make sure we can ensure Occupational Health and safety for people working to revive or care for an individual at the time of their death. We want to do Contact Tracing with household members, and we want to understand the epidemiology of covid19 in San Francisco n as well as we can for public response. We believe testing in this fashion is very useful. To that end, we in San Francisco have been doing that in collaboration between the department of Public Health and the office of chief medical examiner since early march. When we were having difficulty in securing our supplies we prioritized testing persons that were being evaluated at the office of the chief medical examiner for these very reasons. We have done that informally sincerly march and formalized that process by providing the testing kits since then. There are a broader range of entities that may come into contact with these descents. We are working on a health order to be sure we have a broad net to allow th the testing and understand the implications of the testing. I appreciate the thought behind the resolution and very much agree with the importance of it. Doctor, phillips, i know my former colleague katie tang on loan from the airport to the department of Public Health or the Emergency Operations center did suggest some changes last evening which i am happy to go through with you because of the compressed time. I have not had a time to get back to katie tang or to you about that. I am happy to go through the three suggested changes and get your thoughts. I think she suggested that on page 2 lines 9 through 17 be stricken. I might have some arguments as to why i would push back on that. I would love to hear your thoughts on that. The portion of lines 9 through 13 really says that we at dph do not will not about testing tools not approved by the food and drug administration. We strongly suggested that that laboratories including ours use testing for covid19 that has been authorized under an emergency use authorization by either the cdc or fda. In the early days there were a lot of players in the market for testing. We needed reliable information. There were important Public Health actions following out of testing. There are reputestable laboratories that have the ability under regulations to do their own validation of testing. Some of our academic partners have done that to good effect. It is not a hard and fast rule, but our general guideline is to mostly want to promote the tests that have been review by fda for the reasons stated. That would be for my suggestion for lines 9 to 13. For lines 14 to 17, should i read those or comment on them . As you like. I am sure before all three members of the committee as the medical offices have begun surveillance swabbing of the deceased individuals which is easy to administer. I lost it. It is a process to contribute to the states efforts. Suggest not to strike but acknowledge. We have done this in San Francisco working closely between the office of chief medical examiner and dph. San francisco could be added to the list as well. I now understand what katie was asking. The only question is that my understanding is the swabbing of deceased individuals that commenced in early march by San Francisco was not for all des see debts but ones with respiratory issues that could potentially be covid19 positive . That was according to the cdc guidance for testing which is not yet expanded to all deceased but it says if the office has reasonable to believe there was a respiratory condition prior to death or concern it might be. There is quite a bit of leeway there. It is based on the medical and expert judgment of the persons in the office of the chief medical examiner, correct. The only reason i am bringing that up is because and i am not a doctor as you well know. My understanding is that surveillance swabbing by definition would be everybody. For a random sample but not surveillance if you are only testing deceased who showed covid19 symptoms . Is that fair . That is correct. We started with a more focused effort to test deceased. Then with this health order in development and that we are working with stakeholders on we would move more toward the true surveillance effort of all people who die in San Francisco. I mean i think this is a minor issue. Given that and given my understanding about the ore abor offices where we are doing true surveillance swabbing as described to me, i would be inclined for accuracy to keep San Francisco off that list. I acknowledge and appreciate the fact we have been doing targeted deceased testing since early march. Yes, what i would say what we are proposed with this health order under development we go beyond what is done in many of the entities. I would need to look at each of them. It would go beyond the cases handled by the office of the chef medical examiner. We try to be more broad. That is getting at your intent to have a true surveillance citywide of all deceased. Page 3 lines 9 through 11. Page 3 lines 9 through 11, this was the ask to go back and do retrospective analysis and comparison of cases that may have occurred or really looking back to do in depth evaluation of people who may have died to see if there could have been covid19 in San Francisco prior to the first cases detected here on march 5th or announced on march 5th. What we suggested is that there is such a continued need for improvement in the way we do our ongoing Immediate Health response based on what we know, including increased testing we are planning moving forward of descents and following up. This is important to know from an overall understanding, but it will have limited impact on our policy or immediate action. What we are suggesting is could there be a clause that says as resources allow we will do the evaluation when we truly may have been seeing initial cases in San Francisco but not to devote a lot of limited Department Resources to doing that at the moment. I think there are two paragraphs here that are at issue. One is the last clause in paragraph that starts out Health Officials have warned. Getting rid of and i dont understand why we would want to i dont want to quibble in order to have reliable accurate data Public Officials and policymakers can utilize to manage this National Emergency and its local impacts. I am not sure why we want to take that out. That is hooked to the next paragraph. Depending upon sufficient resources. I would say this is a resolution urging. It is not an ordinance. In april of itself a statement of in april of itself it is the a policy. Short of an ordinance it is implicit in what we are saying. I would be reluctant to add those words. I understand your Human Resource constraints, and i understand relative to physical constraints, labs and lab testing, those are not issues. Certainly Human Resource constraints are an issue. I understand that and respect that. In so far as a resolution urging, i would not be inclined to take those two amendments respectfully. You can push back on me and the committee and we can hear from ms. Rippey. I understand. Thank you. I think i dont have a strong push back except to say that i am talking from a Public Health perspective, i dont know that having that information would drastically change what we want to do to protect the public now and moving forward. I think that the focus on really identifying and understanding the issues of the outcomes, infections, deaths are the areas that i want our teams to focus on moving forward. I agree with you this is Important Information to have. We are of the same mind of getting the information so we have a fuller picture of what is going on. Thank you, doctor. Ms. Rip be anything to add or subtract on behalf of the office of the chief medical examiner. The office of the chief medical examiner and the acting chief medical examiner completely support all of these efforts. We have been working closely with the department of Public Health and with their continued supplies and resources we will be able to enact this proposal as it is written. Thank you, ms. Rippey. Subject to Public Comment i would like to take the suggested delation on page 2 of lines 9 through 13 and then at line 15 change the word has to have, and then make those changes after Public Comment and send the items to the full board with memes if that with recommendation if that is the will of the committee. Thank you. Why dont we go to Public Comment. Mr. Clerk any callers on the line . We will check to see if there are callers. Please let us know if callers are ready for those that connected via phone press star and three to be added to speak. In the hold wait until you are prompted to begin at the beep. On cable channel 26 or streaming or through sfgovtv if you wish to speak call in by following instructions on your screen. 415 6550001. Enter 145 4314683. Press pound twice and star and three to speak. Do we have any speakers for agenda item 7 . Yes, i have one caller in the queue. You have two minutes. It appears the caller has hung up. No callers in the queue. Thank you, operations and mr. Hearing no further callers, Public Comment is now closed. Thank you, mr. Chairman. While we have the me office and doctor phillip on the line, i want to ask if they could comment on relative to the swabbing and surveillance that has been done whether there is any data on that that they can report to this committee. Supervisor, i do not have those data in front of me at the moment. I apologize for that. I will send those information and that data to your office and the committee through the clerk to share. Thank you, doctor. From the me office we have had three that were analyzed. Thank you. What was the test . How many tests were administered administered . I dont have the exact number. I can make sure that gets forwarded to you. Thank you, ms. Rippey. Supervisor peskin a motion . Yes, i would move as previously stated that on page 2 lines 9 through 13 be stricken and on page 2 at line 15 the word has be replaced with have and then with those items to the full board with positive recommendation. Mr. Clerk please call the roll. On the motion that the resolution be amended on page 2 and then recommended as amended to the board of supervisors, vice chair peskin. Aye. Haney. Aye. Chair mar. Aye. There are three ayes, mr. Chair. Thank you, mr. Clerk. Can you please call item number 8. Emergency ordinance temporary creating a right to reemployment for certain employees laid off due to the covid19 pandemic if the employer seeks to fill the same position previously held by the laidoff worker or substantially similar position as defined. Members of the public call the Public Comment number. Enter the access code, press pound twice to connect to the meeting. Then press star followed by three to enter the queue to speak. Once again, mr. Chair. I am in receipt from your memo asking this to be on the agenda as a Committee Report. The back to work emergency ordinance is before us today. As we grapple with the covid19 crisis there is a related crisis going. Over 100,000 in San Francisco filed for unemployment since the state of emergency, this, too, is now a state of emergency for laid off workers. The scope of Unemployment Crisis is greater than any since the Great Depression representing hundreds of thousands of livelihoods and families in economic uncertainty. This crisis is not unique to San Francisco. We are uniquely positioned to lead in addressing it. This is a union town. A city that has long held the rights of workers to fair treatment and terms of employment. That is a city unafraid to be bold and carry the torch for workers and new trails for Economic Justice and fairness. This ordinance is bold. We must be bold to address the Unemployment Crisis. This is novel because the circumstances we face are novel. This is urgent because this crisis is urgent. This is based on a clear simple idea. If you are laid off in an emergency if and when your job becomes available again it should be offered to you before a new applicant. Covid19 is a crisis for workers and businesses alike. The cover of the crisis should not be used to treat workers unfairly, replace long time and senior employees with younger or cheaper alternatives. We know most employers will bring back workers laid off before considering new applicants. This ordinance makes this a requirement for all covered employers. This is about fairness in doing what is right and not a new idea. The right to recall for laid off workers is in all collective Bargaining Agreements. What is new the conviction it be extended to unrepresented workers to weather the storm. We know this is right and just. We know as groundbreaking law it is important that we get the details right. It has taken time to bring the back to work ordinance forward to the committee. We have taken this time to work with stakeholders from the business and lane borcommunity labor communities to make this the best it can be. I will be proposed a number of amendments. Before that we want to offer some of the context this ordinance is being considered under. We will hear from two presenters today. First josh, the director of Workforce Development at eewd sharing updates. Katie, staff attorney for legal aid at work presenting on the impact unemployment has on individuals and families. The floor is yours. Thank you, chair mar, supervisors. Good morning. Direct torn of Workforce Development in the economic Work Force Development. Thank you for inviting me to share the information and some of the anecdotes and data that really speak to the crisis and elements of the unemployment situation in our community that you spoke to, supervisor. I am going to share a screen. This is data that i am going to present with respect to our offices receipt of war notices. These are notices that employers of particular size and scale depending on the federal or state requirement, typically 75 or less 75 or more employees at a Company Requires triggers a requirement during layoff to provide notices to the state as well as local jurisdictions. The mayor, president of the board of supervisors and the local Work Force Development board, which is our office. I am going to share this information so you can see what that means in realtime as we track this information. I know the ordinance the supervisor looks at the very first emergency order declared by may or breed february 25th. We will look at data after that date to share. My screen is shared with the committee here this morning. We have set up our tracker to february 25 through the latest date of war notices we process which is the weekending june 5th. We need a week to two weeks to input and update. This is the information current just about to about 12 days ago. From february 25 to june 5, we have received 352 war notices affecting 324 different businesses and the number of affected employees is 38,994. We are able to see some information. You can see the biggest wave of those notices was received the weekending march 30th. 15,309 employees affected by war notices that our office received that week. You can see we log our team worked hard to make sure we have identification of the impacted industries. In the largest sense and we just crossed more than half. It looks around accommodation and food Service Employees most impacted followed by arts and entertainment. That is a lot of the performance related work in the Industries Related to the entertainment that happens in the city and county. It gives you a sense what is happening on the groundout there as we shared with your office. We also keep informationtic to each employer. You will see in most instances the employer indicated these are believed to be temporary layoffs. 29,633 of the 38994 employees. We want to estimate closing on 80 of those employees are impacted on what is believed to be a temporary basis 4600 on permanent basis. For context as well, over the same time span in 2019 from february 25 of that particular date through june 5 of 2019, we only received 13 mos impacting 709 workers. A snapshot what we see with unemployment at our office. We had something we look at very much. We get monthly reports. We are just now starting to see the unemployment data from the state Employment Development department for San Francisco residents looking for work. This is a brief table here to give additional context. This is a chart that shows where we were in terms of unemployment a year ago. We were at 2. 1 . The way the state reports unemployment. It is a simple answer to a simple question. Are you looking for work . Last time 11,900 san franciscans said yes, i am actively looking for work. That dropped 1. 9 , 2. 3 . You will see for the year we averaged 2 unemployment. Sometimes a little more and sometimes a little less. That was san franciscans actively looking for work. March of this year we see an uptick to 3 . That means that we had in the two weeks following shelterinplace increase of 4,000 month on month from end of march compared to end of february. Then when you look at april this is the first of the data coming in during the real hard escalated impact of coronavirus of the safe guard we saw unemployment jump to 12. 6 . Just to give you a little context in terms of the nature of the impact. This graph visualizes what that means. 10 years ago during the economic recession, Great Recession that we spoke of, there was at that time a record high in unemployment in january 2010 Led Community advocates, policymakers, employers to adopt a mandatory local hiring ordinance for construction projects. That year unemployment was then record high of 10. 1 as of april we are at 12. 2 . A couple other data pointings. This gives you a sense of what is happening and data that speaks to the very real urgency workers face that supervisor mar presented to the committee. Unemployment claims we have new data we received from the state from the week we are talking about for purposes of the ordinance february 25th date. That was the date of emergency order. From the weekending february 29 to the weekending may 30th, the state received a total of 159,193 new Unemployment Insurance claims from san franciscans. By context the mayor spoke to the fact during the 2008200 the Great Recession. Supervisor peskin was a leader at that time. The unemployment claims in that era was 45,000 and we received nearly 160,000 to date. To give a little bit of context what we are doing at our office. We are the convener of the Work Force Board working with labor organizations and employers and other departments to really meet the needs of those impacted workers directly in the case of staff and hardworking Service Providers on the ground, 45 different communitybased organizations. Particularly the Neighborhood Job centers that are on the front lines in seven different neighborhoods. Citywide job center operated by goodwin and seven cbo based neighborhood centers. In almost every since stance, one in each district focuses on neighborhoods of need. We have presented and our director presented our effort goes to stand up to the work force hot line staffed by the office of economic work force Division Staff and Human Service agency represents and selfhelp from the elderly and metta to make sure we are available to answer calls up to six different languages seven days each week. Since the order we received nearly 4,000 calls. Questions around unemployment, helping to alleviate the questions that come up in the challenges to make sure to get through to Unemployment Insurance. The state is working hard, they are overwhelmed like a lot of systems are experiencing strains. We support the state to answer questions as best we can. Nearly 1,000 participants on the weekly Rapid Response webinairs where our Staff Services team are an addition the state of california and the Labor Council working with airport workers an hour and hour and a half of question and answer. I will conclude and say on behalf of our department i want to express thank you, supervisor mar, to work to address the concerns raised in various form forums. As someone who has answered phone calls myself to make sure we are staffed on the hot line, it is a big question folks have. If i am laid off will i be able to return . In the case of collective Bargaining Agreement that is the rock of gibraltar. The Labor Movement is the ability to return and seniority. It is definitely important to have tools we can to make sure if the temporary layoffs get everyone back to work as soon as possible. With respect to the role you have created and thank you to edward in your office for working with us and the dialogue with you personally. The role for our office we believe we have the infrastructure in place to perform the responsibility ifs, particularly in the emergency period of the ordinance. We will be upfront about being sure we have the capacities to meet the need and a lot of staff is the citybuilt staff fielding phone calls, particularly the by link guam calls and other lack languages. We are committed to this resource and working with you. Thank you again. Thank you for all of the work you have provided for workers impacted. The multilink gal hot line you the hot line and website is most comprehensive list of resources that have been created to support workers and businesses. You guys have played an Important Role in helping workers and businesses weather the storm. I look forward to having you add if the board moves forward with the adoption of back to work ordinance, information about this new policy and worker support benefit. Thank you so much. Colleagues, any questions . I dont have questions but i have comments and questions for you as sponsor. Why dont we hold that. I want to go to the second informational presentation that we had scheduled with katie who is staff tore for legal aid at work and she has been providing Important Information to workers who have been laid off. The unprecedented number of workers laid off locally in this crisis. Thank you for having me here to speak. As supervisor mar mentioned. I am a staff attorney at legal aid at work, a nonprofit in San Francisco dedicated to workers rights and helping families with low income find stability and justice at work. The reason i am here today is to make clear the extent to which workers have been forced out of jobs by covid19. Especially the Lasting Impact of these job losses on workers and their families. At legal aid at work we run a help line and remote legal clinic to help workers. Since the shelterinplace order we have been getting more calls than offer. Normally we get 3,000 calls in a year in two months we received over 1,000 calls. Many felt unsafe at work, worried about losing their job or pay to take time off. Many were calling because they had been laid off and didnt know what to do. As he mentioned, according to the Employment Development department the state unemployment has risen to 14. 4 and 12. 6 in San Francisco county, with the biggest job losses occurring in leisure and hospitality. Over 50,000 between San Francisco and san mateo counties. Many workers are low paid immigrants and people of color. The reason this is critical to talk about is because the longterm consequences of unemployment is associated with significant harms for families and communities. Research by the urban institute on the consequences of longterm unemployment found that longterm unemployment can lead to in addition to loss of income, of course, lower wages at the point every employment leading to a lifetime of lower wages for that worker and increased likely wood of workers abandoning the labor market altogether. It also found that longterm unemployment is associated with worse selfreported health and wellbeing. Lowered lifespans and possible decline in mental health. For the children of people who experience longterm unemployment, it results in lower grades, lower graduation rates, increased cognitive stress. These are harms that dont impact only the individual but the entire community. It is critical that workers are able to stay home when working is unsafe. Only asked to return to work in safe environments. If workers are not given the opportunity to return to work, families will face additional risks and hard ships. Thank you so much for your work to support san franciscans through this difficult time and thank you for giving me this time to speak with you. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you for the important work you and legal aid have been doing to support laid off workers navigate unemployment and weather the storm. Colleagues, any questions from legal aid at work . Thank you for your presentations. I want to move ahead with just some quick overview to the back to work ordinance, key provisions and talk through the outreach and input process we have engaged with over the past week. Then i will present a summary of the amendments that i am presenting today. For the back to work ordinance as introduced, i wanted to go over the key provisions. This is the first hearing we are having on it. Laid off workers will have the right of first refusal for jobs if and when the former employer reopens and rehires. Which is going to start to happen at an accelerated rate in the coming weeks and months. Hiring will be priority by seniority by each job classification. It requires wages and scheduling and benefits unless the employer is unable to maintain these terms in which case they are exempted. The former employees position is not rehired they will be offered any similar position they are qualified for. The employers must provide notice to the city of layoffs and provide information on available city resources. In terms who is covered by the back to work ordinance. The requirement applies to any employer who lays off 10 or more employees within 30days starting on february 25, 2020. In terms who is not covered, employers with fewer than 10 employees and this is on the ordinance as introduced employers with fewer than 10 employees are exempt. Employers who do not layoff less than 10 and employees covered by collective bargaining are exempt. We know workers are facing this crisis, so are Small Businesses. We know Small Businesses need support now more than ever. I will shortly share the changes we are making in this ordinance to address the concerns we have heard from Small Business owners among others. I want to be clear we have met with and worked with more business stakeholders than anything else we ever worked on including Small Business owners and commission and chamber of commerce, golden gate restaurant association, sf committee on jobs, sf hospital council, sf hotel council, Manufacturing Council and sf city. In addition to their feedback we have worked with Worker Centers and labor advocates in preparing these amendments. I want to give an overview of the amendments before we go into discussion about the ordinance and to Public Comment. I want to ensure the public is informed about the changes i intend to make today. I want to note that we all have received letters expressing concerns about this ordinance from Small Business owners and Small Business commission. I believe firmly we have addressed these concerns with the amendmentses presented today. These include exempting employers with less than 100. This is on larger employers. Iin alignment with the office of Small Business. The process of preparing this has been difficult as we acbeinr acknowledge it is a tradeoff. We are removing protection for workers. This is the difficult decision and one we do not make tightly. We have been convinced of the necessity by Small Business stakeholders including Small Business commission, office of Small Business and council of district merchants. We exempt Healthcare Operations employers. In collaboration with hospital council, we want to also limit administrative impacts on Health Care Providers due to unique and urgent circumstances. We are therefore exempting them from this ordinance. We are removing th the 90 day retention requirement. We understand the emergency they are operating under and are not in a position to guarantee employment retention. We dont know what may come in the next 90 days. We are removing that requirement. We are adding an employee misconduct carve out for reemployment offer. In cases where former employees committed misconduct to justify ending employment and where it was discovered, the employer will be exempt for having to offer reemployment. We are carving out severance agreements where there is a formal agreement of severance this would not over rule that and they would be extent from this law. We are removing most of section 5a4 and 5a5, the provisions that required list of laid off workers to be provided to the city with workers authorization. These were the most burden some administrative requirements for businesses and city agencies. We removed them. We are preserving that requirement that eligible workers be notified about layoffs and be provided with hot line number to call to access further information and support. We are offering email and text. Requiring mailing of notification to workers only if email and text are not an option. This makes it easier to quickly bring people back to work and represents a careful balance between the need and preserving a reasonable duration of job offers for those seeks reemployment. We clarify the notification period is longer for retroactive notification. 30days from the Effective Date of the emergency order. This is a cleanup change to clarify the notification timeframe to laid off workers for employers who made layoffs before this is effective. We are authorizing olsc to issue regulations and do rule making to provide clarity and guidance and minimize litigation without requiring staff for administrative work. Given did hiring freeze and limited staff this is the most responsible choice. We are directing layoffs and reemployment notifications to oewd and replacing the hot line included in the employee notification with one managed by oewd. Oewd already received layoff notifications under both the federal act. It makes sense to receive these additional notices, too. In addition owwd manages a hot line for resources to workers employed or unemployed. This will make it more accessible to those who need it the most. We have updated the findings to reflect the numbers on unemployment claims filed by those in San Francisco. That is an overview. It is quite a list. We are advised by the City Attorney they are non substantive. We can act on the amendments today. Colleagues, any questions or comments before we go to Public Comment . I can hold my questions until after Public Comment. Me, too. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, why dont we go to Public Comment. Any callers on the line . For those connected press star and 3 to speak. For those on hold in the queue please continue to waits until prompted to begin at the beep. Those watching on cable channel 26 or streaming or through sfgovtv if you wish to speak, please call in by following the instructions displayed on your screen. 415 6550001. Access code for today 145 4314683. Press the pound symbol twice and star three to speak. Do we have any speakers for agenda item 8 . Yes. There are eight callers in the queue. Caller good morning. I am matthew toy. I am a worker. I have been a worker at tar teen for 2. 5 years. I started in the factory in alabama street in San Francisco. In september i moved to the berkeley location. I am thankful to have gordon mar give us input and ask for our input. This is a hard union antiunion campaign from our employer. Right now we are in a situation where many of us are laid off, and we are not too sure if we are going to come back. Right now tar tain is hiring people at lower wages. For 18 an hour are now minimum wage is one example. When we first started to give input to gordon mars office. It was just we wanted this ordinance and we wanted our input to include a lot of city workers. We really appreciate the way that the office of gordon mar made sure to reach out t to the business and labor community. There is a smaller idea now expanded. A lot of workers dont have any protection to come back to work because most of the time it is due to bargaining. I really want to be able to see this ordinance through and i support this ordinance. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Caller i am john. Shop stewart at anchor. We fought long and hard for a contract that had this particular wording in it. I think i it would be beneficial to all workers in San Francisco to be covered by that same wording. My one comment would be 100 employees or moi mois mo or ma high bar. Think about that with your decision. A lot of workers are in the industry with companies with a lot less than 100 employees. I fully support this. It would be great for the community. That is my comment. Thank you for your time and good luck. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Karl is the third speaker still connected . Am i on . Yes, we are ready for your comments to agenda item 8. Caller thank you. I am denny miller. I live in San Francisco and i fully support this proposition. I agree with the earlier caller about 100 employees. That is a lot, especially in San Francisco. I would like to definitely think about reconsidering that number. I think there is a very, very important proposition. I support it 100 . Is thank you very much for your comments. Next caller, please. Caller yeah, good morning. I am pat thomas. I am a district 5 resident, employee at tar teen bakery as well. I am calling to express my support for this ordinance. As someone who has witnessed firsthand the way that the company will fight tooth and nail to undermine the employees attempts to unionize, i would be heartened to see the city enact this to ensure employers dont take advantage of this pandemic as an opportunity to clean house. I dont see this ordinance as being particularly burden some on employers as it doesnt require businesses to hire people before they are ready to, only when they do the jobs are offered to workers who had them before. As someone who has been working to establish new footholds for organized labor in this city, and who doesnt believe that a pandemic like this should constitute a setback for such efforts. I urge the board to vote yes on this ordinance. Thank you. Next caller, please. Caller i am hope williams. I am a board member of the Harvey Milk Club and advocate for union workers. I would like to thank the Committee Members and supervisor mar and the cosponsors of this item, haney, preston, safai and fewer. From the economic Recovery Plan to the listing of shelterinplace, the city is prioritizing the needs of businesses. What about the workers. Workers create the wealth of the businesses. They are more essential now than ever. They need protection. They need support from the city and access to reemployment. This policy should be a nobrainer. Laid off workers should be rehired before being replaced. This shouldnt be controversial we cannot replace vulnerable workers. The Democratic Committee has fought for the lanegor movement and voted to support this. We urge you to support it. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Caller good morning, supervisors. I am katie hansen with the california restaurant association. This fames to take into account the manner in which restaurants operate. Those that remained open on limited service modelings during the crisis did so with many of the fulltime fixed costs and challenges. Under this new mandate being proposed restaurants would be forced to rehigher staff based on seniority rather than need such as chefs and cooks. Providing up to 10 days to respond depending how it is offered is unworkable for Restaurant Community employers. An employer will not be able to offer open positions to anyone else due to the level of seniority. If there are four positions open it could take a month to hire those. When restaurants are barely able to reopen, this will further damage the ability to successfully operate. It has detailed requirements for Record Keeping and providing notices to employees, employers and the city regarding layoff and reemployment offers. Restaurants dont have the in house personnel to process the recordkeeping when they are trying to reopen doors and struggling to comply and comply with health orders. This will delay the ability of restaurants to reopen to further unemployment and lead to the loss of tax revenues to San Francisco. We urge you to oppose this proposal as drafted as it would have a detrimental impact on the entire Restaurant Committee in San Francisco. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. Next speaker, please. Caller thank you, mr. Chair. I am bermita. An organizer with the longterm workers. I want to echo some of the statements that supervisor mar said. San francisco is a union town. When we talk about being a union town, we could say i it is a lar town. We want equity for all workers, not just people who have the luxury of being luxury or goodwill of having a union contract. We need to protect all workers. Right now due to covid19 a lot of workers recently laid off do not have a contract, do not have the right to go back. We need to provide that to them through there legislation. I have had numerous calls which workers laid off said do you know if i will have my job back in this is our only recourse to pay the rent. How will we do it if the restaurant get us back to work . All of this legislation will do is give security, needed security to those workers that are suffering right now. They are struggling in the city and county of San Francisco. It will live them security that once the restaurant opens it will call them by seniority and of their classification. No one is expecting everyone is going to be called back immediately, no one is expecting not the workers, not this legislation doesnt mandate that everybody be called back immediately. It is when the restaurants are in line to begin operations, then they will go back and call the persons that already have been working there and know the procedure and how to operate and how to do what they do best. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Caller i am hall. I was laid off had march after working for two years at the bakery. I have been involved with the union. Basically, every time i talk to my friends and family i am asked if i get my job back. I have no idea. It is very stressful to be in the state of limbo. Most Service Workers are in a similar place. We know it wont happen all at once. It will take a long time. We deserve to know we arent replaced. Four of the six people i live with are in the same position. We dont all work at the same place, we have the same type of jobs. These are careers. I dont want us to find our positions on craigslist. It is the simple thing to do and the right thing to do. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Caller hello. I work at coffee roseters in San Francisco. I am calling to support the current item. I think it would be really important to also prioritize black and Indigenous People of color who have put time in, who have seniority. These are like every day people who build their careers and Service Industry and it is important that the Restaurants Community step up to make the appropriate call and to center their workers and do better on hr. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Caller hello everyone. For me the situation feels familiar. I came from new orleans when the hurricanes came through. That wasnt the only storm. There was an economic storm that completely wiped out communities totally untouched with flood waters. My grandmothre had been with the same legal firm for 30days. She was replaced by people. My black cousins were fired. White colleagues got jobs back. The exact same factors and exact same reasons why those decisions were made in louisiana in 2003 are the same factors that those decisions are going to be made in San Francisco today. This is very personal to me. This is not hypothetical. I know exactly what will happen. I am furloughed. I am not advocating for myself. I am for the grandmothers. I dont want families to suffer. This would have been alive safer. I urge you to pass this ordinance. Thank you. Next speaker, please. That completes the queue. Thank you. Hearing no other callers on the line, Public Comment is now closed. Colleagues do you have questions or comments . Supervisor peskin . I appreciate your work on this and all of the Public Comment we have gotten and your acknowledgment that we have heard from a lot of folks, including some you didnt mention, nonprofits that many of us hold near and dear. I am relatively certain that the changes you are proposing today will go a long way if not all the way to meeting the concerns that we heard expressed in those quarters, but because i have not had i only got the amendment last evening and given this morning havent had a chance to reach out to those folks to make sure they feel the same way. My proposal would be to send to the full board without recommendation. It is going as Committee Report so i can get between now and tuesday to get with those folks to make sure it is meeting their concerns, addressing their concerns. Thank you, supervisor peskin. I appreciate your support of the ordinance and consideration of the amendment. I understand your interest in checking in with some Key Stakeholders. I also appreciate your willingness to move this forward along the timeline that we have proposed, which is having the full board vote on it on june 23rd because we would like to get this enacted as soon as possible. Businesses are starting to reopen and rehire. Thithis is an an important timeo move it forward. Supervisor haney. First of all, thank you and your staff, supervisor mar. I am proud t to cosponsor this and workers and those who collaborated on it. I appreciate the amendments. They address some of the issues that have come forward. We absolutely do need to be prioritizing workers during this time and not seeing a situation where people are pushed out of their jobs during this pandemic and having rights violated and not allowed to come back. There are a number of folks who called in from restaurants or cafes, and it is my understanding with the amendment that most of those types of businesses would be excluded because of the sort of size of employees that are required. What are your i would like to hear more what we can do for folks in those situations. The folks from tar teen and i dont know if that would be a business that would be excluded. I understand that, you know, the reasons for the Small Businesses excluded. Would you speak about that and for some of the folks who called in who may no longer be covered by this legislation. Thanks for the question, supervisor haney, around the amendment that increases the covered employer thresholds from 10 to 100 or more employees. This was made, as i stated, to address the concerns of Small Business community and Small Business stakeholders about the challenges that this requirement would present them as they navigate reopening their businesses, and you know it was made with the understanding that Small Businesses face or smaller employers face more challenges than larger businesses with a larger pool of laid off employees to draw from. Yes, that is true. It does reduce the number of businesses that are covered. [please stand by] thank you, and i know that theres legislation at the state level that may impact or accomplish similar things or and is this how did this interact with some of the legislation thats been potentially proposed . Or proposed to be heard at the state level, is there a similar efforts that are happening in the states. Theres a similar proposal a right to reemployment proposal that was included in a state bill that and so that is you know, its still under sort of consideration on a state level. Its my understanding that its uncertain whether that is going to make it through legislatively on a state level and be adopted. So i think that this is an example of San Francisco, you know, helping to sort of lead the way on expanding workers rights and support for workers in a way that could help move the policy forward on a state level and in other cities. I know that l. A. Los angeles passed a similar ordinance but it was a much more limited in scope. And then other cities are considering it. Oakland and san jose as well on a local level. So i think this is where just like many of our progressive local labor laws that we have created here in San Francisco, it can help to benefit not just the workers here in San Francisco, but workers elsewhere by just sending a model, an example. Great, thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you for your work on this. Great. Well, thanks again. I just want to, again, to thank everyone that has provided input on this really on groundbreaking and bold but very important policy measures to support laid off workers in our city. You know, i want to thank all of the labor the labor and Worker Rights advocates that initially, you know, brought this proposal to our attention and who work with us closely over the last week. But also i want to thank all of the businesses, Small Businesses and the Large Businesses and the associations that weve worked with to craft the best possible policy that also that takes into consideration, you know, the needs and the concerns of the businesses and employers. And i want to thank the City Attorneys office, particularly jenica, the deputy City Attorney that worked on this with our complicated ancomplicated and gg legislation. And thank you to joss and the economic Work Development and pat mulligan in the labor standards enforcement who have also consulted with us and helped to shape this policy with the amendment. So finally, i want to acknowledge all of the work, incredible amount of work, that edward wright, my legislative aide, has provided on this this very complicated policy. And really excited to to really move this forward to the board. So i guess per supervisor peskins request to to have more time to to consult with Key Stakeholders around the amendment that were just presented and i would make a motion that we move this forward oh, i would like to make a motion that we accept the amendment that i presented today. Mr. Clerk, can you please cull roll. Clerk on the motion afterred by char mar to amend the emergency ordinance, vicechair peskin. Peskin, aye. Member haney. Haney, aye. Chair mar . Aye. Mar, aye. Mr. Chair, there are three ayes. Supervisor mar thank you. And then i would move that we have this item as a Committee Report to the full board without recommendations to the june 23rd meeting of the board of supervisors. Clerk on the motion that the emergency ordinance be forwarded to the full board of supervisors as amended without recommendation. Vicechair peskin. Aye. Peskin, aye. Member haney. Aye. Haney, aye. Chair mar. Mar, aye. Mr. Chair, there are three ayes. Supervisor mar thank you. Great. Mr. Clerk, is there any further business . Clerk there is no further business before the committee. Supervisor mar thank you, we are adjourned
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.