Francisco property. I would like to know that why that is being allowed. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. This is federal law. And employer means a person who has 15 or more employees in the current or preceding calendar year or, a private membership of a club or other labour organizations that exist from taxation under section 50, part two, except during the first year after march 24th, 1972. Persons having fewer than 25 employees in their agency shall not be considered employers, or plan so to engage in with employees to participate in which events for the purpose of in whole or in part with dealing with employees [indiscernible] a member of such a labour organization, 25 or more during the first year as of march 24 th, 1972, 15 or more thereafter, sets a labrador his labour organization. A subordinate body through which such employees may enjoy membership or become affiliated with such a labour organization. The terms that employees need to employ by an employer except that [indi
Supplemented. Madam chair, i yield time to the gentleman from texas. The chair the gentleman from texas is recognized. I thank the gentleman from maryland. I appreciate my friend from new yorks concern about this important issue thats obviously paramount for the nation, her state, and the union is touched by the tragedy of the opioid abuse. Mr. Roy i do want to i do want to point out, as i ourk has been made clear by continued lack of dealing with the crisis at our border, that the impact on the opioid problem by the trafficking going on at our southern boarder is significant. And i think we all agree on that. We all recognize that. My colleague from new york and i have sat in oversight hearings where weve had witnesses there where we talk about the massive increase over the last several years in the amount of narcotics that are coming through our southern border. And this is just something that i hope we can have a bipartisan understanding and agreement on about addressing. And actual
Hours with us on a friday. Thank you. For me, you know, this has been an amazing hearing and im incredibly grateful that folks came to us to organize this and clearly a lot of work went in to getting things out. It was also a horrible hearing to hear these stories. You have to take a deep breath. I was thinking about the arrogance of people a decade ago , i need a minute together myself. The arrogance of people who, a decade ago promised disruption and boy, have they delivered. I think there is a lot of good people working in tech and in these Gig Companies who dont intend for horrible things to be happening, but i started doing a little lyft of all of the results from the people who are dying on our streets because of congestion, who are getting hit by cars because streets have been flooded. The people who are just frustrated because they cant get around on our streets because of the congestion, the harm to our Public Transportation system is people are pulled off into these other uns
In 1969 in district four. The board voted overwhelming in opposition to this appointment. I move you move this to the full board. As the executive director the appointee over saw the cost of compact which resulted in sb50, over saw the merger, that the oversight for the replacement for the eastern span of the bay bridge. It also including the link to the san jose America Kerry news editorial from july 2018. Any other member of the public wish to speak . Good morning. I am here not as the San Francisco transit riders but as my role on the friends of downtown extension which i think i have spoken to some of you about and hopefully will continue to also as part of a Broad Coalition of nonprofits working on getting real significant revenue to transportation, also Division Zero to pedestrians, bikes, operations if we have a say in it, which i hope the nonprofits have a say in it and construction to create a world class transportation system. I speak on behalf of steve for a couple vens. We
Discussed why as again as usual, the recallers are using very little fact in their attacks. Specifically, as we agree and about this incident involving force, we know that the choice, whether or not to file charges, was made not, made by suzie inaudible and this was an event that took place before mr. Rowdean was even in an office. As usual, theres very little basis for fact and these attacks and that is being used to malign mr. Rowdean and the job he is doing. Weve seen this superior judge weighed in on this and examined this evidence and recognized that if theres no bearing to the case whatsoever, until i view this as an attempt to get out of traditional oversight vital for our city to restore fate and the police. The police chief to reconsider his letter and allow outside oversight to this is to the surveillance stuff as well as this letter. In both cases, what weve seen is an unwillingness to accept outside methods of control and outside methods of feedback so, people are clearly s