>> GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. IT
IS APRIL 25th AND THE
GOVERNANCE, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
WILL COME TO ORDER. IT IS 2:03.
ALL OF OUR GUEST IN THE
AUDIENCE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR COMING. WILL BE CLERK
PLEASE CALL THE ROLE?
>> [ ROLL BEING CALLED ] FIVE
PRESENT, AND UNEXCUSED.
>> YOU VERY MUCH. IF THERE IS
NO OBJECTION, THE AGENDA WILL
BE ADOPTED. HEARING NO
OBJECTIONS, THE AGENDA IS
ADOPTED. AND WE HAVE SEVERAL
ITEMS ON OUR COMMITTEE AGENDA
TODAY. WE'VE GOT FOUR ITEMS.
TWO OUR APPOINTMENT, AND ONE IS
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF OUR
POLICE RECRUITING AND RETENTION
BILL. THAT IS COUNSEL BILL
120766. AND THEN WE HAVE THE
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF THE
APP-BASED MINIMUM PAY STANDARD
REFORM LEGISLATION, WHICH IS
12066. HOLD ON A SECOND. I'M
LOOKING FOR THAT NUMBER, FOR
THE RECORD. DO YOU HAVE IT WITH
YOU THERE, CLERK?
>> COUNSEL BILL 12075.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE NOW
MOVE INTO PUBLIC COMMENT. I NOW
HAVE A FEW COMMENTS TO MAKE
BEFORE WE BEGAN. I APPRECIATE
ALL THE INTEREST THAT BOTH OF
THESE BILLS, AND THE
APPOINTMENTS WE WILL BE
DISCUSSING HAVE GENERATED. AND
I ASK YOU ALL TO BE RESPECTFUL
OF ONE ANOTHER, REGARDLESS OF
WHICH SIDE YOU MAY BE ON , ON
ANY PIECES OF LEGISLATION. AS A
REMINDER, COUNSEL ROLES DO NOT
ALLOW OUTBURSTS FROM MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC WHO ARE NOT
RECOGNIZED TO PROVIDE PUBLIC
COMMENT IN THAT MOMENT. AND MY
PLAN IS TO ALLOW EVERYONE TO
SPEAK. BUT IF THERE ARE
CONTINUED OUTBURSTS, OR THINGS
THAT DISRUPT THE NORMAL
PROCEDURES, I WILL CLOSE THE
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD TO ALLOW
US TO MOVE ON TO OTHER
BUSINESSES. WHAT I REALLY AM
REFERRING TO IS CLAPPING OR
BOOING , THAT HAS I HAVEN'T
MUCH RECENTLY. BUT IN ANY CASE,
WHEN IT DOES HAPPEN, IT
DOESN'T FLOW DOWN PROCEEDINGS.
PLEASE BE MINDFUL OF THAT. WE
WILL BEGIN WITH THE IN-PERSON
SPEAKERS, AND WE WILL ALTERNATE
10 IN PERSON AND 10 REMOTELY.
COULD YOU PLEASE LET US KNOW
HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE ONLINE AND
IN PERSON?
>> FOR ONLINE PUBLIC COMMENT,
WE HAVE 37. AND FOR IN PERSON,
WE HAVE 48.
>> GOT IT. I'M REALLY GLAD
THAT THIS POLICE RECRUITING
BILL HAS BROUGHT SO MANY PEOPLE
OUT. ALL RIGHT. LET'S BEGIN.
PLEASE READ THE INSTRUCTIONS
AND START WITH THE FIRST 10
PEOPLE IN THE CHAMBERS.
>> YES. WITH THAT, WHEN YOU
HEAR THE TIME, YOU WILL HAVE 10
SECONDS LEFT. IF YOU EXCEED
THAT TIME, YOUR MICROPHONE MAY
BE CUT OFF SO THAT WE CAN MOVE
ONTO THE NEXT SPEAKER. IF YOU
ARE OFFERING REMOTE COMMENT,
PLEASE MAKE SURE TO PRESS STAR
6 TO UNMUTE YOURSELF. AS
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON MENTIONED,
WE WILL GO 10 IN PERSON
FOLLOWED BY 10 VIRTUAL UNTIL WE
ARE DONE.
>> HOLD ON A SECOND. AND A
REMINDER, THE PROTOCOLS OF THIS
COMMITTEE IS THAT WE ALLOW
COMMENT ON ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.
GO AHEAD, SORRY.
>> TO CONFIRM THAT, PUBLIC
COMMENT MUST BE DIRECTED
WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE
COMMITTEE OR ITEMS LISTED ON
THE AGENDA. WITH THAT, I
APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE IF I
MISPRONOUNCE YOUR FIRST OR LAST
NAME. THE FIRST 10 IN PERSON
WILL BE ALEX ZIMMERMAN,
FOLLOWED BY GARY R DAUBE,
FOLLOWED BY GARY WOLF, JASON
OBERLIN, FOLLOWED BY KYLE
GRAHAM, ELENA MARTIN, CARL
KING, AND ROBERT SINGLETON, TO
END THE FIRST 10. AND THEN ALEX
ZIMMERMAN, YOUR TIME BEGINS
NOW.
>> HELLO. MY NAME IS ALEXANDER
ZIMMERMAN. I WILL SUE YOU FOR
$10 MILLION FOR TRESPASSES FOR
-- DAY. I WILL BRING THIS CASE
TO THE SUPREME COURT. WHAT
EXACTLY IS THIS? I WANT TO
EXPLAIN TO YOU. I WAITED FOR
THIS FOR A LONG TIME.
TRESPASSES. NOBODY IN AMERICA
HAS 18 TRESPASSES. --
>> CAN YOU PAUSE, PLEASE?
>> SIR, I REALLY APPRECIATE --
>> KNOW, THE MONEY. I TALK
ABOUT MONEY. 30 -- -- [
INAUDIBLE - OVERLAPPING
SPEAKERS ] I AM TALKING ABOUT
MONEY. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
MONEY, I AM TALKING ABOUT
MONEY. $10 MILLION IS REAL
MONEY THAT IS WHAT I SUE YOU. [
LAUGHTER ] BECAUSE NOBODY HAVE
18 TRESPASSES FOR 1500 DAYS.
YOU ARE VERY GOOD. -- $100
MILLION. IS A $10 MILLION, REAL
MONEY, I SUE THE GOVERNMENT.
GOOD LUCK, MY FRIEND. [
LAUGHTER ]
>> THANK YOU.
>> NEXT, WE'VE GOT GARY MARS
ABBA, MICHAELL WOLFF, AND JASON
OBERLAND. GARY?
>> HELLO, COUNSEL. 0075 TO
PERFORM BY LOWERING PRICES WITH
GOOD COMPANIES, IT IS A GOOD
COMPROMISE WITH THIS COUNSEL
THAT WILL RESTORE THE
CONDITIONS THAT FOSTER HIGHER
ORDER VOLUMES FOR RESTAURANTS
YOU ARE NOW DOWN $7 MILLION ON
DOOR DASH. DOUBLE DEBT WITH
UBER EATS. ABOLISH MEALS
COSTING DOUBLE. ABOLISH MEALS
COSTING DOUBLE. AND RAKING
DISABLED AND VETERAN GROCERY
SHOPPERS. A $97 PAYDAY, NOT
CLASSY. LOWER PRICES ARE CLASSY
AND SEXY. RESTAURANTS DO NOT
CARE ABOUT INSTACART. THEY
REQUIRE FULL DELIVERY SHELVES,
NOT EMPTY ONES. SALES HAVE
DECLINED AN AVERAGE OF 38% IN
THE LAST TWO AND HALF MONTHS. A
97% OF THE RESTAURANTS -- PAY
ORDINANCE REPEALED. AND FOOT
CLOSING 2700 RESTAURANTS ARE
KEY. YES, UNDER REFORM, BRING
BACK THE VOLUME.
>> ALL RIGHT. NEXT, MICHAELL
WOLFF, FOLLOWED BY JASON
OBERLIN. ON DECK AFTER THAT IS
KYLE GRAHAM. MICHAEL?
>> I THINK IT IS REALLY SIMPLE.
THIS SIGN RIGHT HERE THAT SAYS,
LOOK AT THE DATA FOR WHAT
REALLY NEEDS TO BE SEEN. THE
DATA SAYS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
OF LESS ORDER. THE DATA SAYS
MILLIONS IN LOST REVENUE FOR
SEATTLE MERCHANTS. AND THE DATA
SAYS THAT DRIVERS WHO ARE DOING
ON DEMAND, CAREERS ARE DOING ON
DEMAND ARE MAKING LESS PER
ONLINE HOUR. THIS NEEDS TO BE
REFORMED NOW. WAITING ONLY
CONTINUES TO HUEOPLE.
LET'S GET THIS DONE.
>> ALL RIGHT. NEXT, JASON
OBERLAND FOLLOWED BY KYLE
GRAHAM APPEARED ON DECK AFTER
THAT IS ELENA MARTIN. JASON?
>> MY AVERAGE PAY OVER THE
PREVIOUS 30 DAYS WAS $10.62 PER
HOUR. WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOUR
FINANCIAL RESOURCES WERE CUT IN
HALF OVERNIGHT? YOU WOULD WORK
MORE AND YOU WOULD RE-EVALUATE
EVERY EXPENSE. YOU ARE NOT
WORKING MORE HOURS , A LOT
MORE. COME THROUGH ALL OF YOUR
EXPENSES AND CONCLUDED THAT
EVERYONE TOOK OF THEM IS
ESSENTIAL. YOUR QUALITY OF LIFE
HAS DIMINISHED. IN ANY
UNFORESEEABLE CIRCUMSTANCES
CAN PARALYZE YOU. WHEN THERE IS
A FIRE, FSD IS DISPATCHED. THE
FASTER THEY REACT, THE MORE
SALVAGEABLE THE RESTRUCTURE IS.
RIGHT NOW, RESTAURANTS AND
COURIERS ARE TAKING ON A SMOKE
BECAUSE OF THE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES OF THIS LAW. IT
URGENTLY NEEDS TO CHANGE.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, KYLE
GRAHAM, FOLLOWED BY ALAYNA
MARTIN. ON DECK WILL BE ADAM
FREY. KYLE?
>> HELLO. MY NAME IS KYLE
GRAHAM APPEARED A MANEUVER EACH
DRIVER AND A DISTRICT FIRST
APPEARED WHEN WE BECAME THE
FIRST MAJOR CITY TO RAISE THE
MINIMUM WAGE WITH A FIGHT FOR
$15, BUT NOW THAT A REAL,
LIVABLE MINIMUM WAGE IS
EXTENDED TO DELIVERY WORKERS,
THE COUNCIL SEEMS TO WANT TO
MAKE HISTORY AGAIN BY BEING THE
FIRST MAJOR CITY TO REMOVE A
MINIMUM WAGE FROM TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF WORKERS. SEEING
WHAT POTENTIAL PUZZLES THE
COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING, IT IS
CLEAR THEY ARE LISTENING TO
LOBBYING GROUPS FUNDED BY
COOPER AND DOOR DASH, RATHER
THAN THE WORKERS THEMSELVES.
THESE COMPANIES WANT TO CUT
TRANSPARENCY, INTIMATELY PUNISH
WORKERS, AND CHARGE EXAGGERATED
FEES TO CUSTOMERS WITH NO REAL
OVERSIGHT. IT WOULD BE A
DISASTER FOR THE PEOPLE OF
SEATTLE IF THE COUNCIL AT THIS
HAPPENED. NOT TO MENTION THE
PRESIDENT IT WOULD BE SETTING
FOR ANY CITY THAT TRY TO
IMPLEMENT PROTECTIONS FOR ITS
WORKERS. THESE PROPOSALS DO
NOTHING TO ADDRESS THE REAL
CONCERNS ABOUT THE ORDINANCE,
LIKE PROTECTIONS FOR DELIVERY
BIKERS. THE COUNCIL SHOULD
FOCUS ON THESE AND OTHER ISSUES
FACING THE CITY, LIKE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND
IMPROVING PUBLIC TRANSIT
INSTEAD OF FOCUSING ON THESE
ANTI-LABOR PROPOSALS THAT HURT
WORKERS.
>> THANK YOU. WE'VE GOT ELENA
MARTIN FOLLOWED BY ADAM FREY.
NEXT, CARL KING.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
ELENA. I DRIVE ON THE INSTACART
PLATFORM. I'M HERE TO OPPOSE
THE PROPOSAL FOR APP WORKER
PAY. FIRST OFF, I WOULD LIKE TO
SAY I DO ENJOY THE FLEX ABILITY
THAT THIS GIVES ME BECAUSE I AM
ABLE TO WORK WHEN I NEED. AND
THIS HAS ALLOWED ME TO FINALLY
GO THROUGH MILITARY TRAUMA
THERAPY, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN
CAPABLE WITH MY 9-TO-5 JOBS I
PREVIOUSLY HAD OVER THE YEARS.
DISCIPLINARY ACTION IS TAKEN
AGAINST US FOR NOT TAKING ANY
KIND OF ORDER, THAT DEFEATS THE
PURPOSE OF THE FLEX ABILITY
THAT THIS HAS. IT IS
UNREASONABLE TO RECEIVE ORDERS
GOING THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION
THAT WE MIGHT HAVE TO GO FOR AN
APPOINTMENT OR CHILDCARE PICK
UP. THE DEMAND IS THERE, BUT
SINCE INSTACART HAS INCREASED
FEES FOR CUSTOMERS, NOW THEY
LIMIT OUR POTENTIAL TIPS TO
COVER FOR THE HIGHER FEE, WHICH
ESSENTIALLY IS CAUSING US TO
EARN LESS IN A DIFFERENT
FACTOR. WE NEED TO BE
MINIMUM-WAGE OR HIGHER TO
SURVIVE IN THIS ECONOMY, WHICH
IS GETTING EVER MORE EXPENSIVE
BY THE DAY. AND CUTTING WORKERS
TAKE WILL ABSOLUTELY NOT HELP
US DO THAT.
>> THANK YOU. THE LAST THREE.
ADAM FREY, FOLLOWED BY CARL
KING, AND THEN ROBERT
SINGLETON, FOR THE FIRST 10 IN
PERSON. GO AHEAD.
>> MY NAME IS ADAM. I AM A DOOR
DASH DRIVER. DO NOT PASS SARA
NELSON PLUS GUEST MISGUIDED
POLICY TO CUT OUR PAPER I LOVE
DELIVERY WORK. I HAVE BEEN
DELIVERING ON AND OFF SINCE
2016. BACK THEN, PAY WAS AT
SEVEN DOLLARS PER ORDER. I
WORKED EARNESTLY FOR DOOR DASH.
COMPLETING 1300 DELIVERIES AND
FIVE MONTHS. DURING THAT TIME,
REPAIR BILLS PILED UP MUCH
FASTER THAN I COULD PAY THEM
AND I WAS LEFT WITH A DISABLED
VEHICLE THAT WAS ESSENTIALLY
SACRIFICED IN THE NAME OF DOOR
DASH. YEARS LATER IN 2022, I
GAVE THE PLATFORM ANOTHER
CHANCE, BUT THEY HAD
EFFECTIVELY CUT PAY AND HAVE TO
ONE THING BECAME CLEAR. DOOR
DASH WILL DO ANYTHING TO GET
DRIVERS TO ACCEPT LOW-PAYING
ORDERS. AS LOW AS TWO DOLLARS
TO THREE DOLLARS. FAR BELOW
ANYONE SCRUTINIZING THE PAY
WOULD CONSIDER A LIVABLE WAGE.
WE DO NOT WANT DRIVERS -- THEY
DO NOT WANT DRIVERS TO STAND UP
FOR THEM SELVES. THAT IS WHY
DOOR DASH IS DOING WHAT THEY
ARE DOING NOW. THEY ARE
RETALIATING AGAINST DRIVERS AND
TRYING TO TAKE THEIR OWN
DEMANDS TO PREVENT POINT. DO
NOT CUT PAY BELOW MINIMUM WAGE.
>> ALL RIGHT. CARL KING. THE
LAST FIRST 10 IN PERSON WILL BE
ROBERT SINGLETON. CARL?
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT MY
FEELINGS HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED BY
WHAT I AM LISTENING TO AND
SEEING. I THINK IT IS VERY
IMPORTANT THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THESE
INDIVIDUALS WHO NEED MORE MONEY
TO SURVIVE HERE IN OUR ECONOMY.
IT IS SO EXPENSIVE. THIS COUNTY
IS ONE OF THE MOST EXCESSIVE
PLACES TO LIVE IN THE COUNTRY.
AND THAT IS WHY I AM RUNNING
FOR CITY COUNCIL. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH.
>> ALL RIGHT. THE LAST IN
PERSON. ROBERT SINGLETON.
>> HELLO. GOOD AFTERNOON,
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. I SERVE AS A
DIRECTOR OF POLICY FOR THE U.S.
REGION AT THE CHAMBER OF
PROGRESS. I AM HERE TO EXPRESS
SUPPORT SPECIFICALLY FOR THE CB
AS OUTLINED BY STAFFED AND THIS
MOVEMENT TAKEN BY THE BODY TO
AMEND THE ORDINANCE. IT MAY NOT
BE PERFECT BUT IT IS A CRUCIAL
STEP TOWARDS ENSURING FAIR AND
EQUITABLE WORKING CONDITIONS
FOR WORKERS WHILE BALANCING
NEEDS OF CONSUMERS TO HAVE
AFFORDABLE ACCESS TO ESSENTIAL
SERVICES, GROCERIES AND FOOD.
AS DEMONSTRATED IN ONLY A
HANDFUL OF MONTHS, THE
WELL-INTENTIONED MINIMUM
PAYMENT ORDINANCE TRANSLATED
DIRECTLY INTO AN INCREASE OF
COST GOODS, IT MADE SERVICES
WORK CENTER FOR CONSUMERS AND
DISPROPORTIONALLY HARMED
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS WITH
LIMITED TRANSPORTATION ACCESS
AND VERY FEW HEALTHY FOOD
OPTIONS IN OUR AREA. IT ALSO
RESULTED IN DECREASED THE
DEMAND FOR DELIVERY SERVICES,
FEWER ORDERS FROM LOCAL
RESTAURANTS. WE MAY CONSIDER
POLICY OPTIONS BEFORE YOU
TODAY, SO LONG AS YOU TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT THE IMPACTS ON DRIVERS
AND CONSUMERS, WE WOULD
ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE IMMEDIATE
ACTION IN PASSING LEGISLATION
BEFORE YOU BECAUSE THE CURRENT
MARKET CONDITIONS ARE
UNTENABLE. THANK YOU.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT?
>> ALL RIGHT. THE FIRST THREE
VIRTUAL PUBLIC COMMENTERS WILL
BE, I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE IF I
MISPRONOUNCE YOUR FIRST AND
LAST NAME. ANWAR, FOLLOWED BY
LORETTA LIMBURG. ON DECK AFTER
THAT IS JOEL KRAFT. JAZEAH, GO
AHEAD. PRESS STAR 6 TO UNMUTE
YOURSELF. WE HEAR YOU.
>> HELLO. YES, SORRY. MY NAME
IS JAZEAH AND WIRE. I AM A
MEMBER OF 775. I AM HERE TO
TESTIFY AGAINST THE PROPOSAL TO
CUT PAY FOR CAREGIVERS. AS A
CAREGIVER, I KNOW WHAT WOULD BE
EXCLUDED FROM THE BASIC LABOR
LAW. [ INAUDIBLE - MUFFLED ] WE
HAVE TO FIGHT FOR BASIC RIGHTS
AS WORKERS. IT IS UNACCEPTABLE
TO PAY WORKERS BELOW MINIMUM
WAGE. ALL WORKERS NEED THEIR
BASIC RIGHTS HERE FOR TOO LONG,
WORKERS WHO ARE IMMIGRANTS HAVE
BEEN EXCLUDED FROM MANY LABOR
LAWS. AND BEING A CAREGIVER AND
WORKING FOR THIS CLASS, WE NEED
MORE PAY INSTEAD OF CUTTING OUR
PAY HERE. WE LIVE IN THIS AREA
AND IT IS VERY EXPENSIVE. WE
HAVE TO FEED OUR FAMILIES, AND
WE HAVE TO PAY OUR BILLS. SO,
WE SHOULD BE GOING FORWARD, NOT
GOING BACKWARDS. APP WORKERS
LIKE US HAVE A RIGHT TO BASIC
LIFE CIVILITIES. YOU NEED TO
PROTECT WORKERS, NOT GIANT
CORPORATIONS LIKE UBER. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, LAUREN
LUNDBERG FOLLOWED BY JOEL
KRAFT. AFTER JOEL, JAMES
MANDALAY. LAUREN? GO AHEAD.
PRESS STAR 6 TO UNMUTE
YOURSELF, LAUREN. PRESS STAR
6. PERFECT. GO AHEAD, LAUREN.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
LAUREN LUNDBERG. I AM THE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE De SOTO
EIA. AS SEATTLE CONTINUES TO
LOSE OFFICERS AT AN ALARMING
RATE, De SOTO COMMUNITY FIELDS
THE IMPACT EVERY DAY WITH
ONGOING CRIME AND SAFETY
ISSUES. WE SUPPORT THE COUNCIL
PLUS GUEST DEDICATION TO PUBLIC
SAFETY. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE
REBUILD OUR POLICE FORCE AND
RETHINK HOW WE RECRUIT AND
RETAIN OFFICERS. OUR CITY NEEDS
TO BE AGGRESSIVE IN BRINGING IN
NEW OFFICERS NOW TO SUPPORT THE
GROWING SAFETY CONCERNS IN OUR
NEIGHBORHOODS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, JOEL KRAFT.
FOLLOWED BY JAMES MANDALAY. ON
DECK AFTER JAMES, WE HAVE
CHRISTINA NEW LANDER. JOEL?
PRESS STAR 6 TO UNMUTE
YOURSELF.
>> HELLO. MY NAME IS JOEL
KRAFT. I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF MINIMUM WAGE FOR APP
WORKERS. I HAVE MULTIPLE
STRESSES AND I RELY ON THESE
SERVICES. MY CONDITION LIMITS
MY MOBILITY. APP WORKERS HELP
ME MANAGE MY DAILY NEEDS. WHAT
I NOTICED WAS THE FIRST THING
THAT THESE COMPANIES DID IS SET
UP, THEY RETALIATED NOT ONLY
AGAINST THE WORKERS, BUT ALSO
CUSTOMERS. INSTEAD OF PAYING
LIKE THEY SHOULD, PAY A FAIR
WAGE AND EVERYTHING THAT WE
DESIRE HERE IN SEATTLE, THEY
DECIDED TO NOT ONLY BUY A WHOLE
BUNCH OF CAMPAIGNS, BUT ALSO,
THEY DECIDED TO TACK ON TONS
AND TONS OF FEES TO TRY TO PIT
WORKERS AND CUSTOMERS AGAINST
EACH OTHER. THIS LAW WAS
PROTECTING US. ORIGINALLY, WHEN
WE HAD THESE LAWS AND WERE
GOING TO ALL OF THIS, WE DID
THIS. THEY WERE WITH US. IN
OTHER ARE TRYING TO SAY THAT
THIS IS BAD FOR THE ECONOMY.
WHEN IN REAL REGULATIONS,
LOOKING AT IT, THEY ARE JUST
TRYING TO EXPLOIT EVERYONE.
SUPPORT A MINIMUM WAGE FOR
TIPPED WORKERS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, JAMES
MANDALAY FOLLOWED BY CHRISTINA
NEW LANDER. AND AFTER THAT,
MIKE'S APPEAL. JAMES, GO
AHEAD.
>> MY NAME IS JAMES. I DRIVE
WITH UBER ETHAN DOOR DASH. IT
IS SO OBVIOUSLY THESE COMPANIES
SABOTAGED THIS FROM DAY ONE AND
WANTED TO FAIL. ASK YOURSELF
THIS. WHY WOULD A COMPANY SO
AGGRESSIVELY ALERT THEIR
CUSTOMERS, HEY, WE ARE RAISING
FEES? THEY WANTED ORDERS TO GO
DOWN, UPSET EVERYONE, AND GET
IS OVERTURNED, AND SERVE AS A
WARNING FOR OTHER CITIES.
NELSON'S PROPOSAL IS 100%
STRAIGHT OFF THE DESK OF DOOR
DASH IN THESE COMPANIES. THE
MILEAGE IS A JOKE, APPLYING THE
PAY RATE EVERY TWO WEEKS?
THESE COMPANIES HAVE SPENT
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO MAKE
SURE WE ARE INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS. IN REMOVING
PROTECTIONS SO WE CAN BE FIRED
ANY TIME, WHO WITH THAT FOR?
BEFORE THIS ORDINANCE, THEY
WOULD CHARGE CUSTOMERS 25 OR
$30 IN FEES. GIVING DRIVERS AS
LOW AS TWO DOLLARS TO THREE
DOLLARS BUT I WISH THE LOCAL
NEWS WOULD COVER THAT PART. DO
NOT REWARD THESE COMPANIES WHO
INTENTIONALLY TAINTED THE
MARKET AND KNEW THAT DRIVERS
WOULD STOP. DO NOT REWARD THEM
AT THE EXPENSE OF DRIVERS,
RESTAURANTS, AND CUSTOMERS, WHO
ARE ACTUALLY PART OF THE
COMMUNITY. KEEP THE ORDINANCE.
>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE CHRISTINA
27 FOLLOWED BY MIKE SOLITTLE.
AFTER THAT , AND I HAVE A
REQUEST.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
CHRISTINA 27. I WORK IN A CIVIL
AIDE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
SURVIVORS. I AM HERE TO SPEAK
ON THE GIG WORKERS BILL. I SEE
PEOPLE DESPERATELY STRUGGLING
TO AFFORD RENT AND BASIC NEEDS,
AND STRUGGLING TO ACCESS SOCIAL
SERVICES OF ALL KINDS. OF ALL
OF THE ISSUES IN OUR CITY THAT
YOU COULD BE FOCUSING ON RIGHT
NOW, I AM DEEPLY TROUBLED THAT
ONE OF YOUR FIRST MOVES AS A
NEW COUNSEL COULD BE TO PASS
LEGISLATION THAT WOULD DECREASE
THE MINIMUM WAGE FOR ONE OF THE
MOST UNDERVALUED AND
VULNERABLE, YET HIGHLY RELIED
UPON WORKFORCES IN OUR CITY.
INSTEAD OF DECREASING THE
MINIMUM WAGE, I CALL UPON YOU
TO FOCUS ON REGULATING
COMPANIES LIKE DOOR DASH, UBER
EATS, AND POSTMATES, THAT ARE
GOUGING FROM BOTH LOCAL WORKERS
AND LOCAL SMALL BUSINESSES. YOU
HAVE THE POWER TO SOLVE THIS
ISSUE FOR ALL OF THE PEOPLE
THAT ACTUALLY LIVE AND WORK IN
SEATTLE. AND YOU ALSO HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DEFINE THE
REPUTATION THAT YOU WILL HAVE
MOVING FORWARD AMONGST THE
CITIES WORKERS. I HOPE YOU WILL
CHOOSE TO BE CHAMPIONS FOR
WORKING PEOPLE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. WE'VE GOT MIKE S
FOLLOWED BY KATHLEEN HAMMER
QUEST AND THEN MARIANA BRONTË,
AND THEN KATIE BE SENT TO WRAP
UP THE FIRST VIRTUAL PUBLIC
COMMENTERS. MIKE, GO AHEAD.
>> HELLO. I AM MIKE WITH THE
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. WE SUPPORT
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. AND IN
OUR SMALL ETHNIC MINORITY
BUSINESS GROUPS THROUGHOUT
SEATTLE, THEY HAVE BEEN
NEGATIVELY IMPACTED FOR SEVERAL
YEARS. THIS IS -- [ INAUDIBLE -
MUFFLED ] SUPPORT THE
AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH.
>> ALL RIGHT. KATHLEEN FOLLOWED
BY MARIANA, AND THEN TO WRAP UP
THE FINAL FIRST 10, WE HAVE KT
B's AND. SORRY, KATHLEEN, GO
AHEAD. KATHLEEN, PLEASE PRESS
STAR 6. GO AHEAD.
>> MY NAME IS KATHLEEN. DURING
THE LAST FOUR YEARS DURING THE
COVID PANDEMIC, I RELIED
HEAVILY ON DOOR DASH AND OTHER
COMPANIES, AS WITH MY HUSBAND
AND I ARE IMMUNE COMPROMISED
AND HIGH RISK. IF THESE
COMPANIES PAY THEIR EMPLOYEES A
LIVING WAGE, THEY THEN DECIDE
TO ADD ADDITIONAL FEES ON
ORDERS. IN FORTUNE MAGAZINE,
IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE CEO OF
DOOR DASH MADE $2.79 MILLION IN
2022. INSTEAD OF PAYING
EMPLOYEES A LIVING WAGE, THE
CEO POCKETED MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS. THEY WILL CHARGE THE
CONSUMERS MORE. AS LONG AS THE
MONEY IS NOT TAKEN OUT OF THEIR
POCKET . THESE ADDITIONAL FEES
SOMETIMES IMPACTED THE MOST
VULNERABLE PEOPLE IN OUR
SOCIETY. IF NOT PAID ENOUGH,
GIG WORKERS OFTEN TAKE
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM OUR
SOCIAL SERVICES PROGRAM SO THAT
CEOs CAN PAY LOW WAGES, MAKE
BIG MONEY, AND BELIEVE
GOVERNMENT COFFERS THAT
TAXPAYERS EXPENSE. I SAY YOU DO
NOT AMEND THIS ORDINANCE,
SUPPORT EMPLOYEES, CONSUMERS,
AND CUT GREEDY CORPORATE FEES,
BUT NOT EMPLOYEE PAY.
>> THANK YOU. I AM SHOWING THAT
MARIANA MORANTE IS NOT PRESENT.
WE WILL GO TO KATIE BEASON.
KATIE BEASON?
>> MADAM PRESIDENT AND NUMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE, MY NAME IS
MARIANA MORANTE ONE, GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS DIRECTOR FOR THE
WASHINGTON FOOD ASSOCIATION,
REPRESENTING INDEPENDENT
GROCERY STORES IN OUR
SUPPLIERS. WE ARE HERE TODAY
AND SUPPORT OF THE CITIES PAY
ORDINANCE. WE HAVE STRUGGLED
AGAINST THE COST OF FOOD. AS WE
PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED, COST OF
FOOD, MATERIAL, AND LABOR, HAS
ALL INCREASED. OUR SOURCES ARE
DOING EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO
KEEP CUSTOMERS COMING BACK AND
DELIVERY IS ONE IMPORTANT WAY
FOR THEM TO REMAIN COMPETITIVE.
IN PREVIOUS TESTIMONY, WE WANT
ABOUT THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES
THAT WOULD COME FROM THE
LIMITATION OF THIS ORDINANCE,
INCLUDING A REDUCTION ORDER
FROM OUR STORES. UNFORTUNATELY,
THESE PREDICTIONS ALL CAME TRUE
AND THE NEW ORDINANCE IS
DETERRING CUSTOMERS FROM
ORDERING FROM THE VERY PEOPLE
THIS ORDINANCE WAS INTENDED TO
HELP. DELIVERY IN SEATTLE SET A
NEW FLOOR FOR MINIMUM WAGE AND
MILEAGE FOR APP BASED WORKERS.
WE ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL TO
ACTIVELY TAKE OUT THESE
REVISIONS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. WE NOW WILL
TRANSITION BACK TO 10 IN PERSON
PUBLIC COMMENTERS. THE FIRST OF
THREE ON DECK, WE'VE GOT JOHN
M STEAD, FOLLOWED BY MICHELLE
FOWLER, AND THEN FOLLOWING
THAT, TANGIE WEBB FRAME. DON?
>> THE AVERAGE BIKE MESSENGER
IN DOWNTOWN SEATTLE IS FROM
AFRICA AND PAPUA NEW GUINEA AND
SPEAKS ONLY FRENCH. THE AVERAGE
CENTRAL SEATTLE DRIVER SPEAK
SPANISH. THE PEOPLE COMMENTING
ON THIS BILL, INCLUDING ME, ARE
NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
MARKET AS A WHOLE AT ALL.
PLEASE ADVOCATE FOR THE GREATER
GOOD, NOT THE LOUD MINORITY OF
INSTACART SHOPPING CAREERS AND
LABOR POLICY IDEAL LAWS. FOCUS
ON THE BUSINESS FUNDAMENTALS.
MAKE THE RESTAURANTS PROFITABLE
AGAIN AND EVERYONE INVOLVED
WILL MAKE A LIVING WAGE, LIKE
THEY DID BEFORE PAY UP OR PAY
UP HAS CAUSED WORKERS AND
RESTAURANT TO LOSE 150,000
ORDERS PER MONTH FROM JUST ONE
NETWORK COMPANY. LAST WEEK, I
MADE $347 AND 54 HOURS. LAST
YEAR, I MADE $1024 FOR THE SAME
WEEK AND 47 HOURS OF WORK. I
SPOKE TO A GROUP OF PAPUA NEW
GUINEA AND, AND THEY WORK FROM
9 A.M. UNTIL 8:00 P.M., OFTEN
SEVEN DAYS A WEEK . THEY
AVERAGE SIX DOLLARS AN HOUR.
RESTAURANTS ARE DOWN 38%. FIX
THAT AND ALL OF THE AISLE WILL
BENEFIT. THE GREATNESS OF A MAN
IS MEASURED BY THE WAY HE
TREATS THE LITTLE MAN.
COMPASSION FOR THE WEEK IS THE
SIGN OF GREATNESS.
>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE MICHELLE
BOWSER, FOLLOWED BY TANGIE
WEBB. THEN WE HAVE IVAN D.
MICHELLE?
>> OKAY. IS A PRESIDENT. YOU
MADE SEVERAL COMMENTS AND WERE
SAYING THAT YOU WOULD FIX A
BROKEN LAW AND MAKE IT MORE
AFFORDABLE. YOU ALSO SAID YOU
WOULD NOT REWRITE LEGISLATION.
NONE OF THOSE ARE TRUE. YOU DID
REWRITE LEGISLATION. YOU JUST
DID IT WITH LOBBYISTS FOR THE
CORPORATE COMPANIES. YOU DID
NOT FIX A BROKEN LAW. THERE IS
NOTHING IN THIS LAW OR
AMENDMENT THAT SAYS IT WILL BE
MORE AFFORDABLE. THERE IS
NOTHING TO BRING THE CUSTOMERS
BACK IF THAT WAS YOUR
INTENTION. STRIPPING US OF
EVERYTHING IS NOT GOING TO
MAKE THE RESTAURANT GET ORDERS.
I AM NOT SURE HOW YOU CORRELATE
TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHTS AND PAY
AS MAKING IT MORE AFFORDABLE
FOR THE CUSTOMER. MAYBE
DELIVERIES ARE DOWN FOR THESE
RESTAURANTS, BUT THEY ARE NOT
LOSING MONEY. PROFITS ARE UP
BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE TO GET
30% OF THEIR ORDERS TO THESE
COMPANIES ANYMORE. THEY ARE NOT
BEING EXPORTED BY THESE
COMPANIES. YOU HAVE TO SAY NO,
YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE THE
COUNCIL THAT ROLLS BACK LABOR
STANDARDS. EVERYONE IS
WATCHING.
>> THANK YOU. AFTER MICHELLE,
WE'VE GOT TANGIE WEBB, IVAN D.
AFTER IVAN, WE HAVE MBAPPA T.
>> SARA NELSON DRAFT IS A
SIMPLE ATTACK ON WORKERS RIGHTS
AND UNDERMINES THE BASIC
CONCEPT OF MINIMUM WAGES FOR
ALL. THE LEGACY OF SLAVERY,
GENOCIDE, AND ECONOMIC
EXPORTATION OF BY POC
COMMUNITIES MEANS THAT SARA
NELSON EXCLUDES FROM THE
MINIMUM WAGE RX --
PROPORTIONATELY FROM THESE
COMMUNITIES. DOING NOTHING TO
SUPPORT THE PEOPLE MOST IN
NEED, IN ITSELF, IS AN ACT OF
INSTITUTIONAL RACISM. THIS BILL
REPRESENTS THE MOST ANTIUNION,
ANTIWORKER APPROACH TO GIG
WORKER ISSUES. THIS PROPOSAL
WOULD CUT WAGES WAY DOWN TO
1997 FOR ONLY ENGAGED TIME,
WHICH IS HALF OF THE IRS RATE
FOR MILEAGE BECAUSE THESE
WORKERS ARE INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS, IT WOULD CODIFY
INTO LAW A SUB MINIMUM WAGE FOR
THESE GROUPS OF WORKERS. THIS
POLICY WOULD BE THE STANDARD
FOR GIG WORKERS THAT EXISTS
ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY. TO
DATE, THERE ARE NO STAKEHOLDER
MEETINGS, NO WORKERS IN THE
SPACE MAKING SURE YOU STRONGLY
STEP BACK FROM THIS LEGISLATOR
TO NOT CREATE SUB MINIMUM WAGES
FOR BI POC COMMUNITIES. PROTECT
WORKERS.
>> THANK YOU. AFTER THAT, IVAN
D, FOLLOWED BY MBAPPA T, AND
WYNN REED. IVAN?
>> I AM HERE TO TRANSLATE FOR
IVAN AND HIS WRITTEN TESTIMONY
. HELLO, MY NAME IS IVAN. I AM
A WORKER ON DOOR DASH AND UBER
EATS. I AM ASKING YOU NOT TO
MESS WITH THE MINIMUM WAGE LAW
FOR DELIVERY WORKERS. I KNOW
THERE ARE SOME DELIVERY
COMPANIES TRYING TO GET AROUND
IT BECAUSE THEY THINK IT IS IN
THEIR BEST INTEREST. BUT THEY
ARE JUST TRYING TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THE SYSTEM. THEY
ARE SNEAKY AND DISHONEST. THEY
WANT TO CUT CAREER SALARIES,
BUT I THINK WE SHOULD STAND UP
FOR OUR RIGHTS AND SAY NO TO
THEM. LET'S TALK ABOUT THEIR
CHARGES TO RESTAURANT AND SEE
IF WE CAN WORK OUT A BETTER
DEAL THAT BENEFITS BOTH
PARTIES. THEY ARE TRYING TO
BRING IN NEW CAREERS FROM OTHER
CITIES AND STATES, OFFERING
BONUSES AND PRIORITIZING ORDERS
FOR THEM, BUT THEY ARE NOT
GIVING ORDERS TO THE OLD
CAREERS IN SEATTLE WHO WERE
HERE BEFORE THE NEW RULES WERE
PUT IN PLACE. THEY SAY THERE
ARE NOT ANY ORDERS OR NOT
ENOUGH, BUT THAT IS --. THERE
IS NO TRANSPARENCY OR FAIRNESS
AND HOW THEY DISTRIBUTE ORDERS.
I CANNOT TRUST WHAT THEY SAY. I
HAVE SEEN IT WITH MY OWN EYES,
AND YOU CAN TOO. THEY CHEAT
WITH PAYMENT COPULATIONS WERE
ORDERS AND HAVE CUT DOWN ON
DELIVERY TIMES. EVEN IF THERE
IS JUST A SLIGHT DELAY, THEY
CAN SHUT DOWN YOUR ACCOUNT.
THEY CAN SHUT YOUR ACCOUNT DOWN
WITHOUT ANY WARNING. SORRY,
THAT IS IT.
>> FOLLOWING THAT, WE HAVE
MBAPPA CAPITAL T. WYNN REED.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I AM AN UBER
DRIVER IN SEATTLE. I AM HERE TO
STRONGLY OPPOSE YOUR PROPOSAL
TO CUT OUR PAY. IN A RECENT
GEEKWIRE ARTICLE, ANNA PAOLO OF
DOOR DASH SAID WORKERS WERE
MAKING $25 PER HOUR BEFORE THE
SEATTLE ORDINANCE. THAT
REQUIRES 26.40. THAT IS A
CHANGE OF ONLY $1.40. TO MAKE
UP FOR THAT CHANGE, DASHER'S
AND OTHER COMPANIES CHARGE
THEIR CUSTOMERS FIVE DOLLARS
EXTRA, JUST TO MAKE UP FOR ONE
DOLLAR AND $.40. SO AS I SEE
IT, THE PROBLEM IS NOT
CUSTOMERS OR DRIVERS. THE
PROBLEM IS WITH DOOR DASH AND
UBER .
>> THANK YOU. FOLLOWING THAT,
WYNN REED, MEI LAN, ALAYNA
MARTIN.
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL AND
PRESIDENT NELSON FOR HEARING US
TODAY . I RECEIVED A MESSAGE
EARLY THIS MORNING FROM ONE OF
OUR MEMBERS, ALLISON. SHE IS A
SINGLE MOM THAT PROVIDES FOR
HER AND HER CHILD SOLELY FROM
DOOR DASH INCOME. AFTER A LATE
NIGHT OF WORKING SHOT, SHE
REGRETTABLY HAD TO CANCEL
COMING TODAY BECAUSE HER RENT
IS DUE SUNDAY AND SHE IS SHORT.
SHE TOOK A DOUBLE TODAY TO MAKE
SURE THAT SHE HAS AS MUCH
INCOME AS POSSIBLE TO PUT
TOWARDS HER RENT. OFFERS ARE
FEWER, AND SHE HAS TO TRAVEL
FARTHER. WE ARE GETTING CALLS
FOR EMERGENCY RESOURCES.
DRIVERS ARE LOOKING FOR
EMERGENCY RESOURCES. THEY NEED
HELP. THEY ARE HURTING. THESE
ARE STORIES WE HEAR OVER AND
OVER. PLEASE REFORM THIS
LEGISLATION, DO NOT WAIT.
WAITING CAN CAUSE PERMANENT
CHANGES TO CUSTOMER BEHAVIORS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. THE LAST FOUR.
RAY LYNN, FOLLOWED BY ELENA
MARTIN, PETER Q, AND LEIF
GARRETT.
>> HELLO. I HAVE BEEN WORKING
FOR -- SINCE 2020. HERE IN
SEATTLE, TWO YEARS OF A BATTLE
HAS BEEN LONG-TERM. JANUARY
13th WAS ALSO CLEAR. APP
WORKERS, WE HOLD THEM DEAR.
VOICES RISE, THEY SHOUT,
CORPORATE TIES WE KNEW ABOUT.
TRY TO STOP PROGRESS WHILE WE
SLEEP. IF LOBBY DOLLARS FLOW,
-- [ INAUDIBLE - MUFFLED ] 100
GRAND TO SPEND TO STOP WHAT IS
RIGHT WHILE WORKERS STRUGGLE
DAY AND NIGHT. WITH THE WORK IN
WASHINGTON BY OUR SIDE, OUR
VOICE BRINGS OUT INTO THE
NIGHT. FOR JUSTICE, FOR
FAIRNESS, LET US SPREAD THE
WORD. SEATTLE WORKERS DESERVE
THEIR RIGHTS. EXPECT NO LESS.
DIG IN DEEP UNTIL THE NEXT FAIR
FIGHT.
>> THANK YOU. AFTER THAT, WE
HAVE ELENA MARTIN, PETER Q, AND
LEIF GARRETT. ELENA QUITE ALL
RIGHT, NEXT? WE HAVE PETER.
>> HELLO, COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS PETER Q. I AM HERE TO
STRONGLY OPPOSE THE COUNCIL
BILL 120775. SEATTLE
LEADERSHIP -- THEIR STANDARD
AND BENEFITS FOR ALL UBER
DRIVERS. THIS BILL DOES THE
OPPOSITE. IT CUT PAY FOR
WORKERS. IT CUT OUR PAY
STANDARD BELOW THE MINIMUM
WAGE. WORKING HARD FOR A GOOD
COMPANY, WE WANT TO DO THE
RIGHT THING, TO COMPETE AGAIN.
IT DOES NOT COMPENSATE FAIRLY.
MEANING IT DOES NOT COVER THE
COST OF THE WORK. WE URGE YOU
TO OPPOSE THIS BILL AND BRING
WORKERS VOICES TO THE TABLE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. THE LAST 10 IN
PERSON. YES, WE HAVE THE LAST
ROUND OF 10 IN PERSON
COMMENTERS. WE HAVE LEIF
GARRETT. GO AHEAD.
>> I AM A FORMER DRIVER FOR
UBER, LIFT, AND UBER EATS. I AM
HERE IN FAVOR OF PRESERVING THE
PATENT LAWS AS THEY CURRENTLY
ARE. MY MAIN ISSUE, IN
ADDITION TO THE PROPOSAL JUST
BEING UNNECESSARY, BECAUSE
THINGS LIKE TRANSPARENCY SIMPLY
DO NOT AFFECT THE BOTTOM LINE.
IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY AFFECT HOW
MUCH INCOME OF THE COMPANY OR
THE DRIVER MAKES. BUT IN
ADDITION TO THAT, ONE GLARING
ISSUE WITH THE PROPOSAL REFORMS
IS THAT THEY WERE ONLY
CONSULTED WITH THE PEOPLE WHO,
THE CORPORATIONS AND ADVOCACY
GROUPS, LIKE DRIVE FORWARD.
THERE WAS NO EFFORT TO CONSULT
ACTUAL GIG DRIVERS. WHEREAS
WHEN THE PAY UP LAWS WERE MADE,
WE CONSULTED EVERYONE FROM
ACROSS ALL INTERESTS. AND IT IS
VERY IMPORTANT THAT IF WE ARE
GOING TO AMEND A LAW, THAT WE
AT LEAST MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE,
THAT EVERYONE'S VOICES ARE
HEARD. IN ADDITION TO
AMENDMENTS JUST BEING
UNNECESSARY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. WE WILL GO BACK
TO 10 VIRTUAL PUBLIC
COMMENTERS. THE FIRST THREE
PUBLIC COMMENTERS WILL BE
MARIANA MORANTE, TONY ANG,
FOLLOWED BY -- EDMONTON.
PLEASE PRESS STAR 6 TO UNMUTE
YOURSELF.
>> THANK YOU, GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS MARIANA MORANTE. I
AM HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST
NELSON'S PROPOSAL. THIS
PROPOSAL IS A -- COMPLETE
SURRENDER OF THE MANDATE OF
THIS COUNSEL TO WORK IN FAVOR
OF THE CITY AND ITS
INHABITANTS, TO PLEASE A FEW
CORPORATE INTERESTS. COMPANIES
THAT CANNOT WORK WITHOUT
ABUSING THEIR CUSTOMERS AND
EXPORTING WAGE WORKERS, WHY
SHOULD THE CITY NOT SAVE THEM
FROM A FAILED BUSINESS MODEL?
THEY SHOULD USE THEIR CREATIVE
SPIRIT TO MAYBE FIX THEIR
BUSINESS STRUCTURES. THERE IS
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO --
IMPOSED BY COMPANIES AS
EXTORTION FOR THESE WORKER
PROTECTIONS AND THEIR PUBLIC
SUPPORT FOR A POLICY THAT WILL
HURT FUNDAMENTALLY. I HONESTLY
CANNOT SEE HOW THIS IS EVEN
BEING CONSIDERED. YES, LOOK AT
THE DATA. COMPANIES ARE
IMPOSING RIDICULOUS FEES AND
EXPENSES. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, TONY ANG,
FOLLOWED BY DAVID EDMONTON.
TONY?
>> MY NAME IS TONY MARIANA
MORANTE NINE COULD I HAVE BEEN
A FOOD DELIVERY DRIVER FOR
SEVERAL YEARS. I AM CALLING TO
SAY TO KEEP THE CURRENT PAY
STRUCTURE AS IS AND REJECT THE
NEW PROPOSAL TO LOWER PAY. WITH
GAS PRICES AS HIGH IN SEATTLE
AND LOWERING THE AND
REIMBURSEMENT TO $.35 A MONTH
OUR -- MILE, THIS PAYS FOR OUR
GAS, INSURANCE. YOU PROBABLY DO
NOT REALIZE THE HIGH COST OF
VEHICLES FOR DELIVERING FOOD.
IN ADDITION TO LOWERING THE
HOURLY RATE IN 1997, IT ONLY
MAKES SENSE THAT DRIVERS ARE
PAID THIS AMOUNT IF THEY ARE
LOGGED ON THE PLATFORM. THE
POLICY IS PAYING STRAIGHT
MINIMUM WAGE, BUT DRIVERS ARE
PAID FOR OVERTIME, WE ARE NOT.
WE ARE ONLY PAID FOR TIME AND
DELIVERY. -- PAYS FOR ALL
MINIMUM WAGE TO TAKE IN ACCOUNT
ALL WORK TIME. THE CURRENT
POLICY IS DRIVERS SHOULD WORK
HARD AND -- TO MAKE A MINIMUM
WAGE. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN
THREE YEARS I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
ACHIEVE THIS. I AM ASKING YOU
TO REJECT THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
AND KEEP THIS POLICY IN PLACE.
KEEP WORKERS IN SEATTLE. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, DAVID
EDMONTON, FOLLOWED BY THE NEXT
THREE VIRTUAL SPEAKERS. WE HAVE
JASON HARRIS, CATHERINE
STANFORD, AND THEN BRITNEY
GIORNO. DAVID?
>> FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS
DAVID EDMONTON, SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT FOR POLICY AND
TECHNET. -- [ INAUDIBLE -
MUFFLED ] SWIFT AND DEVASTATING
FOR RESTAURANT OWNERS,
DELIVERY WORKERS, AND
CONSUMERS. THE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENT IS OF THE
LEGISLATION HAVE BEEN MADE
FEWER ORDERS, HIGHER WAIT
TIMES, AND HIGHER FEES,
RESULTING IN LOST BUSINESS,
LOST INCOME TO WORKERS, AND
LOSS OF CONSUMERS. THIS IS
UNSUSTAINABLE AND MUST BE
CHANGED IMMEDIATELY TO MAKE
SURE THAT NO MORE HARM COMES.
THE ABILITY TO CORRECT THESE
ISSUES WITH LEGISLATION, WE
SUPPORT THE PROPOSED
LEGISLATION BEFORE YOU AND
ENCOURAGE THE COUNSEL FOR ITS
SWIFT ADOPTION. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. FOLLOWING DAVID,
WE HAVE JASON HARRIS, FOLLOWED
BY CATHERINE STANFORD, FOLLOWED
BY BRITNEY GIORNO. I APOLOGIZE
FOR MIS-PRONOUNCING HER NAME.
QUEZALLI ARAGON . JASON? GO
AHEAD.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES, SIR.
>> HELLO, CITY COUNCIL. I WOULD
LIKE TO STRONGLY OPPOSE THE PAY
OF LAW. IT HAS DONE NOTHING
BECAUSE ISSUES FOR RESTAURANT,
CUSTOMERS, AND DRIVERS. IT HAS
BEEN A COMPLETE FAILURE AND
WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO PUBLISH.
IF YOU GO AROUND THE CITY AND
TALK TO RESTAURANTS, THEY ARE
ALL SAYING THE SAME THING. 30%
OR MORE. AND SOME ARE 70%. IT
IS PRETTY BAD. SHELVES ARE
EMPTY EVERYWHERE. AND THE
DAMAGES GETTING CLOSE TO
IRREVERSIBLE. LIKE MEDIUM AND
LOW INCOME EARNERS HAVE
COMPLETELY ERASED THE APP. THEY
ARE NOT ORDERING. IT IS PRICING
CUSTOMERS OUT. THE CUSTOMERS
ARE DECREASING BY THE DAY. IF
WE DO NOT FIX IT NOW, IT IS NOT
COMING BACK. SO, YEAH. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, WE HAVE
CATHERINE STANFORD, FOLLOWED BY
WHITNEY GIORNO, QUEZALLI
ARAGON, AND AFTER THAT, WE HAVE
EMMA CAPITAL H IN BROOKPARK,
AND THEN MIKE JOHNSON.
CATHERINE? CATHERINE? PLEASE
GO AHEAD, THANK YOU.
>> THAT IS THE SECOND TIME I
HAVE PRESSED IT. I'M SPEAKING
ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS AND
MANAGERS OF GREATER SEATTLE. WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE EMPLOYEES
SUPPORT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3
THAT WOULD SERVE AS A
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION OF
POLICE OFFICERS IN SEATTLE. THE
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE AGENCY,
AS WELL AS TENANTS, AND SUPPORT
BUSINESSES. THEY HAVE SUFFERED
DUE TO A LACK OF ADEQUATE
POLICE IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. I
UNDERSTAND THERE WAS A LOSS OF
OVER 700 OFFICERS IN THREE
YEARS. AT AROUND 900 OFFICERS,
AS OPPOSED TO THE RECOMMENDED
1500, THERE IS QUITE A GAP TO
FILL. WE COMMAND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT NELSON AND CATTLE TO
FIND VIABLE WAYS TO MAKE THE
PROCESS MORE STREAMLINED AND
ACCESSIBLE. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
>> THANKS. NEXT, BRITNEY
GIORNO, FOLLOWED BY QUEZALLI
ARAGON. AFTER THAT, EMMA
CAPITAL H , EDWARD PARK, AND
THEN MIKE JOHNSON.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAME
PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. I AM THE PUBLIC
POLICY MANAGER FOR THE
WASHINGTON TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION. I'M HERE TODAY IN
SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE EPI'S
DELIVERY OF WORKERS ORDINANCE.
WE APPRECIATE THE NUMBERS OF
THE COUNSEL TO COME TOGETHER
WITH STAKEHOLDERS TO REVISE THE
ORIGINAL ORDINANCE. A PROPOSAL
BEFORE YOU WILL ENSURE WORKERS
CONTINUE TO WORK AND EARN
MINIMUM WAGE WHILE ALSO
ADDRESSING SOME UNWORKABLE
PIECES OF THE ORIGINAL LAW. WE
BELIEVE IT IS IMPERATIVE FOR
THE COUNSEL TAKE ACTION QUICKLY
TO MAKE THESE ADJUSTMENT. SO
THAT WILL HELP RESTORE DELIVERY
ACTIVITIES IN THE CITY AND HELP
ADDRESS CONCERNS OF CONSUMERS
AND SMALL BUSINESSES, WHO HAVE
COME TO RELY ON THE CONVENIENCE
OF APP-BASED WORKING. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, WE HAVE
JOSH FREEZE. I SEE THAT YOU ARE
PRESIDENT. FOLLOWING JOSH, WE
HAVE EMMA CAPITAL H, EDWARD
PARK, AND MIKE JOHNSTON. GO
AHEAD.
>> HELLO, CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES, WE CAN.
>> MY NAME IS JOSH. I HAVE
HELPED WITH THE IRS FOR
DECADES. I'M ASKING THE
COUNSEL NOT TO -- MINIMUM
WORKER WAGES. OVER THE YEARS
COMMENCING WHAT IT HAS DONE TO
OUR COMMITTEES. THESE
COMPANY'S HAVE SOUGHT OUT
REFUGEES AND INDIVIDUALS WITH
EMERGENCY ENGLISH
PROFICIENCIES. GIG WORKERS
HAVE ALWAYS ENDED IN WILLFUL
TEARS USUALLY BECAUSE THEY
CANNOT PAY THEIR $1.5 THOUSAND
TAX BILL BASED OFF OF $10,000
OF GIG INCOME. THIS IS ONLY
GOTTEN WORSE IN THE PAST FEW
YEARS BEFORE PAY UP. THIS TYPE
OF WORK HAS BECOME SO -- TO
SHOW HOW THESE APPS IMPACT GIG
WORKERS PICKLES TO GET WORKERS
ARE PEOPLE OF COLOR AND APPS
ALLOW WHITE FOLKS TO ORDER FOOD
AND TO INTERACT WITH THOSE
FOLKS AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE.
THINK OF THE LEAD ON THE
DOORSTEP OPTION. THEY ARE
INVISIBLE TO US SO THEY DO NOT
DESERVE RIGHTS? DO NOT
CAPITULATE TO THESE COMPANIES.
PROTECT GIG WORKERS AND PROTECT
MINIMUM WAGE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. THE LAST THREE
VIRTUAL SPEAKERS FOR THIS ROUND
IS EMMA H, EDWARD PARK, AND
MIKE JOHNSON. EMMA
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?
>> YES, WE CAN.
>> THE AMENDMENT TO THE PAY OF
ORDINANCE PROPOSED TODAY -- TO
BUY COURIERS. AS A BIKE
COURIER, IT IS OBVIOUS IT WILL
NOT. FROM ALL APPEARANCES, THE
CHOICE BY THE APP CORPORATIONS
IS ENTIRELY TO MINIMIZE COSTS
BY CHOOSING THE MOST
PREDICTABLE VEHICLE. WHEN ALL
CARRIERS ARE PAID AS CARS AND
APPS DISSING WHICH MY CLASSES,
WHY WOULD THEY BOTHER SENDING
ORDERS TO BUY COURIERS WHO
MIGHT GO 12 OR 25 MILES PER
HOUR WITHOUT SPECIFIC
INCENTIVES OR REGULATIONS, THIS
WILL NOT CHANGE. FURTHER, THIS
AMENDMENT DESTROYS THE KEY
PROTECTIONS THAT ALLOW BIKERS
TO OPERATE SAFELY AND FAIRLY.
LIKE KNOWING WHICH SIDE OF A
GIANT OF A CUSTOMER IS ON TO
GAUGE IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH
FACTORY. OR IF IT CONTAINS
PRACTICAL ITEMS LIKE CASES OF
WATER AND COURSES OF
APPROPRIATE ACTION IF THE APP
FAILS TO DISCLOSE THIS UP
FRONT. THE CLEAR GOAL OF EACH
ITEM IN THIS AMENDMENT IS TO
PLACE THE RISK BACK ON CAREERS
TO IMPROVE THE PROFIT MARGINS
FOR THE APP CORPORATIONS. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE EDWARD
PARK, FOLLOWED BY MIKE JOHNSON.
EDWARD, GO AHEAD.
>> HELLO, COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS EDWARD PARK. I HAVE
BEEN DOING DELIVERY SINCE 2021
AND I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON
PLATFORMS LIKE POSTMATES,
COOPER EATS, ALONGSIDE DOOR
DASH. DESPITE CURRENTLY WORKING
FULL TIME RUNNING AN ONLINE
ELECTRONICS STORE, I STILL RELY
ON DELIVERY DRIVING FOR A
SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF MY TOTAL
INCOME. I LIKE DASHING BECAUSE
OF THE FLEX ABILITY IT OFFERS,
ALLOWING ME TO MANAGE MY
SCHEDULE, RUN MY BUSINESS, AND
EARN ABOUT 50% OF MY INCOME
THROUGH DELIVERY WORK. SINCE
THE DELIVERY LAW CHANGED IN
JANUARY, I HAVE EXPERIENCED
LONGER WAIT TIMES FOR FEWER
DOOR DASH ORDERS. DELIVERY WORK
IS BECOMING LESS PREDICTABLE
AND LESS DEPENDABLE. PLEASE
SUPPORT THIS NEW COUNSEL BILL
TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE DELIVERY
PAY LOT SO I CAN GET BACK ON
TRACK WITH MY FINANCIAL GOALS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, WE HAVE
MIKE JOHNSON. GO AHEAD.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MIKE JOHNSON, SENIOR
VICE PRESIDENT OF POLICY AND
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS FOR THE
WASHINGTON RETAIL ASSOCIATION.
HERE TODAY TO VOICE OUR SUPPORT
FOR LEGISLATION TO REVISE THE
CITY BUS GETS TO THE DELIVERY
PAY ORDINANCE. SEATTLE
RETAILERS ARE VITAL TO THE
ONGOING ECONOMIC RECOVERY IN
SEATTLE. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
DELIVERY PAY ORDINANCE HAS HAD
MANY RETAILERS RELY ON
THIRD-PARTY DELIVERY TO CONNECT
WITH CUSTOMERS. RETAILERS ARE
SEEING FEWER AND SMALLER
ORDERS. DELIVERY DRIVERS ARE
SEEN TO LONGER WAIT TIMES FOR
FEWER ORDERS AND DIMINISHING
EARNING OPPORTUNITIES.
CUSTOMERS ARE FRUSTRATED WITH
WHAT USED TO BE A DEPENDABLE
AND CONVENIENT WAY TO SHOP. THE
PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU STILL
PROVIDE SEATTLE PLUS GET
MINIMUM WAGE FOR APP-BASED
WORKERS, AS WELL AS MILEAGE. IT
ALSO ADDRESSES THE UNWORKABLE
AND THAT MENTAL PIECES OF THE
NEW LAW. WE ENCOURAGE TO FIX
THE CITIES PAY ORDINANCE BEFORE
YOU. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. NOW WE WILL
TRANSITION TO 10 IN PERSON
PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS. THE
FIRST THREE IN PERSON SPEAKERS,
EXCUSE ME, COLIN O'KEEFE,
FOLLOWED BY STEPHEN GARY AND
THEN AIDEN CAROL.
>> LAST WEEK, COUNCIL PRESIDENT
SARA NELSON SOLD FREMONT
BREWING TO SEATTLE HOSPITALITY
GROUP. THE BREWERY IS LIKELY
VALUED IN THE TENS OF MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS. WEATHER COUNCIL
MEMBER NELSON STANDS TO RECEIVE
A WINDFALL OR AN ENORMOUS DEBT
RELIEF, SHE MUST RECUSE HERSELF
FROM ALL MATTERS IMPACTING SHG
IN THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY. IT
IS LUNACY THAT SHE IS
CONTINUING ON BUSINESS AS
USUAL. NELSON NOT DOING THIS
HERSELF IS EXPECTED. BUT THAT
EVERY OTHER MEMBER OF THE
COUNSEL IS FINE WITH THIS? THAT
THE MAYOR IS FINE WITH THIS?
THAT IS IMPORTANT.
>> PAUSE. [ INAUDIBLE -
OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ] CAN YOU
LINK WHAT YOU ARE SAYING TO AN
ITEM ON THE AGENDA, PLEASE?
>> PAY. IT AFFECTS THE
RESTAURANT INDUSTRY. CAN I GET
THOSE 10 SECONDS BACK? 10
SECONDS.
>> 10 SECONDS COMING BACK YOUR
WAY.
>> I LIKE THE INTERRUPTION
COMING RIGHT AFTER NOT
EXPECTING YOU TO RECUSE
YOURSELF. THAT WAS GREAT. I
EXPECT THE COMMITTEE TO HAVE AS
MUCH TEETH AS ART PLEASE
ACADEMY. WE NEED TO PROVIDE
OVERSIGHT, TXU POWER, AND TO
WORK FOR CONSTITUENTS AND NOT
BIG BUSINESS. YOU ARE NOT DOING
THAT. IT IS A FAILURE ON THE
PART OF EACH AND EVERY ONE OF
YOU, AND A TACIT ENDORSEMENT OF
A RELATIONSHIP THAT REEKS OF
CORRUPTION. WHEN IN IT. ALL
RIGHT. AFTER THAT, STEPHEN GARY
. NEXT AFTER THAT, AIDEN CAROL.
AFTER THAT, MEREDITH C.
>> MY NAME IS STEPHEN GEARY.
I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE PAY
UP ORDINANCE. ALTHOUGH I DO
WANT TO SAY THAT I SUPPORT TO
THE POLICE. AND GOOD LUCK
TRYING TO GET THEM TO COME BACK
HERE. GIVE THE MARKET A CHANCE
TO ADJUST. SO JUST LET IT BE.
LET THE LOBBY. SOME INDEPENDENT
BUSINESSES WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE
BACK THEIR REVENUE AND OFFER
IN-HOUSE DELIVERY JOBS AS A
RESULT. I ALSO WANT TO POINT
OUT THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN
EATING FOOD IN SEATTLE FOR A
VERY LONG TIME. AND WE ALSO
HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DELIVER IT TO
EACH OTHER WITH NO PROBLEMS FOR
AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER,
WITHOUT AN ALGORITHM. SPEAKING
OF DATA, THE DATA SHOWS THAT
FOOD DELIVERY CAN AND DOES
EXIST OUTSIDE OF UBER AND DOOR
DASH.
>> THANK YOU. AFTER STEPHEN,
WE'VE GOT AIDEN CAROL FOLLOWED
BY MEREDITH C. THEN WE HAVE
KIMBERLY WOLF. AIDEN?
>> SO, I WAS IRKED WHEN ONE
LINE -- ONLINE COMMENTOR
MENTIONED A SHORTAGE FOR THAT
BUT THEN WE HAD SOMEONE ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE ISSUE
MENTIONING THE SAME. A REMINDER
THAT THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
IS HOW MUCH MONEY GOES TO FPD.
THINK OF HOW MUCH MONEY YOU
WASTE ON COPS. YOU CAN IN SHORT
FAIR PAY AND PUBLIC SAFETY.
ALTHOUGH GIVING -- TO WALL
STREET. WE ARE NOT STUPID AND
WE WILL NOT BE DIVIDED. WE ALL
KNOW THAT WALL STREET IS A REAL
ENEMY. YOU CAN FIX THIS
ORDINANCE TO ENSURE THAT BIKE
DELIVERY FOLKS, MANY OF WHOM
ARE MIGRANTS, AND OTHERS GET
THE FAIR PAY AND HOURS WITHOUT
TAKING ANYTHING AT ALL FROM
DRIVERS. FOR THE NEWCOMERS ON
THE COUNSEL, A LOT OF US --
NELSON. IF YOU WANT TO SHOW IS
THE CASE, SHOW US THE CASE. SHE
SOLD HER BREWERY -- OR RATHER
HER HUSBAND. WE ARE HERE TO
WORK TOGETHER, TO FIGHT FOR
EVERYONE TO BE PAID FAIRLY. AND
THE APPS AND THEIR WALL STREET
OWNERS ARE NOT GOING TO DIVIDE
US.
>> THANK YOU. FOLLOWING THAT,
WE HAVE MEREDITH C, KIMBERLY
WOLF, DANA M.
>> HELLO. MY NAME IS MEREDITH.
I AM HERE TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION OF REPEALING PAY UP
. FIRST OF ALL, I DO NOT EVEN
KNOW HOW YOU ARE DOING THIS
WHEN IT HAS ONLY BEEN THREE
MONTHS. HOW DO YOU HAVE ANY
DATA THAT PROVES ANYTHING THESE
COMPANIES ARE TRYING TO SAY? IT
IS BAFFLING TO ME. BUT, THE PAY
MINIMUM AND TRANSPARENCY
REQUIREMENTS HAVE MADE
SIGNIFICANT POSITIVE CHANGES
FOR ME, PERSONALLY, AS A
DRIVER. THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE
TRANSPARENCY, NOT LESS. FOR
EXAMPLE, I JUST FOUND OUT TODAY
THAT I COULD HAVE CONTACTED LOS
FOR VIOLATIONS THAT WERE
INCURRED THAT PROPOSES THEM
REMOVED. IT IS REALLY CONFUSING
BEING HERE. BECAUSE THESE
COMPANIES ARE DOING EXACTLY
WHAT THE PROPOSAL WANTS TO
REMOVE. LIKE REQUIRING US TO
GIVE -- TO CUSTOMERS. THEY PAY
YOU NOT TO DO THAT. THAT IS
CORRUPTION. I MEAN, I JUST WENT
OFF TRACK BECAUSE I AM SO
FRUSTRATED. BUT AT LEAST TAKE
SOME MORE TIME TO REVIEW THIS.
THREE MONTHS IS TOO SOON. AND
IT IS REALLY HURTING EVERYBODY.
THANKS.
>> THANKS. AFTER THAT, CAN
REALLY WOLF, DANA M, FOLLOWED
BY, I APOLOGIZE IF I MISSPELLED
YOUR NAME. GEOFF A.
>> KIMBERLY WOLF, GIG WORKER.
THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION
COMPLETELY GOT THE ORIGINAL
LEGISLATION. FRANKLY, IT TAKES
AWAY BASIC PROTECTIONS FROM GIG
WORKERS. IT STYMIES THEIR
ABILITY TO APPEAL INJUSTICE, IT
KNOCKS THEM BACK DOWN TO SUB
MINIMUM WAGES AND DROPS THEM
RIGHT BACK INTO A PIT OF
POVERTY AND EXPECTATION. ALL OF
THIS AMENDMENT IS IS AN APP
COMPANY POSITIVE WISH LIST TO
DODGE PAYING FAIRLY FOR
SERVICES RENDERED AND
SIDESTEPPING TREATING WORKERS
DECENTLY . IT DOES NOTHING TO
FIX THE ACTUAL PROBLEM. LET ME
BE CLEAR. THERE IS ONLY ONE TO
POSE A PROBLEM THAT CAME UP
AFTER THE ACTIVATION OF THIS
LAW. LACK OF ORDERS. WHY LESS
ORDERS? APP COMPANIES CHOSE TO
CHANGE A REGULATORY FEE THAT
WAS NOT MANDATED BY THE PAY OF
LAW. CUSTOMERS GOFF AT THE
HIGHER FEES, LESS CUSTOMERS
ORDERED. SO, COUNCILMEMBERS
ABANDONED THIS WAY INSTIGATED
BY THE FOUR OUT-OF-STATE
COMPANIES THAT WIND THE MOST
ABOUT PAYING FAIRLY, AND
INSTEAD, SIDE WITH THE TOP TENS
OF THOUSANDS OF WORKERS, RIGHT
HERE IN SEATTLE AND PROPOSED
SOMETHING TO FIX THE ACTUAL
PROBLEM. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, DANA M,
FOLLOWED BY GEOFF A. , AND
ALORA WESTBROOK. AND TO ROUND
OUT THIS ROUND OF 10 IN PERSON,
MONICA R.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS DANA MERIWETHER.
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT MOM-AND-POP
BUSINESSES, YOUR TALK ABOUT ME.
MY HUSBAND AND I OPEN OUR FIRST
RESTAURANT IN 2016. OUR OLDEST
CHILD WITH A TODDLER, AND I
OFTEN WORKED WITH HIM ON MY
BACK THAT FIRST YEAR. SINCE
THEN, WE HAVE GROWN TO FOUR
RESTAURANTS AND 16 EMPLOYEES.
DELIVERY SERVICES WERE
ESSENTIAL FOR INDEPENDENT
BUSINESSES LIKE OURS TO SURVIVE
THE PANDEMIC. EVEN THOUGH THE
RATES OFTEN ATE UP OUR ENTIRE
MARGIN. THIS COUNSEL ACTED TO
MITIGATE THOSE DELIVERY APPS
EXTORTIONATE RATES WHEN THEY
ENACTED TEMPORARY FEE CAPS.
THAT ACTION ENSURE THE SURVIVAL
OF SMALL BUSINESSES LIKE OURS.
NOW THEY ARE USING THEIR MARKET
CONTROL TO AVOID PAYING FAIR
WAGES BY PLACING ARBITRARILY
HIGH ADDITIONAL FEES ON ALL
DELIVERIES, INCLUDING OUR
RESTAURANT OUTSIDE OF SEATTLE
CITY LIMITS. THESE FEES ARE
MALICIOUS COMPLIANCE. THEY ARE
DESIGNED TO EXTRACT PAIN FROM A
CONSTITUENCY THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL SHOULD LISTEN TO. IF
THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL, THERE IS
NO DOUBT THEY WILL USE IT AGAIN
IN THE FUTURE WITHOUT REGARDS
TO THE HARM INFLICTED ON LOCAL
BUSINESSES LIKE OURS. DO NOT
ROLLBACK WAGES. INSTEAD, RAIN
IN CORPORATE GREED, PLEASE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. FOLLOWING THAT,
WE HAVE GEOFF A., LAURA
WESTBROOK, AND MONICA R.
>> JEFF.
>> GEOFF? ALL RIGHT. LAURA
WESTBROOK.
>> I AM LAURA WESTBROOK. I LIVE
IN DISTRICT FIVE. AND I AM HERE
TO OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL THAT
WOULD RESULT IN SUB MINIMUM
WAGES FOR GIG WORKERS. I GARDEN
AND I AM A SOLE PROPRIETOR OF
THE WHITE LEADER. ANY
CONTRACTOR KNOWS YOU HAVE TO
CHARGE ABOVE MINIMUM WAGE FOR
DIRECT WORK TO COVER FOR THE
EXTRA TIME AND EXPENSES
NECESSARY TO OPERATE A
BUSINESS. INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS HAVE THE RIGHT TO
SET A MINIMUM AND TO REFUSE
WORK. PART OF WHAT DEFINES GIG
WORK IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE
ABILITY TO CHOOSE WHEN, WHERE,
AND HOW MUCH YOU WORK. GIG APPS
CLAIM TO OFFER THIS
FLEXIBILITY, YET INCORPORATES
STIPULATIONS THAT HAMPER
FLEXIBILITY. I SAY TO SARA
NELSON AND THE GIG OWNERS, DO
NOT ENCOURAGE GREED. YOU CAN
STILL MAKE A PROFIT BY FAIRLY
PAYING WORKERS AND A
MODIFICATION OF THE WORDS FROM
THE PAYCHECK OF MILLIONAIRES,
TAX THE GIG OWNERS.
>> THANK YOU. THE LAST THIS
ROUND IN PERSON COMMENTOR WILL
BE MONICA R.
>> MY NAME IS MONICA. I AM FROM
EDMUND. I CAME TODAY BECAUSE MY
FAMILY AND FRIENDS WHO DO NOT
USE CARS USE APPS TO SAVE TIME
AND THEY HELP US A LOT. THESE
COMPANIES SPENT WAY TOO MUCH
TIME ON LOBBYING, HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, TO
CONVINCE US THAT GIG WORKERS DO
NOT NEED PROTECTIONS. I'M NOT
THAT GULLIBLE. IT IS CLEAR THEY
DO HAVE THE MONEY BUT JUST WANT
TO INCREASE OFF IT MARGINS OFF
THE BACKS OF GIG WORKERS WHO
ARE OFTEN STUDENTS AND YOUNG
PEOPLE PAYING FOR SCHOOL,
ELDERS AND RETIREES NEEDING
EXTRA INCOME TO GET BY,
IMMIGRANT WORKERS AND MOTHERS
NEEDING WORK. BASED ON APPS OR
MILES PUT ON VEHICLES, THE
DEMAND FOR GIG WORK EXISTS IN
SEATTLE AND SURROUNDING AREAS.
AND SO DOES THE MONEY TO PAY
THEIR LABOR. EVERY CENT IT IS
WORTH. I WANT GIG WORKERS TO BE
ABLE TO AFFORD TO LIVE WITH
HEALTH, DIGNITY, AND BASIC JOB
PROTECTIONS, WHICH ALSO
BENEFITS CUSTOMERS. IT IS A
WIN-WIN DEAL FOR EVERYBODY.
>> THANK YOU. NOW WE WILL
TRANSITION BACK TO THE FINAL 11
VIRTUAL PUBLIC COMMENTERS. WE
WILL START WITH LILY HAYWARD.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, SARA NELSON
AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME
IS LILY HAYWARD. [ INAUDIBLE -
LOW VOLUME ] IMPROVE THE
DELIVERY PAY ORDINANCE [
INAUDIBLE - LOW VOLUME ] WHEN
THE ORIGINAL LEGISLATION WAS
PASSED IN 2022 [ INAUDIBLE -
LOW VOLUME ] UNFORTUNATELY
CUSTOMERS AND SMALL BUSINESSES
ARE BEARING THE BRUNT OF THIS.
ON AVERAGE, OVER 100
RESTAURANTS [ INAUDIBLE - LOW
VOLUME ] REVISIONS PROPOSED
TODAY HAVE COME OUT OF
CONVERSATIONS WITH HIS NURSES,
WORKERS, AND THE COMMUNITY AS A
WHOLE. [ INAUDIBLE - LOW VOLUME
] PUT SEATTLE RESIDENTS FIRST
AND PRIORITIZE [ INAUDIBLE -
LOW VOLUME ] THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, CANDACE
GOMEZ, FOLLOWING KEVIN H. AFTER
KEVIN, ARIANA RILEY. CANDACE?
CANDACE, FEEL FREE TO PRESS
STAR 6 TO UNMUTE YOURSELF. ALL
RIGHT, WE WILL COME BACK TO
YOU, CANDACE. AFTER THAT, KEVIN
H. THEN ARIANA RILEY. AND THEN
JOSHUA R. GO AHEAD, KEVIN.
>> AHEAD, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS KEVIN
HEIM. I AM COMMENTING TODAY TO
EXPRESS MY CONCERNS ON THE
COUNCIL BILL 120775. FIRST, THE
PAY STANDARDS ARE OUT OF SYNC
WITH OUR COMMITTEE SURE DESIRE
TO PRESENT ALL WORKERS WITH A
FAIR WAGE FOR THEIR WORK.
STATUTORY EMPLOYEES WITH
SEATTLE, A KEY REASON THIS
ORDINANCE WAS PASSED IN THE
FIRST PLACE. FURTHERMORE, THIS
RESTRICTION OF OLS OVERSIGHT
AUTHORITY AND THE ELIMINATION
OF REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFIRMATIVE
PRODUCTION OF RECORDS ARE
DEEPLY TROUBLING. THESE
MEASURES UNDERMINE TRANSPARENCY
AND ACCOUNTABILITY, MAKING IT
EASIER FOR NETWORK COMPANIES TO
EXPLOIT LOOPHOLES, LIE TO THE
COUNCIL, AND EVADE THE
RESPONSIBILITY TOWARD WORKERS.
ADDITIONALLY, A PROPOSED
MODIFICATION TO ENFORCE
PROVISIONS, INCLUDING THE
ELEVATION OF -- FOR CERTAIN
VIOLATIONS ARE NOT ONLY OUT OF
SYNC WITH OTHER LABOR LAWS, BUT
[ INAUDIBLE - MUFFLED ]ALSO
INVOLVED IN COMPANIES THAT
LABOR STANDARDS AT THE COST OF
DOING BUSINESS. UPHOLD THE
PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS,
TRANSPARENCY, AND DIGNITY, AND
THE TREATMENT OF APP-BASED
WORKERS. THANK YOU FOR
CONSIDERING MY CONCERNS.
>> THANK YOU. AFTER THAT, WE
HAVE ARIANA R, JOSHUA R.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL. MY
NAME IS ARIANNE O'REILLY. I
DRIVE FOR DOOR DASH AND AMAZON
PLUS. I'M HERE TO ESPECIALLY
SUPPORT FOR KEEPING THE PAY UP
ORDINANCE IN PLACE AS WRITTEN.
LASTLY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
DOOR DASH TOLD A STRANGER THAT
BIKE CAREERS ARE INTENTIONALLY
D PRIORITIZE UNCERTAIN ORDERS.
WHILE THEY MENTIONED ORDER
CONTENT AS ONE REASON FOR THE
PRIORITIZATION, WE HAVE HEARD
FROM SOME CAREERS WHO HAVE BEEN
HIT ESPECIALLY HARD BY THE
CHANGES THE APP HAS MADE TO
THEIR ALGORITHMS. WE CALL ON
THE COUNCIL AND OLS TO
INVESTIGATE IF THERE ARE UNFAIR
ALGORITHMIC CHANGES THAT HAVE
CREATED AN UNNECESSARY
DISPARITY BETWEEN BIKE CAREERS
WHO ARE RECEIVING FEWER ORDERS
AND THEIR CAR DRIVING PEERS,
WHO HAVE LARGELY BENEFITED FROM
THIS LAW. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. AFTER THAT, WE
HAVE JOSHUA R, FOLLOWED BY
KEVIN B. AND THEN SHAWNEE
WHEELER-JAMES. GO AHEAD,
JOSHUA.
>> HELLO, COUNCIL. MY NAME IS
JOSHUA, I AM A PROUD SEATTLEITE
IN A DISTRICT 4 VOTER. AND I
AM A GIG WORKER FOR INSTACART
BUT I HAVE RELIED ON GIG WORK
FOR A MAJORITY OF MY INCOME FOR
THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, AND HE
PAY UP ORDINANCE AS
SINGLE-HANDEDLY CHANGED MY LIFE
AND SAVE MY FINANCES. ALTHOUGH
I DO SUBSIDES WITH A LOT OF THE
CONCERNS EXPRESSED A PREVIOUS
COMMENTERS ABOUT REDUCED ORDER
VOLUME, I JUST WANTED TO POINT
OUT THAT THE ONLY REASON ORDER
VOLUME IS DOWN IS DUE TO THE
EXCESSIVE JUNK FEES BEING
CHARGED BY THE BILLION-DOLLAR
CORPORATIONS, WHICH HAS
SABOTAGED MARKET DEMAND AS
RETRIBUTION FOR BEING FORCED TO
TREAT THEIR WORKERS LIKE HUMAN
BEINGS AND ACTUALLY GIVE THEM
RIGHT. A STUDY RELEASED BY WORK
IN WASHINGTON SHOWED THE
COMPANIES COULD COMPLETELY
REMOVE THEIR VINDICTIVE FIVE
DOLLARS SEATTLE DELIVERY FEES
AND STILL MAINTAIN PROFIT
MARGINS OVER 30%. ENABLING BOTH
CUSTOMERS TO AFFORD SERVICES
AND THEIR WORKERS TO AFFORD TO
LIVE AND EAT. BUT THIS PROPOSED
BILL DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO
BALANCE COMPETING INTERESTS IN
A FAIR WAY. INSTEAD, IT AMOUNTS
TO A CORPORATE GIVEAWAY TO
CORPORATE GREED AND
PROFITEERING AND TELLING GIG
WORKERS THAT OUR WORKING LIVES
DO NOT MATTER AND THAT WE
DESERVE TO BE EXPLOITED. I ALSO
WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS
BILL DOES NOTHING TO -- THE
EXCESSIVE FEES AND PRICE
GOUGING. THIS IS A COMPLETE
CORPORATE GIVEAWAY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE SHAWNEE
WHEELER-JAMES, PALOMA B,
ALBERTO A. AND THEN TO WRAP UP
VIRTUAL PUBLIC COMMENT, MS.
GOMEZ. SHAWNEE, GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU. FOR THE RECORD,
MY NAME IS SHAWNEE
WHEELER-JAMES. I SERVE AS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR MLK
LABOR. ONE OF OUR LABOR
COUNCILS REPRESENTS 150 UNIONS
AND OVER 100 TO THE HUNDREDS
OF THOUSANDS OF WORKERS ACROSS
KING COUNTY. I WANT TO BE VERY
CLEAR THAT THE LABOR COMMUNITY
AS OPPOSED TO ANY EFFORT TO
REPEAL OR SCALE BACK AT WORK
PROTECTIONS IN SEATTLE. THE
RUSHED EFFORT TO ELIMINATE
THESE PROTECTIONS WITHOUT A
TRANSPARENT PROCESS AND
GENUINE FEEDBACK FROM DRIVERS
AND REAL WORKER ORGANIZATIONS
IS IRRESPONSIBLE AND
INCONSISTENT WITH SEATTLE
VALUES. BIG COMPANIES ARE USING
THE SAME -- THEY HAVE USED IN
OTHER CITIES AND THEY RETALIATE
WITH ARBITRARY FEES IN ORDER TO
CREATE POLITICAL PRESSURE. IT
IS ABOUT TIME WE CALL THEIR
BLUFF. SEATTLE UNIONS ARE
WORRIED THAT THIS EFFORT IS
LESS ABOUT GIG WORKER PAY, AND
WE ARE PREPARED TO STAND UP AND
DEFEND THINGS THAT MAKE SEATTLE
A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE AND WORK.
WITH MINIMAL WAGE, HEALTH AND
SAFETY , AND FUNDING FOR OLS,
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, WE HAVE
KEVIN B, FOLLOWED BY PALOMA V,
ALBERTO A, BJ LAUGHED, AND
CANDACE GOMEZ.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
KEVIN. I AM A DELIVERY DRIVER
SINCE 2018. I HAVE STRONG
SUPPORT FOR THE ORDINANCE. AS
GIG WORKERS WITH THE BACKING OF
THE ECONOMY, IT WOULD NOT EXIST
WITHOUT US. THEY WOULD NOT HAVE
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WITHOUT OUR
HARD WORK AND DEDICATION. WE
PAID INTO THE WORK BY VIRTUE OF
COVERING REPAIR AND
MAINTENANCE, FUEL OF OUR
VEHICLES, THE TIME SPENT BEING
AVAILABLE WHILE WAITING FOR
ORDERS TO BE AVAILABLE. WE HAVE
NEVER BEEN COMPENSATED FOR ANY
OF THIS. STAKEHOLDERS ACROSS
THE REGION FOR YEARS -- THESE
PROBLEMS. TO ENSURE WORKERS
HAVE A LIVING WAGE. THE APP
CORPORATION IS DOING IS
IMPOSSIBLE TO AVOID PAYING A
MINIMUM WAGE BECAUSE THESE FEES
GOUGED, ANGRY CUSTOMERS -- FOR
THE WORK WE WISH TO DO. THE
PROBLEM IS NOT THE ORDINANCE,
IT IS APT CORPORATIONS IMPOSING
HUGE FEES. PLEASE DO NOT
ROLLBACK MINIMUM WAGE FOR GIG
WORKERS.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, WE HAVE
PALOMA V, FOLLOWED BY ALBERTO A
AND THEN BJ L A SK. OKAY. I
THINK WE LOST PALOMA. FEEL FREE
TO JUMP BACK ON. AFTER THAT,
ALBERTO A, FOLLOWED BY B.J.
LASK AND THEN MS. GOMEZ.
>> HELLO, MY NAME IS ALBERTO.
I'M A DRIVER HERE IN SEATTLE.
WHAT YOU GUYS ARE PROPOSING IS
A REPEAL. AND I SAY NO REPEAL.
AS I SAID BEFORE, THE ISSUE IS
THE CORPORATION'S BIG
BUSINESS, THE JUNK FEES. THAT
IS IT. EVERYTHING ELSE COMES
BECAUSE OF THAT. WHAT YOU ARE
PROPOSING DOES NOT TAKE AWAY
THOSE FEES. THEY MAY CHOOSE TO
TAKE THEM AWAY AT SOME POINT,
BUT THIS LAW CHANGE DOES NOT
TAKE AWAY THOSE FEES. WHAT YOU
ARE PROPOSING IS A REPEAL. I
SAY NO REPEAL . PROTECT OUR
PAY. YOU CALL YOURSELVES, YOU
KNOW, YOU ARE FOR BUSINESS AND
ALL OF THAT, WHAT YOU ARE DOING
IS JUST GIVING MONEY TO
NONLOCAL ENTITIES.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, B.J. LASK,
CANDACE GOMEZ. AND TO WRAP UP
VIRTUAL PUBLIC COMMENT, JUSTIN
TAYLOR. GO AHEAD.
>> MY NAME IS B.J. LASK. I AM
CALLING IN OPPOSITION OF THE
ORDINANCE. LOWERING HIRING
STANDARDS WILL NOT INCREASE
HIRING. FEWER PEOPLE NATIONWIDE
WANT TO BE COPS. IT IS
INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS WHEN THESE
STANDARDS ARE SO LOW THAT KEVIN
DAYS MANAGED TO GET HIRED,
DESPITE HAVING TO BE MARCHED
OUT OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IN
ARIZONA BECAUSE HE HAD SUCH AN
ATROCIOUS DISCIPLINE RECORD,
WHICH SEATTLE KNEW ABOUT. BUT
THE STANDARD IS SO LOW, WHY NOT
BRING HIM ON? COUNSEL IS
ACTUALLY SERIOUS ABOUT
IMPROVING PUBLIC SAFETY, IT
WOULD FOLLOW THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPD
COMMISSION, THE NATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF CRIMINAL REFORM
ANALYSIS AND IMMEDIATELY
TRANSITION ONE HALF OF ALL CALL
SITES TO COMMUNITY RESPONDERS.
AND HALF . INSTEAD, THEY ARE
TRYING TO PRETEND THE ANALYSIS
NEVER HAPPEN AND THAT THE ONLY
THING TO DO IS TO GIVE MORE
MONEY TO SPD. ALSO, I PROPOSE
THE APPEAL OF PAY UP. COMPANIES
ARE USERS OF OLS VIOLATING
WORKERS RIGHTS. THEY SHOULD NOT
BE GETTING REWARDED BY GIVING
EVERYTHING THEY WANT ON
POLICIES THAT THEY ARE
CONSTANTLY VIOLATING. THAT IS
ABSURD.
>> THANK YOU. AFTER THAT,
JUSTIN TAYLOR, CANDACE GOMEZ,
AND I SEE NOW THAT PALOMA V HAS
JUMPED BACK ON. JUSTIN TAYLOR,
GO AHEAD.
>> HELLO. MY NAME IS JUSTIN
TAYLOR. AND I AM A GIG WORKER.
AND I AM HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST
THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE APP
WORKER ORDINANCE. I HAD SOME
PREPARED STUFF, BUT I THOUGHT I
WOULD JUST MAYBE SHARE HOW I
FEEL ABOUT THIS. THERE ARE A
COUPLE OF THINGS, BUT I'M
ACTUALLY JUST REALLY SAD. AND
ONE OF THE THINGS IS, I AM SAD
AT MYSELF BECAUSE I WAS NAIVE
ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THAT
LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION
HAPPENED IN THE OTHER
WASHINGTON, AND NOT HERE. BUT
THAT IS JUST ME. AND APPARENTLY
THAT IS NOT TRUE. AND I'M ALSO
SAD THAT, APPARENTLY, WITH THIS
ORDINANCE, THE PROBLEM IS ME. I
AM THE PROBLEM WITH BEING PAID,
AND THE PROBLEM IS NOT HOOVER
WHO MADE OVER $4 BILLION IN
EARNINGS LAST YEAR, OR DOOR
DASH, WHO MADE OVER $1.2
BILLION IN EARNINGS, NOT
REVENUE. IT IS ME WHO MADE A
FEW EXTRA DOLLARS IN THE LAST
FEW MONTHS. SO THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. AFTER THAT, WE
HAVE CANDACE GOMEZ . AND THAT
WILL CONCLUDE THE VIRTUAL
PUBLIC COMMENT. OH, I SEE
PALOMA BACK ON. SO, CANDACE, GO
AHEAD.
>> CANDACE, PLEASE PRESS STAR 6
TO UNMUTE YOURSELF. CANDACE,
FEEL FREE TO PRESS STAR 6 TO
UNMUTE YOURSELF AND GIVE YOUR
PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. IT
SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE ROCHELLE L
ON THE LINE. ROCHELLE, GO
AHEAD.
>> CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME OKAY?
>> WE CAN. HELLO?
>> OKAY. MY NAME IS ROCHELLE. I
WORK IN SEATTLE IN ORDER UPDATE
DELIVERY. I WANT TO SHARE MY
FRUSTRATION. I AM FED UP. LAST
SATURDAY, I ORDERED DOOR DASH
WHERE THEY APPLIED A FEE CALLED
THE FEA FEE. IT IS DESIGNED TO
THE FACT THAT SEATTLE CITY
COUNCIL ESTABLISHED A FAIR WAGE
FOR APP WORKERS. THEY ALSO
BEGGED ME TO TIP ONE DOLLAR AND
$150 ORDER. WHAT IS WRONG WITH
THESE PEOPLE? THEY CAN CONTINUE
TO CONTACT DASHER'S AND THROW
UP OPPOSITION FROM THE
EMPLOYEES THEY HAD THAT THEY
HAVE MANIPULATED INTO BLAMING
THE ORDINANCE, INSTEAD OF THE
GREEDY COMPANY ITSELF. TODAY,
IN THESE HALLS , WE SAW APP
BASED COMPANIES LIKE DOOR DASH
SEND OUT HIGHLY PAID
REPRESENTATIVES TO ORGANIZE
DELIVERY DRIVERS. ARE YOU
KIDDING ME? IS THIS A JOKE?
DOOR DASH CAN AFFORD TO PAY
THEIR LOBBYISTS, CEOs, AND
OWNERS BUT CANNOT PAY DELIVERY
DRIVERS? WHO WERE SPENT OVER
$2.4 MILLION ON LOBBYING LAST
YEAR. DOOR DASH SPENT $1.8
MILLION ON LOBBYING LAST YEAR.
ASK ME WHY THEY CANNOT PAY. WE
ALL KNOW. AND IT IS DISTURBING
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL IS EVEN
CONSIDERING A REPEAL. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES
THE VIRTUAL PUBLIC COMMENT. NOW
WE WILL TRANSITION TO THE
REMAINING 16 FOR IN PERSON
PUBLIC COMMENT. WE HAVE
MICHAELA ROMERO, ROY
MARTIN-BROWN. AND ERIC
BRINKLEY. WE HAVE MICHAELA
ROMERO, ROY MARTIN-BROWN, AND
ERIC F.
>> IF YOU HEARD YOUR NAME MOVED
TOWARD THE CENTER AISLE SO THAT
YOU ARE READY TO GO. THANK
YOU.
>> MY NAME IS MICHAELA. I WORK
IN USE DOOR DASH IN SEATTLE. A
DOOR DASH GIG WORKER WAS MY
HERO ON WEDNESDAY WHEN I HAD A
MIGRAINE AND CANNOT DRIVE. I AM
STRUGGLING TO BE HERE TODAY,
BUT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT
MATTER. IMPORTANT ENOUGH THAT I
AM SITTING HERE WATCHING
REPRESENTATIVES FROM DOOR DASH
WALK RUN SHAKING HANDS WITH
PEOPLE HOLDING PAY UP
OPPOSITION SIGNS, AND PROMPTING
THEM TO HOLD THEIR SIGNS UP,
HOLD THEIR SIGNS UP. I'M A $54
ORDER, $50 OF WHICH WAS HSA.
ALMOST $50 WOULD HAVE BEEN
ADDED AS A DOOR DASH FEES
WITHOUT A DASH PATH, TO WHICH I
STILL HAVE TO PAY THREE DOLLARS
WITH THE DASH PAST. THIS ORDER
WAS OUTSIDE OF SEATTLE. THIS
MIGRAINE EMERGENCY ORDER WOULD
HAVE COST ME INSIDE OF SEATTLE
WITHOUT A DASH PAST OVER $90
FOR A SINGLE ORDER GOING 1.6
MILES. THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT
NEED TO BE AMENDED.
CORPORATIONS HAVE TIME TO
INSTEAD AMEND THEIR UNETHICAL
BUSINESS PRACTICES TO MAKE SURE
THE MEAT ON THE BONE WENT TO
WORKERS, INSTEAD OF THE PEOPLE
AT THE TOP, THE BILLIONAIRE
DOLLAR -- AND OTHER PEOPLE IN
THIS ROOM. DO NOT AMEND THIS
ORDINANCE UNLESS IT IS SOLELY
TO TARGET CORPORATE PALLIATION.
>> THANK YOU. AFTER THAT, WE
HAVE ROY MARTIN-BROWN, THOMAS
L, ERIC FRANKLIN, AND LUIS B.
>> THANK YOU. HELLO, COUNSEL.
THANK YOU FOR WHOEVER SIGNED ME
UP. HERE I AM. I WOULD LIKE TO
SAY THAT MY MEMORY GOES BACK TO
THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. AND
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT BILL AND
HILLARY. I AM TALKING ABOUT THE
43rd MAYOR OF SEATTLE. AND
USUALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT
YOU MIGHT BE NICE PEOPLE, I DO
NOT KNOW YOU, I HAVE NOT HAD
THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET YOU.
BUT THE BODY AS A WHOLE HAS TO
BE DRAGGED KICKING AND
SCREAMING IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE
THAT WORKING-CLASS PEOPLE HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO
NOT ONLY LIVE IN THE CITY, BUT
ALSO WORK IN THE CITY. PLEASE
MAKE SURE THAT YOU LISTEN TO
THE WORKERS THAT HAVE NOT HAD
THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS
THEIR VIEWS ABOUT THIS UPCOMING
ORDINANCE THAT YOU PLANNED TO
CHANGE. MAKE SURE YOU LISTEN
TO THE PEOPLE DIRECTLY
INVOLVED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
FOLLOWING THAT, WE GOT THOMAS
L, ERIC FRANKLIN, -- WYNN,
JAMAAL B.
>> I'M HERE FOR PRESENTING MY
FRIEND, MR. NATHAN BECKWITH,
WHO IS A DOOR DASH AND GROCERY
DRIVER. A LOT OF RESTAURANTS
HAVE BEEN TALK ABOUT LOSING
MONEY AND WHATNOT. BUT WHAT
THEY ARE NOT THINKING ABOUT IS
THE SAFETY AND PUBLIC
PROTECTION OF THE FACT THAT
PEOPLE ORDER FOOD FROM DOOR
DASH. ALL THESE LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN HERE, THAT WAY, A
PERSON IS NOT LEAVING THEIR
HOME DRUNK. LOOK IN THE
RESTAURANT SAY ABOUT THAT? I
HAVE HEARD THIS OVER AND OVER
THAT RESTAURANTS ARE LOSING
MONEY AND WHATNOT. THEY ARE NOT
THINKING ABOUT THAT. HOW MANY
OF THEM SERVED ON CUSTOMERS
THAT COME IN. THESE LADIES IN
GERMAN HERE CAN BE BRINGING
GROCERIES, MEDICATION, WHATEVER
IT IS TO THESE PEOPLE SO THEY
MAY NOT HAVE TO LEAVE THEIR
HOMES DRUNK. THEY ARE ACTUALLY
PROVIDING A PUBLIC SERVICE.
THEY ACTUALLY ARE. THAT IS ALL
I'VE GOT TO SAY ABOUT THAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE ERIC F,
WYNN, JAMAAL H.
>> MY NAME IS ERIC FRANKLIN. I
HAVE BEEN EIGHT DELIVERY
DRIVER FOR OVER FIVE YEARS. I
HAVE DONE 12,000 DELIVERIES,
SPENT MANY, MANY HOURS
DELIVERING, 12 HOUR NIGHTS
SOMETIMES. I WANT TO TELL YOU
THAT MY HEART FILLS WHEN I TALK
TO OTHER DRIVERS OUT THERE THAT
EITHER PAY HAS BEEN CUT BACK
THOUSAND DOLLARS A WEEK. AND
THEN THEY TALK ABOUT
RESTAURANTS. MY FRIENDS ARE
RESTAURANT OWNERS. I WAS
SITTING HERE LAST WEEK AND THIS
WEEK, I LOOK AROUND AT ALL THE
PEOPLE AROUND SUPPORTING, KEEP
THESE WE JUST KEEP THESE WAGES.
I ASKED, HOW MANY DELIVERIES
HAVE YOU DONE? AND THEY SAY
NONE. YOU DO NOT DELIVER FOOD.
WE ARE HERE TO SUPPORT THE
WORKERS. FORGET ABOUT YOU. I AM
REALLY CONFUSED. BUT ALL OF THE
OTHER FRIENDS OF MINE THAT ARE
DELIVERING AROUND THE TOWN,
THEY REALLY WANT A CHANGE BACK
TO THE FREE MARKET. WHEN I GET
A DELIVERY FEE THAT IS TWO
DOLLARS, NO THANK YOU. I'M NOT
FORCED TO DO IT. I CAN DECIDE
IF I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT
ORDER. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU. AFTER THAT, WE
HAVE WEI NGUYEN . AND WE HAVE
25.
>> HELLO. MY NAME IS 26. I HAVE
BEEN DOING DELIVERY FOR FIVE
YEARS BEFORE. BEFORE BECOMING
EIGHT DELIVERY WORKER, I SPENT
20 YEARS IN THE RESTAURANT
BUSINESS BUT I HAD TO STOP DUE
TO THE DEMAND OF THE JOB. I
WORK FOR SEVERAL PLATFORMS. NOW
I AM WITH DOOR DASH, I WORK FOR
SEVEN OR NINE HOUR DAYS SIX OR
SEVEN DAYS A WEEK. I LIKE THE
WORK. IT LETS ME BE FLEXIBLE TO
DO MY OWN WORK HOURS. I'M HERE
TO ASK YOU TO CHANGE THE LIVING
WAY LAW. THE NEW LAW TOOK
EFFECT, NOW THE PLATFORM -- I
HAVE TO FIND A DIFFERENT JOB IF
THINGS CHANGE -- IF THEY STAY
THIS WAY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. FOLLOWING THAT,
WE HAVE LOUISE B, JAVIER D. AND
I APOLOGIZE IF I MISS PRONOUNCE
YOUR NAME, . AND THEN ANTONIO
D. LOUISE? DO WE HAVE A
JAMAAL H? WHAT ABOUT JAVIER D?
JAVIER? ALL RIGHT. WHAT ABOUT
TRENT 25? ALL RIGHT. WHAT ABOUT
ANTONIO D? THEN WE'VE GOT
LARRY SHANNON, OLIVIA HILL,
MELISSA G. PERFECT. I THINK WE
HAVE LARRY SHANNON NEXT.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. FOR
THE RECORD, I AM LARRY SHANNON.
I AM IN THE DEPARTMENT OF --.
I AM SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO
THIS PROPOSAL. IT IS A
FUNDAMENTAL PRECEPT IN OUR
SOCIETY THAT FOR THEIR TO BE
RIGHTS, THERE MUST BE A REMEDY.
THAT GOES BACK TO MARBURY
VERSUS MADISON. MY CONCERN
ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL IS THAT IT
STRIPS AWAY ANY ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISM, AND THEREFORE MAKES
THE RIGHTS MEANINGLESS. FREE
PROVISIONS IN PARTICULAR IN
HERE ARE OF GREAT CONCERN TO
US. WHAT IS THE REMOVAL OF THE
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION ANY
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM FOR
INDIVIDUALS HARMED IN NEW
GOVERNMENT ROLE CAN TAKE PLACE
BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE THE
ABILITY TO ENFORCE THOSE RIGHTS
FOR THOSE PEOPLE? SECONDLY IS
THE RIGHT TO CARE. THIRD IS
STRIPPING AWAY THE
ANTI-RETALIATION MEASURES.
THOSE PUT TOGETHER CREATE A
VIRTUAL IMMUNITY TO VIOLATE
THE LAW. WE BELIEVE VERY
STRONGLY THAT INCENTIVES ARE
CREATED BY HAVING PROVISIONS IN
THE LOT TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW
THAT AWARDS FAIR COMPETITION
AND FAIR COMPETITORS AND DOES
NOT ALLOW UNFAIR COMPETITORS TO
TAKE ADVANTAGE I KNOW MY TIME
, AND I OPPOSE THE CHANGES.
AND IT IS HARD TO KNOW WHERE
TO START. THE CHANGES WOULD BE
DROPPING BELOW MINIMUM WAGE,
WHICH DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE,
AND THERE IS A TRANSPARENCY
SECTION HIM A STRIPPING AWAY
THE AREA OF CONSUMER
PROTECTION. AND HOW TO HAVE
CUSTOMERS FIXING THE ISSUE OF
THE BILL , AND , WHERE IN THE
BILL IT RESTRICTS THINGS,
WHICH IS THERE IN THE FIRST
PLACE. BUSINESSES ARE DOING
THAT , ON THEIR OWN. I OPPOSE
THE CHANGES PROPOSED.
>> THANK YOU. I'VE COUPLE OF
PUBLIC COMMONERS ,
AND PAUL.
>> HI. I AM BACK. I AM
OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED
CHANGES AS THEY ARE AN
INDICATION OF THE LIFESTYLE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GIG WORKERS
AND CORPORATE EMPLOYERS . LOOK
AROUND , THESE PEOPLE KNOW THE
CITY, THE RESTAURANTS, THE
GROCERY STORES, BETTER THAN ANY
SELF ELSE RELATING -- SELF
ISOLATING PEOPLE. THE REPEAL
OF A MINIMUM WAGE FOR GIG
WORKERS WOULD CAUSE THE
WEALTH DIVIDE TO GROW. AS AN
INSTACART SHOPPER, I DO NOT
TRAVEL RECTAL --
RECREATIONALLY, I THRIFT.
ACROSS THE BOARD, MINIMUM
WAGE, REGARDLESS OF THE TYPE
OF JOB SEEMS LIKE A FUNDAMENTAL
ISSUE TO PROTECT WORKERS. IT IS
EXPENSIVE TO LIVE HERE AND I
HAVE ALREADY STOPPED BUYING
STARBUCKS. PLEASE PROTECT THE
LIFEBLOOD OF THE CITY COME THE
GIG WORKERS.
>> THE LAST PUBLIC COMMENTER ,
CHAIR NELSON, IS PAUL .
>> HELLO. I HAVE BEEN WORKING
AS PART OF A UNION. MAYBE
SOME OF YOU HAVE SEEN ME . I
STARTED DOING A LITTLE WORK ON
THE SIDE AND EVENTUALLY GIG
WORK CAME AROUND AND I HAD TO
DO THAT KIND OF WORK. IT USED
TO BE VERY BENEFICIAL,
FINANCIALLY. OVER TIME, I HAVE
SEEN THINGS BEING SWAYED MORE
TO ONE SIDE THAN THE OTHER.
HOWEVER, IN THIS INSTANCE, I
FEEL LIKE WE ARE SUFFERING FROM
A PATTERN THAT IS IN COMMON.
THIS POLICY OF ONE-SIZE-FITS-AL
L, IT MIGHT BE THAT PEOPLE WHO
DO INSTACART, FOR EXAMPLE, ARE
BENEFITING FROM THIS AND THAT
IS GREAT BUT EVERYONE I HAVE
TALKED TO OR COME ACROSS ,
PEOPLE ON BIKES, PEOPLE IN
CARS, HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF
PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING . THEY ARE
NEARLY OBLITERATED. THAT WAS
THE PARAMETER WITH THE SHELVES
BEING EMPTY, I HAVE BEEN THERE
EVERY HOUR, YOU TELL ME, AT
THE END OF THE DAY, WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT RESULTS. THANK
YOU.
>> THAT CONCLUDES PUBLIC
COMMENT.
>> OKAY. I NOW DECLARE THAT
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS
CLOSED. CLERK , I HAVE ALREADY
GIVEN MY CHAIR'S REPORT. WE
WILL DISCUSS COUNCIL BILL
12006 AND WE WILL HAVE A
DISCUSSION OF 120775. CLERK,
PLEASE READ THE FIRST ITEM.
>> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE,
APPOINTMENT OF MARISSA BAKER
AS MEMBER, LABOR STANDARDS
ADVISORY COMMISSION, FOR A TERM
TO APRIL 30th, 2025. BRIEFING,
DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE VOTE.
>> OKAY, PERFECT.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PATIENCE, PLEASE , INTRODUCE
YOURSELF.
>> MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
REMIND THEM THAT MAC -- MY
NAME IS SHUXUAN ZHOU AND I
SERVE AS THE COMMISSION LIAISON
TO THE ADVISORY COMMISSION .
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME
TODAY TO CONSIDER THE
APPOINTMENT OF DR. MARISSA
BAKER. I WILL PROVIDE A QUICK
INTRODUCTION TO DR. MARISSA
BAKER AND THEN DR. BAKER WILL
TALK MORE ABOUT HERSELF.
ESTABLISHED IN 2015, IT IS A
15-MEMBER COMMISSION COMPRISED
OF LABOR LEADERS . AND IT IS
COMPRISED OF THE MAYOR AND CITY
COUNCIL, REGARDING WAGES,
WORKER CONDITIONS, AND LABOR
STANDARDS AND PROTECTIONS. THE
COMMISSION ALSO PROVIDES
FEEDBACK TO ALL IMPLEMENTATION
OF LABOR STANDARDS. FINALLY,
ENABLING THE ORDINANCE , IT
CHARGES THEM TO ACHIEVE WORK
WITH EQUITY , AND WORKERS.
DR. MARISSA BAKER IS A
PROFESSOR AT THE UW DEPARTMENT
OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND
SCIENCES, DR. BAKER HAS
RESEARCHED OCCUPATIONAL
EXPERIENCES AMONG
UNDERREPRESENTED GROUPS. DURING
THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, SHE
WORKED CLOSELY WITH A VARIETY
OF WORKER ORGANIZATIONS,
GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY
PARTNERS, FOR PHYSICAL AND
MENTAL HEALTH IMPACTS,
OUTCOMES, AND WHAT IT HAS BEEN
EXPERIENCED BY WORKERS, AND
PROPOSED AND EVALUATED
INTERVENTIONS FOR SAFE WORK.
DR. BAKER HAS EXTENSIVE
EXPERIENCE SERVING ON THE
ADVISORY COMMITTEES FOR
INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL
AGENCIES, INCLUDING ,
INCLUDING INTERNATIONAL
AGENCIES FOR RESEARCH ON
CANCER, THE EPA ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON CHEMICALS, AND THE
W.H.O. TECHNICAL ADVISORY
GROUP , AND NOW I AM GOING TO
PASS THIS TO DR. BAKER TO
INTRODUCE HERSELF.
>> HI THERE, THANK YOU FOR
CONSIDERING MY APPOINTMENT
TODAY. AS WE JUST HEARD, I AM
AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SCIENCES,
LOCATED IN OUR SCHOOL OF PUBLIC
HEALTH AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON, I HAVE STUDIED AND
WORKED ON IMPACT HEALTH, BOTH
HOW IT CAN POSITIVELY IMPACT
AND NEGATIVELY IMPACT HEALTH,
MY WORK HAS STEMMED FROM
STUDYING WORK WITH BUS
DRIVERS, MARINA OPERATORS, I
HAVE DONE WORK ON PHYSICAL AND
MENTAL HEALTH OUTCOMES, AND I
HAVE BEEN USING DATA AND
EVIDENCE BASED METHODS TO
UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN IMPROVE
EXPERIENCES FOR ALL WORKERS IN
SEATTLE, ONE THING THAT MY
GRADUATE STUDENTS ALWAYS SAY IS
I WANT MY RESEARCH TO IMPACT
POLICY. USUALLY WHAT I TELL
THEM IS, PROBABLY HER MASTERS
THESIS IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE,
OSHA HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE
1978 -- 1970. I REALLY
ENCOURAGE MY STUDENTS TO GET
INVOLVED , WE ARE A LEADER IN
THE COUNTRY FOR THESE
POLICIES THAT WE HAVE AT THE
STATE LEVEL AND AT THE CITY
LEVEL, I AM TAKING THEIR WORDS
TO HEART, AND I AM EXCITED TO
HOPEFULLY INFLUENCE THE
POLICIES HERE IN THE CITY THAT
I LOVE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU , CHAIR. I WANT TO
THANK YOU, MARISSA BAKER FOR
VOLUNTEERING TO DO THIS REALLY
IMPORTANT WORK, MY DAD WAS A
WELDER IN A FACTORY SO I REALLY
APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU
ARE DOING, IT IS MEANINGFUL TO
THE LIVES OF PEOPLE. AND I
DON'T THINK, WE ARE JUST SO
LUCKY TO HAVE FOLKS WITH YOUR
BACKGROUND, WILLING TO SET ON
THESE BOARDS AND REALLY HELP,
AS WE ARE LOOKING AT THESE
ISSUES WITHIN THE CITY. SO, I
JUST REALLY WANT TO THANK YOU.
>> ONE THING THAT IS
INTERESTING ABOUT THIS BOARD IS
THAT, THE POSITIONS DO NOT
REQUIRE A CERTAIN
REPRESENTATIVE FROM A
PARTICULAR CONSTITUENCY.
>> SO, THE ORDINANCE SAYS , IT
REQUIRES THE COMMISSION TO HAVE
MEMBERS IN THE COMMITMENT TO
A DEEP UNDERSTANDING OF LABOR
CENTERS.
>> WELL, I WANTED TO MAKE THIS
POINT, THIS REALLY IS A
REPRESENTATIVE ISSUE THAT
MAKES COMPLETE SENSE, WHEN
LOOKING AT WORKER HEALTH ,
IMPACTS, IN THE WORKPLACE.
PERHAPS EVEN BEYOND MAKING
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS. AND, AT
SOME POINT, PROBABLY WHEN WE DO
NOT HAVE SUCH A LONG AGENDA, I
WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT HOW
YOU WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE
BOARD.
>> I CAN CERTAINLY FOLLOW UP
. WITH THE ROSTER. THAT MAY
BE HELPFUL.
>> YES. GO AHEAD.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, THIS IS
SO PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT WITH
THIS BOARD, OR COMMISSION
RATHER , TO HAVE REPRESENTATION
ACROSS THE VARIOUS AREAS. AND
IT IS REALLY JUST EXCITING.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
VOLUNTEERING, THAT IS VERY
IMPORTANT ACROSS THE BOARD.
THERE ARE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS,
WE JUST HAD THE FIRE CONTROL
ADVISORY BOARD, THE CODE
ADVISORY BOARD, WE NEED THESE
DIFFERENT VOLUNTEERS, AND
THANK YOU FOR GIVING US THIS
OUTLOOK, AS THE CHILD OF
ANOTHER WELDER, IT IS IN FACT
VERY IMPORTANT. AND I MUST ASK
WHETHER YOU OR ANY OF YOUR
COLLEAGUES HAVE DONE STUDIES ON
GIG WORKERS?
>> YES. YEAH. FIRST OFF, I AM
GLAD , YOU SHOULD READ MY
PRESENTATION. IT IS ALL ABOUT
WELDERS. AND SO THAT MAY TAKE
SOME EXTRA TIME, GO AHEAD AND
CHECK THAT OUT, I HAVE WORKED
WITH GIG WORKERS IN THE PAST,
OTHERS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON HAVE AS WELL, THERE
WAS A VERY LARGE STUDY AMONG MY
COLLEAGUES, RELATED TO PAY, I
WORKED WITH THE DRIVER UNION
DURING COVID-19, RELATED TO
HOW TO KEEP DRIVERS SAFE, AND
THINGS LIKE THAT, SO THE WORK
HAS BENEFITED GIG WORKERS,
RELATING TO KEEPING THEM SAFE
IN THEIR VEHICLES, DURING THE
PANDEMIC.
>> FEEL FREE TO FORWARD THEM.
THANK YOU.
>> I AM NOT SEEING ANY HANDS
RAISED. IF THERE ARE NOT ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, I
MOVED THAT THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDED PASSAGE OF
APPOINTMENT 02850 .
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU. IT HAS BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDED. IT LOOKS LIKE
THERE ARE NO FURTHER COMMENTS.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON IT.
WILL BE CLERK READ THE ROLL
CALL?
>> [ ROLL BEING CALLED ]
>> FIVE PRESENT. OR FIVE IN
FAVOR.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, THE
ITEM HAS PASSED. AND IT WILL
BE THEN HEARD NOT NEXT
TUESDAY BUT THE FOLLOWING
TUESDAY , RECOMMENDATION FOR
THE PASSAGE OF APPOINTMENT.
AND YOU ARE WELCOME TO ATTEND
IF YOU WOULD LIKE, BUT YOU DO
NOT HAVE TO. ALL RIGHT. WILL
BE CLERK PLEASE READ THE SECOND
ITEM INTO THE AGENDA?
>> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO, THE
REAPPOINTMENT OF KRISTIN HAWES
AS MEMBER, SEATTLE ETHICS AND
ELECTIONS COMMISSION, FOR A
TERM TO DECEMBER 31st, 2026.
BRIEFING, DISCUSSION, AND
POSSIBLE VOTE.
>> HI, WAYNE.
>> I AM HERE TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT
MS. KRISTIN HAWES 'S
REAPPOINTMENT. THIS IS HER
REAPPOINTMENT. SHE IS RIGHT
NOW THE CHAIR OF THE
COMMISSION, SHE ASCENDED, SHE
WAS THE VICE CHAIR, NOW THE
CHAIR, VERY ABLE ATTORNEY, NOW
A RETIREE AND COMMUNITY
ACTIVIST. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
>> IS THERE A TERM LIMIT? IS
IT ASSUMED THAT A PERSON GETS
TWO TERMS, AND DO THEY SEE
THAT TERM OUT?
>> IT HAS GENERALLY BEEN TWO
TERMS, I BELIEVE THAT VINCE
CARTER FROM QUEEN ANNE SERVED
TWO TERMS. FOR THE MOST PART,
IT IS TWO.
>> I AM READING THAT KRISTIN
HAWES IS A MEMBER OF SUMMIT LAW
GROUP ?
>> SHE WAS. SHE IS RETIRED .
>> OH, SHE WAS. I HAVE NO
QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS
REAPPOINTMENT. DO ANY OF MY
COLLEAGUES? ALL RIGHT. I WILL
GO AHEAD AND MOVE THE
APPOINTMENT. I MOVE THAT THE
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED PASSAGE
OF APPOINTMENT 02833, IS THERE
A SECOND?
>> SECOND
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO APPROVE PASSAGE OF
APPOINTMENT 02833.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH ?
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA? FIVE IN
FAVOR.
>> THE APPOINTMENT PASSES. IT
JUST NEEDS MY SIGNATURE . THIS
WILL GO BEFORE COUNCIL. NEXT
WEEK . THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I
APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT, WILL
YOU PLEASE READ ITEM 3 INTO THE
RECORD?
>> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE,
ORDINANCE RELATED TO
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION OF
POLICE OFFICERS IN THE SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT, TRANSFERRING
POSITIONS FROM SEATTLE
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
TO SPD, CREATING IN SPD
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
PROGRAM, AMENDING ORDINANCE
126955, WHICH ADOPTED THE 2024
BUDGET, CHANGING APPROPRIATIONS
TO VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS AND
BUDGET CONTROL LEVELS AND FROM
VARIOUS FUNDS IN THE BUDGET,
AMENDING SECTION 4.0 8.070 OF
THE SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE, AND
RATIFYING AND CONFIRMING
CERTAIN PRIOR ACTS, BRIEFING
AND DISCUSSION.
>> I AM GLAD WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT ACTUAL LEGISLATION. THE
LAST TIME, WE TALKED ABOUT
DRAFT LEGISLATION. SUPPOSE YOU
ARE ELECTED, IN LARGE PART ON
THE COMMISSION OF PUBLIC
SAFETY, NOW THAT YOU HAVE BEEN
IN OFFICE, YOU HAVE
EXPERIENCED FIRSTHAND THE
ANGER, FRUSTRATION, AND
IMPATIENCE FROM WHAT THE
CONSTITUENTS THINK IS A
FAILURE TO IMPROVE ON PUBLIC
SAFETY. AND ONE OF THOSE, THAT
IS OUR SHOCKINGLY LOW SPD
STAFF LEVELS, I AM HAPPY TO SAY
THAT BEFORE US, WE HAVE PEOPLE
TRYING TO HELP US DO SOMETHING
ABOUT IT. THAT IS FOR OUR
CONSTITUENTS. AND WE HAVE
REQUESTS AS COUNCIL --
COUNCILMEMBERS. SPD CONTINUES
TO LOSE MORE OFFICERS THAN IT
CAN HIRE. THERE ARE MANY
REASONS FOR THIS. LET'S LIST
OFF SOME OF THEM, NUMBER ONE,
PEOPLE ARE MENTIONING LOW
MORALE, STEMMING FROM THE
PREVIOUS COUNCIL'S LACK OF
SUPPORT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT,
THEN THERE IS THE FACT THAT
THEY HAVE BEEN OPERATING
WITHOUT A CONTRACT, WHICH
RESULTS IN THE FACT THAT THEIR
WAGES HAVE NOT BEEN KEEPING UP
WITH INFLATION, COSTS OF
LIVING, INCREASES IN SEATTLE,
OR ENABLING JURISDICTIONS.
AND THERE ARE OPTIONS FOR
ADVANCEMENT THAT ARE LIMITED,
BECAUSE IN ORDER TO MEET OR
LOWER THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE
TIMES WHEN PEOPLE CALL 911,
INVESTIGATORS ARE REMOVED FROM
THOSE UNITS, AND SO, THERE IS
VERY LITTLE OPPORTUNITY TO
ADVANCE UPWARDS. PEOPLE ARE
RETIRING. ON TOP OF THAT,
THERE ARE THE STRESSORS OF A
LOT OF OVERTIME. BECAUSE WE DO
NOT HAVE ENOUGH OFFICERS. WE
NEED TO FILL SHIFTS. THEY ARE
WORKING OVERTIME, THEY WORKING
ON THE FRONT LINES AT AN
UNPRECEDENTED LEVEL, IN THE
FENTANYL CRISIS, I COULD GO ON
AND ON. AND LET'S NOT FORGET
THE LABOR POOL THAT IS
AFFECTING CITIES ACROSS THE
COUNTRY. SO, THERE ARE MANY
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO OUR
STAFFING PROBLEM. AND , THERE
ARE SO MANY OF THEM, YOU CAN
SORT OF FEEL OVERWHELMING, I
JUST HAVE TO STAY -- SAY ,
THIS IS NOT LIKE FIGHTING
CLIMATE CHANGE, IT IS NOT
WHERE WE HAVE ONE STRING, NO
MAGIC SOLUTION. SO, WE DO ,
WHAT? WE DO NOTHING. I WANT
YOU TO NOTICE THAT ALL OF THOSE
ITEMS THAT I JUST MENTIONED.
THOSE, THOSE -- THEY ARE
FACTORS THAT MAKE IT HARD. WE
HAVE GOT TO LOOK AT THE OTHER
SIDE OF THE EQUATION. WHICH IS,
HOW WE ACCESS, RECRUIT, AND
HIRE MORE OFFICERS, THAT IS
MORE UNDER OUR CONTROL. WHEN I
AM TRYING TO DO WITH THE
LEGISLATION IS FOCUSED ON WHAT
WE CAN FIX , AND OUR HIRING AND
RECRUITMENT PRACTICES, THEY ARE
A GOOD PLACE TO START, BECAUSE
YOU CANNOT NOT DO ANYTHING, AND
I DON'T KNOW, LEAVE NO STONE
UNTURNED, THAT IS WHAT WE
ARE TRYING TO DO, IN A
NUTSHELL, THE OVERALL
RECRUITMENT STRATEGY, WITHIN
THE SPD HR DIVISION, WE ARE
TRYING TO MAKE NO-BRAINER
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HIRING
PROCESS, TO GET MORE PEOPLE
INTO THE PIPELINE. THAT IS WHAT
WE ARE TRYING TO DO. WHAT THIS
LEGISLATION WILL NOT DO IS
COMPROMISE COMMITMENT TO
COMPREHENSIVE POLICING AS SET
FORTH IN OUR ACCOUNTABILITY
ORDINANCE, OR LOWER OUR
STANDARDS FOR WHAT WE WANT, IN
THE OFFICERS THAT SERVE OUR
COMMUNITY, THE OPPOSITE IS
TRUE, BECAUSE WE HAVE A
SIX-MONTH ROAD WITH LOTS OF
SPEED BUMPS, AND POTHOLES THAT
LEAVES PEOPLE IN LIMBO,
DURING WHICH COMPETING
JURISDICTIONS IN THE REGION
WILL SWOOP IN, AND THEN IT
BECOMES HARD FOR US TO HIRE,
AND THEN THE PIPELINE IS NOT
FILLED, IT BECOMES NARROWER
AND VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO
EVEN GET ENOUGH FOLKS TO GO
THROUGH THE PROCESS. SO THAT IS
WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH AND
THAT IS WHAT THIS LEGISLATION
WILL TRY TO ADDRESS . I WOULD
LIKE TO GIVE MY VICE CHAIR AND
THE COSPONSOR OF THIS
LEGISLATION AN OPPORTUNITY TO
PROVIDE SOME BRIEF OPENING
REMARKS. AND THEN LET OUR
CENTRAL STAFF ANALYSTS TAKE
OVER THE PRESENTATION.
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> MS. ANN GORMAN, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR PRESENTING. THIS
IS A VERY IMPORTANT DAY IN
RESPECT TO OUR EFFORTS TO
IMPROVE OUR PUBLIC SAFETY
POSTURE. I WILL NOTE, THIS IS
VERY IMPORTANT STEP, IN THE
STRATEGIC FORMWORK --
FRAMEWORK, IN ADDRESSING PUBLIC
SAFETY CHALLENGES. I LIKE AND
APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT IT IS
THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
AND THAT HE -- THE
ACCOUNTABILITY DEPARTMENT,
RECURSION, RETENTION, WE ARE
MAKING THAT POINT, TO THE
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
THAT WE DO SUPPORT THEM. WITH
THE OVERSIGHT AND THE
ACCOUNTABILITY THAT WAS
MENTIONED, AS NOTED, HEY IS
VERY IMPORTANT, PARTICULARLY
WHEN WE RECRUIT, WE HAVE SOME
OF THESE THINGS, SOME OF THESE
VERY BASIC PIECES THAT NEED TO
BE IMPROVED AND LINED UP. AND
THE BILL TODAY IS AN IMPORTANT
STEP. THIS IS ALSO AN IMPORTANT
STEP AS IT RELATES TO THE MANY
STEPS THAT WE SEE, HEAR, AND
READ EACH DAY, SOME OF THE
OUTREACH REGARDING THE PUBLIC
SAFETY CONCERNS. THIS MORNING,
MAGNOLIA, QUEEN ANNE, UPTOWN
, YOU KNOW, WEST , EAST, THEY
ARE ASKING FOR ANSWERS. WE
NEED TO SHOW THAT WE ARE
SERIOUS ABOUT THIS. AND WE ARE
WORKING TO IMPROVE THAT PUBLIC
SAFETY POSTURE AND OUR SAFE
SPACE THAT IS OUR GOAL . THANK
YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US
TODAY AND FOR THE BRIEFING .
AND FOR COSPONSORING. THANK
YOU.
>> I JUST WANTED TO NOTE ,
THIS IS BEING HEARD IN MY
COMMITTEE, BECAUSE THE
ACTIONS, THE ACTION HAS BEEN
TAKEN. THEY WILL MOSTLY
INVOLVE THE SEATTLE DEPARTMENT
OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND IT
TOUCHES ON SOME OF THE
PRACTICES OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, BOTH
OF WHICH REPORT TO MY COMMITTEE
BUT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON
THIS FOR A WHILE TOGETHER. WITH
THAT, I WILL ASK THAT
COUNCILMEMBERS HOLD QUESTIONS
UNTIL THE END OF THE
PRESENTATION, AND THEN WE WILL
DISCUSS IT IN MORE DETAIL. GO
AHEAD.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, AND IT
FROM CENTRAL STAFF, WE ARE HERE
TO TALK ABOUT THE COUNCIL BILL
120766, AND IT IS SPONSORED
BY COUNCILMEMBER BETA 44. THE
REFERENCE TO RETENTION IS, ONE
OF THE THINGS THAT THIS BILL
DOES IS ESTABLISHES A
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION UNIT,
BUT TODAY, WE ARE GOING TO BE
FOCUSING ON THE IMPROVEMENT
SIDE OF THINGS. THE LAST
COMMITTEE MEETING, OF THIS
COMMITTEE, APRIL 11th , WITH MY
COLLEAGUE , SITTING HERE TODAY,
THERE WAS AN UN-INTRODUCED
VERSION OF THIS BILL. AND HE
WROTE A VERY COMPREHENSIVE
STAFF MEMO REGARDING THE BILL
THAT IS AVAILABLE FOR
COUNCILMEMBERS TO READ. AND WE
ARE ALSO AVAILABLE TO BRIEF ANY
COUNCILMEMBERS WHO ARE
INTERESTED IN THIS BILL, SO
THAT THEY CAN HAVE ALL OF THE
INFORMATION THAT THEY NEED ON
THE BILL. AND THE NEXT STEPS,
IN SUMMARY, THIS BILL WOULD
MAKE THE RECRUITMENT AND
HIRING OF SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT OFFICERS MORE
EFFICIENT. AND I WILL TALK NOW
ABOUT HOW IT WILL DO THAT. JUST
BACKGROUND, THE IMPETUS FOR WHY
WE ARE HERE TODAY. AS
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON STATED,
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS LOST
TRAINED OFFICERS. AND SPD IS
AT ITS LOWEST STAFFING LEVEL
SINCE THE LATE -1990S, DURING A
TIME WHEN OUR POPULATION IS
GROWING RAPIDLY, THE RATIO OF
POLICE OFFICERS TO POPULATION
HAS BEEN GOING DOWN. IN MAY,
2022 , THERE WAS A RESOLUTION
CALLING FOR THE INCENTIVE
PROGRAM AND THE SEEKING OF
BONUSES FOR NEW AND
LATERALLY-TRANSFERRING
OFFICERS. AND MAYOR HARRELL
ANNOUNCED SUCH A PROGRAM,
MAKING A COUPLE OF CHANGES THAT
WERE DESIGNED TO GET POLICE
OFFICERS ON BOARD MORE QUICKLY
FOR INSTANCE, THE ELIMINATION
OF TRAVEL REQUIREMENTS, AS
THERE WAS GREATER
COLLABORATION BETWEEN COLLEGES
AND UNIVERSITIES. THAT
INITIATIVE ALSO INCLUDED SOME
FACTORS DESIGNED TO RETAIN
POLICE OFFICERS. IN AUGUST,
2022, THEY CREATED FOUR
POSITIONS IN THE SEATTLE
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES ,
TO LAUNCH IT, HOWEVER, DESPITE
THIS INVESTMENT, AND DESPITE
THE LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS, THERE
HAS NOT BEEN ANY APPRECIABLE
INCREASE IN SPD OFFICER
HIRING, AND THAT HAS BEEN OF
GREAT CONCERN TO
COUNCILMEMBERS THIS YEAR. ON
MARCH 12, THERE WAS A PANEL OF
STAKEHOLDERS, AND BOTH OF THE
SPONSORS OF THIS BILL
PARTICIPATED IN THAT
CONVERSATION, AND THEY
ADVOCATED FOR PROCESS
IMPROVEMENTS, FIRST OF ALL,
THEY EXPRESSED INTEREST IN
RE-ORGANIZING RECRUITMENT
INITIATIVES , FOLLOWING BEST
PRACTICES AND INSTITUTING
ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES, AND
THEY ALSO HAD SOME THOUGHTS
ABOUT HOW TO IMPROVE THE
EFFICIENCY OF THE MIDDLE PHASE
OF THE OFFICER HIRING PROCESS.
I WILL BE TALKING A LITTLE BIT
MORE ABOUT THE MIDDLE PHASE, A
COUPLE OF SLIDES FROM NOW.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WHO ARE
THE STAKEHOLDERS? WITHIN
POLICE OFFICER HIRING, THERE
ARE MANY OF THEM. LET'S WALK
THROUGH, RIGHT NOW, CERTAINLY
THE COUNCIL AND THE EXECUTIVE,
AS WE HAVE SEEN. THE PUBLIC
SAFETY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
ALSO HAS A ROLE IN OFFICER
HIRING, THAT IS AN INDEPENDENT
BODY, AMONG OTHER DUTIES, IT
DIRECTS THE DEVELOPMENT AND
THE ADMINISTRATION OF
MERIT-BASED CIVIL SERVICE EXAMS
FOR THE SEATTLE POLICE AND FIRE
DEPARTMENTS, ITS FUNCTIONS ARE
GOVERNED BY STATE LAW. AND
JUST TO BE EXPLICIT, AND
ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO BECOME A
POLICE OFFICER OR A FIREFIGHTER
IN THE CITY OF SEATTLE MUST
TAKE AND PASS A TEST, EVERYONE
TAKES AND PASSES THE SAME TEST
SO THAT IT PRESENTS A LEVEL
PLAYING FIELD. AND THE SEATTLE
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
HAS THE FIRE AND POLICE EXAMS
UNIT. THEY CONDUCT THE EXAMS
AND THEY WERE CLOSELY WITH
PEOPLE WHO MAY BE TAKING THOSE
EXAMS OR WHO HAVE TAKEN THOSE
EXAMS, TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE
ENTIRE PROCESS OF BECOMING A
POLICE OFFICER. AND THE
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, OF
COURSE , HAS LOST A LOT OF
OFFICERS INTERESTED IN BRINGING
THE NUMBER OF DEPLOYABLE
POLICE OFFICERS BACK TO A
LEVEL THAT SUPPORTS THE NEED IN
THE CITY OF SEATTLE. AND IT
THEY ARE IMPACTS THAT ARE
DEEPLY FELT WITHIN THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT. NOT ONLY ARE THE
RESPONSE TIMES LOWER , BECAUSE
THERE ARE FEWER OFFICERS , TO
TAKE THE CALLS, BUT OFFICERS
WHO ARE INCUMBENT ARE WORKING
A LOT OF OVERTIME, THAT CAN
HAVE A LOT OF MORALE IMPACTS.
RECRUITING IS A FUNCTION THAT
IS CURRENTLY CONDUCTED IN BOTH
SDHR AND THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT. ACCORDING TO
SPONSORS, THE ULTIMATE GOAL IS
TO IMPROVE SPD 'S ABILITY TO
RECRUIT SWORN IN OFFICERS AND
START REHEARSING WHAT HAS BEEN
A DOWNWARD TREND IN OFFICER
HIRING. THANK YOU. WHAT HAS
GONE ON HERE, THIS SLIDE SHOWS
A FAIRLY SIMPLIFIED
REPRESENTATION OF THE STATUS
QUO, IN TERMS OF THE HIRING
PROCESS FOR HIRING POLICE
OFFICERS, I WILL WALK THROUGH
THE STATUS QUO IN AND TALK
ABOUT THE CHANGES THAT THIS
BILL WOULD MAKE. AS YOU CAN
SEE, AND AS REFERENCED ON THE
PREVIOUS SLIDE, RECRUITMENT IS
CURRENTLY HOUSED IN THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT AND ALSO IN SDHR.
IT IS THE GAINING AND
MAINTAINING OF PEOPLE'S
INTERESTS, SO THEY STEP FORWARD
AND THEY SAY, YES, I WILL TAKE
THE TEST AND I WILL SEE IF I
AM ELIGIBLE TO BECOME A POLICE
OFFICER. THE TEST THAT THEY
WILL BE TAKING HAS BEEN
SELECTED, ACCORDING TO
CRITERIA , BY PSCSC, ACCORDING
TO THE CRITERIA SET OUT, AND
THOSE CRITERIA, IN LAYMAN'S
TERMS, THE TEST NEEDS TO BE
PRACTICAL, AND IT NEEDS TO BE
FAIR, AND IT NEEDS TO MEASURE
THE THINGS THAT THEY WILL
ACTUALLY BE DOING, AS POLICE
OFFICERS. THE TEST THAT IS
SELECTED BY PSCSC IS
ADMINISTERED BY THE SDHR EXAM
UNIT, WHICH I MENTIONED ON THE
PREVIOUS SLIDE. THE ROLE AS
TEST ADMINISTRATORS IS ROLLED
PASSED LAID OUT IN THE SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL CODE, BUT THEY DO
MORE THAN THAT, IT IS REALLY AN
OUTRAGE RELATIONSHIP THAT THEY
HAVE WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE TAKING
THE TEST. THEY CAN ANSWER
QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, IN CASE
SOMEBODY DOES NOT PASS THE TEST
THE FIRST TIME, THEY CAN SAY,
HERE ARE THE THINGS THAT YOU
CAN DO, HERE IS WHEN THE NEXT
TEST WILL BE OFFERED. IT IS A
VERY SERVICE-ORIENTED
RELATIONSHIP THAT THEY HAVE
SOMETIMES. AND THE EXAMS ARE
ADMINISTERED . A SUBSET OF
PEOPLE WHO TAKE THE EXAMS PASS
THE EXAMS. WHAT HAS DEVELOPED
FROM THE LIST OF PEOPLE WHO
PASS THE EXAMS IS SOMETHING
CALLED AN ELIGIBILITY
REGISTER. THIS IS ESSENTIALLY
A LIST OF EVERYONE ELIGIBLE
BASED ON THE LAST TEST EVENT,
TO BECOME A POLICE OFFICER.
WHEN WE SAY ELIGIBLE THAT IS
BECAUSE AFTER THEY HAVE PASSED
THE TEST, THERE ARE STILL A
NUMBER OF TESTS THEY WILL HAVE
TO GO THROUGH TO ACTUALLY
BECOME A POLICE OFFICER.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, YOU TALK
ABOUT THE SIX-MONTH PROCESS .
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF STEPS,
THEY HAVE TO HAVE A BACKGROUND
CHECK, THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CHECKS
, THEY HAVE TO DO A FITNESS AND
AGILITY TEST, THERE IS A LOT
THAT HAPPENS. AND BY THE WAY,
WHAT I MEAN BY THE MIDDLE
PHASE, IT IS BETWEEN
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING, BUT
SPD, WHERE CANDIDATES HAVE
INTERACTED , AND IT WITH THE
EXAM UNIT. WHAT THIS BILL
WOULD DO, THIS BILL, IT WOULD
TAKE THE RECRUITMENT POSITIONS
THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN SDHR AND
MOVE THEM IN TO SPD, THERE
WOULD BE ONE DEDICATED UNIT,
DEVOTED TO SEATTLE LEEDS
OFFICER RECRUITMENT, AND IT
WOULD BE IN THE HR UNIT , AND
IT WOULD HAVE STRONG
MANAGEMENT , ACCOUNTABILITY
MEASURES, AND THAT IS WHERE THE
BRAND-NEW FORMAL RECRUITMENT
AND RETENTION PROGRAM WOULD
COME FROM. ANOTHER THING THIS
BILL WOULD DO IS ADD A NEW
POSITION. ADD A NEW POSITION ,
TO THE SDHR EXAMINATION UNIT.
AND THIS WOULD SUPPORT MORE
FREQUENT PRODUCTION ON THE
ELIGIBILITY REGISTER , AND A
BETTER ABILITY TO ENGAGE WITH
CANDIDATES ON A PERSONAL
LEVEL. ANOTHER THING THAT THIS
BILL WOULD DO IS ENCOURAGE THE
PSCSC, WITHIN WHAT IS LAID
OUT, IN THE RCW, TO SELECT
TESTS TO BE USED, NOT ONLY BY
THE CITY OF SEATTLE, BUT ALSO
OTHER REGIONAL JURISDICTIONS,
AND OTHER OFFICES. THAT IS NOT
THE CASE RIGHT NOW, THE ONE
THAT THE CITY OF SEATTLE USES
IS KIND OF CUSTOM, IT IS JUST
OUR TEST. BECAUSE MANY PEOPLE
WHO WANT TO BECOME A POLICE
OFFICER APPLY TO SEVERAL
DIFFERENT AGENCIES AT ONCE,
WHEN THERE IS ONE TEST, IT
MAKES IT EASIER FOR THEM TO
PUT THE APPLICATION OUT THERE
AND GET THEM ON THE RADAR OF
MORE AGENCIES THAT ARE HIRING.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE ? THIS IS
REALLY JUST A RESTATEMENT OF
WHAT THE BILL DOES, WITHOUT
THE DISTRACTING PICTURE. IT IS
FAIRLY SIMPLE WHAT THE BILL
DOES, IT CREATES A NEW
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
PROGRAM THAT WILL BE STAFFED BY
THE POSITIONS. IT WILL ADD A
NEW POSITION IN SDHR TO
ENHANCE OUTREACH TO OFFICER
CANDIDATES AND IT ENCOURAGES
THE PSCSC TO DO THREE THINGS.
THE PSCSC IS AN INDEPENDENT
AGENCY. COUNCIL CANNOT DO MORE
THAN ENCOURAGE. AND IT ASKS
THEM TO USE THE EXAM CURRENTLY
IN USE BY MULTIPLE COMPETITOR
AGENCIES AND INCREASE THE
FREQUENCY OF THE PUBLICATION OF
POLICE OFFICER ELIGIBILITY
REGISTERS AND INCREASE
CONTACTS. THE INCLUSION OF THE
PERSONNEL ANALYSTS , YOU KNOW,
BY THE PSCSC 'S OWN
ADMISSION , SHOULD ADDRESS THE
REGISTERED PUBLICATION, AND
INCREASE CONTACT. NEXT SLIDE,
PLEASE. WE ARE HERE TODAY
WITH THIS PRESENTATION. AND WE
WILL BE BACK ON MAY 9th , WHEN
THIS COMMITTEE WILL DISCUSS AND
VOTE ON THIS BILL. A TECHNICAL
AMENDMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN
DRAFTED AND APPROVED BY LAW.
THAT TECHNICAL AMENDMENT WAS
PRODUCED WITH THE VERY
THOUGHTFUL AND THOROUGH
CONTRIBUTIONS OF PSCSC. I
WANTED TO SAY PUBLICLY, WE ARE
GRATEFUL FOR THAT CAREFUL
READING OF IT, AND FOR THEIR
INTEREST, IN GETTING THIS BILL
RIGHT. THERE MAY BE
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS
FORTHCOMING , FROM ONE OR MORE
THAN YOU, AND WE WOULD
APPRECIATE KNOWING ABOUT THEM
BY MAY 1st , SO THAT THERE IS
ENOUGH TIME FOR A LAW REVIEW ,
SO THAT IT IS READY FOR THE
VOTE ON MAY 9th. PSCSC
REQUESTED THAT NEW POSITION TO
HAVE IT CERTIFIED AND PUBLISHED
AND TO INCREASE OUTREACH TO
CANDIDATES, THAT IS INCLUDED
IN THIS BILL. AND PSCSC ALSO
REQUESTED A NEW MANAGER
POSITION, WE ARE WORKING TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DUTIES OF
THE MANAGER POSITION SHOULD BE,
FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, WITH
RESPECT TO THE PERSONNEL
ANALYST POSITION AND WE WILL
FOLLOW UP WITH WHAT WE LEARNED.
WE ARE IN CONVERSATION TO LEARN
MORE ABOUT THE TEST
REQUIREMENTS , IN THE RCW.
NEXT SLIDE? ANY QUESTIONS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS?
>> I HAVE ONE, BEFORE I MAKE
MORE GENERAL COMMENT AND OPEN
IT UP, CAN YOU PLEASE ADDRESS
THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS THAT
GO ALONG WITH THE DECLARATION
OF THE NEW RECRUITMENT AND
RETENTION PROGRAM, WITHIN SPD?
>> SURE, SO, THERE ARE A NUMBER
OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS,
BEGINNING JULY 15th, 2024,
THERE NEEDS TO BE METRICS GIVEN
ON THE NUMBER OF CONTACTS THAT
ARE MADE BY CIVILIAN OR SWORN
STAFFS , WHO HAVE REGISTERED
FOR OR COMPLETED THE EXAM, IT
NEEDS TO BE DISAGGREGATED BY
THE TYPE OF CONTENT THAT WAS
MADE. AND THERE ARE MEASURES
REQUIRED ON INDUSTRY
STANDARDS, THE NUMBER OF
APPLICANTS WHO SIT FOR THE
EXAM, THE APPLICANT
ELIGIBILITY RATE , AND THERE
ARE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
ON THE PROGRAMS THAT ARE BEING
LAUNCHED BY THE DEPARTMENT, TO
INCLUDE AN INCREASE IN FEMALE
CANDIDATES, THE 30 BY 30 PAPER
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SURVEY
DATA, USED TWO DIED THE
ADVERTISING STRATEGIES , TO
SHOW THAT WE ARE USING
NATIONAL BEST PRACTICES AND
LOCAL BEST PRACTICES, AND
FINALLY THE AVERAGE TIME THAT
IS NEEDED TO SPEED UP THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PORTION.
>> IN SHORT, IF I MAY
PARAPHRASE, I BELIEVE THAT IT
IS DESIGNED, THE REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS, THEY ARE DESIGNED
TO MAKE SURE THAT THE IDEAS
THAT ARE IN BEST PRACTICES
ELSEWHERE, GET PERHAPS
HOPEFULLY IMPLEMENTED. AND WE
ARE ALSO LOOKING AT WHAT IS
WORKING AND WHAT IS NOT, RIGHT?
WE ALWAYS HAVE TO BE CHECKING
OURSELVES. WE HEARD , IN THE
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
MEETING, I BELIEVE IN MARCH,
WHEN YOU HAD SO MANY
STAKEHOLDERS FROM THE MAYOR'S
OFFICE, AND FROM PSCSC, WE
HEARD INTENSE INTEREST IN
THIS TOPIC, WITH
COUNCILMEMBERS EXPRESSING
FRUSTRATION THAT THERE IS MORE
TO BE DONE BUT WE ARE NOT DOING
IT AND WHAT I WANT TO SAY, THE
DETAILS MATTER. THIS MIGHT BE
THE FIRST TIME THAT WE ARE
ACTUALLY DIGGING INTO THE
DETAILS AND HIRING PROCESSES.
I THINK THAT IS A WORTHY
AVENUE OF TRYING TO BRING UP
STAFFING LEVELS MORE QUICKLY.
I WILL NOW ASKED IF MY
COLLEAGUES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS. GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR BRIEFING.
AND I HAVE READ THROUGH THE
ORDINANCE. AND I LOOK FORWARD
TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS, BUT
I AM SOMEWHAT INTERESTED, OR
NOT INTERESTED, BUT KIND OF
SURPRISED, IN THE SENSE THAT
THERE IS AT LEAST HALF A DOZEN
JURISDICTIONS THAT USE THE
PUBLIC SAFETY TESTS , SO, THE
TESTS , THERE WERE SOME ISSUES
WITH THE RCW, I WOULD THINK
THAT SNOHOMISH COUNTY MIGHT
ALREADY KNOW THAT, AND SO, THAT
IS OF INTEREST TO ME, THERE
ARE QUESTIONS, REGARDING THE
ABILITY OF THE TWO TESTS, WHEN
THERE ARE MANY JURISDICTIONS
THAT ARE ALREADY USING BOTH
TESTS. THERE COULD HAVE BEEN
SOME LEGAL ISSUE WITH THAT,
THAT MAY HAVE ALREADY BEEN
RAISED.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
KETTLE. THAT IS A LEGAL ISSUE
AND WE HOPE TO HAVE AN ANSWER
FOR YOU.
>> CAN I ADD, TOO, SEPARATELY,
THAT , WE ARE LOOKING AT THE
WHOLE PROCESS AND I DO
APPRECIATE ALL OF THE WORK THAT
HAS BEEN DONE ON THE EXECUTIVE
SIDE, THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, AND
THE LIKE, TO MAKE THE
IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
ACCOMPLISHED THUS FAR, CLEARLY
WE DO HAVE MORE TO DO, THAT IS
THE REASON BEHIND THE
ORDINANCE, AND WE ARE DOING
THIS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE
EXECUTIVE SIDE. I WOULD SAY
ALSO, WITH PSCSC, TO IMPROVE
THE PROCESS AND TO REALLY
WHITTLE DOWN THOSE
BOTTLENECKS, THOSE HICCUPS THAT
WE HAVE HERE, PRESENTING --
PREVENTING US FROM ACHIEVING
THE GOALS. I APPRECIATE THE
COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS, WITH A
FEW QUESTIONS HERE AND THERE,
THIS IS ONE. AND AGAIN,
JURISDICTIONS CAN USE BOTH, SO
ONE WOULD THINK THAT THE LEGAL
QUESTION HAS ALREADY BEEN
RAISED.
>> THE LANGUAGE IN HERE
ENCOURAGES THE PSCSC TO
CONSIDER ADDING THE TEST. SO
THEY COULD CONSIDER ADDING
THAT, IN INCLUDING THE OTHER
TEST, SO THAT IS WHAT WE ARE
FINDING OUT, IF THAT IS OKAY.
>> I WANTED TO ALSO PUT, INTO
MORE PLAIN LANGUAGE, WHAT THE
ADDITION WOULD DO. HERE IS
WHAT WE ARE NOT DOING RIGHT
NOW, WE ARE NOT, WHEN SOMEONE
APPLIES TO WORK AT SPD, THEY
DO NOT HEAR FROM A REAL HUMAN.
YOU KNOW , IT CAN BE UP TO SIX
WEEKS, AFTER THE FIRST
EXAMINATION IS TAKEN. MOST
OTHER JURISDICTIONS MAY CONTACT
WITHIN 48 HOURS. HELLO, THANK
YOU FOR APPLYING, THIS IS A
REAL EMAIL FROM A REAL PERSON.
AND AT THAT POINT, WE HAVE
ESTABLISHED A POINT OF CONTACT
AND QUESTIONS CAN BE ANSWERED,
AND THEN, AT SOME POINT, THEY
ARE INTRODUCED TO THE
RECRUITMENT TEAM ON THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY SIDE. WE ARE
NOT DOING THAT. WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT IMPROVING THE CANDIDATE
EXPERIENCE, THIS IS A
FUNDAMENTAL PRACTICE OF TALENT
ACQUISITION, I KNOW THAT
SOUNDS A LITTLE CLICHÉ OR
CORPORATE. BUT WE ARE NOT
DOING WHAT OTHER JURISDICTIONS
ARE DOING TO MAKE NEW
CANDIDATES FEEL WELCOME, AND
ALSO ORIENT THEM TO THE NEXT
STAGE IS BECAUSE YOU ARE RIGHT,
THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER STAGES
AND THEY CAN BE ONEROUS ABOUT
REQUIREMENTS, A LOT OF RECORD
PRODUCTION, ET CETERA , THERE
IS A POLYGRAPH, A PHYSICAL
EXAM. THERE ARE MANY PLACES
ALONG THE WAY THAT WE CAN WEED
OUT UNQUALIFIED CANDIDATES AS
WELL. IT IS NOT JUST THE TEST
OF THE CALIBER OF CANDIDATES
THAT ARE SEEKING EMPLOYMENT
WITH THE CITY. SO I DO WANT TO
SAY, THIS IS ABOUT THE FTE,
ENABLING, THE BRINGING TOGETHER
OF CONTACT INFORMATION, SO
THAT PEOPLE CAN BE CONTACTED
PERSONALLY, RIGHT AFTER THEY
APPLY.
>> WELL, I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU
ARE SAYING, BUT LET ME PLEASE
ADD ONE OTHER POINT, THE MIDDLE
PHASE OF THE RECRUITMENT
PROCESS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO
ORIENT SOMEONE, NOT JUST IN
POLICING, BUT POLICING IN
SEATTLE, WHEN SOMEONE STARTS TO
GO DOWN THE SCREENING PROCESS
WITH ANOTHER AGENCY, THEN WE
HAVE LOST OUR OPPORTUNITY TO
BRING THAT PERSON ON BOARD AS
A CITY OF SEATTLE POLICE
OFFICER. OTHER CITIES THAT ARE
PUBLISHING THEIR REGISTERS
MORE FREQUENTLY ARE GETTING
NAMES IN FRONT OF THE
RECRUITING TEAM, OF PEOPLE WHO
ARE KEENLY AND FRESHLY
INTERESTED IN JOINING UP WITH
AN AGENCY, AND GOING DOWN THE
REST OF THAT MONTH'S-LONG
PATH. THE MIDDLE PHRASE --
PHASE, AS I DECIDED TO CALL IT,
AND PUT IT ON THE SLIDE, IS SO
IMPORTANT , YOU KNOW,
INCREASING THE PIPELINE OF
CANDIDATES TO THE CITY OF
SEATTLE.
>> AND DOING SO IN A TIMELY
FASHION SO THAT WE CAN COMPETE
WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS THAT
MIGHT SWOOP IN, BECAUSE THOSE
HAVE ALREADY APPLIED TO OTHER
JURISDICTIONS AND HAVE BEEN
OFFERED EMPLOYMENT WITH THEM,
SO THAT IS THE PROB THAT YOU PUS
KIND OF COMPLICATED, I WANTED
TO MAKE A POINT. IF YOU HAVE
EFFORTS THAT ARE SORT OF BEING
DUPLICATED BUT NOT COORDINATED
IN TWO DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS,
THAT IS A RECIPE FOR NOBODY
BEING IN CHARGE AND NOBODY
BEING THE POINT PERSON FOR
ACCOUNTABILITY, TO MAKE SURE
THAT NEW PROCESSES ARE BEING
IMPLEMENTED. THEN WE END UP
WITH, NOT MY FAULT, NOT MY
FAULT , AND NOTHING IMPROVES
IN THE LONG RUN. THAT IS WHY WE
ARE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT
THE RECRUITMENT TEAM IS IN ONE
PLACE AND INTERACTING WITH
OTHER DIVISIONS WITHIN SPD,
SUCH AS THE POLICING DIVISION,
THEY WILL BE TALKING BEFORE THE
GROUP. THESE RECRUITS, IF THEY
ARE HIRED, THEY GO THROUGH
THAT PROGRAM SO IT IS JUST A
WAY OF MAKING SURE THAT THE
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE
HIRING PROCESSES ARE IN ONE
PLACE, ONCE THEY GET THROUGH
THE EARLY PARTS OF THE
APPLICATION AND TESTING
PROCESS. ALL RIGHT. OKAY.
ANYTHING TO ADD , CENTRAL
STAFF?
>> NOTHING.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, THIS IS
BUREAUCRATIC WORK, BUT VERY
IMPORTANT AND WE MUST DO
EVERYTHING WE CAN TO BRING OUR
GOOD OFFICERS IN MORE QUICKLY,
SO , THIS IS GOING TO BE
DISCUSSED FOR A POSSIBLE VOTE
ON MAY 9th AT OUR NEXT
MEETING, AND COLLEAGUES, IF
YOU HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS, GIVE
THEM TO CENTRAL STAFF BY THE
FIRST, THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. OKAY, THANK YOU ALL
FOR STICKING AROUND. OUR LAST
ITEM, PLEASE READ ITEM FOR
-- FOUR.
>> AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION, O
JIK -- OH MY APOLOGIES,
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR, AN
ORDINANCE RELATING TO
APP-BASED WORKER LABOR
STANDARDS, ESTABLISHING A NEW
COMPENSATION SCHEME FOR APP
-BASED WORKERS WITH MINIMUM
PAY REQUIREMENTS AND RELATING
STANDARDS FOR TRANSPARENCY AND
FLEXIBILITY, AMENDING SECTIONS
8.3 7.020, 8.3 7.050, 8.3
7.060, 8.3 7.070, 8.3 7.080,
EMILY .3 7.100 , 8.3 7.110 ,
8.3 7.120, 8.37, 8.3 7.165,
AND 8.3 7.170 OF THE SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL CODE AND REPEALING
SECTION 8.3 7.230 OF THE
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE.
>> LET'S ADDRESS THE ELEPHANT
IN THE ROOM. THE QUESTION THAT
HAS BEEN BANDIED ABOUT, WILL
THIS BILL ELIMINATE THE
MINIMUM WAGE FOR DELIVERY
WORKERS? WILL IT ROLL BACK
THE MINIMUM PAY STANDARD OF
THE PREVIOUS, OR OF THE
CURRENT BILL. THE ANSWER IS NO.
THIS BILL WILL REQUIRE NET
COMPANIES TO PAY THE $19.97
PER HOUR WAGE, PLUS TIPS AND AN
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT OF $.35
PER MILE. THAT IS WHAT THIS
BILL DOES. IN CONTRAST, NOWHERE
IN THE EXISTING LAW IS A
MINIMUM PAYMENT THE NUMBER.
THE ACTUAL NUMBER IS THE
MINIMUM PAYMENT SET, WE DO NOT
SEE THAT PARTICULAR NUMBER .
INSTEAD, THERE IS A CALCULATION
OF $.44 PER MINUTE, IT IS
SUPPOSED TO GENERATE 133% OF
THE SEATTLE MINIMUM WAGE. BUT
IN ORDER TO ACTUALLY EARN THAT
AMOUNT, IT DEPENDS ON THE
NUMBER OF ORDERS THAT THE
PERSON ACTUALLY EXCEPT IN AN
HOUR. AND THAT IS NOT HAPPENING
RIGHT NOW. BUT YOU KNOW, WE
WILL BE DISCUSSING THAT IN A
BIT. THIS LEGISLATION WOULD
ALSO MAINTAIN SUBSTANTIAL
UPFRONT DISCLOSURES, A MINIMUM
AMOUNT OF TIME MUST BE
PRESENTED, AND RECEIPTS , AFTER
COMPLETING EACH OFFER, AND
PETITIONS TO REJECT OR CANCEL
OFFERS IN THOSE SITUATIONS.
HOW DID WE GET HERE? IN
FEBRUARY, 2022, LEGISLATION
FOR WORKERS FIRST CAME BEFORE
THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND HUMAN
SERVICES COMMITTEE, IT WAS
CALLED THE PAYUP LEGISLATION.
AT THAT TIME, I EXPRESSED MY
SUPPORT FOR DELIVERY DRIVERS
BUT I EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OR
NEGATIVE IMPACT ON INCOME,
RESTAURANT AND RETAIL REVENUE,
AND ALSO CUSTOMER COSTS. ALL
RIGHT . THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION
PASSED IN MAY, 2022. AFTER AN
EXTENDED PERIOD OF RULEMAKING
IT WENT INTO EFFECT, JANUARY,
2013, AND THE OUTCRY WAS
IMMEDIATE. KING 5 THAT EVENING
IT RAN A STORY ABOUT DRIVERS
HAVING A PRECIPITOUS DROP IN
WAGES. AND PUBLIC COMMENT WAS
MADE DURING THE NEXT MEETING,
ALONG WITH SEVERAL DRIVERS
EXPERIENCING THE SAME THING,
AND CALLED FOR THE REPEAL OF
THE LAW. THEY HAVE CONTINUED TO
SHOW UP EVERY SINGLE MEETING.
AND EVERY CITY, MEANING,
SOMETIMES EVERY OTHER MEETING,
FOR THE PAST THREE MONTHS. WE
RECEIVED RESTAURANTS ' EMAILS,
DETAILING REDUCTIONS IN
ORDERS. AND FROM CUSTOMERS WHO
COULD NO LONGER AFFORD ON --
TO ORDER. SO , THEN THE SURVEY
RESULTS ROLLED IN, ACCORDING TO
A SURVEY, OVER 500 DRIVERS, IN
A SURVEY COMMITTED BY DRIVE
FORWARD, WHICH IS A
WASHINGTON-BASED ADVOCACY
NONPROFIT, IT HAS SHIFTED FROM
A WAIT TIME OF 41% OF DRIVERS
WEDDING LESS THAN FIVE MINUTES
TO 56% OF DRIVERS WEDDING MORE
THAN 30 MINUTES AFTER JANUARY
13th, AND IN EARNINGS PER
HOUR, INCLUDING TIPS, HAS
DROPPED BETWEEN 11% AND 50%.
THE TWO ARE CORRELATED,
BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, IF THEY ARE
NOT COMING IN, THEY ARE NOT
MAKING AS MANY DELIVERIES. AND
SO, THEY ARE NOT, THEY ARE NOT
EVEN ENGAGED AS MUCH IN THEIR
TIME. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. AND
I ALLUDED TO THAT ISSUE IN MY
PREVIOUS COMMENTS. IN ADDITION,
ANOTHER SURVEY CAME OUT OF
SEATTLE RESTAURANTS. AND IT
SHOWS AN AVERAGE DECLINE IN
REVENUE OF ABOUT 38% FROM THE
RESTAURANTS AND 97 OF THOSE
RESTAURANTS PULLED SAID THEY
WERE IN FAVOR OF REPEALING THE
LAW. BASED ON WHAT WE ARE
HEARING AND WHAT WE ARE SEEING
IN EMAIL BOXES, I THINK THERE
WAS A MORAL OBLIGATION TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT IT, IF THAT WAS
NOT GOING TO BE REPEALING THE
LEGISLATION, THEN AT LEAST WE
WOULD NEED TO TRY TO FIX IT. I
SET ABOUT MEETING WITH
REPRESENTATIVES FROM NETWORK
COMPANIES AND DRIVE FORWARD,
TO URGE THEM TO WORK TOGETHER
TO COME UP WITH SOME OPTIONS.
THEY NEEDED PROOF , FROM THE
GET-GO, THEY DID NOT SUPPORT
THE REPEAL OF THE LAW. DRIVE
FORWARD SUPPORTS THE MINIMUM
PAY STANDARD, BUT YOU SAW WHAT
HAPPENS , WHEN THE SERVICES
WERE REGULATED, BEFORE I
JOINED THE COUNCIL. AND THE
REQUESTS DROPPED 50% DON'T
GET RID OF THE MINIMUM PAY
STANDARD. RECALIBRATE IT SO
THAT IT WORKS FOR ALL WORKERS.
BELIEVE ME, THE LAST THING
THAT I WANTED TO DO WAS A POLIT
IT IS NOT FUN , IT IS NOT FUN
RIGHT NOW. I APOLOGIZE TO MY
COLLEAGUES, BUT THIS IS
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. I CANNOT
IGNORE WHAT IS GOING ON. THE
COMPROMISE PROPOSAL HAS BEEN A
MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD FOR
WEEKS AND WEEKS, AND PROPONENTS
OF THE ORIGINAL PAYUP HAVE
MADE IT CLEAR THEY ARE NOT
WILLING TO ACCEPT ANY CHANGES
TO THE EXISTING LAW. THEY HAVE
NOT PROPOSED ANY POLICY
SOLUTIONS TO STEM THE LOSS OF
ORDERS FOR EARNINGS OR
OPPORTUNITIES FOR WORKERS. AND
THEY ARE NOW CALLING FOR
ADDITIONAL DATA. BUT, WE ARE
HEARING IN CHAMBERS, SOME
FOLKS ARE MINIMIZING THE
CONSEQUENCES THAT THIS LAW
THAT HAS HAD ON THOSE WHO ARE
SHOWING UP, AND , SO, CLEARLY,
WE ARE NOT GOING TO SAY WHO IS
RIGHT, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE
EMOTIONS RECOGNIZED THAT THE
IMPACTS ARE FRIGHTENING.
MEANWHILE, THE OFFICE OF LABOR
STANDARDS APPEARS TO BE
DOUBLING DOWN, THE SEATTLE
TIMES SAID THAT ADDITIONAL DATA
WAS NEEDED FROM NETWORK
COMPANIES TO JUSTIFY THE NEW
FEES. AND THE NEW REPORTING,
THE NEW POSSIBLE REPORTING,
AND SO, IT SEEMS AS THOUGH
THE FOCUS IS ON NETWORK
COMPANIES. BOTH SIDES, THE
NETWORK COMPANIES, AND THE
PROPONENTS OF THIS BILL , THEY
HAVE INTENSE STAKES IN WHAT
HAPPENS HERE. THEY HAVE
NATIONAL IMPLICATIONS , BASED
ON WHAT HAPPENS HERE. I AM
CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THE
WORKERS AND BUSINESSES ARE
DOING THAT ARE AFFECTED RIGHT
NOW, THAT IS WHAT I AM TRYING
TO FOCUS ON. I AM A
PRAGMATIST, I DO NOT WANT TO
WAIT FOR MONTHS, BECAUSE PEOPLE
CANNOT PAY RENT RIGHT NOW. AND
SO, THAT IS WHY I AM MOTIVATED
TO DO SOMETHING THAT WILL ,
THAT WILL HAVE AN IMMEDIATE
IMPACT, AND THIS FIRST
LEGISLATION IS WHAT CAUSED
THE EVENTS THAT WE ARE
EXPERIENCING NOW. AND SO, I
WANT TO REVERSE THE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES, AND REDUCE
THOSE, THAT LED TO REDUCED
ORDERS, THAT ENDS UP WITH
REDUCED DRIVER INCOME.
THEREFORE, I SOUGHT A SOLUTION
TO MAKE THE FEE GO AWAY. THE
FEES NEED TO GO AWAY, THAT
WILL HOPEFULLY LOWER THE BILL
THAT CUSTOMERS SEE AND ORDERS
WILL GO UP, ET CETERA AND SO
THE SYSTEMIC DAMAGE WILL BE
REVERSED. IT IS IMPORTANT NOT
TO WAIT AROUND, BECAUSE
CUSTOMER BEHAVIOR IS CHANGING.
PEOPLE, AGAIN, ARE HAVING A
HARD TIME PAYING EXPENSES,
BUSINESSES COULD BE CONSIDERING
LAYING OFF WORKERS, ET CETERA,
THIS IS WHY IT IS BEFORE US
RIGHT NOW. WAITING MONTHS AND
MONTHS MORE IS NO OPTION . WE
DID RECEIVE AN EMAIL FROM
INSTACART SAYING THEY WILL BE
REMOVING THE FEES, SO, I AM
OPTIMISTIC IN TRYING TO COME
AT THIS FROM A PRAGMATIC
PERSPECTIVE. WITH THAT
INTRODUCTION, PRESENTERS, YOU
CAN INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND
BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION, THANK
YOU.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, I AM A
CENTRAL STAFF ANALYST. MY NAME
IS JASMINE MARWAHA.
>> I AM KARINA BULL, ALSO A
CENTRAL STAFF ANALYST.
>> AS YOU ARE PULLING IT UP, I
WOULD ASK COLLEAGUES TO HOLD
QUESTIONS UNTIL AFTER THE
PRESENTATION.
>> SO WE WILL GO OVER A BRIEF
SUMMARY AND THEN BRING UP SOME
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
COMMITTEE AND NEXT STEPS. AS
ALWAYS, WE ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS AT THE END. SO, THE
MINIMUM PAYMENT REVISIONS FOR
APP-BASED WORKERS. I SHOULD
PAUSE AND SAY THAT SOME FOLKS
HAVE REFERRED TO IT AS
AMENDMENTS. BUT BECAUSE THERE
MAY BE AMENDMENTS TO THE
REVISIONS, WE ARE REFERRING TO
THE PROPOSED CHANGES AS THE
MINIMUM PAYMENT REVISIONS. I
WANT TO BE SURE THAT THAT
TERMINOLOGY IS CLEAR. AND SO
THAT WOULD AMEND THE PAY
STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY THE
CURRENT LAW , SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL CODE 837, TO
PROVIDE THE EARNING STANDARD
FOR APP-BASED WORKERS. AND
INCENTIVIZING COMPANIES TO
LOWER CONSUMER FEES. THE GOAL
IN REDUCING FEES IS TO
PROVIDE ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO
THE APP-BASED WORKERS , AS
WELL AS THE RESTAURANTS , AND
THE NETWORK COMPANIES. THIS
COMMENDS THE TRANSPARENCY
FLEXIBILITY AND ENFORCEMENT
REVISIONS UNDER CURRENT LAW
WITH THE INTENT OF REDUCING
THE COSTS , BY EASING
REGULATORY BURDENS ON
COMPANIES. SO, THE FIRST
ELEMENT OF THE REVISIONS , IT
INVOLVES THE PAY STANDARDS.
THE LAW, THE LEGISLATION WOULD
GUARANTEE A MINIMUM WAGE OF
$19.97 PER HOUR, AND IT WOULD
ESSENTIALLY REMOVE THE
ASSOCIATED COST TIME AND
MILEAGE FACTORS THAT ARE IN THE
CURRENT LAW AND REDUCE THE
MILEAGE RATE. THE GROSS HOURLY
RATE IS EQUAL TO THE CITY'S
CURRENT MINIMUM WAGE AND THE
MILEAGE RATE IS LOWER THAN THE
CURRENT LAW. THE CURRENT
MILEAGE RATE IS LINKED TO THE
IRS AND BERKMAN RATE AND IT MAY
NOT REFLECT THE CURRENT RATE,
SO THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION
SETS IT AT $.35 PER MILE. OTHER
PROVISIONS INCLUDE ENGAGED
TIME OR PAID TIME BEING
CALCULATED WHILE THE WORKER IS
EN ROUTE . AND THERE ARE NO
ORDERS CANCELED, UNLESS THE
CUSTOMER CHANGES THE DROP OFF
LOCATION, IN THE RESULTING
FIVE OR MORE MINUTES OF
ENGAGED TIME. THE PAY WOULD BE
CALCULATED OVER A NETWORK
COMPANY EARNINGS PERIOD,
INSTEAD OF PER OFFER. IT WOULD
ALLOW NETWORK COMPANIES TO
COUNT INCENTIVES AND BONUSES
TOWARD THE MINIMUM PAY
STANDARD. THE PROPOSED
TRANSPARENCY REVISIONS INCLUDE
CHANGES TO THE UPFRONT OFFER
DISCLOSURES, THAT , THAT
WORKERS RECEIVE, IN ADVANCE OF
DECIDING WHETHER TO ACCEPT OR
REJECT THE OFFER. IT WOULD
RETAIN ELEMENTS, INCLUDING
THE LOCATIONS, APPROXIMATIONS,
AND GUARANTEED PAYMENT . IT
WILL REMOVE THE SPECIFIC PICKUP
AND DROP OFF LOCATION, THE
AMOUNT OF THE TIP, IF OFFERED
AT THAT TIME, AND THE
CONFIRMATION OF PHYSICAL LABOR
REQUIREMENTS. IT WOULD ALSO
REMOVE REQUIREMENTS FOR
RECEIPTS TO THE CUSTOMER AND
PERMIT THE REMOVAL OF THE
GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF AN
ORDER. FINALLY, IT WOULD
REMOVE THE OLS ABILITY TO
REQUIRE AFFIRMATIVE PRODUCTION
OF RECORDS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE,
EVALUATION, AND ENFORCEMENT
PURPOSES. I AM GOING
BACKWARDS. OKAY. SO, THE
CHANGES TO THE FLEXIBILITY
REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE
CLARIFICATION, AND THAT WOULD
BE CLARIFICATION THAT THE
COMPANY CAN ALLOW REWARDS OR
INCENTIVES FOR WORKERS HAVING
A HIGHER ACCEPTANCE RATE .
ESSENTIALLY, A NETWORK COMPANY
CANNOT TERMINATE THE CONTRACT
OF THE WORKER FOR A LOWER
ACCEPTANCE RATE. BUT THEY CAN
TAKE OTHER ACTIONS. RIGHT NOW,
THEY ARE PROHIBITED FROM
INSTITUTING ANY ADVERSE ACTION
IN RESPONSE TO THE WORKER
LOWERING THEIR ACCEPTANCE RATE
OR AVAILABILITY, IT WOULD
PERMIT A NETWORK COMPANY, TO
LIMIT WORKER ACCESS TO THE APP,
IF THE COMPANY DISCLOSES THE
REASON WHY THE WORKER CANNOT
ACCESS THE APP, THAT IS
INTENDED TO RESPOND TO
SITUATIONS WHERE THERE MIGHT
BE MANY WORKERS IN ANY GIVEN
AREA . AND IF THEY CAN RESPOND
TO THE LACK OF DEMAND. AND
IT WOULD ALSO CLARIFY THE
REASONS AND THE IMPACT OF
CANCELING THE OFFER WITH CAUSE.
SO, A NETWORK COMPANY CANNOT
TERMINATE A WORKER'S CONTRACT
FOR CANCELING AN OFFER WITHOUT
CAUSE.
>> AND IT CHANGES THE NUMBER
OF PROVISIONS , AND IT
ELIMINATES THE PRESUMPTIONS
THAT WOULD OTHERWISE ESTABLISH
RETALIATION. IT MODIFIES THE
OLS RULEMAKING ABILITY, AND IT
CLARIFIES PERMISSIBLE RULES, IT
ELIMINATES THE PRIVATE RIGHT
OF ACTION AND ESTABLISHES THE
VIOLATIONS. AND SO, THIS IS A
SIDE THAT TALKS ABOUT CHANGES ,
AT A GLANCE, WHICH MAY NOT
INCLUDE EVERYTHING. BUT IT
DOES GET MOST OF IT ON THERE.
IF YOU WANT A LONG SNAPCHATTED
AND NEXT, WE WILL GO TO SOME
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS, THE
FOLLOWING SLIDES HIGHLIGHT
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES OR POLICY
REVISIONS , AND IT MAY NOT
REPRESENT ALL OF THE VARIOUS
OPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS. IF
ANY COUNCILMEMBER IS INTERESTED
IN ADDRESSING ANY OF THE POLICY
CHANGES, THEY CAN WORK TO
PREPARE AMENDMENTS THAT MEET
THE INTERESTS OF THE
COUNCILMEMBERS. FIRST, WE WILL
START WITH THE NETWORK COMPANY
CONSUMER FEES, WITH LIMITED
INFORMATION, IT IS DIFFICULT TO
ASSESS SPECIFICALLY HOW THE
CURRENT REGULATIONS IMPACT
THE COST. AND THE DECISION, IT
WOULD DIRECTLY RESULT IN THE
CHANGES OF NETWORK COMPANY
SERVICES, PARTICULARLY THE
PROPOSED NONECONOMIC
REVISIONS. NETWORK COMPANIES,
IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE, THAT
NETWORK COMPANIES COULD STILL
CHOOSE TO OFFSET THE COST OF
REGULATION BY RETAINING FEES.
AND THE CENTRAL STAFF MEMO,
AGAIN, IDENTIFIES ATTENTIONAL
OPTIONS FOR THIS CONSIDERATION.
FOR WORKER EARNINGS, IF THE
LEGISLATION ACHIEVES THE
IMPACT OF REDUCING CONSUMER
FEES, THEREBY ORDERING --
CONCERNING THE PROPOSED PAY
STANDARD, EVEN THOUGH IT IS
LOWERED, POTENTIALLY FROM
CURRENT REQUIREMENTS, IT COULD
INCREASE WORKER EARNINGS, AS
COMPARED TO PRIOR TO THE LOT
BEING IN EFFECT, AND IT WOULD
RESULT IN THE GROSS PAYMENT OF
THE SEATTLE MINIMUM WAGE, WHEN
THEY ARE ACTIVELY FILLING
OFFERS, IT MAY RESULT IN A NET
PAYMENT THAT FALLS BELOW
MINIMUM WAGE WHEN ACCOUNTING
FOR ON-CALL TIME AND EXPENSES.
AND IT IDENTIFIES A RANGE OF
OPTIONS FOR THIS CONSIDERATION.
THE EARNINGS PERIOD AND
INCENTIVES, IT WOULD REQUIRE A
MINIMUM PAYMENT STANDARD TO BE
MET FOR ALL ENGAGED TIME OVER
THE COURSE OF THE EARNINGS
PERIOD, RATHER THAN FOR EACH
OTHER, IT WOULD ALLOW
INCENTIVES OR BONUSES TO COUNT
TOWARD THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT,
THIS COULD RESULT IN CHANGES TO
LABOR COSTS PER ONLINE ORDER
BEING REDUCED AND IT COULD LEAD
TO NETWORK COMPANIES TO
REDUCING THEIR OFFERS. IT
COULD RESULT IN LESS
TRANSPARENCY AND PRICKED
ABILITY AT THE END OF A PERIOD
FOR THE WORKER. AND THAT
INCENTIVES AND BONUSES WOULD
ADD UP TO HIGHER THAN WHAT IS
REQUIRED BY LAW. CENTRAL STAFF
HAVE IDENTIFIED A RANGE OF
OPTIONS. CUSTOMER RECEIPTS, THE
PROPOSED LEGISLATION WOULD
REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR
COUNCILMEMBER -- CUSTOMER
RECEIPTS. THOSE REQUIREMENTS, I
BELIEVE, INCLUDE THE DATE AND
TIME OF THE COMPLETION OF THE
ORDER, THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAID TO
THE NETWORK COMPANY, THE
ITEMIZATION OF ALL FEES,
CHARGES, AND TIPS, THEY MAY
STILL PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION,
REGARDLESS OF THE COMMITMENT,
THEY MAY WANT TO CONTAIN THE
REQUIREMENTS TO PROVIDE
GREATER CONSUMER TRANSPARENCY.
FLEXIBILITY, THE CURRENT LAW
INHIBITS COMPANIES FROM TAKING
ANY ADVERSE ACTIONS AGAINST
WORKERS WHO LIMIT THEIR OFFERS
OR CANCEL THEIR OFFERS WITH
CAUSE. THE BILL WOULD ALLOW
NETWORK COMPANIES TO TAKE ANY
ACTION, EXCEPT FOR TERMINATING
THE CONTRACT OF A WORKER. IN
OTHER WORDS, PERMANENTLY
BLOCKING ACCESS TO THE
PLATFORM, IN RESPONSE TO THE
FLEXIBILITY OPTIONS. A COMPANY
COULD TAKE MORE ACTIONS, IN
RESPONSE TO LIMITING, THE
WORKER LIMITING HOURS OR
REJECTING OFFERS. THE
APP-BASED WORKER ORDINANCE
THAT WAS GOING INTO EFFECT OF
JANUARY 1st, 20, PROHIBITS
NETWORK COMPANIES FROM
DEACTIVATED THE WORKER, WHICH
IS RESTRICTING ACCESS, BUT NOT
NECESSARILY PERMANENTLY
BLOCKING ACCESS. THE COMMITTEE
MAY WANT TO SIMPLIFY THOSE .
AND THE BILL WOULD ALSO ALLOW
NETWORK COMPANIES TO ALLOW THE
BLOCKING OF ACCESS TO THE
PLATFORM. THIS COULD ALLOW THEM
TO INCREASE THE EFFICIENCY OF
APP-BASED WORKERS BY INCREASING
THE NUMBER OF OFFERS COMPLETED
BY WORKERS WHO ARE ABLE TO
ACCESS THE PLATFORM AND
INCREASE OVERALL EARNINGS FOR
THOSE WHO ARE ON THE APP.
COMBINED WITH THE OTHER
PROPOSED CHANGES, THIS COULD
RESULT FROM WORKERS BEING
RESTRICTED FROM THE PLATFORM OR
ELIMINATING THEIR ABILITY TO
ACCEPT OFFERS. AND THERE HAVE
BEEN OPTIONS IDENTIFIED AS
ALTERNATIVES. AND THEN, THE
AFFIRMATIVE PRODUCTION OF
RECORDS. IT WOULD REMOVE THE
OLS DIRECTOR'S AUTHORITY TO
EVALUATE AND ENFORCE THE
ORDINANCE. IT WILL REQUIRE
RECORDS FROM ALL INDIVIDUAL
NETWORK COMPANIES DURING
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS. THERE ARE
LAWS REGULATING APP-BASED
PLATFORMS, THAT INCLUDE REGULAR
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. CENTRAL
STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED A RANGE
OF OPTIONS. AND I WILL TURN IT
OVER TO MY COLLEAGUE, KARINA
BULL.
>> THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO
THE PENALTIES PROVISION. THE
LEGISLATION WOULD RESTRICT THE
OLS DIRECTOR FROM RESTRICTING
PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN
NON-WILLFUL VIOLATIONS. THE
ORDINANCE SPECIFIES THOSE
VIOLATIONS AS THOSE THAT DO NOT
RESULT IN UNPAID COMPENSATION
OR THOSE THAT ARE NOT THE
RESULT OF RETALIATION. AND
THEIR DIRECTOR WOULD BE
RESTRICTED FROM ASSESSING THE
PENALTIES, IF THE NETWORK
COMPANY CURES THE VIOLATION
WITHIN 30 DAYS OR LONGER IF THE
NETWORK COMPANY REQUEST
ADDITIONAL TIME FOR GOOD CAUSE,
POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THIS CHANGE
COULD BE THAT THE RISK OF THESE
LOSE THE DETERMINANT AFFECT,
FUNCTIONING AS THE COST OF
DOING BUSINESS, THERE COULD BE
ADDITIONAL WORK FOR OFFICE OF
LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT, TO
DETERMINE WHETHER IT WAS
WILLFUL OR NOT WILLFUL, OR
WHETHER THE VIOLATION WAS
CURED. ON THE FRONT END, I
IMAGINE THE OLS WOULD NEED TO
DEVELOP A STANDARD, DETERMINE
WHAT THE CRITERIA IS , TO
DETERMINE WHETHER A VIOLATION
HAS BEEN CURED AND TO
DETERMINE WHICH VIOLATIONS
WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS
PROVISION. AND THEN, THERE
COULD BE REDUCED FINANCIAL
PENALTIES, FOR THE WORKERS WHO
ARE AFFECTED BY VIOLATIONS,
REGARDLESS OF THE INTENT.
FURTHER, THE OLS DIRECTOR,
REGULARLY USES AUTHORITY TO
ASSESS PENALTIES TO WORKERS ,
RATHER THAN THE CITY AS A
MECHANISM TO COMPENSATE WORKERS
FOR TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS THAT
DO NOT RESULT IN BACKPAY. THE
NEXT ISSUE , REGARDS
RETALIATION THE LEGISLATION
WOULD MODIFY ANTI-RETALIATION,
REMOVING PRESUMPTIONS THAT A
NETWORK COMPANY HAS RETALIATED
AGAINST THE WORKER, FOR
EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS,
UNLESS THE NETWORK COMPANY
SHOWS OTHERWISE, THESE
PRESUMPTIONS ARE INTENDED TO
ADDRESS THE INFORMATION
SYMMETRY, TAKE ACTIONS AGAINST
WORKERS, AND ARE CONSIDERED
STRONG MEASURES TO ASK
QUESTIONS AND REPORT
VIOLATIONS, THESE PRESUMPTIONS
ARE REFLECTED IN THE CITY'S
LABOR STANDARDS, OTHER
STATEWIDE LABOR PROTECTIONS,
AND NATIONAL LAWS, AS WELL.
THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION,
THE LEGISLATION WOULD REMOVE
THE RIGHT OF APP-BASED ACTIONS
TO CIVIL VIOLATIONS. THE
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTIONS ALLOWS
THE OFFICE OF LABOR STANDARDS
TO PRIORITIZE INVESTIGATIONS,
WHILE LEAVING WORKERS OTHER
OPTIONS IF THEY CANNOT PURSUE
ENFORCEMENT DUE TO CAPACITY OR
OTHER REASONS, THEY MOSTLY HAVE
A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION, ALL
THROUGHOUT THE BENEFITS
ORDINANCE. FOR IMPLEMENTATION
AND FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS,
IMPLEMENTING THIS LEGISLATION
WOULD LIKELY HAVE A FINANCIAL
IMPACT ON THE OFFICE OF LABOR
STANDARDS , AS THE OFFICE COULD
INCUR ADDITIONAL COSTS TO
REVISE ROLES, OUTREACH
MATERIALS, AND OUTREACH
PROCEDURES. POTENTIALLY
CONDUCTING A NEW OUTREACH
CAMPAIGN FOR CENTRAL STAFF IS
PREPARED TO WORK WITH THE CITY
BUDGET OFFICE TO DEVELOP
ESTIMATES OF THESE COSTS,
INCLUDING THE IMPACT OF THE
ADDITIONAL WORK ON THE OLS
PRIORITIES, WHETHER THE COSTS
ARE SHORT-TERM OR LONG-TERM,
AND WHETHER SUCH COSTS CAN BE
OBSERVED -- ABSORBED. SINCE WE
HAVE NOT INTERACTED WITH OLS,
IT IS NOT CLEAR IF CENTRAL
STAFF WOULD RECEIVE THIS
INFORMATION OR HAVE ENOUGH TIME
TO ANALYZE IT, BEFORE THE
COUNCIL VOTE. AND THEN, FOR
RACIAL EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS,
BLACK AND LATINX WORKERS ARE
UNDERREPRESENTED, ACCORDING TO
THE MOST AVAILABLE DATA FROM
THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS.
THUS, THE IMPACT OF THE
CURRENT LAW, THEY ARE CHANGES
THAT DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECT
BIPOC WORKERS. MANY RESTAURANTS
USING APP-BASED SERVICES OR
SMALL BUSINESSES ARE OWNED BY
LOW INCOME AND HISTORICALLY
DISENFRANCHISED COMMUNITIES
AND CUSTOMERS, THEY MAY DEPEND
ON IT APP-BASED WORKERS, SUCH
AS THE DELIVERY OF PREPARED
FOOD, GROCERIES, OR MEDICATION.
I ALSO NEGLECTED TO MENTION,
ALTHOUGH JASMINE DID FOR EVERY
SINGLE SLIDE, CENTRAL STAFF
IDENTIFIES A RANGE OF
CONSIDERATIONS FOR EVERY ONE OF
THESE POSSIBILITIES. THANK YOU.
>> AS FOR THE NEXT STEPS, WE
WOULD ASK THAT ANY
COUNCILMEMBERS INTERESTED IN
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS , CONTACT
CENTRAL STAFF BY NOON IDEALLY
ON MONDAY, APRIL 29th. YOU MAY
NOT HAVE A VERY SPECIFIC IDEA,
BUT EVEN IF YOU JUST HAVE A
CONCEPT, OR IF YOU WANT TO
TOSS SOME THOUGHTS OUT THERE,
PLEASE LET US KNOW BY NOON ON
MONDAY, ON MAY 9th, WE WILL
CONSIDER WITH THE COMMITTEE,
ANY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, AND WE
WILL HAVE A FINAL COMMITTEE
VOTE AND THE COUNCIL VOTE WILL
BE ANTICIPATED AFTER THAT ON
MAY 21st. AND WITH THAT. ARE
THERE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> I WILL START OFF WITH SOME
COMMENTS. THIS WAS REFERRED
TO THE PROPOSAL OF SARA
NELSON. I WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT PEOPLE DO RECOGNIZE THAT
THIS WAS AN AGREEMENT FORGED
BETWEEN DRIVE FORWARD AND THE
NETWORK COMPANIES , WHATEVER
YOUR PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SAY
ABOUT DRIVE FORWARD, THEY ARE
AN ADVOCACY GROUP IN SUPPORT
OF DRIVERS. THEY SUPPORTED A
LOT OF THE LEGISLATION THAT
CAME BEFORE COUNCIL AND THAT
ARE NOW ON THE BOOKS, THAT THE
NETWORK COMPANIES DID NOT
STRONGLY OPPOSE. IN ANY CASE,
THESE AGREEMENTS , THEY WERE
VERY FINELY BALANCED ,
BETWEEN BOTH SIDES OF THE
PARTIES, AND I WANT TO CLARIFY
AND I WANT TO PUT A LITTLE BIT
OF SPENDING I AM CHANNELING THE
PERSPECTIVE OF THESE PEOPLE,
MOVING FORWARD, AND AS YOU CAN
SEE , IN THE SUMMARY, THE
FISCAL NOTE, THE REVISIONS THAT
YOU JUST WENT THROUGH CHANGE.
AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE
IMPROVEMENTS AND THEY WILL END
UP HAVING BENEFITS FOR THE
RESTAURANT WORKERS AND FOR
CUSTOMERS. AGAIN, THIS BILL
WOULD ENSURE THAT THEY ARE IN
THE MINIMUM WAGE FOR THE TIME
ON DELIVERY AND THE MILEAGE
REIMBURSEMENT, PLUS TIPS. SOME
WOULD ARGUE THAT THE HIGHEST
CITY ESTABLISHED A MINIMUM WAGE
IN THE COUNTRY SO FAR FOR
APP-BASED WORKERS. THE CLAIM IS
THAT HE WOULD FORCE DRIVERS TO
ABSORB VEHICLE -RELATED
EXPENSES, BUT NOW THEY ARE
TALKING ABOUT A $.35
REIMBURSEMENT. I THINK THAT,
WE GO INTO DETAIL ABOUT THIS,
IN THE MEMO, AS SOME OF YOU
HAVE TRAVELED OUTSIDE OF
SEATTLE, A LOT OF PEOPLE IN
THIS COUNTRY DRIVE MUCH BIGGER
VEHICLES, AND THE NATIONAL IRS
RATE IS BASED ON VEHICLES THAT
ARE NOT PREDOMINANTLY DRIVEN IN
SEATTLE. ON FLEXIBILITY, THIS
LEGISLATION WILL ALLOW NETWORK
COMPANIES TO BRING BACK AWARDS
AND INCENTIVE PROGRAMS, WE
HEARD EARLY ON, THOSE AWARDS
AND INCENTIVES AND BEEN TAKEN
AWAY, THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR
THOSE TO BE BROUGHT BACK AND TO
ENSURE THAT THE NUMBER OF
DRIVERS ON THE ROAD, AT ANY ONE
TIME, REASONABLY RELATES TO THE
NUMBER OF ACTUAL ORDERS SO
THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT JUST
SITTING AROUND ALL THE TIME.
THIS CURRENTLY BARS THEM FROM
DOING ANY OF THEM, MEANING
OFFERING THE INCENTIVE
PROGRAMS. LET US BE CLEAR. THIS
LEGISLATION WOULD STILL GIVE
THESE APP-BASED WORKERS TO
SCHEDULE WORK WHEN THEY WANT.
IT WILL STILL PROHIBIT
COMPANIES FROM RETALIATING
AGAINST APP-BASED WORKERS
EXERCISING ANY RIGHTS FOR ANY
CLAIM , PERHAPS IT CAN BE
EXPLAINED LATER. AND , THAT
REQUIRES THE DISCLOSURE OF THE
MOST CRITICAL INFORMATION THAT
THE APP-BASED WORKER NEEDS ,
ABOUT WHETHER THEY WILL ACCEPT
THE OFFER. GUARANTEED EARNINGS
FOR PLEADING THE DELIVERY TO
THE ESTIMATED TIME REQUIRED,
ESTIMATED MILES TO COMPLETE
THE DELIVERY, THE LOCATION
WHERE THE WORK IS TO BE
PERFORMED, AND THE NAMES OF
THE BUSINESSES WHERE THE PICKUP
IS REQUIRED. AND IT WILL ALSO
STREAMLINE DISCLOSURES THAT ARE
CURRENTLY REQUIRED , AND THERE
MAY BE SOME DISCLOSURES
DISCLOSED TO DRIVERS AND
CONSUMERS, IN REDUCING
ADMINISTRATIVE BURDENS THAT
HAVE DRIVEN UP THE NETWORK
COMPANY COST, AND WE ARE ALL
ADMITTING THAT COST IS A
FACTOR, AND SADDLING OLS WITH A
BURDEN SIN BODY OF WORK THAT
DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY OTHER
COMPANY IN THE CITY. THE BILL
DOES CLARIFY THE EXTENT AND
THE SCOPE OF THE OLS
RULEMAKING, REDUCING THE BURDEN
OF THE AGENCY AND REDUCING THE
LIKELIHOOD OF LAWSUITS THAT
WILL BYPASS SOME OF THE OLS '
ENFORCEMENT WORK AND EFFORTS,
GIVING NETWORK COMPANIES THE
CHANCE TO CURE NON-PAY RELATED
COMPLIANCE ERRORS FASTER,
WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO
DO, WE ARE TRYING TO BASICALLY
GET COMPANIES TO COMPLY. WHICH
WILL ALSO REDUCE ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS THAT WILL BE PASSED ON
TO CONSUMERS. THOSE ARE SOME
GENERAL COMMENTS ON SOME OF
THE GROUPINGS OF THE
REVISIONS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT
AND THEN I HAVE SOME SPECIFIC
QUESTIONS. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO
OPEN IT UP TO SEE IF SOME OF MY
COLLEAGUES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
OR COMMENTS. GO AHEAD AND
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT. THANK YOU, JASMINE
MARWAHA AND KARINA BULL , FOR
THIS PRESENTATION AND BREAKING
IT DOWN. I HAVE A COUPLE OF
QUESTIONS. WITH THE NEW
PROPOSAL. LET ME REWIND,
CURRENTLY, CURRENTLY , THE
MINIMUM WAGE IS 131% , THAT
EQUATES TO ABOUT $20.16 FOR A
WORKER, PLUS THE MILEAGE OF
$.74 , PROPOSED IS $19.97, AND
$.35 FOR MILEAGE. IN THE
$19.97, ARE THE APPS ALLOWED
TO COUNT TIPS TOWARD THE
MINIMUM WAGE?
>> IN THE LEGISLATION, THE TIPS
WOULD NOT COUNT TOWARD THE
MINIMUM. THEY WOULD BE ON TOP.
>> FOR WHAT?
>> FOR THE REVISIONS.
>> MY BAD. WE ARE CALLING WHAT
IS PRESENTED TODAY, THE
REVISIONS. LET ME WRITE THAT
DOWN. GO AHEAD.
>> CAN I SIMPLY CLARIFY? TIPS
ARE NOT COUNTED AS PART OF THE
$19.97?
>> TIPS WOULD BE ON TOP OF THE
MINIMUM PAYMENT REQUIREMENT.
>> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING
THAT.
>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN EN ROUTE,
VERSUS OFFER ACCEPTED? I
THINK I KNOW WHAT IT IS, AND I
CLARIFIED IT.
>> FOR MOST ON-DEMAND
COMPANIES, LIKE THE RESTAURANT
DELIVERY OFFERS , A WORKER
WOULD ACCEPT AND IMMEDIATELY
BEGIN FULFILLING THAT OFFER,
THE PAYMENT REQUIREMENT WOULD
COUNT, UPON ACCEPTANCE. AND
THAT PROVIDES FEEDBACK, THERE
ARE SOME INSTANCES, WHERE THE
WORKER WOULD NOT IMMEDIATELY
START TO PICK UP THE ORDER.
SO, IN THOSE CASES, THE
REVISIONS WOULD ALLOW FOR THE
PAYMENT REQUIREMENT TO COUNT ,
WHEN THEY ARE EN ROUTE ,
INSTEAD OF JUST RIGHT AT
ACCEPTANCE.
>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT WOULD
BE A TYPICAL THING WHERE
SOMEONE ACCEPTS IT AND THEY DO
NOT GO EN ROUTE?
>> CAN YOU REPEAT THAT?
>> NO WORRIES, CAN YOU EXPLAIN
WHAT IT WOULD BE WHEN SOMEONE
ACCEPTS AN ORDER BUT THEY DO
NOT GO EN ROUTE IMMEDIATELY?
>> FOR GROCERY DELIVERY, OR
DELIVERY FROM RETAIL, THEY
OFTEN , OR, THERE COULD BE A
RESTAURANT OWNER THAT IS BEING
OFFERED AN ADVANCE, AND WHAT
WE HEARD FROM STAKEHOLDERS IN
THE RETAIL -- THEY SCHEDULE
IT.
>> SO, IF I ACCEPT AN ORDER,
AND THEN I GO PICK IT UP , AND
THE RESTAURANT SAYS IT WILL NOT
BE READY FOR 15 OR 20 MORE
MINUTES, DO I STILL GET PAID
FOR THAT TIME?
>> I BELIEVE SO. YES. BECAUSE
THE EN ROUTE WOULD COUNT FROM
THE POINT WHERE THEY WENT TO
THE PICKUP LOCATION.
>> NO MATTER HOW LONG THE
RESTAURANT TAKES? OKAY, SO,
THAT WAS MY QUESTION. THE OTHER
THING IS, BEFORE THE ORDINANCE
TOOK SHAPE, WAS IT OPEN FOR
APP COMPANIES TO TOGGLE SUPPLY
AND DEMAND, LIKE IF THE DEMAND
WAS HIGH, THEY WOULD HAVE
SUPPLY FOR DRIVERS, AND IF
NOT, THEY WOULD LIMIT THE
AMOUNT OF PEOPLE ON THE APP?
>> I BELIEVE BEFORE THIS
ORDINANCE WENT INTO EFFECT,
THERE WERE NO RESTRICTIONS ON
THAT.
>> GOT IT AND THE CURRENT
ORDINANCE LIMITS THAT? OR ,
ANYONE CAN SIGN UP ? GOT IT.
>> THERE ARE CERTAIN
LIMITATIONS, IF A WORKER IS
DEACTIVATED, OR IF THERE IS
SOME LIMITATION ON THE AMOUNT
OF HOURS THAT THE WORKERS HAVE
LOGGED IN, FOR SAFETY,
COMPANIES WOULD ALSO BE ALLOWED
TO RESTRICT THEM . BUT THOSE
ARE THE ONLY TWO CIRCUMSTANCES.
>> SORRY, I HAVE A LOT OF
QUESTIONS. NEXT QUESTION.
REPORTED TO THE CUSTOMER. APP
COMPANIES DO NOT HAVE TO GIVE
RECEIPTS FOR ONLINE ORDERING?
THEY CHOOSE TO DO THAT, THAT IS
NOT IN THE LAW?
>> BEFORE THE APP-BASED
WORKER MINIMUM PAYMENT WENT
INTO EFFECT, MY UNDERSTANDING
IS THAT THEY DIVIDED REQUESTS
-- RECEIPTS BUT THEY WERE NOT
REQUIRED TO PICK
>> GOT ENTERED
>> BEFORE WE GO ON, THE
EXISTING LAW DID REQUIRE
RECEIPTS ?
>> CERTAIN INFORMATION, IN
THOSE RECEIPTS I THINK THAT IS
WHAT IS SALIENT, IN TERMS OF
WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IN THOSE
RECEIPTS AND THE ITEMIZATION OF
THE FEES.
>> THE REVISED PROPOSAL DOES
NOT LIFT THE REQUIREMENTS?
>> FOR CUSTOMERS, IT DOES AWAY
WITH THE REQUIREMENT.
>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN?
>> THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE
CUSTOMERS WITH RECEIPTS, THAT
IS IN THE CURRENT LAW, THE
REVISIONS ORDINANCE WOULD NOT
TAKE AWAY THAT REQUIREMENT.
>> OKAY.
>> IT WOULD MAKE IT LIKE
BEFORE. WHERE IT WAS NOT
REQUIRED. BUT THEY WOULD HAVE
TO DO IT ANYWAY. WHICH I
BELIEVE THEY WOULD HAVE TO.
>> THE INCENTIVES IN BONUSES.
IF THERE IS AN INCENTIVE AND
BONUS WITH THE CURRENT LAW , I
AM GETTING BETTER, CURRENT
LAW, A DRIVER, IT DOES NOT,
THOSE INCENTIVES DO NOT COUNT
TOWARD THE MINIMUM WAGE?
>> THEY HAVE TO BE ON TOP.
>> PROPOSED COUNTS TOWARD
MINIMUM WAGE.
>> WHO HAS JURISDICTION OVER
THAT?
>> WHO HAS JURISDICTION OVER,
I'M SORRY, WHAT? IT
>> DOESN'T GIVE THE POWER TO
THE APPS ? THE NETWORK
COMPANIES? SO, THE NETWORK
COMPANIES WOULD DECIDE IF THOSE
INCENTIVES AND BONUSES --
>> I'M SORRY. I AM HARD OF
HEARING. I MUST APOLOGIZE BUT
>> MY BAD, I WILL TALK LOUDER,
JASMINE MARWAHA, I AM SORRY. I
GOT YOU. WHAT WOULD BE AN
INCENTIVE IN BONUS, FOR THIS?
>> THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE
CAN ALSO FOLLOW UP AND CONSULT
WITH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT
THERE ARE CERTAIN PROGRAMS
THAT WOULD REWARD GOOD I TRY
NOT TO USE ANY SPECIFIC
COMPANIES, THEY WOULD REWARD A
WORKER FOR PERFORMING LIKE,
EXCEPTING 95% OF THEIR OFFERS
OR, YOU KNOW, BEING ON TIME FOR
A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE. THAT
MEANS THAT THEY COULD GAIN
ACCESS TO MORE LUCRATIVE
OFFERS, OR GET PREFERRED
ACCESS, SO THEY HAVE ACCESS TO
MORE REWARDS. AND POTENTIALLY,
THEY CAN INCENTIVIZE, THE
COMPLETION. YOU KNOW, THERE ARE
WAYS TO COMPLETE A CERTAIN
NUMBER OF OFFERS, OVER A
CERTAIN TIME PERIOD, TO GET A
MONETARY BONUS, AND SO, THE
CURRENT LAW, ALL OF THESE
BONUSES, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE
ON TOP OF THE PER-OFFER
MINIMUM PAYMENT. THE REVISIONS
LEGISLATION , BECAUSE THE
COMPANY LOOKS AT A PERIOD OF
TIME OF EARNINGS, AND NOT A
SPECIFIC OFFER, THEY COULD
STILL OFFER THE INCENTIVE IN
BONUSES. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT
THE INCENTIVES AND BONUSES
COULD BE USED TO MOVE UP THE
MINIMUM PERIOD AT THE END OF
THE NETWORK COMPANY PERIOD, AS
OPPOSED TO BEING OFFERED ON TOP
OF EACH EARNINGS.
>> IT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE
CATEGORIZED AS A BONUS?
>> IT WOULD BE UP TO THE
NETWORK COMPANY TO LABEL IT AS
A BONUS, OR AS AN INCENTIVE,
BUT, THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.
>> I WOULD NOT CHARACTERIZE IT
AS A BONUS , IT COULD BE , A
CREATIVE WAY TO GET TO THE
MINIMUM WAGE.
>> FOR YOU GO ON, LET ME ASK A
QUESTION, I COULD BE WRONG,
YOU COULD GET BACK TO ME LATER,
BUT IT IS MY IMPRESSION THAT
THE INCENTIVES FROM THE
BONUSES. IS IT TRUE THEY WENT
AWAY WITH THE EXPLANATION THAT
THERE WERE SO MANY WORKERS AT
THE SAME TIME, WITH SO FEW
ORDERS COMING IN?
>> WE CAN FOLLOW UP, I WILL
TAKE A STAB AT IT. PART OF IT
IS, THERE IS A FINE LINE
BETWEEN WHAT IS REWARDING .
AS IN SOMETHING THAT THE
COMPANY WANTS TO SEE, VERSUS
PENALIZING OR DOING ADVERSE
ACTIONS AGAINST , LIKE, WHAT
THE COMPANY WANTS TO DISS
INCENTIVIZE. VERSUS PENALIZING
ANOTHER PERSON, THAT IS A FINE
LINE. WHAT THE REVISIONS
ORDINANCE IS, IS TO MAKE IT
MORE CLEAR THAT ACTIONS CAN BE
TAKEN TO PROVIDE BONUSES AND
INCENTIVES WITHOUT IT BEING
INTERPRETED AS AN ADVERSE
ACTION AGAINST ANOTHER WORKER
WHO MAY NOT HAVE THE SAME
ACCEPTANCE OR ABILITY RATE. DO
YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING TO
THAT? AND DOES THAT HELP?
>> IT DOES, FOR SURE, THAT
MAKES SENSE.
>> LOOKING BACK ON THE
PAYMENT, IS THAT WHAT NEW YORK
AND CALIFORNIA ARE DOING?
>> YES, SO, I BELIEVE BOTH
JURISDICTIONS HAVE AN EARNINGS
PERIOD. AND SO, ANECDOTALLY ,
WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING, IS
THAT THE PER-OFFER AMOUNT MAY
NOT MEET MINIMUM PAYMENT FOR
THAT SPECIFIC OFFER, BUT THE
COMPANIES CAN HAVE FLEXIBILITY
, DEPENDING ON SUPPLY AND
DEMAND , TO OFFER MORE,
SOMETIMES LESS , AND SORT OF,
AT THE END, KIND OF FIGURE OUT
THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF ENGAGED
TIME, OR TIME THAT THEY DID .
SO, WHAT CAN HAPPEN IS , THE
COMPANIES CAN JUST ENSURE ,
AT THE END, THAT EVERYONE, THAT
EVERYONE MAKES THE MINIMUM
PAYMENT.
>> TO ME, THAT DOES NOT SOUND
LIKE A BAD THING. YOU HAVE
MENTIONED NEW YORK AND
CALIFORNIA, AS IF THEY ARE
MODELS OF THINGS THAT WE SHOULD
CONSIDER DOING. AND I HAVE
HEARD THAT IT IS COMMON, AND
BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED NEW
YORK A LOT, DID YOU MENTIONED
SOME OF THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS?
IT IS REALLY HARD TO UNDERSTAND
THE DETAILS , OF THE IMPACTS OF
SOME OF THESE REVISIONS.
>> I WANT TO CLARIFY, BRINGING
UP THE ISSUE OF THE EARNINGS
PERIOD IS MORE JUST IF A
COUNCILMEMBER IS CONCERNED
ABOUT IT BEING A RESULTING IN
BONUSES COUNTING TOWARD THE
MINIMUM PAYMENT. THERE ARE
OPTIONS THAT WE COULD
CONSIDER, IT IS NEITHER GOOD
NOR BAD, JUST A POLICY
CONSIDERATION. I WILL ALSO
SAY, FOR NEW YORK, WE DO HAVE
INFORMATION, WE HAVE TREATED
HIM IN EVERY RESULTS OF THEIR
ANALYSIS, BASED ON THE DATA
THAT THEY HAVE SEEN ABOUT THE
IMPACTS. AND WE CAN FOLLOW UP
WITH COUNCILMEMBERS . I DON'T
KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO
ADD, KARINA BULL ?
>> THE THING I WILL ADD, WITH
THE EARNINGS PERIOD, THE
CONCERN IS THAT NETWORK
COMPANIES COULD PAY LOWER
AMOUNTS , THROUGHOUT THE
EARNINGS PERIOD, THEN AT THE
END , SO THAT IT MEETS THE
MINIMUM PAYMENT STANDARD. WHAT
THAT MEANS IS, THERE COULD BE
A SCENARIO WHERE IT NEVER GOES
ABOVE THE PAYMENT STANDARD. IT
COULD GO ABOVE THE PAYMENT
STANDARD IN TIPS. BUT IT WOULD
PERMIT THE NETWORK COMPANIES TO
NEVER PAY MORE.
>> BUT BECAUSE TIPS ARE NOT
INCLUDED IN THE MINIMUM PAY
STANDARD.
>> I AM TALKING ABOUT THE
TAKE-HOME PAY. IF THE NETWORK
COMPANIES WOULD BE ALLOWED TO
-- THEY COULD STRUCTURE THE
PAYMENT OF THE OFFERS, SUCH
THAT THEY ARE AT THE END OF
THE EARNINGS. -- PERIOD. SO
THAT IT IS AT THE , SO TO
SPEAK, THE WORKERS WOULD NOT
NECESSARILY HAVE ANY
OPPORTUNITY TO EARN MORE THAN
THE MINIMUM WAGE PER HOUR IN MY
REFERENCE TO TIPS, THROUGH THE
TIPS THAT THEY RECEIVED, IT
MIGHT BE MORE, BUT THAT HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MINIMUM
WAGE. THAT REFLECTS THE
TAKE-HOME PAY, DEPENDING ON
WHAT CUSTOMERS GIVE TO THE
WORKERS.
>> I'M SORRY. CAN YOU CLARIFY
THE TRUE UP PIECE? SO, I'M A
BIG WORKER, I ACCEPT AN OFFER,
SO I AM NOW EN ROUTE, AND AT
THE END, HOWEVER LONG IT TOOK
ME, PRESUMABLY THAT IS GETTING
TRACKED FOR EACH OF MY GIGS?
IS THAT WHAT THEY ARE CALLED?
OKAY. AND THEN, AT THE END OF
THE EARNINGS PERIOD, THAT GETS
COUNTED . AND THEN I GET
GIGS THAT MIGHT TAKE MORE TIME
THAN OTHERS. BUT, THAT WILL BE
BASED ON THE HOURS THAT I
WORKED DURING THE TWO-WEEK
PERIOD, BASED ON WHAT HAPPENS
IN NEW YORK AND CALIFORNIA AT
LEAST. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE
CONCERN? ARE YOU SUGGESTING
THAT THE COMPANIES, IN THEIR
TRUE UP ARE NOT ACTUALLY
COUNTING THE ACTUAL TIME THAT
THE WORKERS ARE EN ROUTE AND SO
IT IS HAVING AN IMPACT ON THE
MINIMUM WAGE BASE?
>> THEY SEE HOW MUCH THEY
WILL BE PAID PER TRIP. BUT A
TALLY , OF WHAT THEY ARE
GETTING PAID?
>> ESSENTIALLY, THERE IS A
CONCERN , MAYBE NOT A CONCERN
BUT APPEND HAS REALITY ABOUT
MAKING THE , IT COULD RESULT
IN THE PAY REQUIREMENT BEING A
CAP AND NOT NECESSARILY THE
FLOOR. THAT COULD BE OF
CONCERN, BUT IT COULD BE
SOMETHING THAT COUNCILMEMBERS
MAY BE WILLING TO ACCEPT,
BECAUSE OF THAT GUARANTEED PAY
AMOUNTED
>> DO YOU MEAN THEY WILL START
CAPPING THE WORKERS, HER
TWO-WEEK PERIOD? EACH WORKER
CANNOT WORK MORE OVER TWO
WEEKS , IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN?
>> I THINK IT IS MORE,
WHATEVER INCENTIVES OR BONUSES
THAT THE WORKER ACCEPTS TO
MAKE UP THEIR EARNINGS, IT MAY
BE USED TO GET THEM TO THE
MINIMUM PAYMENT, ANYWAY.
>> WELL , IT JUST FEELS LIKE
YOU ARE MAKING A LOT OF
HYPOTHETICALS THAT REALLY HAVE
NOT -- I DON'T KNOW IF THAT
IS HAPPENING IN NEW YORK OR
CALIFORNIA, BUT WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT SEATTLE. THIS WAS THE
PROPOSAL THAT WAS BROUGHT
FORWARD BY DRIVE FORWARD TO
ESTABLISH CERTAINTIES, SO THAT
YOU LOOK BACK. IF YOU WERE NOT
PAID $19.97, PER HOUR,
DURING WHICH ONE WAS ENGAGED
IN A DELIVERY, THEN THE NETWORK
COMPANY HAS TO PAY YOU. AND
THEN, SO, AND THEN, TO -- I
GUESS TO WATCH FOR THE
POTENTIAL THAT DRIVERS HAD ,
THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE GOING
TO MAKE, PER DELIVERY, AND THEN
THAT ADDS UP. I DO NOT KNOW
WHERE THAT SUBTERFUGE WOULD BE
TAKING PLACE, BUT,
COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH,
YOU HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.
>> NO , I DID NOT HAVE ANY
MORE QUESTIONS. I DID HAVE MORE
QUESTIONS, BUT NOW I SEE
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA WITH HIS
HAND UP.
>> THANK YOU, FIRST OFF, I AM
SORRY , COLLEAGUES, THAT I AM
UNABLE TO JOIN YOU IN PERSON IN
COUNCIL CHAMBERS. I HAVE NOT
JUST TWO, BUT THREE OF MY
KIDDOS WHO ARE SICK AT HOME.
AND I HAVE HAD TO CARE FOR THEM
AROUND THE CLOCK. I HAVE HAD TO
MAKE THEM SOME MAC & CHEESE.
AND THEN I TOOK A COUPLE OF
MEETINGS, REMOTELY. BUT I KNOW
THAT WE ARE AFTER THE 5:00
HOUR. SO, I DON'T KNOW ,
MAYBE YOU CAN GET A LITTLE BIT
MORE PRIVACY. THEY WILL
PROBABLY COME BUSTING IN HERE
LIKE GANG BUSTERS AT ANY
MOMENT. THANK YOU, JASMINE
MARWAHA AND KARINA BULL , FOR
THIS PRESENTATION WHICH HAS
BEEN VERY HELPFUL. THERE HAVE
BEEN A COUPLE OF OPTIONS , THAT
CAN BE CONSIDERED FROM A POLICY
PERSPECTIVE, ONE IS, DO NOTHING
TO THE CURRENT LAW, AND THE
SECOND IS, WE MAKE SOME
REVISIONS, AMENDMENTS, TWEAKS,
TO FIX IT, OR THREE IS JUST
REPEAL ENTIRELY. FROM MY
PERSPECTIVE, THE FIRST THING,
DO NOTHING, IS NOT AN OPTION
AT ALL. AND THE THIRD AND FINAL
THING , POTENTIALLY, AT SOME
POINT, MAYBE, BUT PROBABLY NOT.
WE ARE VERY FAR FROM THAT.
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THAT
LEAVES US IN A POSITION OF,
LET'S MAKE IT BETTER, THROUGH
A REVISION OF SOME SORT. AND
THAT IS WHY I APPRECIATE ALL OF
THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE ON
THIS SO FAR, AND I APPRECIATE
THIS PRESENTATION. AND READING
THAT 14-PLUS PAGE MEMO FROM
TODAY , OR YESTERDAY, I READ
THE MEMO EARLIER TODAY , BUT
VERY INSIGHTFUL MEMO. THAT
KIND OF CHRONICLES, AMONG
OTHER THINGS, HOW WE GOT HERE.
AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE LOWER ,
FEWER ORDERS, THE INCREASED
COST OF FOOD DELIVERY, THE WAIT
TIMES, THE WORKERS, THE
OVERALL EARNINGS BY BOTH
RESTAURANTS AND EARNERS. AND
THERE ARE FEWER OFFERS. VERY
CLEAR, JASMINE, YOU ARE
LOOKING AT MY PREFERENCE, JUST
WANTING TO UNDERSTAND BEST
PRACTICES, ACROSS OTHER
JURISDICTIONS LOCALLY,
NATIONALLY, AS WELL AS
INTERNATIONALLY, IF
APPLICABLE. SO I DO APPRECIATE
THE ATTEMPT TO KIND OF COMPARE
AND CONTRAST , WHERE
APPLICABLE, IN YOUR MEMO, WITH
THE NEW YORK CITY LAW AND THE
CALIFORNIA LAW ARE, BASED OFF
OF THE PRESS RELEASE. AS
NOTED, IN YOUR MEMO, FROM NEW
YORK CITY EARLIER THIS MONTH,
IT DOES SOUND LIKE THEIR LAW
IS THE GOLD STANDARD IN ALL OF
THIS. IN TERMS OF REPORTING,
LET'S SEE, WHERE IS IT? THE
EMPLOYMENT ANALYSIS SHOWING
HIGHER EARNINGS AND MORE
EFFICIENT USE FOR THE
APP-BASED WORKERS ' DIED. AND
IMPORTANTLY, NO NEGATIVE
IMPACTS ON CONSUMERS AND
RESTAURANTS. IT IS JUST VERY
INTRIGUING. CAN YOU TALK A
LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THIS. I
KNOW WHAT IT IS, I AM A
LAWYER, BUT I WOULD LOVE IF YOU
COULD EXPOUND UPON THAT , HOW
THE RIGHT OF ACTION , UNDER
THIS AMENDMENT . I FORGOT WHAT
WE ARE CALLING IT,
COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH.
UNDER THIS AMENDMENT, REVISION,
AND HOW THIS RIGHT OF ACTION
COMPARES TO OUR WORKER , YOU
KNOW, REGULATIONS ACROSS THE
BOARD, AND HOW THE PRIOR RIGHT
OF ACTION , THAT CONSTRUCT, AS
IT SHOWS UP IN THE REVISION,
HOW THAT COMPARES TO OTHER
JURISDICTIONS. I GUESS, NAMELY
NEW YORK CITY AND CALIFORNIA.
>> OKAY. SO, THE PRIOR RIGHT
OF ACTION IS PRETTY MUCH A
STANDARD PROVISION IN THE CITY
OF SEATTLE 'S LABOR STANDARDS,
THERE ARE 19 LABOR STANDARDS
RIGHT NOW AND 17 OF THEM HAVE A
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION. THE
ONES THAT DO NOT ARE THE FAIR
CHANCE, WHICH IS EMPLOYMENT OF
THE COMMUTER BENEFITS
ORDINANCE, AS FAR AS COMPARING
OTHER JURISDICTIONS WITH THESE
TYPES OF APP-BASED WORKERS '
LAWS THE NEW YORK CITY PROVIDES
A STANDARD PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION. MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT THE CALIFORNIA LOCK DOES
NOT INCLUDE ENFORCEMENT
PROVISIONS AND THAT IS
RESTRICTED , REASONABLY, TO THE
STATE AGENCY, AND I MUST ADD,
MOST OF THE WORKERS THAT ARE
PERFORMING APP-BASED SERVICES
ARE LIKELY COVERED BY A
MANDATORY APPLICATION
AGREEMENT. TO MY UNDERSTANDING,
I BELIEVE THERE NEEDS TO BE A
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION IN
ORDER FOR THOSE WORKERS TO
PURSUE ARBITRATION, YOU CAN
MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT TO MAKE SURE
THAT I AM CORRECT THAT
APPLICABLE WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN
IS, THE OFFICE OF LABOR
STANDARDS WOULD BE THE SOLE
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM FOR
WORKERS WHO BELIEVE THAT THERE
WAS SOME VIOLATION OF THIS
LAW, ELIMINATING THE RIGHT
COULD PRODUCE MORE WORK FOR
THE OFFICE OF LABOR STANDARDS.
>> I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE
OFFICE OF LABOR STANDARDS ,
THEY COULD BYPASS THOSE,
ACROSS THE IMPORTANT THINGS
THAT THEY DO. AL AND I, DOES
THE STATE AGENCY PROVIDE FOR A
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION, ANY
RELATIONS -- LABOR
VIOLATIONS?
>> I THINK THAT THEY DO.
>> I DON'T THINK THAT THEY DO.
>> I WILL CHECK, I WILL LET YOU
KNOW.
>> WE ARE OUT OF TIME. I AM
VERY CONFUSED ABOUT SOME OF
THE COMMENTS ABOUT THE RATES
IN SOCIAL EQUITY, BECAUSE I
THINK I'M ONE OF YOUR MEMO'S,
UNDER THE CURRENT LAW, YOU
SAID THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
THE MINIMUM NETWORK COMPANY
PAYMENT WILL LIKELY RESULT IN
CHANGES TO THE SUPPLY OF
NETWORK CHANGES. NO , LET ME
SAY THAT AGAIN, THE ESTABLISH
THE ESTABLISHED PAYMENTS WILL
LIKELY CHANGE THE COMPANY
SERVICES, HOWEVER, THE SCALE OF
THOSE IMPACTS IS UNKNOWN AND
THERE MAY BE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES AND WE ARE SEEING
THAT NOW, AND DUE TO COST
INCREASES, THAT RESULTED IN
DECREASES OF REVENUE TO PARTNER
BUSINESSES. AND FEWER OFFERS
FOR WORKERS, THIS COULD BE
PARTICULARLY SIGNIFICANT TO
SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, AND
BUSINESS OWNERS WITH LIMITED
ENGLISH, WITH LIMITED ENGLISH,
AND BIPOC- OWNED BUSINESSES
THAT MAY RELY ON THIRD-PARTY
DELIVERY TO INCREASE SALES,
RATHER THAN ESTABLISHING THEIR
OWN DELIVERY SERVICES, IT IS
HARD TO DELIVER WHEN YOU ARE
COOKING DINNER AND ALL OF THOSE
THINGS. YOU MENTIONED THE
DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT , THE
POTENTIAL FOR THE
DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT OF THE
CURRENT LAW. AND SIMILARLY
PROVIDED THAT AN INCREASE IN
THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WANT
TO DO APP-BASED WORK DUE TO
HIGHER PAY AND INCREASED
FLEXIBILITY AND TRANSPARENCY,
THEREFORE IT IS AN INCREASE IN
OFFERS FOR WORKERS, GIVEN THE
DISPROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATION
OF BLACK AND HISPANIC WORKERS,
THIS IMPACT COULD BE
DISPROPORTIONATELY HARMFUL TO
THESE WORKERS. WE HAVE HEARD
FROM SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS WHO
ARE , THEY FALL INTO THE
CATEGORY, AND WE ARE HEARING
THAT I THINK THAT COUNCILMEMBER
HOLLINGSWORTH HEARD FROM
SOMEONE IN HER CONSTITUENCY
THAT MADE $11 ON ONE ORDER
APPARENTLY. SINCE THIS WENT
INTO EFFECT AND THERE WAS AN
OP-ED THAT WAS WRITTEN BY
BISHOP GARY TYSON,
REPRESENTATIVE OF A BLACK
COMMUNITY, HE RAISED THIS
CONCERN THAT HE SAID THAT THOSE
WHO ADVOCATED FOR THE NEW LAW
ARE POINTING FINGERS OF BLAME
AT PEOPLE LIKE ME, WHO ARE ON
THE GROUND, I WARNED THEM THAT
NOT ONLY WITH A MINIMUM PAY
STANDARD IMPACT THESE PEOPLE,
BUT ALSO HURT ELDERLY,
DISABLED, AND LOW-INCOME
RESIDENTS WHO RELY ON
APP-BASED WORKERS. SOME
RESIDENTS HAVE THESE SERVICES
AS A LIFELINE, NOT A LUXURY. NO
FAMILY , CAN GET ESSENTIALS
LIKE MILK AND DIAPERS
DELIVERED, UNLESS THEY FIND
CHILDCARE, TO GET TO THE
GROCERY STORE, SO , IF PEOPLE
CANNOT MAKE ORDERS, IT IS
HURTING THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE
OTHERWISE FEWER RESOURCES THAN
THE HIGHER-INCOME PEOPLE. SO,
THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER
ISSUES. WE CAN GO THROUGH ALL
OF THESE COMPONENTS. BUT, ARE
THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? GO
AHEAD.
>> I DID NOT WANT TO INTERRUPT
YOU, BUT I WANT TO CLARIFY
THIS. I HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF
SMALL BUSINESSES REACHING OUT,
ESPECIALLY IN DISTRICT 3,
REACHING OUT ABOUT THE IMPACT
OF THIS, AND IT IS REALLY
HURTING THEM. ONE BUSINESS
OWNER MADE $11 AND 90 DAYS ON
ONE ORDER. IT IS IMPACTFUL. WE
ARE HEARING FROM SMALL
BUSINESSES, DRIVERS, BUT , YOU
KNOW, WE ARE HEARING FROM
EVERYONE AND TRYING TO DO OUR
DUE DILIGENCE. I JUST WANTED TO
CLARIFY THAT.
>> SORRY FOR SPEAKING FOR YOU.
>> I WANTED TO MENTION THAT.
>> YOU ARE GOOD.
>> I WANTED TO ADD, KIND OF TO
THAT POINT, THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A
VERY OBLIGATED TOPIC WITH A LOT
OF DIFFERENT PIECES AND A LOT
OF STAKEHOLDERS, I THINK, FROM
A GOOD GOVERNANCE POINT OF
VIEW, IT IS IMPORTANT TO ENGAGE
OTHER STAKEHOLDERS. IN ADDITION
TO SAYING THANK YOU, TO BOTH
JASMINE MARWAHA AND KARINA
BULL, I ALSO APPRECIATE THE
INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC COMMENTS
TODAY, THE FULL COUNCIL
MEETING. I DO NOT KNOW HOW MANY
MEETINGS I HAVE HEARD COMMENTS
RELATING TO THIS. AND I
RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES. AND I
KNOW THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT
ASPECTS COMPLICATING THIS. NOT
OFTEN HEARD, AT LEAST IN
CHAMBERS , RESTAURANTS AND
CUSTOMERS, THEY HAVE BEEN
GETTING IT FROM AT LEAST ME,
INDIRECTLY. IT IS IMPORTANT TO
HAVE ALL FOUR SECTIONS, THE
NETWORKS , THE TECH COMPANIES,
THE GIG AND DELIVERY WORKERS.
THANK YOU, EVERYBODY , AND ALSO
THOSE THAT I HAVE MET. I HAVE
WORKED IN WASHINGTON, I HAVE
ALSO MET PEOPLE FROM THE TECH
SIDE. I ALSO THINK, FROM A
GOOD GOVERNANCE POINT OF VIEW,
I KNOW THAT THE REVIEW PERIOD
IS A BIG POINT OF CONTENTION.
AND I KNOW THAT WE SHOULD GIVE
THIS A FULL YEAR. I ALSO
UNDERSTAND THE REALITY ON THE
GROUND, I AM REALLY CONCERNED
ABOUT THE RESTAURANT PIECE,
TOO. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR
MORE, PARTICULARLY AS IT
INCLUDES THE MINIMUM WAGE ,
AND HOW THOSE THINGS MIGHT
COME TOGETHER FOR THE
RESTAURANT INDUSTRY, I THINK
THAT IS IMPORTANT. I THINK THAT
PROBABLY MORE TO YOUR SIDE, IN
TERMS OF THE DATA SETS,
UNDERSTANDING THE DATA SETS,
THAT WILL BE A BIG THING
MOVING FORWARD, I WANTED TO
MAKE THOSE POINTS, MOVING
FORWARD, I REALLY APPRECIATE IT
AND THERE IS AN END PASSED AN
AWFUL LOT OF HOMEWORK TO DO.
>> WE HAVE ANOTHER MEETING.
AND I AM CONCERNED ABOUT
CONTINUED LACK OF INCOME FOR
THE PEOPLE THAT THIS IS
SUPPOSED TO BE HELPING. WHAT
ARE YOU GOING TO SAY WE
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, THANK
YOU. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE
WORKERS THAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM
IN CHAMBERS OVER THE LAST FEW
WEEKS AND ALSO THOSE WHO HAVE
REACHED OUT ABOUT THIS PIECE.
SOMEHOW, I THINK THAT WORKERS
THOUGHT THAT THEY WOULD BE
GETTING THE MINIMUM WAGE, THE
HIGHER WAGE, AND ORDERS WOULD
NOT BE IMPACTED. AND I HAVE
SAID THIS BEFORE. IT WAS
UNREALISTIC NOT TO THINK THAT
THERE WOULD BE A CHANGE TO
ORDERS, WHEN THIS WENT INTO
EFFECT, BECAUSE WE HAD HAD ,
WITH THE RIDESHARE COMPANIES,
RIDES WENT DOWN. SO, I GET
CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT WE ARE
PROMISING TO WORKERS. AND WHAT
THEY ARE RELYING ON FOR THEIR
SOURCE OF INCOME. SO, WE NEED
TO BE REALLY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT
WE ARE TRYING TO DO. AND MY
UNDERSTANDING WAS, INITIALLY,
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE WAS DONE
TO HELP WORKERS. GIG WORKERS
, TO MAKE MINIMUM WAGE. THAT
WAS WHAT WE WERE SOLVING FOR.
AND THEN WE HEARD A LOT OF
WORKERS SUBSEQUENTLY OVER THE
LAST FEW MONTHS, THERE ARE A
LOT WHO ARE ACTUALLY NOT MAKING
THAT MINIMUM WAGE AND THAT IS A
BIG CONCERN TO ME ERIC I THINK
IT IS PRUDENT FOR US TO BE
LOOKING AT THESE REVISIONS. SO
THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY ADDRESSING
THIS MINIMUM-WAGE PIECE AND
MAKING SURE THAT WORKERS ARE
GETTING THE MINIMUM WAGE AND
THAT ORDERS ARE NOT DOWN. SO
THAT THEY ARE ABLE, AS YOU SAID
EARLIER COUNCIL PRESIDENT, ABLE
TO PAY THEIR BILLS.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. IT WAS
MENTIONED, BY THE NETWORK
COMPANIES, DURING THE
STAKEHOLDER PROCESS, THE
DELIBERATIONS IN COMMITTEE,
YES, THERE WILL LIKELY BE
INCREASED FEES. AND I THINK
THAT THE FIVE DOLLAR FIGURE WAS
EVEN MENTIONED . SO, IT IS NOT
LIKE IT IS A COMPLETE
SURPRISE. IT IS NOT LIKE IT IS
WRONG TO DO. THE FACT IS, THERE
WAS A WARNING, AND NOW IT IS
HAPPENING. TO YOUR POINT ,
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, THE
SMALL VOICE -- VOICES DURING
DELIBERATIONS WAS NOT
FREQUENTLY HEARD, BUT I HAVE
LOOKED AT ALL OF THE
STAKEHOLDER LISTS . I DO NOT
SEE THEM AS AN IDENTIFIED PART
OF THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. THE
SEATTLE RESTAURANT ALLIANCE,
THE GS BA, OR YOU KNOW,
WHATEVER. I WILL THAT APPEARED
BUT, THEY WERE NOT AT THE
TABLE WHEN WORKING WASHINGTON
WAS FORMULATING THIS. I WILL
CONCLUDE BY SAYING, I SAID ONE
OF THE MOST IMPORTANT VALUES WE
CAN MODEL AS ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES IS THE ABILITY
TO CHANGE WHEN WE HAVE MADE A
MISTAKE, OR WHEN OUR
LEGISLATION IS NOT HAVING THE
INTENDED IMPACTS OR EFFECTS.
THAT IS WHAT WE ARE ALL
MOTIVATED TO DO, I LOOK FORWARD
TO CONTINUING THESE
DISCUSSIONS. WE WILL JUST
CARRY ON. AND WE WILL CONTINUE
WITH ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS IF
WE HAVE THEM, IF THEY WERE NOT
ABLE TO BE ASKED TODAY. WITH
THAT, IF THERE IS NOTHING ELSE,
THIS CONCLUDES THE APRIL 25th
MEETING OF THE GOVERNANCE,
ACCOUNTABILITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN, THIS MEETING IS
ADJOURNED. IT IS 5:29.