10 hours and they will be available for 12 hours and some portion of that will be over time. the other way people do it, other transit properties for example, it would be to schedule some 18 hours a day, straight work, no standby time, we pay them for the time they're driving the vehicle. you use someone who would work three and half for four hours in the afternoon to fill an afternoon run. that's one of the efficiencies we are working on to get. that covers the entire schedule you set up by using a part- timer who is less costly than a full timer. this balancing -- the term of sweet spot was used -- balancing between the right number of full-timer's and part-timers'

because nature of our business is the service we have to provide is not flat over the course of the day. it goes up in the morning, dropped down in mid day add drops down in the day and comes back up. one of the ways to fill the gap -- that would be using part- timers on those kinds of things. the other thing that is obvious is all lot of these special events that come up are three or four or five hours that may be ideal for a part-time operator. that would basically reduce our cost in that regard. stand by is simply under the contracts we have, the way the schedules are put together, we do not have portions or pieces. we have to put an afternoon and morning together to make up for a 10-12 hour day for one person

and that sometimes does not fit in all the old work rules correctly so we pay some portion of that as overtime. does that answer your question? supervisor farrell: it begs a lot of other questions. what are people doing during standby time? are they hanging out at starbucks? >> it could be any number of things. it is the time they're paid. supervisor farrell: they are on the clock being paid? >> yes. supervisor farrell: so when you talk about -- a lot of this reverts back to that the explanations seems to be around part-timers and the lack thereof and i understand the part of our prior contract. knowing that, when was that contract signed? >> i'm not sure exactly.

four or five years ago. it has been in effect for a while. i'm happy to go look it up, i just don't have the exact -- >> the prohibition on part-time operators has been in the contract for a least 15 years. more than the term of the current contract, which is what i think mr. haley was speaking to. supervisor farrell: if it has been in effect for that long, it seems to be an excuse that that's the ability and that's why the overtime is so high. shouldn't that be budgeted in? right now, we're looking at not just over all, but transit operators and the transit division has basically all if not 90% of the overtime increase. it is well over 50% over budget

this year. how is it -- we have known this for however many years that it's not part of what we know honor scheduling route? >> first of all, the budgeted number you are measuring as against, it is unclear to me what the assumptions were when that number was built in terms of service levels and staffing levels. in terms of the second part of your question, forget part- timers, why are you over the budget? a couple of things -- first is the number of operators we have them available to drive. our schedules as we need a 1174 operators available to put service on the street every day. when we have some number less than that, we either missed the service or fill the run with overtime.

the number of operators we have is one of the causes over time is up, forget part-timers or anything like that. we don't have right now and over the last several months, the number of operators we need. in order to fill the service, we have more operators that over time. similarly, -- supervisor farrell: pardon me for interrupting, we don't have the number of operators we need -- why not? >> that's a fair question. we are in the process of -- i guess it was about two years ago, we stopped hiring operators for budget reasons. we have been working to catch up since then, going through the process, we lose 12 or 15 operators a month and we are in the process -- there are four or five trading classis going

through in the next several months on the bedside and we're looking to catch up on the rail side. it is a number of factors that tieback originally to the budget as to why there are not sufficient operators' right now. in terms of the first part, leaving out part-timers, the first part is due you have the right number of operators to put in service? the second set of issues that drive up over time is what is going on with the system? i'm not talking about special events, but things like -- one that has caused a lot of overtime, grignard. and the last several months, beginning in the fall, one of the facilities is old and heavily utilized. we are forced to basically moved functions out of there and operate the service while we did emergency made his to the physical plant.

we move to thej and the k onto the street and all that resulted in a great deal of operator over time necessary to work around a capital project, similar capital projects at 30th and church. other work which is beneficial to the system. california street has resulted in additional overtime for us. we have a system like ours in terms of the age of the fleet, we have a 10 or 11 year old on average bus fleet. the buses have not had a midlife overhaul. we are doing some things better showing positive results with some of the proposition k money, but at the same time, we have had -- in the month of january and february of this year, for

example, we had 15 vehicle delays on the real side a day caused by trains. on average, nine of the trains got taken out of service for doors or propulsion. the number of delays, aged equipment also drive that the overtime. supervisor farrell: that's another set of questions. the city itself has been involved and we start to talk about this all lot and a continuing issue about our streets, we don't provide enough money in the annual budget for ongoing maintenance. as a bit of an excuse, that we have to spend more money on maintaining our aging fleet, why have we not budgeted for that in the past? that is capital planning that we should not be surprised in any given year.

>> just one of my observations in time with the overtime budget over the years in muni and in the city, at times, there has been a reluctance to accurately reflect a true overtime budget in certain departments. in other words, kind of two questions. setting an appropriate overtime budget for a department and secondly, managing over time compared to actual. i know that muni is over their overtime budget by 50%, which is what we're talking about in transit, but muni has been over its overtime budget for several years. at some point, they need to accurately reflect a reasonable expectation for an overtime budget. looking at the underlying trend,

the change is less dramatic. this shows you the overall percentage of the salary budget being spent on overtime over time. if you compare their overtime use as compared actual spending the before, looking at their budget which at times is artificial, it might give you a true sense of the trend. just as an observation. some of this is setting realistic budgets that are achievable through our overtime process as well, and that has not always been the case. we have set budgets that are artificially low in overtime and high in permanent salaries. department manages within their overall salary budget but not necessarily in the individual. >> -- supervisor chiu: if i could just follow up, do all other transit agencies have over time budgets at the 15% rate or

12% 14% rate that it seemed you had on that graph? >> i did not know the benchmark. i would assume not at this level. supervisor chiu: another explanation could simply be that we have a bureaucracy that has become accustomed to relying on overtime. there might be other practices we could implement that would help bring down these costs. >> and we have talked about some of them today that need to be pursued and implemented to bring down overtime costs. at 14%, and muni is a different operation than the rest of the city unscheduled overtime is a normal method of constructing transit routes, but 14% of the overall budget is dramatically higher than the rest of the city as a whole, which is something like 6%. i think today we talked through things like improving hiring and staffing plans, using part-time operators, reducing the reliance

on overtime for scheduled shifts of overtime and weekends. a lot of this is under way within the mta. supervisor farrell: i just say to the nba, to echo what president chiu was saying before, this is a big deal. this is $18 million this year alone. we are in tough budget times, but that could do a world of good for the rest of our city. it is surprising how high this number is. if it is the trend, i think consistency is even worse. i share the frustration, but i do not know what there is to do about it right here. supervisor campos: if i may jump in, let me just -- i know that we have a lot of people waiting for the next item, so we want to move on to that, but let me say this about the presentation for muni. i appreciate all the information

that was given, but this is not the first time that we talk about muni over time. it is not the first time that we point out that almost half of the city's overtime comes directly from muni. that has been the case for quite some time. as the column -- comptroller -- controller himself noted. this is not the first time that we have had this discussion. when you have an issue that has the severe financial consequences that this has, you usually have a plan in place, and i had heard a lot of different ideas that had been articulated, but there is no, in my view, comprehensive written plan that says, "this is what we as an agency in 10 to do --

intend to do. these are the targets, and this is the timeline for win we plan to get their." i have not heard that. what i propose, unless i see an objection from members of this committee, is that we simply keep this item on a monthly basis, that we at least going forward just hear from muni on where things are. i think that the more information that was provided to this committee, to the board, and to the public, the better. and i would also say that this is such a significant issue for the city, especially in these financial times, that i would hope that the next time, maybe we year directly from the executive director. i think it is important for us to hear from the department heads on what specifically he intends to do to address these issues. so we will keep this on the agenda of this committee on a

monthly basis until we reach the point that we feel we are fully satisfied with where muni is. i know that president chiu has proposed legislation to address the issue. we will also be introducing legislation working with the controller's office to make sure that we budget and amount for overtime for department, that amount is followed. the legislation that i envision is that a department will not be allowed to go over the budget amount of overtime unless approved by the board of supervisors. i think that at the end of the day, things are not going to change unless the board, working with the mayor's office, forces that change, and i think we are all committed to making that happen, so we will hear from this agency again next month. unless you have anything else from the agency, why don't we open it up will -- for public

comment? if any member of the public would like to speak on this item, please come forward. you each have two minutes. >> thank you. i am recently retired from the school of public health at uc berkeley, and i wanted to bring attention to the fact that i have done studies and work with muni drivers, and i ride the bus. two things. the work rules you have been talking about in terms of addressing the questions -- the work rules are there -- they are good rules. they provide for the safety and health of the drivers and for the community. i think what you are neglecting as politicians right now on this issue is that it is the revenue. the lack of revenue is the problem, not the workers that you're talking about. and i want to convey a story. when my husband came home yesterday very upset because -- i would like you to put yourself in the shoes of the

drivers. the back door of the bus was broken, and the driver said everybody had to get off the bus because the door was broken. you might want to reflect on why that door is broken, but what everybody did was started screaming at her and calling her lazy. when she would go to the next stop, she would go to the back and closed the door, get back in the bus and drive again. finally, she reported that they told her to close the bus down. when she asked everybody to get off the bus, the abuse that she took was just horrible. they got on the next bus, which needed to turn around. they were yelling at the driver about the bus earlier, and when she told them that she was told to turn around, people accused her of using the opportunity to take lunch.

i would like you to put yourself in their shoes. this is revenue, not the drivers. supervisor campos: thank you very much. next speaker please. >> again, i want to thank you all for the hearing. for our organization, we organize a lot of folks who are transit-dependent, and we are also aware of how critical the budget issues are right now, but i would just agree that i think the voice of the drivers is also important, especially in relationship to supervisor farrell's question of standby time. muni is the largest african- american work force in the city. it is very hard work. many of our members to our drivers suffered back injuries and other injuries on the job. it is really intensive work, and we're not saying we should not correct the management of those issues that can be corrected

around how we're scheduling overtime -- we can deal with that, but also, we should have the voice of the drivers. when you work 12-hour days year after year with the kind of abuse and the kind of intensity of this sort of work, there's things workers have fought for to make that compensated in just ways, and we need to hear about what those conditions are and not just from management in relationship to that. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker. >> [inaudible] supervisor campos: if you could speak into the microphone please. >> yes. [inaudible] president of the southeast asian society. i cannot know what they are talking about. what we're dealing with here is a systemic problem that will not get fixed until some outside entity, and fixes it for them because it has been going on

here in and year out. i have discussed with supervisor farrell on this issue. we are in a top financial situation. this year in and year out problem is unsustainable. it is a simple fact of life. it is irresponsible for this to keep coming up the year in and year out. yes, they are hard workers, but at the same time, the taxpayers are also hard workers, and the taxpayers' money has to be spent properly and frugally. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker please. >> good morning, supervisors. i have been a beenrider -- i have been a muni rider for many

years. how can our diverse residents be meaningfully and formed to provide any kind of input. look at the crowd we have here. we have two rooms of people. many of them came by muni and are not english-speaking. how about spanish and chinese captions of the broadcast to meaningfully and for the people? it is cost-effective. a few months ago, our president presented a section of your the's budget, which only advocated $500 for instructors. this is very unreasonable, considering the millions of dollars muni gets from our taxpayers. recent safety audits report many safety problems, but little is mentioned about passenger safety. for years, i have complained about the missing nylon holding straps in the front of buses, which not only endanger the standing passengers, but [inaudible] y continue to neglect this cost-

effective safety feature that can result in injured passengers, litigation to our financially strapped city, and resulting in their increases and service cuts? on behalf of the tens of thousands of new writers, please provide the language access and safety information needed. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. is there any other member of the public would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you all for the presentation and very, i think, important and useful discussion. colleagues, i would ask that we continue this item to the call of the chair, and i will make sure we bring this up in the very near future to make sure we continue to monitor. motion by supervisor farrell. we can take that motion without objection. madam clerk, actually, if you could call item five out of

order. >> item 5, hearing on the city's debt structure and the $1,350 million in non-voters approved debt on city books. supervisor farrell: i believe this is a scheduling mistake. i'll ask to continue to the call of the chair. >> before we act on that motion, is there any member of the public who would like to speak on item 5? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion to continue to the call of the chair. if we could take that without objection? thank you. call item four please. >> item of your coming here not have the city is working to address the crisis of wage death -- deaths -- theft.

supervisor campos: i know there are so many of you here for this item, and this is a very important item that office has been working on, and i want to take this opportunity to thank the staff for both myself and supervisor mar for all the work they have done in putting this hearing together and to all the people who have made this possible. i also want to note that there is translation. the translation services being offered in both cantonese chinese, and spanish, and i want to thank the chinese progressive association for helping with those services. i will say it in spanish. [speaking spanish]

i know that four chinese- speaking members of the audience, the service has also been presented. let me just say just a little bit about why we are here. i know that just for the record, we have been joined by supervisor mar who has been a leader on these issues for quite some time, and i know we will be hearing from him shortly. my hope is that this hearing is the beginning of several efforts on the part of the city to address the very important issue of wage theft in the city and county of san francisco. it is a crisis, which is why we noted the hearing the way that we did. it is an outrage for many reasons, but it is a form of

theft because you're taking something that belongs to a worker. you are taking that wage away from them. unfortunately, it is something that affects our lowest wage workers often times. wage theft frauds that workers and their family and the ability to put food on their table, to make a living, to survive in these tough economic times. it means that that workers and their family are forced to live in housing that is inadequate for them. you know, you just go to a single residency hotel where you have five people living in a very small room or oftentimes, you have people working who are homeless. wage theft therefore has

dramatic impact on the people of the city and county of san francisco. at the same time, beyond the impact on that worker, which is pretty egregious, look at it from the perspective of the impact on other businesses. the fact is that most businesses in the city and county of san francisco played by the rules and pay their workers what they are supposed to. those workers are at a disadvantage when we allow businesses to not follow the rules. when we try to address wage theft as a problem, we are also trying to level the playing field for all businesses in this city. unfortunately, this is a widespread problem. the chinese progressive association recently, with the help of supervisor mar, conducted a study of restaurant workers in chinatown and found that one out of two workers in

the survey is not receiving the minimum wage that they are legally entitled to. likewise, a national study of the labor is conducted by ucla and the university of chicago that included interviews with workers in san francisco -- the study found that half of the day laborers interviewed had not been paid for their work at least once in the previous two months. that is a very short time. at least once. my office, the office of supervisor mar, and so many of the board of supervisors, is committed to bringing attention to this crisis and doing whatever we can to address this issue. recently, i introduced legislation -- in fact, this tuesday -- that would improve the existing enforcement that we have, and we in san francisco are very lucky that we have an office of labor standards enforcement, which already has done a lot for workers here in

san francisco. in fact, since the minimum wage ordinance went into effect in february 2004, the office of labor, standards, and enforcement has recovered more than $4 million in back wages for 2500 -- more than 2500 san francisco workers. that is something that we should be very proud of, and we want to thank olsc and their staff for the great work that they do for the workers of the city and county of san francisco. the purpose of this legislation is to figure out ways in which we can enhance the existing system so that we can provide additional tools to make sure that san francisco workers are protected. as we go forward with the legislation, i look forward to getting to work with all city departments