a provider of benefits for life, so i would encourage the commission and aboard to consider whether this is a flat task -- tax to take all the money away, or should we focus on the problems, so i would urge you to help the employees by providing strong burn notice and by punishing with stronger enforcement but not a sweep of all of those funds. thank you. >> i am the co-director for young workers united. first, good evening. we are here to support the legislation by supervisor campeau's -- campos.

we are year because we believe in access to health care for all workers. we have workers and not judging full-time jobs -- we have workers that are balancing full- time jobs. zayre denied access to health care, so they continue working -- they are denied access to health care from a survey continue to work, and there was a lack of funds at the beginning of the year. it is great concern to us when we have people come into our center where restaurants are charging this feat, when none of the workers are receiving health care or have notice of it.

it is hurting workers. they are providing workers with full benefits and also a 401 k plan, and they are providing the workplace. there is really no excuse why other restaurants or small- business this cannot do it. and there are 8 million people coming just to eat, so the jobs are not going anywhere. the issue here is having access to health care. goobasically, we hope you see te value of providing access to health care for workers.

>> in theory, i agree with your point, but i would say it is ridiculously successful, and 90% of small businesses and would love to be in this position. >> i am here representing young workers united as well. we do support this ordinance. and we believe it is geared for workers -- it is good for workers and the community. we really see the effect on workers not having the information they are supposed to have access to, so i want to

give you a few examples, stories of workers we have seen come into our center. emigrant workers gets sick. they saw and also revoked was going to become probably stomach cancer, appendicitis. is very hard work. it is really important to have access to health care. he shared a story that he was by a region riding his bicycle, and

he fell off into the cement and spent five hours in the emergency room. it was about a year's worth of a $0.37 an hour. one visit can take all of that -- of $1.37 an hour. one visit can take all that away. we note employers are doing right thing, and we want to support them. we want to make sure all businesses are complying by the same standards. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i am with the asian law caucus. it works very closely with the progress of workers alliance, and we would like to support the amendment to close the loophole,

because health care is a basic human right now, and because of productive workforce benefits everyone. the economy is tough. it is the lowest paid workers. it is immigrants and communities of color that are the most impacted during road -- most impacted. most folks do not have health care and greater -- health care. we are asking that the money be made available by these workers and not pocketed by employers. >> good evening. we had a large group of people ready to speak, but our wanted

to share that we know that times are tough. small businesses are struggling. workers are struggling. you are looking at the interest of small and businesses, and i want to let you know how workers are affected. you want to support the high road. you recognize that taking care of your workforce is a central part of taking care of your business. 90% of the businesses in santa cisco are complying with this law, and they are not talking about a -- of stanford cisco are complying with this law. we know that -- of sanford cisco sent -- san francisco are complying with this law. the fact is san francisco has

led the wayne establishing protections for workers. we are a city that has taken great leadership in pioneering. we have pioneered environmental awareness and health the idea that employers should help protect not -- helped the idea that workers shouldn't help protect -- should help protect people. many workers are not receiving the benefit of the law because of the loophole. some workers are even being told now that you have the account. if you do not use the money, i will give you money back and the end of the year. they use that to get around a law. these are ideas of how responsible businesses are being hurt by the fact there is a

loophole for undue incentives. we believe and workers of small businesses are connected and workers really need the support of the commission at. >> following, and we have -- [list of names] >> i am the executive director of the san francisco labor council. we represent people who do have the benefit. we are proud to work withi the supervisor to really work hard to put this legislation together, and supervisor campeau'os is saying we are note to debate.

and when it comes down to it, the coalition knew that the intent of this legislation was to provide health care to workers. that is the intent, and what really disturbs us from some of the studies but have taken place, all of the individual stories we hear from different workers hamas -- different workers, and the fact that less than 20% of that money is actually going to healthcare is extremely disturbing because we think there are people who want to take a vantage of fat. we did not intend this to be major legislation.

we hope everyone is going to continue to move fourth. i want to thank you all for being diligent. this is very serious for our community partners, and i want to thank the supervisors for introducing this. thank you. >> it has been talk a lot about leveling the playing field. i want to address that. we have talked a lot about businesses dealing with people who are here competing against each other. there is a whole group of businesses that do business outside the city, who sell to

the state and the federal government and the school districts. those happen to be the largest employers in san francisco. they do not care that we are paying for healthy sam francisco. they do not care that we are paying a payroll tax. those things put it at a disadvantage. you have to look if the bigger picture of how the city isn' supporting legislation that puts it at a disadvantage. one person was talking about a dealership. didn't we just read about the last dealerships leaving san francisco? there is no more. if i want it fixed, i have to go out of the city.

the city is putting all these burdens on us. you have to look at the vigor picture. -- the bigger picture. >> thank you. next speaker. goo>> my name is william. i was born and raised in the nation as district. i was able to partner. our goal is to give people an opportunity. most of the people by employer are all young, and even though we pay full benefits, it is too low.

this would be a growth us. we would go broke. this is all we have superior -- all we have. this is it. this is all we have from mark and i know every day this is all we have, and i know we intend everyone to have health care. i know when someone is sick, i want to take care of them. that is the right thing to do. some people are not transparent in the business community. a crook is a crook. they will find a loophole. there will be 30 people who are affected. we do not have the resources.

we have no talent. we do valet parking. >> do you pay the tax? >> yes. i love my people. i am going to pay them for benefits. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> i am the chair of the uc berkeley's center for education, and i was also involved in the creation of this law. i want to go back to what he said about 20% of the people use 80% of the features. it does not give back to the point. a quickly look at families without expenditures, someone earning $20,000 a year in 2007

spends $2,000 a year on health care. that is medium. we know people who do not have coverage are more likely to skip needed care or live on healthy lives, have lower productivity. that hurts in terms of business productivity, and it hurts their health. finding that 50% of employers are paying out from 0% to 10% of expenditures is well off what you would expect. this would indicate there is a different pattern of restrictions going on in utilization of these programs. if people were to use it in health care costs step would underline the health care pool, many of these are stand alone. people are not offered a job-

based coverage. i do want to draw your attention to some economic impacts. there was a study done by one of the former bush and visors to look into what happened following the passage of solana end to doing comparisons with other cities found no adverse impact in which employment we do with employment. >> thank you. if there are any other members, you may come on. >> commissioners, i want to reiterate something that was said. we are not here to renegotiate

or reexamine how the san francisco as awful. it sounds like a lot of the testimony is saying we need access to health care. i could not agree more. we are saying a sufficient way to do that is to provide a tool for businesses with an h.r. a. it provides funding to go to the doctor. we think it should be done well. it needs to be done responsibly. if we believe there is a pattern of denying benefits, let's ask that in next year's survey. there are ways to determine what is the problem without causing a $50 million year hit. this is a $50 million your hips

businesses are currently in not taking. let's increase notice and see what we are getting. to say we are going to make a 100% expenditure for people not accessing that benefit, that seems like a dangerous approach for our local employers. thank you. >> any further public speakers from seeing none, public comment is close. commissioners? >> i just want to say that when i think about this ordinance, i believe the workers -- health care is paramount, and their access to health care is of paramount issue, so for

employers who are trying to exploit a loophole in the tax code, i have no sympathy for the denial of these benefits in the ordinance. i understood it pretty clearly, and i understood what my responsibilities were, and i and understand what i have to make available to my employees under the ordinance, and what i used sonathe hra was for the tax benefit. you get 100% use of your money without it going to the employment tax system, so they can use it for another benefit

if they need to use it, up because they work fewer than 20 hours a week or because they do not qualify for a health care plan. the other thing is there is no expiration. they earn it per hour. it is clear there is no expiration. i would like everybody to look at the language that employers can use that is susceptible to the city. we need notification.

we need what are covered expenditures. i have of list. are believed the employment community can use a list of the it -- i believe the employer can use a list of covered expenditures. isn't that a comprehensive guide under the tax current, we need more regulation requirements. we need a determination of what happens when an employee leaves your employee. i know you have agreed to talk about these issues, and you

would say we need this. particularly the smaller businesses and people conducting language in different -- now conducting business in different languages. they need this language as much, so i would make a recommendation that we ask for detailed notification language and regulation to start to make sure people can access the money they are entitled. >> i appreciate your comments. with respect to the notice, a thing no one questions the need for that to be addressed, but that is not the sole reason we are here. we believe we need to make it clear that when the law says an

expenditure has to be made that means an expenditure has to be made. i want to make sure people understand we are not trying to eliminate h.r. .a.s and. i am just saying the main thing that has to happen is that we make this available to the employee. with respect to the question about can we provide more clarity, legally, we are not allowed to do that. we cannot say what is permissible in terms of what to do with these accounts. >> you are not able to do that for these accounts, but aren't you able to do that for complying?

aren't you able to say, this is what qualifies. these expenditures are the qualified expenditures, no matter where they are. they just say, i will reimburse you. >> they have gone as far as they can legally go, and we have followed very closely what they have said about this. we are following a clear guidance from the city attorney's office, because we know the moment we go down in the road where there is a possible legal question, we know the track record on healthy san francisco is that we were sued, so it knocks -- it would not surprise us that we could be sued again, which is why we are trying to put together a piece

of legislation that can survive a legal challenge, so we have gone as far as federal law allows us to go for discussion of these accounts, but let me say that i will continue to have an open door, to meet with small business and to hear the concerns. we are going to meet with them tomorrow, and i would be happy to get any suggestions common -- to get any suggestions, and we have lived -- and we have listened closely. the dialogue will continue. >> one comment i wanted to bring up is that the burden of creating a business that is

going to employ 30, 40, 50 people certainly has no connection to profitability, and profit margins are so slim. plenty of company has an -- companies have been one employee, to employees -- two employees, and i can hang out with a buddy of mine who has a smaller business. maybe they have two employees, and i know they are making way more money than my business makes. i am providing the social- service of creating a lot of jobs, creating for the events on

tour, providing a culture. that has nothing to do with my point. my point is we have a smaller businesses that are profitable, but what if we create a model where all small and businesses in the city in -- now small businesses in the city paid into this program, and we will create the revenue we need to run this correctly? when we were creating this, it is about creating a lump-sum of money the health the san francisco would operate under, because the public health department was commonly running

at a deficit, which contributed to the fact of so many other departments have had their budget defined by elections. well we do not want to say this is about this issue, the incorrect use of accounts for employees, but i think it is about the bigger picture and why this program is not working and why so many employers are running to create these accounts and why we could not have created a more well-funded program for community health care was going to get the kind of money they needed to service san franciscans,