in the year 2000 is because small business cannot carry on with these burdens and employ a san franciscan at the numbers we need to grow our working population. we look forward to meeting with supervisor campos in coming days and to see if there are no other ways as the benefits employers -- to see the benefits of employees -- employers give are possible. are we leveling the possibility for small businesses to go bankrupt? [list of names]

>> i am a small business employer very good i started my business 18 years ago, and my telephone calls and e-mails were never returned. i would question that they do enjoy use it or lose it. they spend 55%, never to be returned to the employer and the employee. she did not reveal her growth plan, so what those she use? i have over 100 employees. we have always use the services appropriately and paid them out very good -- pay the knot. what we do is provide services

for seniors. right now the service is so expensive that they are looking elsewhere, such as an independent contractor or someone who is not criminally background check, so we are able to reduce our cost to our consumers. you are driving businesses out. i think you have responsibility to look everything, not things that happened so quickly that is as did not participate, and i ask that we do participate in this. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i am a third generation small

business in sandford cisco. and i own an agency that -- in san francisco. give my own an agency that takes care of seniors. youi used that age are a -- usee hra. the average age of my workers is 50 years old. the person is going to cost me $600 a month in insurance. gooi am considered a large business, so the difference is huge. i did not have an extra $30,000 -- $34,000 a month. you want me to come up with

$34,000 a month to take care of seniors so they can stay in their home. i do not even make $2 million in billings. my expense is labor. i take a short as mark crup. we let our people use hra for anything they want. they have got a debit card. the insurance company sends them on a quarterly basis how much they have in their accounts. some of those people only work five hours a week in san francisco but they put me over the threshold. i am considered a large business. i do not have the dollars to put up francois -- up front.

>> thank you. >> we have been doing business for 25 years where a small company with slow growth. we have six stores. we cannot charge 4%, so we comply completely with the regulations. we informed our people every quarter, and i am here to give a face to what this all means. this would cost us an extra

quarter of a million dollars. the last thing is the city constantly creates legislation that is incentivize those -- dis incentivizes. we are actually at the 100- employee number, and the first thing we have to do is to retreat from that. this legislation -- what it does is it takes jobs away from san franciscans in a real way, and i am here to represent that. 40 jobs will be lost. i can guarantee that.

>> thank you. next speaker. >> i also own of home care business, and thank you for the opportunity to address you this evening curio -- this evening. we observe the experience of the law. we have never had a complaint about the ability to collect. we assist them with a computer in office if they needed. we roll their funds over. we use an administrator for distribution of funds, but when you talk about consequences, the third-party administrator is that way for free. before you pass on additional expenses, i would like you to

look at it carefully, because there will be consequences. our administration costs will go up to keep track arafat and to submit it to the third-party administrator -- keep track of that and submitted to the third- party administrator, and when you talk about unintended consequences, it has gone and every year for three years, but my rate of service has not been able to go up, and my competitors are sending caregiver's into the city at a lower rate of pay. i am losing market share, and some of those are going to the underground. the city is not getting any benefit outside the city or in the private sector. i can send the caregiver's out

there. i can make the same amount of money, but there will be no hra funds going into the city. i am asking you to take a look at what is going to happen. >> thank you very much. go ahead. >> our family has been in the sporting goods industry for three generations. we comply with health the san francisco. we have never had any problems, and i think it is very important to not focus on the restaurant business. and we are not able to raise our prices. if you want to come into our

store and buy jordans, they are $100 all over the country. you are not going to be able to sell them at $111 in san francisco. we have 50 people signed up for a healthy seven francisco. they are all over -- all over 18. most of our employees has been with us a decade full-time common so they comply -- full time, so we complied. and really we have to enforce the laws we have, get everyone involved and make sure the city spends money to make sure everyone is getting the right to notifications and the right dollars a. if you get sick in january, we

are fronting employees who need money. there are ways to help your employees. people who care health their employees. let's not punish people. you cannot take an industry like us that is 3% to 5% net profit and imposed a 10% to 15% wage increase. >> if you can state your name clearly so we can have it for the record. some speakers were not here, and we need to keep track. >> i will not echo the same things my colleagues mentioned, but i see how the san francisco wants to make employers as a

last resort, and we are ok with that, but to make san francisco healthy, you need to give the opportunity minister -- to manage that risk. give them incentives to put in employees that are healthy, but are sweeping off all the money and sending but off into a permanent new lifetime pension fund, you are asking the employers to become 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