employees, rather than people classified as independent contractors. this is significant for the prevailing wage provisions for the hauling of sludge. our office had done two audits now to determine if workers were paid the correct prevailing wage who were driving trucks on that contract. because of the definition of employee in the current prevailing wage ordinance, the majority of the workers of the current contract are excluded because it says managerial employees are excluded. what has happened is the current contractor has been able to pay independent contractors at a significantly less rate of pay without benefits than was envisioned when we passed the

prevailing wage for the region ordinance for the hauling of sludge. another change, as you heard in item 4 on the agenda, the annual passage of the prevailing wage rates, the city adopts the state prevailing wage rates for public works, but the city goes a step further and has its own requirements for different city services when performed on city property. so it is those services that are being considered in this current amendment. what has happened to date is every year, the civil service commission recommends to the board the adoption of the appropriate collective bargaining agreement, which lays out the prevailing wage and benefit rates.

with this amendment, the sole service commission will actually laid out, instead of adopting the collective bargaining agreement, which is sometimes very complicated and hard to figure out what rates need to be paid. now every year, bidders, workers, our office, the purchasing department will have before them the actual wage rates and fringe benefit rates for each craft and classification of work. that would be a big help in consistent enforcement and workers understanding what their rights are under the ordinance. other than that, i think supervisor weener's synopsis hit the high point. if there are any questions, happy to answer. supervisor chu: just a few questions.

part of it was articulated. one was the three months policy that would be changing. the second component you talked about was the employee versus the independent contractor component. then there were other pieces that were part of it, the exemption of the small business to nonprofits? >> that is for the janitorial contracts only. as was mentioned, and i think this group out of -- grew out of -- seiu members are here today. the city purchased one south bend ness. janitorial contract went out to bid. it turned out the low bidder was small enough so that they were exempt from both the prevailing wage provisions in the current ordinance and the worker retention provisions in the current ordinance. so we amendments before you seek

to address that and make it so that all contractors will be bidding on a level playing field. supervisor chu: i try to understand this. i am glad we will have a continuance so i have a chance to better understand some of the issues that may have gone into the drafting of the legislation. i am wanting to understand what this means for our city departments, not contractors, city businesses. with regard to work for individual employees versus independent contractors, on that component, to receive other examples aside from the sludge contractor where that is the case? >> no. we could, but we have not. supervisor chu: that is a unique situation we have seen in the city? >> correct. supervisor chu: with regard to the three-month, six-month detention policy, what was the reason? >> that is a question better addressed by supervisor wiener.

is my understanding it would provide greater drops a dirty for folks who were being displaced. that was the intent. supervisor wiener: the current is 3 months. there had been discussions, a desire by some to extend to one year. we went with six months as something that was a reasonable increase. one year was probably too long. there is nothing magic about the six months. it was simply a result of an number of conversations. supervisor chu: ok. anything else you would add, other presentation you would bring up? supervisor wiener: that is it. thank you, ms. levitt. unless there are further comments from colleagues, we can open up for public comment. i have five speaker cards.

if you would like to speak to this item and have not filled out a card, they are appear. -- up here. tim paulson, labor counsel. jeff tiller. olga miranda. patrick regan. steve craviel. >> supervisors, jeff pillar. i am here on behalf of employees employed in the waste hauling, parking industry, theatrical industry, janitorial industry. as supervisor wiener said, attempting to address some significant holes that are in the existing ordinances that have been around since at least 1999. as you have heard, one of the primary changes is the change to make what has now been a prevailing wage ordinance which

the city has attempted, city departments have struggled to apply to situations involving non-employees, independent contractors, to require anyone bidding on any of these contracts to have a employer- employee relationship. the reason for that, one cannot apply a prevailing wage ordinance to people who do not earn wages. it is not an apples to apples comparison, by any means. what was noted to earlier by mr. levin was the sludge contract came up last year, the before. frankly, that is a good example -- not the only example, but an example of the problems that exist in this field, where you have a situation where employees will be paid what appears to a layperson as a large amount of money per hour, but the bulk of that money goes to the maidens of their own trucks, insurance, all the other provisions would be required.

the department of labor relations simply said, look, we cannot apply a prevailing wage ordinance to that type of arrangement. not only have we taken that position, but the state of california's department of industrial nations has taken the same positions. you cannot apply in these circumstances to a non-employee. there is also a change in the definition of contract, which had been noted, and that applies only to janitors -- if i could continue for a moment. only two janitors and to the waste haulage provisions. the janitors provisions, as have been noted, exception for small businesses and nonprofits has been removed. the reason for that has to do with, again, creating a level playing field, circumstances where bids -- supervisor chu: if i could ask you to conclude.

>> contracts have gone out to bidders. the other change and want to know for the record, if there is a change in the city's existing arrangement for purposes of the garbage franchise, that would also be subject to this ordinance. supervisor chu: before we continue on, i would ask folks to respect the time period did we know that this i will be continued. i know that there will be other opportunities and i want to get the other agenda items in time. supervisor wiener: before we proceed, there are two represented this from the department of public health and human services agency that i would like to bring up. they are not the public comment. okubo from dph. phil arnold. if you could come up to address the committee on behalf of your departments. >> phil arnold, a deputy director for finance and administration for the human

services agency. we have some issues -- five issues -- with the custodial section of this revised ordinance. the first issue we have is the deletion of the section that applies to contractors to provide training to disabled persons. we have a contract with the arc of san francisco, which does provide some custodial and recycling services to our agency. it employs approximately five developmentally-disabled persons. we pay the contractor a flat rate. i do not think -- i do not know -- but i do not think a flat rate is the prevailing wage. it also includes supervision and administration of the contract. that is one of our issues. supervisor wiener: the minimum wage in san francisco is now -- is about to go to $10.25, if i'm not mistaken.

it will be 10 and a quarter in january. my understanding that the prevailing wage for janitorial is about 1250 or 1275, we're talking about 2 and 1/4, to end the half dollars difference, is my understanding. some people assume that everyone is making 20, 30, $40 an hour. janitorial, it is not that much higher than minimum wage. can you address that? >> that raises one of the other issues is that we have job training programs that we fund which are literally training

programs. they are not fully functional ready to go custodian's but they do engage in custodial activities. the idea is to eliminate that exclusion from this ordinance. we're not sure what that would do to our programs unless we need to pay the rate for trainees. the budget analyst said that he is not able to tell you. i know that there will be a cost increase to our agency as a result of this and it would be good for us to know what that is before this legislation goes forward. whether we are asked to swallow cost or whether we have the additional funds to pay these costs. we are seeking information at this time. >> ok.

>> we do have several contracts for our housing program where we have employees that have multi functions. on we don't have a full-time custodians in these housing units but some people who work on maintenance or assess clerks also provide maintenance services and we are not sure if they are covered or non covered. this would change the wage structure for many of our contracts. this could be affected by this change. finally, the issue of the leases. we too have several leases where the custodial services were provided as part of the lease and again, we don't know whether there would be increased costs to us or to these changes which

would then be passed on to us in the form of additional lease costs. we would like to know before this legislation gets put forward. >> i don't know if you have spoken with my office. if you could make sure to talk to her, we want to convene people and make sure that we're working through these issues and we appreciate the feedback. now, the department of public health. >> good morning. we have a concern that is very similar. we have one contractor that provides a jobs program, vocational rehab for our clients

and they provide janitorial services. then we have supporting housing sites which provides janitorial services on site. we do appreciate the opportunity for the continuance and having further discussions. >> we would like to get your concerns down. i know for book this item and for the previous item where we send the prevailing wage, you had indicated an inability to estimate the cost. that seems like a prevailing wage issue generally. can you explain that? >> yes, madam chair, members of the committee, it is unknown of whether or not that a contractor as a result of an increase in prevailing wage rates would increase the bids to the city.

we don't know if this could result in a higher bid. if it does and the resultant increase costs, it would be an increase loss to the city. >> that is the prevailing wage generally? >> absolutely. that is what we advise the board in previous years. >> this is somehow not unique in that regard? >> no, it is not. it has the new specific provisions that could result in some increases in costs but as far as the prevailing wage, this is not unique. >> ok, we will proceed with the remaining public comment. >> supervisors on the budget committee, good morning. i'm the executive director of the san francisco labor council and we fully support this

legislation. i think all of you on the board of supervisors have struggled with the various contracts in the various years in the industries we have talked about because there has been a race to the bottom with some of them. we are trying to close some of the loopholes. all of these different industries that you have indicated, they have put together a standard of prevailing wages in order to stop this race to the bottom of this really will close the loophole. i want to make one comment. the idea of an independent

contractors, this is prevalent in many areas of the nonunion private-sector. for this tikrit into the public sector and is something that the supervisor should be looking at. the contractor pointed out that this is a real disease that we have to stop and we applaud you for moving forward. we to fully support this legislation. we want to make sure that the issues get covered because that might not be quite as tight in this piece of legislation. we urge due diligence. thank you. >> they cued --

the que. next speaker. >> and want to ask the members of local 87 if they can stand and also local 251. all of these members are members that every day come to our individual local hiring looking for work. it has been about jobs and could too of like to share our anxiety and frustration. talk about the race to the bottom. we have a lot of single mothers and fathers i cannot make red because of these jobs. and stand the prevailing wage will be a high topic within the city.

it is about trying to make this month's rent. we want to make sure that we can have a city that we can be proud of that can speak on behalf of all of those families. what i mean is that a gentleman from one of the department's spoke about disabled member is getting a flat rate. i think it is a disservice because people are disabled, we should shortchange them in terms of what they need. the nonprofits that have questions, they can work on this together. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> [singing] said the worker man to uncle sam, do you hear what i

hear? more budget wage money shining in the night, shining their bright and bold, let us bring them silver and gold let us bring them silver and gold let us bring them silver and gold and gold >> [regular voice] thank you. >> and good morning. i end with a nonprofit social enterprise in the city. we are one of the contractors that were referenced. we serve about 400 individuals

both in job training and placement. my main concern with the removal of the exemption is that when -- that our training programs would not survive. most of these people are on it as as i -- are on ssi. this would jeopardize the program. my name suggestion would be to leave in the nonprofit exemption or social enterprise exemption. >> one thing that i am more interested ideas about the non- profit exemption which is very broad and if there are perhaps a more narrow exemption that could accomplish the goals of this legislation while taking account

into the needs of these very specialized programs. >> we came down and learn about it. we have a great time with your staff. thank you very much for including us. >> hello, i am from a social enterprise that has a history of training and employment for people with disabilities in san francisco. we really support the goals of consistency and consolidation. we have concerns about the unintended consequences that were spoken about for the people that we serve, people with disabilities, are around benefits and viability of our

training program. we thank you for the offer to continue the dialogue and we will be in touch with gillian. >> thank you very much. >> speaking as a community advocacy organization working to promote opportunities for disadvantaged communities, we strongly support this legislation. it is very good. we think it is important what is happening here. in light of the fact that we will take another week to work out some of these changes, it has been stated that there is a desire to approach another industry for a race to the bottom which is on city contracts for landscaping. there are many contracts that are and minimum-wage and no

benefits. in fact, there have been steps on that through treasure island on work that supervisor kim did. in saying that, this is an opportunity. ehud could add this week that we had, you could add landscaping as a covered industry and taking advantage of what you are developing here. you would do that by moving the current section and insert a new landscaping and development definition. i know this one has been on the books for like a year. i have some papers on hand. there is some language so we can look at how we can require prevailing wage on landscaping and make this even better. >> thank you.

>> we will continue to work with you and with local 261 to see what we can do. next, we have ramon hernandez from local 261 and then local 350. >> thank you for supporting these prevailing wages. on a and lead to work with supervisor wiener. it does mean a lot of work for san francisco. i hope that we can do something to work it out.

i am pretty sure that we can do something with the nonprofits, to do something with the training and what ever we have to do. >> good morning, supervisors. as you know, the hiring process is for the people of san francisco and a majority of the minorities and small areas where they have economically challenged residence. this is a beautiful program, it

works well, and we want to keep it that way. as mentioned, we ended up losing some members to the contract and those drivers were not paid and probably still are not paid. i think that is a travesty. we support this legislation and we hope that you can vote in it through the committee. thank-you for your support. >> thank you. are there any additional public comments? i see that the city purchaser has arrived. do you want to say anything? >> i am the sustainability chair at the san francisco green party and i also coordinate local grassroots organization and our city. i want to speak in favor, now that we have a delay on this,

let's get it right. landscape workers need our support. we need to make sure that every worker that is hired by the city gets as much pay and benefits as they can, especially after the last election. now that we have a delay, there is no reason not to be more inclusive. in my work for clean energy, i have directly saying the laborers run into problems because the rules were not laid it down about who works when for what they. let's get ahead of the game and make sure that since we have a delay any way, let's do it right. >> thank you. are there any further public comments? >> given that there are no >> given that there are no comments, we will close public