vote no on this. if it ever gets to the board of supervisors, that this goes down. there is a tremendous assumption that is an affront to working men and women in san francisco and that is that there was a decision, even in the first draft, yes, the letter was written after the first draft, but we still believe that even with the amendments, the idea that a body of supervisors has to be submissive to all types of different commissions and departments and whatever else is in the brownback, if i was a supervisor, i would be totally outraged as to that type of a process. it is totally unnecessary. even after we come out of a divisive election season, we are going into another crazy election season, not only in census go but in the united states, there is going to be a strange feeling that everybody in the country is moving towards helping the 99% and politics are moving in that direction.

somehow, in san francisco, it is crazy that we are moving in the opposite direction and giving the business community more of a kudos than the working men and women who do the work in this city. supervisor kim: i'm going to call up maria, kim, larry, and frank. >> good afternoon. my name is tiffany with young workers united. we are here to oppose this amendment. in the past 15 years, san francisco has been a leader in the country in passing phenomenal legislation to protect workers and preserve worker rights. we are part of making sure that the previous legislation was

passed and got on the ballot. this legislation would not affect the process to get it on a ballot. but we do worry about that and worry about legislation like the health care security ordinance. we do not want to create more jobs lost. we want to create good jobs. we do not want more bureaucratic process to come in the way and what really important legislation for us to continue to be leaders in this country in protecting workers and giving them the rights they deserve. i just wanted to remind the two of you, which you both know now, a quote, supervisor kim, i remember you saying when we were talking about the loophole that when we consider legislation, we do not want to pass legislation or have policies that would create more jobs that are bad.

we want to have good, quality jobs that provide benefits, give a living wage. that should be our focus. not how many jobs there are. what kind of jobs are we creating and what kind of jobs are we preserving? we do not want to continue to have people coming to our doors with the abuses we see in the workplace. we urge you to vote no. supervisor kim: thank you. >> my name is maria. i am a member of the sciu 1021. i am on the executive committee letter. i am proud to be living and working in san francisco. i am very cognizant that our city is revered because of our external beauty. i'm grateful to know that it is our internal beauty that is really our hallmark.

the compassion we display and the steps we take to protect the most vulnerable of all working people and their families are values that are synonymous with san francisco. while some folks in other parts of the country will take potshots and tried to ridicule us for some of our stance, others that benefit directly and that which they could emulate us consider as very enlightened. to that end, today i brought 11 lit candles that i bought at a small business to represent the 11 most recent pieces of legislation that actually brought light to injustices facing working families. some of them were cited earlier in. minimum-wage increase, paid sick leave, treasure island development, etc. we believe these to be pro- worker improvements occur it is our contention that they have

also been good for businesses. there are good for our city image and they distinguish us from other parts of the country that govern with a more impressive right to work mentality. this legislation is necessary -- is unnecessary. it really does favor a particular sector. i do not believe that is what we want to do. what is at stake is the light that shines in our city. please do not extinguish that light. supervisor kim: thank you. >> good afternoon. oops, i lost my notes. i'm with the progressive association, proud member of the progress of society. we work every day with people and sent to cisco who are desperate for a job. willing to take a job at $5 per

hour or sometimes even less. people work for $3 per day because they are desperate for a job to feed their families. we know the need for job creation. we are part of a network of community advocates who care deeply about ensuring there are more job opportunities for the residents of san francisco. we are very excited to work with anyone, the mayor's office, the board of supervisors, any commission, who want to think about how we can create jobs. what we are not interested in is a fight over an unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle that is one- sided and really has no need. hair is no reason given that shows why there is a need, why the current legislative process for development in the city is somehow leaving business owners out. i would argue that there are a lot of other groups that are left out, far more from this legislative process than employers.

there is a movement happening in this country. and there are two movements happening. there is the right wing movement and the movement for the 99%. in this city, last year, we passed unanimously the wayside and prevention ordinance. we were so happy to continue being in the forefront of the fight. at a time when it is more clear than ever that it is a battle of a few who have a lot and the many who do not have very much, we know that protecting worker rights is going to help the entire economy, not just working people. the city should continue moving in a forward direction and not cave in to this rhetoric to the phantom of job loss. if there is job loss, we care about it as much as the next person. our community is the first impacted. this legislation does nothing to address real jobs issues. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you.

>> good evening. i'm a teacher on leave and political director of united educators of san francisco representing 6000 teachers and professionals who provide education to the working families of san francisco day in and day out. in earlier testimony, it was interesting when supervisor kim asked if there was any evidence of job loss. i think supervisor campos asked a similar question. the proponents of the charter amendment were not able to cite one example of any job loss. the other interesting thing that was said earlier was went chairwoman kim said san francisco has a high bar of expectation for the business community. that includes decent wages, job protection, environmental protection, and health access

for people who work in san francisco. we know that jobs are important. everyone agrees on that. we also know that, oftentimes, jobs is used as a red herring to divert the city from doing what it needs to do. the educators of san francisco believe that this charter amendment is unnecessary and would turn us back from the work ahead during a steep recession. thank you. >> i am with sciu 1021. old myths die hard. probably mutt -- probably the most pervasive and it is that small businesses are the engine that produce jobs in the country. this holds sway by numerous studies that show there is no correlation between the size of the company and creation of

jobs. we are told that if we try to raise the minimum wage, provide universal health care, tighten environmental regulations, passed legislation, anything the raises working people up for families out of poverty, we are told it is a job killer because it hurts small business. there are lots of great things about small business. by virtue of their smallness, they are often more friendly, more informal, they add color and culture to our communities. there are a great antidote to the cookie cutter big box retailers. small is not necessarily beautiful. on the whole, small employers pay less in wages than larger employers. they offer less health care. they do not offer pensions often. they do not offer sick pay. this is a sector in the economy that cries out for a legislative fix. one good employer cannot take a step forward and offer something

that will equip them at an economic disadvantage. this sector often needs a legislative approach. there are lots of things that this board of supervisors can do for small business. do not hold all of san francisco hostage. with this piece of legislation. thank you. supervisor kim: these are all the speaker cards i have remaining. scott, keith, gabrielle, connie, jerrod. >> thank you for this opportunity to weigh in. first and foremost, once the bell is rung inion work, they can never be unrung. much is the same for any proposal. once a proposal is made, it cannot be unmade. let's take a close look at why the proposal was made.

the state says that its purpose is around jobs. let me make it clear that we support jobs. everyone supports jobs. but that is not what this proposal is about. i'm going to shed a spotlight, not a candlelight, on the politics behind this and move it away from where supervisor kim campos was correctly identifying. this proposal is not only unnecessary, it is much more than imbalanced and it is divisive. it is foolhardy, disingenuous, and should be rejected out of hand today for the following reasons. when you look at this proposal, it is clear that what is going on today, the context, this is a private sector taking over the public sectors decision making and taking from art elected

political representatives and shifting it to appointees. is this the small-business agenda? i do not think so. this is the corporate agenda packaged in a very pretty package by suggesting that it is small business. even in the presentation by the mayor's office, there is not even an appearance that there was anything genuine that came from any small business. there were discussions with unknown people. lastly, for these reasons and many more, we ask you to reject this in immediately and thank you so much for your time. supervisor kim: thank you. please feel free to line up if you like to speak on this item. >> i am the owner of cal insurance. i did not realize until today

the small business was part of the 1%. i do nothing most small businesses are. as far as this legislation -- i do not think most of these small businesses are. as far as this legislation, i've been involved in a small business commission for years. i was one of the actors of proposition b to create the commission in 1985 and i am still involved. what we have tried, for years, to do is let small businesses have a voice to the board of supervisors. if you look over the years, that has been a constant theme that we would like to have input on legislation that is going to impact us. we continuously push for this. we do not think that this is the small business commission or anybody else trying to take over the board of supervisors. it is a simple process as simple as someone impacting jobs in some manner, dramatically, that

the small business commission has the ability to weigh in on this. as far as the outreach to small business, i have an e-mail tree that grows up to about 500 small businesses. when the legislation was first put forth, i put it out to small businesses around the city. i talk frequently to small businesses and we have met with the mayor's people to talk about this. supervisor kim: thank you. >> good afternoon. i am the president of the dogpatch merchant's association 3 we have 135 small businesses that were members. i would not be standing here to support this legislation if i felt it usurped or undermine the authority of a duly elected body, the board of supervisors, nor would i be here if i felt that this legislation was to

further empower the chamber of commerce. what i wanted to do is to allow small businesses the type of small businesses that i represent, 1, 2, 5, 20 employees, to have a better say. we do not feel they have a say in this process. the office of small business does a good job of our reach. i get a lot of notice from them. i find it very frustrating that i received a notice from them about some pending legislation that is radically going to affect my members and want some input from me within 48 hours. if we can have a two-month period to have a voice in this process, that would be very favorable. the type of members i represent are not out to exploit labor, not out to take a bite out of labor, they want to find benefits and good jobs for their workers. we feel disenfranchised in this process and would like a better say in it.

thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is thani. i'm the secretary treasurer and one of the vice presidents of the labor council. let me say, really briefly, because there has been much discussion about this, we view this legislation as divisive. it is interesting that, at our executive board last monday, it was a unanimous vote to come out against it and. this is one piece of legislation that seems to be uniting labor across all facets of life. in the end, it is divisive and that does not help anybody agree we think it is bureaucratic. up until this moment, we have not had any rationale as to why people want this legislation. now we are hearing from the small business people and it is they who want this. i would like to submit to you that any board of supervisors can call a hearing at any time

and these small businesses can come to their supervisors and request a hearing. there is no point in asking for another bureaucratic method. lastly, i want to say, and i know that the three of you agree, we all want jobs and we all want better jobs, we are really proud of san francisco and we call them our san francisco values. all the pieces of legislation we have passed, the small businesses and many of our associations have been against many of our initiatives for it they have had time, they have argued, and we have prevailed. we urge you to get rid of this bureaucratic piece of legislation and let the process continue. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> i am here with power of people to organize employment rights. as you already heard, we agree that this piece of legislation

is incredibly divisive, unnecessary, and on balance. to look forward and try to predict with a piece of legislation whether or not it will impact a job loss is incredibly subjective. with everything we have fought for, from the minimum wage increase to the wage theft legislation, the claim is always that there is a fear that there is going to create job loss. it has not played out in reality. when we are looking at the kind of repressive legislation that workers fight for, communities fight for to give the community -- to give the business community and on balance check over that, i disagree with what mike casey said. if we were to bring it before the city legislation to say that any new law has to first come through the progressive workers ordinance, we do not agree with it. obviously, we are representing our interest and small

businesses are representing their interests. they should not get an imbalance of power. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am speaking as a member of the community of san francisco but also a member of the small business commission, the president of the small business commission. a very divisive issue, unfortunately. i regret that that is the case. i also regret that a lot of the points that have been made are kind of deliberately or unintentionally corrosive. this is not about the 1%. i know that that national conversation is taking place. it is not about the occupy movement. it is about people who put their life and soul into a business with every sweat that they can muster up and every last penny they have got, trying to cut a

bottom-line profit. it is not about stamping out workers' rights or anything else. it is an attempt to get another input on legislation that might severely affect the small business community. the comptroller's office is responsible for making a neutral and partial objective assessment on whether or not it will affect jobs or not permit it is not a bad idea to give the small business commission, made up of people from both sides, i argue -- i argue with guys from the small business commission regularly. we plunge -- we launched our ideas off and a lot of times we come together and find common ground. sometimes we vote on the same lines and sometimes we vote differently. but it is a fair and objective conversation and everybody is welcome to participate. it does not undermine the process. it does not undermine the authority of the board of supervisors. that is simply not true. i ask you to give this a hearing

to the bigger board so that more people can weigh in here. it is that important and should go to the full board of supervisors. thank you very much. supervisor kim: thank you. >> i am with sciu 1021. we have been honored to partner with the labor council and the community on nearly every piece of workers rights legislation that has been discussed today. i would humbly suggest that the case has not been made for why this law should go forward. i had expected to hear the case and from my perspective, i think most of the folks that have testified here today have quite eloquently spoken to how this stacks the deck against workers. absent some compelling evidence about why you should stack the deck against us, which i have

not heard, we strongly support job creation. it helps the economy, city revenues. no one from sciu is saying we do not support job creation. any efforts around that, we would partner with the city around because it helps the economy, city revenue, it helps us stay employed. we are not opposed to job creation. i think there are ways it could be done that are more inclusive. honestly, do not stack the deck against workers rights. right or wrong, that is how it is perceived pretty unanimously. to the extent that the board of supervisors -- i would request that you reject this legislation and look for more collaborative approaches. thank you. >> recently a private citizen area i want to make about three

different points. my academic background is in the drafting of government documents carried my recent experience as a little bit to do with bureaucracy. i wanted to agree with mr. elliott regarding the assertion that the more simple amendments to mcgovern -- to a governing document, the better amendment is. the more simple a government document is, the more effective it is. that is three reason alone to reject this. who are you going to refer the city budget to? we talked about jobs and job creation. are you going to send that to small business? are you going to send it to planning? are you going to add 60 more days to the budget process? how does the city budget affect the small business community? that is number two. number three is the 99% part. let me just say that you should reject this committee on jobs bill. thank you.

supervisor kim: thank you and welcome back to city hall. i want to clarify that the provisions to not apply to budget legislation. that was a good point. >> i am with the construction trades council. we are at least as concerned about jobs as anyone and we oppose this legislation. i believe you know that the small business community has the same rights as the rest of us right now. they can approach you as citizens and can talk to you about it and testified here as we are testifying here. they have the same rights as the rest of us. supervisor campos began to imply early in his questioning that there is a genuine infringement on the separation of powers and city government in this measure. you can carry out -- and jobs are foremost concern right now. police activities work our foremost concern. we asked the police commission

to crack alternative legislation for the city as well. it has become ridiculous to appointed bodies to take the place of legislatures in any regard. beyond that, there is one point i have to make. as you might guess, i testified frequently before the planning commission. i cannot tell you how many times i've been reminded that i cannot bring up workers' rights and issues in front of the planning commission. you are asking that they weigh in on jobs. [applause] >> thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. i am here on behalf of professional and technical engineers, local 21. we want to echo the concerns about this proposal the other half and ask that you reject it. we think that, among the 11 supervisors, on virtually any topic, there will be some supervisors will easily be

willing to call additional hearings on any topic as needed. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> i am with the united public workers for action. first of all, i want to address why the mayor, one of his major things is putting in an issue that would actually allows small businesses and big businesses to hurt working people in san francisco. i think that is basically an assault on working people in san francisco. i have to ask, and it should be asked, if the mayor is so concerned about small businesses, why is he not putting an initiative for to have rent control for small businesses so they are not pushed out by the banks and corporations in san francisco? that is a question we have to ask. they're being driven out of business by big corporations and the 1%. that should be addressed by people of san francisco as well.

what we have to look at is, this is a continuing attack similar to proposition c, which places the blame on working people, the public workers for the crisis. they are the problem of this economic crisis. the fact is there are 16 billionaires' in san francisco and 88 billionaires' in california. there is lots of money to take care of public workers and to defend small businesses. this government is being directed towards representing the interests of the corporations and banks to benefit from attacking working people and public workers. this should be rejected. why do we not have a labor commission in san francisco? we have a women's commission, a human rights commission, why is there no labor commission? that is a step that we need to address for the city of san francisco and for working people. supervisor kim: thank you. >> good afternoon.

i have been a grass-roots organizer since i moved here 18 years ago. a lot of the speakers have said a lot of important things about the kind of bureaucratic and divisive process this creates. i want to expand on this to get to the kind of rhetoric it creates in san francisco. in my 18 years, i have not seen it come to the floor like this. this job-killer rhetoric. we have all seen, based on what is happening in washington d.c. around things like the oil pipeline and other critical things that need to be opposed -- proposed for environmental or social justice and reasons, that the radical right wing of this country has used this job-killer rhetoric shtick to beat the out of