be improper to base any decision on wage setting on the demographics and the classification. we did a straight -- we looked at large -- mostly larger classifications because we were looking to find savings to fund the wage increase seiu was proposed and produce more savings for it and there were 12 job families and not all of which i will note -- in fact i think about -- most -- we looked at those above market; right. and not all of the classifications were the classifications that received pay equity adjustments so it's not correct to say that pay equity is under attack. specifically we're using the criteria in the market that we're obligated to do under the charter and the union agreed to in negotiations, so that's a challenge that we have. seiu

has raised as you know, i have a copy of the contract language. can you put that up? >> sorry just before to finish up. i just want to say that the topic of the hearing i completely agree and want to thank supervisor avalos for calling it and i fully support obviously pay equity and comparable worth. the line of question there is if we're making sure we're at market we want to understand the implications of how that affects our gender or ethic classes of our employees but i want to get a sense of where we are generically as a market and budget committee going forward and if at market or below and above and i am all for evening it out and bringing people to what they should be paid and if we're over paying people i want to understand that as well.

>> i would say that -- steve will correct me if i misstate this. every time we go into negotiations we do surveys. for example the building trades -- not represented by seiu are five to 10% above market and driven by the construction industry. our police are approximately i think they're about 8% over market. the largestir areas in we are over market is seiu. some of that is attributable to comparable worth. absolutely. but it's not our view we are required to exclude all market classification that receive comparable worth. however in the negotiations the union hasn't responded to our proposals -- never counted on the proposals but if comparable worth were the issue we would look at the classifications that are not subject to comparable worth and we haven't received a response on that either.

>> i think comparable worth is the issue and what we want to focus on here. the negotiations are on going, the discussions you're having, but the numbers that -- what 10 to one and that we're moving back on the work that we have done for women and people of color and in the classifications are coming forward and based on market surveys they're lowering the pay according to the classifications that are comparable and i see we're moving away from the standard that we have in place. that's what the numbers suggest and i would like you to focus on in your presentation. >> well, let me speak to two things. first that we just received some information i think last night from seiu. ion of the documents presented to us in negotiations. we had negotiations yesterday and didn't see these documents so

we haven't had the opportunity to analyze them. we looked at one of the charges that purported to show historically relationships of classifications and matched up with comparable worth and we found the target got moved in the course of a 10 year period. we don't know why that is, but for example laundry worker was linked to data entry operator in the 80's but in 95-97 it's linked to operating engineer which is a building trade which is significant apprenticeship period. we don't know why that happen but this tells us this is not necessarily a science. we think if we are -- i would say further with respect that we -- the voters with the union's support replaced salary setting

by formula with collective bargaining. >> that was in the 1996 -- >> 1994. >> and omnibus and one change or charter amendment that changed the charter completely? >> i'm going to ask martin to respond to that. >> sometimes people don't see what was there before. >> supervisors, good afternoon martin grand, employee relations and respectfully throughout chair. the charter provision prior to collective bargaining was a salary standardize ordinance and that was repealed in 1991 and first by police and fire and then by miscellaneous unions. seiu and local 21 were the first to opt into it and then it repealed the former salary provisions including prop h, so with collective bargaining came a complete aggregation of the prior salaries standardization ordinances with

the exception of the rn's and the transit operators. in other words, not part of the 1996 charter. >> okay. thank you. >> so to the extent -- i'm sorry. >> we spoke on monday and on monday you said that the proposals that you have preserve comparable worth and that was one thing that we asked you to come back and tell us exactly how that has happened but knowing there are different standards presented from the standard discussed by ms. keely looking at market surveys and two tiered system does not necessarily address comparable worth issues and we are seeing a reduction in proposed classifications and that widens what we set in terms of a comparable worth in the past so i would like to hear from you how you say -- how you know materially that we are

preserving comparable worth? considered from your lens or the lens that we're looking at. >>i would say first although it's my belief that comparable worth, that the raises provided in comparable worth, to the extent they can be tracked are preserved in our proposal by the exclusion of -- two factors. one is the exclusion of these factors and as public agencies mostly represented by seiu which did had themselves implemented comparable worth and it's my recollection alameda county used this as a basis also for comparable worth so following up on the point that was made earlier, and while we believe that is true, we are obligated to follow the standard in the charter and also in the labor contract which does not speak

to comparable worth t speaks to cost of living, recruitment and retention, difficult of filling positions and the market, and in fact the union has itself based its requests of raises on the market so what the union is effectively saying you can look at the market if it produces a wage increase, but if it doesn't then we don't look at the market. that runs counter to what they agreed to in negotiations. it's certainly not consistent and not with our obligations under the charter. with your permission i would like to touch on a couple other points. >> please continue. >> if i drink water is that like the republican -- okay. sorry. i wanted to in view of time i

know there is plenty of people that would like to peek and doubtedly chastise me but i would like to touch on the key element salary setting by any formula, standardization or comparable worth was changed in the charter. the unions proposed it. they agreed to it. they wanted the right to bargain about health premiums and about all of these things, and that is why we have the formula, the charter factors that we have and the labor language that we have, so i think that we can do our best as an agency to ensure as i hope we do and i think we do, to ensure that we don't have discriminatory wage setting practices and we do and i don't believe for example if we're having will difficult hiring an

industrial painters and we need to increase the pay and does that mean we should look back at a classification from 25 years ago from a study and not our own study and cobbled together in the interest of time from the state of washington, city of concord, a number of other public agencies, so we actually have to respond to what we're obligated to do under the charter and that's what we're doing here. >> and so comparable worth has been changed to a new standard but not everyone is clear to what it is? >> well, i think it's really hard to reconstruct what it is because even if one wanted to do a historical look -- >> it's whatever we say it is then. >> well, the jobs have changed. even if we have said a laundry worker is equivalent to a data entry operator. the laundry

worker doesn't exist anymore and it was merged into another classification. the data entry operator doesn't exist anymore. we had 20 years of collective bargaining and unions making different decision how to spend the money and seiu decided to do one thing and they had obligations and laying a pure salary analysis is collective bargaining like things in the last contract health premiums. unions have different provisions about premiums, about all kinds of things, and it's somewhat driven by the market. it's driven by the decision in bargaining. to enroll 20 years of collective bargaining and say we should maintain the relationship that existed in 1994 or whatever year we pick because apparently those relationships changed over a 10

year period is virtually impossible. i think we need to look at what is the basic reason we have what we do and based on earnings for race and gender and that depends on the jobs people have access to. >> if could quickly -- because we have difference of opinion about this and you could saying things and countering from the lens i am looking at it from. i agree we could have disagreements from the 80's to the present, but when you see that certain classifications rather predominantly staffed by women and people of color and they bear the brunt of the decisions and we're not acknowledging it as a city i think that is a big concern that i have and maybe united states feel because we have a target. >> >> because of the staffing and

that's a higher value, but the value we're not dispropose atly impacting the people of color we should consider. it's different world views that we have and i would like to see one that supports this that can prevail. >> with your permission supervisor probably the classification with the largest wage gains was registered nurse and that has been driven by the market. it's predominantly women and people of color so i think that we can't ignore i think we ignore the market at our peril. >> we also have a market in san francisco where the cost of living is sky rocketing like crazy and to maintain that is beyond the means of most people including myself and at a pretty high salary here in san

francisco, but we're proposing to cut new hires pays for certain classifications that is significant. that is not keeping up with the growing cost of living. i will stop there -- >> if you would i would like to address the cost of living and we are providing it to all employees and we are unique in this sector for doing so. maybe sonoma is doing it but we are unusual in that. i didn't touch on the two tier. the reason the city proposed -- the city doesn't love having the two tier. we would like one wage rate within a classification but we believe that within the fact it wouldn't affect any current employees and we didn't want to pull the rug out and people should know what we're getting into with a job and all of the classifications and significantly and preserving the gains of comparable worth if

bee do that. the two tier is absolutely what the city has done three times since i have been here which is not that long and labor support and agreement with pension and health benefits for retirees, so we don't love it, but we're not pulling the rug from anybody already here. we have hundreds and hundreds of applicants for these classifications and it's not an issue of recruiting people so i don't know that -- >> you want to wind down because i want to go to public comment and wrap it up quick. >> supervisor breed. >> yes thank you. i just wanted to clarification and i didn't hear the category when you mentioned women and we jumped on another subject matter in terms of the majority of that particular classification of women and increased significantly.

>> registered nurses. >> okay. i didn't hear that part. also for clarity from my perspective i had anticipated that with this hearing we would be looking at specifics around classifications based on what is being actually proposed to be reduced as well as what is being proposed to be increased and what that actually means, and i'm just wondering if we're going to get there. >> with your permission i will at least speak to that. the union proposed increases to job classifications the cost over two years 9.6 million. the city proposal includes increases for some of those in response -- >> i am sorry. i wanted to know in terms of the presentation if we're going to get there. >> i guess i am not sure what precisely you're looking for. >> well, i anticipated, and

supervisor avalos -- i mean i know this is a hearing you had called but i anticipated that we would be -- i know there's like a lot of technical information and a lot of details around this whole negotiation, but i had anticipated having the discussion specifically around each of the job categories that are under the seiu emblulla, what the proposals are of the city. specifically whether it be a proposed increase or decrease, and we would be discussing what that actually means, so that we can look at what those specific job categories were, and i am assuming there is also -- >> that's 45 classifications. it's a lot to go through and we were going to do sample which i presented at the beginning. in her time ms. callahan has not

presented those distinctions and talked about the rational but i'm not really sure -- i believe there are differents and there are actual cuts to classifications. the rational that she is presenting before is different from the rational that we traditionally had as a city what comparable worth is about and i think that is the distinction we're seeing and i'm not sure how important it is to continue with the discussion about having two different world views that are colliding here and i was suggesting to go on to public comment and have discussion afterward about that. >> okay. two more questions specifically. are there categories also proposed to be increased as well? >> i believe there are, yes. >> yes, in fact the net in our projection -- we offered increases and we're not done with bargaining i hope although the union hasn't responded. we have increases to a number of

classifications and sheriff's cadets, laboratory technicians, i believe occ investigators, public defender investigators. >> okay. i will hold my other questions. thank you. >> thank you ms. callahan. i appreciate the presentation. so we can open it up to public comment. i have a number of speakers i can call up. i have a list here. [calling speaker names] when you come up if you could identify yourself as well. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is arlet smith, seiu local 1021 member. i am also employed at the san francisco human services average as a child protective service worker. i am one of

the 45 classifications being targeted in our job at 2940, protect services social workers we work with high risk children in which children have suffered physical or emotional and sexual abuse. we work in dangerous environments. many of the parents have criminal histories which include violate crimes and substance abuse. you know the worlds we don't know what is going on to be on the other side of a door when we go out on a call. we deal with verbal and threats and sometimes physical assaults. our job is stressful and difficult with the higher case loads and work demands. the workers in this

classification are predominantly women and people of color. proposition h passed in 1986 provided protection for these workers by guaranteeing a living wage and equal pay for equal work. the city now it appears wants to roll back the clock on progress. the message that these workers feel that they're getting is that they're under valued, and that it's okay in the year 2013 to continue to under value them and the work that they do. it's shocking that these workers in the 45 targeted classifications are in the position of having to once more fight for a right that was already won in 1986 and it will be a very sad day in san francisco if this city known for being a leader in protecting the

rights of the disenfranchised decides that that is no longer a priority. thank you. >> thank you very much. [applause] next speaker please. >> good afternoon supervisor. my name is ja mill den. i'm a food service worker and nutrition at laguna honda hospital. we are requesting 8% pay raise. before the last bargaining last year at this time the starting salary for food service worker is $37,000 and now it is around $42,000, so we are the lowest in the market. if we want to talk about the market we were lowest among uc and all the hospital around the metro area, but the city when we bargain they are using the

survey it's irrelevant labor market because we are going to santa cruz, oakland and contra costa county and the work week is there and not relevant. in laguna honda 90% are asian and hispanic and black and more than half are women. we serve 2,000 meals to patients and seniors that are unable to take care of themselves so the family can be in the work force so they can pay tax like anybody else. most of my workers they are very -- they work very hard but they have to work two, three jobs to survive because they want their kids to go to college and be able to have a chance, so this is very important. i want to show you this picture. this is

[inaudible] 1868. chinese workers are not in the pictures because they help building the railroad but they are paid $7 a day while noun colored people are paid $14 a day and pay wages and lodging and food too. i am an immigrant myself so i know about the history -- >> thank you. >> first there is slavery and chinese worker has always been discriminated too so right now we're still working poor. >> thank you very much. >> thanks a lot. [applause] >> [gavel] >> ladies and gentlemen, i please ask for board rules we refrain from clapping and for or against any speakers. we have a tradition and you can wave your hands and people recognize that around here.

>> supervisors thank you for putting together this hearing today. i am tim paulson and the executive director of the san francisco labor council and represent thousands of people in the private and public sectors and i want to say the fact that we're even have to talk about this is kind of disturbing to me. it was a few weeks ago i was with nancy pelosi and celebrating the anniversary of the lily ledbetter act and one of the first legislation president obama signed and federal level wage equity for women in particular as we're moving forward, so what i am -- first of all i am here in support of all public sector workers and make sure there is not a roll back based on equity or comparable worth or whatever is in place and whether it's in the collective bargaining field, whether in the civil service field or arbitration or paths

in the works or being proposed. i think whether or not people are in the bargaining statement, whether or not people are in arbitration, anything of smacks of going backwards for wages for anybody we are opposed to. if there are 44 classifications and the possibility this is used in some way to decrease the wagers of any workers in san francisco we're going to be against it and i hope that's not the direction the mayor's office is going to take when it comes to equity. we are in an economy that is finely getting out of the doll drums and there are wage increases that have finely been put in place because of the sacrifice the public sectors workers have done to help the city out and anything that smacks of going back words

we're against and we will be with the city workers on this. >> thank you very much. [calling speaker names] >> hello supervisors. tom templano, president of the harvey milk lgbt club here. i am here as a representative of the club because we strongly support pay equity and opposed to the cutting of pay of any of the public sectors workers but particularly vulnerable workers like women and people of color that were targeted in these classifications. we have fought for equality for people and this is an issue of equality. it's a blaint iant attack on women and people of color and frankly in 2013 i wouldn't expect us to have a conversation around. i wanted to as a representative

of a lgbt club wanted to highlight the increased statistical vulnerability of the lgbt women and also lgbt people of color, people who are already leaving this city in record numbers, and cuts like this attacks on women and communities of color only further increase that exodus of those folks from the city. just wanted to as a representative of the club to ask for the city of san francisco to continue its commitment to equality, to continue its commitment to diversity, and to ultimately oppose these cuts. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm laura hahn. i'm the had the of the san francisco women

political committee. we are the largest most active political organization in san francisco and we are formally opposing the human resources cuts to 45 job classifications. as supervisor avalos explained we know that these positions tend to be filled by women and people of color and the proposed cuts are blatantly going to affect these vulnerable populations. we know that living wages and equity pay are a core issue of san francisco political women committee since our insepgdz and in fact some of the founding members lead the charge back in 1986 for the pay equity law that advanced gender parity in our government and now it's a decade later and we're seeing families and people of color being priced out of san francisco now more than ever before. that's why we are standing with our brothers and