family are the biggest burden on employers, this is not a burden that is anywhere near that burden and so even in my own company, we think long and hard about hiring somebody who has a family. i just want to leave you with just a thought, what is a city without kids? we have 13.8 percent or something like that of our population 14.4 percent of the population is under 18. we want kids and it is great and it is great to have diversity in the city and i hope that you will consider, some form of this legislation, with enforcement thank you. >> kevin wallace, susan tucker, scott huggy? >> my name is sandra and i am born and raised in san francisco and i hope that other people in the future may be able to say the same thing, i am the daughter of a butcher

and a seamstress and they are both em grants and they are not like any of the people that are in this room. i grew up being told that i go to school and my parents worked hard to be here and they never wanted me to be sick, you know? to be helped so i can stay healthy, but also because they didn't think that they would be able to take care of me. or to pick me up from school or to any of those things that you need to do when circumstances come up with your child. my sisters and i grew up really elthy, but every year, someone would come to school and be sick, i don't know why because

sher parents told them not to be sick and they got sick and they were pushed to go to school. and infect the rest of us. >> and so, my parents, my mom was a seamstress and she could not take off the work to take care of us. but, eventually it came to a point where she had to take care of me and my sisters and my family over all in the house, so much more than work that she had to leave her job, she didn't have that flexibility. and so, for a couple of years, my mom had to leave work and become a homemaker and we were left as a single salary home. so, i support this legislation because it gives the employee an opportunity to request, you

know, flexibility schedules and so that their jobs can work with their families. we should not have to ask the employees to work exclusively at the expense of families tu, very much. >> susan tucker and my company is one stop graphics and i have been in business for 25 years and also on the business of the chamber and a member of the small business advocates. this is, of course, very field-good, legislation. how can you be oppose thed to something that is family-friendly? it is kind of like, the toy band, in the happy meals, it is as the supervisor said, it is kind of a nudge, it is trying to nudge maybe, employers and employees. but, i am wondering why do we need a charter amendment for a

nudge? >> i note that many of the speakers that have spoken in favor of this legislation are talking about their parents. that is another generation. i believe that the workforce has evolved. i also understand that there may be one thing that this legislation does not address, is there will be employees, whether english is a second language, whether they are shy, there will be people who may have a flexible schedule and who don't ask, this legislation does not address it. it is a very progressive and fine thought. but, it is prime, in the actual legislation, winds up being quite a bit more than that. and so, i would respectfully submit that we recognize that a nudge in the right direction is something that could be part of

an education where we urge people, feel, comfortable asking for flexible work schedules, all of these employers, we offer the flexible work schedules, but this field a little bit like a solution in search of a problem, and i don't see why we need to rush a charter amendment to address something that i don't know that we have established as a problem in san francisco. >> thank you, the next speaker please. >> scott harpy and i own an insurance agency. and i have been advocating for small business for about 30 years now. and i have not heard very frequently the out rage that this legislation has brought. now in all fairness they don't know the amendments and applause for the amendments and i think that you need to go further but they don't know those and they just saw the

initial proposals that were put out there and they thought that it was rushed and they thought that they were doing it and those small businesses are doing it and they also see being put in a position of small business being anti-family. so, what we have heard tonight from both sides is we don't have problems with the right of the employee to ask. and i don't think that we have problems with the right of the office of labor standards to review whether there was retaliation, and i don't think that there is a problem about following the paperwork. so on that particular piece of it, i think that we have, anonymity between both sides. it is just that this legislation goes beyond that. and that is where the problems come. so, i would like to see this not go on the ballot but i would like to see the amendments and a number of them, but the one that i would

like to pick up on a couple of them, commissioner dooley mentioned, the family definition of family, i think that is critical that that be addressed. but also, as a provision, i have not heard anybody talk about it, but there is a provision, that says, to change to amend the proposal, it can be amended only adding more requirements on employers by a majority vote. and it is not a two-sided street but it can be amended either way, i think that needs to be consistent on the legislation. but i think that the message that i leave with you is we want to work with the employees. i think that most small businesses do, and most businesses do. and we are concerned about this being rushed, we are concerned about going through a ballot and we are concerned about being put in a position that we are anti-family. and so, i would urge you to oppose the legislation, unless

amended with the items that have been mentioned tonight. >> thank you. next speaker please? >> i have kevin wal ace and elizabeth lefera as the final speaker cards, excuse me, bob black and art swanson, if there is anybody else you can line up on the side wall if not those speakers can go up in any order. >> good evening, my name is rob black and i am the executive director for the golden gate restaurant association, and we represent over 1,000 member locations of restaurants throughout the bay area. most of which are small businesses, like yours. the concern that has been many concerns expressed tonight

about the legislation and the impact that it will have on the small businesses and the ability to do business. and i do think that a lot of that came out of the initial draft. and the supervisor has made some strong moves as far as really trying to address the comments back from the business community. but i think that there are some existing concerns that are still outstanding, that we would love to see addressed. and as scott said, i don't think that there is anyone who opposes on any side, the right of an employee to ask for a flexible schedule and a predictable schedule and there is agreement axros the board for that. but there is a couple of areas where i will be very specific that we have the big concerns about that goes beyond that. and one, is in section 12 z 5 g. where it provides if you have provided an employees with a predictable schedule, you have

to give them reasonable notice, which is undefined, in order to change that, or to reduce those or to change that schedule or reduce those hours. so for example, it was a comment about a painter who will be coming into work but it rains that day. how do you give that person reasonable notice, and then you are stuck paying for that day. under the existing language in the ordinance now, similar in the restaurant industry, you very far ten people in your houseworking table and it rains outside and nobody goes out to eat you need to let the people go but you can't because they have a predictable schedule and you are not allowed to reduce those hours without giving advanced notice, so that is a certain that we have. similar 12 z 7 b 9. provides to turn down work without 7 days notice, if they have a schedule and turned down

and appeal to the employer and turned down again, but then they still don't have to come to work if requested in that sefb day period. so that creates obviously a significant burden on employers. the other areas where we have concerns about are in regards to how it is amended which was addressed earlier and the definition of who is effects. >> and i will say that the administrative burdens are something that we were concerned about, and it is the 4-year, criteria to maintain the records and it does require actually meetings both at the first time that the employee asks for a flex schedule and during an appeal and so there are two meeting requirements within the law. so we would argue to oppose and unless the current draft is amended. >> next speaker, please? >> welcome. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners, president, adams. i'm leslie ma loi, representing

the small business network this evening as their president, we represent more than 13 organizations, 10,000 businesses and tens of thousands of employees. and we truly feel that this ordinance disadvantages all san francisco businesses, and our non-profits in san francisco. we agree that employees do have the right to ask. and that small businesses care as much about their employees if not more than all businesses. and small businesses are caring for their employees now. our small businesses see this as one more mandate. and they see it as a personal afront to the way that they run their business, being legislated by city legislation. and because small businesses personal to them. and it is another reason and

maybe the reason for finally take their business out of san francisco. and this small business network urges the small business commission, to reject this legislation unless it is amended, and let's not rush it, let's not legislate, let's focus on the right to ask, and do this in a collaborative way that keeps the employees and employers together creating a happy place to work. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> mr. president? >> commission? >> my name is art swanson and i am here as an individual and although many of you know me as being a member of the network and also the small business advocates. and i am going to try to add a little bit of levity to this and actually some what serious issue. first of all i do want to say

to president chiu, you have over the last several weeks tried to amend this to make it pal able for the business community and you are to be applauded for that and thank you very much and we appreciate it. however, for full disclosure sake and with those who were talking about their allegiance to which party, i am probably the most moderate person that will be here today. okay? keith, here, and i have been at meetings where keith has called me, mitt romney. he does believe on the progressive side and to hear him up here shaking, shaking saying that i am going to move my business out of san francisco, he is the most loyal employer that any of you and i know that some of you are wonderful employers, and especially mr. dwight. this man is more dedicated to his employees than anybody. and for him to say what he did

tonight, almost made me cry. it was terrible. mr. eagan when he was up here and if you can remember and you will play it back in the beginning what he said was, he said, when employers voluntary do something, people seem to get along better. the operative word there was volunteer. not be asked to by the government to run their business the way that the government thinks that they should run their business. i am sorry for those of you who think that two employees and employees and keeping notes for years does not cost you monday y i don't know what business you run but time is money. it will cost money. respectfully for the gentleman, very articulate man who came up here and started telling you that this is going to get the boos and i perceive him is from

being the entitled generation when he says that we expect it from the employer. again, i run a business. and we work together with the employees. very happy. and what you heard most tonight, was, if we can just work together, if we can just have a flexible schedule and request a flexible schedule that is all that is needed here, not all of the other manutia, thank you for your time. >> any other members of the public who would like to make a comment this evening? >> come on up. >> i am jay lantus and i am speaking for myself here although i am a member of the small business network. the offense that i take to the entire discussion that we have had is that it is discriminatory, and it is the proper function of the government to insure the rights of employees. and it is not the proper

function of the government to determine one group of employees over another would have a special benefit and that is my deep concern about the remarks that i have heard from everyone here. and so thank you for letting me share that. >> thank you. >> any other members of the public that would like to make a comment on this item? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners? >> >> i will start the ball rolling. >> commissioner o'brien? >> i got to tell the story that the lady from vernal heights made the comment being in the same campus of lazarus when i came to san francisco and listened to npr radio and i think that it is (inaudible) was on there and he was just talking to two people who were as opposite as polarities can be and he said, well, you know, i guess that we could take it

from here that politics really does make strange bed fellows and you just reminded me of that story when i was hearing that on the radio. my initial reaction is one of a lot of concern about it. and i guess that i am old school to be honest. and it is a network towards or tied in with what i had growing up. and i was raised by two parents, you know, father and mother that, you know, my mom was a stay at home qualified nurse, and that that we have come a long way with the women in the workplace but also has to be recognized that we paid a price for that liberty to be

given to women, liberty is not the right word, but for that advancement in civilization, we paid a price. i think, personally, in terms of the nurturing that the children get, from somebody that may be a dedicated mom as compared to a mom who has a commitment to work as well. i am a great believer in the business's ability to recognize competitive advantages. and i will always defer to business, to be vastly superior regulators and to make themselves competitive and if it is blah tantly obvious that by being flexible they are going to get an edge, it will happen, they don't need to hear it from us as city representatives or regulators it is going to happen.

i am real concern about that term, the nudge effect. and that nudged effect, that i here, the college hammer when i hear the nudge. and i see the sledge shamer i really do, and i see the government getting involved in people's day-to-day businesses. but it was interesting that we met about the young lad that made the research and i do think that we will head towards a more flexibility workplace and it is going to happen whether this legislation passes or not in my opinion because it is the way that the world has turned, our world is different today than it was in our parents's generation. and that demand is going to come from the young people coming into the workplace and you know what? they are going to dictate it in the future. and you see a demand in shift of the economy in san francisco, and a lot of the high-tech people want to be in

san francisco and they are dictating the terms to the employers and so those things will happen any way. so i applaud the reason behind it, and i also think that as an employer myself, that most of us are going to do the right thing. somebody comes and has a fair reason, whether it is a dying parent or a sick child, i have faith in human beings and employers there is going to be some bad apple and guess what this legislation will not change that, you will have a bad apple and they will break the law and learn the law and find out what they can have to do by the law. i just don't think that you george ... going to change that. i have a lot of concerns about the legislation as it right now for the reasons that i out lineds and there may be a bit of a rush on this and that is

kind of scaring me a little bit too. that is my first reaction to the hearing tonight. >> commissioner dwight? >> so, i share many of the same concerns as the business owners have spoken and my fellow commissioners and i am a business owner and i employ 22 employees. 12 of them are working mothers, steam stresses. and we have a very flexible environment. and we allow for maternity leave, and extended leave, and we allow for our employees to go and visit their relatives in china every year. we allow for them to take care of sick children. we allow for them to take care of sick relatives we allow for them to take care of getting their car fixed because that effects their ability to move their children around and for their husbands to car pooling to work as normally happens at our place if they are not taking public transportation. and so, this is just about

humanity and this is not being family friendly it is about being human. dealing with people's every-day, lives. whether they are single, which half of my employees are, or whether they are working mothers or the other half of my employees are. so, i take it issue with the notion of celebrating, something that i believe san francisco already takes a leadership position in, being family friendly, but more importantly being human-friendly. and especially in our proximity to the silicon valley which is widely regarded as the pioneer in flexible schedules. in the valley and technology businesses led the way for casual friday and ultimately casual every days. >> and there are not many places outside of the bay area that allow you to bring your dog to work. that allow you to determine when you want to come to work, that feed you from a cafeteria

where you have hired a professional well, known, chef. that run shuttles up and down the peninula so that you can live in the city and work in san jose or vice sa versa, i don't think that this is the key of making san francisco any more family friendly. these are issues of affordable housing, and our lack of confidence in the public school system. and our inability to get our kids into a system that we might feel more comfortable which is highly competitive and very expensive called the private system. these are issues, that far beyond as one of the speakers said by searching doing a google search to one of our other local employers who probably the teragon of family friendly, wore environment, google. so, i just have a fundamental problem with passing laws and

creating government mandates to do things, celebrate, if you will, things that we already do. if this is a national issue, as it has been addressed by nations, the uk, new zealand and some of the others that you have mentioned tonight, let the national government take it on. we don't need a law, in our 49 square miles, to make life even more difficult for employers. and every law to get an industry to deal with that law. and every law begets by definition, litigation, and litigation, involves lawyers. and there are fewer higher paid employees in this society that we live in than lawyers and i tell you, record-keeping, legal, implication and all of these things are, they are not hidden expenses these are real expenses and i did not hear a lot of that talked about tonight. and so, i am very skeptical that we have a problem, i am

very skeptical that there are no far greater expenses that we have heard about tonight for the small businesses and i am a physical conservative and a legal conservative. and there is a reason why the tax code is bloated and a reason why the books are bloated because we are passing things for laws that don't need laws. >> and i think that, i think that we should be careful. as a group, we are all here in charge of seeing how we get through legislation in a responsible way, and i don't think that throwing it on to the ballot, in a rushed way is the right way to do it. if there is legislation to s passed here, if we feel that absolute need to cotify a right which seems to already be a universal privilege in this city, then, we should go through a proper legislative process, one that is considered one that allows everyone to weigh in and one that does not result in frankly a flurry of frantic effort to fix a bun of

of things that never would have to have been fixed if we came to the table and said that i have an idea and let's talk about it. rather than here it is. what do ultimate think? >> and i think that we found out, really quickly what we thought. a big group of people thought. clarification of the legislation to makes it pallet able from the people that you heard from tonight as a hope of being supported by a big con stit entcy that is the businesses of san francisco. that considers the modifications or considers the process by which is going to be passed as it is going to get passed and i think that is a considered legislative process and not one that forces it on the ballot and considers all of

the modifications that are proposed tonight. >> thank you. >> commissioner ortiz? >> i believe in the free market and the businesss that don't care for the employees don't stay in business that long and i think that and i believe and i am encouraged that no one should fear retaliation and i think that the small businesses community have spoken and said that they don't agree with that either and there should be no realation and we should focus on that not burden another administrative thing to the ready tetering basket that small businesses carry and it is one more thing to that basket for mall businesss in san francisco. and eventually, you know, we

are just going to break the camel's back and i understand the spirit of the legislation, but my mom taught me to treat people with respect. and i don't need a law to continue to do so. >> supervisor chiu's proposed ballot measure has a great idea, i think that we need to narrow this down and go back to the drawing board in terms of what we heard tonight, and if we can do that, in a timely enough manner with supervisor chiu, that we could put something on the ballot that would be acceptable to the majority of businesses then that is great and i agree that perhaps we need to spend a little more time, either have the ballot measure in june or do it through legislation. >> thank you.

>> i am going to give my comments here. >> i would like to thank everybody who showed up tonight and gave your comments on both sides. supervisor chiu, you have always been there for us for small business. and on this one, though, i have to agree with my colleagues i do feel that it was rushed and i still am not coming to grips as to why we can't do this legislatively, i don't understand why we need to do it to the ballot. and i know that they do it in these other country, if that is the case let the federal government deal with it. i do believe that most companies including my own and everybody in this room, we all do it. and this is something not right about this at the moment