spend. >> deputy city attorney. the 3 months after the inaugural meeting you must send to the committee which terminal to name for harvey admissible and then there's an additional a 9 months if the board wants to extend the life of the committee you can do that by it's enlightened as a 12 month life >> if i may supervisor it was important for me to make sure that there was a narrow mandate and a set time the work was to be completed. we thought 12 months would be appropriate but if you believe longer i'm open to that. if the sunset date approaches

and the board decides we need to have more time then, you know, you can introduce an ordinance extending we can do it by introducing on ordinance down the road >> i just wanted to know what you all thought about whether or not we should do it and it's a pretty ambitious temp i guess we're going to be meeting with the folks and making recommendations and they'll be going dlots process and once they have that first meeting we expect this passes through the board we're talking about before even that first meeting in another couple of months even. but there will be for clarity i know theries says that there

should be full cooperation to support this task force and will there be real paid support to insure the success of the information of the task - i mean, i'm sure you thought about all those things like i know with the task force there have been challenges with trying to complete a specific task within a timeframe but i thought things through this is an ambitious timeline and i guess when wore looking at the possibility of naming other terminals are we indoctrinate going to rush this task force to come up with names for other terminals or do we want to think about something like that on a long-term basis

>> i would be open to provide more flexibility maybe 18 months with the option of adding more time, you know. like i said i really wasn't we did to a specific time i wanted to have something in this in terms of a sunset. and in terms of creating a couple of the task forces it's important to make sure the right level of staffing the mayor's office and the airport will make sure that happens >> and my final comments i want to support moving this forward i want to commend supervisor campos in working with so many individuals it's been a challenge for you and i just

stepped down out on faith. oftentimes we dealt with a couple of years ago our former mayor stepped out on faith and said you should mayor who you want to marry now look at the effects of everything we as a city have done in terms of stepping out on faith and you taking this role of leadership to push the envelope for san francisco could be something truly amazing for our city. i know it's not always easy and that you have been beat up even with folks of

>> i say we remove the advisory body language in terms of who can be a member of this task force and second to change the section that says that there will be a telephone calendar month to change that to 18

months. so those are the two i would ask the committee >> so move forward. >> i'll second, that. i guess we should have a >> thanks supervisor cowen is back. >> so this is a motion and a second seeing none, opposition this is for the amendment so the amendment passes. a motion for the to put this recommendation to the full board >> second. >> yes. >> no objection so this moves forward has moved thank you very much supervisor and thank you to the public for your comments. at this point item no. 7 >> new mexico 7 motion submitted to the voters to allow

san francisco base employees who are caregivers to ask for certainty rights that are due hardships and given advancement in work schedules and inter - i am sorry prohibit interference or retaliation against the employees and records with compliance with the office of enforcement standards of the ordinance in an collective bargaining all the time and the election to be held on november 5, 2013. >> at this moment i'd like to introduce president chiu.

i want to thank the members of the public who have been patient. i want to thank the supervisors for their co- sponsorship of this this is the family friendly workplace ordinance and we have a quick presentation to explain this measure >> oh, sftv if you could hit itself power point on the laptop that would be great. so this is the measure to address the challenges the enormous challenges in the workplace. we know in the 1950s that leave it to beaver and the beaver cleaver family was the standard model of our families. with a male breadwinner a wife

that worked in the home. this has changed substantially over the year. we had divorce that changed but over the decades single-family holidays have download. we know how incredibly hard it is for folks to justifiable their work and family obligations. women have entered the workforce in a troublesomely humanely way. when it comes to participation they make up 40 percent of the first names but in most them of of the families care of giving is juggled again. when it comes to the typical

chart over the last decades there have been humanely shifts. the traditionally beaver cleaver family only represents one out of 5 families and so what does it mean to the typical caregiver first year it means the typical parents and employee who has kids are juggling they're doing a lot of juggling their juggling soccer games and other things. studies should that 90 percent of american families are experiencing conflicts between their works and schedules and that includes san francisco that has the least number of children in any city. we started looking around for policies to address that. we're here to talk about a

policy that would provide the so-called right to ask for flexible shlg. policy would create a safe place between employers and employees over potential flexible working arrangements. whether or not to have a job share etc. the policy has 3 simple steps is an employee can request a flexible work she would and there would be a requirement if there is a denial to go over it. and great britain and others mremdz those experiences. in britain in the first year of

the implementation of this act over a million asked for the requests and many of the requests were grenade. now given this has worked in other countries what do american policymakers think there are many policymakers who like this. you may recognize 3 of the 4 folks here sponsored the bills ted kennedy and mr. president, and hill clind. now the president had a summit on this topic and secretary hillary clinton stepped down from her position and talked about those issues.

and we have the gentleman from pennsylvania and it's been introduced in every congress but has not passed. base this hadn't passed in congress advocates are asking us to do this. vermont legislature a couple of week ago passed a measure that will go in effect with a policy like this. why has this idea been popular. it's a very popular idea with employers. this policies has turned anti to be good for employers and why do you ask. if a employee restless a flexible schedule that works for

family and their caretaker needs he or she satisfaction with his loyalty and production goes up. the turnover rates for those employees goes significantly down. my experience demonstrated f this in the early days of our companies we had kids in their 20s and we were faced with the hours of our workplace and we decided we wanted to provide flexibility and it was a bit of a scary choices. and it turned out that our policy we put into place was

very successful and our turnover particularly young parents went down next to zero and employees were very satisfied with the fact they had flexibility. if they weren't working at 89 in the morning or late at night this worked very well >> and, in fact, many studies have shown that there is is significant impact to those types of policies. my office we've put together the paperwork. we know their millions of home care works that are unpaid. and absent costs the country a

$6.5 billion. a study from a few years ago showed the lack of flexibility costs $2,000 a year for employees been absent. and in fact, we'll soon here is ted here? we have our city economists that is our required mandated report but quickly to the punch line. the report states it's highly linkage this will exceed kits costs over benefits. next slide. so under the legislation whose eligible. i need to be physically pled in

san francisco working for a employer that has over 20 employees. and it captures the largest 4 thousand businesses. the ordinance will apply if you work at least 40 hours a week and we decided to limit this in countries they limit the requests per year and we thought two would make sense because parents have to deal with school schedules. now who could be permitted as an employee it would involve anyone in care giving. not just the basketball practices or kids sick at home we're talking about anyone who has to deter a sick domestic

partner or spouse as well as seniors. we've heard from many folks in the sandwich jaergs who are taking care of painters and this allows for the whole idea of care giving. and everyone could misinformed b be in one of those situations. the ordinance starts with the employee to request the change of number of hours or location or the predictability in the workplace. or when our expected to show up at your jobs. then the employer will have an opportunity to accept or deny our questions. my employer could turn down a request based on any reason if

there's any identifiable costs if the employer can't meet the demand or if the employees can't meet the work or if there's not enough work. and the experiences in other countries the have not been requests are granted if the request is denied there's an opportunity for the employer to think about the request. by simply asking for this flexible arrangements the employer shall not discriminate. now our office of labor enforcement would be in charge of enforcing this rule and the permissions states they can't have a specific appeal if there

is a bitter employee they can't request the o s e to have a meeting it's in their discretion to follow up. it would be limited to making sure there's a request that goes through the process of the conversation with the employer other than discretion and there's a statute violation penalty. i want to say since we've introduced this we've made a lot of amendments and colleagues identify circulated to you a summary of many arrangements and there's the predictability ability. we initially had some requests

about being able to know when the employees are supposed to show up at work we heard that employees were he needing to have some certainty to go to the doctor's appointment and frankly the provisions we went through a lot of meaningless and we don't have a resolution on that today we've taken all that language out expect that a employee can request predictability ability. i want to thank the small business community as well as advocates working for families this is a topic for further discussion i intended to convene some more meetings to resolve those but it's not to be resolved in a quick manner. we have delineated and narrowed

what we referred to around appeals so the appeals apply to employers for whom osc have investigated and found some violation. we've narrowed this measure to employers that have more than 20 employees and employees who work more than two hours a week and we've also broadened the measure it was initially to be applied for folks with children but it is beyond that. and one last thing to mention because this is new and new things can be a little bit scary we want to be sure that any unintended things come up expect

to make sure that the ordinance if it wyoming were to pass cannot be repealed >> one of the issues that's been waisz advised the suggestion that the reality that many employers are already providing flexible work arrangements. i want to appreciate the san francisco businesses that are offering this. there are more san franciscans businesses that are offering that. we want to do this it; four, followed i think it's important to level the playing field i think it's important to do the right thing but more importantly we find a disconnect between the employers and employees while employers he think their

providing flexible arrangements it often means for the favorable employees there's not a workplace culture whereby those conversations are valued and in the h.r. literature the concept known as the flexibility standard if you are an employee and you ask for this somehow there's going to be drimdz against. at the end of the day this legislation does about nudging changes in the workplace. i want to thank the employers who have initialed this and advocates for working families and children. i want to thank the business community for their tremendous feedback and we've worked with many city departments from the

department of status of women and the department of human resources and our city attorney who's done tremendous work. so with that i'd like to if unless there's any questions start to call up some city departments with brief presentations. and as mr. egging on comes up he has a lot of work on emphasis plate and i appreciate his independent knowledge. he had an early draft that pointed out out some otherwise issues and i want to thank the gentleman. good afternoon at the time from the controllers office of economic analysis. yesterday we issued a report and i'd like to go over that report

now. as supervisor chul chu has mentioned this legislation has gone through several reiterates and i want to make it clear for the record which version of the legislation it was originally introduced on june 11th and we were provided on july 2nd this was on july '89. yesterday morning we were provided with a second amendment of the version so if anyone's interested in the differences what i say today and monday we're talking about two different versions of the legislation. i'll briefly reiterate some of the aspects of the legislation that impacts the legislation. it simply alleyways allows a

employee to request a flexible work schedule. an employee is qualified if they're responsible for a parents over 65 and they must work with their employer over 67 most. temporary employees may be inadmissible by over 6 months. an employer must toogs 3 suggests from the employee. and this includes 20 or more employees and other government and state and federal agrees are not included. the human resources director can include certainty occupations.

this leaves us with the 9 percent private employees in san francisco that are covered and pillow 82 percent of the employees many the city. the qualified employee can make essentially any change to their hours of work timing of work, work assignment providing that going with the care they provided >> excuse me. i wanted to know if you have a copy of what you're presenting. >> i do we'll get that to you. >> thank you and just to briefly

go over again how the process works the initial request must be made in writing the employer may defining deny the request for a good reason. if the request is denied the employer must explain the basis in writing and the employee who's request is denied can have that reconsidered and if reiterated that has to be explained. the city's office of labors enforcement establishes rules and composed penalties and the o