i would like to call up mara keely who will give a presentation. >> thank you very much mr. chair and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. hello old friends who i share a past with too on the other side of the table today. in 1980 and continuing to 1986 i was the point person for seiu on pay equity and i started with local 400. local 400 became 790 and today now it's 1021 i didn't go anywhere and had a lot of change and it was on pay inequities and thanks for the fact base summary of it is issues and paying a lot to the attention to the period i was here doing the work so i can skip that and make a couple of quick key points. first of all the 1981 declaration of city policy by this board that no longer would the city tolerate race discrimination based on race and sex was a policy separate to any implementation approach so in my view that is a long standing one today and any proposal to over turn it, roll it back by imposing discriminatory wages by classifications with people of color and women is in not with the policy and you have to prot

first up will be emily morase and mara keely who has a lot of history about the worker and the city around comparable worth and followed by vickey callahan. then we go into q and a and have other speakers as well but after emily might need to open it up for public comment so we can someone from the public to speak at this part of the presentation. >> thank you very much supervisor avalos and thanks to members of the committee for inviting us today. i am going to give you a brief overview of comparable worth nationally and in san francisco. first slide please. so comparable worth began in 1942 in terms of general order 16 issued by the labor board. basically the federal government decided to adjust wages for women to equal men doing work of comparable work and quality. you can imagine when the men were at war the women were doing the work. the order remedied was a job assessment to determine the value of the work so that's really the origin of the discussion. in 1955 the u.s. census bureau reported that women earned 64% of what men earned. in 1963 there was a federal equal pay act that was

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