Governance, Accountability and Economic Development Committee 4252024

Good afternoon, everyone.

It is April 25th, and the Governance, Accountability, and Economic Development Committee will come to order.

It is 2-0-3.

I'm Sarah Nelson, chair of the committee.

And just to all of our guests in the audience, thank you very much for coming.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Kettle?

Here.

Councilmember Hollingsworth?

Present.

Councilmember Rivera?

Present.

Councilmember Saka?

Chair Nelson.

Present.

Five present, none excused.

Thank you very much.

If there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

And we have several items on our committee agenda today.

We've got four items.

Two are appointments, and one is continued discussion of our police recruiting and retention bill.

That is Council Bill 120766. And then we've got the continued discussion of the...

app-based minimum pay standard reform legislation, which is 12066. Let me see.

Hold on a second.

I'm looking for that number for the record.

Anyway, do you have it with you there, clerk?

Council Bill 120775. Thank you very much.

All right, we'll now move into public comment.

I just have a few comments to make before we begin.

I appreciate all the interest that both of these bills and the appointments that we'll be discussing today have generated, and I ask you all to be respectful of one another, regardless of which side you may be on on any of the pieces of legislation.

As a reminder, the council rules do not allow outbursts from members of the public who are not recognized to provide public comment in that moment.

And my plan is to allow everyone to speak, but if there are continued outbursts or things that disrupt the normal procedures, I will close the public comment period to allow us to move on to other businesses.

And what I'm really referring to is clapping or booing.

That hasn't happened much recently.

But in any case, every time that happens, it does slow down the proceedings.

So please be mindful of that.

We will begin with the in-person speakers.

And we'll alternate 10 in-person and 10 remotely.

Clerk, could you please let us know how many people are online?

and in person?

For online public comment, Chair's Council President, we have 37. And for in person, we have...

48. Got it.

I'm really glad that this police recruiting bill has brought so many people out.

All right, let's begin.

Please read the instructions and start with the first 10 people in the chambers.

Yes, so with that, when you hear the chime, you will have 10 seconds left.

If you exceed that time, your microphone may be cut off so that we can move on to the next speaker.

If you're offering remote comment, please make sure to press star six to unmute yourself.

As Council President Nelson mentioned, we'll go 10 in person followed by 10 virtual until we are done.

And with the first- Hold on a second.

And a reminder, please, the protocols of this committee is that we allow comment on items on the agenda.

Go ahead, sorry.

Yes, and to confirm that council rule, public comment must be directed to matters within the purview of the committee or items listed on the agenda.

With that, the first 10, and I apologize in advance if I mispronounce your first or last name, but the first 10 in person will be Alex Zimmerman, followed by Gary Lardiziaba.

followed by Michael Wolff, Jason Oglenk, followed by Kyle Graham, Elena Martin, Adam Fry, Carl King, and Robert Singleton to end the first 10. Council President.

And then, Alex Zerman, your time begins now.

Hi.

My name Alex Zimmerman, and I want to speak about money.

I will sue you for $10 million for 18 trespasses for 1,500 days, and I will bring this case to your Supreme Court when it is.

That's exactly what I want to explain to you about money.

I've waited for this for a long time, 18 trespasses.

Nobody in America has 18 trespasses for 1,500 days.

So I think $10 million is real money.

Please pause, please.

Sir, I really appreciate that you didn't know to continue going on.

No, it's about money.

You're talking about money.

I talk about money.

I was just going to say you.

Ze hile my dirty damn Nazi fascist junta, a pure bandita and killer.

I'm talking about money.

You talk money, I talking about money.

$10 million is a real money what as I sue you.

Because nobody have waiting trespassers for 1,500 days.

You very good.

I win before two class action.

Last class action, $100 million.

I think $10 million real money what is I will sue government.

Good luck, my friend.

Thank you.

Next, we got Gary Lardizaba.

And then follow that, we got Michael Wolff and Jason Ogling.

Gary.

Good afternoon, council.

I'm Gary Lardezabal, 120775. Reform by lowering prices with the good companies is a true compromise with this council that will restore the conditions that foster higher order volumes for restaurants who are now down $7 million on DoorDash.

Double that with Uber Eats.

Abolish meals costing double.

Abolish meals costing double.

and ranking disabled and elderly grocery shoppers and publicly showing on Facebook a $97 payday, not classy.

Lower prices are classy and sexy.

Restaurants don't care about grocery renegades of Instacart.

They require full delivery shelves, not empty ones in South Lake Union.

Sales have declined an average of 38% in the last two and a half months and 97% of the restaurants want the new pay ordinance repealed.

I'm for the health of small businesses.

In closing, 2,700 restaurants are key.

Yes on reform, bring back the volume.

All right, next we got Michael Wolff, followed by Jason Ogling, and then on deck after that is Kyle Graham.

Michael.

I think it's really simple.

And this sign right here that says look at the data is what really needs to be seen.

The data says hundreds of thousands of less orders.

The data says millions in lost revenue for Seattle merchants.

And the data says that drivers who are doing on demand, couriers who are doing on demand are making less per online hour.

This needs to be reformed.

This needs to be reformed now.

Waiting only continues to hurt people.

Let's get this done.

All right, next we got Jason Link, followed by Graham, and then on deck after that is Elena Martin.

Jason.

My average pay over the previous 30 days is $10.62 per hour.

What would you do if your financial resources were cut in half overnight?

You'd work more and you'd reevaluate every expense.

You're now working more hours, a lot more.

You've combed through all of your expenses and concluded that every one of them is essential.

Your quality of life has diminished and any unforeseeable circumstances could paralyze you.

When there's a fire, SFD is dispatched.

The faster they react, the more salvageable the structure is.

Right now the restaurants and the couriers are taking on smoke because of the unintended consequences of this law.

It urgently needs to change.

Thank you.

Next we got Kyle Graham.

followed by Elena Martin, and then on deck will be Adam Fry.

Kyle.

Hello, my name is Kyle Graham.

I'm an Uber Eats driver, Drivers Union member, and District 1 voter.

Seattle made history when we became the first major city to raise the minimum wage with the Fight for 15. But now that a real livable minimum wage is extended to delivery gig workers, the council seems to want to make history again by being the first major city to remove a minimum wage from tens of thousands of workers.

Seeing what potential proposals the council is considering, it is clear that they are listening to lobbying groups funded by Uber and DoorDash rather than the workers themselves.

These companies want to cut transparency, indiscriminately punish workers, and charge exaggerated fees to customers with no real oversight.

And it would be a disaster for the people of Seattle if the council let this happen, not to mention the precedent it would be setting for any city that tries to implement protections for its gig workers.

These proposals do nothing to address any real concerns...

about the ordinance like protections for delivery bikers or the fees imposed on customers.

The council should focus on these and other issues facing the city like affordable housing and improving public transit instead of focusing on these anti-labor proposals that hurt workers.

Thank you.

We got Elena Martin followed by Adam Fry and the next Carl King.

Good afternoon.

My name is Elena.

I drive on the Instacart platform, and I'm here to oppose the proposal to cut gig worker pay.

First off, I would like to say that I do enjoy the flexibility that this gives me because I'm able to work when I need, and this has allowed me to finally go through military trauma therapy, which has...

not been capable with my nine to five jobs that I previously had over the years.

If disciplinary action is taken against us for not taking any kind of order that defeats the purpose of the flexibility that this has.

It's unreasonable to receive orders going the opposite direction that we might have to go for an appointment or childcare pickup.

The demand is there, but since Instacart has increased the fees for customers, now they limit our potential tips to cover for the higher fee, which essentially is causing us to earn less in a different factor.

We need to be making a minimum wage or higher to survive in this economy, which is getting ever more expensive by the day, and cutting workers' pay will absolutely not help us do that.

Thank you.

Last three, we got Adam Fry, followed by Carl King, and then Robert Singleton for the first 10 in person.

Go ahead.

My name is Adam, and I'm a DoorDash driver.

Do not pass Sarah Nelson's misguided policy to cut our pay.

I love delivery work.

I've been delivering on and off since 2016. Back then, pay was $7 per order.

I worked earnestly for DoorDash, completing about 1,300 deliveries in five months.

During that time, repair bills began to pile up much faster than I could afford to pay them, and I was left with a disabled vehicle that was essentially sacrificed in the name of DoorDash.

Years later, in 2022, I gave the platformers another chance, but they had effectively cut the pay in half.

One thing soon became clear.

DoorDash will do anything to get drivers to accept low paying orders as low as two to three dollars, far below what anyone scrutinizing the pay against the driver's expenses and time would consider a livable wage.

They do not want drivers to stand up for themselves.

That's why DoorDash is doing what they're doing now.

They are retaliating against drivers for demanding better and trying to tank their own demand to prove a point.

Do not cut pay below minimum wage.

All right, we got Carl King and the last first 10 in person will be Robert Singleton.

Carl.

I just want to say that my feelings have been expressed by what I'm listening to, what I'm seeing.

And I think it's very important that the city council pay close attention to these individuals who need more money to survive here in our economy that is so expensive.

King County is one of the most expensive places to live in the country, and they need to be listened to.

And that's why I'm running for city council.

Thank you very much.

All right, we got the last in person.

First 10 will be Robert Singleton.

Okay.

Good afternoon, Council President, members of the committee.

My name is Robert Singleton.

I serve as the Director of Policy and Public Affairs for the US West region at Chamber of Progress.

I'm here to express our support specifically for CB 120775 as outlined by staff and broadly the efforts being taken by this body to amend the minimum payment ordinance.

The proposal before you may not be perfect, but it is a crucial step towards ensuring fair and equitable working conditions for gig workers while balancing the needs of consumers to have affordable access to essential services like groceries and food.

As demonstrated in only a handful of months, the well-intentioned implementation of the prior minimum payment ordinance translated directly into an increase in cost of goods, made services more expensive for consumers, and disproportionately harmed vulnerable populations with limited transportation access and very few healthy food options in their area.

It also resulted in decreased demand for delivery services, fewer orders for local restaurants, and reduced income for drivers.

While you may have many policy options before you today, so long as you take into account the impacts on both drivers and consumers, we would encourage you to take immediate action in passing legislation before you because the current market conditions are untenable.

Thank you.

All right, the first three virtual public commenters will be, and I apologize in advance if I mispronounce your first and last name, it's Shazia Anwar, followed by Lauren Lundberg, and then on deck after that is Joelle Kraft.

Shazia, go ahead.

Press star six to unmute yourself.

We hear you.

Hi, my name is, yeah, sorry.

My name is Chelsea Anwar and I am a caregiver and member of SEIU 775. I am here to testify against the proposal to cut pay for the gig workers.

As a caregiver, I know what it's like to be excluded from the basic labor law.

Caregivers have a lot in common with gig workers.

We have had a fight for our basic rights.

a worker and we are group of mainly immigrant and the people of color just like gig worker so it is unacceptable to pay workers below minimum wage all workers need their basic right for too long workers who are immigrant have been excluded from many labor laws and being a caregiver and working for this class we need more pay instead of they cut our pay here especially we are living in this area and it's very expensive and we have to be feed our families and we have to pay our bills so uh so teatral should be going forward not to going backwards so gig workers have thought uh like us to have a basic right to minimum wages teatral city council you need to protect workers not a giant corporation like Uber do not cut pay for all the working class people.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got Lauren Lundberg, followed by Joelle Kraft.

And then after Joelle, we got James Vandeley.

Lauren?

Go ahead.

Press star six to unmute yourself, Lauren.

Press star six.

Perfect.

Go ahead, Lauren.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

My name is Lauren Lundberg, and I am the deputy director at the SOTO BIA.

As Seattle continues to lose officers at an alarming rate, the SOTO community feels the impacts every day with ongoing crime and safety issues.

We support the council's dedication to public safety.

It is important that we rebuild our police force and rethink how we recruit and retain officers.

Our city needs to be aggressive in bringing on new officers now to support and respond to the growing public safety concerns in our neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got Joelle Craft followed by James Vandeley.

And then on deck after James, we got Christina Nylander.

Joelle.

Press star six to unmute yourself.

Perfect.

Hello, my name is Joelle Kraft, and I'm here to speak in support of upholding the minimum wage for gig workers.

I live with multiple sclerosis, and I often rely on these services that are provided by these hardworking individuals.

On day when my condition limits my mobility, gig workers help me manage my daily needs.

I also help pass the pay-up law, and what I noticed was the first thing that these companies did, instead of abiding by the law, they retaliated not only against the workers, but all the customers.

Instead of paying like they should, pay the fair wage and everything that we desire here in Seattle, they decided to not only buy a whole bunch of campaigns, but also they decided to tack on tons and tons of fees and try to put workers and customers against each other.

This law was protecting us, and originally when we had these laws and going through all of this, we did this.

They were with us, and now they're trying to say that this is bad for the economy.

When in real regulations looking at it, they're just trying to exploit everyone.

Support a minimum wage for gig workers.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got James Vandeley, followed by Christina Nylander, Mike, and then after that, we got Mike Sotilio.

James, go ahead.

Hey, my name is James.

I drive with Uber Eats in DoorDash.

I oppose Sarah Nelson's policy to cut our pay.

It's so obvious these companies sabotaged this from day one and wanted it to fail.

Ask yourself this.

Why would a company so aggressively alert their customers?

Hey, we're raising fees.

They wanted orders to go down, upset everyone, and get this overturned and serve as a warning for other cities.

Nelson's proposal is 100% straight off the desk of DoorDash and these companies.

The mileage is a joke.

Applying the pay rate every two weeks?

That stuff is for employees.

These companies have spent millions to make sure we're independent contractors.

And removing protections so we can be fired any time?

Who is that for?

Before this ordinance, they would charge customers $25, $30 in fees, give the drivers as low as $2 to $3.

I wish the local news would cover that more.

Do not reward these companies who've intentionally tanked the market and knew that drivers would suffer and everyone would suffer.

Do not reward them at the expense of drivers, restaurants, and customers who are actually part of this community.

Keep the ordinance.

Thank you.

We got Christina Nylander followed by Mike S. Then after Mike, we got Kathleen Hammerquist.

Christina.

Good afternoon.

My name is Christina Nylander.

I work in civil legal aid for domestic violence survivors, and I also am a small business owner and an app gig worker through Suze.

I am here to speak on the gig workers bill.

In my legal services work, I see people desperately struggling to afford rent and basic needs and struggling to access social services of all kinds.

And of all of the issues in our city that you could be focusing on right now, I am deeply troubled that one of your first moves as a new council could be to pass legislation that would decrease the minimum wage for one of the most undervalued and vulnerable yet highly relied upon workforces in our city.

Instead of decreasing the minimum wage, I call upon you to focus on regulating companies like DoorDash, Uber Eats, and Postmates that are gouging from both our local workers and our local small businesses.

You have the power to solve this issue for all of the people that actually live and work in Seattle, and you also have the opportunity to define the reputation that you will have moving forward, especially amongst the city's workers.

And I hope you'll choose to be champions for working people.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We got Mike S., followed by Kathleen Hammerquist, and then Mariana Morante, and then Katie Beeson to wrap up the first virtual public commenters.

Mike, go ahead.

Hi, I'm Mike Cotello with the Ethnic Chamber of Commerce.

And we support the proposed amendments.

It's going to help us in our small ethnic minority businesses throughout Seattle.

We've been negatively impacted for several years.

This is just some relief to what we'd be able to at least run a profit.

So we support the amendments, the changes, and thank you very much.

All right, we got Kathleen Hammerquist followed by Mariana Morante.

And then to wrap up the final first 10, we got Katie Beeson.

Mariana, go ahead.

Or sorry, Kathleen, go ahead.

Kathleen, please press star six.

Go ahead.

My name is Kathleen Hammerquist.

During the last four years during the COVID pandemic, I relied heavily on DoorDash and other companies as both my husband and I are immune compromised and high risk.

If these companies pay their employees a living wage, they then decide to add additional fees to our orders.

In Fortune Magazine, it was reported that the CEO of DoorDash made $2.79 million dollars in 2022. Instead of paying employees a living wage, these CEOs pocket millions of dollars.

They will charge the consumers more as long as the money isn't taken out of their pocket.

These additional fees sometimes impact the most vulnerable people in our society.

If not paid enough, gig workers often seek financial assistance from our social service programs so CEOs can pay low wages, make big money, and bleed the government coffers at the taxpayer's expense.

I'm asking that you do not amend this ordinance, support the rank and file of employees and consumers, and cut greedy corporate fees, but not employee pay.

Thank you.

Showing that Mariana Morante is not present, so we'll go to Katie Beeson.

Katie?

Madam President, members of the committee, my name is Katie Beeson, government affairs director for the Washington Food Industry Association, representing independent grocers, convenience stores, and our suppliers.

We're here today in support of the proposed changes to the city's delivery pay ordinance.

Our stores continue to struggle against the cost of installation, and as we've previously testified, the cost of food, fuel, and labor has all increased.

Our stores are doing everything they can to keep customers coming back, and delivery is one important way for them to remain competitive.

In previous testimony, we've warned about the negative consequences that would come from the implementation of this ordinance, including a reduction order from our stores.

Unfortunately, these predictions all came true, and the new ordinance is deterring customers, resulting in less work for the very people the ordinance is meant to help.

The proposal before you will restore app-based delivery in Seattle, set a new floor for minimum wage, plus mileage and tips for app-based workers.

And also addresses the unworkable and detrimental piece of the new law.

We encourage the Council to act quickly to adopt these revisions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We're going to now transition back to 10 in-person public commenters.

First three on deck, we got John Stamstad, followed by Michelle Balzer.

And then following that, we got Tangi Webb.

John.

The average bike messenger in downtown Seattle is from Africa and Papua New Guinea and speaks only French.

The average central Seattle driver speaks Spanish.

The people commenting on this bill, including me, are not representative of the market as a whole at all.

Please advocate for the greater good, not the loud minority of Instacart, shopping couriers, and labor policy ideologues.

Focus on the business fundamentals.

Make the restaurants profitable again, and everyone involved will make a living wage like they did before pay up.

Pay up has caused workers in restaurants to lose 150,000 orders per month from just one network company.

Last week, I made $347 in 54 hours.

Last year, I made $1,024 for the same week in 47 hours of work.

I spoke to a group of Papua New Guineans, and they work from 9 a.m.

until 8 p.m., often seven days a week, and they average $6 an hour.

Restaurants are down 38%.

Fix that, and all of Seattle will benefit.

The greatness of a man is measured by the way he treats the little man.

Compassion for the weak is the sign of greatness.

Thank you.

We got Michelle Balzer, followed by Tangi Webb, and then after Tangi, we got Ivan D. Michelle?

OK.

City Council President, at the beginning of your term, you made several comments and were quoted saying that you were going to fix a broken law and make it more affordable.

You also said you weren't going to rewrite legislation.

None of those are true.

You did rewrite legislation.

You just did it with the lobbyists for the corporate companies.

You didn't involve all sides, like you said.

You didn't fix a broken law.

You haven't made it more affordable.

There's nothing in this law or in this amendment that says it's going to be more affordable.

There's nothing to bring the customers back if that was your intention.

Stripping us of everything isn't going to make the restaurants get orders.

I'm not sure how you correlate taking away our rights and our pay as making it more affordable for the customer.

Maybe deliveries are down for these restaurants, but they're not losing money.

Profits are up because they're not having to give 30% of their order to these companies anymore.

They're not being exploited by these companies.

You have to say, no, you don't want to be the council that rolls back labor standards.

Everyone is watching.

Thank you.

We got, after Michelle, we got Tangy Webb, Ivan D. And then after Ivan, we got Mupapa.

T. Tangier?

Thanks.

Good afternoon, Chairman and Council Members.

I'm Tange Webb, Vice President with SEIU 775. Sarah Nelson's draft is a shameful attack on workers' rights and undermines the basic concept of minimum wages for all.

The legacy of slavery, genocide, and economic exploitation of BIPOC communities means that the people that Sarah Nelson seeks to exclude from the minimum wage are disproportionately from these communities.

Doing nothing to support the people most in need in itself is an act of institutional racism.

This bill represents the most anti-union, anti-worker approach to gig workers' issues.

This proposal would cut wages way down to $19.97, right, for only engaged time, which is half than the IRS rate for mileage.

Because these workers are independent contractors, it would codify into law a sub-minimum wage wage for these group of workers.

This policy would be the lowest-paid standard for gig workers that exist anywhere in the country.

To date, there's no stakeholder meetings, no workers in this space, making sure you strongly step back from this legislature to not create sub-minimum wages for black communities and protect the workers.

Thank you.

After that, we got Ivan D followed by Moopapa T and then Lynn Reed.

Ivan?

Hi, my name is Ivan.

I'm here to translate for Ivan and his written testimony from Russia.

Hi, my name is Ivan.

I am a worker on DoorDash and Uber Eats.

I'm asking you not to mess with the minimum wage law for delivery workers, okay?

I know there are some delivery companies trying to get around it because they think it's in their best interest.

But they're just trying to take advantage of the system.

They're sneaky and dishonest.

They want to cut couriers' salaries, but I think we should stand up for our rights and say no to them.

Let's talk about their charges to restaurants and see if we can work out a better deal that benefits both parties.

They're trying to bring in new couriers from other cities and states, offering bonuses and prioritizing orders for them.

But they're not giving orders to the old couriers in Seattle who were here before the new rules were put in place.

They say there aren't any orders or not enough, but that's bullshit.

There's no transparency or fairness in how they distribute orders.

I can't trust what they say.

I've seen it with my own eyes, and you can too.

They cheat with the payment calculations for orders, and they've cut down on delivery times.

So even if there's just a slight delay, they can shut your account down without any warning.

When they call Ivan...

Oh, sorry.

That's it.

Thank you.

Following that, we got Mpapa T, Lynn Reed, and then Wei Lin.

Good afternoon.

My name is Mpapa Chibuabwa, a Uber driver in Seattle.

I am here to strongly oppose the proposal that I will pay.

In a recent GeekWire article, Anna Powell of DoorDash said that dashers were making $25 per hour before the Seattle ordinance that requires 26.40.

That is a change of only $1.40.

To make up for that change, Dashers and other companies charged their customers $5 extra just to make up for $1.40.

So as I see it, the problem is not customer, drivers, the problem is with Dashers and Uber.

Thank you.

Following that, we got Lynn Reed, Wei Lin, Alana Martin.

Thank you, Council and President Nelson, for hearing us today.

I received a message early this morning from one of our members, Allison.

She's a single mom that provides for her and her child solely from DoorDash income.

After a late night of working, she regrettably had to cancel coming today because her rent is due Sunday and she's short.

She took a double today to make sure that she has as much income as possible to put towards her rent.

Offers are fewer and she has to travel farther.

We are getting calls for emergency resources.

Drivers are looking for emergency resources.

They need help.

They're hurting.

These are stories we hear over and over.

Please reform this legislation.

Don't wait.

Waiting can cause permanent changes in customers' behaviors.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Last four, we got Wei Lin, followed by Alaina Martin, Peter Kuehl, and Leif Gehring.

Hi, my name is William.

I'm repping for GoPuff since for 2020. Here in Seattle, we're workers stand firm.

Two years of a battle has been long term.

January 13, a law so clear, for app works right, we hold them dear.

Seattle orange, a glimmer of hope.

Minimum wage protection help us cope.

But voices rise, opposition they shout, corporate ties we knew about.

Whisper in the halls, pocket runs too deep, try to stop progress while we sleep.

Lobby dollar flows, smooth as glide, but fair pay their kryptonite they can't hide.

Through the haze, we see the corporates game.

The influence spreads, it's always the same.

100 grand spent to stop what's right, while workers struggle day and night.

With the working Washington by our side, our voice ring out, can't be denied.

For justice, for fairness, let's spread the word.

Seattle worker deserve the rights.

Respect no less until every worker's play.

And get the dignity in the next unfair fight.

Thank you.

After that, we got Elena Martin, Peter Kuhl, and Leif Gehring.

Elena.

Elena.

All right, next, we've got Peter.

Hi, council members.

My name is Peter Quill.

I'm president of Drivers Union.

I'm here to strongly oppose the council bill 120775. Drivers Union represent Uber and Lyft drivers across Washington state, shared leadership in establishing fair pay standard and benefit for Uber and Lyft drivers.

has improved thousands of lives.

This bill does the opposite.

It cuts pay for workers, setting a pay standard that is fair below the minimum wage.

It is undermining enforcement, which will make it hard for a gig company who want to do the right thing to compete against the bad actors.

It does not compensate fairly for expenses, meaning that drivers cannot cover the cost of maintaining and replacement of their work vehicle.

We urge you to oppose this bill and to bring the real workers voice to the table before considering issue that directly impact us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The last 10 in person

going to online, aren't we?

Yes, yes.

And then, yeah, so we got the last round of 10 in-person commenters.

We got Leif G. Leif, go ahead.

I'm a former driver for Uber and Lyft and Uber Eats, and I am here in favor of preserving the pay up laws as they currently are.

My main issue, in addition to the proposals just being unnecessary because things like transparency simply do not affect the bottom line.

That doesn't actually affect how much income the company or the driver makes.

But in addition to that, the one glaring issue with the proposed reforms is that they were only consulted with the people who the corporations and the advocacy group drive forward.

There was no effort to consult actual gig drivers, whereas when the pay up laws were made, we consulted everyone from across all interests.

And it's very important that that if we're gonna amend a law, that we at least make sure that everyone's voices are heard, in addition to amendments just being unnecessary.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We're going to go back to 10 virtual public commenters.

The first three virtual public commenters are gonna be Mariana Morante, Tony Eng, followed by David Edmondson.

Mariana.

please press star six to unmute yourself.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Mariana Morante and I live in West Seattle.

I am here to speak against Sarah Nelson's proposal to pay gig workers a minimum wage.

This proposal is a capitulation of public service, a complete surrender of the mandate of this council to work in favor of the city and its many inhabitants to place a few corporate interests.

Companies that refuse or honestly can't operate without abusing small businesses, customers, and more importantly, exploiting low-wage workers.

Why should the city and us save them from a failed business model?

They should use the innovative and creative spirit they claim to have to maybe fix their business structure.

This proposal reduces space, reduces transparency and flexibility, and does absolutely nothing to address the draconian fees imposed by companies as extortion to dismantle worker protection and erode public support for a policy that protects our economy a little bit.

I honestly cannot see how this is being seriously considered, and I ask you to please listen to the workers being impacted.

And yes, look at the data.

Companies are imposing ridiculous fees at the expense of workers.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got Tony Yang followed by David Edmondson.

Tony.

Hi, my name is Tony Yang and I've been a food delivery driver for about two years and have driven for DoorDash, Uber Eats and Grubhub.

I'm calling to say to keep the current pay structure as is and reject the new pay proposal lowering the minimum hourly pay.

With gas prices as high in Seattle and lowering the reimbursement to 35 cents a mile is not acceptable.

This pays for our gas, car maintenance, cell phone use, insurance, to name a few.

Unless you have driven for these companies and delivered food, you probably don't realize the high cost on our vehicles for delivering food.

In addition, lowering the hourly rate to $19.97 in line with the Seattle minimum wage only makes sense if drivers are paid this amount they're logged on the platform policy of paying straight minimum wage would only make sense if drivers are paid for all work time we are not we're only paid for engaged time on actual delivery that's why pay a policy slightly pays above minimum wage for all engaged time in order to take on account all work time the current policy is drivers who work hard and familiar with sales chance to make a little minimum wage and this is the first time in two years i've been able to achieve this I adamantly ask you to reject the new proposal and keep the current policy in place to give frontline workers a chance to earn a suitable living wage in Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got David Edmondson, followed by the next three virtual speakers.

We got Jason Harris, Katherine Stanford, and then Brittany Journeau.

David.

For the record, For the record, my name is David Edmondson, Senior Vice President for State Policy and Government Relations for TechNet.

TechNet supports the proposed legislation to amend the city's unprecedented delivery pay ordinance.

The impacts have been swift and devastating for Seattle merchants, app-based workers, and customers.

Data released this winter by third-party delivery apps confirm as much.

The unintended consequences of the legislation have been laid bare.

Fewer orders, longer wait times, and higher fees resulting in lost revenue for businesses lost income for workers and higher costs for consumers.

This is unsustainable and must be addressed immediately before more harm comes.

The council has the opportunity to correct these issues of the legislation.

We support the proposed legislation before you and encourage the council's swift adoption.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Following David, we got Jason Harris, followed by Katherine Stanford, followed by Brittany Jarnot, and I apologize for mispronouncing your name, Kwisali Aragon.

Jason?

Go ahead.

Can you hear me?

Yes, sir.

Hello, City Council.

I would like to strongly oppose the pay-up law.

This law has done nothing but cause issues for restaurants, customers, and drivers, and has been a complete failure in what it tried to accomplish.

If you just go around the city and talk to restaurants, they're all saying the same thing, 30% or more.

Some are 70%.

It's pretty bad.

The shelves are empty everywhere, and the damage is getting close to irreversible.

like medium and low end earners are completely erased the apps.

They're not ordering.

It's pricing customers out.

And yeah, the customer base is decreasing by the day.

And if we don't fix it now, it's not coming back.

So yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got Catherine Stanford, followed by Brittany Renaud, Quetzali Aragon.

Then after that, we got Emma H., Edward Park, and then Mark Johnson.

Catherine?

Catherine, please go ahead.

Thank you.

That's the second time I pressed star six.

I'm Catherine Stanford.

I'm speaking on behalf of the building owners and managers of Greater Seattle.

We want to make sure and voice our support for agenda item number three that would further the recruitment and retention of police officers in Seattle.

I think as most of you are aware, the commercial real estate industry, along with their tenants and support businesses, have suffered from a lack of adequate police presence, particularly in the downtown area.

I understand that SPD has lost over 700 officers in three years.

And at around 900 officers as opposed to the recommended 1500, there's quite a gap to fill.

We commend Council President Nelson and Council Member Kettle on looking for and finding viable ways to make the process more streamlined and accessible.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you.

Next, we got Brittany Jernot, followed by Quetzale Aragon.

After that, we got Emma H., Edward Park, and then Mark Johnson.

Brittany?

Good afternoon, Madam President and members of the committee.

For the record, my name is Brittany Jarnot, and I am the public policy manager for the Washington Technology Industry Association.

I'm here today in support of the proposed amendments to the app-based delivery minimum pay ordinance.

WCIA appreciates the efforts of this council to come together with all stakeholders to thoroughly vet opportunity to revise the original delivery pay ordinance.

The proposal before you will ensure workers continue to earn Seattle's minimum wage, while also addressing some of the unworkable pieces of the original law.

We believe it is imperative for the Council to take action quickly to make these adjustments so that will help restore delivery activity to the city and help address the concerns of consumers and small businesses that have come to rely on the convenience of app-based delivery.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got Josh Fries.

I see that you're present.

Following Josh, we got Emma H., Edward Park, and then Mark Johnson.

Josh, go ahead.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Feller.

Hi, my name is Josh Fries.

I've managed volunteer income tax assistance sites with the IRS for the past decade.

I'm asking the council not to capitulate and protect gig worker minimum wage.

Over the past decade, I've noticed economic fallout gig apps have done to our communities.

These companies have purposely sought out refugees and folks with emerging English proficiency and promised them work when they're in fact non-employee contractors.

The tax returns I've done for gig workers have always ended in woeful tears.

usually because they can't pay the $1.5,000 tax bill based off of $10,000 of gig app income.

This has only gotten worse in the past few years before pay up.

This type of work has become so problematic, the IRS has changed tax trading publication 6744 to showcase how these apps impact gig workers.

Most of these gig app workers are people of color, and apps allows us white folks to order food and to interact with them as little as possible.

They can get to leave it on the doorstep option.

They're invisible to us, so therefore they don't deserve rights.

Do not capitulate to these companies.

Protect gig workers and protect their minimum wage.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The last three virtual batch for this round is Emma H., followed by Edward Park, and then Mark Johnson.

Emma H.?

Can you hear me now?

Yes, we can.

The amendment to the pay-up ordinance proposed today purports to address the woes of the bike couriers, but as a bike courier, it is obvious it will not.

From all appearances, the choice by the app corporations to throttle bikers is entirely to minimize costs by choosing the most predictable vehicle.

When all couriers are paid as cars and apps don't distinguish bike classes, why would they bother sending orders to bike couriers who might go 12 or 25 miles per hour Without its specific incentives or regulations, this will not change.

Further, this amendment destroys the key protections that allow bikers to operate safely and fairly, like knowing which side of a giant hill a customer is on to gauge if you have enough battery or if an order contains impractical items like cases of water and protection from adverse action if the apps fail to disclose them up front.

Rather than nuanced changes to decrease fees and improve equity amongst couriers, The clear goal of each item in this amendment is to place the risk back on couriers to improve the profit margins for the app corporations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We got Edward Park followed by Mark Johnson.

Edward, go ahead.

Hello, committee members.

My name is Edward Park.

I've been doing delivery app driving since 2021. and I've been working on platforms like Postmates, Uber Eats, alongside DoorDash.

Despite currently working full-time running an online electronics store, I still rely on delivery driving for a significant portion of my total income.

I like being a Dasher because of the flexibility it offers, allowing me to manage my schedule, run my business, and earn about 50% of my income through delivery work.

Since the delivery law changed in January, I've experienced longer wait times or fewer DoorDash orders.

Delivery work is becoming less predictable and less dependable.

Please support this new council bill to make changes to the delivery pay law so I can get back on track with my financial goals.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next, we got Mark Johnson.

Go ahead, Mark.

Good afternoon, Mark.

Good afternoon, Mark Johnson, senior vice president of policy and government affairs for the Washington Retail Association here today to voice our support for legislation to revise the city's delivery pay ordinance.

Seattle retailers are vital to the ongoing economic recovery in Seattle.

Implementation of the delivery pay ordinance has hamstrung many retailers who rely on third party delivery to connect with customers.

Retailers are seeing fewer and smaller orders.

Delivery drivers are seeing longer wait times for fewer orders and diminishing earning opportunities.

Customers are frustrated over what used to be a dependable and convenient way to shop.

The proposal before you still provides Seattle's minimum wage for app-based workers, as well as mileage and tips.

It also addresses the unworkable and detrimental pieces of the new law.

We encourage the council to fix the city's delivery pay ordinance with the proposal before you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now, we're going to transition to 10 in-person public comment speakers.

First three in-person speakers.

Excuse me.

Colin O'Keefe, followed by Stephen Geary, and then Aiden Carroll.

Last week, Council President Sarah Nelson sold Fremont Brewing to Howard Wright's Seattle Hospitality Group.

The brewery is likely valued in the tens of millions of dollars.

Whether Council Member Nelson stands to receive a windfall or enormous debt relief, she must recuse herself from all matters impacting SHG and the restaurant industry.

And it is lunacy that she's continuing on business as usual.

Nelson not doing this herself is expected, but that every other member of the council is fine with this, that the mayor is fine with this, is abhorrent.

I expect the ethics review to have as much teeth as our police accountability.

Could you please pause?

Could you link what you're saying to an item on the agenda, please?

Yeah, pay up.

It affects the restaurant industry.

Can we get those 30 seconds, 10 seconds back?

10 seconds coming back your way, Chief.

I like the interruption coming right after expecting you not to recuse yourself, that was great.

I expect the ethics review to have as much teeth as our police accountability, so it's on legislators to provide oversight, to provide checks to power, and to work for constituents and not big business.

You are not doing that.

It is a failure on the part of each and every one of you, and a tacit endorsement of a relationship that reeks of corruption.

We got one minute back.

All right, after that, we got Steven Geary.

Next after that, we got Aiden Carroll, and then after that, we got Meredith C. Steven.

Hi, my name's Steven Geary.

I'm here in support of the pay-up ordinance, although I do want to say I support the police, and good luck trying to get them to come back here.

Give the market a chance to adjust.

So just kind of let it be, let the law be, and some independent businesses will be able to take back their revenue and offer in-house delivery jobs as a result.

I also want to point out that people have been eating food in Seattle for a very long time.

And we've also been able to deliver it to each other with no problem for as long as I can remember without an algorithm.

Speaking of data, the data shows that food delivery can and does exist outside of Uber and DoorDash.

Thank you.

After Stephen, we got Aiden Carroll, followed by Meredith C. After Meredith, we got Kimberly Wolf.

Aiden?

So...

I was slightly irked when one online commenter mentioned the police shortage, but then we have someone on the other side of the issue mentioning the same, and I appreciate the reminder that the elephant in the room is how much money goes to SPD.

If you take all the money you waste on cops and divide it between delivery bikers, delivery drivers, restaurants, and the extreme poor, You can ensure both justice of fair pay and the public safety that only guaranteed basic income can provide, all while giving the finger to Wall Street.

We are not stupid and we're not going to be divided.

We all know that Wall Street is the real enemy.

You can fix this ordinance to ensure that bike delivery folks, many who are migrants and others, get the fair pay and the hours they're not getting without taking anything at all away from drivers.

For the newcomers on the council, a lot of us are starting to view you as clones of Nelson.

If you want to show us that's not the case, show us that's not the case.

It certainly looks like a corrupt bargain that you just sold her brewery to Ethan Stowell's restaurant.

No friend to workers.

Or rather, her husband Matt did.

Interestingly, that's also the reason she's no longer an authoritarian Marxist.

We are here to work together to fight for everyone to be paid fairly.

And the apps and their Wall Street owners are not going to divide us.

Thank you.

Following that, we got Meredith C., Kimberly Wolf, Damiana M. Yes.

Hi.

My name is Meredith, and I am here to speak in opposition of repealing pay up.

First of all, I don't even know how you're doing this when it's only been three months.

Like, how do you have any data that proves anything these companies are trying to say?

It's baffling to me.

But The pay minimum and transparency requirements have made significant positive changes for me personally as a driver.

There needs to be more transparency, not less.

For example, I just found out today that I could have contacted OLS for the violations that were incurred that proposes them removed.

It's really confusing being here because these companies are...

doing exactly what the proposal wants to remove, like requiring us to give customers, they pay you not to do that.

That's like corruption.

I mean, it's just nuts to me and I just went off track because I'm so frustrated, but if you're, at least take some more time to review this because three months is too soon and it's really hurting everybody.

Thank you.

After that, we got Kimberly Wolfe, Damiana M., followed by, apologies, I mispronounced your name, Giaf A. Go ahead.

Kimberly Wolfe, gig worker.

The proposed legislation completely guts the original legislation.

Frankly, it takes away basic protections from gig workers.

It stymies their ability to appeal injustice.

It knocks them back down to sub-minimum wages and drops them right back into a pit of poverty and exploitation.

All this amendment is is an app company's wishlist to dodge paying fairly for services rendered and sidesteps treating workers decently does nothing to fix the actual problem.

Let me be clear, there's only one supposed problem that came up after the activation of this law, lack of orders.

Why less orders?

App companies chose to change a regulatory fee which was not mandated by the pay-up law.

Customers balked at the higher fees, less customers ordered.

So council members abandoned this giveaway instigated by the four out-of-state companies that whined the most about paying fairly and instead side with the tens of thousands of workers right here in Seattle and propose something to fix the actual problem.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got Damiana M., followed by Giaf A., and Laura Westbrook.

And then to round out this round of 10 in person, Monica R.

Thank you, council members.

My name is Damiana Merriweather.

And when you all talk about mom and pop businesses, you're actually talking about me.

My husband and I opened our first restaurant in 2016. Our oldest child was a toddler, or baby, and I often worked with him on my back in that first year.

Since then, we have grown to four restaurants and 60 employees.

Delivery services were essential for independent businesses like ours to survive the pandemic.

And even though their rates often ate up our entire margin, this council acted to mitigate those delivery apps extortionate rates when they enacted temporary fee caps.

And that action ensured the survival of small businesses like ours.

Now they're using their market control to avoid paying fair wages by placing arbitrarily high additional fees on all deliveries, including our restaurants outside of Seattle city limits.

These fees are malicious compliance.

They're designed to extract pain from a constituency that the city council would listen to local businesses.

If they are successful, they will no doubt that they will use it again in the future without regard to the harm that it inflicts on local businesses like ours.

Do not roll back wages.

Instead, rein in corporate greed, please.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Following that, we got Geoth A., Laura Westbrook, and Monica R., Jeff?

All right.

Laura Westbrook?

Hi, I'm Laura Westbrook.

I live in District 5, and I'm here to oppose the proposal which would result in subminimum wages for gig workers.

I garden, and I'm a sole proprietor of the Wild Weeder.

Any contractor knows you have to charge above minimum wage for direct work to cover for the extra time and expenses necessary to operate a business.

Independent contractors have the right to set a minimum and to refuse work.

Part of what defines gig work is supposed to be the ability to choose when, where, and how much you work.

Gig apps claim to offer this flexibility, yet incorporate stipulations that hamper flexibility.

I say to Sarah Nelson and the gig app owners, don't encourage greed.

You can still make a profit.

improving the lives of gig workers.

And a modification of the words from the patriotic millionaires, tax the gig owners.

Thank you.

The last this round in-person public commenter is going to be Monica R.

My name is Monica.

I'm from Redmond.

I came today because my family and friends who don't own cars use apps like DoorDash, Instacart, and Lyft to save time, and they help us a lot.

I think these companies spend way too much money on lobbying, hundreds of thousands of dollars, to convince us that gig workers don't need their labor protections or fair wages that cover car maintenance and cost of living.

I'm not that gullible, though.

It's clear they do have the money, but just want to increase their profit margins on the backs of their gig workers, who are often students and young people, paying for school, elders and retirees needing extra income to get by, immigrants and new mothers and parents who need flexible, scheduled work.

Flexibility shouldn't mean a willingness to be exploited for less than our minimum wage, though, based on all-time work in the apps or miles put on their vehicles.

The demand for gig work exists in Seattle and the surrounding areas, and so does the money to pay their labor every cent it is worth.

I want gig workers to be able to afford to live with health and dignity and basic job protections, which also benefits customers with a better quality of work, and that makes it a win-win deal for everybody.

Thank you.

Now we're going to transition back to the final 11 virtual public commenters.

We'll start with Lily Hayward.

Good afternoon, Chair Nelson and committee members.

My name is Lily Hayward, and I am testifying on behalf of the 2,500 members of the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce over 100 restaurants, 97% are from the D.C.

The revisions proposed today have come out of conversations with labor groups, businesses, and the community of Wisconsin.

This legislation is an example of the type of policymaking that we hope to encounter with the community.

One that puts Seattle residents first and prioritizes affordability and economic growth for everyone.

Please approve Council Bill 20775. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Candice Gomez following Kevin H. And after Kevin, we have Ariana Riley.

Candice?

Candice, feel free to press star six to unmute yourself.

All right, we'll come back to you, Candace.

After that, we got Kevin H., then Ariana Riley, and then Joshua R. Go ahead, Kevin.

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

My name is Kevin Heim, and I'm commenting today to express my concerns regarding Item 4, Council Bill 120775. First and foremost, the alterations to the minimum pay standards are out of sync with our community's shared desire to provide all workers with a fair wage for their work.

These proposed changes eliminate pay parity with statutory employees in Seattle, a key reason this ordinance was passed in the first place.

Furthermore, this restriction of OLS oversight authority and the elimination of requirements for affirmative production of records are deeply troubling.

These measures undermine transparency and accountability, making it easier for network companies to exploit loopholes, lie to this council, and evade their responsibilities towards workers.

Additionally, the proposed modifications to enforcement provisions, including the elimination of private right of action and the establishment of a cure period for certain violations, are not only out of sync with other labor laws, but also embolden companies to disregard labor as the cost of doing business.

In conclusion, I urge this committee to reject the proposed changes and uphold the principles of fairness, transparency, and dignity in the treatment of app-based workers.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Thank you.

After that, we have Arianna R., Joshua R., Kevin B. Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Arianna Riley.

I drive for Uber Eats, DoorDash, and Amazon Flex.

I'm here to express my support for keeping the app-based work minimum payment ordinance in place as currently written.

Last week, a representative from DoorDash told the stranger that bike couriers are intentionally deprioritized from certain orders.

While they mentioned order content as one reason for deprioritization, we have heard from some bike couriers who have been hit especially hard by the changes the apps have made to their algorithms.

We call on the council and OLS to investigate if there are unfair algorithmic changes that have created an unnecessary disparity between bike couriers who are receiving fewer orders than their car-driving peers who have largely benefited from this law.

Thank you.

Thank you.

After that, we have Joshua R., followed by Kevin B., and then Shawnee Wheeler-James.

Go ahead, Joshua.

Hello, Council.

My name is Joshua Roppelt.

I'm a proud Seattleite and a D4 voter and also a gig worker for Instacart.

I've relied on gig work for the majority of my income for the past several years, and the pay up ordinance has single handedly changed my life and saved my finances.

Although I do sympathize with a lot of the concerns expressed by previous commenters about reduced order volume, I just want to point out that the only reason order volume is down is due to the excessive junk fees being charged by these billion-dollar corporations, which have sabotaged market demand as retribution for being forced to treat their workers like human beings with actual needs and rights.

A new study released by Working Washington shows that companies could completely remove their vindictive $5 Seattle delivery fees and still maintain profit margins over 30%, enabling both their customers to afford their services and their workers to afford to live and eat.

But this proposed bill does absolutely nothing to balance these competing interests in a fair way.

Instead, it amounts to a corporate giveaway to corporate greed and profiteering and tells gig workers that our work and our lives don't matter, and apparently we deserve to be exploited.

I also want to point out that this bill does nothing to ameliorate the excessive fees and price gouging that these companies are engaging in, and it's just a complete corporate giveaway.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Following that, we got Kevin B., Shawnee Wheeler James, Paloma V., Alberto A., and BJ Last.

And then to wrap up virtual public comment, Candice Gomez.

Shawnee, go ahead.

Thank you.

For the record, my name is Shawnee Wheeler-James.

I serve as Deputy Executive for MLK Labor.

One of our labor councils represents more than 150 unions and over 100,000 workers across King County.

I want to be very clear the labor community is opposed to any efforts to repeal or scale back gig work protections in Seattle.

The rushed effort to eliminate these protections without a transparent process And genuine feedback from drivers and real worker organizations is irresponsible and inconsistent with Seattle's values.

Gig companies are using the same playbook they've used in other cities.

They retaliate with outrageous and arbitrary fees passed to customers in order to create political pressure.

And it's about time we called their bluff.

Seattle unions are worried that this effort is more than just about gig worker pay.

and we are prepared to stand up and defend the things that make Seattle a great place to live and work.

It includes minimum wage, health and safety, and funding for OLS.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got Kevin B., followed by Paloma V., Alberto A., BJ Last, and Candace Gomez.

So, Kevin, go ahead.

Good afternoon.

My name is Kevin bolt.

I'm a delivery driver with a scar since 2018. I'm here to strong voice.

I strong support for the pay of ordinance as gig workers with the backbone of the gig economy.

It would not exist without us.

The corporation would not be earning billions of dollars without our hard work and dedication.

Part of this is literally because we paid into the work by virtue of covering repair and maintenance and fuel of our vehicles.

And the time we spent being available while waiting for orders to be available.

We have never been compensated for any of this.

This is why we organized the work with stakeholders across the region for years, delivering our thoughtful policy to address these problems, to ensure workers receive dignity and a living wage.

Half corporations are doing everything possible to avoid paying a minimum wage, using huge fees to gouge angry customers, and hurting the workers' ability to do the work we wish to do, and trampling small businesses that rely upon us.

The problem is It is not the ordinance, it is the app corporation's unregulated ability to impose huge fees.

The council should examine the problem with the corporation's fees.

Please do not roll back minimum wage for gig workers.

Thank you.

Next, we got Paloma V followed by Alberto A and BJ Last.

Go ahead, Paloma.

Okay, I think we lost Paloma.

Feel free to jump back on.

After that, we got Alberto A followed by BJ Last and Candace Gomez.

Go ahead, Alberto.

Oh, hello.

My name is Alberto.

I'm a driver here in Seattle.

What you guys are proposing is a repeal.

And I say no repeal.

As I said before, the issue is the corporations, big business, the junk fees.

That's it.

Everything else comes because of that.

What you're proposing does not take away those fees.

They may choose to take them away at some point, but this law or this change does not take away those fees.

What you're proposing is a repeal.

I say no repeal.

protect our pay.

You call yourself, you know, that, you know, you're for business and all of that, but what you're doing is you're just giving money to non-local entities.

Thank you.

Next, we got BJ Last, followed by Candace Gomez, and to wrap up virtual public comment, Justin Taylor.

Go ahead, BJ.

BJ Lass I'm a Ballard resident.

I'm calling in opposition to CB 120766. Lowering hiring standards won't increase police hiring.

Fewer people nationwide want to be cops.

It's incredibly dangerous when SPD's current hiring standards are already so low that Kevin Dave managed to get hired despite after being washed out of the police department in Arizona because he had such an atrocious discipline record, which SPD knew about that, hey, the standards are already so low that why not bring him on?

The council is actually serious about trying to reduce 911 response time and improve public safety.

It would follow the recommendations of the SPD Commission's National Institute of Criminal Justice Reform Analysis and immediately transition one half of all call types to community responders.

Instead, this council is following the prior council's approach, of just trying to pretend that analysis never happened and that the only thing to do is just to give more money to SPD.

Also, I oppose the repeal of pay-up.

Gig companies are high utilizers of OLS with the amount that they violate workers' rights.

They should not be getting rewards by getting everything they want as policy and repealing the very policies that they are constantly violating.

That is absolutely absurd.

Thank you.

After that, we got Justin Taylor, Candace Gomez, and I see now that Paloma Vee has jumped back on.

So, Justin Taylor, go ahead.

Go ahead.

Is it okay, Council President?

Yeah, go ahead.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Justin Taylor, and I'm a gig worker, and I'm here to...

speak against the proposed changes to the app worker ordinance.

And I had some prepared stuff, but I thought I'd just maybe share how I feel about this.

And there's a couple of things, but I'm actually just really sad.

And one of the things is I'm sad in myself because I was naive enough to believe that lobbyists writing legislation happened in the other Washington and not here.

But that's just me, and apparently that's not true.

And I'm also sad that apparently with this ordinance, the problem is me, that I'm the problem with being paid.

And the problem isn't Uber, who made over $4 billion in earnings last year, or DoorDash, who made over $1.2 billion in earnings, not revenue.

It's me who made a few extra dollars in the last few months.

So thank you.

Thank you.

After that, we got Candace Gomez.

And that will conclude the virtual public comment.

Oh, I see Paloma back on.

So Candace, go ahead.

Candace, please press star six to unmute yourself.

Candace, feel free to press star six to unmute yourself and give your public comment.

All right.

Seems like we have Rochelle L.

on the line.

Rochelle, go ahead.

Can everyone hear me okay?

Yes, we can.

Hello?

Yes, we can hear you.

You can?

Yeah.

Okay, great.

Hi, my name is Rochelle, and I work in Seattle and order app-based deliveries.

I want to share my frustration.

I am fed up.

Last Saturday, I ordered from DoorDash, where they charged a fee called the SEA fee, a fee that is designed to undermine and call out the fact that Seattle City Council established a fair wage for good workers.

How disturbing is this?

They also advised me to tip $1 on a $160 order.

What is wrong with these people?

They can continue to contact dashers and drill up opposition from the employees that they've manipulated into blaming the ordinance instead of the greedy company itself.

Today, in these halls, we saw app-based companies like DoorDash send out highly paid representatives to organize delivery drivers.

Are you kidding me?

Is this a joke?

doordash can afford to pay their lobbyists their ceos and their owners well minimum wage but can't pay their delivery drivers uber spent over 2.4 million dollars on lobbying last year doordash spent 1.8 million on lobbying last year ask me why they can't pay we all know and this is disturbing that the city council is even considering a repeal thank you thank you that concludes the virtual public comment now we will transition to the remaining

16. For in-person public comment, we got Mikayla Romero, my apologies, Roy Martin Brown, Thomas L., and Eric Franklin for the first four.

We got Mikayla Romero, Roy Martin Brown, Thomas L., and we have Eric F.

And before you start, maybe if you heard your name, maybe sort of move toward the center aisle so that you're ready to go.

Go ahead, please.

Thank you.

My name is Michaela and I work and use DoorDash in Seattle.

A DoorDash gig worker was my hero on Wednesday when I had a migraine and couldn't drive.

I'm struggling to be here today, but this is an important matter, important enough that I'm sitting here watching representatives from DoorDash walk around shaking hands of people holding pay up opposition signs and prompting them to hold their signs up, hold their signs up.

On my $54 order, $50 of which was HSA, almost $15 would have been added as DoorDash fees without a dash pass, to which I still had to pay $3 with a dash pass.

This order was outside of Seattle.

This migraine emergency order would have cost someone inside of Seattle without a dash pass over $90 for a single order going 1.6 miles.

This ordinance doesn't need to be amended.

Corporations had time to instead amend their unethical business practices to make sure that the meat on the bone went to workers instead of the people at the top of billionaire dollar and not the lobbyists in this room.

Do not amend this ordinance unless it's to solely target corporate retaliation.

Thank you.

Roy Martin Brown, Thomas L., Eric Franklin, Huey Nguyen, and Luis B. Thank you.

Hello, council, and thank you for whoever signed me up.

Here I am.

I'd like to say that my memory goes back to the Clinton administration, and I'm not talking about Bill and Hillary.

I'm talking about the 43rd mayor of Seattle.

And usually what happens is that You might be nice people, I don't know you, I haven't had the opportunity yet to meet you, but the body as a whole has to be dragged kicking and screaming in order to make sure that working class people have an opportunity to continue to not only live in the city, but also work in the city.

Please make sure that you listen to the workers, THAT HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS ABOUT THIS UPCOMING ORDINANCE THAT YOU'RE PLANNING TO CHANGE.

MAKE SURE TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DIRECTLY INVOLVED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

FOLLOWING THAT WE GOT THOMAS L, ERIC FRANKLIN, HUI WIN, LOUISE B, JAMAL H,

Hello, board members.

Thanks for listening to me.

I'm here actually representing my friend, Mr. Nathan Beckwith, who is a DoorDash and a grocery, I don't know what you call it, Instacart.

Okay, here's the thing.

A lot of these restaurants have been talking about they're losing money and whatnot.

What they're not really thinking about is the safety and the public protection of where the fact is people order food from DoorDash and all these hardworking ladies and gentlemen here.

That way a person isn't leaving their home drunk.

So what can the restaurants say about that?

I've been hearing this over and over that restaurants are losing money and whatnot.

Well, they're not thinking about that.

How many of them do they serve drunk customers that come in that these ladies and gentlemen here can be bringing groceries, medication, whatever it is to these people.

That way they don't have to leave their homes drunk.

So they're actually providing a public service.

They really honestly are.

And thank you all.

Give yourself a hand for that.

You really are.

That's all I got to say about that.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

After that, we got Eric F., Huey Nguyen, Luis B., Jamal H., and Javier D.

Hello, my name is Eric Franklin.

Nice to meet you all.

Hi.

I've been a delivery driver for over five years.

I've done over 12,000 deliveries, spent many, many hours delivering, 12-hour nights many times.

I want to tell you that my heart feels when I hear my other drivers out there that say their pay has been cut from $1,000 a week or whatever it was back in half.

and they talk about the restaurants, I've seen that personally talking to all my friends at restaurant owners.

Well, I was sitting here last week and this week, I look around at all the people around me supporting, keep these wages, keep these wages, and I ask, how many deliveries have you done?

And they say, none.

Oh, deliver food?

We're here to support the workers.

Forget about you.

And I'm really confused.

But all the other friends of mine that are delivering around the town, they're really wanting to change back to a free market.

When I get a delivery that says $2, no, thank you.

I'm not forced to do it.

Then I get another one for $7.

I like to make that order.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

After that, we got Huey Nguyen, Luis B., Jamal H., Javier D., and Gwyneth, no, I have to repeat, sorry, Hosam K.,

Hello, council.

My name is Thu Nguyen.

I've been food delivery for AppBase platform for last four or five years.

Before becoming delivery worker, I spent over 20 years something in the restaurant business.

But I have to stop due to the demand of the job.

I work for several platforms.

Now I'm with .

I work for seven, nine hours a day, six, seven days a week.

I like this work.

It gives me pleasure.

Pleasable to choose my own work hours.

I'm here to ask you to change the Libby Pay Law.

I'm very appreciate sometime confused for the wait time.

All the new law took effect.

This is now the recurrent problem.

I need order to pay my bill.

Order to find a different job if things stay this way.

Please change the law.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Following that, we got Luis B., Jamal H., Javier D., and I apologize for mispronouncing your name, Osam K., and then Antonio D. Luis?

Do we have a Jamal H.? What about a Javier D?

Javier?

All right, what about a Hossam K?

All right, what about an Antonio D?

Then we got Larry Shannon, Olivia Hill, Melissa G. Perfect, I think we have Larry Shannon and Olivia Hill next, and then you'll be following that.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

For the record, I'm Larry Shannon with Washington State Association for Justice, with over 800 members in the city of Seattle legal community and speaking in opposition to this proposal.

It's a fundamental precept in our society that for there to be rights, there must be a remedy that goes back to Marbury versus Madison.

Our concern about this proposal is that it strips away any enforcement mechanism and therefore makes the right meaningless.

Three provisions in particular in here are of grave concern to us.

One is the removal of the private right of action, that enforcement mechanism for individuals who are harmed, and no government role can take place because they don't have the ability to enforce those rights for those people.

Secondly is the right to cure.

Third is stripping away the anti-retaliation measures.

Those put together create a virtual immunity for those people.

that violate the law.

We believe very strongly that incentives are created by having those provisions in the law to comply with the law that rewards fair competition and fair competitors and does not allow unfair competitors to get any advantage.

I know my time's up.

Thank you so much for hearing us out and for hearing us all out, Madam Chair.

Mr. Thank you.

We got Olivia H., followed by Melissa G. And the last public commenter, council president, is Paul D. Olivia.

Hi, my name is Olivia.

I live in District 2, and I oppose the proposed changes to the pay-up legislation.

As I was reading them over, I was pretty shocked and appalled at the scope of the changes, and it's hard to know where to start.

Not only do the changes admit there would be a drop in wages, which is a drop below minimum wage, which doesn't make any sense, there's an entire transparency section that strips away good policy in the area of consumer protection and workers' rights.

How does taking away record-keeping responsibility help customers and fix the whole issue of the fees, which is kind of the big issue?

And where in the bill does it restrict the fees?

Which is there in the first place, because instead of distributing their profits...

the businesses are doing this.

So as a constituent, I firmly oppose the changes proposed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Last two public commenters, Melissa G and Paul D.

Hi, I'm back.

I'm opposed to the proposed changes to pay up by Sara Nelson.

It's an indication of a glaring lack of awareness of the lifestyle differences between gig workers and their corporate employers.

Who's influencing this council?

Look around, these people know this city, its restaurants, the grocery stores, and the Seattleites that live here better than any self-isolating wealthy people will.

I know which stores have good cell signals, which neighborhoods would order a date night food and flowers versus a six pack of beer.

The repeal of a minimum wage for gig workers would cause the wealth divide to continue to grow.

As an Instacart shopper, I don't travel recreationally.

I can't afford .

I can't afford park passes and the gasoline to get there.

I can't do regular clothes, I do thrift.

I buy lentils and rice.

Across the board, minimum wage, regardless of the type of job, seems like a bottom basic fundamental issue to protect workers.

It's expensive to live here, and I've already stopped buying Starbucks.

Please protect the lifeblood of this city, the gig workers.

Thank you.

And the last public commenter, Chair Nelson, is Paul D.

How are you?

I've been working as part of Union, and I work in film for many years.

Maybe some of you see me.

I used to work in a Roseanne show.

And I started doing work on the side, and eventually gig work came around, and I had to do this kind of work.

And it used to be very...

beneficial financially.

But over the time, I've seen things swayed more to one side than the other.

However, in this instance, and I feel we are suffering from a pattern that is very common in America, is one size fits all policies.

And it might be that one group, people who do Instacart, for example, are benefiting from this.

And I think that's great.

But everybody that I've talked to come across, compatriots who do it on bikes, a lot of people who are on cars, hundreds and hundreds of people I've known are suffering, are completely obliterated.

We have no work.

I've gone to Chipotle, who is a barometer, and their shelves are completely empty for weeks.

And I've been going there every hour, sometimes every 30 minutes.

So you tell me.

At the end of the day, I'm just judging this on what are the base core results.

Thank you.

Thank you, and Council President, that concludes public comment.

Okay.

I now declare that the public comment period is closed.

Moving right along.

Clerk, can you please read the, I've already given my chair's report.

Again, we'll have two appointments and then we'll discuss Council Bill 120766 and then discussion of Council Bill 120775. All right, clerk, can you please read the first item into the agenda?

Of course, agenda item number one, appointment of Marissa G. Baker as member Labor Standards Advisory Commission for a term to April 30th, 2025. Briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Hello and thank you for your patience.

Why don't you go ahead and introduce yourselves and just begin your presentation.

Good afternoon, Council President Nelson, Vice Chair Caddo, and members of the committee.

My name is Shu-Xuan Zhou, and I am a policy analyst at the Office of Labor Standards.

I also serve as a commission liaison to the Seattle Labor Standards Advisory Commission, LSAC.

Thank you for taking the time today to consider the mayoral appointment of Dr. Marisa Baker.

I will provide a quick intro to our sector commission and Dr. Marisa Baker, and then Dr. Baker will talk more about herself.

Established in 2015, LSAC is a 15-member commission comprised of business, community, and labor leaders.

LSAC is tasked with advising the Office of Labor Standards, the Mayor, and City Council, and other agencies regarding wages, working conditions, worker safety and health, and labor standards and protection.

The Commission also provides feedback to OAS on the implementation of labor standards ordinances.

Finally, the Enabling Ordinance, SMC 3.15, charges LSAC to recommend efforts to achieve workplace equity for women, communities of color, immigrants, and refugees, and other vulnerable workers.

Dr. Marisa Baker is an assistant professor in the UW Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Science and the deputy director of the Northwest Center for Occupational Health and Safety.

Dr. Baker's research centers on occupational experiences of vulnerable and underrepresented groups.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, she worked closely with a variety of worker organizations, government and industry partners to characterize physical and mental health impact outcomes experienced by workers, characterize their risk perceptions and needs, and propose and evaluate interventions for safe work.

Dr. Baker has extensive experiences serving at advisory committees for international and national agencies, including, it's very long list, including the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the EPA Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals, the OSHA Construction Safety and Health Advisory Group, and WHO Technic Advisory Group on Occupational Burden of Disease Estimation.

And now I'm going to pass it on to Dr. Baker to introduce herself.

Hi there.

Thank you for considering my appointment today.

As we just heard, I'm an assistant professor at the University of Washington in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences.

That's located in our School of Public Health at the University of Washington.

I study how work impacts health, both how it positively impacts health and how it can negatively impact health.

My work has spanned from studying manganese in steel and how that impacts the neurological function of welders.

I've done work with bus drivers, marine operators.

I've done work on both physical health outcomes and also mental health outcomes.

And I remain committed to using data and evidence-based methods to understand how we can improve work experiences for all workers in Seattle.

When my graduate students start with me, one thing that they always say is, I want my research to impact policy.

I want to change OSHA.

And usually what I tell them is, probably your master's thesis is not going to change OSHA.

OSHA has not changed since 1970. But your master's thesis and the work you do might have impacts in local government.

And I really encourage my students to get involved locally because we obviously have, we're a leader in the country for the progressive policies that we have per workers here, both at the state level and at the city.

And so I'm taking their words to heart and I'm excited for this appointment to be able to help to influence the policies here in the city that I love.

Thank you very much.

Does anybody have any questions?

Go ahead.

Thank you, Council President.

I just want to thank you, Marissa, for volunteering to do this really important work.

And my dad was a welder in a factory, and so I really appreciate the work that you are doing.

It's meaningful to people's lives.

And so when you said that, I thought about my dad.

These are volunteer positions, and we're just so lucky to have folks with your background who are willing to sit on these boards and really help as we are looking at these issues at the city.

So I just really want to thank you.

Appreciate it.

One thing that I'm noticing that's interesting about this board is that the positions don't require a certain representative from a particular constituency.

Is that correct?

So the ordinance does require this commission to have members who are from businesses, community, and the labor who are committed and have a deep understanding of labor standards.

Okay, I wasn't seeing that column on here.

I wanted to make the point that this is a representative that makes complete sense.

We're looking at worker health and impacts in the workplace and perhaps even beyond and making some policy recommendations.

And at some point, probably in the day that we don't have such a long agenda, I would love to talk to you about some of your initial thoughts about how you would contribute to the board.

Does anyone have anything else?

And also, I can send a follow-up email just including the constituents into this roster to all of the committee members.

Will that be helpful?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

And also, Council President, it's just so important with this particular board, or commission rather, to have representation from across the various areas.

Yeah, science.

Exactly, yeah.

Council President.

Go ahead.

Thank you very much for volunteering.

That's so important across the board.

There's other commissions and organizations that we need people to, we just had the fire control advisory board, code advisory board, and we need volunteers like in insurance in different places.

So thank you for volunteering on this board and bringing this outlook as a child of another welder.

You know, that's very important.

And I have to ask, do you or any of your colleagues done any studies on gig workers?

Yes, yeah.

Well, and first I'll say, You know, I'm glad to, you should read my dissertation.

It's all about welders, so I'll...

My son welds, so I want to join the club.

If you have some extra time, just go ahead and check that out.

No, you know, I have worked with gig workers in the past.

Others at the University of Washington have as well.

There was a large study that my colleagues in, I think, the Evans School of Public Policy were working on related to pay.

I worked with the driver's union during COVID-19 related to how to keep the driver safe, thinking about masks and cleaning and things like that.

So the work I've done has benefited gig workers related to keeping them safe in their vehicles during a pandemic.

Okay, great.

Feel free to forward them.

Thank you.

I couldn't help myself but ask.

Okay.

I'm not seeing anybody's hands raised.

So if there aren't any other questions or comments, I move that the committee recommend passage of appointment 02850. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Seconded to recommend passage of the appointment.

Looks like there are no further comments.

So let's go ahead and vote on it.

Will the clerk please read the roll call?

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Aye.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Karen Elson.

Aye.

Five present.

Or five in favor.

All right.

Thank you very much.

The item has passed.

Please affix my signature to the legislation, and it will be heard in the, not next Tuesday, but the following Tuesday.

The recommendation for the passage of appointment will be at full council.

And you are welcome to come if you would like, but you don't have to.

All right.

Will the clerk please read the second item into the agenda?

Agenda item number two, reappointment of Kristen Hawes as member Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission for a term to December 31st, 2026. Briefing discussion and possible vote.

Good afternoon.

Hi, Wayne.

Hi.

I'm here to answer any questions you might have about Ms. Haw's reappointment.

She was first appointed by Mayor Durkan in 2021. This is her reappointment.

She is right now the chair of the commission.

So she's just ascended.

She was the vice chair and now the chair.

A very able attorney, now a retiree, community activist.

So yes, happy to answer any questions you might have.

The, does, is there a term limit?

Do most people, is it assumed that two people get, a person gets two terms and then, is there, do they term out or how does it work?

It is, for the most part, since I've been here, it's generally been two terms.

I believe Bruce Carter from Queen Anne, he served three terms, but yes, for the most part, it is two.

Okay, I am reading here that Kristen is a member of the Seattle Summit Law Group.

She was.

I'm sorry, she's retired.

Oh, she was.

Okay, she's retired.

Got it.

All right.

Well, I do not have any questions for you about this reappointment.

Do any of my colleagues?

No.

All right.

Then I will go ahead and move the appointment.

I move that the committee recommend passage of appointment 02833. Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of appointment 02833. Will the clerk please recall the roll?

Councilmember Kettle?

Aye.

Councilmember Hollingsworth?

Aye.

Councilmember Rivera?

Aye.

Councilmember Saka?

Aye.

Chair Nelson?

Aye.

Five in favor?

Thank you very much.

The appointment passes and the, would you please affix my signature to the legislation.

This will go before council next week.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

All right.

Would you please read item three into the record?

Of course.

Agenda item number three, an ordinance relating to recruitment and retention of police officers in the Seattle Police Department, SPD, transferring positions from Seattle Department of Human Resources, SDHR, to SPD, creating in SPD a recruitment and retention program amending ordinance 126955, which adopted the 2024 budget changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the budget, amending section 4.08.070 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

Briefing and discussion.

All right.

I'm glad we're talking about actual legislation that has been introduced.

Last time, we talked about draft legislation.

So colleagues, you were elected in large part on the strength of your position on public safety.

And now that you've been in office for 100 days, you're experiencing firsthand the frustration and anger and impatience from your constituents on what they perceive as our failure to really improve on public safety and one of the reasons for that is our shockingly low SPD staffing levels.

And so I am happy to say that today we do have before us one tool to help us do something about it per our constituents requests and what we should do in our duty as council members.

So why is this so important?

SPD continues to lose more officers than it can hire, and there are many reasons for this.

Now, let's just list off some of them.

Number one, people mention low morale, stem from messages of the previous council's lack of support for law enforcement.

Then there's the fact that they've been operating without a contract, which results in the fact that their wages have not kept up with inflation or cost of living increases in Seattle or neighboring jurisdictions.

There's the fact that opportunities for advancement are limited because In order to meet or lower emergency response times when people call 911, investigators were moved from those units into patrol, so there's very little opportunity to advance upwards.

Our force is aging and people are retiring.

On top of that, then there are the stressors of a lot of overtime because we don't have enough officers, sometimes four, to fill a shift at different precincts.

So they're working overtime and they're working on the front lines of an unprecedented situation.

Fentanyl crisis, so I could go on and on and on there.

And then let's not forget an oft cited issue which is the tight labor pool that is affecting cities across the country.

So there are many contributing factors to our staffing problem.

And there are so many of them that it can sort of feel overwhelming.

Where do we start?

And I just have to say, this is not like climate change, which can also make us feel hopeful.

It makes people feel like, well, what could I do?

Throw up their hands.

There's no one string we can pull.

There's no magic solution.

We do what?

We do nothing.

But I want you to notice that all of those items that I just mentioned, those are factors that make it hard for us to keep officers.

We have also got to look at the other side of the equation, which is how we access, recruit, and hire more officers and that is more in our control and so what i'm trying to do with this legislation is focus on what we can fix and our hiring and recruitment practices is a good place to start because we can't not do anything and it's um it's time it's i don't know it's Leave no stone unturned.

It's all hands on deck, et cetera, et cetera.

Fill in your cliche, but that is what we're trying to do with this legislation.

What it would do in a nutshell is organize our overall recruitment strategy under a single accountable chain of command within SBD's HR division and make some no-brainer improvements to our hiring process to get more people into the pipeline.

That's what we're trying to do here.

What it will not do, what this legislation will not do is compromise our commitment to constitutional policing as set forth in the consent decree and in our accountability ordinance or lower our standards for what we want in the officers that serve our community.

In fact, the opposite is true because our hiring process is a six month long road with lots of speed bumps and potholes that leaves applicants in limbo at various stages during which competing jurisdictions in the region, swoop in and get the limited pool of recruits and then it's hard for us to hire.

Then our pipeline is not filled, it's narrower and it's very difficult for us to even get enough folks to go through the process.

So that is what we're dealing with and that is what this legislation tries to address.

And I would like to now give my vice chair of the committee and the co-sponsor of this legislation an opportunity to provide some brief opening remarks and then let our central staff analysts take over the presentation.

Council Member Kettle.

Chair Nelson, thank you so much, Mr. Das.

Ms. Gorman, thank you very much for being here and presenting.

This is a very important day as it respects to our efforts to improve our public safety posture.

I will note this is an important step regarding the first pillar in the strategic framework to address the permissive environment that underlines our public safety challenges.

And so on that point, I like the fact and I appreciate the fact that it's not just the Public Safety Committee, but also the Governance Accountability and Economic Development Committee that is engaging on this.

This shows that with respect to retention, recruitment and retention, that we're showing leadership.

We're making that point to the men and women of the Seattle Police Department that we do support them and that we're looking to work the issues, but also with the oversight and accountability that was mentioned As noted, pay is very important, but there's a number of other issues as well, particularly within the recruitment retention piece that need to be addressed.

Some of these basic pieces that need to be improved and lined up, and today's bill is an important step along that.

And also, this is also an important step as it relates to the many concerns that I hear, read, and see each day.

Every day, I have somebody outreach me regarding the public safety concerns that are happening on our streets.

This morning, it's Belltown.

It could be downtown, Magnolia, Queen Anne, Uptown, you know, West, East, and South Lake Union.

This is a daily piece, and then they're asking for answers, and we have to show that we're serious about this and that we're working the pieces to improve that public safety posture and ultimately to create that safe base that is our goal for our city.

So thank you very much for...

for joining us today and with a briefing related to this legislation that I'm co-sponsoring.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Just one note, this is being heard in my committee because two of the actions in here, the actions being taken will mostly involve the Seattle Department of Human Resources and it touches on some of the practices of the Public Safety Civil Service Commission, both of which report to my committee, but we have been working on this for a while together.

So with that, I'll ask that council members hold their questions for each of the, until the end of your presentation, and then we can discuss it in more detail.

Go ahead.

Thank you very much.

Madam President, Council Members, Ann Gorman from Council Central Staff here today to talk about Council Bill 120766. As noted, this bill is sponsored by Council President Nelson and Council Member Kettle.

And the reference to retention here is because one of the things this bill does is establish a formally constituted recruitment and retention unit at the Seattle Police Department, but today we're going to be focusing on the recruitment side of things.

Last committee meeting of this committee, April 11th, my colleague Greg Doss, who's here with me today, was here with an unintroduced version of this bill.

He wrote a very comprehensive staff memo regarding the bill.

That's available for council members to read.

We're also available to brief any council members who are interested on this bill so that they can have all the information they need on the bill and its effects.

In summary, this bill would seek to make the recruitment and hiring of Seattle Police Department officers more efficient, and I will talk about how it would do that.

Just some background, the impetus for why we are here today.

As Council President Nelson stated, the police department has lost almost 340 fully trained officers since 2019. SPD is now at its lowest staffing level since the late 1990s.

And that's at a time when our population has been growing rapidly.

So the ratio of police officers to population has been going down precipitously.

In May of 2022, council passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a hiring incentive program in Seattle Police Department, including bonuses for new and laterally transferring police officers.

And in July of that year, Mayor Harrell announced such a program, including those hiring bonuses and also making a couple changes that were designed to...

you know, get police officers on board more quickly.

For instance, the elimination of travel requirements as people were becoming police officers and greater collaboration with colleges and universities.

That initiative also included factors designed to retain current police officers.

In August of 2022, Council authorized and allocated funding for this plan and created four positions in the Seattle Department of Human Resources, SDHR, to launch it.

However, despite this investment and despite these legislative efforts, there has not been an appreciable increase in SPD officer hiring, and that has been of concern to Council members this year.

On March 12th, the Public Safety Committee featured a panel of stakeholders in the SPD hiring process.

Both of the sponsors of this bill participated in that conversation and they advocated some process improvements.

First of all, they expressed interest in reorganizing the recruitment initiative, following best practices, and instituting accountability measures.

And they also had some thoughts about how to improve the efficiency of the middle phase of the officer hiring process.

I'll talk a little bit more about the middle phase a couple slides from now.

Tim, the next slide, please.

Who are the stakeholders in police officer hiring?

There are many of them.

Let's just walk through right now.

Certainly the council and the executive, as we have seen.

The Public Safety Civil Service Commission, PSCSC, also has a role in police officer hiring.

That is an independent body that, among other duties set out in the city charter, directs the development and administration of merit-based civil service exams for the Seattle police and fire departments.

And its functions are also governed by state laws.

And just to be explicit, anybody who wants to become a police officer or a firefighter in the city of Seattle, must take and pass a test.

Everyone takes and passes the same test.

It's a level playing field.

The Seattle Department of Human Resources houses the Fire and Police Exams Unit, which conducts those exams and works closely with people who may be taking those exams, have taken those exams, want to understand the entire process of becoming a police officer.

And the Seattle Police Department, of course, has lost a lot of officers, is interested in bringing the number of deployable police officers back to a level that supports the need in the city of Seattle.

And the impacts of the low staffing are deeply felt at the police department.

Not only are officers, not only are response times lower because there are fewer fewer officers to send to calls, but officers who are incumbent are working a lot of overtime, which can have health and morale impacts on them, as you observed, Council President.

Recruiting is a function that is currently conducted in both SDHR and the Seattle Police Department.

According to sponsors, the ultimate goal of this bill is to improve SPD's ability to recruit and retain sworn officers and start reversing what has been a downward trend in officer hiring.

Can I have the next?

Thank you.

So what's going on here, this slide shows a fairly simplified representation of the status quo in terms of the hiring process for police officers.

I will walk through the status quo up top and then talk about the changes that this bill would make.

As you can see and as I referenced on the previous slide, recruitment is currently housed both in the police department and in SDHR.

Recruitment is essentially the gaining and maintaining of people's interest so that they step forward and they say, yes, I'm going to take the test.

I'm going to see whether I'm eligible to become a police officer.

Once they make that decision, they The test that they will be taking has been selected by PSCSC according to criteria that are set out in the RCW, the Revised Code of Washington.

And those criteria, in layman's terms, are that the test needs to be practical, it needs to be fair, and it needs to measure the things that they will actually be doing as police officers.

The test that is selected by PSCSC is administered by the SDHR exam unit, which I also mentioned on the previous slide.

Their role as test administrators is laid out in the Seattle Municipal Code, but they do more than that.

It's really a...

an outreach relationship that they have with people who are taking the test.

They can answer questions about it.

In case somebody does not pass the test the first time, they can say, here are some things you can do, here's when the next test will be offered.

It's a very service-oriented relationship that they have sometimes with candidates.

The exams are administered.

A subset of people who take the exams pass the exams.

And what is developed from the list of people who pass the exams is something called an eligibility register.

And this is essentially a list of everyone who is eligible based on the last test event to become a police officer.

We say eligible because after they have passed the test, there is still a number of steps that they have to go through to actually become a police officer.

Council President, you talked about a six-month-long process.

There are a number of steps that they have to go through.

They have to have a background check.

They have to have a psychological check.

They have to do a fitness and agility test.

There is a lot that happens.

And by the way, what I mean by the middle phase, it's kind of between recruitment and screening by SPD.

It's where candidates are interacting with the PSCSC and the SDHR exam unit.

What this bill would do, this bill would remove, would, take the recruitment positions that are currently in SDHR and move them into SPD so that there would be one dedicated unit devoted to Seattle police officer recruitment.

And it would be in the police department.

It would be in the HR unit.

It would have strong management.

It would have accountability measures.

And that's where the brand new formal recruitment and retention program would come from.

Another thing this bill would do is add a new position to the SDHR exam unit.

This would support more frequent production of the eligibility register and better ability to engage with candidates on a personal level.

Another thing this bill would do is encourage the PSCSC within what is laid out in the RCW to select a test that is used not only by the city of Seattle, but also by other regional jurisdictions, other law enforcement agencies and sheriff's offices.

That is not the case right now.

The test that the city of Seattle uses is it's kind of custom.

It's just our test.

And because many people who want to become a police officer apply to several different agencies at once, when there is one test, it makes it easier for them to put their application out there and get them on the radar of more agencies that are hiring.

Next slide, please.

And this is really just a restatement of what the bill does without the distracting picture.

And it's fairly simple what the bill does.

It creates a new recruitment and retention program in SPD.

It'll be staffed by three positions transferred from SDHR.

Adds a new position in SDHR to support the registry publication and enhance outreach to officer candidates.

And it encourages the PSCSE to do three things.

The PSCSE is an independent agency.

Council cannot do more than encourage.

It asks the PSCSE to use the police exam currently in use by multiple competitor agencies also to increase the frequency of its publication of police officer eligibility registers and increase candidate contacts.

And the inclusion of the personnel analyst, you know, by the PSCSE's own admission should address the ask to increase the register publication and increase candidate contacts.

Next slide, please.

We are here today with this presentation.

We will be back on May 9th when this committee will discuss and vote on this bill.

A technical amendment has already been drafted and approved by law.

And that technical amendment was produced with the very thoughtful and thorough contributions of PSCSC.

I wanna state publicly that we are grateful for their careful reading of it and for their interest shared with council members in getting this bill right.

There may be additional amendments forthcoming from one or more of you.

And if that's the case, we would appreciate knowing about them by May 1st so that there is enough time for law review so that they are ready for your vote on May 9th.

PSCSE requested that new personnel analyst position to help it certify and publish the police officer register and to increase outreach to candidates.

That is included in this bill.

PSCSE also requested a new manager position.

We are working to understand what the duties of the manager position should be from their perspective with respect to the personnel analyst position, and we will follow up with what we learn.

We are also in conversation with the law department to learn more about the test requirements in the RSCW.

Next slide.

Any questions from committee members?

I have one before I make more general comments and then open it up.

Greg, could you please address the reporting requirements that go along with the creation of a new recruitment and retention program within SPD?

Sure.

So there are a number of reporting requirements beginning on July 15th of 2024. There needs to be metrics provided on the number of contacts that are made by civilian or sworn staff who have registered for or completed the exam.

The data needs to be disaggregated by the type of contact that was made.

There are measures that are required on industry standards such as the exam pass rate, the number of applicants who sit for an exam, the entry applications per day, the applicant to eligibility rate.

There are requests for information and metrics on new and innovative programs that are being launched by the department to include an increase in female candidates consistent with the 30 by 30 campaign.

There are requirements for pre-exam and post-exam survey data that is used to guide marketing campaigns and advertising strategies.

to ensure that we're using national best practices and local best practices.

And then finally, the average time that's needed to complete the backgrounding process, again, trying to speed up the administrative portion.

Got it.

So in short, if I may paraphrase, I believe that it is designed to, the reporting requirements are designed to make sure that good ideas that are innovative and best practices elsewhere actually get vetted and perhaps hopefully implemented.

And also that we're looking at what's working and what isn't, right?

So I think that that is very important.

We always have to be checking ourselves.

Okay, well, we heard in the Public Safety Committee meeting, I believe it was in March, when you had so many stakeholders from the mayor's office and SPD and PSCSC.

We heard from more than just your committee members intense interest in this topic with council members expressing frustration that It seems like there's more to be done, but we're not doing it.

And what I want to say is that details matter, and this might be the first time that we're actually digging into the details of our present recruiting and hiring processes.

I think that is a worthy avenue of trying to bring up staffing levels more quickly.

So I will now ask if my colleagues have any questions or comments.

Go ahead.

Thank you for your briefing, and obviously, I've read and gone through the ordinance, and I look forward to the technical amendment and the follow-on questions, but I'm somewhat interested, or not interested, but surprised in the sense that there's at least like a half-dozen jurisdictions that use both the NTN, the National Testing Network, and the Public Safety Tests, the PST, so the NTN and the PST, And so if there were some issues with the RCW, I would think Sonoma County would already know that.

And so that's of interest to me that, you know, there's questions regarding the ability to have two tests when there's many jurisdictions that are already using both tests.

And one would think that if there was some legal issue with that, that would have been raised already and addressed.

Yeah, point taken, Councilmember Kettle.

That is one of the issues that's under legal analysis that Anne raised.

We hope to have an answer for you on May 7th.

Can I add, too, separately, that we're looking at the whole process, and I do appreciate all the work that's been done on the executive side with the mayor's office, the SPD, and HR, and the like to make the improvements that have been accomplished thus far.

But clearly we do have some more to do and this is the reason behind the ordinance and we're doing this in partnership with the executive side and I would say also PSCSC too to improve the process and to really whittle down those bottlenecks, those hiccups that we have that are preventing us from achieving our goals.

I just wanted to add that, too, to my earlier remarks, that I appreciate the collaborative effort, albeit with a few questions here and there, and this being one.

And again, I note that a half dozen or so jurisdictions use both, so one would think the legal question has already been raised and asked.

Yeah, Council Member McKellen, if I might add, the language in here encourages the PSCC to consider using that, consider adding the PST test.

So certainly they could consider adding that in addition to the NTN test.

And so that's what we're finding out, whether or not law would be, if that's okay with them.

I wanted to also put into more detail plain language what the addition of the FTE would do.

Here's what we're not doing right now.

We are not, when someone applies to work at SPD, they don't hear from a real human for, you know, it can be up to three, six weeks.

It's until after the first exam is taken.

Most other jurisdictions make contact within 48 hours.

Hello, thank you for applying.

And this is a real email from a real person, perhaps a real call.

And at that point, there is established a point of contact.

Questions can be answered.

And then they are at some point introduced to the recruitment team on the law enforcement agency side.

And we're not doing that.

And so we're also talking about improving the candidate experience.

This is a fundamental practice of law.

talent acquisition, I know that that sounds sort of cliche or corporate, but we're not doing what other jurisdictions are doing to make new candidates feel welcome and also orient them to the next stages because you're right, there are several other stages and they can be onerous.

The backgrounding requires a lot of record production, et cetera.

There's a polygraph, there's a physical exam.

There are many places along the way that we can weed out unqualified candidates as well.

So it's not just the test that will vet the caliber of candidates that are seeking employment at the city.

So I do want to say that this is about the added FTE is enabling the bringing together of contact information so that people can be contacted personally right after they apply.

Yes, I agree with what you're saying.

Let me just add one other point.

The middle phase of the recruitment process is our opportunity to orient someone, not just to policing, but to policing in Seattle.

Once somebody starts to go down the screening process with another agency, then we have lost our opportunity to bring that person on board.

as a city of Seattle police officer.

And other cities that are publishing their registers more frequently are getting names in front of the recruiting team of people who are keenly and freshly interested in joining up with an agency and going down the rest of that months-long path.

So that middle phase, as I decided to call it and put it on the slide, is so important in increasing the pipeline of good candidates to the city of Seattle.

Right.

and doing so in a timely fashion so that we can compete with other jurisdictions that might swoop in because those individuals have also applied to other jurisdictions and then offering employment right then.

So that is the problem.

And then that slide that you put up that was kind of complicated, but I want to make a point that if you have that are sort of being duplicated but not coordinated in two different departments, that's a recipe for nobody being in charge and nobody being the point person of accountability to make sure that the job is really getting done, that new processes are being implemented, and then we end up with this not my fault, not my fault, and nothing improves in the long run.

And so that is the, that's why we're trying to make sure that everybody is that the recruitment team is in one place and also interacting with other divisions within SPD, such as the relational policing division.

They will be talking to the before the badge group because these recruits, if they are hired, then they go through that program.

And so it's just a way of making sure that the essential functions of the hiring processes are in one place once they get through the early parts of the application and testing process.

All right.

Okay, anything to add central staff?

Nothing, thank you.

Thank you very much.

This is bureaucratic work, but it's very important and we have to do everything we possibly can to bring on officers, good officers more quickly.

So this will be discussed again for a possible vote at our next committee meeting on May 9th.

And please colleagues, if you have any, amendments, get them to central staff by the first.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay, our last item.

Thank you all for sticking around.

Will the clerk please read item four into the record.

Agenda item number three, an ordinance relating to recruitment and retention of...

My apologies.

Let's try that again.

Agenda item number four, An ordinance relating to app based worker labor standards, establishing a new compensation scheme for app based workers with minimum pay requirements and related standards for transparency and flexibility.

Amending sections eight point three point zero two zero eight point three.

8.37125, 8.37.165 and 8.37170 for the Seattle Municipal Code and repealing section 8.37.230 of the Seattle Municipal Code briefing and discussion.

All right, so let's address the elephant in the room here first off and then we'll go, I have some opening comments.

The question that has been banded about is, will this bill eliminate the minimum wage for delivery workers?

Will it roll back the minimum pay standard of the current bill?

And the answer is no. require network companies to pay app-based workers the city's minimum wage, which is $19.97 per hour, for their time on delivery, plus tips and an expense reimbursement of 35 cents a mile.

That's what this bill does.

In contrast, the existing law, nowhere in the existing law is a minimum payment requirement.

the actual number is the minimum payment set.

We don't see that particular number.

Instead, there is a pre-order calculation of 44 cents a minute plus 74 cents per mile that's supposed to generate 133% of Seattle's minimum wage.

But in order to actually earn that amount It depends on the number of orders that the workers actually accept in an hour.

And that's not happening right now, but we'll be discussing that in a bit.

This legislation would also maintain substantial upfront disclosures for each offer, a minimum amount of time an offer must be presented, receipts after completing each offer, receipts after each pay period, and protections to reject offers or cancel offers in multiple situations.

So how did we get here?

Just a little bit of history.

In February 2022, legislation on labor standards for app-based workers first came before the Public Safety and Human Services Committee.

It was called the Pay Up legislation, the Pay Up Initiative.

At that time, I expressed my support for minimum wage for delivery drivers, but I also noted that I had serious concerns about its potential unintended consequences or negative impacts on driver income, restaurant and retail business revenue and also customer costs.

All right.

The the actual legislation passed in May of 2022 and after an extended period of rulemaking went into effect on January 13. And outcry was immediate.

On that evening, King 5 ran a story about a driver's precipitous drop in wages.

He attended the next city council meeting and made public comment during the meeting, along with several other drivers experiencing the same thing, and they called for a repeal of the law.

They have continued to show up every single meeting, and sometimes at other meetings, I mean every city council meeting and sometimes other meetings for the past three months.

We also began receiving emails from restaurants detailing drastic reductions in revenues for their delivery orders and also from customers who could no longer afford to order food or other essentials on these delivery apps.

So according, and then the data started rolling in, or the survey results.

According to a survey of over 500 drivers conducted in early March by Drive Forward, which is a Washington-based driver advocacy nonprofit, the wait time between orders has shifted from 41% of drivers waiting less than five minutes before January 13th to 56% of drivers waiting more than 30 minutes after January 13th.

January 13th.

And earnings per hour, including tips, has dropped between 11% and 50%.

And the two are correlated, because obviously, if the orders aren't coming in, they're not making as many deliveries.

And so they're not engaged in as much engaged time.

That is the problem there.

And I alluded to that issue just in my previous comments.

All right, in addition, another survey came out of Seattle restaurants, and it shows an average decline in revenue of about 38% for restaurants, and 97 of those restaurants polled favored repealing the law.

So based on what we were hearing and seeing in our email boxes and in the survey, I felt a moral obligation to do something about it.

And if that wasn't going to be repealing the legislation as urged by drivers and restaurants and customers, then at least try to fix it.

So I set about meeting with representatives from network companies and Drive Forward to urge them to work together to come up with some options.

And they made it clear from the get-go, both sides, that they did not support repeal of the law.

Drive Forward supports a minimum pay standard, but saw what happened when the riders' services were regulated before I came onto council.

uh, you know, uh, ride, uh, request dropped 50% and that hurt driver income.

And so their message was basically don't get rid of the minimum pay standard.

This is the drive forward.

Just recalibrate it so that it works for all workers.

So believe me, I want everybody to know that the last thing I wanted to do was open up such a politically hot topic.

It wasn't fun the first time.

It's not fun right now.

And I apologize to my colleagues for doing so.

But this is .

This compromise proposal has now been in the public record for weeks and weeks.

And proponents of pay up, the original bill, Working Washington, has made clear they're not willing to accept any changes to the existing law.

They haven't proposed any real policy solutions to stem the loss of orders for restaurants and earnings opportunities for workers.

They're now calling for additional data and stakeholdering.

But then we hear in chambers that some folks are minimizing the consequences this law has had on drivers like the group that has been coming every day.

and showing up.

And so clearly, we're not going to say who's right, but I believe that the emotions recognize that the impacts are quite real.

Meanwhile, the Office of Labor Standards appears to be doubling down.

They told the Seattle Times that additional data was needed to from network companies to justify the new fee and new reporting, possible reporting rules are being proposed.

So it seems as though the focus is on the network companies.

And both sides here, both sides, the network companies and the proponents of this bill have said, intense stakes in what happens here.

There are national implications that will ensue based on what happens here.

I am concerned about the workers and the businesses that are being affected right now.

And so that's what I'm trying to focus on.

And I am a pragmatist.

I don't want to wait for months because people can't pay rent right now.

And so that is why I am motivated to do something that will that will have an immediate impact.

And this first in the nation legislation is what caused the chain of events that we're experiencing now.

So therefore, I feel that it's incumbent upon us to reverse the unintended consequences that I predicted from the get-go.

reduced customer demand leading to reduced orders that ends up with reduced driver income and reduced restaurant and retail business revenue.

And so therefore I sought a solution that will make the fee go away.

The fee has to go away because nobody is disputing that that was a catalyst to this.

The fee needs to go away and that will hopefully lower the bill that customers see, the orders will go up, et cetera.

And so the whole So some of the damage will be reversed and it's very important not to wait around here because customer behavior is changing and people again are having a hard time paying their living expenses.

Businesses could be considering laying off workers, etc.

So that is why this is before us right now.

I want to assure people that Waiting months and months more is not an option for me.

We did receive an email this morning from Instacart saying that they will be removing a fee.

So I am optimistic and trying to go at this from a pragmatic perspective.

So with that introduction, please will our presenters introduce yourselves and begin your presentation.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jasmine Marwaha, and I'm a central staff analyst on your council central staff.

And I am Karina Bull, also a central staff analyst.

While you're pulling it up, I would ask my colleagues to hold your questions until after the presentation.

Thanks.

All right, so today our presentation will first go over a brief summary of the legislation, and then we'll present some policy considerations for the committee and end with next steps.

As always, we're happy to answer questions at the end.

So the app-based worker minimum payment revisions ordinance, actually I should pause here and say there's been some folks that refer to it as amendments to the law or amendments to the ordinance, but because there may be amendments to these revisions, we're referring to the proposed changes to the current law as the app-based worker minimum payment revisions.

Okay, thank you.

So I just want to make sure that terminology is clear.

All right, so the Add 1 Provisions Ordinance would amend the pay standard established by the current law, Seattle Municipal Code 837, with the intent of providing guaranteed minimum earnings standard for app-based workers while reducing labor and administrative costs for network companies and incentivizing network companies to lower their consumer fees.

The goal in reducing fees is to increase overall consumer demand and provide economic benefits to the app-based workers, restaurants, and businesses that rely on these services, as well as the network companies themselves.

This legislation also amends the transparency, flexibility, and enforcement provisions of the current law with the intent of further reducing the cost by easing the regulatory burdens on network companies.

So the first element of the revisions involves a pay standard.

So the legislation would guarantee a gross minimum wage of $19.97 an hour and $0.35 a mile.

And essentially, it would remove the associated cost, time, and mileage factors that are in the current law.

and reduce the mileage rate.

The gross hourly rate is equal to the city's current minimum wage, and the mileage rate is lower than the current law.

The current law's mileage rate is linked to the IRS reimbursement rate, and it may not reflect the effective costs for most app-based workers.

So the proposed legislation sets it at 35 cents a mile.

Other provisions include engaged time or paid time being calculated when a worker is en route instead of upon acceptance of an offer.

There's no payment for offers canceled with cause unless the customer changes the drop-off location and it results in five or more minutes of estimated engaged time changing.

The pay would be calculated over a network company earnings period instead of per offer, and it would allow network companies to count incentives and bonuses toward the minimum pay standard.

The proposed transparency revisions include changes to the upfront offer disclosures that workers receive in advance of deciding whether to accept or reject the offer.

It would retain many elements, including the estimate of engage time, the estimated engage miles, geographic location, approximation, a guaranteed minimum payment, names of businesses, it would remove the specific pick up and drop off locations, the amount of the tip if offered at that time, and information about physical labor requirements or unsealed contents.

It would also remove requirements for receipts to the customer and it would permit the removal of geographic location of an order if the user deletes their account.

And finally, it would remove OLS's ability to require affirmative production of records for administration, evaluation, and enforcement purposes.

Oop, went backward.

Here we go.

All right.

So the changes to the flexibility requirements include clarification that the company can allow rewards or incentives for workers having a higher acceptance rate or availability, essentially that a network company cannot terminate a worker's contract for a lower acceptance rate, but they can take other actions.

Right now, they are prohibited from instituting any adverse action in response to a worker lowering their acceptance rate or availability.

It would permit a network company, the legislation would permit a network company to limit worker access to the app if the company discloses the reason why the worker cannot access the app.

This was intended to respond to situations where there might be many workers in a given area and can respond to the lack of demand.

It would also narrow and clarify reasons.

and the impact of canceling an offer with cause.

So a network company cannot terminate a worker's contract for canceling an offer with cause.

The legislation also changes a number of provisions for enforcement.

It modifies anti-retaliation protections, eliminating the presumptions that would otherwise establish retaliation.

It modifies OLS rulemaking authority and clarifies the scope of permissible rules.

It eliminates the private right of action, and it establishes a cure period for certain non-willful violations.

This is a slide that just talks about the changes at a glance.

It may not include everything, but it gets most of it on there if you want a one-stop shop.

Next, we'll go to some policy considerations.

The following slides highlight significant policy changes or considerations associated with the revisions ordinance.

It may not represent all the various options or even all the considerations, but if a council member is interested in addressing any of the policy considerations here, central staff can work to identify options and prepare amendments that meet the council member's interests.

So first we'll start with the network company consumer fees.

With limited information, it is difficult to assess specifically how the current regulations impact labor and administrative costs, and correspondingly how the proposed legislation would directly result in changes to the cost, demand, and supply of network company services, particularly the proposed non-economic provisions.

Network companies, it's also possible that network companies could still choose to offset the cost of regulation by raising costs and may retain consumer fees.

The central staff memo identifies a range of potential options for this consideration.

For worker earnings, if the legislation achieves the intended impact of reducing consumer fees and thereby increase consumer demand for online orders, the proposed pay standard, even though it would be lower potentially than the current requirements, it would increase or could increase worker earnings as compared to prior to the law being in effect.

And the proposed legislation would result in a gross payment of the Seattle minimum wage to at-based workers when they're actively performing offers.

However, it may result in a net payment that falls below minimum wage when accounting for on-call time and expenses.

A central staff memo, again, identifies a range of options for this consideration.

the earnings period and incentives.

The legislation would require a minimum payment standard to be met for all engaged time over the course of a network company's earnings period, rather than for each offer, and allow incentives and bonuses to count towards the minimum pay requirement.

This change could result in labor costs per online order being reduced and it may lead to network companies to reduce their consumer fees per offer.

It may also result in less transparency and predictability at the end of the earnings period for a worker and a lower likelihood that the incentives and bonuses would add up to higher earnings than the minimum required by law.

Central staff has identified a range of potential options for this consideration in the memo.

Customer receipts.

The proposed legislation would remove the requirement for customer receipts.

I believe those requirements include a date and time of the order's completion, the total amount paid to the network company, the itemization of all charges, fees, and tips.

And while the network companies may still provide this information to consumers regardless of this requirement, the committee may want to consider retaining the requirements for consumer receipts to write greater assurances of consumer transparency.

Flexibility.

The current law prohibits network companies from taking any adverse action against app-based workers who limit their hours of availability, reject individual offers, or cancel offers with cause.

The bill would allow network companies to take any action except for terminating a worker's contract or, in other words, permanently blocking access to the platform in response to these flexibility options.

So a company could take more actions in response to a worker limiting their hours or rejecting offers.

The App-based Worker Deactivation Rights Ordinance, which passed last year and goes into effect on January 1 of 2025, prohibits network companies from deactivating a worker, which is restricting access but not necessarily permanently blocking access.

for exercising flexibility options.

The committee may want to consider harmonizing the two to simplify outreach and enforcement of the provision.

The bill would also allow network companies to block a worker's access to the platform for any reason, provided that they disclose the reason to the worker.

This could allow network companies to increase the efficiency of app-based workers by reducing on-call time and increasing the number of offers completed by workers who are able to access the platform, and thereby increase overall earnings for those who can get on the app.

However, when combined with the other proposed changes, this could result in some workers being restricted from the platform for limiting their availability or acceptance for offers.

And central staff has identified potential options for this consideration in the memo.

And then the affirmative production of records.

The bill would remove the OLS director's authority to collect records from network companies to administer, evaluate, and enforce the ordinance.

OLS would retain the authority to require records from individual network companies though during enforcement actions.

There are other city laws regulating app-based platforms that include regular data reporting requirements.

Central staff has identified a range of potential options for the consideration of affirmative production of records.

I'm going to turn it over to my colleague, Karina.

Thank you.

The next issue ID relates to penalties provision.

The legislation would restrict the OLS director from assessing penalties for certain non-willful violations.

The ordinance specifies those violations as those that do not result in unpaid compensation or that are not the result of retaliation.

and their director would be restricted from assessing the penalties if the network company cures the violation within 30 days or longer if the network company requests additional time for good cause.

Potential impacts of this change could be that the risk of penalties lose their deterrent effect, functioning as the cost of doing business.

There could be additional work for Office of Labor Standards Enforcement to determine whether the violation was willful or non-willful, and whether the violation was cured.

And on the front end, I imagine that OLS would need to develop rules to develop a willful standard, determine what the criteria is to determine whether a violation has been cured, and also to determine which violations would be eligible for this provision.

And then there could be reduced financial penalties paid to workers who are affected by violations regardless of the intent.

Further, the OLS director regularly uses authority to assess penalties to workers rather than the city as a mechanism to compensate workers for technical violations that do not result in back pay.

The next issue regards retaliation.

The legislation would modify anti-retaliation protections, removing presumptions that a network company has retaliated against a worker for exercising their rights unless the network company shows otherwise.

These presumptions are intended to address the information asymmetry that exists when hiring entities take actions against workers and are considered strong measures to protect workers who ask questions about their rights or report violations.

These presumptions are reflected in the city's other labor standards, other statewide labor protections and national laws as well.

The private right of action, the legislation would remove the right of app-based workers to file civil actions for violations of the ordinance.

The private right of action allows Office of Labor Standards to prioritize its investigations while giving workers other options if the office can't pursue enforcement due to capacity or other reasons.

Most of Seattle's worker protections have a private right of action, all but the fair chance employment ordinance and the commuter benefits ordinance.

For implementation and financial considerations, implementing this legislation would likely have a financial impact on the Office of Labor Standards, as the office could incur additional costs to revise rules, revise outreach materials, and revise enforcement procedures, and potentially conduct a new and additional outreach campaign.

Central staff is prepared to work with the Office of Labor Standards and the City Budget Office to develop estimates of these costs, including the impact of additional work on OLS's existing programs and priorities, whether the costs are short-term or long-term, and whether such costs could be absorbed within the existing operations.

Since we have not interacted with OLS and CBO on this issue yet, it's not clear if central staff would receive this information or have enough time to analyze it before the council vote.

And then for racial equity considerations, Black and Latinx workers are overrepresented among app-based workers, according to most recent available data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Thus, the impacts of the current law or the proposed changes disproportionately affect BIPOC workers.

Additionally, many restaurants using app-based delivery services are small businesses owned by individuals or families in low-income and historically disenfranchised communities.

And customers, including those with disabilities, may depend on app-based workers to provide essential services, such as delivery of prepared food or groceries or medication.

So I also neglected to mention, although Jasmine did for every single slide, that for each of these considerations, the central staff memo identifies a range of potential options for consideration.

Thank you.

And as for next steps, we would ask that any council members interested in proposed amendments to contact central staff by noon, ideally, on Monday, April 29th.

This could be, you may not have a very specific idea, but even if you have just a concept or you want to, you know, toss some thoughts out there, please let us know by noon on Monday.

On May 9th, we'll consider with the committee, we'll consider any proposed amendments and we'll have a final committee vote.

And then the council vote would be anticipated after that on May 21st.

And with that, any questions?

Thank you.

I'll start off a bit with some comments.

In public comment, this was referred to Sarah Nelson's proposal.

Yes, I did advance this legislation, but I want to make sure that people recognize that this was an agreement that was forged between Drive Forward and the network companies.

Whatever your people are going to say about Drive Forward, they are an advocacy organization for drivers.

They have supported a lot of the pieces of legislation that came before council and that are now on the books that the network companies did not strongly oppose.

But in any case, These agreements were very finely balanced between both sides of the parties.

And I want to clarify and put a little bit of my spin, but actually I'm channeling the perspective of the people that put this forward.

So as we can see in the summary in the fiscal note, there are changes, revisions that you just went through.

And I believe that they are improvements and they will end up having benefits for the restaurants workers and the customers.

Again, this bill would ensure that app based workers in Seattle earn the city's minimum wage for their time on delivery and the mileage reimbursement plus tips.

Some would say, some have argued that it's the highest city established minimum wage for app based workers so far in the country.

Opponents claim that this bill would force workers to absorb 50% of vehicle-related expenses, but they're relying, and now we're talking about the 35-cent reimbursement, they're relying on an IRS rate for the whole country.

I think that this, and you go into detail about this in the memo.

As some of you who have traveled outside Seattle might not have noticed, a lot of people in this country drive much bigger vehicles.

And the national IRS rate is based on vehicles that are not predominantly driven in Seattle.

On flexibility, this legislation will allow network companies to bring back valued rewards and incentive programs.

early on that the rewards and incentives were taken away.

And so this legislation would allow for those to be brought back and to ensure that the number of drivers on the road at any one time reasonably relates to the number of actual orders so that people aren't just sitting around all the time.

Current law right now bars them from doing any of that, meaning offering the incentives and the incentive programs.

Let's be clear, this legislation would still give app based workers the right to accept or reject any offer and to schedule work when they want.

It still would prohibit companies from retaliating against app based workers exercising any and all kinds of their rights and Any claim to the contrary is just plain confusing to me.

Perhaps it can be explained later.

But on transparency, the bill continues to require disclosure of the most critical information an app-based worker needs to make an informed decision about whether or not they're going to accept the offer, such as guaranteed earnings for completing the delivery, Two, estimated time required to complete the delivery, estimated miles to complete the delivery, the location where the work is to be performed, and the names of the businesses where the pickup is required.

The bill also streamlines disclosures that are currently required eliminating some disclosures that will be disclosed to drivers or consumers anyway, and reducing administrative burdens that have driven up network companies' costs.

Yeah, we're all admitting that cost is a factor here.

And saddled OLS with a substantial and burdensome body of work that doesn't apply to any other type of company in the city.

And then finally on enforcement, the bill does clarify the extent and scope of OLS's rulemaking, reducing the agency's burden and workload, and it reduces the likelihood of lawsuits that will bypass some of OLS's enforcement work and efforts, and it gives network companies the chance to cure non-pay-related compliance errors which is what we're trying to do is basically get companies to comply, which will also reduce administrative costs that would be passed on to consumers.

So those are some general comments on some of the groupings of the revisions that we talked about.

And then I have some specific questions, but I would like to open it up to see if my colleagues have any questions.

Or comments?

I do.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Jazra and Karina, for this presentation and breaking it down.

I had a couple questions.

With the new proposal on the...

So let me rewind.

Currently, the minimum wage is 131%.

equates to about $26.16 for a worker plus the mileage of 74 cents repayment.

Proposed is 1997 and then 35 cents for mileage.

In the 1997, are apps allowed to count tips toward that minimum wage?

In the legislation, the tips would not count towards the minimum network company payment, so they'd be on top.

For the amendment.

For the revisions.

Revision.

I'm sorry.

This is why we need that.

My bad.

So let's call it revision.

We're calling what is presented today the revisions.

Okay.

I'm going to write that down.

Sorry.

Go ahead.

Can I just clarify?

Absolutely.

Can you repeat that?

So tips are not counted as part of the minimum wage, the $19.97 minimum wage.

Yeah, tips would be on top of the minimum network company payment requirement.

Thank you for clarifying.

And then can you explain in route versus offer accepted?

I think I know what it is, and I clarified that, but could you explain it?

Yeah, so for most on-demand companies, like the restaurant delivery offers, a worker would...

accept and immediately begin starting to fulfill that offer.

So the payment requirement would count upon acceptance.

Stakeholders have provided feedback that there are some instances where a worker would .

to pick up the order or to perform the offer.

So in those cases, the revisions would allow for the payment requirements to count when they are en route instead of just right at acceptance.

And can you explain what would be a typical thing where someone accepts it and they don't go to en route?

I'm sorry, can you repeat that in here?

Yeah, no worries.

Could you explain what type of instance would be where someone is, they accept an order, but they don't go en route immediately?

What I've heard is for sometimes for grocery delivery, grocery delivery or delivery from retail often, or if there's a maybe, there could be a restaurant order that's maybe offered in advance, but we specifically heard from stakeholders in the grocery retail delivery space.

So it's like scheduled?

They'd schedule it, yeah.

So if I accept an order, and then I go pick it up, and a restaurant says, hey, it's not gonna be ready for 15, 20 more minutes, because they might be slammed, do I still get paid for that time?

I believe so, yes, because they have been, the en route would count from when they start to go to the pickup location.

So no matter how long the restaurant takes, I would still get, okay, that was my question.

And then the other thing is before the ordinance took shape, was it open for app companies to toggle supply and demand for drivers?

Like if the supply was, if the demand was high, then they would have supply for drivers.

If not, then they would limit the amount of people on the app.

Yeah, I believe before this ordinance went into effect, there was no restrictions on that.

Got it.

And the current ordinance limits that.

Yes.

Where it is just anyone can sign up and come.

Right.

Got it.

Yeah, there are certain limitations if a worker is deactivated or if there's a limitation on the amount of hours that worker has been logged in.

For safety, the companies would also be allowed to restrict them from the app.

But those are the only two circumstances.

Next question.

Sorry, I have a lot of questions.

Next question.

Reporting to the customer, app companies do not have to give receipts for online ordering.

That is, they choose to do that, and that's not in law.

Before the app-based worker minimum payment went into effect, yeah, my understanding is that they provided receipts, but they weren't required to.

Got it.

And then...

Wait, before you go on, and then the existing law did require receipts and- And certain information in those receipts, I think is salient in terms of what would be included in the receipts, the itemization of fees, et cetera.

Right, and the revision proposal does away not with requiring receipts, but certain information on the receipts.

For customers, it does away with that requirement.

What do you mean?

The requirement to provide customers with receipts that is in the current law.

The revisions ordinance would take away that requirement for customer receipts.

It would not?

It would.

Okay.

Yeah.

It would make it like before where it wasn't required, but they could do it anyway.

Okay.

Which I believe they were doing.

Right.

Next question.

The incentives and bonuses piece.

So if there is an incentive and bonus with this current, the current law that we have, I'm getting better at like current law revisions, current law.

A driver, it does not count, those incentives and bonuses do not count towards the minimum wage.

That's right, they have to be on top of the minimum wage.

On top.

Proposed counts toward the minimum wage.

It could count towards the minimum wage, yeah.

And who has jurisdiction over it could?

Who has jurisdiction over, I'm sorry, what?

Like who's determining it could?

Does that give the power to the apps?

Like who does that give to?

The network company.

Yeah, the company.

The network company.

So the network company would decide if those incentives and bonuses would go...

Okay.

I'm sorry.

I'm hard of hearing, so it's just...

My bad.

I'm so sorry.

I really apologize.

No, no, no.

You're good.

I'll talk louder.

I'm sorry, Jasmine.

I got you.

What would be an incentive and bonus for this?

So for example, I mean, this is something we can also follow up with and consult with stakeholders, but my understanding is that there are certain programs that would reward, I try not to use specific companies, that would reward a worker for performing like 95, like accepting 95% of their offers or for, you know, being on time for a certain percentage, and they would get certain status, which means that they could get access to more lucrative offers or get, you know, preferred status for logging in or, you know, so they just have certain access to more rewards and potentially monetary incentives as well for completing.

I believe, you know, there's things where if you complete a certain number of offers in a certain time period, you get, like, a monetary bonus.

So the current law, all those bonuses would have to be on top of the per offer minimum payment.

And in the revisions legislation, because the company looks at a period of time of earnings and not a specific offer, they would offer the incentives and bonuses and it's possible that the incentives and bonuses could be used to true up the minimum payment at the network company period as opposed to being offered on top of each offer earnings.

So it wouldn't necessarily be categorized as a bonus.

It's just make your minimum wage.

It'd be up to the network company to label it as a bonus or not or an incentive.

And I also want to be careful.

We're not saying that it would definitely happen, but it is an outcome that could happen.

Okay.

Understood.

Loophole.

No, I get it.

I wouldn't characterize that as a bonus.

That would seem as like, you know, a creative way to get to a minimum wage.

Before you go on, can I just ask you a question because it's on that topic?

Sure.

I could be wrong, and you can get back to me later, but it's my impression that the incentives and the bonuses, is it true that those went away and was the explanation that it was because there were so many workers on the platform at the same time and so few orders coming in?

Is that?

Again, we can also follow up after consultational stakeholders, but I'll take a stab at it.

Part of it is, There's a fine line between what is rewarding, something that a company wants to see, versus penalizing or doing adverse action against what a company wants to disincentivize.

Does that make sense?

So knowing what's rewarding somebody versus penalizing another person.

is a fine line.

And so what the revisions ordinance proposes to do is make it more clear that actions can be taken to reward and provide bonuses and incentives to certain workers without it being interpreted as an adverse action against another worker who doesn't have the same acceptance or availability rate.

I don't know if you want to add anything to that.

Does that help?

Yeah, yeah, no, for sure.

It does.

That makes sense.

Thank you.

You mentioned truing up, which is the looking back and paying.

Is that what New York and California do?

Yes.

So I believe both jurisdictions have an earnings period.

And so what anecdotally, what has been seen is that the per offer amount may not meet minimum payment for that specific offer.

But the companies can have flexibility to offer, depending on supply and demand, to offer more per offer for a worker than minimum wage on some offers and sometimes less than the wage and sort of at the end kind of figure out the total amount of engaged time or time that they did and true everyone up at the end.

And so what can happen is that the companies can just ensure at the end that everyone makes the minimum payment.

Okay, to me that doesn't sound like a bad thing, and you do mention New York and California as if they are models of things that we should consider doing, so I'm getting the impression you're not saying that that is a wrong thing, and I have heard that it's common for per task, or this sounds bad, this phrase piecemeal work, and because you did mention New New York a lot.

Did you do a lot of independent study or do we know some of the negative impacts yet?

It's really hard to understand the details of anything because you mentioned that you don't understand the impacts of some of these revisions, so.

Right, I want to clarify that bringing up the issue of the earnings period and the incentives and bonuses is more just if a council member is concerned about it being, resulting in bonuses not counting towards the minimum payment.

that there are options we could consider.

It's neither good or bad, it's just a policy consideration.

I would also say that for New York, we do have information, we have preliminary results of their analysis based on the data they've seen about the impacts, and we can follow up with council members about that.

I don't know if you wanna add anything, Karina?

The thing I will add is that with the earnings period, I think the concern is that network companies could pay lower amounts per offer throughout an earnings period, and then at the end, true up the payment so that it meets the minimum payment standard.

But what that means is, there could be a scenario where it never goes above the payment standard.

And so I guess it could go above the payment standard through tips, but it would permit the network companies to never pay more than the minimum wage per.

No, it couldn't go through tips because tips are not included in the minimum pay standard.

Correct.

I'm talking about the take-home pay for the workers.

So if the network companies would be allowed to...

They could structure the payment of the offers such that they're low, true them up at the end of the earnings period such that the worker gets the minimum wage as a ceiling of payment, so to speak, and then that would be...

And then the workers...

wouldn't necessarily have an opportunity to earn more than the minimum wage per hour.

My reference to tips is that if through the tips that they receive, it might be more, but that has nothing to do with the minimum wage.

That just reflects their take-home pay, depending on what customers would give to the workers.

I'm sorry.

Can you just clarify this true-up piece?

I mean, so I'm a gig worker.

I accept an offer.

I started going toward it, so now I'm en route.

And then at the end, whatever time, however long it took me, that's what I'm getting paid for, right?

And so presumably that's getting tracked for each of my gigs.

Is that what they're called?

Okay.

And then at the end of the earning period, that gets counted up, and then I get my, because some gigs might take more time than others, but I will get the minimum wage based on the hours that I worked in that, I don't know, two week period, is that what New York and California use?

So can you explain then the concern you think, are you suggesting that the companies in their true up are not actually counting the actual time that the workers are en route, and so it's having an impact on the minimum wage piece.

I'm sorry, I just want to clarify and make sure.

They see how much they'll be paid per trip, so can't they do in a...

a tally of what they're getting paid?

I think, essentially, there is a concern, a potential, maybe not even a concern, a potentiality that by making the minimum pay requirement go across an earnings period, it could result in that pay requirement being a cap and not necessarily a floor.

And that could be of concern, but it could also be something that council members may be willing to accept because of that guaranteed pay amount.

Do you mean they'll start capping the workers per two-week period?

Like assigning this worker can't, or each worker can't work more than certain hours over two weeks?

Is that what you mean?

It's possible.

It could also be that I think it's more that whatever incentives or bonuses that the worker may think that they're earning, it may just be used to get them to the minimum payment anyway.

Well, it feels like you're making a lot of hypotheticals that really haven't been...

I don't know if that's happened in New York or California.

We're talking about Seattle, and this was a proposal that was brought forward by Drive Forward to establish some certainty so that you look back and if you were not paid 1997...

per an hour in which one was engaged in a delivery, then the network company has to pay you.

And then to, I guess, to watch for the potential for abuse drivers have, they know what they're gonna make Delivery and then apparently that adds up and they can so I don't know where the subterfuge would would take place but go ahead Councilmember Hollingsworth you you still had one question.

No, no that thank you for for clarifying clarifying that council president.

No that that was That was all that I had in there.

I have more questions, but I will pass it off I know I see councilmember Saka with his hands up.

Go ahead councilmember.

I

Thank you Madam Council President.

Thank you Madam Council President and I guess first off colleagues I'm sorry I can't join you in person today in council chamber.

I have not one but two of my three young kiddos that were homesick today so you know took all my meetings remote and they were not sick enough.

for me to have to care for them around the clock, shove some iPads in front of their faces, make some mac and cheese.

They took a couple of naps and I took a couple of meetings remotely.

But I do know that it is after the five o'clock hour.

And so, you know, young kids, they're liable.

I did relocate rooms to hopefully get a little more privacy, but are liable to come in here like gangbusters any moment now.

So bear with me.

So thank you, Jasmine and Karina, for this presentation.

Really helpful.

I think there's a couple of basic options for us to consider that can be done from a policy perspective.

One is do nothing to the current law.

Second is we make some revisions or amendments or tweaks, fix it, or three is repeal entirely and from my perspective one the first thing do nothing is not an option at all um and the third and final thing potentially at some point maybe probably not we are far from that and from my perspective that leaves us in the position of let's let's fix it let's make it better through a revision of some sort uh which is why i appreciate you know the work that's been done on this so far uh and also appreciated hearing and you know this presentation and reading that memo uh jasmine and karina 14 plus pages from today or yesterday i i read the memo earlier today um but very insightful memo that kind of chronicles, amongst other things, how we got here.

It talks about, you know, it talks about the lower, fewer orders, increased cost of food delivery, longer wait times for workers between orders and overall reduced earnings by both restaurants and workers.

Ackley notes that some workers also reported steady earnings, but with fewer offers.

Very clear, Jasmine and Karina, you are listening to my preference and just wanting to understand best practices across other jurisdictions locally and then nationally as well and internationally if applicable.

So I do appreciate the attempt to kind of compare and contrast where applicable in your memo.

with the New York City law and the California law.

Based off of the press release, as noted in your memo from New York City earlier this month, it sounds like their law is the gold standard in all this in terms of They reported that, let's see, where is it?

Page 10. The preliminary analysis of network company data showing higher earnings for app-based delivery workers, more efficient use of app-based workers' time, and no, importantly, no evidence of negative impacts on consumers and restaurants, which is very intriguing.

Could you talk?

bit more about this private right of action i know what it is i'm a lawyer i would would love to expound upon that how how the private right of action under this amendment uh i forgot what we're calling it councilmember hollingsworth but um under this amendment revision, how this private right of action compares to our worker regulations across the board, and then how the private right of action, that construct as it shows up in this revision, how that compares to other jurisdictions, I guess, namely New York City and California.

Okay, so the private right of action is pretty much a standard provision in the city of Seattle's labor standards.

There are 19 labor standards right now, 17 of them do have a private right of action.

The ones that don't are the Fair Chance Employment Ordinance, which address use of conviction and arrest records and employment and the commuter benefits ordinance as far as comparing other jurisdictions with these types of at-based worker laws.

New York City's law does provide a standard private right of action, and my understanding is that California's law does not include enforcement provisions, and that enforcement is presumably restricted to the state agency.

I'll add that most of the workers that are performing app-based services are likely covered by a mandatory arbitration agreement, which to my understanding, I believe there needs to be a private right of action in order for those workers to pursue arbitration.

Looking at Jasmine here to make sure I'm correct on that point.

So what that would mean is that Office of Labor Standards would be the sole enforcement for workers who believe that there was a violation of this law.

So eliminating the right could produce more work for the Office of Labor Standards.

Thank you.

Well, I don't believe that the Office of Labor Standards has been lax in their enforcement.

They do have enforcement processes, and this could bypass those important processes that they do.

And does L&I, does the state agency provide for private right of action on their labor regulation violations?

I believe that they do.

I mean, I'll check on that.

I don't think they do.

Okay, yeah, I will check and let you know.

Okay.

We're out of time, but I do want, I am confused about some of the comments about the race and social equity, because I think on one of your memos, On the original bill, the current law, you said that the establishment of the minimum network company payment will likely result in changes to cost, demand, and supply of network changes.

No, let me say that again.

the establishment of the minimum network company payment will likely result in changes to the cost demand and supply of network company services however the scale of those impacts are unknown and there may be unintended consequences of this legislation we are seeing that now a decrease in customer demand for network company services due to cost increases, which would result in decreases in revenues to partner businesses, restaurants, and fewer offers for workers.

This could be particularly significant to small business owners, business owners with limited English with limited English and BIPOC-owned businesses who may rely on third-party delivery to increase sales rather than establishing and managing their own delivery services.

It's hard to deliver when you're cooking dinner and all those things.

So you mentioned the disproportionate impact of the potential for disproportionate impact of the current law.

and similarly provided that an increase in the number of people who want to do app-based work due to higher pay and improved flexibility and transparency, therefore increasing competition of offers for workers.

Given the disproportionate representation of Hispanic and black workers in this industry, this impact could be disproportionately harmful to these workers.

And we have heard from small business owners that are either fall into these categories, and we're hearing that it is hurting from them.

I think that Council Member Hollingsworth heard from one of her constituents that made $11 or something less on one order since this has been in effect, and there was a an op-ed that was written by Bishop Gary Tyson, representative of the black community, who did raise this concern.

He said that those who advocated for the new law are pointing fingers of blame when people like me, who are on the ground every day in the community serving our most vulnerable residents, warned them that not only would the minimum pay standard impact app-based contractors, but also hurt disabled, elderly, and low-income residents who rely on app-based delivery services to receive food and goods.

This policy fails to recognize that for some residents, delivery through these apps is a lifeline, not a luxury.

It means their one-car family, I should add, perhaps no-car family, get essentials like milk and diapers delivered, and it means they don't have to find childcare to get to the grocery store.

So it does, if people can't make orders, then it is hurting those people that have otherwise fewer resources than higher income people.

So there are a lot of other issues that we can go through on all of these components, but I'll just, if, are there any other comments from my colleagues?

Yeah, I do want to- Go ahead, go for it.

President, I don't want to interrupt you.

I'm sorry.

I do want to clarify that.

Yeah, I have had a number of small businesses reach out, especially in our district, District 3, about the impact of this, and it's really hurting them.

And I was actually one business owner that they made $11 in 90 days.

They had one order.

it is impacting, we're feeling, you know, we're hearing from small businesses, we're hearing from drivers, um, but we're also hearing, you know, we're hearing from everyone and just trying to do our due diligence to, to talk to, to folks.

So I, I just wanted to clarify that.

Thank you.

Sorry for speaking for you.

No, you're good.

You're good.

I was the one who mentioned it to you.

You're good.

Okay.

So president, yes.

Yeah.

I just wanted to add kind of to that point, uh, you know, This is obviously a very complicated topic, a lot of different pieces to it, a lot of stakeholders, and I think from a good governance point of view, it's important to engage all the stakeholders.

And I just wanted to say, in addition to saying thank you to Ms. Marwa and Ms. Bull for your briefing, thank you very much, but I also appreciate the input from each of the public comments today, full council meetings, I don't know how many meetings I've heard comments related to this, so I appreciate it.

And I recognize that they're coming from both sides, too, or different perspectives, which goes to the complicating aspects of this.

And not often heard here, at least here in Chambers, are restaurants and customers.

We've been getting it, at least for me, indirectly.

And so it's important to have all four sections, you know, the network companies, the tech companies, the gig and delivery workers piece.

So thank you everybody that's here for your public comment.

And also those that I've met.

I've met working Washington.

I've also met some of the tech side too.

The tech, I really appreciate that.

But yeah, in addition to the restaurant and the customers.

And I also think, from a good governance point of view, I know the review period is a big point of contention.

Like, yes, it makes sense that we should give this a full year.

I can understand that.

But I also understand you know, the realities on the ground that we may not have a year.

And I'm really concerned about the restaurant piece, too.

I would like to hear more from the restaurant, particularly as it compares and includes the aspects of, you know, the minimum wage for restaurants and how those two things may come together to impact the restaurant industry.

I think that's so important.

And then also, as we go through this, I think it's important, just probably more to your side in terms of the data sets, you know, gaining data sets, understanding data sets.

That's going to be a big thing for us moving forward.

So I just wanted to make those points.

So thank you very much.

I really appreciate it.

And there's a lot of homework to do.

No.

We do have, yes, it is true, and we have another committee meeting, and I am concerned about continued lack of income for the people that this is supposed to be helping.

What were you going to say?

Council President, thank you.

I too am concerned about the workers that we've heard from both in chambers over the last few weeks and also who've reached out about this piece.

Somehow I think workers thought that they would get the minimum wage, the higher wage, and orders would not be impacted.

And I've said this before, it was unrealistic not to think that there would be a change to orders when this went into effect because we had had, with the rideshare companies, rides go down.

And so I get concerned about what we are promising to workers and what they're relying on because this is their source of income.

And so we need to be really clear about what we're trying to do.

And my understanding was initially the current ordinance was done to help workers, gig workers make minimum wage.

And that's what we were solving for.

And then we've heard a lot of workers now subsequently in the last few months that this has been into effect who are actually not making that minimum wage.

And that is of big concern to me.

So I think it's prudent for us to be looking at these revisions so that we're actually addressing this minimum wage piece and making sure workers are getting the minimum wage and that orders are not down so that they're able to, as you said earlier, Council President, pay their bills.

Right.

And thank you for that.

And it was mentioned by the network companies during the stakeholdering process and the deliberations in committee that, yeah, there will likely be increased fees.

Yep.

You know, we will.

And I think that the even $5 figure was mentioned.

So it's not like...

It's a complete surprise.

We can say that it was it's wrong to do.

They're already making too much profit, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

But the fact is that that there was a warning and now it's happening.

And it to my to your point, Councilmember Kettle, the the small businesses were not their voice during deliberations was not was not frequently heard and I've already explained why, but I've looked at all the stakeholder lists and I don't see them as part of, as an identified part of the stakeholder process.

You know, the Seattle Restaurant Alliance or the GSBA or whatever.

So I could all dig that up, but it does matter who was at the table when this was being formulated, when Working Washington was formulating the legislation.

So I'll just conclude by saying that I've said one of the most important values we can model as elected representatives is the humility to change when we've made a mistake or when our legislation is not having the intended impacts or effects.

And so I think that's what we're all motivated to do here.

So I look forward to continued discussions and we'll just carry on and we'll come to you for additional questions if we have them that weren't able to be asked today.

Thank you very much.

With that, if there's nothing else, this concludes the April 25th meeting of the Governance, Accountability, and Economic Development meeting.

And the next meeting is on May 9th at 2 p.m.

Thank you, everybody.

This meeting is adjourned.

It is 529.

you