Seattle City Council Finance & Housing Committee 2/19/20

Put it down there in the corner.

That'll be good.

OK.

Hang on over here.

Hi, everyone.

How are you?

Are we good to go?

Oh, is Seattle Channel on?

And will Seattle Channel appear on these screens?

I don't think so.

I believe this is a quorum.

Well, hello everyone.

Thank you so much for joining us.

This is the Finance and Housing Committee and today is Wednesday, February 19th.

It's a special Finance and Housing Committee because of the holiday this week.

It is two o'clock and the meeting will come to order.

I am chair of the committee, Teresa Mosqueda, and joined by Andrew Lewis and Dan Strauss.

Thank you so much for being here, council members.

Thank you.

We have a few items on our agenda.

We have three items.

First, we will have the potential appointee to the Domestic Workers Standard Board.

We have two council appointments and one mayoral appointment.

We are going to vote on these appointments during our March 3rd meeting, though, so today's an opportunity to hear from those who are able to join us today, but we will not be taking any formal action today.

And council colleagues you should have some of the materials already in your possession and that's part of the reason that we had to wait because the packets weren't fully complete yet.

So we'll do that on March 3rd.

We'll also take a vote on the 2020 capital projects watch list which we discussed at our last committee meeting.

I want to thank you in advance for the early amendments that you flagged, and excited to work with you to update that proposal as it moves forward.

And finally, we're going to begin a discussion on the future of work pertaining to gig workers, and we will have some of our esteemed colleagues with us via Skype and internet.

So thanks to those folks for tuning in, and we'll have them on the screen.

At this time, I'd love to take any public comment, if there is any.

Okay, double checking, seeing none, that closes our public comment today, and we're going to go ahead and move right into item number one.

Farideh, if you could read item number one into the agenda, and if we could be joined at the table in the meantime by Jasmine Raha from Office of Labor Standards, Bailey Freeman, Candace Faber, and Etabina Hauser from the Domestic Workers Standard Board.

It's good to see you again.

Agenda item number one appointment to the domestic worker standards board for briefing and discussion Wonderful.

Thank you.

And if I did it was you were always amazing I know that you had offered to do some translation if we wanted it today.

You're welcome to do that I'm also able to help out here at the at the counter counter at the table as well Usually what we try to do folks who are viewing audience and council colleagues.

You might remember this from last year We really want to make sure that when we need a translator, we use professionals because we don't want to ask any of our staff to do it.

I know many of us have been in that awkward position in the past.

Many bilingual family members sometimes have to translate at medical appointments, for example, and in an effort to try to make sure that we're not folding into using our team inappropriately.

That is something that we committed to last year.

Our understanding is that this was not something that was foreseen.

And so we're going to do the best we can today, but just want to reaffirm our commitment to that principle and to the important labor that that also includes.

With that, why don't we go ahead with introductions and then we'll ask a few questions from folks.

And if you can give an overview of the Domestic Workers Standards Board, that would be great.

in this position in Domestic Workers Standards Board and about your experience and what interests you in this topic.

And if you have something else you want to say, you can say this.

Let's start here with Jasmine and talk a little bit about Domestic Workers Standards Board.

Y después de eso, ustedes pueden hablar y decir algo.

And after that, then you guys will get a chance to introduce yourself.

Thanks, Jasmine.

Thank you so much, and thank you for your flexibility with the interpretation as well.

I really appreciate that.

One moment.

Switch up the seats.

That sounds good.

Yeah, no problem.

And Jasmine, tell us again for the record your title at Office of Labor Standards.

I know a lot of folks are familiar with you from your past work, and it's not so recent, but it's relatively recent at OLS.

So tell us a little bit more about what you do.

Yes.

So my name is Jasmine Marwaha, and I'm a policy analyst and a staff liaison for the Domestic Workers Standards Board.

pause for translation after every sentence.

So as you mentioned, I'm here to present three new appointments to the board.

Candice Faber, Bailey Freeman, and Etelbina Hauser.

I'm not, Bailey Freeman was scheduled to be here.

Something may have come up, so hopefully she'll arrive shortly.

No problem.

If not, we'll figure something out.

If she gets here, we'll have her come right on up.

Perfect.

But, and as you mentioned, before we turn it over to them, I'll give a little bit of background on the board and the new positions you're considering today.

Excellent.

The Domestic Workers Standards Board is committed to improving the working conditions of domestic workers by providing a place for workers, employers, organizations, and the public to make suggestions to enforce, implement, and expand on the Domestic Workers Ordinance.

That's the official mission statement.

Excellent.

The board was initially established last year with eight members.

Half were appointed by the mayor and half by council, and each body appointed two worker-side representatives and two hiring-side representatives.

And those eight board members then chose a ninth community representative who happened to be a worker, a gardener named Victor Lozada that was appointed last summer.

And for the last several months, the board has been working on its two-year work plan, which they plan on sending to committee members, I think next month, as they get the new members caught up.

And in addition, we hope to send initial recommendations to the committee and to actually come back to the table and present those recommendations in May.

Great.

And we're at the table today because the Domestic Workers Ordinance requires that starting this year, the board increases from nine members to 13 members.

So similar to the last round, the council and mayor each get to appoint a hiring entity representative and a worker representative.

And so we were joined by Bailey, and Bailey we'll get to you in a minute.

But Jordan Goldwarg, the fourth appointee who is a mayoral appointee for the hiring entity representative could not make it today, but will be available on March 3rd to answer questions.

So I think that's about it for my preamble.

If there's any further questions on what the board is working on, I'll do my best to share what I can, but we will be back in a couple months as well.

So without further ado, I'll turn it over to the appointees to introduce themselves.

Wonderful.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

And Candice, bienvenidos.

Thank you for coming here.

Welcome.

A little bit of background from you and what interests you on this board and anything else you'd like to share that you're looking forward to working on.

Sure.

My name is Candice Faber.

I'm the owner of a small business called Inhabit PNW LLC.

We do primarily residential cleaning, both for individuals and families, as well as for businesses such as Airbnb hosts and some corporate short-term rentals and property managers around town.

So it's a small business.

I've been an owner since last year.

We had, oh, sorry.

Oh, yes, sorry.

Thank you.

I can't afford.

Last week, I had to go to the company.

Thank you.

I'm also a member of the National Domestic Workers Alliance and have been very interested in what my participation in this industry can look like and how it can be beneficial for the work as a whole.

How to make my heart better in these conditions for the next two hours.

As well as I try levels.

I'm very passionate about cleaning in people's homes.

And I don't know how much you want to know, but I guess I'll just share why I'm here.

I think the work is actually really important and really beautiful work and has been historically undervalued because it is work that has been extracted for free or for very little money throughout history from women and particularly women of color.

And as a result, I think the work itself has suffered very much in a race to the bottom in terms of how much work you can get people to do in a short amount of time, the use of toxic cleaning products and cheap equipment in order to save on costs.

and increasingly the use of gig labor that is almost entirely unregulated and without benefits for workers as a way of minimizing both risk and overhead for employers that are increasingly looking more like marketing middlemen.

So I'm here as an employer who is also a worker and an operator in my business.

We're still very small, so I am on site, I would say, for at least half of the jobs that we do as a company at this point.

And for me, it's very important to pay people a living wage and to uphold the benefits that I believe they deserve.

I know it's possible, but it's also difficult at this moment in the history of the industry.

So I'm very honored to be here and I look forward to contributing both as someone who understands the challenges that employers face in terms of client expectations in this economy and as someone who very much believes that it is well within our capacity to implement the ordinance and even go beyond that in terms of restoring the dignity of this work and those who do it.

Excellent.

Thank you so much.

I really appreciate what you said.

And we often like to remind folks the work of domestic workers makes the city work and function.

So thank you for reminding us about that.

And Silvina, que bueno verte de nuevo.

Thank you so much for being here.

It's so good to see you.

Gracias por estar aqui con nosotros.

Si quieres hablar un poquito de su experiencia y la interesa que tienes en este tema, seria una oportunidad.

Gracias.

Mi nombre es Etelvina Hauser.

Thank you.

My name is Etelvina Hauser.

Siento nervios de estar aquí, sinceramente.

No te preocupes.

I'm a little nervous of being here today, to be honest.

Pero yo soy parte de We Dream in Black.

But I am part of We Dream in Black.

Y de la Alianza Nacional de los Trabajadores.

the National Alliance of Workers.

I've participated in Casa Latina, where I've learned a lot about workers' rights.

I am also part of a small women's group that is currently named ALA.

That is specifically just for Garifuna women.

Y nos, lo que estamos buscando es visualizarnos y ser parte de la mesa y ser, y votar y ser reconocidos y buscar el enfoque y buscar el desarrollo en todos esos trabajos que ustedes están haciendo.

So we currently have a small group that is just focused on Garifuna women.

And we're working, because it's a very like unrecognized ethnic group, we are working to give it more, to focus more on what we do in our language and that we also deserve rights.

That's why it's really important for me to be at this table to learn more and also to inform about the work at Comarico.

To be part of the workers' rights, like the people who work at homes.

educar a nuestra gente.

Because that's gonna help us educate our people.

Y también a ver cómo está creciendo el trabajo de las mujeres de la Nacional Domestic del Desarrollo, las trabajadoras del hogar.

And also to see the growth of the work of domestic workers.

And for us to feel empowered and also to see that the work that we are doing is being recognized.

I have a lot to say, but I can't say it all here, but thank you.

Gracias.

Hello, welcome.

Gracias por estar aquí con nosotros.

Thank you for having me.

Yes, if you want to talk a little bit about what interests you as well, about being part of the board.

My name is Bailey Freeman, and I have been a full-time nanny for the last six years.

And I've been a teacher before that, so I've been working with children for over a decade.

And I actually got involved in the ordinance through the Fair Work Center.

I am part of a small organization within them called the Nanny Collective, and we gather nannies from around the area to come to our meetings.

We meet twice a month.

And we ask them to tell us our stories and tell us things that they enjoy about their work, things they'd like to see changed.

One of the things that fascinates me the most about this industry is that it's so varied.

You know, you have lots of different fields within domestic work.

You have cleaners, home care workers, nannies, etc.

But everyone has a different experience.

And there's no standard.

There's no norms.

So people who are new to the industry or in a position where they can't safely advocate for themselves don't know what's normal.

They don't know what to expect.

And something that really excites me about this ordinance is the possibility of creating those norms.

Like I said, I am a full-time domestic worker currently, so I'm a worker representative for this board.

I'm actually at work right now.

I will go back there in a few minutes.

But as someone who, a part of the spectrum of domestic work, there are people who work in relative privilege, and I'm one of those people.

Part of what I'm hoping to learn as this process is asking questions and trying to center those marginalized voices and trying to bring them to the center of the conversation and finding ways to ask questions, get honest feedback so we can empower those people rather than objectify them.

I think that's really, really important.

And I'm hoping to try to model the behavior of people in power standing up for those groups because I've been, in addition to being a domestic worker, I have been a performer and a musician for a number of years.

So I have many, many years of public speaking experience and confidence.

So I feel like I kind of live in both worlds where I do the work so people who don't feel safe engaging in these spaces can tell me their stories and they feel comfortable speaking to our group.

And then I can bring those stories to the most relevant people who are helping these groups and really make them the center of the conversation.

So.

Thank you so much.

Gracias a todos.

Thank you so much for all of your time.

And for being here today, I know it's not easy to take time off of work too.

No es facil tomar tiempo afuera de su trabajo.

So thank you so much for coming today.

Welcome also Vice Chair Herbold.

Thank you for being here.

Council colleagues, do you have any questions for our esteemed guests here?

And as a reminder, we don't have the full packets in front of us, but we will make sure that we have a chance to vote on the 3rd of March.

Yes, I have no further questions.

Just want to thank you all for your time and your dedication and energy coming here While I am not Proficient at speaking in Spanish.

I do have the ability to understand most so thank you for your stories today excellent customer Lewis

Oh, I just want to say as someone who has previously served on a city commission, I'm always struck when we get folks that come here at the table that have a lot of opportunities and things they could be doing with their time and they choose to share it with us and to dedicate themselves to public service and to step into these volunteer positions that really do have a very big and profound impact.

and inform what we do here as a city council.

You know, I mean, looking at Candace's resume too, I'm just struck by the very extensive Foreign Service record where, for those watching at home, Candace is basically James Bond.

and has served our country in, not just serving in the State Department, but in a lot of big hotspots between 2007 and 2013, including in Afghanistan, Belarus, Poland, Libya, and just the caliber of all three of our appointees here today is just really impressive, and it really just shows how we're building a very strong city the volunteers on our commissions at the forefront.

So thank all three of you for your service and thanks for stepping up to be a part of what we're building here.

Excellent point.

A different sort of lived experience, perhaps?

Yeah.

A quick question to Etelbinia and Candice both.

I see that you are both members of the National Domestic Workers Alliance.

And I'm wondering if you could speak to whether or not there's sort of synergy between the work that we do here in the city and your work nationally?

Is there a way that you collaborate between the city work and the national work?

Yes.

When there is interest and when there is un crecimiento, un desarrollo en tu comunidad y en tu interior de querer conocer y aprender y crecer, hayas ese espacio.

Yes, so when there is interest and also that growth that you see in your community that you find a way to...

You find a way to grow.

You find that energy, you find space to be able to connect with both.

That was a perfect explanation.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

I will be honest for myself, my membership in NDWA has been very much one of learning and support for what they do.

A friend of mine in the legislature likes to point out that poor people don't have lobbyists.

And the way I look at NDWA is that it's kind of a collective lobbyist for everyone who works in this industry.

She says that she feels that poor people don't have anyone to look up to for their benefits.

I'm actually, probably Council Member Muscati, you probably know more about the background on the Domestic Workers Ordinance here, but the Alliance is pushing for a National Domestic Worker Bill of Rights, and a lot of people are looking at Seattle to see how we implement it here, what lessons can be learned in terms of refining policy language so that it makes sense at the municipal level.

And it's also just fantastic to have such a concentration of resources at that level, organizers, policy experts, and folks from many, many different communities, so.

Thank you for being our national ambassadors on our progressive workers legislation that benefits domestic workers.

So you mentioned how do we take what we learned here and put it into action.

And I think one of the things that I would love to hear back from you as the report comes forward, there were so many things that we weren't able to do here at the local level, thinking of sick leave and healthcare retirement benefits because of how big those pools need to be in order for them to be sustainable.

And even with the state legislative conversation happening and hopefully the national conversation moving, love to hear, continue to hear your ideas.

If there's not action at the state level, what are some little things that we can do here and there as we push?

And so we know that you've also been in the halls of Olympia.

I've seen a number of domestic workers represented down there pushing for the legislation there.

Thank you for the advocacy as well.

And if that doesn't happen this year, we're looking forward to hearing recommendations for what else we might be able to do at the city level.

Anything else, colleagues?

Anything else?

Okay.

Thank you again for being here.

Your time is very important.

We know that you're very busy.

Thank you for being here.

On March 3rd, we're going to have the vote.

You don't have to come back.

You're welcome to.

No necesitas ser aquí, pero están bienvenidos whenever you want to come.

But no matter what, we'll make sure that we carry forward this recommendation.

I think it will be very positive.

And that we will have you guys voted on on March 3rd.

With that, thank you so much for your time.

And thank you, Farideh, for your time doing translation as well.

I apologize for you having to do that today, but you were tremendous.

So un aplauso por esto.

Y gracias por todos.

Thank you all again for coming and taking time out of your day to be here.

Thank you so much.

Yes, looking forward to working with you.

All right.

So we're going to move into item number two, which is a possible vote on resolution 31931. As Farideh reads into the record item number two, can we please be joined by Dan Eder from central staff?

And Dan, is it just you today?

Okay, sounds great.

Agenda item number two, resolution 31931, a resolution establishing a watch list of large, complex, discrete capital projects that will require enhanced quarterly monitoring reporting for the 2020 calendar year.

For briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Wonderful.

So thanks again for being here.

We know two weeks ago you were here and presented an overview of the capital improvements watch list.

Council Member Herbold, again, thanks for your leadership in making this watch list possible as your past advocacy is really playing out here and having this list in front of us so that we can be aware of any potential overruns, how much they are, and really, I think, have the legislative branch's direction and discretion as we move forward with what our priorities are and how we want to see these projects implemented.

I appreciate you being here, Dan.

And Dan, I know that you've been busy working with folks on amendments.

We do have three amendments that I am aware of in front of us.

The first is an amendment from me.

The second is, I believe, an amendment from Councilmember Herbold.

and the third would be an amendment from Council Member Strauss.

If it is okay with folks, I think we will turn it over to Dan to walk through anything high level that you have for us, or we can just jump into the amendments and then we'll ask each of the sponsors to move them.

I'd be happy to provide an encapsulation of the resolution that I provided last time, just maybe for folks who weren't watching last time.

Resolution 31931, as the Chair mentioned, is on your agenda for a possible vote today.

It flows out of work that the Executive and the Council did in 2018. The council at the time adopted Resolution 31853. That called for the creation and regular reporting on a watch list of capital projects that the council was particularly interested in hearing more about and having a look forward to potential risks and mitigation strategies.

That resolution called for the mayor to propose a watch list at the beginning of the year, as the mayor did again on January 15th.

The resolution contemplates that council would adopt a final version of the watch list of projects, starting with the mayor's proposed list, but then adding or making any changes.

And then the executive will provide enhanced capital project reports through the year on a quarterly basis.

As the chair mentioned, there are a handful of amendments that would each add a project to the starting place for the watch list.

And with that, I'll turn it over to the sponsors of the amendments if they want to speak to their amendment.

Excellent.

So why don't I go ahead and move the resolution so it's in front of us so that we can amend it as we go through this.

Council colleagues, I'd like to move that we consider passage of Resolution 31931. Second.

It's been moved and seconded and now I have an amendment that I'd like to put in front of you.

I'd like to move to amend Resolution 31931 as articulated in Amendment Number 1.

second great dan do you mind walking us through the details yes um the amendment number one would add the lake city community center improvements project to the uh to the watch list this is a project that was on uh the 2019 watch list and uh the executive and the council central staff um observed that it wasn't on the mayor's proposal for 2020. That was an administrative oversight, and I think the intent was that it would be part of the 2020 watch list from the mayor's perspective, but it just didn't make it into the proposal.

That's right.

So we have had the opportunity to work with the executive on this, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and Councilmember Juarez as well is very interested in this, as you know.

She's had a longstanding interest in following this item.

So I think based on the community's interest, our colleagues and the executive's joint interest in this doesn't seem controversial at all to include, and we're looking forward to having it on our list.

and appreciate Councilmember Juarez's due diligence to keep an eye on this for our Lake City friends as well.

Any other questions or comments on that?

Just I think that this is an incredibly important amendment because the Lake City Community Center serves a very different population of people than the Meadowbrook Community Center which is adjacent and oftentimes used as a reason not to build a community center in Lake City and the current Community Center in Lake City was built by the Lions Club.

It's essentially a one-room multipurpose use that is used by so many different community organizations, and a new building is very important.

So I'm glad to see this added.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Seeing no additional comments, I'm going to go ahead and see if we can move this to amend it.

It's been moved and seconded that the amended resolution include amendment number one.

Are there any additional comments?

Seeing none, all those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

No opposed.

No abstentions.

Great.

Thank you, Dan.

Let's move on to amendment number two.

Council Member Herbold, would you like to move your amendment?

Thank you.

I move amendment two relating to the criminal justice information system projects.

Second.

Great.

It's been moved and seconded.

Dan, do you want to walk us through it?

Or Council Member Herbold, did you prefer to?

I think either one of us is prepared to.

Go ahead, you should do it.

I asked central staff to review CIP project MCIT C6304, which was called at the time the Criminal Justice System Projects, but in the 2020-2025 CIP and is now called the MCIS 2.0 Replacement Project.

In part of that review, central staff recommended adding this project to the watch list for several reasons.

One, the price tag is significant, $41 million.

Two, the project has a potential for a scope creep.

Prior to 2018, the project, as I mentioned, had a different name.

It has since been renamed to more AccuLaReflect efforts beyond simply MCIS.

replacement.

And three, the project is currently showing yellow on the project status report.

Inter-branch fourth coordination within the court system adds an additional level of complexity.

And then lastly, simply that criminal justice is a council priority and I look forward to receiving more oversight on this particular project in my committee.

And I think putting it on the watch list helps facilitate that.

Excellent.

Great points.

Anything to add, Dan?

Well, I think that's an excellent encapsulation of where we find ourselves with this project.

I just note that this is a little bit different than some of the other projects on the watch list in that it's not a bricks and mortar kind of a project.

It doesn't have quite the same phases of implementation.

you know, the main goal for the quarterly reports for the projects that are going to get these enhanced look-aheads is to identify potential risks on schedule, budget, and scope, and to identify mitigation strategies that the executive plans on using, which may include asking the council for more money or more time or a different scope.

And I think that absolutely can be made to apply to a project like an IT project.

Do I recall correctly that from the previous discussion that there may need to be sort of a different form created for projects like this that are not bricks and mortar?

I think Ben Noble and Caleb Wagoner alluded to the possibility that they may essentially tweak the format for this project, but we will work with them to find something that addresses what I understand to be the main concerns of the council.

Thank you.

I'm glad to hear that.

That sounds great.

Any other questions on Amendment No. 2?

Okay, it has been moved and seconded.

Seeing no additional comments, all those in favor of Amendment 2, please vote aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Any opposed?

None.

No abstentions.

Okay, great.

Amendment 2 will be incorporated.

And Council Member Strauss, would you like to move Amendment No. 3?

Yeah, I'd love to move Amendment No. 3 to Resolution 3193.1.

Second.

Thank you so much.

And would you like to speak to it?

I would love to.

And I made more detailed comments at our last meeting regarding Smith Cove Park and the development.

I even had brought in a photograph of Councilmember Bagshaw with Mayor McGinn, Councilmember Phillips, Port Commissioner Talton, and many others from our community as the park was opened.

Although it is so many years later and the park has not actually begun development and neither phase one nor phase two there were some Schedule slips due to King County's wastewater treatment facilities pipes All that to say it's very important that we get this park done completed and I think that it should remain on the watch list

Agreed, definitely agreed.

Do you have any other additional comments to that?

Only to note that like the first project, the Lake City Community Center project, this project was on the 2019 watch list and I believe it was administrative oversight that it was not included as part of the proposed 2020 project list.

Great, okay.

Colleagues, any additional questions, comments?

Okay, seeing none.

All those in favor of including Amendment 3, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

None.

Any abstentions?

None.

Great.

So all three of those amendments have now been included in the underlying bill.

Before we go to final vote, any additional comments from our colleagues?

Yes, Council Member Herbold.

Thank you so much.

So one of the issues that I've sort of played around with is what our expectations are of ourselves, really, when we have identified projects on a watch list.

The intent of the original resolution was for the Finance Committee to be the designated committee to hear the reports overall, but I think a number of us had talked about the hope that the committees with oversight of the different CIP projects would sort of take on the responsibility for for really focusing on the projects that fall into the portfolio of their committee.

You know, we don't collectively control what our colleagues put on their budget, so I don't know that there's a way to facilitate that happening, but I guess my hope is for central staff to to be assertive with council members about their recommendations for projects on the watch list, including if you have recommendations that particular projects on the watch list should have even additional oversight.

For instance, we have in some cases used a a stage gating process for budgeting using our authority as council to place provisos on projects at different stages.

And so I would just hope that again, central staff be in your, I know you're just, you're looking at the big picture, not for all of the individual departments.

There are different central staffers assigned to those different departments.

But if you could sort of convey the message and the hope that we really rely on central staff to make recommendations absent a process for making a determination on which projects would be appropriate projects for even additional oversight measures like provisos and stage gating.

Absolutely noted.

Thank you.

Makes me also think maybe we can do some brainstorming afterwards about a message that could come from this committee to our council colleagues about the final list of CIP projects.

I know that our council colleagues are aware.

It will come in front of full council if it's voted out today on Monday.

But I would like to see if there's a way to formalize the process even further, given your interest in having a robust process.

But as we work towards that, maybe identifying ways for us to ensure communication is clear and transparent as these projects come down or that we get word that maybe they're not on time.

One of the ways we try to do that at the staff level is when we receive the quarterly enhanced reports, we do distribute them to all nine council members and try to provide sort of an executive summary highlighting the one or two projects out of this list that each quarter generally have some news.

where there's something that we think is worth paying attention to and may need some follow-up.

Of course, every project has some tidbits and interesting bits of information, but we try to highlight what we think people will be most interested in.

That's excellent, I appreciate it.

Work plan might be another opportunity.

Again, it's up to individual committee members to determine what's on our committee work plan, but if you, as central staff, are making recommendations to include the corresponding projects to those individual committees, it carries great weight, your influence.

Okay, thank you.

Speaking of items being in the news, one of the things I was interested in adding to this list was tracking any additional funding or changes that could be coming down the pike related to 35th Street.

In subsequent conversations, it does seem that this is probably not the most appropriate form.

I don't know if you have anything else to add to that, but, you know, I think one of the things that will be of interest to me is to see how much of an underspend we have on 35th, given that the protected bike lanes did not go into place.

And if there are opportunities for us to revisit that strategy that's currently being deployed there, that is something I'd be interested in tracking.

So the CIP watch list potentially is not the best place for that.

But I'm going to flag again that I'm a strong believer that we should have included the protected bike lanes on that road.

I'm seriously concerned about the number of injuries and deaths occurring there.

and continue to see reports of people feeling unsafe and also experiencing unsafe situations.

So I look forward to working with you all, and to your point, through the Transportation Committee, thinking of ways for us to further implement a protected bike lane.

Okay, no other comments?

Seeing none, all those in favor of amended Resolution 31931, please vote aye and raise your hand.

I.

No opposed, no abstentions.

Dan, thank you so much.

The motion carries.

The amended resolution is adopted.

We will send this resolution to full council for consideration on the February 24th calendar.

Thanks, colleagues.

And our last item of the day, without further ado, we have some of our friends with us electronically.

Some people might know our esteemed guests, and we would encourage folks to make yourself comfortable.

If you need to rearrange to see the screen, you're welcome to do that.

And Farideh, if you could read into the record item number three, and I believe, is anyone from central staff joining us?

Agenda item number three, future of work for briefing and discussion.

Great, so I'm pulling Karina Bull up here from our central staff who is also very familiar with labor standards rule from her work at OLS prior and also our lead on labor here at central staff.

We have with us Rebecca Smith from the National Employment Law Project.

She's the Director of Work Structures and the Deputy Director, I remember your title being, but I'll just say my favorite title for you is, she's my shero on everything labor-related, labor law policy.

I always give Becky a call.

So it's been great to work with you in the past, Becky, and very excited to see you here.

You've been at this table a number of times already in our two years here on council, so happy to see you on the screen.

And we also have Rachel.

Is Rachel with us already?

Not yet.

Okay.

We may be joined soon by Rachel Dutchess, the Supervising Attorney for Worker Justice at the Center for Popular Democracy.

A lot of people know CPD, so we'll look forward to hearing from Rachel if she's able to join us.

Becky, thanks again for being here.

I think folks know you well, but if you want to start with a little introduction, and we have a PowerPoint presentation as well.

Sure, thanks very much.

I hope I can live up to even a quarter of that kind of introduction.

I'm Rebecca Smith, and as Council Member Mosqueda said, I direct the work structures portfolio at the National Employment Law Project.

And for those who don't know NELP, we are a national nonprofit doing research and legal advocacy policy and capacity building around work, especially low wage workers.

I'm based here in Seattle, but we're based in New York and DC, and then we have an office in Berkeley as well.

And I'm gonna just share my screen.

It's working.

There we go.

Did that happen?

Yes, it works well.

Very good.

So that's who I am and how you can contact me.

And I'm really going to talk, because my work is around how work is organized and structured, about that issue.

And when you think about work and how work is structured, we really begin with, if I can make this work, Oh, goodness, I can't see.

There we go.

What's sort of a North Star of what work should be for workers?

It should give us stability and safety and an opportunity to contribute and to connect with each other and make sure that we also can join together and ensure that our workplaces get better and better and our families thrive and our communities thrive.

So we just think of that as kind of our North Star.

One of the problems is this really decades-old practice by many companies of not complying with labor laws by reason of calling workers independent contractors.

That is not their employees, but an entirely separate business.

Lately, in the last several years, the focus has really been on app-based work.

So you all have seen and heard and addressed issues around the transportation network companies and others.

But I guess I want to say a couple of things about that.

We really like to say that there isn't a gig economy, it's just the economy.

Because app-based work right now is really the tip of the iceberg.

And in all of these other sectors that you see below the surface that aren't getting as much attention, we also see this treatment of workers as if they are running their own business.

App-based work, as and it's hard to get statistics, is about 3% right now in Washington State of all work, and it's about 57,000 workers.

When we talk about companies shifting costs and risk onto workers, we're not just talking about app-based work.

One thing I think, one reason that this work gets so much attention is that these companies have been very clear that they don't believe that they're required to comply with labor standards.

Another reason that we are concerned about app-based work is that it isn't just domestic work or delivery or transportation, although those are the biggest sectors, but it's really starting to creep into other sectors including retail and hospitality and nursing and teaching and law.

And so that technology is available to dispatch workers to all sorts of jobs.

Technology is fine.

The problem is that this business model of not being responsible for workers is what's also getting more traction.

I want to talk a little bit about the impact.

I mean how this happens is usually by way of a take it or leave it contract that's given to workers that say it says you're an independent contractor and it doesn't necessarily and in fact frequently doesn't reflect the real relationship between a business and a worker.

And the impact on workers is this, you lose all of the labor standards that the Seattle City Council has passed in the past several years, as well as workers' compensation at the state level and access to unemployment insurance and now paid family leave.

Of course, the city paid sick and our high minimum wage, fair chance hiring, discrimination.

And what you get is being responsible for your own expenses at work, which can be very hefty, especially, as you all probably know, for transportation network drivers.

But you also then are obliged to pay both the worker and the employer side of social security if you want to receive social security someday, so it has very short-term and long-term implications.

Becky, just a short comment on that.

I think that illustrates that point really well.

Yesterday folks may have seen the frontline part one debut of the of Amazon and Jeff Bezos and they talk about this business model as it relates to retail from Amazon.com and then how they have used that model of app-based work or, you know, misclassified workers and sort of the independent contractor model for the trucking and the delivery system and the door-to-door system.

And it was a really excellent sort of overview of how this economic model is playing out every day and now the largest retailer in the country, in the world.

Chair?

Yes, Council Member Herbold.

I just want to clarify my understanding that this is not, this graphic is not an exclusive, an all-inclusive, thank you, list of the jobs that are classified as independent contractors.

There are others and to the Chair's point, there's a very intentional effort to claw into the definition of independent contractors more and more types of work.

Yes, that's right.

And that's when I was discussing some of the new applications for dispatching their nurses and teachers and many others.

No, this was simply meant to be some examples of industries that frequently use this model while at the same time maintaining all sorts of controls over workers and the work that they do.

And just a little bit of context, I guess, next, is you may have seen Working Washington did a survey and analysis in which they found that over half of Instacart workers weren't earning minimum wage.

Their average pay after expenses was $7.66 an hour.

And recently, a researcher in New York did a study that really differentiated between high wage independent contractors and low wage workers and found that for people who are maids and housekeepers and childcare workers, their annual earnings in five year period fell.

for independent contractors while it rose by 25% for people who are employees.

So it has a real impact when you're treated as an independent contractor.

The other point I'd like to make is that this phenomenon is a racial justice issue.

That same study found that two-thirds of low-wage independent contractors in New York are people of color.

And while we don't have those statistics in Washington State for all industries, there certainly recently was a study in connection with the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights finding the overwhelming numbers of domestic workers who are women of color.

So I want to talk just a little bit about some of the policy impacts or some of the policies that states and cities have undertaken.

I mean, the first one is this issue of defining who is an employee and who is not.

You probably have followed a little bit that California just passed a law with a very expansive definition for all sectors of who is an employee.

And I guess a couple things about California.

It's gotten a lot of attention.

California is not the only state to use that test.

In fact, about half of the states use some version of that test in their unemployment insurance laws, and about eight or ten use it for certain sectors.

Three other states use it across the board.

You would think from what you've read that California is the only state, but that's not the case.

And it's having an effect.

There was a recent news article about the accountants and construction workers and farm workers and tech companies that are now reclassifying their workers in California.

It's also catalyzed more campaigns in New Jersey to expand their law, also in New York, and then a legislator has announced a campaign in Illinois.

There are other models around sort of who's included and who's excluded, and one really groundbreaking one was the Seattle Domestic Worker Bill of Rights that essentially said, We don't care whether you want to label your workers on this side of the line or that side of the line as employees or independent contractors.

They are entitled to these rights.

Seattle wasn't the first city to do that.

The minimum wage in San Francisco has a parallel minimum wage for workers who are not considered employees.

And then, of course, you're familiar with the pay standard legislation here in Seattle that followed New York, establishing a minimum pay for transportation network drivers.

The second piece is really experimentation with ways in which workers' voices can be aggregated to negotiate with a business.

And you also were involved in that with the page board for domestic workers, about which you just heard about an hour ago.

And some are thinking as well about collective bargaining at the state level and certainly at the federal level and how you would build a collective bargaining regime on top of minimum labor standards.

And then, of course, Finally is enforcement.

You all know because you have such a great office of labor standards enforcement that strategic enforcement is important.

One thing that some states have done is making misclassification a violation in itself so that if I'm misclassified, I can bring an action without showing that I wasn't paid the minimum wage.

And that's important because reclassifying workers may well get them access to things like Social Security as well that we cannot change at the city level.

Enforcement really matters and public enforcement really matters.

There's just some examples of enforcement by public agencies and most of them are focused on the gig economy, but there have been a fair number of public enforcement actions.

in construction, in car wash, in other industries that frequently treat workers as independent contractors as well.

And we found there have been a couple of studies recently that have shown a lessening of independent contractors in an industry when there is good enforcement.

So that's another huge issue and it's an issue that Rachel will talk about.

It is especially important in this era of forced arbitration where so many workers cannot bring actions on their own.

Becky, just real quick, colleagues, one of the things that I know Rebecca Smith and I faced when we were working on some legislation at the state level was this fear that if we did a better job at really protecting those who are being misclassified, that somehow there would no longer be a category for independent contractors.

And I just want to debunk that myth really quick, Becky.

By offering a few examples, and I know you're really great at this, but the real question is, do people have direction and control over their work?

And you can think of some industries right off the top of your head where people definitely are bona fide independent contractors.

You know, the plumber who sets his own schedule or her own schedule and has their clients that they know and they have their own tools and they direct and control their own work.

You think about some realtors who direct and control their own work.

They set their own schedule.

They reach out for their own clients.

Becky, I'm not sure if you want to offer a few other examples or want to comment on that, but I think it's important to debunk that myth that somehow if you address misclassification, you're eliminating the ability for people to be independent contractors.

when that's clearly not the goal or the case?

Right.

It's really a question of whether you have the ability to set your own prices and have your own customer base and whether you can control expenses and thereby make a profit or a loss.

A few months ago, and some of you were there, there was a Lunch and Learn session that I spoke at, and there was a worker who was a driver who spoke there, and he talked about how his windshield had been broken, I think, three times in a really short period of time.

He can't recoup that.

He can't raise prices.

He has nothing, no way to control profit or loss, and that's one of the things that marks him as an employee and not as an independent contractor.

But yeah, there, and most, state laws actually have exemptions for folks who are largely thought of as independent contractors, like accountants, and realtors, and lawyers, and contractors.

Some hairstylists, yes, depending on if you have some control over your wages and your profit or loss.

Thank you for doing that.

I'm going to finish up on this.

You know, we're interested in gig economy partly because technology has enabled this shifting of costs onto workers and moving profits up the chain.

But there's a lot more around technology and workers that I think we're all just beginning to get a handle on.

And we've seen legislation that protects consumers in terms of access to what data is being collected on them and the ability to correct and the ability to opt out And we've seen some legislation about surveillance and when and where and how it can be used.

And we've seen legislation on biometrics.

We're starting now to see more policy being developed around things like use of facial recognition software and interviewing techniques that can result in discrimination against people of color and women sometimes as well.

We're starting to think about how algorithms and technology is used to evaluate workers and how workers can have a say in that.

um, how What are the limits on a business using a personality test when they're hiring workers?

So this is my word cloud that just says all of these things are things we need to think about and uh address as we think about the future of work Excellent councilmember herbal had a comment or question.

Thank you.

Um, uh, so I'm super interested in the issue of misclassification for all of the issues that you highlighted, Rebecca.

I just think that there's so much potential to lose so much that so many have fought so hard for for so long.

And so I actually, a little while ago, introduced a resolution directing the Office of Labor Standards to look at this issue and make some recommendations for how to address those issues.

I understand that the Labor Standards Advisory Committee of OLS has a subcommittee on misclassification And I'm just wondering whether or not you have been in contact with LSAC about its work.

And then secondly, and I don't know if there's going to be a recommendation regarding sort of both legal and policy strategy, but I think the most challenging thing for me on this issue is this question of which way do you go?

Do you go the definitional route?

and you define more accurately to today's circumstance what a worker is, and you just make sure that all those workers have the same access to benefits, or do you go a sector by sector approach and say, as you said earlier, Rebecca, it doesn't matter how you classify your worker, even if you classify them as a contract worker, they get these benefits.

And so I'm just really, and I know this is a conversation that organized labor has about sort of which way is the right way to go, but would welcome your thoughts on that as well.

Yeah, and I think it's a complicated question that we probably can't talk about today in much detail.

But yes, I have in the past been in touch with both the LSAC and OLS and I really look forward to working with them in the future and with you.

So a future conversation, I would love to stay engaged on that too.

Thank you Council Member Herbold for your past work on that and for raising that question.

Council Member Lewis, any questions from you?

No, not at this time.

Great, thanks.

Becky, thank you so much for being here with us.

Rebecca Smith again from National Employment Law Project.

looking forward to working with you as we sort of craft some strategies this year.

I want to remind our council colleagues this is kind of a brainstorming session today, and we're going to hear from Rachel in just a second.

I believe she has joined us.

This is going to be an item that we will be looking to the experts that we're hearing from today, employers and workers, as we think about some new strategies to ensure more people have the benefits of the labor protections that we fought so hard for.

And I do appreciate the reminder from Rebecca Smith that this is not the gig economy as some slice, a narrow slice of the economy.

This is the economy, especially the economy of the future.

So that's a very good reminder as we think about the why.

And with that, we'll thank you, Rebecca, and we'll welcome Rachel, who has joined us.

I appreciate it.

And Rachel, you are live with us.

We can see you even if you can't see us.

And we have your PowerPoint that I think we're starting to load here.

And Rachel, could you do a quick overview introduction for yourself?

Sure.

So I work with the Center for Popular Democracy, which is a national organization of base building groups.

You're probably familiar with our Washington affiliate, Working Washington, that we collaborate with closely.

And so I support organizations and coalitions and policymakers around the country on crafting policy solutions to some of the challenges of what we've worked in particular, worked with, to support many of you in developing the secure scheduling ordinance, and then now doing quite a bit of work on confronting the crisis of forced arbitration.

Excellent.

So if you, are you able to share the PowerPoint presentation from your end?

Yes.

Okay, great.

And we have printed copies here as well.

And Becky, if you do want to chime in, just note that you are muted on our end over here.

It appears.

Great.

There comes the presentation.

Great.

Okay.

So I'm going to start by talking a little bit about the forced arbitration crisis.

So you may be aware, but essentially forced arbitration refers to clauses that are included in employment contracts.

They sometimes appear in job applications or employee manuals.

Sometimes workers don't even sign anything.

It's sort of implicit upon accepting the job or accepting the employment handbook.

They're waiving their right to sue in the event of a violation of their employment rights.

And their only option is to go into an arbitration system that's sort of been designed by corporations to make it very, very difficult for workers to win.

What happened recently is that in 2018, the Supreme Court decided a case that asked essentially whether not only can employees be forced into arbitration, but are they also, can they be forced to waive their right to proceed collectively, right?

So one of the sort of most powerful tools of enforcement of workplace standards for many, many, many years has been the class action lawsuit.

And just to provide some perspective, an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute found that the top 10 class action lawsuits in 2015 and 2016 covered almost four times as much for workers as all of the state and federal employment agencies combined.

So the power of the class action lawsuit to both recover for workers, but more importantly, to establish an environment in which employers invest in compliance.

is really significant.

And so over the last several years, as of 2017, there was an estimate that already more than half of non-union private sector workers had waived their right to sue, two-thirds of low-wage workers.

We project that, you know, because those numbers were collected before the Supreme Court case, which then sort of spawned a whole reaction from corporations and their attorneys, right, that we project based on the past rate of expansion of forced arbitration following previous Supreme Court decisions that within the next few years, more than 80% of workers will have lost their right to.

And I think one thing that's important to just recognize about forced arbitration is that while it is portrayed as a more affordable or cost-effective mechanism for people to resolve their rights, it's really designed for just one thing, and that is to suppress claims.

And so what happens is that, you know, working people can't bring forward claims in arbitration, both because the system is inherently biased, right, because corporations are the repeat players.

Arbitrators are for hire, right, and they know that if they repeatedly sign for the worker or for the consumer, then the corporation is not going to kind of select them again as an arbitrator.

There are a whole number of different ways in which the system and arbitration can be rigged.

to make it very, very hard for workers to win.

And when they do win, they recover far less.

And in some cases, some of the kinds of remedies that a court could provide is not available to an arbitrator, even if they wanted to.

So, for example, if an individual worker comes forward and in the course of their case reveals systemic gender discrimination.

That arbitrator may be able to award that person some back wages, but not have the power to order the company to change its practices going forward.

And so as a result of this, 98 percent of the claims, according to one analysis by an NYU law professor, that you would expect to see in court just vanish when arbitration is the only option.

And I think one of the best examples of this actually very recently, you know, DoorDash, you may have seen a recent case, DoorDash was, you know, imposed an arbitration clause saying you can't bring your claims collectively, you have to each of you go through individual arbitration to challenge, you know, what is a systemic employment practice, right, and classification of all these DoorDash workers.

And typically, that's where it ends, right?

Because working people can't afford to bring in individual arbitration.

But in this case, the workers actually tried to seek individual arbitration, and DoorDash refused, right?

Because they're not actually interested in using this as an alternative way to address the claims of their workers.

They're really just interested in hiding their noncompliance.

Rachel?

So what this means, right?

Can you hear me, Rachel?

start, yeah.

Thank you.

This is Lisa.

How are you?

Quick question.

So I really appreciate your focus on why forced arbitration can be harmful, not just to individual workers and classes of workers, but it also reduces the employer's incentive to invest in compliance.

But it could also be said that Forced arbitration and eliminating the ability for class action suits also has an impact on future potential policy because sometimes lawmakers set policy based on these prior cases that can become very high profile cases that demand the attention of legislators.

Yeah, no, I think that's right.

I mean, oftentimes the cases that come forward reveal some of the intractable problems in employment, and then that does become a spur, you know, to address things through policy.

It also, you know, we need cases to also clarify what the law is, right?

Courts play this really important role in filling in the blanks of legislative enactments, right?

And so if you don't have an opportunity to bring those questions before a judge and create a public record, then you're not providing that guidance.

I would also say, you know, there are a lot of good employers out there, right, who are going to invest in compliance because they believe in following the law.

And so those who are going to experience a competitive disadvantage from all of the employers out there who think, well, I'm going to get away with this.

And I don't know that for every corporation it's necessarily a malevolent calculation of I'm going to start stealing people's wages now because I can.

But I do think the incentive that a publicly traded company has to invest in compliance versus cutting corners or not paying very much attention to compliance are really dramatically shifting in this moment.

And I think that's a really significant threat to all of the really innovative workplace standards that have been created in Seattle.

So I'll just say, I think we have in Seattle a very, really one of the best labor standards agencies, but it's not really equipped to fill the void that is left by the disappearance overnight of class action law.

So, I'm going to just mention briefly sort of what the policy solution is that folks should sort of be aware of, and then kind of talk a little bit about, you know, what some other things that are happening currently.

So, there's a bill moving currently in the Washington legislature called the Workers Protection Act that essentially deputizes workers to stand in the shoes of the state to sue in court.

And so the idea is that while the workers cannot do a class action lawsuit to secure back wages or be made whole, the state still has its authority to enforce the law.

And the way it does that is by imposing penalties, right?

And so there's a policy that's been in place in California for many years called the Private Attorneys General Act that essentially deputizes working people.

They can bring forward their complaints.

They bring them first to the agency.

If the agency does not act because of, you know, lack of resources to take on every single case, then the worker can file what's called a representative action in court on behalf of the agency and on behalf of all affected employees.

And that part is important because, again, the class action is a, you know, a collective way for workers to enforce their rights.

This provides a similar kind of collective task.

And so, you know, the state of California last year received $88 million because most of the money that's recovered in these kinds of lawsuits is actually goes back to the Labor Standards Agency to sort of build out their public enforcement capacity and a smaller portion goes to the workers who brought the claim.

So I'm going to, and one thing I'll mention is that we have been very inspired by Seattle's model of community enforcement and the bills that are moving in many states to try to address this, encourage some of that revenue that's generated through this process to be earmarked for community outreach and education projects.

So I'll just briefly note that, you know, this basic model of whistleblower enforcement has been in place for actually millennia.

It was used in like the Roman Empire.

It's not really a new model.

It's been used here in the United States as the primary way that both the federal government and many state governments recover under the False Claims Act.

And as I mentioned, it's been very successful in California.

And one of the key things is that courts have ruled that even if you're covered by a forced arbitration clause, you can still participate in this whistleblower framework because you're, you know, the real owner of the lawsuit, if you will, is the state, right?

And the workers are serving as an agent of the state.

the state hasn't signed a forced arbitration clause or waived any right to pursue its enforcement.

So I want to just sort of talk a little bit about, you know, what's happening here in Seattle and specifically kind of what the risk is for a relatively new law, the Secure Scheduling Ordinance with this sort of rise of forced arbitration.

So folks probably remember that secure scheduling applies to workers in food service and in retail who work for large employers, over 500 employees.

These are precisely the companies that are most likely to have already forced their workers into arbitration clauses.

So studies show that it's really like the big corporate chains that innovated this practice.

And, you know, we haven't, as far as I know, there hasn't been a single private lawsuit brought to enforce secure scheduling.

likely because very, very few of the covered workers have the ability to bring those kinds of lawsuits anymore.

And, you know, I think what the Office of Labor Standards has done that's been really exceptional, they've invested significantly in the sort of public education, both for employers and their technical assistance to employers is unparalleled in what I've seen in terms of other cities that have pulled out this law.

And they've resolved a lot of the complaints, right?

But I think what we're still, what we're missing and we haven't been able to accomplish is this sort of culture of compliance.

And so I'll say that, you know, one of the most important pieces of your scheduling ordinance is called access to hours to allow folks who are part-time to be able to pick up more hours before an employer can hire more people.

And I know when people think about secure scheduling, they often sort of think about the advance notice component so workers can plan their lives, but from many that I've spoken to, the underemployment in their industries is as important if not more so, right, because it's really a question of being able to pay your bills, right?

And so when people see that their employer is hiring, you know, and training new people when they're stuck at 25 or 15 hours a week, it's just, like, awful, right?

And it's a big part of, I think, folks struggling economically.

And we know that a third of workers covered under this ordinance are struggling with being involuntarily part-time.

So when we saw the the evaluation of the secure scheduling when you're in, you know, one of the things that jumped out to me is that there are a number of employers, you know, that were surveyed that are in compliance completely, right?

And I attribute that in part to the technical assistance and the support that OLS has provided to really make sure that employers who want to follow the law know how to do it and have support to do it.

But we also saw that there are employers that are systematically violating the law.

So there were managers who reported, you know, I can't comply with access to hours because there's a corporate policy that limits me to only 25 hours a week per employee, or I'm only allowed to make two people full-time, and after that, everyone else has to be full-time.

And so I think, you know, this is the kind of thing where where we would benefit a lot from being able to have a high profile case that gets a lot of attention, that has really substantial consequences for employers that are not making a little mistake here or there, but have maintained a business practice that is completely at odds with the policy of the city and are doing it without any real consequence.

And so that's the thing that is, Like I think the inability to have a really hard-hitting enforcement that sends a message to the whole industry like, wow, you know, this could be a risk for me if I don't get it together.

So I'll just, I guess I can, I'm going to talk about one other sort of policy area, but I'll pause because I think one thing I didn't include in this slide is that, you know, I have a lot of, sympathy for the position that OLS is in, right?

The agency, although well-resourced comparatively to other cities, has to make some strategic decisions about how they invest in this project of creating a culture of compliance.

And I think that, you know, most agencies do not prioritize these kinds of high-stakes enforcement actions that are capable of sending a strong reverberating public message to the entire regulated community to take their legal obligations seriously.

Because it's expensive and it's hard to do, and you're then looking at all of these other workers who have filed complaints, and those cases have to wait while you prioritize a potentially high-yield case.

And that's why I think this sort of Um, that's where I think the private bar has traditionally been really helpful, right, in sort of going after the big, the big cases.

Um, and I, I don't, you know, I think there are some places that are trying to experiment with contingency arrangements where agencies will partner with really trusted and respected private lawyers to say, you know, work up this case for us and bring it and, you know, we'll then collect the penalty.

So something that's sort of similar to the whistleblower model, but on a, on an informal basis.

So just want to share some of those reflections on how the forced arbitration crisis might be impacting the shift towards compliance.

The other piece that I wanted to mention just briefly is sort of a new policy concept that's popping up.

which is around what's called just-clause employment.

We live in an at-will employment world where, in theory, you know, any worker can quit at any time, any employer can fire anyone at any time unless for a specifically prohibited reason like retaliation or discrimination.

In reality, this ends up being a very, you know, imbalanced power dynamic, right, where the fear of being fired shapes everything about a worker's experience, particularly in low wage, high turnover industries where employers are not investing.

They don't see their workforce as folks to be invested in who are part of their kind of profit model, right?

They see labor as a cost to be controlled.

And so, you know, we see all the time that People are fired for any reason, no reason, not given an explanation.

And that fear that workers face all the time, knowing that they could be fired at any moment, is a major deterrent when we're thinking about building the trust that workers have to be able to come forward and enforce their rights.

So OLS is still largely a complaint-driven agency, right?

They're prioritizing to the most degree the complaints that are brought to them.

And we can't expect workers to be brave and risk retaliation when they can be fired for any reason.

And it's really hard to prove retaliation.

It's really hard to prove that somebody has been discriminated against.

So the idea of just cause is let's flip the burden.

Instead of workers having to prove that they were fired for the wrong reason, let's ask employers to show that they're firing somebody for a legitimate performance problem or, you know, in the case of layoffs or reductions in hours for a legitimate business reason.

And, you know, I think one other thing to sort of note about this concept of just-cause employment is there are so many of arbitrary reasons for firing people that really are very, like, if not by law discrimination, then are certainly racially coded, right?

So people are told you're not smiling enough, or your nails are too long, or your hair is unprofessional, right?

And all of the sort of standards that have been normalized around job performance often carry, you know, a lot of racial prejudices.

So we want, you know, and of course I think it goes without saying that when a low-wage worker is fired on the spot, you know, after having spent years in some cases, you know, prioritizing their job over their life, you know, staying late, skipping family obligations to, you know, show up for a shift.

The threat of termination often is used as like a cudgel, right, to get employees to be really loyal to their job, go above and beyond, and then people can turn around and be fired for nothing, that often can destabilize an entire family.

People, you know, can't make rent, can't buy groceries, right, and are often, you know, unable to access the social safety.

So this is still a very kind of new concept.

I'll just briefly say like where it's taking off.

The Philadelphia City Council recently passed a just cause implement standard that applies to parking lot attendance.

And I think just last week, the New York City Council heard a bill that would apply these protections to fast food workers.

So this is something that I think there's a lot of excitement about.

you know, because it really goes to the heart of control that employers have over workers and the, you know, the abuse of that control, particularly in rural sectors.

Thank you, Rachel.

We have a few questions.

Thank you.

I just want to say I think the policy basis for Just Cause are well enshrined in this city council as it relates specifically to Just Cause in the housing arena.

have as a matter of policy a long history dating back to the 80s of prohibiting no-cause evictions for two reasons.

Both, we don't want arbitrary evictions, just like we would not want arbitrary terminations.

But also, as you mentioned, we know that in standing up for one's rights in the housing arena, the fear of an arbitrary eviction weighs very, very high in the minds of tenants.

So I think this council would really understand the policy basis for something like this in the employment arena because of our city's long history with just cause in evictions.

Thank you.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you so much, first off, Rachel, for your presentation.

As someone who went to law school down in the Bay Area at Berkeley, one of my first experiences as a law student in practicing and giving advice to clients under the supervision of practicing lawyers was at the East Bay Workers' Rights Clinic.

in the Bay Area run by Mike Gately.

I just wanted to ask a question because from my recollection of that, though it was a while ago now, I seem to recall that there was some kind of ordinance or law in San Francisco County related to having a just cause for a termination.

I remember that we used to get excited in the clinic when someone was there who had been terminated in San Francisco because we had more tools potentially to provide relief.

I wonder if you could just, if I'm remembering that correctly, or if you could maybe talk about what that ordinance entails and what lessons there might be in the approach that San Francisco has taken.

You know, I will have to look into that.

I'm not aware of any of any ordinance.

You know, it's possible.

I know that there are some statutes that it may have originated in San Francisco, but I believe there's also some, if I'm not mistaken, in Seattle that try to make it easier to prove retaliation by creating a presumption of retaliation if the termination takes place within, let's say, 90 days of the of some kind of protected activity.

So that may be, you know, that was sort of intended to just make it easier for a worker to, like, carry their case, right, of showing, look, I spoke up at this point.

A month later, I was fired.

This is not a coincidence, right?

Then that shifts the burden to the employer of having to show some other reasons for termination.

But I'll have to look in and make sure I haven't missed some kind of like landmark law in San Francisco that we should be looking to.

Yeah, thanks.

I'm going to look into it as well, too, on my end.

I didn't really think about it until now during your presentation, but It had rekindled a memory.

So I am curious to kind of follow up on that and just kind of see.

Because I remember there being something.

I don't know the extent to which it applies.

But to the extent it could be instructive, obviously looking at what other cities are doing is an important part of this process.

Council Member, oh, Council Member Luce, did you have one more thing?

Oh, no, no, that was it.

Thank you for raising that.

Council Member Herbold.

And going back to the whistleblower enforcement option, how does, are you still going, would the approach to using this tool still be creating some sort of a class?

How would you go about doing this?

So the way it's not a class action, it's what's called a representative action.

So if you think about, you know, if the city attorney or the state AG brought an enforcement action, they're automatically doing it on behalf of all of the residents.

of that jurisdiction who have been impacted by unlawful activity.

They don't need to pursue class certification because the objective is not to identify who is owed what.

The objective is to impose penalties, right?

And so there's a need to assess how many employees were impacted because typically penalties are on a per worker basis.

So your bigger company you're going to pay more in penalties because you have more employees.

But the idea is just one worker could come forward and identify noncompliance and bring the case and prove that it's a pattern, prove that it's impacted all of their peers.

And one reason that that's so valuable is we often see that there are folks who are really afraid of retaliation, particularly with the super aggressive ICE activity.

being able to have a person who's a citizen, for example, come forward on behalf of all of their co-workers who may have, you know, maybe undocumented or have undocumented family members.

We've also, you know, believe that the best way to do this is to also allow workers to identify a trusted organization, whether it's a union or a legal clinic of some sort, to bring forward the claim.

And in that case,

the agency would be aware of the identity of the person who's coming forward, but their identity would be protected as far as the...

And the type of worker that we would want to try to identify would be a non-representative worker who also has the class collective action waiver in their contract.

Is that correct?

Well, so anyone can come forward.

They don't need to have a class or collective action waiver.

I think what we're seeing in California is that California has one of the highest rates of class action waivers and forced arbitration in the country.

And workers have been increasingly relying on this kind of whistleblower mechanism as an alternative way to get into court and to provide accountability for their employers.

But it's not restricted to folks who have those clauses.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

I didn't mean to suggest that it's restricted, but given the context that this strategy was presented to us in that it was identified as an enforcement strategy that folks who had waivers could use, I'm just supposing that that would be a good way to go for those kinds of workers.

Absolutely.

Colleagues, any additional questions or comments?

Both to Rachel and Rebecca, we are really appreciative of all of your information as issue experts in this arena and as people who've helped to pass some of our strong labor protections here in Seattle.

We're going to be looking to you both to help us as we think through the future of work and we will try to drop the gig from the gig economy conversation and just talk about protecting workers in the new economy as it's clearly not confined to one sector.

And this is something that I think is going to be on our agenda for the next few months as we think about where we'd like to take this conversation in 2020. There's a lot of people who are interested in this.

We'll be talking to some of our union friends, some workers directly.

and employers as well.

So to our national partners, we greatly appreciate all of your work on this, and we are ready, as you can hear, ready and excited to take any ideas and suggestions you have.

I'm looking forward to looking at Philadelphia and New York's Just Cause legislation that they're working on.

So would love to see that at a state level, too, to our friends in the legislature listening.

Anywho, I just want to say thank you.

As you've identified, there's a lot of ways that we can continue to expand what we've already done here in Seattle, and I know our teams are very excited about these efforts, too.

Any other closing comments from either of you?

Okay.

Seeing none, thanks again for joining us via Skype and, Karina, for soaking all of this in with us from central staff.

We know we're going to have to do a lot more research with you at the helm as well.

Council colleagues our next committee meeting will be Tuesday March 3rd at 9 30 a.m.

We're going to fill in the rest of the agenda and send it around to you But as you know, we're gonna have the appointments that we heard today From the folks from the Domestic Worker Standards Board and we will also have follow-up legislation for you on rent bidding Action is required of us this year.

So looking forward to bringing that forward and you should have a copy coming soon.

I That's it for today.

Thank you for joining us.

It's 3.37 and goodbye.