Governance, Accountability & Economic Development Committee 592024

All right, hello, everyone.

Great to see you this afternoon.

Hi, folks.

It's May 9th, and the Governance, Accountability, and Economic Development Committee meeting will come to order.

It is 2-0-3.

I'm Sarah Nelson, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Kettle?

Here.

Councilmember Hollingsworth?

Present.

Councilmember Rivera?

Present.

Councilmember Saka?

Here.

Chair Nelson.

Present.

Five present.

Thank you very much.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

And so we're going to move into the public comment period on the items listed on the agenda.

Before we begin, I just want to say I appreciate all the interest that you're showing in this legislation.

So thank you very much for coming in person and also to our remote commenters for My plan is to allow everyone to speak, and to get there, I ask everyone to be respectful of one another.

And as a reminder, the council rules do not allow outbursts from members of the public who are not recognized to provide public comment.

So thank you very much in advance for that.

All right, clerk, how many people are signed up today?

Council President, we have 62 in-person public commenters and 36 virtual.

Got it, thank you very much.

All right, please set the timer for one minute and we'll begin with the first 10 in-person speakers and then alternate to remote and back and forth until everyone is spoken.

Please read the instructions and then begin calling on in-person speakers.

I'll call on speakers in the order they signed up to speak, starting with in-person commenters, as Council President Nelson mentioned.

Speakers will have one minute.

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 move on to the next speaker.

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

And I apologize in advance if I mispronounce your first and or last name.

The first 10 in-person public commenters will be And please make your way up to the front.

We got Wei Lin, followed by Alex Kim, Kimberly Wolfe, W.D. Patterson, Kyle Graham, Mary Luceci, Daniel Oh, Ariana Riley, Alex T, and Jason Ogulink.

Wei?

Did you remember all those names in that order?

Just kidding.

We'll say it every two or three names.

Okay.

Hi, good evening members of city council.

My name is Wade Lin and I'm here to be have to pay up campaign.

I urge you to stand with us and support and maintain the Seattle ordinance that provide crucial minimum payment protection for gig workers.

Gig works are facing apprehended challenge and this is protection is their lifeline yet.

Corporations are using lobbyists to spread misinformation, despite never cooperating with legislation for workers right before.

They are still currently not considering fair work pay, even when the legislation was passed, and still make sure to profit over the wellness of the workers.

This isn't just about the policy.

It's about people's lives.

in life.

It's about ensuring that hardworking individuals can earn fair wages and support themselves and their families.

The urgency of this matter cannot be overstated.

I implore the council to stand against the corporation manipulations and paralyze the right.

Let us not shelter in our commitment to justice and equalities.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Next up, we got Alex Kim followed by Kimberly Wolf.

Alex.

Hi, my name is Alex Kim.

I'm a food delivery driver and District 2 resident.

I just want to make it clear today that Councilmember Nelson's Amendment 1 does nothing to address wage ceiling concerns.

It says companies cannot retroactively reduce our pay.

This is a phantom concern because even Uber and DoorDash know they can't get away with that.

Instead, they'll do it proactively.

As the amendment itself says, wage stealing issues will still exist because, quote, network companies can provide offers that are less than the minimum per hour amounts.

This stipulation exists to maximize worker productivity in theory for the least amount of pay possible, increasing corporate profits and hurting workers twice as much with less pay and more expenses.

Gay workers have no problem being more productive as long as the incentive is getting paid more.

That's the beauty of gig work, and allowing underpayment effectively destroys that.

Customers will get worse service, too, as drivers will take longer because it will allow them to beat the system.

I ask you today to please end this charade of trying to help workers by lowering and capping our wages.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got Kimberly Wolf, followed by W.D.

Patterson.

Kimberly?

Kimberly Wolf, gig worker, opposing Nelson's bill.

Nothing in this bill helps workers, restaurants, customers, or restores order volume.

The app companies say if you've got worker protections and the ability to find out and penalize us when we act badly, we'll stop throttling orders and think about lowering the fees.

People, that's extortion.

The rights of tens of thousands of Seattle gig workers sold off, not even for a law mandating that the fees are capped or lowered, or we're getting more orders, just giving away the farm for nothing.

Pretty crappy negotiating.

All this is a smoke screen to avoid OLS analyzing their data and exposing their shenanigans.

A committee doing their due diligence would absolutely insist the data be sent and hear OLS's analysis report or even thinking about reversing any of these worker protections.

So when deciding your vote on the Nelson Amendment, you should ask yourself, are you going to be a party to extortion?

Or are you going to be with the workers of Seattle over out-of-state companies?

Council members, vote down this nonsense.

Thank you.

Next, we got W.D.

Patterson, followed by Kyle Graham.

Good afternoon.

I'd like to forego my testimony.

I'm here in the interest of science to collect data by invitation from the Drivers Union and on behalf of all of the drivers.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got Kyle Graham, followed by Mary Lutheshi.

Kyle.

Hello, my name is Kyle Graham.

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

Council Member Saka, you've stated that there are three options, do nothing, revise, or repeal.

But to make a decision to revise or repeal based on these rushed proposals is a complete slap in the face of democracy.

What you should consider is the fourth real option, research.

These arbitrary changes being proposed are atrocious, like cutting the mileage rate to 35 cents instead of the IRS gold standard of 67 cents.

Do you think Sarah Nelson's shoddily put together proposal has better research methods than the IRS?

My car is not an electric or hybrid like she seems to think all delivery drivers have.

Am I expected to go out and get a new vehicle on my already limited budget because she wants to bend to the demands of these billion dollar corporations?

The main issues of higher fees or bikers being given less deliveries are not addressed at all.

You need to bring together workers, drivers and the bikers, and local restaurants to listen to the real issues and not just let these billion-dollar corporations be the only ones at the table whose interest is only to exploit workers and local Seattle businesses for their own profit.

Thank you.

Next, we've got Mary Luceci, followed by Daniel Oh, and I believe Mary has an interpreter.

Hi, my name is Mary.

I work for Instacart from 2015 to 2021. I'm asking the council to keep the pay up law because it provides reimbursement for delivery costs.

While I worked delivering, I incurred costs of gasoline, maintenance, tires, and other repairs.

And, of course, there was insurance and car registration and all these different expenses.

And that 35 cents a mile is not enough to cover those expenses.

work to earn a living, not a substandard living.

I'm asking the council to continue the pay-up line to support app workers who deserve decent pay.

The council can put a cap on fees for customers and businesses because the app companies are financially successful.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you.

Following that, we have Daniel O. And then after Daniel, we have Ariana Riley.

Daniel.

Daniel.

Can you hear me?

My name is Daniel Ojalvo.

I'm speaking as a resident of District 1 in Seattle.

I'm speaking against Councilmember or President Nelson's proposal.

And the reason I do that is because I fear that the City Council thinks that we are dumb.

They think that by passing this ordinance, the fees will go away.

The fees will not go away with passing this ordinance.

Even President Biden is calling out these junk fees, but here in Seattle, for some reason, we're giving in, and that's disappointing.

The other thing I would like to bring up is that I believe President Nelson needs to recuse herself from this legislation.

I think the recent sale to the Seattle Hospitality Group makes this situation an ethically challenged problem, and I think that the legislation should be...

postponed until the ethical issues can be resolved.

President Elson, please recuse yourself.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got Arianna Riley, followed by Alex Zimmerman.

Arianna.

Good afternoon.

My name is Ariana Riley.

I'm a delivery driver.

The original pay-up legislation was carefully crafted over a period of five years to comply with federal labor law.

Federal law says that contractors have the right to set their own rights of pay and set their own hours.

If a company makes those decisions for a worker, then that worker is legally an employee.

This is where the work anytime and pay transparency provisions came from, as well as the mandate that DoorDash is no longer allowed to punish drivers who aren't accepting 90% of all orders.

Now we are independent contractors in accordance with federal law.

The proposal at hand takes much of those protections away and does not comply with federal labor laws.

I have read all of the amendments and I want to keep the original pay up legislation.

The only thing that needs to be passed is Councilmember Kettle's amendment for independent data collection.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Last two public commenters for this round.

Alex Zimmerman, followed by Jason Oglenk.

A bandit and killer.

My name Alex Zimmerman, I'm president of Stand Up America.

Can you explain to me a government accountability give to these poor babies, you know what it means?

One minute, and I'll accept this.

Accountability, what does this mean, this word?

I'm not going to speak English.

Maybe it's something like a...

Look to me like a Nazi Gestapo printer.

Please address your comments to an item on the agenda.

Exactly.

I spoke about something what is important to accountability.

And I talk about many times.

You want one minute, 30 seconds, 15 seconds for this slave?

It's okay.

Open better room in City Hall one day per week for free conversation for three minutes like everybody have.

I spoke from Tacoma to Verrett.

4,000, more than 4,000.

Everybody have three minute.

Everybody.

You only one Nazi pig who don't have this.

Is this exactly what as I talk to you?

Stand up, America.

All right.

Last public comment for this round is going to be Jason Ogling.

Jason?

97% of small Seattle restaurants want the delivery pay ordinance repealed.

That's the headline that Seattle Metro Chamber of Commerce published for a survey of 100 restaurants.

The volume of orders that restaurants receive through third-party apps has been cut in half.

That also means my opportunities to deliver have been cut in half.

In practice, I've averaged $11.37 an hour since January 13th, That's a far cry from the law's promised minimum, $26.40.

This law needs to change to restore order volume.

To wait any longer is reckless.

Four months has shown the restaurants are hurting.

Another four months that could be covered in plywood.

Thank you.

We will now move to remote public comment and the same rules apply.

The first Virtual public commenter is gonna be David Edmondson, followed by Meredith See, then Tracy McAlpin.

David?

David, please feel free to press star six.

Go ahead.

I apologize for the technical difficulties.

Go ahead.

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

TechNet supports the proposed revision to the city's app-based minimum pay ordinance.

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

Data released this winter by third-party delivery apps and other groups like the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce confirm as much.

As a result, there are 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 of it.

We do have concerns about two of the proposed amendments.

One allows a private right of action and a second regarding data sharing.

The PRA is unnecessary given the existing oversight of OLS over this ordinance, and the data sharing provision risks the sharing of sensitive you to reject both.

That being said, we support the revisions to the law and encourage the Council's swift adoption.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got Meredith C., followed by Tracy M. Meredith.

Hi.

I'm Meredith, and I'm a driver, and I'm speaking in opposition of repealing pay-ups.

I've spoken with Joy Hollingsworth.

I've actually known her for a while.

um she has some good ideas for a fair solution and it requires all interested parties to have a seat at the table i've also spoken with work in washington and joey's ideas sound like something they can get on board with that should happen um that being said the real issue here is about monopolies and antitrust laws regarding the tech industry as a whole i used to run a small business and what i've seen is that as a result of the pandemic tech companies now have a stranglehold on the flow of commerce between consumers and businesses with restaurants being heavily affected Look, business operators need to adapt to a more tech-centered world, and contracted workers need to become more aware of their rights.

But the tech industry really needs to be investigated for antitrust laws.

If we too much control as gatekeepers, the cost being passed on is driving inflation and causing massive income inequality.

We're all human beings, but we're living more like exploitable resources for profit, and it's really disgusting for me, human rights.

Thank you.

Next, we got Tracy M followed by Lars E and then Marco W. Tracy.

Hi, I'm Tracy.

I live in Seattle.

I'm calling to say that I do not support CB 12775. I support the existing payout legislation that's in effect right now.

When I order food delivery, I feel great knowing that the driver is making a good wage.

a wage that isn't dependent on tips.

And I want the workers to get paid for all of their delivery time, not just the active delivery time.

So I urge you to reject CB 120-775.

That's all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we got Lars E., then Marco W.

Good afternoon.

My name is Lars Erickson, and I'm speaking in support of both bills on your agenda on behalf of the more than 2,500 members of the Seattle Metro Chamber of Commerce.

From meetings we've hosted between council members and businesses, we've learned that public safety remains the top issue for small employers.

They report frequent break-ins, theft, and harassment, but few call 911 due to long response times.

We need a strong commitment to officer recruitment and retention, so I ask that you support CB 120776. The high cost of doing business has been the second most discussed topic at these meetings.

That trend was echoed by our survey of over 100 restaurants in Seattle, nearly all of whom said the sales are down since January.

Our elected officials must create an environment that allows businesses of all sizes to thrive.

Despite good attentions, we've seen that pay up has been the opposite.

So I ask you to vote yes on CB 120775 A SOLUTION THAT INCLUDES FEEDBACK FROM DIVERSE STAKEHOLDERS.

THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THE LEGISLATION AND YOUR COMMITMENT TO GOOD GOVERNANCE.

THANK YOU.

NEXT WE GOT MARCO W. FOLLOWED BY KATIE B. AND THEN MARK J. MARCOS, GO AHEAD.

HELLO, CAN YOU HEAR ME?

YES, WE CAN.

Thank you.

For the record, my name is Marcos Wallace, founder and president of the Seattle Latino Chamber of Commerce.

I am here today in support of changes to the app-based minimum pay ordinance.

Our members, Seattle restaurants and retailers have been dramatically impacted by the city's new pay ordinance.

The new law is especially failing app-based workers.

who are now waiting longer for fewer and smaller orders.

Customers are also being left behind, especially our elderly residents and people with disabilities who have been priced out of delivery in the city.

Every order matters for my members, especially restaurants and small retailers.

On behalf of my members, their employees, their delivery workers, and customers they serve, I urge the Council to act quickly to fix the pay ordinances.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I'm showing that Katie B is not present.

So we'll go next to Mark J. And then following that, Seth L. Mark, go ahead.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

Mark Johnson, Senior Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs for the Washington Retail Association.

We're in support of the revisions to the app-based minimum pay ordinance currently before you.

The impact of this new ordinance on Seattle's retailers who rely on third-party delivery has been well documented in recent months.

The new law has dramatically altered the landscape for app-based delivery in Seattle in just a few months' time.

As we have shared in previous testimony, retailers are seeing fewer and smaller orders.

Delivery drivers are seeing longer wait times and fewer diminished earning opportunities.

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

We have concerns with the two amendments that are being considered.

The first is the amendment to provide a private right of action, which already the authority of the Office of Labor has.

We're also concerned about the data sharing amendment, which we believe could expose potentially sensitive and proprietary information.

Otherwise, we strongly support the council in its effort to revise the minimum pay ordinance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And the last first round of virtual public commenters is going to be Seth L. Seth, go ahead.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Thanks.

My name is Seth Levinson.

I've been working in King County for about 20 years.

I'm from Buffalo.

The idea of a local employer here in Seattle compensating you for gas use on the job at a national rather than local rate is kind of silly.

Seattle benefits from having a very high standard of living, and as a respected national metropolis, the idea that any federal standard rate would be a sufficient measure here, like the federal minimum wage or the federal poverty line, is laughable.

Not to mention that lowering the amount of time that a worker has to decide whether or not they will accept an order from two minutes to 45 seconds, alongside the elimination of the $5 order minimum, is immensely biased against gig workers for whom English is not their first language.

It's not a good look for a sanctuary city.

When I apply for a job, my credit is usually pulled, and if it is found that I am in significant amount of debt, I am seen as a liability to the company and probably won't be hired.

I looked up Uber's debt just before this call.

They're in the hole about $12 billion.

I'd be pretty suspicious of any cost-cutting proposal they're in support of with debts like that.

If they can't afford to sufficiently compensate workers, contracts, or gigs to stay competitive, they probably shouldn't be in business.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right, the next 10 in-person public commenters are going to be first Peter.

Kuel, K-U-E-L, I apologize, Mupapa T, followed by Steven G, and then Craig Jones.

Peter?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, council members.

My name is Peter Quill.

First of all, I'm a president of Drivers Union.

And I would like to remind you that 10 years ago, $15 minimum wage was passed in Seattle.

Nine years ago, collective bargaining was passed for Uber and Lyft drivers here in this chamber.

Five years ago, fair pay for Uber and Lyft drivers was passed here.

Seattle is a leader in this country.

You cannot go and reverse what you guy passed.

Washington State is the first in the nation that raises up and pays the workers.

And I don't think I would like to go back and rebuke that.

No repeal, and no repeal.

And I owe you all of this.

These guys make only $5.

and an hour, and you are making it $2 or $3, this is unfair.

You need to think twice over this.

Do not repeal this, and thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got Mpapati, followed by Stephen G., Craig Jones, and then Rita J. Good afternoon.

I'm here to oppose the lobbyist attempt to reduce driver's pay.

I'm doing better now, even though I have fewer requests.

Before this law, I was turning down six out of every 10 requests.

Why?

Because most of them were $3.

So I don't mind waiting for a better request than accepting just about every request that comes along that is only about $3.

I urge you to oppose the change.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we got Steven G followed by Craig J and then Rita J and then Roman V.

Hey, so I'm Steven Geary.

I am here in support of leaving things the way they are.

I heard an earlier commenter use the word devastating.

And I think the only people who are devastated are the people who are gonna be unable to have their hands in every time somebody has something to eat, Uber, DoorDash, et cetera.

So sometimes the best thing to do is nothing.

With the time we can all save by doing that, we can get outside and enjoy this beautiful day.

Oh, shoot.

Thank you.

Next, we got Craig Jones, Rita J, Roman V, and then Rebecca Y.

Hello, I'm Craig Jones, born and raised here in Seattle.

I strongly urge you do not vote on Sarah Nelson's proposal to cut gig worker pay to $13.17 an hour, which is $6.80 an hour below the Seattle minimum wage, and it does nothing to lower customer fees.

Don't vote for it today or any day.

I don't know if any of you have worked for the minimum wage.

Rob Soccer, you're my council member.

If you ever have...

work for the legal minimum, which literally means I'd pay you less if I could.

Imagine finally getting a raise only to have a new boss come in and take it away from you.

I'm from here and it's nauseating to constantly see the wealthy flaunt their willful ignorance and disconnect from reality.

high rise condos going up right with the cost of living faster than wages can keep up while our houseless population grows.

I've worked on elections since 1996 and since then I've enjoyed reminding thousands of hardworking people every day that we gave you the job and you're accountable to us and we can take it away.

Thank you.

Next we got Rita J followed by Roman V and then Rebecca Y and then Humair A.

Hello, can you hear me?

I'm gonna make a very simple statement.

If you pass Sarah Nelson's proposal, excuse me, workers like myself will no longer be able to pay the rent, car payment, or bills next month, and that's the bottom line, thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got Roman V followed by Rebecca Y, Homair A, and then Mateo B.

Hello, everyone.

My name is Roman.

I work as a delivery driver in Seattle just about a year.

And I just want to say I start earn enough for paying my bills just after these changes in January.

So I'm totally opposed from Sarah Nelson policy.

That's just one.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got Rebecca Y., Homair A., Mateo B., and the last 10 in person is Jaffa S. Last round for this, I mean.

Go ahead.

My name is Becky Yoshitani, and I'm here to support revisions to the pay up ordinance.

My husband and I own and operate a quick service restaurant in South Lake Union since 2016. We managed to remain open through COVID primarily because of delivery platforms.

In May 23, as Amazon and other tech businesses returned to work three days a week, On a weekly basis, our delivery orders grew as much as 80% over the previous year.

But on January 17th or 14th, all that changed.

Within weeks, our sales dropped to 30% less than the same weeks a year ago, and for a net loss of 50% or more in anticipated delivery sales.

Additionally, I know personally of two restaurants which have closed due to the loss of delivery sales.

And primarily our loss has been for small orders of a single person with a huge increase on costs on these small orders.

User are opting for picking up ready to heat or eat items from supermarkets.

Once these new patterns are, we anticipate delivery sales will be permanently lost.

I urge the council to take swift action to prevent more irreversible economic damage to the restaurant industry in Seattle.

Thank you.

Excuse me.

Next, we got Humair A, followed by Mateo B, and then Jaffa S. Hello.

Good afternoon.

My name is Humair Ahmed.

After five years, I have done more than 11,000 deliveries.

Some people speak of receiving as little as one order per hour.

Sometimes I might not receive an order.

after waiting two to three hours.

I have worked hard for years to earn top Dasher incentive and that status has been taken away because of pay up.

The new law had negative consequences for everyone, customer, Dasher, businesses.

I talked to some business and their app orders dropped down as much as 80%.

Please support this new proposal and fix the delivery pay.

Thank you.

thank you now we will go back to 10 virtual public commenters uh first up we got katie b followed by jenny p and then richard d katie go ahead good afternoon council president and members of the city council my name is katie beason

And I'm here on behalf of the Washington Food Industry Association, representing independent grocers, convenience stores, and their suppliers.

WFIA supports the Council in its efforts to update the app-based minimum pay ordinance.

As we've shared several times, inflation continues to be a very real concern for our members.

The cost of food, fuel, and labor continues to increase, and delivery has been an effective tool for our members in their efforts to remain competitive and keep customers coming back.

This new ordinance is deterring customers, resulting in fewer orders.

These unintended consequences are unsustainable for our members.

The new proposal before you will help restore at-pace delivery in Seattle, and we encourage the council to act quickly to adopt these revisions to the city's delivery pay ordinance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got Ginny P., followed by Richard D., and then Clareborn B. Go ahead, Ginny.

Hello, my name is Jenny Parham.

I work in Seattle and I spend around 100 to 150 each week on DoorDash.

I'm the customer.

I'm here today to express my strong opposition to council member Sarah Nelson's proposal to reduce the minimum wage for app-based workers.

This proposal is a step in the wrong direction.

We should be setting standards for better pay, not cutting the wages of those who've been our lifeline, especially during challenging times like COVID.

Seattle prides itself on progressive progressive values.

If we approve this wage cut, we would be the first city council in the country to take such a backward step.

This is not the legacy we want to create in Seattle or in Washington state.

The process leaders in this proposal has been deeply flawed.

It feels rushed, rushed, and lacks genuine engagement with the stakeholders, most effective, like our trade workers and our local restaurant workers.

This is not just about numbers.

It's about real people and real lives.

I urge the council to stand up for what's right, which is fair wages and fair process.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you.

Next we got Richard D followed by Clarence B and then we got Nicholas W after.

Go ahead, Richard.

Hello.

Hi, my name is Richard Dorish.

I'm a resident of Lake City.

I'm a door dasher for six years.

I've done over 12,000 deliveries.

Please do not pass Sarah Lawrence's, Sarah Nelson's shortchange legislation.

Why are you in the business of trying to cut back on a wage that was mutually agreed upon by all parties involved and involves Seattle's largest workforce?

The reason there aren't so many orders for drivers in Seattle is because drivers from Everett come south, Tacoma drivers come north, and Bellevue drivers come west.

All those drivers cannot make a living in their own markets.

That's why they've all come up and flooded the Seattle market, thanks to the app company's tactics.

Please remember, we spend hours a day sitting and waiting totally unpaid.

Why don't you tell the app companies that they can't gouge the restaurants for 30% of their growth?

Please vote no on Sarah Nelson's.

After five years of wages, we are finally making very enough to live on and you want to send us backwards.

Thank you.

Next, we got Clairborn B followed by Nicholas W and then Joel C. Clairborn?

Hello, yes, my name is Claiborne Bell.

I own a couple businesses in the Seattle area.

Distinguished Foods is the name of my business, and I have an ice cream and sorbet company called Seattle Sorbet and a commercial kitchen where I have 12 companies that rent space from me.

Unfortunately, Seattle's experiment with the delivery ordinance has failed and it's hurting many small businesses.

As a small business owner for the past 16 years, operating both commercial kitchen incubator and my own ice cream and sorbet company and a cookie company, I've witnessed a decline in sales since the passing of the ordinance.

This has caused significant setbacks for fellow entrepreneurs like myself.

I have 12 businesses at my commercial kitchen, and all of them have been hurt by this new ordinance.

It's hurting small businesses.

Time to find a common-sense solution to fix this problem.

This drastic increase by the ordinance has led to huge spike in delivery costs, and consumers cannot afford delivery in Seattle any longer.

This ordinance has been hurtful to many people, including many Black and Brown businesses that I know and work with and that use my commercial kitchen.

Pressure margins are small, and we simply cannot withstand this order and the decline in cost of our businesses.

I urge the City Council to pass a replacement ordinance and fix this problem for Seattle's small businesses, and especially small Black and Brown businesses.

Rob Saka, I've talked to you about this.

Joy Hollingsworth, I've talked to you about this.

Please help us out here.

We can't afford, we can't afford this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Letting everyone go.

Okay, I'll tighten up.

All right, next we got Nicholas W. Please press star six.

All right, we'll go next to Joelle C. Please press star six, Joelle.

Hello, my name is Joelle Craft.

I am a lifelong Seattle resident and a gig worker.

I've lived in the city and I've watched it become increasingly unaffordable to people like me, especially those with chronic illnesses.

I use gig workers, Not just I am a gig worker, but I also use them.

I constantly get them for food and different stuff when my health is deeply affected and I cannot get out.

The one thing we know that happened with the pay-up legislation is that the companies retaliated and they put on all these fees for the workers and for the companies and the customers.

What they didn't do was just follow the law.

If they had followed the law, then we wouldn't be having all of these issues.

People keep saying that it's the workers that are the problem when in fact the company's retaliated.

We need to not pass Councilmember Nelson's proposal because it will not stop the fees.

The companies have said it themselves.

It won't do anything but make it so that more people.

All right, we got Nicholas.

I see you're back on.

Please press star six to unmute yourself.

Nicholas?

All right.

We'll go now to Mary Z. Go ahead, Mary.

My name is Mary.

I'm a disabled RN, and I deliver for Instacart.

I'm speaking to oppose Sarah Nelson's petition to decrease gig workers' pay to subminimum wages.

Before the ordinance, I was dependent on Washington State's cash benefits for the age-blind and disabled, and I was dependent on food banks.

The ordinance has created financial stability for my family and several other families who used to depend on the state for assistance.

Decreasing our pay will have detrimental effects on gig workers like me.

We spend anywhere from 400 to 700 per month on gas alone and drive over 30,000 miles per year using our own vehicles.

Our job is physically demanding, with some orders being over 400 pounds.

Her proposal was developed by Uber, DoorDash, and lobbyists that they pay, which shouldn't tell you a lot alone.

At the least, you should not consider revising the ordinance until you've heard from gig workers such as myself.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got Danielle C., followed by Joanna P. Danielle.

Good afternoon.

My name is Danielle Carrillo.

I am a driver for DoorDash, Uber, Amazon Flex, and Grubhub, and I am opposed to Sarah Nelson's proposal.

The current ordinance, as it's written, has increased my pay overall since it went into effect in January and allowed me to finally be able to pay my bills.

The ordinance holds multibillion-dollar companies accountable to pay contractors a fair wage.

As an independent contractor, you would typically have bargaining power to negotiate your rate.

In the case of these app-based companies, the contractors do not have that bargaining power.

Sarah Nelson's proposal strips away the progress that contractors have made in holding these companies to a standard that requires them to pay us a living wage.

and provide us with rights and protections.

It would be irresponsible to allow Sarah Nelson's amendment to pass without doing your due diligence.

Not only have you given the current ordinance insufficient time to work, you are being manipulated by these big corporations.

Thank you.

Next, we got Kathleen H. Go ahead, Kathleen.

My name is Kathleen Hammerquist.

I'm appalled that the Seattle City Council is looking to amend an ordinance that implemented important labor rights in addition to establishing a minimum wage for some of our most vulnerable working residents.

The ordinance has only been in effect for a few months, and due to Sarah Nelson's siding with corporate greed tactics, the council is already looking to gut the pay-up ordinance.

The council must not vote to make these amendments proposed by corporate interest groups.

The council needs to consider the needs of the people versus the greed of corporate fat cats.

I believe exorbitant fees should be cut rather than gig worker pay.

If the actions of the council show us that you care more about big business than the residents of Seattle, you will likely find that the people of Seattle will choose to vote you out.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Ruth T followed by Peter M. Ruth.

Good afternoon, Council Members.

I'm not going to lie.

The whole thing feels surreal to come here and beg you not to take our protection.

Our pay is crazy.

Week after week, I've watched people in masks tell you to keep the pay up.

These people who get paid by the minute are coming here instead.

They're not lobbyists.

They're not paid to be here.

In fact, some put themselves at risk by talking here.

Every week, I'm blown away by the number of community members supporting pay up.

It's not only gig workers, unions, or working Washington, but customers and business owners.

On the flip side, we have a handful of people that stand here in opposition because they're losing income.

But that's because they're bike deliveries.

So the apps dropped them in priority.

Maybe instead of taking away from thousands, you could add to help this handful of workers.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Peter M followed by Kevin B. Peter.

Hi, my name is Peter Manning.

I'm with Black Excellence in Cannabis.

I am calling in to say that I believe that a lot of the Black and Latino businesses that are relying on business as far as in the food industry is suffering.

I think that the legislation, the city council, and whoever needs to fix the payoff system.

I think the system could work.

I think that maybe we should all...

come back to the table to see how that fits Seattle and fit people that is greatly impacted by it.

To turn a blind eye and not pay attention to what the people need, kind of insulting.

You know, we made a change.

We supported the current council on there.

Joy Hollingsworth, I know a lot of people have been reaching out to you from our community that reached out to me.

I'm pleading with you guys.

Let's work together as a family and make it happen.

We can.

Thank you.

Next, we got Michael, or my apologies.

Next, we got Kevin B. Then Michael W. Go ahead, Kevin.

Okay.

Can you hear me now?

Yes, we can.

Okay.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Kevin Bolden.

I'm the Secretary of Shoppers since 2018. I support the payee ordinance as it is written.

Several years ago, gig workers organized and became part of the stakeholder burden process, which included the apps, public council members, and their staff, creating ordinance we are all proud of.

If CD 120775 passes as written, with pay of only gross minimum wage on engaged time, and mileage or reimbursement at $0.35 per mile, it will be the lowest of all existing standards for gig workers in the entire country.

I'm encouraging council members to take a stand against lowering pay for gig workers who work and live in this city based upon what you know is true.

Please don't throw away our voices.

These apps have taken money from customers, restaurants, stores, and their workers.

They do not give back to the Seattle infrastructure.

I humbly ask, do not abstain from voting on this measure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Michael W. Michael?

Hello, Council.

My name is Michael Westgard.

a dedicated wastewater treatment operator in King County, a patron of Uber Eats, Grubhub, and Rover.

I strongly endorse the pay-up ordinance as is, aimed at bolstering the earnings of gig workers.

However, these companies' response has been to impose additional fees, further straining customers financially.

Their business model overlooks the invaluable contribution of gig workers, burdening them with fees and withholding gratuity.

Governance focused on workers' needs is crucial here, ensuring fair labor practice and employee well-being.

It's imperative for the council to oppose this exploitation, prioritizing the well-being of Seattle's working people over corporate interests.

Even if these companies choose to depart, viable alternatives existed before and will continue to exist after.

Let's uphold wage protections for the benefit of all.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Now we will go back to 10 in-person public commenters.

First, we'll start, and I apologize for missing you, Jaffa S. If you're still here, Jaffa.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the delivery payload.

My name is Jafar Saeed, and I started driving for DoorDash during the beginning of the pandemic.

Being able to dash allows me to provide for my family, and I appreciate the flexibility to remain engaged and supportive within my community.

Since BEA passed, I have seen increased wait times between orders, probably because of an oversaturation in drivers and less orders.

I feel like my income has been taken away from me.

Please support this new council bill so we can return to normal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Hao Shen.

Hello, as a delivery courier, I wish the council to pass Chairperson Nelson's proposal, not because I'm against wage protection, but because the current payout ordinance has done the exact opposite.

The proposed bill is far from perfect, but it is the change we need to tune up this five-month experiment.

I also wish my fellow citizens who are against the bill can propose an amendment in the future to focus on the fee and data transparency and hold the network companies accountable for operating the market responsibly.

With enough time and negotiation, we can approach a solution that most people can agree with.

Let's fight the fees and greed, not each other.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have, and I apologize if I mispronounce your first and last name, it's Diallo, and I believe with an interpreter.

D-I, or S-I-A-L-L-O.

Yes, I am.

What number are you on?

32.

I'm just number 22. All right, following, my apologies.

Got a lot of public commenters.

My apologies.

We got, next we got Robert Singleton, followed by John S, Gary L, and Nathan B.

Good afternoon, Council President and members.

My name is Robert Singleton, and I serve as the Director of Policy and Public Affairs for the U.S.

Rest Region at Chamber of Progress, a tech industry association supporting public policies to build a more inclusive country in which all people benefit from technological leaps.

I'm here to express our support for CB 12775 as outlined by staff on April 25th.

We applaud 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.

The current situation is untenable for drivers, consumers, and small businesses.

While well-intentioned, the current pay standard has increased the price for goods and services that consumers depend on.

That increase in prices has also translated into a reduction in demand, ironically limiting earning opportunities for drivers and restaurants.

The new proposal is a better calibrated approach to protect drivers' wages and will preserve many of the protections that are currently in place, including a guaranteed minimum pay standard without threatening consumers' access to fresh food and groceries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got John S.

followed by Gary L. On deck after Gary, we got Nathan B. Go ahead, John.

On February 15th, a group of couriers came to this council and said the pay up bill wasn't working and asked for help.

It is important to remember this revised bill being voted on today is happening at the request of actual gig workers who brought receipts.

It is easy to manipulate simple-minded people with the term minimum wage, but the committee has been intelligent enough to see through the disinformation campaigns.

In 2023, I was receiving 250 offers per week.

After pay up, I'm receiving less than 50 per week.

It is not a minimum wage bill if the majority are making less than the minimum wage.

It would have been politically easier to do nothing and just support the false minimum wage anthem.

It is not a coincidence that nearly 100% of the pay-up proponents are Instacart and shopping workers.

Pay-up was written poorly and needs fixing.

Council President Nelson did the smart, hard thing and is fighting for the majority of workers, doing what is best for the city, and most importantly, giving voice to the less privileged workers who do not have a political agenda.

The 42% were immigrants.

Thank you.

Next, we got Gary B, followed by Nathan B, Hassan G, and then Jeff S. Go ahead.

Good afternoon, Council.

Vote for the revision, please.

Bring back deliveries.

I'm going to ask a very important group here to raise their hands.

Mycelium is considered the entire forest ecosystem.

When a tree is cut down and its stump remains, science shows the rest of the trees help and reach out with nutrients.

Fact.

How could a minimum wage law leave people out in the lurch?

I've been documented in the media making $13 an hour for 65 hours a week, Heather Krieg, the stranger.

Fact.

I'm a top dasher.

This is not right.

Drivers tell me the same.

I'm here to talk about lack of empathy.

No empathy for people making below $70,000.

They can't afford delivery.

This is not a living wage.

It's a dying wage.

Not a living wage, a dying wage.

Councils show empathy, also do what's right.

My group here today, they are my family because I care about their families far away.

Do what's right.

Econ 101, lower prices mean more orders.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got Nathan B., followed by Hassan G., and then Jeff S.

Gig workers are an emerging backbone of the labor force, not just here, but countrywide.

The pay up ordinance works exceptionally well for me because it covers my expenses and gives me the flexibility to follow other ambitions.

Where's your sense of loyalty anyway?

With your constituents or with these multi-billion dollar tech giants?

You'd think that with the political climate, you would avoid smelling like corruption at all costs.

I'm so thankful that I get to speak directly to elected officials who hold all our best interests at heart.

I've been a contract worker most of my life and it's always been hit or miss with these companies.

I'm thrilled that you have held them to a higher standard.

Thank you for making them pay us fairly.

There are hundreds of us out there working right now that need to feed their families.

They can't be here to fight you on this, but I can.

Please don't roll this back.

Thank you.

Next we got Hassan G followed by Jeff S and then Alpha D.

Go to the next one.

Okay.

We'll get back to Hasan once they come back, but then Jeff, if Jeff S is here.

Next.

All right.

I believe this person needs an interpreter, but Alpha D?

Alpha D, you're up next.

All right, after alpha, we got Ibrahima B. Ibrahima B. Go ahead.

And I believe this person, you need a translator as well.

Hi, everyone.

My name is Ibrahima.

I'm here since June 13, 2023. I'm here this afternoon to express my concern over this activity of delivery.

Actually, delivery is too slow.

We are not getting orders.

Personally, since last week, if I come, I'm not getting order.

Maybe sometimes if I come, the whole day is two or three orders.

So we need, really we need your help.

I need your help.

The council, I think the council should stand and fight hard and try to find a solution to this problem.

So once again, we need your help.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's go back to Hassan G. Are you here?

All right.

Jeff S. Jeff S., are you here?

All right.

Alpha D. Diallo.

All right.

Edward Park.

Hi, my name's Edward Park.

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

I have an e-commerce business, but still depend on delivery income to cover expenses.

Pay up has backfired and my earnings are half of what it was.

I'm here again to ask you to support this new council bill to make changes to the delivery pay law.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we'll go to Eric Franklin.

Eric?

Hello, City Council.

My name is Eric Franklin, and I've been a delivery driver since 2018. I have over 12,000 deliveries.

I've seen many of my other co-delivery drivers have 20,000, 21,000, been hitting the streets really hard.

And we all have a lot of things in common.

We all talk and get along, and we love what we do.

We love serving the community.

from the disabled person up on the third floor that needs help to the factory worker at two o'clock in the morning who can't leave his job to go and get some food that we can deliver for him.

We really like what we do.

When I ask the people, well actually I'm really puzzled, when I ask some of the people around me and they say that corporations have to pay, we have to get paid more money, we need our rights.

But I ask them, how many deliveries have you done?

I've done 5,000, he's done 6,000.

They say .

and they have no concern for me or the other fellow drivers.

We just want to go out and serve, and we just want to understand that we're all in this together.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's go back.

Is Hassan G here?

Jeff S?

Alpha D?

All right, then we'll go to Huey Nguyen.

Huey?

Hello, council.

My name is Thu Nguyen.

I've been delivery worker for about four years now.

This is the third time I've been in this room.

Regarding the delivery pay, I can be out there delivering and working, making money, but I chosen to come here again because the issue is important.

I'm here to ask you, the council, to change the delivery pay ordinance.

Please support the new council bill.

Thank you, council.

Thank you.

Next we have Yousef Yu.

Yousef Yu.

All right, next we have Noah G. Noah.

Hello, council.

My name is Noah Gardelman.

I'm a resident here in Seattle.

I am a gig worker, though I'm not delivery.

I do tour guides and I do dog walking.

But this law affects all of us.

It's pretty simple what they are all asking.

Keep it at a livable wage, not a reasonable, a livable wage, because it's basic economics here.

If you want people to spend more money, they need more money to spend said money.

If you want people to live, they have to be able to afford housing, able to get dinner.

What you should be targeting is the corporations that are putting these ridiculous fees that we all know is not affected by these laws, but the corporation is trying to blackmail us into not paying us livable wages.

As a tour guide, I talk about the history of this great city.

And you know the one thing that always crops up?

It's always a bad idea to go against the will of the people.

Go against the will of the people.

You lose your seat and don't get voted back in.

I'm talking to you, Sarah Nelson.

You literally went into a corporation to write the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got Michael Wolff.

Next, we got Michael Wolff.

We firmly believe these changes that are proposed will eliminate the fees charged by the companies and restore order volume and earnings for workers and restaurants.

We've heard

Vote the will of the people.

In a recent survey published by EMC Research, 80% of Seattle voters said they wanted change to this law.

That's the people.

Additionally, we urge you not only to support this bill, but also the amendments, all of them, that have been offered today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have...

I'll go A-G-D-O-U-B-A-Y-E.

Yeah, A-G-D-O-U-B-A-Y-E, followed that by D-I-A-L-K-A-T-A-U.

D-I-A-L-K-A-T-A-U?

I apologize.

All right.

Next, we have Adam Fry.

My name is Adam.

I deliver for DoorDash and other companies, and I am against the proposed revisions to the payout policy.

$1,068.

That is my monthly average cost for expenses over a 12-month period as a delivery driver.

Gas, maintenance, repairs, and insurance.

This does not include a car payment.

I am an independent contractor.

I am not an employee.

I pay my own taxes and I pay my own expenses and I get to decide how much my labor is worth.

Not a restaurant and certainly not DoorDash, Uber, or Grubhub.

These new revisions will bring pay to an even lower rate than before the original policy.

You wouldn't let a plumber or an electrician or landscaping professional, you wouldn't tell them that legally they need to lower their rate of pay.

Why would I support a policy in my city that would negatively affect my ability to decide how much my work is worth?

I implore you to vote no against these misguided revisions.

Thank you.

Next we have Emma H.

Good afternoon, council members.

I'm a bike courier who has consistently been making double what I did before pay up.

You have a simple choice before you today.

Are you going to push forward an unpopular and rushed revision, a bill that codifies minimum wage of $13 an hour when expenses are considered for drivers?

And the rationale of which is based primarily on anecdotal reports from historically the lowest earning months of the year in Seattle for gig work.

Or are you going to follow the mayor's call for a fair process and implement reasonable amendments to the original bill, such as council member Kettle's suggestion of section 13 to work with academics to appropriately study the impacts.

We are entering what is historically the best period for gig work in Seattle.

The restaurants in my area are busy now, both with app and more profitable in-person orders.

Don't base your decision today on outdated complaints and forecasts that weren't adjusted for.

There was also a recent poll out that showed only 18% support the revision.

The rest oppose or don't have an opinion, don't support this.

Thank you.

Next, we'll go back to virtual public commenters.

It seems like Nicholas W., you're on.

Please press star six to unmute yourself.

Nicholas.

Go ahead.

Yes, hi, I'm here.

OK.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

I'm sorry?

Yes, we can.

OK, great.

So yeah, my name is Nicholas.

I do restaurant delivery for DoorDash, Uber Eats, Grubhub, and Instacart.

I've made about 5,000 deliveries over the course of two to three years.

And I can say unequivocally, I am against this proposed revision to the law.

So demand is lower, but the reality that matters is the pay on each order more than bridges that gap, and it is finally worth it.

I've put a lot less mileage on my car, and my earnings have increased overall.

With the fees, which aren't even addressed in this bill, so it shouldn't even be talked about, They've tried to kill demand with these fees, but even still, things are better for us under the payout.

So please do not kill payouts.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Aiden Carroll, followed by Charlie R.

To be concise, the Wall Street is the enemy here.

And they're the ones that own the apps.

It's not, I mean, the restaurants or the bikers or the drivers, some are hurting, some are not.

It's all because the companies are retaliating.

And you might also call that a capital strike because businesses and banks and investors can go on strike.

You might take some of the money you're about to waste on cops and instead give it to the businesses who are struggling as a strike fund, the bikers who are struggling as a strike fund, the homeless people, some of whom are committing crimes, some of whom are not.

They all deserve it.

There's this long-standing debate between liberals and socialists about whether reform is enough, whether it can hold.

And this is a test case of the kind of thing we see all the time.

Can a reform hold when capital counterattacks, sabotages?

Is it possible for things to stay in the middle?

Can this country remain half capitalist and half free?

Capitalism and free markets are different things.

We can talk about that another time.

Technofutilism.

Thank you.

Next we have...

Charlie R followed by Jim B and then Alberto A. Go ahead, Charlie.

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

All right.

Good afternoon.

So my name's Charlie.

I'm a student at UW.

I'm commenting in opposition to Sarah Nelson's proposed repeal of the gig worker minimum wage.

Frankly, I'm a bit ashamed that we're even considering something that does this much damage to the lives of those who work in app-based delivery based on such sparse information.

I understand concern over growing fees making it harder to justify ordering through apps, but we need to make sure we're on the same page about what's causing these added fees, which is greedy executives at companies like Uber are extorting their workers to protect their immense profit margins in the face of adequate minimum wage legislation.

Are we really supposed to believe that their bottom line would crumble without these bogus fees, especially considering how many orders aren't being placed due to these fees?

Would you actually expect these fees to vanish when workers are allowed to be paid less?

Am I the only one who remembers these companies booming during the pandemic despite fees being removed?

It just doesn't add up.

To me, this is a clear tactic by these companies to generate resistance to a minimum wage ordinance and fuel the opposition.

We all recognize that there are issues with food delivery that is impacting workers, and I want to be very clear.

The cause is not pay up.

It is these apps, fee-based corporate response to pay up, driven by the corporation's desire to protect their profits.

Council members, please make changes based on actual information and research, not the desires of billion-dollar corporations.

Thank you.

Next, we have Jim B., and then the last virtual public commenter is going to be Alberto A. Jim?

Hello, I'm Jim Buchanan.

I advocate for equity and equality for the Black community.

I see it on both sides, however, I think that need to look at the facts at hand before making a decision on this.

i can see how i see the pros and the cons but we also like the council to look at the the the lens on how will this affect the black and that is our concern in the black community how will this affect the black community so

All right, next we got Alberto A. Hello, my name is Alberto.

I'm a delivery driver here in Seattle.

Council has one job to serve the people of Seattle.

Tara Nelson is only securing the profits of billion-dollar companies.

She's at best choosing to remain ignorant of what her bill does.

Sarah Nelson's bill places drivers far below minimum wage, setting pay without accounting for expenses.

Sarah Nelson also wants to take away the rights and protections that ensure we work safely and with dignity.

Her bill fails to do anything about the junk fees companies are using to hold our local economy hostage.

Companies willing to poison the well for local restaurants and 40,000 workers in the region.

Do not pass this bill.

Say no to Sarah Nelson.

All right, that concludes the virtual public commenters.

We will go back to in-person.

Next in-person, we have Lynn R followed by Greg O and then Carrie H.

Good afternoon, Committee Chair Nelson and members.

My name is Lynn Reed, and I'm here today representing our members at Drive Forward.

I personally spoke to 25 of our members yesterday.

Over and over, I heard them tell the same stories.

They are struggling.

Orders are down, earnings are down, and they are working extra blocks and longer hours.

A member told me that she really wanted to be here today, but needed to earn $112 by Friday to make her bills.

Unintended consequences of pay-up are not affecting just Seattle.

Drivers are heading out of Seattle to surrounding areas looking for orders.

As such, there are fewer orders to go around for those areas' home-based drivers.

This law was a gross overreach, unrealistic in application.

The fallout was swift and devastating.

Drive Forward members support pay-up reform and all of the proposed amendments now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got Lynn R followed by Greg O and then Carrie H. Go ahead, Lynn.

Oh, I apologize.

Greg O followed by Carrie H. And then we got Ahmed M.

Thank you, council members, for your service.

My name is Greg Olson.

I'm a District 7 resident.

Regarding Bill 120775, I'd ask that you all be patient in protecting app workers' rights.

It's fair to be concerned about the impacts and the decreased order volumes, lower revenues for local Seattle businesses, but we also have to recognize that these are the clear results of network company retaliation against Seattle customers, businesses, and gig workers.

By their own admission, the network companies can afford to pay these workers what they're due during just the first quarter of this year, the same time that these network companies have been paying to lobby to change these rules.

They've also, companies like DoorDash have set record highs in revenue and order volume across their platforms, all the same time Seattle suffers from their retaliation.

Vote no on the proposed changes to reduce the minimum pay standard and instead stand with workers.

We need to trash junk fees, not gig workers pay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got Carrie H followed by Ahmed M. Then after Ahmed, we have Michelle B. And then after Michelle, we have Habib or Hajib Y or Hasib Y. Thank you.

Council President Nelson, please slow down.

Pay up was passed through a slow, deliberate, and consultative process, listening to the workers of this city, a city that has long prided itself on protecting the labor rights of our most vulnerable citizens.

Now in this very chamber, you have referred to an organization that is founded and funded by Uber as the voice of workers.

Stop and slow down and listen to the workers that are being affected by this repeal.

Workers deserve rights, workers deserve pay, and the most marginalized of our city's residents deserve the protection of this city council that has been elected to protect them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Ahmed M followed by Michelle B, Hajibe Y, and then Mikayla R.

My name is Ahmed Mahmoud, I'm driver's union field rep. I am asking the city of Seattle legislative to support the workers, not for corporate.

What I see is that there are just the companies who are retaliating The workers want to become a millionaire while we are talking about the people cannot pay their bills.

So please, I know my community, especially immigrant community, I mean, their work, their rights are always on the table and discussing while the big companies, corporates who have billionaires always threatening and just taking their time, their work and their cause and everything and just becoming a billionaire.

Please, legislators, be fair to the community.

We just, I mean, like, we have a right for you.

If you just support him for our work, we need to pay the bills.

We need to pay the, I mean, the food and everything, our families.

So we need your support.

Please don't cut pay.

Thank you.

Please don't cut pay.

Thank you.

Next, we got Michelle B., followed by Hajib Y., Michaela R.,

We need to stop meeting like this.

Okay, so Michael Wolff needs to stop saying that stripping our pay is going to get rid of these fees.

The companies would have said that if that was true.

They would have said they were going to get rid of the fees.

They're not going anywhere.

People are ordering.

Amending the ordinance to address unintended consequences?

I'd be all in.

I think everybody would be all in.

64% of people said that they were supporting fee caps.

Great.

Sounds like something the council needs to address with the restaurants and the companies.

This proposal is a sham.

It's clear because not one thing in your proposal addresses this.

Not one.

What it does do is tear down five years of discussion between all sides.

It tears apart a monumental step for workers that are lied to and exploited daily.

But more than that, it seems personal, like vindication for how you feel you were treated last year on the council.

That you really believe your proposal is good or fair, I cannot actually believe.

There's no way.

But what I don't get is why you're doing their dirty work.

What's in it for you?

I can't think of another reason why an elected official would like companies to be lost here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, after that, we got Hajib Y., Mikayla R., and Mateo B.

Thank you.

My name is Dr. Hasib Yusufzai.

I'm a practicing physician serving mostly low-income patients in communities of Seattle, many of whom are gig workers.

This shameful proposal that our millionaire city council president, Sarah Nelson, admitted was written by the companies it serves as a bid to go against which her constituents supported, to protect the workers and people struggling to live in the city.

Instead of focusing on how to best protect them in good riddance of retaliatory fees, you choose to protect big business at the cost of the people and local businesses struggling to make ends meet.

Through a rushed closed-door process that excluded workers, this would reestablish sub-minimum wage for workers and destroy all of our bare minimum workplace standards against the will of the people that fought for it for years.

You should be ashamed to even be having this vote.

And if you have any interest in serving your constituents, then you will vote this down and protect the people you stand to represent.

We will not forget which side you stand on.

Thank you.

Next, we got Michaela R and then Mateo B, followed by Danielle A.

Hi, my name is Micaela and I'm gonna try to explain this in the way I explained it to my five year old son this morning.

Mommy interviewed some of these people to help get them elected because she thought that they were gonna help voice the needs of the people in our community that we fight for.

So we passed the pay up ordinance to help these people and in turn they are now siding with corporations against us so that our family has less money in our pocket to go do cool things or even be able to put nice clothes on you that represent our values so you can go to school.

There's wealthy people in this room that don't want us all to thrive in Washington.

And so these fees are what need to be the target, not the people, not the workers, not the bike people.

We're fighting amongst each other because that's what the corporations want us to do.

We want you guys to side with us, the people that want to have our voices heard, and represent those values and go after the fees, the fees, the fees, not each other.

And if you don't, I promise you, the people are gonna choose what is right for us, and it's not gonna be the people that repeal this wage.

Thank you.

Mateo B., followed by Danielle A., followed by Maniado Diallo, and then Wei Lu.

Soy conductor de Dordesh.

Trabajar como repartidor me da la oportunidad de establecer mi propio horario y pasar tiempo con mi familia, que es mi prioridad en este momento.

Desde que entró en vigor la legislación de pay up, I have noticed a significant decrease in the number of requests I receive from Dordesh, which has affected my income notoriously.

I feel encouraged by the proposal that the Municipal Council is reviewing today, which guarantees that I will continue to earn approximately $20 per hour and also provides refunds for my travel and my requests.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we got Danielle A.

Good afternoon, everybody.

My name is Danielle Alvarado, proud to be the Executive Director of Working Washington.

And it's been 10 years last week since we, as a city, launched the effort to pass the country's first $15 minimum wage.

That is something I am so proud of, and it is the result of work that happened because business and worker organizations came together with local leaders to do the work to figure out how to do hard things.

The result has benefited all of us.

We should be proud of it.

And it's a shame that we haven't done it yet in this situation when we know how to and we could.

Unsurprisingly, Repealing minimum wage is overwhelmingly unpopular with the voters of Seattle because they see the impact that it has had.

The Northwest Institute poll this week showed that 60% of voters oppose the repeal of pay up that you all are considering today.

It is going to reduce repeal accountability provisions and set us back when we don't have to.

We are ready to see a real stakeholder process and to participate in it, and we need you to help make that happen.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got Maniado Diallo, followed by Wei Lu, then Eunice Howe, Justin Taylor, and then Paul Ryan V. Maniado.

All right, next is Wei Lu.

All right, next we got Eunice Howe.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Eunice Howe, and I'm here on behalf of Unite Here Local 8, the hospitality workers labor union.

Our membership is majority women, immigrants, and people of color.

I'm also the Seattle chapter president of the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO.

We strongly oppose CB120775.

Many hospitality workers, including a significant amount of Unite Here Local 8 members who work in the hotels, stadiums, and convention centers in Seattle, also drive for app-based companies as their second or third jobs.

We have talked to folks about the challenges they face in doing that work, but also how important it is that those jobs pay more and come with rights and basic benefits.

The attempt by industry lobbyists to repeal this law will mean a growing workforce, many of whom are immigrants, workers of color, and workers with disabilities and chronic illnesses will go back to earning some minimum wage.

They will weaken other important investments Seattle has made over the last decade to support workers.

Please vote no on CB120775.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we got Justin Taylor, followed by Paul Ryan V. And then after Paul Ryan, we got Katie Gee, and then Kelvin Kaye to wrap up public comment, Council President.

Hi, my name is Justin Taylor.

I'm a gig worker and I'm opposed to these proposed changes for really two primary reasons.

The first is that the pay rate changes do nothing to address the fact that these apps are looking at all of us workers in the exact same way.

And to my fellow workers who are bike drivers and they've been negatively affected by this, know that these changes won't change the way the apps look at you.

So it wouldn't be necessarily a beneficial change.

The other reason is...

You know, there's been a lot of emotions in the room today, and I want people to remember this is by design.

The app companies raised these fees intentionally, and it caused customers to blame the restaurants and the businesses, the businesses to blame the workers and the workers to blame each other somehow.

But nobody's blamed these multibillion-dollar companies that instituted these dramatic fees.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, next we got Paul Ryan V. After Paul Ryan, we got KDG.

And then Kelvin K.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Paul Ryan Villanueva.

I'm here on behalf of the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO, Seattle chapter.

As a resident and an active member of the community, I'm speaking here today to express a strong sentiment against CB 120775. Gig workers plays an integral role in our society, providing services that many of us rely on daily.

Many of them are from our BIPOC and immigrant community who had been left out of basic labor standards and paid as little as five per hour for years.

The new ordinance didn't just come out of the blue.

It took many years for gig workers, labor community, and the city for a solution that addresses the issues of not just protecting gig workers but ensuring a fair wage.

The ordinance is now being attacked after only a few months of being implemented.

The reason is that it has driven down demands and increased prices.

This is not the case as prices are increasing everywhere due to inflation.

yet gig workers are forced to someone who has a graduate degree in public policy.

It takes many years to study a program implemented.

So I strongly suggest to vote no.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, next we got Katie G followed by Kelvin K and I spoke too soon.

We have three additional public commenters.

After Kelvin K, we got Sarah L. Robbie White and I.B.

Thank you.

God willing, I am the only Katie Gee.

My name is Katie Garrow, and I am the executive secretary treasurer for MLK Labor.

We represent hundreds of thousands of workers.

We are linemen, we are laborers, we are electricians, we are janitors, we are bus drivers, we are public school teachers, and we have expressed through letters to you and public testimony our opposition to a rollback of the minimum wage for gig workers.

That is because we operate on some very basic principles, and those principles are that workers are entitled to a fair return on their work, that workers should be able to retire with dignity at the end of their lives, that workers should have job protection from retaliation and discrimination in the workplace.

I had a blizzard door dash to my house just a few weeks ago, and my driver had a seven-year-old child in her car with her after I had put my children to bed.

These workers are not teenage workers, and they deserve the same rights as all workers in our society.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Next, we got Kelvin K. And after Kelvin, we got Sarah L., Robbie W., and IB to wrap up public comments.

Kelvin?

OK.

After Kelvin, we got Sarah L.

Good afternoon, my name is Sarah Leon.

I'm a Seattle resident showing up in opposition of Council President Sarah Nelson's proposal.

I come here thinking about my mother.

She had five young children under the age of seven and she often said that putting food on the table and the accessibility of getting it was one of her biggest struggles.

Unfortunately, these apps didn't exist in the early 90s.

Because if they did, she would have been a superhero for us to be able to still be in our pajamas and have food delivered to us.

And unfortunately now with these retaliatory fees, junk fees, I don't think she would have been able to even afford it.

And looking around the room, she's not the only working family that is struggling And so we need to move away from this false dichotomy narrative that is an either or.

We either support the wage of these workers or the accessibility and affordability of these amazing services.

There is a third option, and that's for this council to be bold and empathetic and stand against the corporate greed and actually stand up for us and the workers and the people of Seattle that you represent.

Thank you.

After Sarah, we have Robbie W and then IB after Robbie.

Good afternoon, council.

My name is Robbie White.

This is my third time testifying in front of you in opposition to Sarah Nelson's proposed amendments to the pay up legislation.

I am a continued customer of the delivery apps and I've been paying attention to what I've been charged and what I'm paying on all of my orders.

When I first ordered open the apps after January and pay up went into effect, they tell me that this $5 fee is because of the increased cost of complying with the legislation.

But what I've noticed is I pay the same amount in that fee regardless of who I'm ordering.

from less than a mile from my house with less than 15 minutes of engaged time, or if I'm ordering from all the way across town from multiple people with over half an hour of delivery time alone.

When I am a customer getting charged the same amount for very different amounts of service, it suggests to me that the fee is not actually tied to the cost of the legislation, that I am instead being manipulated to be angry against you.

What you actually need to do is address the fees, but none of these amendments do anything about that.

I, as a customer, am not more likely to order from DoorDash if the Dashers can't sue over labor violations.

That's not tied to demand.

That's actually a corporate giveaway.

I urge you to reject the proposals.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And the last public commenter is I.B.

I.B.? All right.

With that, Council President, that concludes public comment.

Thank you very much.

Just a second, please.

Are you sure?

Okay, nobody else.

Okay.

All right.

If there are no additional people who have signed up online or in person to speak, we'll now proceed with the items of business on the agenda, and public comment period is closed.

Moving on, let's see.

Will the clerk please read item one into...

Let me give my chair's report here in case nobody didn't catch what we're doing today.

There are two items on the agenda, continued discussion with a possible vote on Council Bill 120766 relating to officer recruitment and hiring, and continued discussion and possible vote on Council Bill 120775 regarding app-based worker minimum pay.

All right, will the clerk please read item one into the record?

Agenda item number one, an ordinance relating to recruitment and retention of police officers in the Seattle Police Department, transferring positions from Seattle Department of Human Resources 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, discussion, and possible vote.

All right, hello, colleagues.

Thank you very much for your attention to this legislation.

You relatively recently took your oath of office, so you know that our primary charter duty is to protect the health, safety, and well-being of the people of Seattle.

And we just can't do that if we continue to lose more officers than we can hire.

quarter after quarter and year after year.

And like I said last time, there are many reasons for that, but I'm focused on what we have the power to fix.

And I'm zeroing in on our recruitment and hiring processes because that's within our power to change.

It's also an area where we can make a big impact by making some pretty small changes to our processes.

That's low-hanging fruit that could potentially accelerate the hiring of our officers.

And I don't know about you, but I just can't look my constituents in the eye.

And you've been to many roll calls and public safety forums.

And when you're out and about in your communities and doing your work in district, I know that you hear these stories from small businesses and from residents, and like I was saying, I can't in good conscience or good faith look people in the eye and say we're doing everything we can to improve public safety if we're not really digging down into our own processes and leaving no stone unturned, and so that is what we're trying to do here.

So Council Bill 120766 would move, here are the main components, would move the positions responsible for our overall recruitment strategy from the Seattle Department of Human Resources to the Seattle Police Department so that national best practices and innovative new approaches to recruiting can stand a chance of being vetted in advance by people who are most invested in and responsible for their implementation.

There have been good ideas that haven't been advanced, and that's not to blame any one person, but it's a reflection more on how it's been difficult to coordinate the efforts between two different departments.

And so that has to change.

And so that's one of the things that this legislation tries to do.

And it also puts one person in charge so that they are accountable and responsible for the results that are trying to be achieved.

And this bill also includes reporting back to counsel on the results so that we know what's working and what isn't so we can be engaged in a process of continual improvement.

The bill would also allow for crucial and targeted improvements to be made to the officer hiring process, which is primarily the purview of the Public Service Civil Service Commission and the Seattle Department of Human Resources.

that are currently impeding our ability to compete with regional jurisdictions to refill our ranks.

I've said this so many times, it's hard to continually convey a sense of urgency, but Seattle residents and small businesses deserve no less than their elected leaders doing everything we possibly can to hire more officers more quickly.

And that's simply what we're doing.

So we have discussed this twice in committee already, and today we'll be discussing and possibly voting on four amendments to Council Bill 120766, and then we'll vote on the base legislation.

So I'll speak more to the bill after we've addressed those amendments.

So at this point, I'm going to move the bill, then we'll work through the proposed amendments.

And note, there's one amendment that I'll offer that is revised from the version that was lifted on the agenda yesterday.

And I expect a fourth walk on amendment as well.

Both of those amendments were circulated to committee members and staff beforehand earlier today.

After each amendment is moved and seconded, I'll ask central staff to walk us through the proposed amendments and answer any questions.

And then we'll vote on the amendments and then finally the underlying legislation.

Do my colleagues have any questions about the process I've just outlined?

Okay, so moving on.

I move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 120766, which is also co-sponsored by Vice Chair Councilmember Kettle.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you very much.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of Council Bill 120766. Let's proceed to the amendments, and as the sponsor, I'll move Amendment 1. And this amendment would correct several non-substantive drafting errors in the introduced bill, and we'll go through those in a little bit more detail.

So without further ado, I move that Councilmember 1 to Council Bill 120766 and presented on the agenda be adopted.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 1 as presented on the agenda.

So, moving on, I will ask our central staff analyst to introduce herself and then walk us through this, please.

Thank you, Chair Nelson.

Good afternoon, committee members and Gorman from Council Central Staff.

Amendment 1 is sponsored by Council President Nelson.

It concerns some technical corrections to Council Bill 120766. When Central Staff was last in this committee on April 25th, we made reference to this amendment.

It would correct, as Council President Nelson said, it would correct several non-substantive drafting errors in the bill.

It would make some terminological changes and it would rearrange the elements of a list and format them in numerical order.

Again, it would not have any fiscal or operational impacts.

In item one here, these edits are just correcting drafting errors.

And item two, this is the rearrangement of items into a list.

There are also some terminological changes, and these changes are consistent with the language that is commonly in use by PSCSE.

PSCSE staff contributed to the development of this amendment.

Next page, please.

Item three contains a terminological change and a couple drafting error corrections.

And item four contains some terminological changes.

That's it.

Okay, so I just want to thank Andrea Scheele, who is the director of the Public Safety Civil Service Commission, for pointing out these changes, and I really appreciate the collaboration on this.

Are there any questions from my colleagues?

No questions?

Okie dokie.

So will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 1?

Councilmember Kettle?

Aye.

Councilmember Hollingsworth?

Aye.

Councilmember Rivera?

Aye.

Councilmember Saka?

Aye.

Chair Nelson?

Aye.

Five in favor.

Thank you very much.

The motion carries and Amendment 1 is adopted and the amended bill is before the council.

We'll talk about that later after all the amendments.

Okay, moving on to Amendment 2, I am also the sponsor of this one, and I will go ahead and move it.

I'll note that this amendment was circulated today ahead of this meeting, and I believe that we've got a revised version 2 of the amendment that was on the agenda, and that has been circulated as well.

So this is slightly different than what is linked to the agenda due to some late...

REQUESTS AND COLLABORATION WITH THE MAYOR'S OFFICE.

SO WITH THAT, I MOVE AMENDMENT TWO.

SECOND.

OKAY, I'LL SAY.

I MOVE AMENDMENT TWO, VERSION TWO, TO COUNCIL BILL 120766. SECOND.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED TO ADOPT AMENDMENT TWO, VERSION TWO.

ALL RIGHT.

AND COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS AMENDMENT?

Amendment 2 would establish a policy regarding a public safety civil service exam.

That exam is some of the subject matter of Council Bill 120766. It would establish a policy, namely, that policy would be that the exam required for entry-level and lateral police officer positions in the Seattle Police Department is offered continuously online and also at approved testing centers.

The amendment also acknowledges that this policy would be secondary to the goals and requirements of both the consent decree and the city's accountability ordinance, and it makes a technical correction to reflect that last point, that the consent decree and the accountability ordinance each have discrete goals.

Item one on this amendment states that policy, I will read it into the record.

It is a city's policy that the public safety civil service exam required for entry level and lateral police officer positions in the Seattle Police Department shall be offered continuously online to be taken at the applicant's discretion and also offered at approved testing centers provided that any such exam is consistent with the goals and requirements of the consent decree and the city's accountability ordinance.

Item two makes an edit to the bill as introduced that is consistent with the new policy in item one, requiring that the testing service that the city uses conforms to the extent possible to the policy I just read.

And if we can go on to the next page, please.

There is also an edit right here just making the point that the consent decree and the city's accountability ordinance are discreet.

Right.

And I want to make sure for the record that what we are putting into policy is actually what is happening right now.

And we are making explicit that the exam has been offered continuously for some time.

I confirmed today, it is currently the case that the exam that's offered is offered continuously and can we look at the language so I say this correctly please on the previous page, that it is offered continuously online and that it is offered at approved testing centers.

That's what's happening today.

Okay, got it.

Okay, colleagues, are there any questions about this amendment?

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 2, Version 2.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Aye.

Councilmember Rivera.

Aye.

Councilmember Saka.

Aye.

Chair Nelson.

Aye.

Five in favor.

The motion carries.

Amendment 2, Version 2 is adopted.

Moving to Amendment 3. Councilmember Saka, you are recognized to move Amendment 3.

All right, thank you, Madam Chair.

I, wait, would I move or talk about it now procedurally?

Yes, you can briefly introduce it, then move it.

You can state what it is, move it, and then we can go into more detail.

Got it, got it, okay.

So Amendment 3, as proposed, would accomplish a couple things.

More substantively, It would clarify the scope of jurisdictions that we would compare ourselves against in these various reports.

And colleagues, you know that I strongly support initiatives and measures to benchmark our own city policies and implementation results against those incomparable jurisdictions.

And this allows us to better adopt track and monitor and adopt industry and city best practices So this clarification language would do exactly that.

I think the inference in the existing as proposed bill is sufficiently clear rather that with respect to the local jurisdictions that we're going to compare against, we have a good sense of what those are.

So my amendment would clarify that comparable jurisdictions nationally as opposed to locally nationally will include the so-called West Coast seven cities listed there and a little more or less substantively it also clarifies that those reports should be written and Modifies the term semi-annually with the words at least And so, again, you all know I support strong collaboration between government bodies.

And having a data report that is at least semi-annually will allow us to best stay abreast and in tune with SPD's recruitment efforts and how it compares and contrasts against others.

So I move to I move to amend Council Bill 120766 as presented in Amendment 3. Second.

Second.

Go ahead.

Amendment 3, sponsored by Councilman Bersaka, would expand the reporting requirements and request a written report.

In Section 2, it would make a change that allows for the possibility that the report is provided by the Seattle Police Department more frequently than semi-annually, and it would specify that that report is written.

After Section 2, there are currently six elements of the report that are listed in the bill.

Item B is one of them, and this amendment would provide some additional specification about the measures on industry standards that are requested in the bill.

It would require, to the extent that such information is possible, that information be provided on these dimensions, exam pass rate, number of applicants, et cetera, from the cities of Portland, San Francisco, Long Beach, Oakland, San Diego, San Jose, and Sacramento.

Thank you.

So it's my understanding that that information is tracked or that is traditionally how we compare, but this would codify that it is part of the reporting for the Section B of the report.

of the reporting requirements, is that correct?

The language in Section B is currently competing law enforcement organizations, both regionally and nationally.

And the proposed amendment would just be specific about what those competing law enforcement organizations are considered to be.

And Council Member Saka made reference to the West Coast 7. This is a group of cities that is currently used, for instance, by the City Office of Labor Relations as a set of comparators when looking at various police data.

Okay, got it.

I've heard that list of cities before, and I thought that it was already kind of in use.

I want to, before entertaining questions, when we're talking about reporting, I do want to say, and I mentioned it at the opening, the things that this recruitment team will be reporting on include metrics on the number of personal contacts made by civilians or sworn staff to candidates who have registered or completed the public safety exam, and that should be broken down by the type of contact made, disaggregated contacts made for test reminders or notification of a passing exam score from those that results in a personal contact with an SPD recruiter, the ones in Section B, as we've already said.

Also, information and metrics on new and innovative programs that are designed to increase diversity within the department, to include an increase in female candidates, consistent with SPD's 30 by 30 campaign.

Pre-exam and post-exam survey data that's used in guiding marketing campaigns, ensuring that candidates sit for the exam and provide an opportunity for continuous improvement on messaging and outreach.

The list goes on.

That's what we're talking about when we're talking about reporting.

So I just wanted to make clear that that's all in Section 2. Are there any questions about the amendment before us?

Okay.

Will the clerk please call the roll on Amendment 3?

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Chair Nelson.

Aye.

Five in favor.

Thank you.

The motion carries and Amendment 3 is adopted.

All right.

At this point, I understand that Council Member Saka has an amendment that he wishes to walk on, which was circulated today ahead of this meeting.

So you've got the floor.

Go ahead, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes.

So first off, Let me kind of set the foundation here first.

So Councilmember Morales, who does not sit on this particular committee, worked on an amendment, and it directly ties to something that I was already working on, an amendment to this specific bill that I was already working on and was already considering and already had started to write up, and then...

to continue the process and move this along as quickly as possible.

My wording wasn't perfect.

I wanted to table that for another time.

Then I learned that Council Member Morales had already done some more advanced work.

And so together, We're going to co-sponsor and present this amendment.

And what it does is allows us to build a better and stronger Seattle that is truly safe for everyone.

And so I want to thank the leadership of Council Member Morales and her staff for helping to drive this together and help facilitate collaboration here.

Hopefully, we have the actual words in front of you that we can share on the screen here, but I did socialize this individually with you all.

Well, my office did as well.

But if we're to have the best police department in the nation, we need to have police standards and better culture that we would expect from the best.

And as you all know, the bill calls out, among other things, the 30 by 30 report.

and adds a little color around the edges there.

And so what this amendment would do is produce some, as part of the reporting obligations that the broader bill would impose, it would require specific reporting elements and features related to culture, the condition and state of employment for women currently there and improvements that the department is making to directly address those.

And look, by allowing an unsafe work environment for women at SPD, we aren't acting in line with our own principles and values, nor are we allowing female employees to thrive.

So, you know, I want to recognize this amendment is not an immediate solution.

However, It is a start to help enhance transparency and drive, help shed the bright light of transparency, shine the bright light of transparency on what's going on.

So as a legislative body, it's not, really possible for us to solve some of the potentially significant internal issues or perceived morale challenges within SPD for them, but it is our responsibility to provide oversight as a legislative body.

And if we're gonna give SPD more resources and positions, we need to also make sure that they're acting in ways that are in alignment with our city's values.

And I think this amendment is asking what SPD is doing to improve these issues and to ensure SPD officers are compliant to the Washington state law against discrimination, WALAD if you will.

So in any event, that is the amendment.

And I understand there might be other stuff.

Why don't you go ahead and walk us through the details and then we can take questions or comments.

This walk-on amendment was sponsored in this committee by Councilmember Saka, and it would require more detailed reporting on the 30 by 30 initiative.

First, a little bit of background, which is part of this amendment.

Women make up only 12% of sworn officers and 3% of police leadership in the United States.

And the 30 by 30 Initiative is a coalition of police leaders, researchers, and professional organizations who have joined together to advance the representation and experiences of women in policing agencies across the United States.

Its ultimate goal is to increase the representation of women in police recruit classes to 30% by 2030 and to encourage police policies and culture intentionally support the success of qualified women officers throughout their careers.

And the amendment would require more specific detailed reporting on SPD's efforts to implement the 30 by 30 initiative.

Item one here, in the bill currently there is a reporting requirement that is consistent with SPD's 30 by 30 campaign.

And this amendment would just make significantly more granular what that reporting looks like.

It would require that SPD report across several dimensions that are consistent with the 30 by 30 campaign.

For instance, in these reports, which we talked about in the last amendment, these reports will be due at least semiannually starting on July 15th of this year.

They should show organizational support in various areas, including promotional opportunities, family or maternity leave policies, and redress for gender discrimination or sexual harassment.

They should address negative attitudes with respect to women taking on leadership roles within SPD.

Ensure that women have an equal opportunity to become officers and will receive equal opportunities and treatment throughout their careers as officers.

support women to perceive policing as a career in which they have a meaningful place, ensure equitable access to specialty assignments and professional development, including leadership training, and finally, to increase the retention rates of women officers to allow them to have a greater impact on department culture, create a healthier workplace environment, and make SPD more efficient.

All of these are consistent with the framework for the 30 by 30 initiative.

They just sharpen the level of reporting that would be expected from SPD as a part of Council Bill 120766.

Thank you very much for that explanation.

And Clerk Taman did remind us that we do have to move the amendment.

So why don't you go through that?

Thank you.

So I move to amend Council Bill 120766 as presented on Amendment Number 4, distributed by my office to you before this meeting.

Second.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

So just briefly, I want to thank you, Councilmember Saka and Councilmember Morales for raising this amendment.

It's important that SPD does everything it can to increase the representation of women in its sworn police force.

And I do believe that this is also consistent with our goal of trying to increase the ranks of SPD.

SPD needs to make sure that it's sending the right messages and using best practices to hire more women.

And this amendment will help us with those things.

The department also needs to make sure that it's creating a culture and environment that will make women want to work here.

I want to recognize that this goes beyond recruiting alone.

I know that the Council and I will be keeping an eye on the investigation that was recently commissioned by the Mayor's Office, and I do want to recognize that Deputy Mayor Burgess is here with us.

Thank you very much for coming today.

We stand ready to work with the mayor to implement the recommendations that come out of that investigation and we're committed to increasing the number of women at SPD and I support this amendment as a friendly amendment and one that will help in the overall goal that we're talking about right now.

Are there any other comments?

Yes, Madam President, and for Council Member Saka, I would request to be a co-sponsor on this amendment.

I do think it's very important.

I think it's important to recruitment and retention, and quite clearly.

And further, on the 30 for 30 report, I make three points.

I've read it.

I believe it.

Two, we should accept it.

We should not try to explain it away or mitigate it or whatever.

And number three is we should just act on it.

This is an experience of, you know, in terms of My career in the Navy in the 1990s, particularly as a junior officer, the United States Navy has gone through these challenges.

I've seen it.

I've lived through that period, and I recognize some parallels.

So here's a chance for us to learn from that experience and, again, build, pass forward.

And I think this is a great amendment to do so.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

Yes, I welcome and would love for you to join in sponsoring this alongside myself and Councilmember Morales.

And I think your voice, particularly in your role as the chair of our Public Safety Committee, would mean a lot.

So, yes.

All right.

Go ahead, Councilmember Rivera.

Council President, thank you.

I just want to thank my colleagues.

Make sure you're talking.

Oh, sorry.

I just want to thank my colleague, Councilmember Saka, and also Councilmember Morales and Councilmember Kettles for now his also co-sponsorship of this legislation.

This is really important work.

We need to support more women at SPD, and I feel really proud, actually, that the captain for the North Precinct with which supports our district or my district is a woman, Captain Lori Agard, and I am so appreciative to have her there.

So I just wanted to really call out a fine example of a woman leader at SPD currently and how much I support having more leaders at SPD like Captain Agard.

And for those reasons, you know, and as a woman myself, I very much appreciate and support more women leadership, not just leadership at SPD, but that our officers, women officers feel supported and that, you know, the attitudes that they are being treated with respect and dignity, the way all humans should be treated in the workplace in general.

And so we really need to hold SPD on all ourselves to a higher standard when it comes to treating women in the workplace and in general.

So thank you for sponsoring this.

And I very much support it.

Thank you.

Okay.

If there are no other comments, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 4?

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Aye.

Councilmember Rivera.

Aye.

Councilmember Saka.

Aye.

Chair Nelson.

Aye.

Five in favor.

Thank you very much.

The motion carries and amendment four is adopted and the amended bill is now before council.

Okay, so moving along, we've talked about, for weeks we've been talking about what this bill does and I now consider it improved.

the one that's before us now with these amendments.

And I just want to note that what this bill does not do is lower our standards for our police force.

It will not compromise our commitment to constitutional policing as set forth in the consent decree or lower our standards for what we want in our officers.

And in fact, the opposite is true.

Our hiring process is, compared to other jurisdictions, fairly long and a little bit clunky.

And that leaves applicants in a state of limbo at various stages of the process, during which time other law enforcement agencies are able to make offers of employment to desired candidates.

And that's part of the reason why we're having a hard time refilling our ranks.

We have worked closely with the mayor's office on this legislation and they support it.

And we've collaborated with the Public Safety Commission.

And I personally have spoken several times with the co-chairs of the Community Police Commission.

And they agree that we need to step up hiring at the same time that we continue focusing on their priority of ensuring officer accountability.

So with that, if there are no other comments, Oh, go ahead.

Co-chair and co-sponsor, Kettle.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Council President, Chair Nelson.

Speaking as the Vice Chair of the Governance, Accountability, and Economic Development Committee and as Chair of the Public Safety Committee, I just want to state that Council Bill 120766, SPD, Seattle Police Department, recruitment and retention is very important.

It's directly tied to pillar one of our public safety strategic framework plan, and it's critical to address SPD staffing.

It builds on the work that the executive has already done to streamline and speed up the recruitment process, which I am thankful for, and it also shows us working in partnership now, looking to further those accomplishments.

About good governance, too, it's to further address the structure of the recruitment process and essentially, as I like to say, reduce the variables.

I think that's very important.

And one last thing I wanted to say as well, it's important to say that accountability remains central.

At no point did I, as Vice Chair of this committee or Chair of the Public Safety Committee, contemplated dropping the National Testing Network, NTN, as a testing service.

I know that's been placed out there in different ways in articles and the like, and I just wanted to be clear on that point in terms of, from the accountability perspective, and how important that is.

So thank you, Chair Nelson, I appreciate it, and thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Madam Chair, if I may, yeah, no, I just want to echo a few things quickly.

For the past four years, our city has struggled to meet its charter responsibility to have a fully staffed, effective police force.

And by introducing a recruitment and retention program, we can help to rebuild our department.

and restore our staffing levels to appropriate levels and make sure we have a broader, more comprehensive public safety tools and resources to address the challenges in our streets, in our city today.

And I can't emphasize enough the importance of streamlining processes and driving efficiencies And, you know, this particular bill might not get some of the flashy headlines like some of the officer hiring incentives that have already been implemented and passed or some of the things that we've even discussed in other committees like child care or whatever it is.

But this is the hard work.

Streamlining and improving processes is the hard work.

It's less sexy, but it requires a thoughtful, careful reflection and attention to detail and investigations.

It's easy to dangle something like a carrot and say, whoa.

It's more challenging to figure out you can simplify and streamline and make sure you're improving the funnel, you're improving the pipeline, and making it easier and better reflecting the market dynamics here in Washington State.

We are collaborative with our peer jurisdictions in many, many important things, and we are also competitors with them for talent.

And so this, I think this bill recognizes that.

So Madam Chair and Chair of our Public Safety Committee, Council Member Kettle, just want to thank you for your leadership in introducing this bill.

And I love this collaborative process.

Allow us to make it even better.

So thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

Bottom line, if we don't aggressively step up our hiring, we're not going to fulfill our charter responsibility.

And it says in a different section that we've got a duty to maintain adequate police protection in every district of the city.

And this is in my committee and not public safety because it concerns an FTE addition in the Department of Human Resources, which reports to my committee.

Anyway, it's a group effort.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation that Council Bill 120766 pass as amended?

Council Member Kettle?

Aye.

Council Member Hollingsworth?

Aye.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Council Member Saka?

Aye.

Chair Nelson?

Aye.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you very much, everybody.

The motion carries, and the committee recommendation that the bill pass will be forwarded to the City Council for final consideration on May 21st.

Before we move on to the next item, I do want to thank Ann Gorman of our central staff, Greg Doss, who started some of this work, and all the people that we collaborated with to make this happen.

So thank you very much to the mayor's office as well.

All right, moving on to agenda item, my co-chair and of course my staff.

Moving on to agenda item two, will the clerk please read the agenda item into the record?

Agenda item number two, 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 8.37.020 8.37.165 and 8.37.170 of the Seattle Municipal Code and repealing sections 8.37.230 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

Briefing discussion and possible vote.

Thank you for that.

So before we begin, I want to take us back to the February 6th City Council meeting public comment period when we first heard directly from the workers about what they were experiencing since the app-based worker minimum pay legislation or pay up.

went into effect on January 13th.

And I thought about showing a video, but to avoid technological difficulties, I'm going to read the comments that was offered by one of the commenters.

And there were about four people here sitting in that front row.

The rest of the chambers was virtually empty.

And one worker who started speaking at minute mark 4036 said, quote, Thank you, council members.

I appreciate the time today.

I'm speaking on the same ordinance, referring to Gary's comments right before her, that was offered to the gig workers this past year starting on January 13th that was supposed to guarantee a minimum wage.

That was a $5 per order amount that we would accept.

I don't know who did the math.

I know we can't ask questions.

I'll ask a rhetorical question for you to do the research on your own.

But the math came out to be about $26 an hour, which is impossible.

It's impossible, so the homework needs to be done there.

We understand why you did it.

And in the beginning, before it was actually instituted, we were excited about it because we thought, OK, we're actually going to make a livable wage.

because most people don't realize that 90% or more of our income comes from tips.

It does not come from Uber Eats.

We may get one or two dollars from them, but that's it.

So if we don't get any orders all day, we don't make money.

The more orders we get, the more money we make, obviously.

What's happened now is that customers in Seattle are boycotting the app and have either elected have either deleted it or they're not ordering anymore because, for fair reasons, like the last commenter said, a burrito is more than double the cost now.

And that's before even the customers tip.

So if somebody's going to even order, they're not going to tip.

And a lot of my colleagues' income has dropped by more than 50%.

It's not livable, and this is going to destroy the gig worker economy in Seattle.

Bottom line, I think the first answer would be to repeal the law.

I don't know what the answer would be going forward.

That's up to you.

But right now, this is destroying their incomes and their livelihoods.

I also want to point out that the narrative that was spun about 26 an hour, most people thought that that was a real thing, that that was going to happen, and that is not happening at all.

Thank you for your time.

And then she was followed by another person who also called for repeal.

That was the first day, and those testimonies delivered in that almost empty chambers is why we're here today.

I was responding to those testimonies, and several of my colleagues ended up talking with folks after the meeting.

So it's been three months, and some of the commenters have been here every single week.

And yet, in that time, the whole tenor of this conversation has changed.

Not unexpectedly, both sides began rallying their troops.

Chambers has been packed with public commenters.

Great for engagement.

I appreciate that.

And there have been...

press conferences, et cetera.

There was one earlier today that Drive Forward held earlier with their supporters, and I know that there have been others.

But we're here today because underneath all this noise that we've been hearing, for me it comes down to accountability and the council's duty to examine the outcomes of our laws.

And if they're not working, we have to fix them.

And that's what I'm trying to do because This law is clearly not working.

Council Bill 120775 is an effort to reverse the bad outcomes caused by a flawed law and catalyzed by network companies imposing a new so-called regulatory fee which caused a drop in customer orders.

A drastic reduction in worker wages and lost revenues for restaurants and other retail establishments.

That's what happens.

That was the chain of events.

And all of this was anticipated, but the last council did it anyway, and now we're faced with a fallout.

So let me be clear, what I want is for that fee to go away so people go back to ordering at pre-implementation levels and for workers to earn at the very least Seattle's minimum wage plus mileage and before tips and the compromise proposal before us right now is the only option I see on the table to get there.

It's been months and weeks, and I'm open to it, but the proponents of the original law haven't come forward with another solution.

Now we're talking about waiting for more data to come back.

All the while, people are having difficulty paying their expenses, and restaurants are as well.

And so I am driven by a sense of urgency that we do something right now.

And this is a pragmatic pathway forward.

If there's something better, I'm open to it.

But this is what we've got right now.

And I want to be clear in response to some of the public comment, this is not a repeal.

This is not a repeal of the law.

This is a reform, although repeal was certainly the first demand that the people put forward, not just workers, but also restaurants.

It's also not a rollback of the minimum wage because people are not making the minimum wage right now.

There is not a minimum wage that is written in the existing ordinance.

There is a calculation that would generate a certain amount of pay, but that depends on the number of orders.

There is a, the 1997 is listed in this current proposal, and that's before mileage and tips as well, but it's something that is written down.

It is the floor of what drivers will make per engaged hour, and that's what I'm trying to do.

And in order to Again, bring back up the number of orders.

That is really the crux of all of this.

That fee has to go away.

And so that is what I'm working towards.

So I just wanted to note and be very clear that that's what's driving this legislation on my behalf.

And we'll go ahead and discuss the amendments.

We're not going to go into...

every single component of the legislation because we've done that twice already.

But that's where I'm coming from.

And again, it comes back to how is this affecting my constituents right now today?

And the discrepancies that you hear between its impact on drivers does have to do with the fact that this was one regulatory scheme that was imposed on very different business models.

And the vast majority of drivers are working for the on-demand, companies, so that's primarily DoorDash and Uber Eats.

It does, the drivers that are working for the companies that schedule deliveries are impacted less.

So I do want to recognize that it's not impacting everybody the same, but I am responding to the workers that are working in the companies that have the greatest market share in the city.

All right.

With that, I'm going to go ahead and explain the process.

We'll discuss and possibly vote on four amendments and then the likely amended bill.

I'm gonna move the bill, then we'll walk through the proposed amendments.

Note, one amendment that I expect Councilmember Kettle to offer is revised from the version that was listed on the agenda yesterday, and that version, too, was circulated to committee members and staff earlier today.

After each amendment is introduced and moved by the sponsor, I'll ask central staff to walk us through it and answer any questions.

We'll vote on each amendment, and then we'll discuss and vote on the underlying bill.

Any questions about the process?

All right, let's move on then.

I move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 120775. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of Council Bill 120775. Let's proceed to the amendments, starting with Amendment 1. And as the sponsor, I will move Amendment 1 to Council Bill 120775 and present it on the agenda.

And I move that it be adopted.

Second.

Thank you.

All right, it's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 1 as presented on the agenda.

Why don't you go ahead and explain what it is, and I can provide explanatory comments afterwards.

Go ahead, please.

Good afternoon, council members.

I'm Karina Bull on your council central staff.

And in describing Amendment Number 1, sponsored by Council President Nelson, this amendment would prohibit a network company from reducing the total amount paid to an app-based worker for performing offers during a network company earnings period if the network company determines that the app-based worker earns more than the minimum pay standard.

As background, before processing payment at the end of the earnings period, which can be up to 14 days, the network company must ensure that the app-based worker's total earnings, including incentives and bonuses, meet the minimum payment standard.

And if necessary, the network company must include an additional sum in the earnings to true up any difference between the earnings and the pay standard.

This amendment would explicitly prevent network companies from truing down payment if the worker has earned more than the minimum pay standard.

Thank you very much.

So I'm putting this forward because there has been some confusion that a possible interpretation of the current language in the legislation would let companies do the opposite, that is, true down the sum total of guaranteed payments before bonuses.

That is not the case.

This does serve as a belt and suspenders amendment because companies are prohibited from doing that, but I just wanted to make sure that there is no mistake that this establishes a floor and not a ceiling to what companies can pay.

In case you're not quite understanding how it works, when a driver is logged into the app, they get an order, they get an offer, and it comes with a guaranteed payment amount.

And it includes also the estimated time and miles it will take to complete that delivery, as well as the business names and approximate locations of work stops and the location of the delivery point.

And then, at the end of the pay period, all of the guaranteed payments for completed offers plus any monetary bonuses or incentives are added up to determine the payment owed.

And if that amount, the guaranteed payments plus bonuses and incentives, is more than the minimum payment required by the bill, which again is $19.97 per hour for the total time worked plus $0.35 per mile, then the driver keeps that full amount even if it averages out to more than $19.97 an hour.

But conversely, The intent is also to provide that if the sum of the guaranteed payments plus bonuses comes out to be less than $19.97 an hour, then the companies have to true that up and pay the driver more so that the payment for that period does come out to be $19.97 per hour plus $0.35 a mile.

And again, tips would be on top of those payments regardless of the scenario.

So that is why I'm putting this forward just to make clear what we're doing here, and if there are any questions about this amendment, you're welcome to ask or direct your questions to central staff.

Okay, seeing as how there are no comments on Amendment 1, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 1?

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Aye.

Councilmember Rivera.

Aye.

Councilmember Saka.

Aye.

Chair Nelson.

Aye.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you very much.

The motion carries.

Amendment 1 is adopted.

All right.

Moving on to Amendment 2. I understand that Councilmember Kettle has a revised version 2 of Amendment 2, which his office circulated this morning, again mentioning that.

Councilmember Kettle, you're welcome to move the amendments.

THANK YOU, CHAIR NELSON.

YES, I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL 120775 AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT 2 VERSION 2 THAT WAS RECENTLY DISTRIBUTED.

THIS CLARIFIES HOW OFTEN NETWORK COMPANIES ARE REQUIRED TO AFFIRMALLY PRODUCE DATA.

I SECOND.

IS THERE A SECOND?

YEAH.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS?

AND WILL WE HAVE A PRESENTATION?

Good afternoon.

My name is Jasmine Marwaha on your council central staff.

I'll go through a brief description of amendment number two, version two, sponsored by council member Kettle.

This amendment would restore some affirmative data production requirements, authorizing the OLS director to require aggregated records deemed necessary to administer, enforce, or evaluate the the impact of the provisions of this Chapter 837 on app-based worker earnings.

The amendment also requests a study from the city auditor's office to evaluate the impacts of this Chapter 837 to app-based workers, network companies, restaurants, small businesses, and customers.

And as noted by Council Member Kettle, the difference between version two and what was published on the agenda is that this specifies that the affirmative data production could happen, could occur no more often than quarterly.

Thank you, Ms. Marwa.

Also, thank you, Ms. Bull, for all your work.

The council staff, I mean, Central staff has been working very hard on this.

I really appreciate your work on obviously a difficult subject area.

So thank you.

But yes, bottom line is this kind of goes to good governance.

And I thank you for that explanation because it goes about presenting the data.

So then we can work through these issues as they present themselves in the future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for my colleagues?

Go ahead, sir.

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I Let's see, council member Kettle, with your permission, would love to co-sponsor this amendment with you.

You all know the importance in my continuous ongoing emphasis on data.

I think that is broadly shared, to be honest, amongst us all.

And by restoring some data collection, I think this amendment allows us to better track and monitor data performance and ultimately results.

And I heard calls and having met with various constituent groups and people, heard calls here in this chamber today to listen or gather research and study research.

This amendment does exactly that.

So I think this is a common sense amendment, makes a lot of sense.

I've working closely with our central staff experts.

Just wanna thank you all again for all your sage advice and counsel throughout this process.

It's been excellent.

And thank you for answering my many pesky questions.

calls for additional information.

But I've examined various features of other models across the country, including New York, that have similar legislation in place with no known, not to say there's none, but no known Unintended consequences if you will and this is something that New York City has in place something similar and so I think common sense Councilmember kettle if you were so willing would love to co-sponsor this with you and and together we can hope emphasize and land the importance of data collection and also research All right.

Thank you councilmember Saka.

I welcome your co-sponsorship of this amendment.

Thank you.

I

Go ahead.

Council Member Rivera.

Council President, I concur with my colleagues on the importance of data collection, particularly to allow the Office of Labor Standards, the OLS director, to be able to acquire the data necessary in order to enforce and evaluate the impacts of this law on the app-based worker earnings.

I think it is important to be able to have that impact evaluation to go toward what we've all talked about, the unintended consequences.

And so collecting the data is an important piece of that.

And so I appreciate you bringing this forward.

Thank you.

Oh, I had a question, Council President.

Sure.

Jasmine Karina, just to clarify, these records, A through D, would this be able for OLS to understand if they're reaching a true minimum wage?

I think your microphone's off.

There we go.

There you go.

This particular provision would allow for OLS to evaluate on an aggregated level what workers are earning.

I think it'd be more for an individual investigation or enforcement action to understand on a worker by worker level, but it could allow for an overall of what the worker earnings are.

Thank you.

Okay, if there aren't any more comments or questions, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 2, Version 2?

Councilmember Kettle?

Aye.

Councilmember Hollingsworth?

Aye.

Councilmember Rivera?

Aye.

Councilmember Saka?

Aye.

Chair Nelson?

Aye.

Five in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries, and Amendment 2, Version 2 is adopted.

That was, was that Amendment 2 or 3?

2, Version 2.

Okay, got it.

Council President, that was Amendment 2, Version 2.

All right, we've got another one coming from you.

Okay, the motion carries.

Amendment 2, Version 2 is adopted.

Moving forward to Amendment 3, Councilmember Kettle, do you wish to move Amendment 3?

Again, thank you, Chair Nelson.

Yes, I move to amend Council Bill 120775 as presented on Amendment 3, as presented on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Once again, thank you, Central Staff, Ms. Maroa and Ms. Bull on this.

I really appreciate your counsel.

And, you know, this kind of goes to kind of the comments from the earlier one, you know, with the Office of Labor Standards, you know, being able to do their job.

And, you know, I recognize that this is a very complex area, but I feel that a...

this one-year period, which we're already well into, will give that opportunity to, you know, right the ship, if you will, and then move forward in a, you know, standard process as we've seen with labor standards across different areas.

So thank you very much.

Amendment number three sponsored by Councilmember Kettle would set a defined period for restricting the Office of Labor Standards Director's assessment of civil penalties and fines for certain non-willful violations.

The types of non-willful violations that would be covered by this provision include those that are non-economic, that don't result in money being owed to the worker, and those that are not based on retaliation.

This defined period would be the first year of implementation, which means that from January 13th of this year through January 13th of next year, the OLS director would not assess penalties for these non-welfare violations if the network company cures a violation within 30 days of receiving notice of the violation or longer for a longer period if the network company requests additional time.

After this first year period, the director would have authority to assess penalties for all violations, regardless of whether the violation is willful or non-willful.

This authority would include options for waiving or reducing penalties on a case-by-case basis after considering the circumstances of the violation that that language already exists in the current ordinance.

This amendment would provide network companies with the opportunity for a grace period from penalties for a certain time.

And in the proposed app based worker revisions ordinance, this provision would be required on a permanent basis.

So what this amendment is doing is changing it from a permanent basis to a one year period.

Thank you.

Are there any questions or comments from colleagues?

All right.

If there are none, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 3?

Councilmember Kettle?

Aye.

Councilmember Hollingsworth?

Aye.

Councilmember Rivera?

Aye.

Councilmember Saka?

Aye.

Chair Nelson?

Aye.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

Amendment 3 is adopted.

All right.

Moving on to Amendment 4. Councilmember Saka, do you wish to move Amendment 4?

Please go ahead.

Yes.

So let's see.

I feel strongly about this amendment, which restores the driver's private right of action.

And this amendment is principally about workers' rights.

If a person or class of persons has suffered an injury or harm, they should be able to bring a civil action.

And so my amendment is a very important protection, worker-friendly protection that allows justice to happen and enables justice and facilitates it.

So I, do I need to move?

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

So I move that we adopt Amendment 4. Second.

Second.

Yeah.

Okay.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 4 as presented on the agenda.

All right.

Amendment number four, sponsored by Councilmember Saka, would restore a private right of action for violations of the app based worker minimum payment ordinance and restore references to the private right of action and relevant ordinance sections, including the title notice of rights, retaliation prohibitions and the complaint procedure.

The private right of action would permit app based workers to file individual or class civil actions to enforce the law.

Council Bill 120775 proposes removal of the private right of action.

Thank you.

If there are no more comments or questions, will the clerk please call the roll on Amendment 4?

Councilmember Kettle?

Aye.

Councilmember Hollingsworth?

Aye.

Councilmember Rivera?

Aye.

Councilmember Saka?

Aye.

Chair Nelson?

Aye.

Five in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and Amendment 4 is adopted.

And the amendment bill is now before council.

All right, we're gonna be now voting on the amended base legislation.

So I will open it up for any comments.

Give the last word and then we'll vote.

You're welcome.

What did you?

Sorry, can you repeat that last part?

Oh, I basically said we've gone through all of our amendments, and the bill now before us will be voting on the amended bill, and I'm offering people an opportunity to make final comments.

Go ahead, co-sponsor Rivera.

Thank you, Council President.

When I was growing up, my family lived paycheck to paycheck, and later, as a young woman, I worked as a server in a fast-food restaurant where I made the legal minimum wage and relied on tips to pay rent, utilities, and groceries.

I want to be sure we listen to those who are most impacted, including all app-based workers and the small businesses who are relying on delivery orders to make ends meet.

My interest in amending the app-based worker minimum payment ordinance is to ensure that all app-based workers make at least minimum wage as the original ordinance intended.

The goal is to increase orders so that the workers and small businesses can thrive.

I support my colleagues' amendments to include And I'm co-sponsoring my colleagues amended ordinance to include the private right of action for workers as well as the requirement of data collection so the Office of Labor Standards can evaluate the impacts of this law.

I believe it's important that if this legislation is not working the way it was intended, that council has a responsibility to act and course correct for the benefit of all workers impacted.

For this reason, I'm co-sponsoring Council Member Nelson's legislation and voting for Council Member Kettles and Council Member Saka's amendments, which will provide further protections for the app-based workers.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Yes, thank you, Chair Nelson.

Regarding Council Bill 120775, the app-based worker labor standards bill as amended, this is an incredibly complex issue with many conflicting pieces that reflect that we are in new territory, and it's got very different pieces coming in together, and we're still working through these elements.

And because I want to thank everyone involved for your input, it's important to hear from all the stakeholders to include here.

It's important to note, too, that your truths are valid even with those that are an opposite.

Each truth has its place.

I understand that there's four main groups.

Yes, the network companies have had their voice.

The gig delivery workers have had their voice, obviously for and against.

Restaurants, though.

Not so much.

We've had a little bit late, but not very much from the restaurant community.

And that's a challenge, and it reflects, by the way, you know, the challenges that they face between these competing viewpoints.

And I'm deeply concerned about the restaurants.

Obviously, I'm deeply concerned about the restaurants from the perspective of being the chair of the Public Safety Committee, because there are a lot of headwinds as it relates to public safety.

But these are additional headwinds, and there's others as well.

And, you know, I'm concerned about those that work at these restaurants.

I'm also thinking about the customers.

That's another area that we haven't really heard from.

So we have some, but not all.

I wanted to note too that good governance relies on good data.

This drives my amendment that I submitted today.

And it also goes more generally to the cure period amendment and also to the right of private action that I support as well, thank you.

So to my amendment, I believe that this will be looked at again in the future and today is just but one next step.

Thank you, Chair Nelson.

Can you have that in your committee?

Just kidding.

Thank you very much.

Are there other comments?

Go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I want to cross-reference the comment that you made at the outset, Madam Chair, of teeing up this conversation when you read that statement from that very fire.

Remember that meeting.

Remember it vividly.

And one public commenter, may or may not be here today, said, quote, The bill was supposed to raise minimum wage.

Colleagues, post to?

What kind of policy is post to be?

People can't live their lives off of post to be's.

This is the legislative department of the Seattle city government.

It should not be the department of post to be's.

It hasn't worked.

We need to do better.

So let's move beyond the post-to's and post-to-be's and into achieving a truly compromised bill that works and then track and monitor progress and be prepared to adjust that over time as needed as well.

And I think this compromise bill to the original ordinance is of monumental importance and affects literally thousands of small businesses Workers and many other key constituents and stakeholders.

I deeply appreciate all of the public comments testimonies That have been made in emails and my office has received.

I understand the passion because we're dealing with people's livelihoods Personally, I did my own research outside of these this chamber and I Tried to do the hard work of meeting with as many people as I can in different diverse stakeholder groups as I can.

Wide range of folks, including Working Washington, Drive Forward, countless small businesses, and others.

Earlier this year, I kicked off a small business walking tour and listening session in District 1. All five neighborhoods in my district got their own listening tour, and a lot of restaurants, small businesses, a lot of commercial kitchens represented in those conversations, and I heard this.

I was expecting conversations and to hear concerns about public safety.

and how the city can more broadly better support small businesses and enable a truly diverse economy, including contributions from our many small businesses.

And I ended up hearing a lot about this.

An earful has been reported.

And that, combined with all the other sources that I mentioned, I think we need to do better.

This is a compromise in an effort to reflect the feedback of not just one sector, and like all compromises, it's imperfect.

It may not fully satisfy everyone's concerns, but we need to do something, and we need to do something now.

And we also, now more than ever, need to move beyond the post to bees.

So that's why I support this.

Again, I want to thank Jasmine and Karina for your excellent counsel and advice throughout this process and helping better empower me to inform my decision making.

I know there are a lot of weekends worked by you all, us all included.

So I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Thank you for those comments, you know, what you're talking about with supposed to.

I look at it as what else are we going to do, right?

I mean, we could do nothing and then the fee stays.

And the purchasing patterns and habits of customers will move farther and farther and farther away from using these delivery services.

I'm sure that could benefit some some restaurants that are trying to bring people back into dining on site.

But ultimately, a lot of people have come to rely on these services, particularly the elderly and people who are immunocompromised and folks with disabilities and can't do their errands out and about as easily.

So when we're talking about collecting more data and entering into a prolonged process process.

I just don't see how that will help the problem at hand, which is people who are really having a hard time paying their bills right now.

That is what I'm thinking about, and that is what is motivating this whole thing.

When it comes to the restaurants, we know that the reason why we're not hearing from a lot of restaurants in public comment is because they're busy trying to run the restaurants.

It's very difficult to to corral small business owners to come and give public comment.

And there is some risk about what happens to them online as well.

The chamber did do a survey, which I mentioned last time, that found that revenues dropped significantly 90% wanted a repeal of the law.

We're not doing that.

We've also had data that has been put forward by Drive Forward showing equally grave wage drop for amongst drivers.

People will contest that data collection.

So all we've got going for us is the very real, the reality that that this has produced a drop in orders.

How do you bring those up?

You lower the cost of deliveries.

How do you do that?

You make the companies get rid of the fees.

I voted for all of these amendments because I believe that this is still a proposal that will be acceptable for the network companies to get rid of that fee.

And sure, in the future, we'll be able to see if that is, in fact, the case.

Everything depends on that.

And that is why this is before us.

So I'm going to stop talking because I'm really tired of hearing myself over and over and over again.

But let's go ahead and call for the vote.

I actually had a couple comments.

Oh, sure.

I'm sorry.

I didn't see your hand.

No, you're good.

Thank you, Madam President.

I fully believe in the intent of pay up.

And I know that there are really...

There are unfortunate consequences right now with some workers saying the pay is down.

Consumers are concerned about delivery costs and small businesses are unfortunately seeing a fewer decrease overall sales.

But I also recognize that this bill amending the pay up legislation is an effort to correct some of those.

And I believe my colleagues are trying to attempt to find solutions but believe that we need to have common ground and more work.

Over the past months, I have met with stakeholders to discuss the bill.

I spent hours talking to labor residents, friends, people that I'd known for a long time that have owned businesses, and attempt to find a compromise to solve some of the issues of the underlining legislation.

And I...

you know, want to still provide strong minimum wage protections, a healthy ecosystem for business, a lower cost of delivery.

And I'm urging all of these groups to come to the table.

This has not happened.

And I really need all stakeholders to come to the table in good faith, Working Washington, Drive Forward, independent drivers, app companies, and small businesses to find a common solution that works for everyone.

I understand that I'm coming from a place of privilege, that I do not have to have a side gig to make extra money.

None of us up here do.

Not the executive directors, not the lobbyists that have come here today, none of them.

But the drivers that are feeding their families.

And this has to have a sense of urgency because unfortunately there are people that will not be able to make rent this month.

There are restaurants that unfortunately are closing that have laid off workers.

And so they have been disproportionately impacted.

And so I understand my place of privilege when I'm up here talking.

And I still want this bill to be baked more.

And so I will be abstaining from the vote today because I'm not a yes or a no, but I'm abstaining for the vote because I'm calling on all of the people to come together to find a working solution.

Thank you.

Thank you for that, for those comments.

And I do want to say that I have spoken with the mayor and also I reached out to Danielle Alvarado.

She's still here.

I recognize that if that can happen, if people can all come together and there can be a solution that is better than what we've got forward, that would be great.

This will be coming to full council on May 28th instead of what it normally would on...

The 21st, I'm trying to thread a needle between urgency and one last chance.

So that is why that date is before us now.

So thank you very much for being willing to continue the work.

All right.

Well, President, can I make a final comment, which is the real unintended...

I support minimum wage for workers, as I talked about in my own personal experience.

The unintended of the consequence of the bill as is, and we've seen week after week as public comment is, this has pitted workers against each other because some workers have made minimum wage and others haven't.

So I just really want to underscore that we are all trying to find a solution so that all workers are making minimum wage rather than some and not others because I believe the true intent of the law was to have everyone making minimum wage and that is not what happened in application.

And so we're all struggling here trying to find a way so that we are really being true to what the legislation intended was to make sure everyone was making minimum wage.

Thank you for those comments.

I agree.

All right.

Seeing no further comments, will the clerk please call the roll on the, hold on, I have to say, I want to make sure that this is right.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation that Council Bill 120775 pass as amended.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Abstain.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Chair Nelson.

Aye.

Four in favor, one abstained.

The motion carries, and the committee recommendation that the bill pass as amended will be forwarded to the City Council.

All right, if there are no further...

Thanks.

All right, if there are no further questions, This concludes the May 9th meeting of the Governance, Accountability, and Economic Development Committee.

The next committee meeting will be on Thursday, May 23rd at 2 o'clock.

If there's no further business, this meeting is adjourned.