A RESOLUTION requesting that the Department of Finance and Administrative Services, the Seattle Fire Department, and the City Budget Office include in the City’s contract for Basic Life Support Emergency Services provisions that provide to emergency medical technicians (EMTs) a prevailing wage and benefits comparable to other emergency workers employed in comparable cities and similar sectors in the City of Seattle; and requesting the departments to provide additional analysis, data, and information.
It was number 33 and I stopped it. Okay, so we concluded. We concluded that. So where was it? Please read the first edition item into the record. That new it the new agenda item one Resolution 318 31 requesting that the Department of Finance, Administrative Services and the Central Budget Office negotiate a contract for basic life support emergency services. That includes provisions guaranteeing wage and benefit standards for emergency medical technicians and requesting the draft contract be provided. To the City Council for approval prior to execution. Councilmember Swan. Just one minute. So I'm not a lot we we closed public comments, we cut off I think right before but we're less than 32. I think you were in number 33. So. So that's that's that's. I do apologize. People go to great extent to come down here. I understand. I understand. But we extended. A strong issue. Okay. And we're getting ready to address it right now. So, again. We're getting ready to address it right now. So I'm trying not. To be disrespectful. Sir. You've been very respectful. You've been very respectful. We have rules that we're trying to comply with. We extended it twice. So it's so it's not over. So I'm going to ask you. Sit down, sir. And if you're not, you're disrupting our agenda. So I'm going have to have you remove. So I'm sorry we didn't get to you. Pretty much the line. Yeah. So I'm going to ask you to relinquish the microphone. And you just started proceeding. Is it? Could we could we just give him a minute? I mean, he's an EMT. No, I think if you'd like to make a motion to that. I'll make a motion to let him speak for a minute. But I've made it. I've made a motion to allow the EMT to speak for a minute. I'll second it. It's been moved to extend public comment to allow this gentleman to speak. Any comments on the motion. Or we're just extending one minute. We're listening just for this gentleman, and I'm going to speak against it this way. I have nothing, nothing against this fine gentleman, nothing to. I think we understand the plight of the M.D. We've heard some pretty heartwrenching stories now for a few weeks. We do have an agenda. We did extend it twice. And in all due respect, sir, we've heard pretty strong testimony on behalf of the MTA, and now we're about to vote. So let me speak, sir. Okay. So I understand he wants to speak, but I'm trying to run a meeting here according to the rules. But I'll vote against it if you want to vote for it will extend it. So the motion has been made. And second, any of the comments of the motion. Although then you raise your hand. If all those in May in favor of letting this gentleman speak for public comment, raise your hands. Say I. All those polls say, no, no, the ayes have it. You have the microphone, sir. Thank you, council members. Good afternoon. My name is Robert Bandera and I'm currently an EMT with the American Medical Response. I've been an EMT for 20 years. I can tell you that I love this profession. I enjoy making a difference every day. I believe the majority of my brothers and sisters come to this profession for the same reason to make a difference. The job itself is extremely challenging, full of ups and downs. I can tell you what it's like to take care of somebody who's homeless on the streets of Seattle, I can tell you. The next call can be at a high rise penthouse with a multimillion dollar resident. I can also tell you what it's like to be on the streets and do CPR and lose a patient. I can tell you what it's like to use an aid and shock a patient, get their heart rate back and have a save. I can tell what it's like to be in the Rainier Valley at 2:00 in the morning with a pregnant woman whose water broke, who's extremely scared and deliver a baby. There's lots of ups and downs. That said, this profession is is not about the money. Nobody comes to this profession. No EMT comes to this profession to get rich. But that said, it's important that we earn enough money to put a roof over our head, food on the table, be able to provide for our own health care, and not have to decide between being able to pay rent versus food. I'd like you to know that you have to be with our organization for ten years before our wage hits the $20 an hour rate. Ten years? I'm trying to go fast. We've lost a lot of really good, exceptional care providers who provide excellent service to the Seattle Fire Department and working in cooperation. It takes a while to build proficiency and we lose this proficiency if they don't remain. I'm not going to say the AMA is a bad company. They're not a bad company. I've worked for them for a long time. They're a company for profit. They're a company who. Who needs to be able to make money. And that's that's they're there. They need to have a profit margin. I understand that. But we need to try to find a win win solution where the employees can continue to work and they can continue to make a decent living. The contract stipulates a prevailing wage. The prevailing wage has never been defined. That's part of the reason that we've come to you folks today to ask you to evaluate the prevailing wage, determine what the prevailing wage is, and then please enforce that. I encourage you to sign the resolution. I appreciate your time very, very much. Thank you so much for your time. Mr. President, just very briefly, Mr. President, if I might, just very briefly, since we went back to public comment, I just wanted to quickly say thank you to you for allowing so much public comment where an hour and 40, 40 minutes into this discussion and to connect the dots between the affordable housing issues, the need for good living wages, the need to create more density throughout our city, and to not just create density that bulldozes landmark institutions. And so I just wanted to thank you for your time today. I saw the signs that said Save our empties and save this shoebox. I think there's a huge connection there. And when our city really directs development to just about 15% of the land that we currently have, it's no wonder that housing is so damn expensive in this city. It's no wonder that word they $815,000 for an average home in the city. We need to actually think about how we create the housing and the cultural institutions that allow for artists to play and live in this city. So I look forward to supporting the shoebox. I look forward to greater conversations around density and density done right. And thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, councilmember skater. And. Why don't you read the agenda item again? So we get to sort of start from scratch. Resolution New Agenda Item one, Resolution 318 31 requesting that the Department of Finance, Administrative Services and the Central Budget Office negotiate a contract for basic life support emergency services. That includes provisions guaranteeing wage and benefit centers for emergency medical technicians and requesting the draft contract be provided to the City Council for approval prior to its execution. Councilmember one. Thank you, Brian Harrell. I made some comments earlier today and you've heard eloquent testimony from EMT themselves, including the person who just spoke that they do enormously valuable lifesaving work. You actually could not put a price on this any more than you could put a price on your own life or on the lives of your loved ones . And if you can't do that, then you can't put a price on the living standards that standard and dignity of the workers who allow that to happen. And as we know, they are doing this incredible work, but they are not being paid what they are owed. And in reality, there is a very specific question here. The city of Seattle contracts with AMR, which is a for profit corporation. I urge the council not to confuse the public, intentionally or otherwise, by talking about the contract that the Teamsters have with AMR, the Teamsters and the workers. Rest assured, we'll be fighting for the best possible contract when they when they fight for it. But that does not. The fact that the workers are unionized does not absolve the city council as the highest legislative body in doing its duty and making sure that the rhetoric about Seattle's workers and their rights does not just remain rhetoric , but it's actually enforced by the city. So this resolution is not about the Teamsters contract with AMR. It is about the city of Seattle's contract with AMR. And this is very much in the purview of the city council, the contract that expires at the end of August. And that and I know that there is an RFP process and the mayor's office is working on this currently. I also want to make sure the public understands there is no conflict here between the city council passing this resolution and the mayor's office carrying out that RFP process. I know council members will say things that suggest that, but that's not true. It is absolutely without conflict. Furthermore, if the city council passes this resolution today, it gives much more leverage to the mayor's office and much more leverage to the workers and the Teamsters to demand that there is a contract that enforces workplace standards. Because the city council today, by voting yes on this resolution, will say, we are urging the mayor's office to enforce contractual provisions on workplace standards and that we request that the mayor that the contract details are reported back to the city council. Now, what is what are the contractual provisions? We are talking about the existing contract for you that it existed for years. That the city of Seattle has with M.R. says that the combined compensation and fringe benefit program for all the personnel should be substantially substantively equivalent to the average rate of compensation for similar private sector field personnel in similar sized and cost of living areas of the United States. Now, it is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact that the EMT with AMR in other cities are being paid far more and better benefits than the EMT in Seattle. This is not a it's not an imagination. It is an actual fact. And Seattle EMTs are paid fully 28% below the starting pay for EMT, incomparable and even lower cost of living in cities in California and 34% below EMTs working in Seattle for the Federal Veterans Administration. So if you look at comparable jobs, there's a lot of injustice in this world when we need to fight. But we're not even talking about larger issues. We're talking about simple the comparison between EMT who do the same work in other cities, the AMD's who do the same work in this city but happen to be under the federal jurisdiction or under the city of Seattle jurisdiction. So these these EMT happen. Many of you are here. You happen to be working for a for profit corporation. The city of Seattle has an obligation to enforce the contract that they themselves have. The city of Seattle has this contract. I did not I did not introduce this. I just read the contract, which, by the way, the mayor's office did not help us to get. It was the workers who gave us the substance of the contract. I just want to repeat that this voting on this resolution today is important because it will give workers the leverage to demand that the mayor's office enforce the workplace standards in the new contract that the city signs with Amber. I would also urge the Council to remember, as the EMTs have told you, we've never been empties. They are EMT. They work hard, they work 24 seven. Many of them have to take a second or third job. It is a lot to ask them to come to city hall day after day for what? It's a resolution and it's a straightforward resolution. So if all council members support it, then why not would vote on it today? So the MDC can focus on their work and they can focus there, you know, focus their energies on making sure the mayor's office puts together a decent contract that enforces, you know, provisions that allow them to live with dignity. I absolutely think that that is important. We have to put a value on the time of the MTA, just like we always put a value on our time as city council members. I do not believe in any way that this resolution will be a distraction from other issues. As Councilmember Bagshaw brought up about patients without insurance, as AMD's have themselves said, they don't refuse service to anybody. They don't refuse service to anybody. So let's not let's not I mean, let's again, as I said, for the shoebox question as well. Let's be honest with the public about why we are voting or not voting on a certain thing today. This resolution does not in any way hamper the ability of IMR MDC to serve everybody regardless of insurance. As a matter of fact, if we offer, if we make sure MDC have decent living standards, then they are better able to do their job for what our people have insurance or not. Mind that there is a big problem in Amara, which is the turnover of the workforce. If we if we recognize correctly that M.D.s bring in a lot of skill and experience that no, you know, I can just become an EMT tomorrow and replace an existing EMT . These are skills and experience that are gathered over time by working with actual people who are in crisis. It's very hard to replace it, but with such abysmal wages and benefits, it is, you know, inevitable that workers will look for other jobs and move on, even though they love doing what they are doing and they are so dedicated and self-sacrificing. So I think it is only correct to do this. That's the other point. You know, Mike Andrews from Amado Amar, spokesperson who spoke, he says here that they are in a partnership with the union. No, this is not a partnership. If you are keeping your workers in such abysmal living standards. This is not a partnership. This is exploitation. And Andy NGO said it's tough. Well, I'll tell you what's tough. What's tough is having to, you know, help people in crises, work long hours, take second jobs, having to sell plasma because you can't make your rent. That's tough. And let's also keep in mind that Ammer is owned by a parent company named KKR, which is the leading global investment firm that controls 176 billion in private equity, energy, real estate and other ventures. So these are not struggling corporations. These are corporations that are making a lot of money, except the profits are going at the top. And lastly, for council members who are concerned that maybe this is the only company that the city can contract with, that somehow we can't enforce it. I will say two things. One is this is the city of Seattle's government. We have the power to enforce things on corporations. We have the power to do it. I don't want to join in the pretense that that is not possible. It is absolutely possible. It's a question of whether there's a political will or not. And the second point I'll make is if if AMR threatens to not sign the contract, then we should bring this into public ownership and make all empties be direct City of Seattle employees and give them all the living standards. That's okay. Any comments, Councilmember Herbold? Sure. Thank you. I am going to be supporting this resolution. It is an expression of intent and expression of our values as a city. I do think we need to address some broader, broader structural issues, though, and work together with AMR in doing so. They've not received a rate increase on their Medicaid reimbursements from the state of Washington since 2004. And so what that what that does this is a city where there are a lot of Medicaid reimbursements necessary because of the population of folks that AMR is assisting, the EMT, that AMR is assisting. So this is a structural problem that we that we need to address. This is a resolution to the city. I do believe that it will give the city more leverage to to negotiate with AMR. But we also need to be taking this vote today with our eyes wide open. It might change some of the discussions around the negotiation table, around the approach that the city and AMR use for for compensation of other services. So I'm comfortable with knowing that because again, this is a contract from the city of Seattle to employ people. And I think we should be employing people with a livable wage and in a way that is consistent with our with our values as a city and actually would which is consistent with the previous contract, which has not been able to be enforced. Thank you, Katherine Herbert. So I have just a question for clarification. First of all, this isn't a new approach as a good approach. When you look at for some of our waste management and recycling contracts that we've outsourced, we've asked for similar types of provisions in our our fees, make sure that people are paid a good wage and certainly they deserve it. The question I have is looking at the language. I just want to understand sort of what we're doing. That is that we are requiring the Department of Finance and the central budget to negotiate in the contract at least $25 an hour. So I'm reading this. It's a request if you see the language and also it's a resolution. So it's not I mean, it's it's a it's an expression of intent. So it says the Seattle City Council requests the force to enforce those provisions. And I like your point that we're sort of doing this eyes wide open then in support of our employees that certainly am or may have a different opinion and threaten to move out of our market. And but we want to stand behind our employees. And so we think this is a good statement of legislative purpose here. So so I'm prepared to vote as well unless I hear any other comments from anyone in our city. Councilmember Johnson. I'd just like to say I don't feel adequately prepared to vote yes today. I had a conversation in the 90 minutes that we had between the conclusion of our Mandatory Housing Affordability Presentation Special Committee today and 2:00. During those 90 minutes, I reached out to some members of the law department to ask them questions, have not had a response back from them yet and also received a phone call from the fire chief asking us to asking me to support DeLay for one week in order to better understand the impacts of the resolution both to the negotiations and then also to our baseline budget, which this undoubtedly would have an impact to our baseline budget if it is adopted as is. So I would support a one week hold on this topic to allow for some more information to help me make a better informed decision. So I'll take that as a form of motion to hold for one week, for one week till August 13th and second. So we'll address this issue first. So there's been a motion, a hold and a second customer. Swann Did you want to address the hold or. Yeah, okay. Please do. Please do I obviously if the majority of the council finds it so compelling to hold this, as opposed to all the other votes that were rushed through like the Amazon tax repeal, then that is what will happen. I will say for my part, I do not agree at all withholding it. There is no reason to hold it. I mean, there is no legal or ethical or or any such technical reason, technocratic reason to hold it. It is this is a political hold that one member of the public, an EMT, has to understand that this is a political hold, meaning they don't feel comfortable, council members don't feel comfortable on voting on something so straightforward. It's a resolution, not an ordinance. It's merely a request to the mayor's office to enforce provisions that already exist in the contract. I do not think we should hold it mainly because it is very, very difficult for empties to come again and again. You all have taken time off from your work and furthermore, furthermore, I mean, if they're forced to come, they absolutely will because they are fighting for their lives. But the but the reality is that if we are if we have the political will to vote on this resolution today, then it will give them one extra week to use this as leverage for their for their own efforts. I mean, this is not they're bringing a resolution. The city council is not the only thing that employees are doing. They are fighting hard on many fronts to make sure that their living standards are satisfied. And so if we hold it, we are taking one week away from them, a week that they could use, you know, going to the mayor's office, empowered with this resolution and say, did you see the city council has voted on this resolution? What do you have to say about that? How will you help enforce these contractual provisions and so on and so forth? So with all with all that in mind, I will be voting against the hold. Okay. We have a. Motion. A motion to hold on the table has from properly made in second and more discussion about the whole the reason why you want to hold it or not. Councilmember Gonzalez. Thank you. So I chair the committee responsible for public safety issues. And one of the departments that is at the center of this resolution that has is not directly mentioned in the resolution is the Seattle Fire Department. And I was I was alarmed when I shared the resolution with Chief Scoggins this morning. And I learned that he had not seen it before and had not had an opportunity to provide me as the chair of the Public Safety Committee or the rest of the council, his feedback on the interplay and the intersectionality between what the resolution is signaling and where the fire department is in terms of negotiating the service contract with AMR. And so for me, it's not it's not a oh, I want to hold this because I'm, I don't know, don't have political will or whatever the term was that councilmember so want used. It's legitimately that I heard from Chief Scoggins that he believes that there may be implications here that will incur unintended consequences both in the service contract. They may and could harm the positions of legislative intent that are described in the resolution. And I want to have the benefit of the opportunity over the next several days to consider the information that Chief Scoggins may bring to bear to the conversation so that we're crafting the legislative intent described in the resolution in a way that it will actually ultimately be helpful to the effort to raise the standards of EMT in in the city of Seattle and make sure that we actually understand how we can best enforce the terms in the contract. Ultimately, the end of the day, this is all going to boil down into a contract. The contract will still have the same enforcement issues that exist now, because there's nothing in this resolution that talks about a pathway forward on figuring out how to enforce the terms, including the terms that are described in this resolution. So I think I think we just for me, I would just appreciate the opportunity to extend it to Chief Scoggins, the courtesy of providing us some more feedback. And he and his folks are the ones who are at the table negotiating their service contracts with Amara. I just think it's a reasonable approach to to making sure that we aren't creating landmines where we are actually trying to be helpful. All right. Okay. Any other comments? Councilmember Switch. Just to quickly respond to this question of interplay and intersectionality, the groups that we here supposedly exist between this resolution and the contract that's being negotiated. I don't I don't agree with that at all. I. There is no there is no clear reason why. What is the interplay? What is the intersectionality? And my office also spoke to Chief Scoggins. We spoke to him in detail. I'm not convinced in any way that this resolution is in any way conflicting with the process of contract negotiations between the city and between it and Amara. And as I said, if the mayor's office whom Scoggins ultimately Jeff Scoggins ultimately represents, if the mayor's office is genuinely desirous of achieving a contract that enforces decent living standards for the workers, then they should welcome this resolution. Why? Why are they asking to hold a resolution? Because the resolution merely says we request the provisions that you have in your existing contract, enforce the provisions that are already there. That's all the resolution says. But it's its political significance is greater because it empowers the workers to continue fighting for their living standards. So I am I'm still not clear at all what the actual reason is, other than the fact that Chief Scoggins called, which he called my office also. Okay, I'm going to call for a. Vote comes from ROSQUETA. Well, I just want to, again, echo my my extreme appreciation for the folks who came to testify today. Having worked in the labor movement for the better part of a decade, I know the importance of getting contracts right and having internal and external pressure. I think as a city we have weighed in with that external pressure before we weighed in with support for UAW 4121 when they were negotiating with the University of Washington. I appreciate that there's multiple venues or conversations happening right now where we will weigh in with support for the Teamsters as they negotiate with the employer as well . Here, I think it's really important that our city send a strong message that whether or not you are a city employee or a. Contract employee. It is important for us to have good living wage jobs and especially for those who are in dangerous situations. We make sure that there is adequate and above, above and beyond adequate health care benefits, especially for those who see trauma on a daily basis. I am very interested in making sure that we send a strong message to the mayor and the negotiation team that this city stands up for its most vulnerable. I'm also very interested in supporting the chair and her interests and making sure that the public safety questions have been answered. Otherwise, this conversation would have been, I think, discussed in detail in your committee. If there is a commitment like we talked about with the shoebox, that this doesn't go on for a long period of time and that we bring this back, I will be happy to wait a week, but I want to make sure that we're sending a very strong message. The details do matter in this. The council is weighing in with support for not just good benefits, but also adequate wages, and that we stand up and identify every opportunity we can to pull some of this work in-house. Because I think it was said earlier by council members that we have critical services that we have outsourced historically. And to the extent that we can be more cost efficient and have contracts negotiate on our terms, I'm always interested in that. I look forward to the discussion if that happens in a week. Happy to support them. I think your concern is greater. So I guess just in plain and plain nonpolitical terms, I have no reason believe that FASB and CBO, while they may not have been on their A-game in the past, I have no reason to believe they only put in a positive. I think they will support the EMT workers. Anyone with any ounce of sense realizes the plight of the EMT workers now. And I think, Councilman Schwartz, leadership is, if anything else, has really brought this issue to light. So I don't hear anyone disagreeing with how can we be your advocates? And even following your your strong advocacy for your plight, one week's not going to make that big of difference. What we're trying to do. Let's see if we can do even more. Let's see if we can get a Department of Finance, CBO, to really understand this issue list, have this discussion. I talked to Council Chief Scoggins as well, and I understand his plight. And in his plight, if you know his personal story, he is aware of how people are underpaid and treated unfairly. And so I think a week is not political. Whatever. I don't even pay attention. Whatever the accusations are, it's just common sense to make this stronger, not water it down and support our EMT workers. And so I think you're hearing that. So I would support the motion to hold it for a week in those simple terms. And so having said that, it's been moved in second and hold it for a week till August 13, 2018. All those in favor I. And raise your hand, I. All those opposed. Say no one. Raise your hand. No. So. 62, it's been it will be held for one week and we will see everyone on this issue in one week. And so please read the next edition item.