The URL can be used to link to this page

SR 08-27-2019 7B City Council Report City Council Meeting: August 27, 2019 Agenda Item: 7.B 1 of 13 To: Mayor and City Council From: Rick Cole, City Manager, City Manager's Office, Administration Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance pertaining to Hotel Workers Protection Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading the attached ordinance adding Chapter 4.67 to the Santa Monica Municipal Code to establish regulations pertaining to hotel worker safety, fair compensation, and retention. Executive Summary As host to over eight million visitors annually, the City of Santa Monica (City) has a long history of supporting our tourism and hospitality industries as well as promoting the wellbeing and rights of the workers in those establishments. In our current era of the #MeToo movement, policy-making bodies are receiving increased pressure to adopt legislation to protect employees from workplace harassment and assault across various sectors, ranging from entertainment to hospitality. The City’s Commission on the Status of Women (COSW) has recommended that the City Council (Council) adopt an ordinance on the local level to address vulnerabilities that hotel workers face in the workplace. To date, the cities of Long Beach, Oakland, Emeryville and Seattle have adopted similar ordinances through ballot measures approved by voters. Santa Monica’s tourism industry employs approximately 2,100 hotel housekeepers across 41 hotels and motels. Santa Monica’s lodging businesses collectively generated $60.8 million in Transient Occupancy Tax revenues in FY 2018-19 and are projected to generate $68.8 million in FY 2019-20. These figures highlight the potential impact that an ordinance addressing hotel workers’ safety, retention, and fair compensation carries. While provisions related to hotel worker protection seem fairly straightforward, the implementation and enforcement—specifically related to workload and fair compensation brings about various complexities, challenges and concerns. As such, 2 of 13 City staff has conducted extensive research, analysis and engagement with local stakeholders and other cities to fulfill Council’s direction of creating a new chapter in the City’s Municipal Code to address the safety and working conditions of hotel employees. Background Consideration for the City to develop and adopt a hotel worker protection ordinance began in June 2018 when representatives of hospitality union UNITE HERE! Local 11 (Local 11) presented a set of recommendations related to hospitality worker protection to the COSW. In October 2018, Council directed City staff to draft an ordinance incorporating each of the following four components recommended to the Council by the COSW (Attachment B): 1. Protection for hotel workers from all forms of sexual violence by providing panic buttons and other measures to enable hotel housekeepers to report misconduct and remove themselves from dangerous situations without fear of retaliation. 2. Provisions to ensure hotel housekeepers are compensated fairly when they are required to perform unreasonable workloads and protections against manda tory overtime. 3. Required training for hotel housekeepers to ensure that these employees have the knowledge and skills to both protect their own rights and safety. 4. Required education and training to identify potential instances of human trafficking, domestic violence, sexual violence and public health and safety. On August 13, 2019, City staff received additional Council direction to add to the previously specified scope of the hotel workers’ safety ordinance a worker retention provision for first reading August 27, 2019. Since receiving Council direction, City staff has engaged with various local stakeholders including COSW’s ad-hoc committee, Local 11, Santa Monica lodging businesses, Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce and the Hotel Association of Los Angeles. In addition, City staff has consulted with multiple cities with similar ordinances during the research process, including Long Beach, Seattle, 3 of 13 Emeryville and Oakland, to learn about their experiences in implementation and enforcement of their respective ordinances. Discussion As outlined in greater detail in the August 8, 2019 Council Information Item (Attachment C), City staff has articulated the position of each stakeholder and analyzed the complexities of each ordinance component. The Information Item also draws comparisons between what other cities have adopted to lay a foundation for what City staff is proposing. Ordinance Components Ordinance Component #1: Hotel housekeeper safety protections The first component recommended to Council by the COSW is a provision to protect hotel workers from all forms of sexual violence via panic buttons and other measures. This recommendation addresses the belief that hotel workers who work by themselves in guest rooms are vulnerable to crimes and other threatening behavior, in particular, all forms of sexual violence. This provision enables hotel workers to protect their safety by mandating Santa Monica hoteliers to implement the following: 1. Equipping their employees with operational panic buttons or other personal safety devices; and 2. Procedures to support hotel workers’ ability to report criminal and threatening behavior to the proper authorities without fear of retaliation Other cities that have adopted panic button provisions in their respective ordinances are the cities of Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle and Chicago. Further information detailing each city’s mandate is included in the Information Item (pg. 6); each mandate is different, but all include a specification for panic buttons. City staff is giving substantial consideration to the limitations posed by legislation that is specific to panic button devices and the rising trend of safety measures already taken by hotels to protect their workers as noted in the Information Item (pgs. 5-7). 4 of 13 Accordingly, staff is recommending Council adopt a provision with broadened language—specifically the term “personal safety devices”—to give hoteliers greater flexibility in the type of device they will be required to provide, while fulfilling the objective of providing workers with the ability to raise an alert in the event of criminal or threatening behavior. Ordinance Component #2: Hotel housekeeper workloads and overtime compensation The second component recommended to Council by the COSW is a provision to ensure hotel housekeepers are compensated fairly when they are required to work unreasonable workloads and are protected against mandatory overtime. Hotel housekeepers have expressed concerns that they are frequently assigned overly burdensome room cleaning quotas and unexpected overtime. As such, they are less likely to perform their work in a manner that adequately protects public health and allows them to meet family and personal obligations. This provision seeks to provide fair compensation for workload and supports protections against mandatory overtime by requiring Santa Monica hoteliers to implement the following: 1. A daily square footage cleaning cap for hotel housekeepers unless the hotel employer pays the hotel worker fair compensation above State wage requirements, including pro-rated reductions in workload as stipulated; and 2. Documented overtime consent from hotel housekeepers when workdays exceed 10 hours The cities of Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle, and Emeryville have adopted maximum square footage provisions higher than Local 11’s proposed 3,500 square foot threshold and 2x compensation provision in their respective ordinances (detailed chart on pg. 11 of the Information Item.) Of the cities with similar ordinances, the cities of Oakland and Long Beach are the two major California cities to implement a fair compensation provision in their hotel worker safety ordinance, and both were enacted by voters just last year, on November 6, 2018. Specifically, those cities prohibit a hotel employer from requiring hotel housekeepers to clean more than 4,000 square feet in an eight-hour workday unless the worker is paid twice his or her regular rate of pay for all hours worked. It should be noted that the 5 of 13 general overtime rate in the State of California is 1.5x the regular rate of pay and applies to all hours worked in excess of eight hours (and up to 12 hours). These cities’ daily square footage maximum established a square footage standard for other cities to potentially adopt. It is worth noting that the COSW recommendation provided to Council does not specify using square footage to measure unreasonable workloads nor to define fair compensation. Therefore, should Council choose to adopt a square footage model, staff is recommending that Council adopt a definition that sets a daily square footage cap of 4,000 square feet of cleaning space per hotel housekeeper and requires a 1.5x compensation rate for all hours worked when the workload exceeds the 4,000 square footage maximum. City staff’s recommendation of a 1.5x compensation rate is consistent with the established State overtime compensation rate. Ordinance Component #3 & #4: Hotel housekeeper training on personal rights and safety and hotel housekeeper education and training to identify and prevent instances of human trafficking; domestic violence; sexual violence; and public health and safety The third and fourth components recommended to Council by the COSW are provisions to ensure hotel housekeepers have the knowledge and skills to protect their own rights, public health and safety as well as identify potential instances of human trafficking and sexual and domestic violence. This recommendation addresses the City’s interest in protecting public safety for visitors and the unique position of hotel housekeepers to identify and report potential threats or crimes. Local 11 is advocating for the following elements to be included in a Public Housekeeping Training Program: 1. All provisions adopted in this ordinance 2. Best practices for identifying insect or vermin infestations, suspicious materials, suspected instances of human trafficking and sexual and domestic violence 3. Standardization of training requirements and administration 4. Examination and certification components to ensure ongoing compliance Based on City staff’s analysis, the training areas stipulated in the COSW letter, including workplace safety, public health, human trafficking and sexual and domestic violence, are for the most part adequately covered by existing State training requirements. The City’s ongoing budget constraints as well as limited staff capacity pose a challenge for the City to administer or contract for comprehensive new trainings. As such, staff 6 of 13 recommends Council adopt a Public Housekeeping Training Program with the following conditions: 1. City acts as an oversight agency, certifying Public Housekeeping Training Organizations as meeting specified program requirements; 2. Hotels contract with a certified Public Housekeeping Training Organization to administer Public Housekeeping Training Program, Public Housekeeping Examination, and Public Housekeeping Certificate requirements; 3. Hotels and Public Housekeeping Training Organizations document compliance with City; 4. Exemption of training areas adequately covered by State or local requirements If the Council accepts staff’s recommendation that the City avoid contracting for or administering training, there will nonetheless be additional administrative responsibilities if the City assumes the role of oversight agency. Staff from the designated oversight department will be expected to assume new responsibilities that will affect the provision of existing services. Ordinance Component #5: Hotel Worker retention in instances of change in ownership The fifth component as directed by Council on August 13, 2019 is a recommendation to add to the previously specified scope of this ordinance a worker retention provision. This recommendation addresses the changes in corporate ownership or management that can occur in the hotel industry. When corporate ownership or management of a hotel changes, the new operator may close the hotel for renovations and reopen with a new workforce, displacing hundreds of employees and increasing the demand on social services provided by the City and other governments. This provision mitigates these concerns by mandating Santa Monica hoteliers to implement the following: 1. Procedures to notify hotel workers of a change in control 2. Procedures to establish a transition period for a successor hotel to retain hotel workers from the incumbent hotel 7 of 13 Based on the cities with a similar ordinance, the City of Seattle is the only municipality with a hotel worker retention policy. However, the city of Los Angeles adopted a Hotel Worker Retention Ordinance for LAX-area hotels and a Grocery Worker Retention Ordinance in 2006. Similarly, the City adopted a Grocery Worker Retention Ordinance in 2006 as well. The Providence (Rhode Island) City Council adopted a Hospitality Business Protection and Worker Retention Ordinance in 2009 . The chart below illustrates each city’s regulation: City Worker Retention Provision/Ordinance Applicability Long Beach No N/A Oakland No N/A Seattle Yes 60 or more guest rooms Emeryville No N/A Providence Yes 25 or more guest rooms Los Angeles (LAX-area hotels only) Yes 50 or more guest rooms Los Angeles (Grocery Workers) Yes Over 15,000 square feet in size Santa Monica (Grocery Workers) Yes Over 15,000 square feet in size According to Local 11, changes in corporate ownership or management occur frequently in the hotel industry and can undermine the City’s interest in maintaining its status as a world-class tourism destination. Since the City relies on hotel workers to ensure a safe, clean, and enjoyable experience for its millions of visitors, Local 11 believes the City should take the measures necessary to prevent disruptions to the hotel labor market. Local 11’s proposal requires a 90-day retention period for transitional employees upon change of ownership, control, or operation of hotels and hoteliers to post a notice of change of control within five business days. Additionally, a successor hotel employer should maintain a preferential hiring list as provided by the incumbent hotel employer. 8 of 13 According to the Hotel Association of Los Angeles, employee retention has never been an issue as the result of a hotel sale and no significant media reports, nor issues related to hotel worker retention, have been raised in the City. In the past decade, ten hotels have been sold, which represents 36.7% of all rooms in Santa Monica and approximately 800 housekeeping positions. Furthermore, the association states that 25% of all hotels in the City currently have at least one housekeeping position open, with several having multiple open positions; this speaks to the difficulty of retaining hotel housekeepers in Santa Monica rather than a lack of incentive to do so. Therefore, they argue, Santa Monica hoteliers are not only incentivized to implement measures to retain their employees but also motivated to create work environments that foster community. According to the Hotel Association of Los Angeles, the proposed hotel worker retention interferes with the basic right of employers to decide who to employ. Moreover, the association contends that this provision will likely lead to less competition and an increase in costs that would be passed onto the consumer. It also believes that such a provision would be preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, where under federal labor law, when a successor employer retains more than half of the predecessor’s employees, the successor is generally required to recognize the prior union and accept them as the representative of the employees. In light of Council’s recent direction, and the available precedent in hospitality worker ordinances in Providence and Los Angeles (for LAX-area hotels) as well as grocery worker ordinances in Santa Monica and Los Angeles, staff recommends Council incorporate an equivalent hotel worker retention provision as part of the comprehensive ordinance. The City Attorney’s Office has further indicated that, similar to fair compensation for workload provisions discussed above, these local provisions have been subject to legal challenge but upheld by courts in, for example, California Grocers Association v. City of Los Angeles, 52 Cal. 4th 177 (2011) and Rhode Island Hospitality Association v. City of Providence ex rel. Lombardi, 667 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2011). Other Potential Ordinance Component 9 of 13 Local 11 has also proposed an ordinance component that is not part of Council direction, nor reflected in the COSW letter: supersession by collective bargaining agreement. The supersession proposal establishes that certain provisions in the City’s hotel workers’ protection ordinance may be waived via a collective bargaining agreement. The cities of Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle and Emeryville have a similar supersession clause in their respective ordinances. Including a supersession condition allows hotels and hotel workers the flexibility to bargain for terms and conditions of employment that they find more mutually beneficial than the ordinance provisions. Although a supersession condition was not a part of Council direction, a supersession provision is included in the City’s minimum wage, hotel living wage, recall of workers, and grocery retention ordinances (Chapters 4.62, 4.63, 4.66, and 5.40 of the Municipal Code), thus setting a precedent for staff recommendation and inclusion. As such, staff is recommending Council adopt a supersession condition in this ordinance limited to the workload and worker retention provisions. Enforcement Options City staff assessed three potential approaches to enforcing the hotel workers’ protection ordinance: 1) civil enforcement (i.e., private right of action); 2) collaborative enforcement with the Los Angeles County Department of Business and Consumer Affairs (DCBA); and 3) City enforcement. Civil enforcement (i.e., a private right of action) establishes that any hotel worker may file a civil action lawsuit against a Santa Monica hotel for violating any provision adopted in the hotel workers protection ordinance. With the civil enforcement approach, the City does not assume the responsibility or costs associated with administering enforcement; instead, the hoteliers must establish policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the provisions set forth in this ordinance. 10 of 13 Currently, the City contracts with DCBA for minimum wage enforcement since the County of Los Angeles and City have similar wage ordinances. The County does not have a hotel worker safety ordinance. Due to limited alignment of issues and staff capacity, DCBA is not supportive of a collaborative enforcement model. If City staff were to engage with DCBA further, the City would likely need to fund a County enforcement officer to address the staff capacity concern. Currently, the Code Enforcement Division does not perform any enforcement activities related to hotel worker protection. Thus, utilizing a City enforcement approach would, at minimum, require the development of on-site inspection and administrative audit procedures to address how to effectively enforce the provisions set forth in this ordinance. Code Enforcement Officers would also have to gain baseline knowledge of hotel operations, specifically those around housekeeping workload management. This would require additional stakeholder engagement between the Code Enforcement Division and Santa Monica hoteliers. As stated in the August 8, 2019 Council Information Item, the Code Enforcement Division is at or over capacit y, and the City would have to onboard two new full-time Code Enforcement Officers at a projected annual cost of $370,200 in order to meaningfully support hotel workers’ safety enforcement. It is a best practice for the Code Enforcement Division to conduct ongoing evaluations of the appropriate enforcement staffing levels to ensure enforcement effectiveness for newly adopted ordinances. Due to the complex nature of a hotel worker protection ordinance, an evaluation may indicate more City resources are necessary to effectively enforce. Additionally, City staff would need to determine an appropriate citation fee structure for hotels in violation of the provisions set forth in this ordinance. Other than the City of Oakland, which has created a new department to implement City enforcement at an estimated annual cost of $2.8 million, the cities of Long Beach, Seattle and Emeryville have adopted a civil enforcement approach in their respective ordinances. 11 of 13 Given the projected annual cost of onboarding new Code Enf orcement Officers, a City enforcement approach would add to the City’s ongoing budget challenges. In contrast, implementing a civil enforcement approach is consistent with the model used in the cities of Long Beach, Seattle and Emeryville, incentivizing compliance by hoteliers without creating an additional municipal staffing or budgetary burden . Accordingly, staff is recommending that Council adopt a civil enforcement model for this ordinance. Effective Date As staff has detailed in the Council information item, Santa Monica lodging businesses and associations have stated their concerns and challenges with implementing each component of this ordinance. Factors include the wide range of sizes and ages of the City’s hotels, possible increases to operating costs, a potential transition to a new workload management system and potential new training regulations. As such, staff is recommending a January 1, 2020 effective date to allow hoteliers to effectively plan, strategize and implement the provisions set forth in this ordinance. Alternatives Should Council elect to depart from the staff recommended approach, there are a number of available alternatives, each of which would have different implications going forward: • Decline to adopt an ordinance related to hotel worker protection – Council could opt not to consider the COSW ’s recommendations and decline to adopt City staff’s proposed ordinance. Based on the increasing trend of hotels pledging to improve the safety of hotel workers, it is possible that hotel employers will provide hotel workers with safety devices regardless of a local mandate. Hotels would continue to manage workload through the credit system. Training and education requirements will continue to be regulated through the State. • Adjust the proposed square footage maximum and/or fair compensation pay rate – Local 11 has proposed hotel housekeepers clean no more than 3,500 square feet of floorspace in an eight-hour workday unless the employer pays the hotel worker twice the regular rate of pay for all hours worked. Meanwhile staff’s 12 of 13 recommendations are for a 4,000 square foot threshold in line with the Oakland and Long Beach ordinances, and a 1.5x compensation rate consistent with the State’s overtime rate. Council could adjust the daily square footage cap and compensation rate to align with other cities’ examples or more closely track the Local 11 proposal. • Direct staff to advise union and hospitality stakeholders to identify an alternative workload model that is complementary to the hotel industry standard – The Santa Monica lodging businesses and associations have expressed major concerns about employing square footage to measure and manage hotel housekeeper workloads. Council could direct staff to advise Local 11 and hoteliers that they have 90 days to develop a compromise framework for workload, and that if they cannot reach a compromise, the Council would adopt a workload provision that could be unsatisfactory to both parties. • Decline to adopt a training and education provision in the hotel workers’ protection ordinance – Given that the sexual harassment, human trafficking and public health training and education components are adequately covered under existing State requirements, Council could opt not to include a provision creating Santa Monica-specific training requirements, and City lodging businesses and associations would continue to be required to stay in compliance with State regulation. Financial Impacts Should Council choose to adopt a civil enforcement model, there is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. Should Council choose to adopt a City enforcement model, City staff will return to Council with specific budget action at a later date to obtain approval for onboarding additional Code Enforcement Officers and establish a fee structure pertaining to Code violations. Additionally, should Council adopt the staff recommendation for the City to serve as oversight agency for a public housekeeping training program, staff will assess the administrative impacts and return to Council if budget adjustments are necessary. 13 of 13 Prepared By: Helen Yu, Management Fellow Approved Forwarded to Council Attachments: A. CMO - Ordinance - Hotel Worker Protection - 08.27.2019 B. Commission on the Status of Women Letter C. Hotel Worker Safety Ordinance Council Information Item D. Comparative Matrix E. Written Comments F. Written Comments G. Powerpoint Presentation 1 City Council Meeting: August 27, 2019 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS) (City Council Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADOPTING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 4.67 TO ENHANCE PROTECTION OF HOTEL WORKERS IN THE LOCAL HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY WHEREAS, by letter dated September 13, 2018, the Commission on the Status of Women requested the City Council of the City of Santa Monica to adopt legislation to protect hotel workers from physical violence, provide them fair compensation, and require education and training to enable hotel workers to protect their own rights and safety as well as public health and safety; and WHEREAS, on October 23, 2018, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance for Council consideration based on all of the elements included in the Commission on the Status of Women’s letter; and WHEREAS, on August 13, 2019, the City Council directed staff to include a worker retention policy in the ordinance prepared for Council consideration; and WHEREAS, other cities in California and other states have adopted local legislation to protect the safety and security and improve working conditions of hotel employees within their respective jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, hotel workers are vital contributors to the Santa Monica community and the hospitality industry is an essential component of the City’s economy; and 2 WHEREAS, hotel workers who work by themselves in guest rooms are vulnerable to crimes and other threatening behavior, including sexual assault; and WHEREAS, ensuring that hotel workers are equipped with personal security devices and supported in their ability to report criminal and threatening behavior to the proper authorities will promote their personal safety and improve public safety overall; and WHEREAS, hotel workers are subject to being assigned overly burdensome workloads and unexpected overtime; and WHEREAS, ensuring that hotel workers receive fair compensation when their work assignments exceed proscribed limits will promote the public interest and enable hotel workers to receive fair pay for honest work, to perform their work in a manner that adequately protects their personal wellbeing, and to meet personal and family obligations; and WHEREAS, changes in ownership, control, or operation of hotels occur frequently in the hotel industry and can trigger mass layoffs of hotel workers and displace employees who are skilled, knowledgeable, and experienced in providing a safe, clean, and enjoyable experience for the millions of visitors who come to Santa Monica each year; and WHEREAS, ensuring that hotel workers have an opportunity to continue working for a hotel upon change in hotel ownership, control, or operation will prevent both unnecessary disruption to the labor market and increased demands on social services provided by the City, and thereby maintain the stability and high level of service in the hospitality and tourism businesses in the City, which promotes the public welfare; and 3 WHEREAS, hotel workers are uniquely positioned to identify and report potential threats or crimes, including potential instances of human trafficking, domestic and sexual violence, and the presence of suspicious materials that may be linked to other potential criminal activity; and WHEREAS, thorough housekeeping services are essential to preventing and avoiding the spread of disease and pests that pose potential risks to public health and the enjoyment of guests; and WHEREAS, ensuring that hotel workers are provided with adequate training and education to establish a baseline level of knowledge on key issues affecting the public and their own wellbeing will ensure that hotel workers and visitors alike have safe and healthy experiences during their time in Santa Monica; and WHEREAS, given that tourism is one of the largest industries in the City and in the entire region, establishing the foregoing safety and security measures, fair compensation, workforce stability, training and education, and worker retention standards for hotel workers will not only improve worker safety and working conditions, but also benefit the local and regional economy overall, and thereby promote the public health, safety, and welfare. 4 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.67 is hereby adopted to read as follows: Chapter 4.67 HOTEL WORKER PROTECTION 4.67.010 Definitions. As used in this chapter: (a) “Additional bed room” means a guest room with an additional bed or beds other than those regularly with in the guest room, such as a cot or rollaway bed. (b) “Adverse employment action” means an action that detrimentally and materially affects the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. (c) “Affected hotel” means: (1) in the event of a change in control as defined in (c)(1) below, the hotel or discrete portion of the hotel that has been the subject of the change in control and remains in operation following the chance in control ; or (2) in the event of a change in control as defined in (c)(2) below, the hotel that remains in operation following the change in control of that hotel. (d) “Change in control" means (1) any sale, assignment, transfer, contribution, or other disposition of all or substantially all of the assets used in the operation of a hotel or a discrete portion of the hotel that continues in operation as a hotel; or (2) a controlling interest (including by consolidation, merger, or reorganization) of a hotel employer or any person who controls a hotel employer. For purposes of this chapter, a change in control shall be defined to occur on the date of execution of the document effectuating the change in control. 5 (e) “Checkout room” means a guest room to be cleaned by a hotel worker due to the departure of the guest assigned to that room. (f) “City” means the City of Santa Monica. (g) “Eligible hotel worker” means a hotel worker employed by an incumbent hotel employer at the time of a change in control and who has been so employed for at least two months prior to the change in control. (h) “Emergency” means an immediate threat to public safety or of substantial risk of property loss or destruction. (i) “Guest” means a registered guest of a hotel, a person occupying a guest room with a registered guest, or a visitor invited to a guest room by a registered guest or other person occupying a guest room. (j) “Guest room” means any room or suite of rooms intended to be used by a guest of a hotel for sleeping purposes. (k) “Hotel” means an establishment that provides temporary lodging in the form of overnight accommodations in guest rooms to transient patrons who maintain a permanent place of residence elsewhere for payment for periods of 30 consecutive calendar days or less, and may prov ide additional services, such as conference and meeting rooms, restaurants, bars, or recreation facilities available to guests or to the general public. “Hotel” includes motor lodges, motels, apartment hotels, and tourist courts meeting the definition set forth above. “Hotel” also includes any contracted, leased or sublet premises operated in conjunction with a hotel or that is used for the primary purpose of providing services at a hotel. “Hotel” does not include a hostel, which is a lodging facility primarily characterized by dormitory-style accommodations, shared 6 bathrooms, and reservations of beds rather than rooms . “Hotel” also does not include corporate housing, rooming houses, boarding houses, or private residential clubs, single - room occupancy housing, vacation rentals, or bed and breakfast establishments within a single-unit residence. (l) “Hotel employer” means any person who owns, controls, or operates a hotel in the City, and includes any person or contractor acting as an agent of a hotel employer in a managerial, supervisory, or confidential capacity. (m) “Hotel worker” means any person who is employed by a hotel employer to provide services at a hotel. “Hotel worker” does not include a managerial, supervisory or confidential employee. (n) “Hotel worker retention period” means the period of time beginning on the date of a change in control and extending to 90 days from the first date that an affected hotel is open to the public after a change in control. (o) “Incumbent hotel employer” means a hotel employer who owns, controls, or operates a hotel prior to a change in control of the hotel or of a discrete portion of the hotel that continues to operate as a hotel after the change in control. (p) “Personal security device” means a portable emergency contact device , including but not limited to a panic button, that is designed so that a hotel worker can quickly and easily activate such device to summon to the hotel worker’s location prompt assistance by a hotel security officer, manager or supervisory hotel staff member designated by a hotel employer. (q) “Room attendant” means a hotel worker whose principal duties are to clean and put in order guest rooms in a hotel. 7 (r) “Successor hotel employer” means a hotel employer who owns, controls, or operates a hotel after a change in control. (s) “Violent or threatening conduct” means: (1) any con duct that involves the use of physical violence or that would reasonably be interpreted as conveying a threat of the use of physical violence, and includes but is not limited to rape, assault (including sexual assault), and battery (including sexual batter y), as defined by the California Penal Code, as well as any threat or attempt to commit such an act; or (2) any sexual conduct, or solicitation to engage in sexual conduct, directed by a guest at a hotel worker without the consent of the hotel worker and includes, but is not limited to, indecent exposure as defined by the California Penal Code. (t) “Workday” means any consecutive 24-hour period commencing at the same time each calendar day. 4.67.020 Measures to protect hotel workers from violent or threatening conduct. (a) Personal security devices. (1) A hotel employer shall provide a personal security device to each hotel worker assigned to work in a guest room or restroom facility where other hotel employees are not present in the guest room or restroom facility. The personal security device shall be provided at no cost to the hotel worker. (2) A hotel worker may activate a personal security device whenever a hotel worker reasonably believes that violent or threatening conduct or an emergency is occurring in the hotel worker’s presence. Immediately prior to or upon activating the device, the hotel worker may cease work and leave the immediate area of danger to await assistance. No hotel worker shall be subject to 8 an adverse employment action for activating a personal security device or for ceasing work to await assistance absent clear and convincing evidence that the hotel worker knowingly and intentionally made a false claim of emergency. (3) A hotel employer shall assign a security guard, manager or supervisory hotel staff member to provide immediate on-scene assistance in the event that a personal security device is activated. (b) Hotel w orkers’ rights. A hotel worker who brings to the attention of a hotel employer violent or threatening conduct by a hotel guest shall be afforded the following rights: (1) A hotel employer shall immediately allow a hotel worker sufficient paid time to report the violent or threatening conduct to a law enforcement agency and to consult with a counselor or advisor of the hotel worker’s choice. (2) A hotel employer shall not prevent, or attempt to prevent, a hotel worker from reporting violent or threatening conduct to a law enforcement agency. (3) A hotel employer shall not take or threaten to take any adverse employment action against a hotel worker based on the hotel worker’s decision not to report violent or threatening conduct to a law enforcement agency. (4) Upon request by a hotel worker, a hotel employer shall provide reasonable accommodations to a hotel worker who has been subjected to violent or threatening conduct. Reasonable accommodations may include, but are not limited to, a modified work schedule, reassignment to a vacant position, or other reasonable adjustment to job structure, workplace facility, or work requirements. 9 (c) Notice. A hotel employer shall place on the back of the entrance door to each guest room and restroom facility in a hotel a sign written in a font size of no less than 18 points, that includes the heading “The Law Protects Hotel Workers From Threatening Behavior,” provides a citation to this chapter of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, and notifies guests that the hotel employer provides personal security devices to its employees. (d) Training. A hotel employer shall provide training to its hotel workers regarding how to use and maintain a personal security device , the hotel employer’s protocol for responding to activation of a personal security device , and the rights of hotel workers and obligations of the hotel employer as set forth in this section. Such training shall be provided to hotel workers on the later of the effective date of this chapter or within one month of the hotel worker’s date of hire. 4.67.030 Measures to provide fair compensation for w orkload. (a) Workload limitation. A hotel employer shall not require a room attendant to clean rooms amounting to a total of more than 4,000 square feet of floor space in any workday, unless the hotel employer pays the room attendant one and a half times the room attendant’s regular rate of pay for each and every hour worked during the workday. If a room attendant works less than eight hours in a workday, the maximum floor space set forth in this subsection shall be reduced on a prorated basis. If a room attendant is assigned to clean seven or more checkout or additional bed rooms during a workday, each such checkout or additional bed room shall for purposes of this subsection count as 500 square feet, regardless of the actual square footage of each room. The limitations contained herein apply to any combination of spaces, including guest rooms , meeting 10 rooms, and other rooms within the hotel, and apply regardless of the furniture, equipment, or amenities in such rooms. (b) Voluntary overtime. A hotel employer shall not require or permit a hotel worker to work more than 10 hours in a workday unless the hotel worker consents in writing to do so. A hotel worker’s consent shall not be valid unless the hotel employer has advised the hotel worker in writing seven days prior to the hotel worker’s consent that the hotel worker may decline to work more than 10 hours in a workday and that the hotel employer will not subject the hotel worker to any adverse employment action for declining to work more than 10 hours in a workday. This subsection shall not apply in the event of an emergency. (c) Preservation of records. Each hotel employer shall maintain for at least two years a record of each room attendant’s name, rate of pay, pay received, rooms cleaned or total square footage cleaned for each workday, overtime hours worked for each workday, and any written consents provided pursuant to subdivision (b) above. A hotel employer shall make these records available for inspection and copying to any hotel worker or hotel worker’s employee representative, except that the names and other personally identifying information of individual hotel wo rkers shall be redacted except to the extent that the records identify the hotel worker who is making the request. 4.67.040 Notice of change in control. (a) Within five days of a change in control, a successor hotel employer shall post written notice of the change in control at the location of the affected hotel. This written notice shall remain posted during any closure of the affected hotel and for six months following the first date on which the affected hotel is open to the public under 11 the successor hotel employer. (b) This written notice shall include, but not be limited to, the name and contact information of the incumbent hotel employer, the name and contact information of the successor hotel employer, and the effective date of the change in control. (c) This written notice shall be posted in a conspicuous place at the affected hotel and shall be readily visible to eligible hotel workers, other employees, and applicants for employment. 4.67.050 Hotel w orker retention. (a) Within 15 days of a change in control, an incumbent hotel employer shall provide a successor hotel employer with a list of eligible hotel workers. This list shall include the name, date of hire, and job classification of each eligible hotel worker. A successor hotel employer shall be required to maintain and hire from this list during the hotel worker retention period. (b) A successor hotel employer shall, during the hotel worker retention period, offer each eligible hotel worker employment for no less than 90 days, except that: (1) A successor hotel employer shall not be required to offer employment to an eligible hotel worker if the successor hotel employer has reasonable and substantiated cause not to retain that eligible hotel worker based on that eligible hotel worker’s individual performance or conduct while employed by the incumbent hotel employer; and (2) If a successor hotel employer determines during the hotel worker retention period that it requires fewer hotel workers than were required by the incumbent hotel employer, the successor hotel employer shall retain eligible hotel 12 workers pursuant to the terms of a relevant collective bargaining agreement, if any, or by seniority and experience within each job classification to the extent that comparable job classifications exist. (c) An eligible hotel worker retained pursuant to this section shall be employed under terms and conditions established by the successor hotel employer as required by law and shall not be discharged except for good cause based on individual performance or conduct. (d) An offer of employment made pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be made in writing and shall remain open for at least ten business days from the date of the offer. (e) A successor hotel employer shall retain written verification of each offer of employment made pursuant to subdivision (b). This verification shall include the name, address, date of hire, and job classification of the eligible hotel worker to whom the offer was made. A successor hotel employer shall retain th e required verification for no less than three years from the date the offer is made. (f) At the end of the hotel worker retention period, a successor hotel employer shall provide each hotel worker retained pursuant to this section with a written performance evaluation. If the hotel worker’s performance was satisfactory, the successor hotel employer shall consider o ffering the hotel worker continued employment under the terms and conditions established by the successor hotel employer and as required by law. A successor hotel employer shall retain the written performance evaluation required under this subsection for no less than three years from the date it is issued. 13 (g) The rights to retention set forth in this section do not apply to any managerial, supervisory, or confidential employee and do not include the right to retain any supervisory or management responsibility. 4.67.060 Public housekeeping training. (a) The City manager, or designee, shall establish a process whereby an organization may become certified by the City as a “Public Housekeeping Training Organization.” (b) In order to become certified as a Public Housekeeping Training Organization, an organization shall meet requirements set forth by the City manager, or designee, that shall include but not be limited to the following: (1) A Public Housekeeping Training Organization must have experience providing training to hotel workers or immigrant low-wage workers, utilize interactive teaching strategies that engage across multiple literacy levels , and provide trainers and educators who are culturally competent and fluent in the language or languages that hotel workers understand. (2) A Public Housekeeping Training Organization shall offer a “Public Housekeeping Training Program” that includes no less than six hours of training, including live and interactive instruction, on the following elements, except that the City manager, or designee, may determine that any element below is separately and sufficiently required by State or local law, in which case the element may be eliminated and the total training time reduced accordingly: (A) hotel worker rights and hotel employer responsibilities under this chapter and Chapter 4.63 of this Code; 14 (B) best practices for identifying and responding to suspected instances of human trafficking, domestic violence, or violent or threatening conduct; (C) best practices for effective cleaning techniques to prevent the spread of disease; (D) best practices for identifying and avoiding insect or vermin infestations; and (E) best practices for identifying and responding to the presence of other potential criminal activity. (3) A Public Housekeeping Training Organization may coordinate with a hotel employer to ensure that training content aligns where appropriate with the hotel employer’s policies and procedures. Ultimate discretion regarding training content shall remain with the Public Housekeeping Training Organization, subject to requirements set forth by the City manager, or designee. (4) A Public Housekeeping Training Orga nization shall administer a “Public Housekeeping Examination” to hotel workers who complete its training program. The Public Housekeeping Examination shall test basic proficiency in the required training elements. (5) A Public Housekeeping Training Organization shall promptly issue a “Public Housekeeping Certificate” to any person who successfully completes its Public Housekeeping Training Program and Public Housekeeping Examination. A Public Housekeeping Certificate shall be valid for a period of five years. 15 (6) A Public Housekeeping Training Organization shall offer a right of review to an individual who completes the Public Housekeeping Training Program but does not successfully complete the Public Housekeeping Examination. (c) A hotel employer shall contract with a certified Public Housekeeping Training Organization to, no less than annually, conduct a Public Housekeeping Training Program, administer a Public Housekeeping Examination, and issue a Public Housekeeping Certificate to each person who has successfully completed the Public Housekeeping Training Program and Public Housekeeping Examination. A hotel employer shall document compliance with the training requirement set forth in this section by completing and signing a form as required by the City to certify that the training was conducted. A Public Housekeeping Training Organization that provides such a training shall submit a report to the City within five days of the training to document the date on which the training was held and the names of all hotel workers who received Public Housekeeping Certificates. (d) No hotel employer shall employ a hotel worker to work as a room attendant for more than 120 days unless the hotel worker presents the hotel employer with a valid Public Housekeeping Certificate. This subsection shall become effective one year from the effective date of this chapter. (e) Each hotel employer shall retain records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with this section, including a copy of a valid Public Housekeeping Certificate for each hotel worker then assigned to work as a room attendant. 16 4.67.070 Limited waiver for certain hotel employers. (a) The City manager, or designee, shall grant a waiver from the requirements of this chapter to any hotel employer who demonstrates that compliance with this chapter would require the hotel employer, in order to avoid bankruptcy or a shutdown of the hotel employer’s hotel, to reduce its workforce by more than 20 percent or curtail its hotel workers’ total hours by more than 30 percent. The City manager, or designee, shall grant such a waiver only after reviewing a hotel employer’s financial condition at the hotel employer’s expense. A waiver granted under this section shall be valid for no more than one year. A determination by the City manager, or designee, to grant or deny a request for waiv er under this section may be appealed to a hearing examiner pursuant to Chapter 6.16 of this Code. (b) Prior to submitting a waiver application pursuant to this section, a hotel employer shall provide written notice of the waiver application to all hotel workers employed by the hotel employer. Within three days of receiving a waiver determination from the City manager, or designee, under this section, a hotel employer shall provide written notice of the determination to all hotel workers employed by the hotel employer . 17 4.67.080 Notice. A hotel employer shall provide written notice of the hotel workers’ rights set forth in this chapter to each hotel worker at the time of hire or on the effective date of this chapter, whichever is later. Such written notice shall be provided in English, Spanish and any other language spoken by five percent or more of the hotel workers employed by the hotel employer. 4.67.090 Retaliatory action prohibited. No person shall take an adverse employment action against a hotel worker for exercising rights protected under this chapter. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that an adverse employment action taken against a hotel worker within 90 days of the hotel worker’s exercise of rights under this chapter was taken in retaliation for the exercise of such rights. 4.67.100 Administrative regulations. The City manager, or designee, is authorized to adopt administrative regulations that are consistent with and in furtherance of the provisions of this chapter. Violations of the administrative regulations adopted pursuant to this section shall constitute violations of this chapter and shall subject the violator to the penalties set forth in this chapter. 4.67.110 Supersession by collective bargaining agreement. The provisions of sections 4.67.030, 4.67.040, and 4.67.050, or any part thereof, may be waived pursuant to a bona fide collective bargaining agreement, but o nly if the waiver is expressly set forth in clear and unambiguous written terms. Neither party to a collective bargaining relationship may waive or supersede any provision of this chapter by means of unilaterally imposed terms and conditions of employment. 18 4.67.120 Civil remedies. (a) Civil action. The City or any aggrieved person may enforce the provisions of this chapter by means of a civil action. (b) Injunction. Any person who commits an act, proposes to commit an act, or engages in any pattern or practice that violates this chapter may be enjoined therefrom by a court of competent jurisdiction. An action for injunction under this subsection may be brought by any aggrieved person, by the City Attorney, or by any person or entity who will fairly and adequately represent the interests of an aggrieved person or persons. (c) Damages and penalties. Any person who violates the provisions of this chapter is liable for any actual damages suffered by any aggrieved person or for statutory damages up to the amount of $100 per aggrieved person per day, except that statutory damages for failure to maintain records shall not exceed $1,000 per day in total. For willful violations, the amount of monies and penalties to be paid under this sub section shall be trebled. (d) Attorneys’ fees and costs. In a civil action brought under this section, the court may, at its discretion, award the prevailing party reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert witness fees. (e) Cumulative remedies. The remedies set forth in this chapter are cumulative. Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted as restricting, precluding, or otherwise limiting a separate or concurrent criminal prosecution under th is Code or State law. 4.67.130 Effective date. This chapter shall become effective on January 1, 2020. 19 SECTION 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsec tion, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 3. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the pas sage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ LANE DILG City Attorney (1t y of Sa ■ta Me ■lea• Commission on the Status of Women 1685 Main Street PO BOX 2200 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Honorable Ted Winterer Santa Monica City Council 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Dear Mayor Winterer and City Councilmembers : September 13, 2018 The City of Santa Monica Commission on the Status of Women , by means of this letter, respectfully requests that City Counci l consider introducing common sense legislation designed to protect hotel room attendants from all forms of sexual violence (harassment, abuse and assault), and overly burdensome workloads , and implementation of education and training with regards to identification of human trafficking . We ask that these workers (the majority of whom are women of color or immigrants) have protections in place to ensure that they can perform their jobs without fear of any form of retaliation . Within hotels nationwide , hotel workers and , in particular, women who work as housekeepers /room attendants are all too often vulnerable to sexual violence by hotel guests. In addition , they are frequently assigned overly burdensome room cleaning quotas and unexpected overtime, which have a serious impact on their ability to perform their work in a proper and thorough manner. As hotel workers and hotel guests can come into contact with highly contagious and infectious diseases (including rhinovirus germs and Legionnaire's disease), it is critical that rooms and public areas be cleaned , sanitized , and maintained to the highest standards possible . The Commission feels it is incumbent for the City to adopt legislation th at includes the following components to protect workers and hotel guests alike : • Protection for workers from all forms of sexual violence by providing panic buttons and other measures to enable workers to report misconduct and remove themselves from dangerous situations with out fear of retaliation . • Provisions to ensure workers are compensated fairly when they are required to perform unreasonable workloads and protections against mandatory overtime . • Required training for hotel housekeepers/room attendants to ensure that workers have the knowledge and skills to both protect their own rig hts and safety, as well as their unique roles to help protect pub lic health and safety. • Required education and training to identify potential instances of human trafficking , domestic violence , and sexual violence. In ask ing City Council to introduce this common sense le gis lation , it is important to note that similar hotel health and safety laws and initiatives have been implemented in cities such as Seattle, New York , Las Vegas and Chicago . Chicago and Eme ryville have also passed laws addressi ng housekeeper workloads. With the support from UNITE HERE Local 11 and a number of community organiza ti ons , similar reforms through ballot measures are being considered in Long Beach and Palos Verdes. Our request is that the City of Santa Monica consider similar action. With these protections in place , Santa Monica will be able to take an important step to further. ensure the everyday safety of women hotel workers and guests in our city. Siniily, l iPf.;;: Chai r City of Santa Monica Comm ission on the Status of Women 1 Date: August 8, 2019 To: Mayor and City Council From: Anuj Gupta, Deputy City Manager / Director of Policy Subject: Analysis of hotel housekeeper safety protections, overtime compensation and required training for human trafficking, sexual and domestic violence, and public health and safety Introduction Santa Monica has long been at the forefront of both supporting the visitor industry that is a key part of our local economy as well as promoting the wellbeing and rights of the workers in our hotels and restaurants. In October 2017, the advocacy efforts of the #MeToo movement rose to prominence, spurring national conversations around protecting workers from sexual harassment and assault in the workplace. The #MeToo movement has touched almost every industry, bringing increased pressure to policy- making bodies to adopt legislation to protect employees in various sectors from workplace harassment and assault. With over eight million visitors annually, 41 hotels and motels anchor Santa Monica’s robust tourism industry, employing about 2,100 hotel housekeepers. As the national discussion around protecting individuals from sexual assault and harassment in the workplace continues, the City of Santa Monica’s Commission on the Status of Women (COSW) spearheaded efforts to bring a hotel housekeepers’ safety policy on the local level that is in line with policies adopted in other cities such as Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle and Chicago. Last October, the Santa Monica City Council (Council) unanimously directed City staff to prepare a draft ordinance on hotel worker safety for consideration and adoption. Staff Information Item 2 anticipates introducing an ordinance for first reading at the August 27, 2019 meeting. In preparation for the meeting, staff has prepared this information item to frame the key issues as well as preview staff perspectives and frame the community dialogue and feedback since Council directed staff to develop the ordinance. This approach of releasing a Council Information Item in advance of Council presentation helped preview staff perspectives and frame the community dialogue and feedback when Council considered a proposal to change “labor peace” language in City leases in 2018. Background On June 13, 2018, representatives of hospitality union UNITE HERE! Local 11 (Local 11) presented to the COSW on the policies and services related to hospitality worker protection, including a set of recommendations and possible action the City of Santa Monica (City) could adopt to support their advocacy efforts. Following the meeting, COSW’s Health and Safety ad hoc committee drafted a letter based on Local 11’s recommendations and submitted the letter to the Council in September 2018 (Attachment A). At the October 23, 2018 City Council meeting, COSW Chair Sylvia Ghazarian presented the Commission’s recommendation to advocate for a policy change designed to protect hotel housekeepers from sexual harassment, abuse and assault and from overly burdensome workloads. Council voted unanimously to direct City staff to draft an ordinance incorporating each of the following four components recommended to the Council: 1. Protection for hotel housekeepers from all forms of sexual violence by providing panic buttons and other measures to enable hotel housekeepers to report misconduct and remove themselves from dangerous situations without fear of retaliation. 2. Provisions to ensure hotel housekeepers are compensated fairly when they are required to perform unreasonable workloads and protections against mandatory overtime. 3. Required training for hotel housekeepers to ensure that these employees have the knowledge and skills to both protect their own rights and safety. 4. Required education and training to identify potential instances of human trafficking, domestic violence, sexual violence and public health and safety. 3 The cities of Long Beach, Oakland, Emeryville, and Seattle have adopted similar ordinances through ballot measures approved by voters. The provisions present various challenges and concerns with implementation and enforcement. Since the City would not be the first city to adopt an ordinance related to hotel workers’ safety and workloads, the City has learned from other cities’ efforts to date. Stakeholder Engagement To fully analyze each component of the COSW recommendation and Council direction, City staff engaged with various Santa Monica lodging industry stakeholders including COSW’s ad-hoc committee, Local 11, Santa Monica lodging businesses, Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce and the Hotel Association of Los Angeles. In meetings with City staff, Local 11 emphasized the urgency to adopt local legislation that complements existing state legislation pertaining to hotel housekeepers’ safety and overtime compensation. Meanwhile, the lodging businesses and associations expressed concerns about duplicating state regulations and the industry’s ability to equitably implement a “humane workload” provision, in particular, a square footage maximum. City staff have also kept the COSW ad-hoc committee abreast of the policy development on this issue and intends to present its analysis to the full COSW at its August 14, 2019 meeting in advance of presenting the proposed ordinance to the Council. City staff has consulted with multiple cities with similar ordinances during the research process including Long Beach, Seattle, Emeryville and Oakland to learn about their experiences in implementation and enforcement of their respective ordinances. Discussion To better understand what Santa Monica lodging businesses are already providing in terms of worker safety and training requirements, workload policies and human trafficking, City staff conducted outreach to the businesses and learned the following. 4 The total number of guest rooms per hotel or motel in Santa Monica ranges from as few as 14 and up to 340 guest rooms. The square footage of guest rooms in the City ranges from 150 to 1,350 square feet, depending on whether the accommodation is a single, double or suite. Both points speak to the potential challenge of implementing a “one - size fits all” policy regarding safety and workload requirements for all lodging businesses. To define the composition of the lodging businesses, the chart below outlines the characteristics of hotel properties and the percentage representation of rooms per type of property within the City: Type of Property # of Properties % of Rooms Very Small (under 50 rooms) 17 41% Small (under 100 rooms) 8 20% Medium (101-300 rooms) 13 32% Large (over 300 rooms) 3 7% Total 41 100% Ordinance Components In response to the COSW’s recommendation and Council direction, staff will be presenting recommendations for a local ordinance to the Council on August 27, 2019 to address the following four areas: 1. Hotel housekeeper safety protections 2. Hotel housekeeper workloads and overtime compensation 3. Hotel housekeeper training on personal rights and safety 4. Hotel housekeeper education and training to identify and prevent instances of human trafficking; domestic violence; sexual violence; and public health and safety COSW ordinance component #1: Recommendation to protect hotel workers from all forms of sexual violence via panic buttons and other measures. 5 From 2008-2018, the City has identified at least 29 incidents of hotel employees who reported being the victim of sexual battery, other sex offense, aggravated assault, or other assault. According to Local 11, many housekeepers are women who generally work by themselves in guest rooms and vulnerable to crimes and other threatening behavior, including sexual assault. Requiring hoteliers to provide panic buttons enables hotel housekeepers to protect their safety as well as report or alter threatening conduct or other emergencies. Local 11 is proposing to require all Santa Monica hoteliers to provide an operational panic button to each hotel worker and employ or contract with at least one on-site security guard or other personnel who will be responsible for providing immediate on-scene assistance when a device is activated. A hotel worker may cease work, leave the immediate area and may not be disciplined for their actions under these circumstances. Based on tests with different types of personal safety devices such as noisemakers or safety whistles, Local 11 believes panic buttons are the most effective type of safety device, and that other personal safety devices are not sufficient as they have limited noise projection, prolonging emergency response times. Santa Monica hoteliers have voiced that hotel staff and guest safety is a top priority and according to the hoteliers, worker safety protocol is generally unique to each hotel based on the property configuration, staffing composition and other factors. Based on information collected by City staff, 100 percent of those lodging businesses who responded will have panic buttons installed and sexual harassment training in place by 2020. In September 2018, the American Hotel & Lodging Association announced the 5- Star Promise – “a pledge to provide hotel employees across the U.S. with employee safety devices and commit to enhanced policies, trainings and resources that together are aimed at enhancing hotel safety, including preventing and responding to sexual harassment and assault” – with major hotels brands. By brand affiliation, 25 percent of Santa Monica hotels are part of the 5-Star Promise. Hoteliers utilize Hospitality Technology Next Generation’s Staff Alert Device Buyer’s Guide to assist with identifying the best electronic safety device that meets the needs and requirements for each unique property. 6 A portion of Santa Monica hoteliers have also invested in staff alert personal safety devices; these devices are discreet personal alarms that utilize technology to provide immediate response and minimize disruption. Though more expensive than panic buttons, hoteliers believe staff alert personal safety devices to be more effective than panic buttons in threatening situations. Given the range of personal safety device options, Santa Monica hoteliers raised concerns about limiting the ordinance language to “panic buttons,” which would also prohibit hoteliers from utilizing other safety technology devices. Aside from panic buttons, Santa Monica hoteliers have procedural precautions to help ensure worker safety such as having hotel housekeepers work in teams, protocol for entry and exit including policies to close the door while cleaning and standards for housekeeping cart positioning. Santa Monica hoteliers are also in the process of creating a communication line for all hotels to report threatening behavior when situations arise. Other cities that have adopted panic button provisions in their respective ordinances are the cities of Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle, and Chicago. Each city’s mandate is different; the chart below illustrates their regulations: City Covered Employees Type of Device Lodging Applicability Long Beach All hotel employees assigned to work in a guest room or bathroom without other employees present Panic button All Oakland All hotel employees assigned to work in a guest room or bathroom without other employees present Panic button 50 or more guest rooms Seattle All hotel employees providing in-room services Panic button 50 or more guest rooms Chicago All hotel employees assigned to work in a guest room or rest room where no other employees are present Panic button or notification device 60 or more guest rooms 7 While all Santa Monica hoteliers agree that workplace safety is a top priority, the hoteliers have raised concerns about implementing a policy that specifically requires panic buttons as the type of personal safety device. Small hoteliers who have older properties may not have the infrastructure to support the technology needed to operate and maintain panic button technology. Panic button technology is constantly being updated and typically requires Wi-Fi access throughout a property to properly function; older properties or concrete buildings may not have adequate infrastructure or access. As a result, small hotels may incur additional costs for installation, monitoring and maintenance to install panic button technology. According to the Hotel Association of Los Angeles, the costs of panic buttons vary widely. Estimates for purchasing and installation can run into the six figures depending on the scope of deployment and include varying levels of service and implementation options such as inventory tracking, training, response standards and maintenance. Hotels may also incur additional expenses related to this provision such as adding security personnel to respond to the devices as well as the costs associated with distributing devices to employees beyond their hotel worker staff. Based on the City’s engagement with Santa Monica’s lodging businesses and associations, their concerns would be reduced if given the flexibility to implement a range of personal safety devices. Local 11 has raised doubt as to the effectiveness of other types of personal safety devices and feels strongly that panic buttons are the preferred technological solution. City staff is assessing the following key factors for their recommendation: 1. Requirements for panic buttons or notification devices in other cities that have adopted similar ordinances 2. Concerns raised by each stakeholder 3. Rising trend of the hotel industry to adopt measures to protect hotel workers, including hotel housekeepers, from sexual harassment and assault Based on City staff assessment, Council may consider the following options for the proposed hotel worker safety provision: 8 1. Require Santa Monica hotels to require panic buttons for hotel workers 2. Require Santa Monica hotels to require panic buttons or personal safety devices for hotel workers 3. Do not require Santa Monica hotels to require panic buttons (or personal safety devices) for hotel workers Given the trend in the hotel industry and concerns raised by Santa Monica lodging businesses and associations, City staff is giving consideration to recommending broadened language to address the type of device hoteliers will be required to provide. COSW ordinance component #2: Recommendation to compensate hotel housekeepers fairly when working beyond the standard 8-hour workday or 40-hour work week and establish protections against mandatory overtime. Santa Monica requires that hotel employers pay hotel workers in the City a locally established minimum wage. Regulating compensation for overtime and enforcement of the rules governing overtime rests with Federal and State authorities. Local 11 maintains that hotels avoid paying overtime pursuant to those laws by requiring burdensome workloads within the normal eight-hour workday, which undercuts the goal of the local minimum wage laws adopted by Santa Monica and other cities in Los Angeles County. Local minimum wage laws were enacted to raise take-home pay for workers, not to subject them to unsustainable workload responsibilities that interfere with their ability to meet family and personal obligations. Hotel workers and Local 11 have noted that in certain situations, hotel housekeepers can be assigned room cleaning quotas that create “unreasonable workloads” or require unexpected overtime and assert this has increased since the passage of the minimum wage hikes. They advocate for setting a standard based on square footage to define the limits of a reasonable workload. While this particular standard is not referenced in the COSW recommendation, there are such explicit provisions in the laws adopted by other cities and referenced in Council’s direction to prepare an ordinance. Local 11 is proposing that the City’s ordinance define “humane workload” by setting a maximum square footage cap for a standard workday that is lower than what other cities 9 have enacted. Specifically, they propose that hotel housekeepers clean no more than 3,500 square feet of floorspace in eight hours unless the employer pays the hotel worker twice the regular rate of pay for all hours worked (ordinances in other cities vary on both the thresholds for square footage and the formula for overtime compensation as discussed below). In instances where hotel housekeepers work less than eight-hours a day or are assigned to clean a total number of rooms (instead of square footage), the maximum square footage amount is reduced or prorated. Local 11 also proposes that overtime consent forms for workdays over 10 hours must be received by hotel employers prior to commencing work. In instances where a hotel housekeeper works less than eight hours a day or a hotel assigns workloads by a total number of rooms, the workload should be prorated. According to Local 11, hotels that offer luxury experiences require more time to clean, therefore, the square footage maximum being proposed is lower than those in other cities that have adopted similar ordinances. The union asserts that the clientele Santa Monica hotels cater to are mainly families (with children) and adults on vacation, as opposed to individuals traveling for business or a conference . Additionally, Local 11 advocates that a number of Santa Monica hotels are located adjacent to the beach, which inadvertently attracts sand that guests bring into hotels. These factors increase the amount of time needed to clean a room. These combined factors can lead to what Local 11 defines as an “unreasonable workload.” According to the California Hotel and Lodging Association, the hotel industry manages hotel housekeepers’ workloads through a credit system based on time-motion studies conducted by consultants who monitor the length of time it takes for each cleaning task to be completed. This credit system is the industry standard even in hotels with collective bargaining agreements in place and does not utilize square footage as the mechanism for workload management. Each cleaning task such as a turn down to a full room cleaning is assigned a number of credits and each hotel has a unique credit system due to the differences in hotel room sizes and room type of each hotel. Credits are determined by the intricacy of the room, and total cleaning time is also impacted by the length and purpose of stay. Housekeeping tasks (credits) are assigned daily and 10 equal an eight-hour workday. Moreover, according to the association, hotel housekeepers are eligible for additional compensation should they achieve the assigned number of credits before their shifts ends; in this scenario, hotel housekeepers can clean extra rooms to make additional compensation , up to 25 percent. The credit system distributes work using a methodology based on the hotel property, room cleaning requirements and fluctuating needs of the day. In City staff’s meetings with Santa Monica lodging businesses and associations, no hotel expressed problems with the credit system, and the industry maintained its position that the system distributes workload in a more equitable way than a square footage system. Because, however, each hotel’s specific conditions differ, the credit systems do as well, making a single workload standard based on a credit system potentially arbitrary, and arguably even more difficult to enforce equitably than a square footage requirement. In the areas of overtime and overtime compensation, Santa Monica hoteliers state that they do not schedule overtime unless necessary, and the State of California regulates overtime pay. All businesses must pay their employees at a rate of 1.5 times the hourly rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of eight hours (and up to 12 hours) in a single workday. All hours worked in excess of 12 hours constitutes double time, and employers must compensate their employees double their regular rate of pay. According to the Santa Monica lodging businesses, there is no industry standard as to how hoteliers manage overtime assignments but typically overtime is offered to housekeepers based on their seniority with consent given verbally. If hoteliers do not have hotel housekeepers willing to accept overtime assignments, other hotel employees may be asked to clean rooms or uncleaned rooms will not be utilized. According to the California Hotel and Lodging Association, written consent for overtime is a concern due to employee privacy issues. The cities of Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle, and Emeryville have adopted a maximum square footage provision and compensation provision above State requirements in thei r respective ordinances. Below is a chart indicating the square footage maximums per city and overtime rates. In each of these cities’ ordinances, the overtime compensation rate applies to all hours worked that particular day. 11 City Maximum Square Footage Overtime Compensation Rate Long Beach 4,000 2x Oakland 4,000 2x Seattle 5,000 1.5x Emeryville 5,000 1.5x According to the Santa Monica lodging businesses and associations, mandating a square footage maximum is problematic and can cause potential secondary impacts for hoteliers, housekeepers, and the City. Such challenges include strains on operations, unintended consequences related to hotel housekeepers’ employee status and benefits , possible reductions in overall hotel profitability an d City tax revenue. The City’s hoteliers verbalized concerns regarding the square footage maximum that are similar to what the cities of Long Beach, Emeryville and Oakland are currently facing. There is ambiguity over defining “cleanable space” and how to factor in hallways, meeting rooms, lobby spaces and other non-guest room areas. for purposes of calculating the maximum cap. The biggest question Santa Monica hoteliers have raised is around implementation and how to interpret how the standards apply since similar ordinances do not specify how to calculate square footage. Based on a report from the Hotel Association of Los Angeles, hotel managers in Long Beach and Oakland report having to spend several more hours per day assigning and reassigning cleaning duties, including switching in supervisors and cleaning assistants to help reduce the numbers of rooms assigned to housekeepers. According to the lodging industry, implementing a square footage maximum may also result in the loss of full-time employee status for hotel housekeepers. Hoteliers have stated concerns that their housekeepers will reach the square footage maximum in less than eight hours of work and, as such, they will either have to send the housekeepers home, incur overtime costs if staff is available or use alternative staffing approaches. As a result, many hoteliers articulated concern that their full-time housekeepers may become part-time employees and lose their benefits if they are unable to maintain a 40- hour work week with a square footage cap. Furthermore, they contend that if this group 12 of employees is relegated to part-time work, it will be very difficult to find additional housekeepers given the tight labor market and arduous commute to Santa Monica. Hoteliers have stated that they will likely need to employ temporary staffing agencies to augment their labor force. These concerns are further stressed by the inherent lack of consistency at staffing agencies, which requires hoteliers to frequently onboard and retrain new temporary hires. There could be hoteliers who may elect to keep rooms unfilled if they are unable to resolve the staffing issues. Additional concerns expressed include a disruption of morale and threat to employee retention if there is a loss of full - time employment and benefits and a disruption to the long-standing practice of room credit distribution of workload and opportunity of overtime pay. According to Santa Monica lodging businesses and lodging associations, the hotel industry is inherently incentivized to provide housekeepers reasonable workloads to retain employees and ensure room cleanliness. They also maintain that since “unreasonable workloads” can lead to workplace injuries, which can be expensive to address and disrupts the day-to- day flow at hotels, they already face significant financial disincentives for placing those burdens on workers. The State of California does not define what is considered to be a “unreasonable workload.” However, overtime is regulated by the State’s Department of Industrial Relations; the general overtime regulation states, “a nonexempt employee […] shall not be employed more than eight hours in any workday or more than 40 hours in any workweek unless he or she receives one and one-half times his or her regular rate of pay for all hours worked over eight hours in any workday and over 40 hours in the workweek.” The Santa Monica City Council adopted the Hotel Worker Living Wage ordinance on January 26, 2016, which stipulates that as of July 1, 2017, and annually thereafter, the hourly wage shall match the hourly wage set for Hotel Workers in the City of Los Angeles. For hotel employees, which includes housekeepers, this living wage currently stands at $16.63 an hour. Many Santa Monica hoteliers state that they already pay their housekeepers above the hotel minimum wage. Conversely, Local 11 contends that their overtime proposal is complementary to State law by protecting hotel housekeepers from instances where 13 their employers may increase the cleaning workload within an 8-hour shift to avoid paying overtime. They maintain that the provision complements the City’s minimum wage law in ensuring that workers are paid fairly and not overworked. Additionally, Local 11 contends that Santa Monica hotels are wealthier in comparison to cities such as Long Beach and Oakland (based on much higher average room rates and revenue), and that hoteliers can thus afford to pay their workers more or hire more employees if they decide to employ a workforce to clean floor space under the proposed 3,500 square feet threshold. Local 11 has further proposed a limited waiver from workload requirements for any hotel employer that demonstrates that compliance with the proposed workload provisions would require it to reduce its workforce by more than twenty percent or curtail its hotel workers’ total hours by more than thirty percent in order to avoid bankruptcy or a shutdown of the employer’s hotel. Under the City’s Minimum Wage Ordinance, the City includes the following statement on its website: “The State of California, the City and County of Los Angeles, and other jurisdictions also have minimum wage laws. Santa Monica employers must comply with all relevant laws. Where requirements conflict, the employer must follow the law with that is most generous to employees.” However, it should be noted that the hotel worker overtime provision has created a burden on staff capacity for the cities of Oakland and Emeryville. City of Oakland staff have reported the need to develop administrative standards to reduce the ambiguity on how hotels should calculate square footage and work closely with the State to enforce and align both State and local laws to avoid any potential issues of duplication. City of Emeryville staff have also found the fair compensation provision challenging to implement; the city has had to hire a third-party consultant to investigate complaints from hotels about the ambiguity of calculating square footage. Voluntary overtime procedures would also need to be defined. The cities of Long Beach, Seattle, Oakland and Emeryville all define voluntary overtime procedures in their ordinances including measures in place to secure and document employee consent. City staff is assessing the following key factors for their recommendation: 14 1. Policy implications of using a daily square footage maximum to define “humane workload” 2. Square footage maximums in other cities that have adopted similar ordinances 3. Arguments laid out by each stakeholder as to the equity and efficacy of the respective position in relation to the Council’s direction 4. Impact on City resources and staff capacity to regulate and enforce workload standards and penalties for exceeding them City staff will analyze the following models for the proposed “humane workload” provision: 1. Adopt a “humane workload” definition that generally mirrors the ordinances of other cities – setting a daily square footage cap of 4,000 or 5,000 square feet of cleaning space per hotel housekeeper and 1.5x or 2x overtime compensation rate for all hours worked when the maximum square footage threshold is exceeded 2. Adopt a “humane workload” definition that requires hotels to implement a daily square footage cap of 3,500 square feet of cleaning space per hotel housekeepers and 2x overtime compensation rate for all hours worked when the maximum square footage threshold is exceeded as advocated by Local 11 3. Adopt a “humane workload” definition that does not utilize square footage for workload management and instead is based on the industry credit system. To date, neither Local 11 nor the lodging industry has proposed a viable method for developing such a model. 4. Do not adopt a “humane workload” provision due to the difficulties inherent in interpreting and enforcing a single square footage standard across varying hotel conditions and situations, as demonstrated in other cities with such provisions. Since the square footage standard is incorporated into the provisions of the four cities with such legislation, staff will give strong consideration to recommending similar standards and language for Santa Monica’s ordinance.1 COSW ordinance component #3 and #4: Recommendation to require training and education for hotel housekeepers in the following areas: protection of own rights, public 1 Staff notes that lodging businesses and associations have argued that a workload provision based on square footage maximum is preempted by State law, in that worker health and safety is within the sole jurisdiction of Cal/OSHA. Preemption challenges to similar hotel worker legislation in Emeryville and Oakland were found not applicable. A similar case in Long Beach currently remains pending. 15 health and safety; human trafficking; domestic violence; and sexual violence. The COSW recommended these training provisions because housekeepers should have a basic level of knowledge on key issues affecting their safety and wellbeing, as well as a working knowledge of the policy implications and protections put in place by this ordinance. Training ensures that hotel housekeepers can effectively respond to and be educated in the provisions set forth as result of ordinance adoption. The chart below provides a summary of what areas of training are already mandated by the State . STATE MANDATED Cal/OSHA: Musculoskeletal Injury Prevention Program (MIPP) (2018) Senate Bill 970 (2018) Assembly Bill 1825 (2004) Assembly Bill 1343 (2018) Safety Requires annual workplace safety training, specific to housekeeping Public Health Required training to protect from bloodborne pathogens Human Trafficking Requires 20 minutes of human trafficking training/education once every two years Sexual and Domestic Violence Requires sexual harassment training for supervisors every two years Requires sexual harassment training for supervisory (2 hrs.) and non- supervisory (1 hr.) positions for employers with over five employees by 1/1/20 16 According to Local 11, housekeepers are uniquely positioned to identify and report potential threats or crimes, including instances of human trafficking, domestic and sexual violence and presence of suspicious materials that may be linked to terrorist activity. Local 11 believes that because the City has an interest in protecting public health of all visitors and ensuring all Santa Monica hotel employees are apprised of their rights, the City should contract with a training organization to design and provide training, deemed a “Public Housekeeping Training Program,” in the following areas: 1. Hotel Worker rights and Hotel Employer responsibilities under this Chapter of the Santa Monica Municipal Code 2. Best practices for identifying insect or vermin infestations 3. Best practices for effective cleaning techniques to prevent the spread of disease 4. Best practices for identifying and reporting suspicious materials that could be used for terrorist activity 5. Best practices for identifying and reporting suspected instances of human trafficking, domestic violence or sexual violence or assault Local 11’s proposal states that the Public Housekeeping Training Program must include an examination and certification component. There are three primary reasons why Local 11 is advocating for the City to be the administrator (through a contracted organization) of the hotel worker training program instead of the hotels. Local 11 believes there should be a common baseline of knowledge in the key areas listed above among hotel room attendants working within the City, whereas if this responsibility were left with each individual hotel employer, it would result in training that is inconsistent in both content and quality. Additionally, a splintered approach would fail to establish the standardized baseline of knowledge this provision is intended to establish. Second, Local 11 believes there is a conflict of interest due to hoteliers having little incentive to empower their employees to hold them accountable, and workers are not likely to feel comfortable speaking up and participating in a training led by their employers (or t heir employers' agents) about holding management accountable. Third, the proposed training topics require subject matter experts and hoteliers may not necessarily possess the expertise needed to execute or contract for such trainings. Based on previous experiences, Local 11 maintains that the training provided by hotels to their employees 17 often leaves much to be desired in terms of thoroughness and presentation – and that the specifics in Local 11’s proposed public housekeeping training program are complementary to State mandates. The Santa Monica lodging businesses and associations have reiterated that workplace safety is a top priority and recognizes that it is regulated by the State of California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA). The industry asserts that the proposed training mandates would be duplicative of State requirements. Cal/OSHA’s main responsibility is to protect and improve the health and safety of all California employees, including specific regulations for the hotel industry. Effective July 1, 2018, all hotels are subject to the provisions set forth in the Musculoskeletal Injury Prevention Program (MIPP). The mandates include requiring hotels to hold trainings that address the hazards specific to housekeeping, worksite evaluations conducted by Cal/OSHA, procedures for correcting workplace hazards and requires that preventative measures be taken – all training and evaluations are done annually. The MIPP includes specific regulations that require hotels to protect hotel housekeepers from bloodborne pathogens in instances where they may come into contact with items such as contaminated hypodermic syringes in bed sheets or in trash receptacles. The California Hotel & Lodging Association has a MIPP + Training Tool-Kit, which is available at no cost to all hotels in Santa Monica. According to Santa Monica hoteliers, 100 percent of Santa Monica hotels have already implemented policies for housekeeper trainings, workload evaluation and accident analysis. Compliance with Cal/OSHA is performed through regular agency on-site inspections and reviews. Hotels are required to maintain records and provide to Cal/OSHA upon request. Under Chapter 11.20.380 of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (DPH) code, hotels must comply with County health regulations that regulate general sanitation, pest and rodent control and prevention and water quality standards. According to DPH, the agency does not typically administer training for businesses, including motels and hotels. However, if an issue is detected during an on-site inspection, DPH inspectors will often provide on-the-spot training to correct the issue. Businesses are responsible for implementing the work procedures necessary to stay in 18 compliance with County health code – including training. The State of California has passed multiple bills that address training requirements for human trafficking and sexual assault. Senate Bill 970 (Atkins) requires human trafficking prevention training for all hotels by January 1, 2020. Hotel employers must provide at least 20 minutes of training and education focusing on human trafficking awareness to employees who are likely to interact or come into contact with victims of human trafficking, as defined. Assembly Bill 1825 requires sexual harassm ent prevention training for supervisors every two years. In 2018, Assembly Bill 1343 amended Assembly Bill 1825 to mandate sexual harassment training for supervisory (two hours) and non-supervisory (one hour) positions for employers with over five employees (including temporary and seasonal) by January 1, 2020. Trainings must be held annually for new employees and once every two years thereafter for existing employees. According to Santa Monica hoteliers, 100 percent of Santa Monica hotels are currently in compliance with State regulation. In May 2019, Santa Monica Travel and Tourism hosted a human trafficking training for all Santa Monica hotels. Fifty-six percent of Santa Monica hotels have stated that they have implemented policies and procedures that go beyond what the state requires. In City staff’s meetings with Santa Monica hoteliers, the hoteliers have expressed willingness to continue to educate their employees, raise awareness in the hospitality industry and work in partnership with law enforcement to help prevent these serious crimes. Similar to procedures to ensure compliance with Cal/OSHA, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) may perform on- site inspections and reviews and hotels must maintain training records and provide to DFEH upon request. Of the cities listed with similar ordinances, the City of Seattle is the only city with a limited training obligation; the city mandate requires hotel employers to adopt reasonable practices to protect the safety of employees and information on hazardous chemicals in their work area. It is a best practice of the City not to duplicate State or County legislation when adopting local ordinances. With the imple mentation of a training 19 provision, City staff will have to establish protocol to ensure code compliance with the mandates set forth in this ordinance. Currently, the City’s Code Enforcement Division is at capacity, and resources are limited in the City’s current budget environment. Based on estimates provided by Local 11, the annual cost of its proposed training would cost the City $58,000; however, the figure assumes the City will provide a space to hold the training and does not consider the labor costs of on-site staff. City staff is assessing the following key factors for their recommendation: 1. Overlap between the State of California’s mandates for workplace safety training and education and Local 11’s training proposal 2. Impact on City resources and staff capacity to administer and enforce Based on City staff assessment, Council may consider the following options for the proposed training and education provision: 1. A City-financed and -administered training program or a contracted training program overseen by the City 2. The City develops training standards and regulations in the areas not covered under existing State or County requirements, but allows the lodging businesses to administer the trainings 3. Do not adopt a training requirement as proposed by Local 11, because the subject matters are adequately covered under existing State and County requirements Given the resources necessary, including costs and staff capacity, and specialization of training areas, City staff is giving consideration to a model that requires the City to determine the required elements of a training but require hotels to contract for and provide the training. City staff is also weighing whether such a model would exempt training areas adequately covered by the State requirements. Other potential components Local 11 has proposed ordinance components that are not part of Council direction, nor are they reflected in the COSW letter. These components are 1) supersession by collective bargaining agreement and 2) hotel worker retention (not limited to hotel 20 housekeepers.) In the area of supersession, Local 11 has proposed a supersession condition be included in the ordinance which would relieve hotels with collective bargainin g agreements from the “humane workload” and hotel worker retention provisions, as they state that those conditions would be part of negotiations between the union and hotel management. All other provisions set forth in this ordinance would otherwise apply to all Santa Monica hotels. The position of the lodging associations is that supersession does not pertain to hotel workers’ safety and should not be considered as part of a hotel workers’ safety ordinance. City staff is assessing the key factors for their recommendation: 1. Terms outlined in the COSW letter and Council direction 2. Common practice of including supersession clauses in municipal level ordinances relating to labor, including the City’s Minimum Wage and Hotel Living Wage ordinances 3. Potential inequities associated with a limited waiver for the workload and retention provisions for hotels with collective bargaining agreements in place While the COSW letter and Council direction to staff did not reference a supersession condition, City staff is assessing the potential benefits of a supersession clause as such a clause is frequently included in similar legislation in order to promote worker protections while allowing hotels and hotel workers the ability to bargain around them through the collective bargaining process With respect to hotel worker retention, Local 11 asserts that as changes in corporate ownership or management occur frequently in the hotel industry, the City should take measures to prevent disruptions to the hotel labor market. It has proposed a 90-day retention period for transitional employees upon change of ownership, control, or operation of hotels. However, this provision was not referenced in the COSW letter to Council and is outside of the scope of the Council’s direction to staff. As such, staff does not intend to recommend adoption of a hotel worker retention provision in the ordinance, as it would require additional legal and policy vetting should Council desire to adopt 21 such a policy. Potential Enforcement Models It is a best practice for City staff to recommend an ordinance that is meaningfully enforceable. City staff is assessing three potential approaches to enforcing this ordinance based on Local 11’s proposal, Santa Monica lodging businesses and associations concerns and an alternative collaborative model with the Los Angeles County Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. Other than the City of Oakland, which is creating a new department to implement City enforcement, the cities of Long Beach, Seattle and Emeryville have adopted a civil enforcement approach in their respective ordinances. The preferred method of enforcement according to Local 11 is civil enforcement, where any hotel worker may file a civil lawsuit against a hotel for violating any provision of the ordinance within three years of the violation (i.e., a private right of actio n). Upon prevailing, the hotel worker shall be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and back wages. However, Local 11 is not opposed to City enforcement. The Santa Monica lodging businesses and associations are opposed to a private right of action, with particular concerns over the “humane workload” provisions. A private right of action would potentially allow for third parties (including labor organizations) to utilize private litigation in an attempt to leverage hotels into entering into collectiv e bargaining units, with lawsuits filed either on behalf of the employee or the labor organization on behalf of the employee. The stated challenges of implementing a workload provision may lead to gray areas where minor or technical violations could result in litigation. They are advocating for City enforcement as it would likely result in a collaborative approach towards compliance. In an effort to explore alternative models of enforcement, City staff approached the Los Angeles County Department of Business and Consumer Affairs (DCBA) about potentially aligning the minimum wage enforcement it already conducts on the City’s behalf with enforcement of a potential hotel workers’ safety ordinance. However, DCBA 22 does not support expanding its enforcement responsibilities due to staffing capacity and a lack of aligned County policy on these issues. It is anticipated that City enforcement of a hotel workers safety ordinance will require both on-site and administrative procedures to adequately enforce the provisions set forth in this ordinance. The chart below summarizes the type of enforcement approach that would be required for each ordinance component. Proposed Ordinance Component Enforcement Methodology Hotel workers protection (panic buttons or other measures) Physical on-site inspections of all Santa Monica hotel guest rooms Hotel worker workloads and overtime compensation Physical on-site inspections and administrative audit of hotel records for all hotel housekeepers Hotel worker training on personal rights and safety Administrative audit of hotel records for all hotel housekeepers Hotel worker education and training Administrative audit of hotel records for all hotel housekeepers The Code Enforcement Division estimates at least two Code Enforcement Officers would be needed to adequately perform the enforcement duties above. Currently, the Code Enforcement Division is at or over capacity, and the City would have to onboard two new full-time Code Enforcement Officers and oversee the implementation of the new standards for hotel workers safety enforcement. The projected full annual cost of two new full-time officers is $370,200. The Code Enforcement Division would conduct an evaluation of the appropriate enforcement staffing levels to ensure enforcement effectiveness, which may further impact annual costs. City staff is assessing the civil and city enforcement models. City staff acknowledges the potential for private litigation costs can significantly impact the hotel industry, adversely affecting the competitiveness of Santa Monica hotels in an increasingly challenging regional context. While this has not yet emerged as a significant issue in the other cities that have recently enacted their statutes, the experience with other legislation, such as abuse of the Americans with Disabilities Act or the California 23 Environmental Quality Act for motives beyond the intent of those laws, certainly signals the potential for such abuse in the future. However, given the City’s ongoing budgetary concerns, City staff is giving consideration to recommending a civil enforcement model. If burdensome litigation becomes an issue, the Council may want to develop a set of administrative regulations to further define the “humane workload” provisions to streamline the protection of worker’s wellbeing without unnecessarily imposing unreasonable legal costs on the industry at a future date. Prepared By: Helen Yu, Management Fellow Attachments: A: Commission on the Status of Women letter B: Potential models C: City of Long Beach Ordinance D: City of Oakland Ordinance E: City of Emeryville Ordinance F: City of Seattle Ordinance G: City of Chicago Ordinance (1t y of Sa ■ta Me ■lea• Commission on the Status of Women 1685 Main Street PO BOX 2200 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Honorable Ted Winterer Santa Monica City Council 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Dear Mayor Winterer and City Councilmembers : September 13, 2018 The City of Santa Monica Commission on the Status of Women , by means of this letter, respectfully requests that City Counci l consider introducing common sense legislation designed to protect hotel room attendants from all forms of sexual violence (harassment, abuse and assault), and overly burdensome workloads , and implementation of education and training with regards to identification of human trafficking . We ask that these workers (the majority of whom are women of color or immigrants) have protections in place to ensure that they can perform their jobs without fear of any form of retaliation . Within hotels nationwide , hotel workers and , in particular, women who work as housekeepers /room attendants are all too often vulnerable to sexual violence by hotel guests. In addition , they are frequently assigned overly burdensome room cleaning quotas and unexpected overtime, which have a serious impact on their ability to perform their work in a proper and thorough manner. As hotel workers and hotel guests can come into contact with highly contagious and infectious diseases (including rhinovirus germs and Legionnaire's disease), it is critical that rooms and public areas be cleaned , sanitized , and maintained to the highest standards possible . The Commission feels it is incumbent for the City to adopt legislation th at includes the following components to protect workers and hotel guests alike : • Protection for workers from all forms of sexual violence by providing panic buttons and other measures to enable workers to report misconduct and remove themselves from dangerous situations with out fear of retaliation . • Provisions to ensure workers are compensated fairly when they are required to perform unreasonable workloads and protections against mandatory overtime . • Required training for hotel housekeepers/room attendants to ensure that workers have the knowledge and skills to both protect their own rig hts and safety, as well as their unique roles to help protect pub lic health and safety. • Required education and training to identify potential instances of human trafficking , domestic violence , and sexual violence. In ask ing City Council to introduce this common sense le gis lation , it is important to note that similar hotel health and safety laws and initiatives have been implemented in cities such as Seattle, New York , Las Vegas and Chicago . Chicago and Eme ryville have also passed laws addressi ng housekeeper workloads. With the support from UNITE HERE Local 11 and a number of community organiza ti ons , similar reforms through ballot measures are being considered in Long Beach and Palos Verdes. Our request is that the City of Santa Monica consider similar action. With these protections in place , Santa Monica will be able to take an important step to further. ensure the everyday safety of women hotel workers and guests in our city. Siniily, l iPf.;;: Chai r City of Santa Monica Comm ission on the Status of Women 1 Attachment B – Potential Models Potential Models The cities of Long Beach, Oakland, Emeryville, and Seattle have implemented similar ordinances through ballot measures. The City of Chicago’s ordinance is limited to hotel workers safety protections and was sponsored by an Alderman. City of Long Beach The City of Long Beach also adopted an ordinance to their Municipal Code requiring all hotels to incorporate hotel worker safety measures including a mandate requiring panic buttons for all hotel housekeepers in October 2018. A month later, Measure WW passed in Long Beach, which sets a maximum workload of 4,000 square feet in an 8-hour workday, requires hoteliers to pay hotel room cleaners at twice their regular rate for overtime work and establishes protections against mandatory overtime for all hotels with over 50 guest rooms. City of Oakland Similarly, Measure Z, the Oakland Minimum Wage Charter Amendment, passed in November 2018 and requires emergency contact devices, sets a maximum workload of 4,000 square feet in an 8-hour workday, requires hoteliers to pay hotel room cleaners at twice their regular rate for overtime, and imposes new minimum wages and labor protections for employees of hotels with 50 or more guest rooms. City of Emeryville In 2005, voters in the City of Emeryville approved Measure C. Measure C sets new minimum wage requirements for hotels with 50 or more guest rooms and a maximum workload of 5,000 square feet in an 8-hour workday and mandates hoteliers to pay hotel room cleaners one and a half times their regular pay for overtime. City of Seattle In November 2016, Seattle voters approved Initiative Measure 124, Hotel Employees 2 Health and Safety Initiative. Measure 124 requires hotels with 60 or more guest rooms to distribute panic buttons to all employees, sets a maximum workload of 5,000 square feet in an 8-hour workday and requires hoteliers to pay hotel room cleaners one and a half times their regular pay for overtime and establishes protections around workplace safety. City of Chicago On October 11, 2017, the City Council passed the Hotel Workers Sexual Harassment Ordinance requiring Chicago hotels to develop anti-sexual harassment policies and provide employees who work alone in hotel rooms with panic buttons by July 1, 2018. CHAPTER 5.49 - HOTEL WORKING CONDITIONS 5.49.010 - Purpose. The purpose of this initiative is to protect the safety and improve working conditions of hotel employees in the City. Hotel employees who work by themselves are vulnerable to crimes and other threatening behavior, including sexual assault. This Chapter enables hotel workers to protect their safety by, among other measures, requiring that hotel employers provide workers who clean guest rooms with panic buttons which they may use to report threatening conduct by a hotel guest and other emergencies. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. This Chapter also includes provisions that support hotel employees' ability to report criminal and threatening guest behavior to the proper authorities. Hotel employees who clean guest rooms are also frequently assigned overly burdensome room cleaning quotas and unexpected overtime, which undermines the public interest in ensuring that hotel room cleaners can perform their work in a manner that adequately protects public health and interferes with their ability to meet family and personal obligations. This Chapter includes provisions to assure that workers receive fair compensation when their workload assignments exceed proscribed limits and to prohibit hotel employers from assigning employees overtime work when their shifts exceed 10 hours in a day, except in emergency situations, without obtaining workers' informed consent. ( Measure WW § 1, 2018) 5.49.020 - Definitions. "Additional-bed rooms" means a room with additional beds such as cots or rollaways. "Checkout" means a room where the guests are ending their stay. "Emergency" means an immediate threat to public safety or of substantial risk of property loss or destruction. "Guest" means registered guests, others occupying guest rooms with registered guests, and visitors invited to guest rooms by a registered guest or other occupant of a guest room. "Guest room" means a room made available by a hotel for transient occupancy, consistent with Long Beach Municipal Code section 18.70.030. "Hotel" means structures as defined by Long Beach Municipal Code section 9.02.080, and containing 50 or more guest rooms, or suites of rooms. "Hotel" also includes any contracted leased, or sublet premises connected to or operated in conjunction with the building's purpose, or providing services at the building. "Hotel employee" means any individual: (1) who is employed directly by the hotel employer or by a person who has contracted with the hotel employer to provide services at a hotel in the City of Long Beach; and (2) who was hired to or did work an average 5 hours/week for 4 weeks at one or more hotels. "Hotel employer" means a person who owns, controls, and/or operates a hotel in the City of Long Beach, or a person who owns, controls, and/or operates any contracted, leased, or sublet premises connected to or operated in conjunction with the hotel's purpose, or a person, other than a hotel employee, who provides services at the hotel. "Panic button" means an emergency electronic contact device carried by a hotel employee by which the hotel employee may summon immediate on-scene assistance from a security guard or other person employed by the hotel. "Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, limited liability company, business trust, estate, trust, association, joint venture, agency, instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity, whether domestic or foreign. "Room cleaner" means a person whose principal duties are to clean and put in order residential guest rooms in a hotel, regardless of who employs the person. "Workday" means a 24-hour period beginning at 12:00 a.m. and ending at 11:59 p.m. ( Measure WW § 1, 2018) 5.49.030 - Measures to protect hotel employees from harassment and assault. A. Panic Buttons. A hotel employer shall provide a panic button to each hotel employee assigned to work in a guest room without other hotel employees present, at no cost to the hotel employee. A hotel employee may use the panic button if the hotel employee reasonably believes there is an ongoing crime, threatening behavior, or other emergency in the hotel employee's presence. The hotel employee may cease work and leave the immediate area of danger to await the arrival of assistance. B. Notice in Guest Rooms. Each hotel employer shall place a sign on the back of each guest room door, written in a font size of no less than 18 points, that includes the heading "The Law Prote cts Hotel Housekeepers and Hotel Employees From Threatening Behavior," a citation to this Chapter of the Long Beach Municipal Code, and notice of the fact that the hotel is providing panic buttons to its housekeepers, room servers, and other hotel employees assigned to work in guest rooms without other hotel employees present, in compliance with this Chapter. C. Hotel Employees' Rights. A hotel employee who brings to the attention of a hotel employer the occurrence of violence or threatening behavior, inc luding but not limited to, indecent exposure, solicitation, assault, or coercive sexual conduct by a guest shall be afforded the following rights: 1. If the hotel employee reasonably believes that his or her safety is at risk and so requests, the hotel employee shall be reassigned to a different floor, or, if none is availab le for his or her job classification, a different work area, away from the person who is alleged to have engaged in the violence or threatening behavior, for the entire duration of the person's stay at the hotel; 2. The hotel employer shall immediately allow the affected hotel employee sufficient paid time to contact the police and provide a police statement and to consult with a counselor or advisor of the hotel employee's choosing; the hotel employer will permit, but may never require, the complaining hotel employee to report an incident involving alleged criminal conduct by a guest to the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction; and 3. The hotel employer shall cooperate with any investigation into the incident undertaken by the law enforcement agency and/or any attorney for the complaining hotel employee. ( Measure WW § 1, 2018) 5.49.040 - Humane Workload. A hotel employer shall not require a room cleaner to clean rooms amounting to more than 4,000 square feet of floorspace, or more than the maximum floor space otherwise specified in this Section, in any one, eight-hour workday unless the hotel employer pays the room cleaner twice his or her regular rate of pay for all hours worked by the room cleaner during the workday. If a room cleaner works fewer than eight hours in a workday, the maximum floor space shall be reduced on a prorated basis. When a room cleaner during a workday is assigned to clean any combination of seven or more checkout rooms or additional-bed rooms, the maximum floorspace to be cleaned shall be reduced by 500 square feet for each such checkout or additional-bed room over six. The limitations contained herein apply to any combination of spaces, including guest rooms and suites, meeting rooms or hospitality rooms, and apply regardless of the furniture, equipment or amenities in any rooms. ( Measure WW § 1, 2018) 5.49.050 - Voluntary overtime. A hotel employer shall not suffer or permit a hotel employee to work more than 10 hours in any workday unless the hotel employee consents. Consents must be written and signed by the hotel employee or communicated electronically through an account or number particular to the hotel employee. No consent is valid unless the hotel employer has advised the hotel employee in writing not more than 30 days preceding the consent that the hotel employee may decline to work more than 10 hours in any workday and that the hotel employer will not subject the hotel employee to any adverse action for declining. An assignment in excess of 10 hours in a work day due to an emergency shall not violate this section. ( Measure WW § 1, 2018) 5.49.060 - Preservation of records. Each hotel employer shall maintain for at least two years for each room cleaner a record of his or her name, pay rates received, and the rooms (or at the hotel employer's option, total amount of square footage) each room cleaner has cleaned on each workday. Each hotel employer shall preserve for at least two years a record of the written consents it received from hotel employees to work more than ten hours during a shift. The hotel employer shall make such records available to employees of the hotel or their representatives for inspection and copying except the hotel employees' names (and any addresses and social security numbers) shall be redacted unless the requester is a hotel employee requesting records concerning herself. Failure of the hotel employer to provide a copy of such records will result in a penalty of at least one hundred dollars ($100.00) per day up to one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day, the amount to be set by the court. ( Measure WW § 1, 2018) 5.49.070 - No retaliation. No person shall discharge, reduce in compensation, increase workload, impose fees or charges, change duties or otherwise take adverse action against any hotel employee for opposing any practice proscribed by this article, for participating in proceedings related to this article, for seeking to enforce his or her rights under this article by any lawful means, or for otherwise asserting rights under this article. A person terminating or taking any other adverse action against any hotel employee who has engaged in any of the foregoing activities within one year preceding the termination or other adverse action shall provide to the hotel employee at or before the time of the termination or other adverse action a detailed written statement of the reason or reasons for the termination or other adverse action including all the facts substantiating the reason or reasons and all facts known to the person that contradict the substantiating facts. ( Measure WW § 1, 2018) 5.49.080 - Waiver. The provisions of this Chapter may not be waived by agreement between an individual hotel employee and a hotel employer. All of the provisions of Sections 5.49.040 and 5.49.050, or any part thereof, may be waived in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement but only if the waiver is explicitly set forth in such agreement in clear and unambiguous terms. Unilateral implementation of terms and conditions of employment by either party to a collective bargaining relationship shall not constitute, or be permitted, as a waiver of all or any part of the provisions of this Section. ( Measure WW § 1, 2018) 5.49.090 - Enforcement. A. A hotel employee or representative of hotel employees claiming violation of this chapter may bring an action in the Superior Court and shall be entitled to all remedies available under the law or in equity appropriate to remedy any such violation, including but not limited to injunctive relief or other equitable relief, including reinstatement, and compensatory damages and other relief provided in this subsection. In addition to any other remedy to which a hotel employee is entitled under this section, a hotel employer that violates Subsection A of Section 5.49.030 shall be liable to each affected hotel employee for statutory damages in the amount of fifty dollars ($50) for each day on which a violation occurred; a hotel employer that violates Section 5.49.040 shall be liable to each affected hotel employee for statutory damages in the amount of fifty dollars ($50) for each day on which a violation occurred; and a hotel employer that violates Section 5.49.050 shall be liable to each affected hotel employee for statutory damages in the amount of fifty dollars ($50) for each day on which a violation occurred. In the event of a willful violation of Section 5.49.070, the amount of damages attributable to lost income due to the violation shall be trebled. If a hotel employee is the prevailing party in any legal action taken pursuant to this article, the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and costs as part of the costs recoverable. B. Each hotel employer shall give written notification to each current hotel employee, and to each new hotel employee at time of hire, of his or her rights under this Section. The notification shall be in each language spoken by more than ten (10) hotel employees. C. A hotel employer that contracts with another person, including, without limitation, another hotel employer, a temporary staffing agency, employee leasing agency or professional employer organization, to obtain the services of hotel employees shall share all civil legal responsibility, and civil liability for violations of this Chapter by that person for hotel employees performing work pursuant to the contract. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "person" shall not include: (1) A bona fide nonprofit, community-based organization that provides services to workers; (2) A bona fide labor organization or apprenticeship program or hiring hall operated pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. ( Measure WW § 1, 2018) 5.49.100 - Severability. If any provision or application of this chapter is declared illegal, invalid or inoperative, in whole or in part, by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions and portions thereof shall remain in full force or effect. The courts are hereby authorized to reform the provisions of this chapter in order to preserve its maximum permissible effect. ( Measure WW § 1, 2018) 5.49.110 - No Preemption of Higher Standards. This Chapter does not preempt or prevent the establishment of superior standards or the expansion of coverage by ordinance, resolution, contract, or any other action of the City of Long Beach. This Chapter shall not be construed to limit a discharged hotel employee's right to bring a common law cause of action for wrongful termination. ( Measure WW § 1, 2018) 5.49.120 - Regulations. The City shall have authority to adopt rules and regulations consistent with and necessary for the implementation of this Chapter. Such rules and regulations shall have the force and effect of law, and may be relied upon by hotel employers, hotel employees and other parties to determine their rights and responsibilities under this Chapter. ( Measure WW § 1, 2018) CHAPTER 5.54 - HOTEL WORKER SAFETY PRECAUTIONS 5.54.010 - Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to protect the safety of hotel employees in the City. Hotel employees who work by themselves are vulnerable to crimes and other threatening behavior, including sexual assault. This Chapter enables hotel workers to protect their safety by requiring that hotel employers provide workers who clean guest rooms with panic buttons which they may use to report threatening conduct by a hotel guest and other emergencies. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. This Chapter also includes provisions that support hotel employees' ability to report criminal and threatening guest behavior to the proper authorities. ( ORD-18-0028 § 1, 2018) 5.54.020 - Definitions. A. "Emergency" means an immediate threat to public safety or of substantial risk of property loss or destruction. B. "Guest" means registered guests, others occupying guest rooms with registered guests, and visitors invited to guest rooms by a registered guest or other occupant of a guest room. C. "Guest room" means a room made available by a hotel for transient occupancy, consistent with Long Beach Municipal Code section 18.70.030. D. "Hotel" means structures as defined by Long Beach Municipal Code section 9.02.080, or suites of rooms, and includes motels as defined by Long Beach Municipal Code section 21.15.1 800. "Hotel" also includes any contracted, leased, or sublet premises connected to or operate d in conjunction with the building's purpose, or providing services at the building. However, "hotel" shall not include short-term residential rentals (such as AirBnb, VRBO, Homeaway, Flipkey, and others), or bed and breakfast establishments meeting the conditions set forth in Section 21.52.209 of this Code. E. "Hotel employee" means any individual: (1) who is employed directly by the hotel employer or by a person who has contracted with the hotel employer to provide services at a hotel in the City; and (2) who was hired to or did work an average 5 hours/week for 4 weeks at one or more hotels. F. "Hotel employer" means a person who owns, controls, and/or operates a hotel in the City of Long Beach, or a person who owns, controls, and/or operates any contr acted, leased, or sublet premises connected to or operated in conjunction with the hotel's purpose, or a person, other than an hotel employee, who provides services at the hotel. G. "Panic button" means an emergency electronic contact device carried by a hotel employee by which the hotel employee may summon immediate on-scene assistance from a security guard or other person employed by the hotel. H. "Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, limited liability company, business trust, estate, trust, association, joint venture, agency, instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity, whether domestic or foreign. ( ORD-19-0005 § 1, 2019; ORD-18-0028 § 1, 2018) 5.54.030 - Measures to protect hotel employees from harassment and assault. A. Panic buttons. A hotel employer shall provide a panic button to each hotel employee assigned to work in a guest room without other employees present, regardless of job classification, at no cost to the hotel employee. It is recognized that because of the varying size and physical layout of each hotel, different devices may be appropriate for different hotels. A hotel employee may use the panic button if the hotel employee reasonably believes there is an ongoing crime, threatening behavior, or other emergency in the hotel employee's presence. The hotel employee may cease work and leave the immediate area of danger to await the arrival of assistance. B. Hotel employees' rights. 1. The hotel employer must allow guest room doors to be left open during cleaning. Nothing herein shall prevent a hotel employee from voluntarily electing to keep a guest room door closed during cleaning as the hotel employee sees fit. 2. A hotel employee who brings to the attention of a hotel employer the occurrence or violence or threatening behavior, including but not limited to indecent exposure, solicitation, assault, or coercive sexual conduct by a guest shall be afforded the following rights: a. If the hotel employee reasonably believes that his or her safety is at risk and so requests, the hotel employee shall be reassigned to a different work area, away from the person who is alleged to have engaged in the violence or threatenin g behavior for the duration of any continued occupancy by the person at the hotel; b. The hotel employer shall immediately allow the affected hotel employee sufficient time to contact the police and provide a police statement; and c. The hotel employer shall cooperate with any investigation into the incident undertaken by the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction. d. No person shall discharge, reduce in compensation, increase workload, impose fees or charges, change duties or otherwise take adverse action against any hotel employee for opposing any practice proscribed by this Chapter, for participating in proceedings related to this Chapter, for seeking to enforce his or her rights under this Chapter by any lawful means, or for otherwise asserting rights under this Chapter. A person terminating or taking any other adverse action against any hotel employee who has engaged in any of the foregoing activities within one (1) year preceding the termination or other adverse action shall provide to the hotel employee at or before the time of the termination or other adverse action a detailed written statement of the reason or reasons for the termination or other adverse action including all the facts substantiating the reason or reasons and all facts known to the person that contradict the substantiating facts. e. Each hotel employer shall give written notification to each current hotel employee, and to each new hotel employee at the time of hire, of his or her rights under this Section. The notification shall be in each language spoken by more than ten (10) hotel employees. ( ORD-19-0005 § 2, 2019; ORD-18-0028 § 1, 2018) 5.54.040 - Application to existing hotels. Any hotel containing fifty (50) or more guest rooms, or suites of rooms, operating under an existing business license on the effective date of this Chapter shall be brought into full compliance with the provisions of this Chapter, not later than six (6) months following the effective date of this Chapter. All other hotels containing less than fifty (50) guest rooms, or suites of rooms, operating under an existing business license on the effective date of this Chapter shall be brought into full compliance with the provisions of this Chapter, not later than twelve (12) months following the effective date of this Chapter. ( ORD-18-0028 § 1, 2018) 5.54.050 - Severability. If any provision or application of this Chapter is declared illegal, invalid or inoperative, in whole or in part, by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions and portions thereof shall remain in full force or effect. The courts are hereby authorized to reform the provisions in this Chapter in order to preserve its maximum permissible effect. ( ORD-18-0028 § 1, 2018) 5.54.060 - Relationship to other ordinances. These provisions are not intended to abrogate or impair the provisions of any other section of this Code which is not in conflict with the provisions of this Chapter. However, in the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Chapter and the provisions of any other ordinance, the provisions of the Code that establish the more stringent, superior or higher standards shall control. ( ORD-18-0028 § 1, 2018) 6 "6 6 6,6 6 6 6 6 2 .6-6 436 #6!6& 6*+6 06 6 '66 6 6 )/$6 6 16 6( %6 6 6 6 6 6 656 6 6 6 6 666 6 66 Ĕ Ĕ *Ĕ 8Ĕ $Ĕ 9Ĕ Ĕ :Ĕ Ĕ Ĕ 77Ĕ Ĕ *Ĕ UĔ $Ĕ 9Ĕ Ĕ :Ĕ Ĕ Ĕ Ĕ Ĕ *Ĕ UĔ T/Ĕ 9Ĕ TĔ :Ĕ _;\¬Ĕ CDĔ Ĕ _;]2Ĕ±Ĕ F?2Ĕ FcĔ Â@ĔD=Ĕ `YWĔ 4ÄĔ ^>Ĕ @C3Ĕ 0X¤YĔ º<«´3Ĕ `Z<Ĕ ¶3Ĕ 1?Ĕ Bb\½·Ĕ ©2Ĕ1cĔ »<];[²Ĕ!W4[!Ĕ$$8 SR=Ĕ VªĔ//Q * ¥wĔE®@VÀ¼3Ĕa^Ĕ³a¯AĔÃDEµXEĔ!>°ÁÅĔ ¾¿2b4C!Ĕ FĔ)Ĕ ĔĔ'Ĕ§#NĔĔ¸Ĕ¦ÕĔ Ĕ Ĕe "( ¡Ĕ !ĔSĔ !Ĕ$$8 ĔR=Ĕ"ĔĔAĔ1ĔBM&+ ĔĔĔ ĔĔýĔ-Ĕ ( ¢Ĕ >sZ ĔNtĔIĔĔ,%Ĕ(Ĕ( OĔ"" xĔJ % ĔĔ% Ĕ&ĔĔ¨ #rĔĔ¹Ĕ0+yĔ ĔĔôþ òĔďĔpzĔ ë#Ć kĔ ÆìÌ%ÿĔõLĔĒĔĊi+6{Ĕ Ï |Ĕ ĔndåHċĔ öĀgĈ-ĔÉóíÐÊČÍĔl"ĔāĔ ÷ĂĔ ÚĔãč6ÛîĔ(Ü#ÖĔlÑĔ u Ĕ øMù H}Ĕ iĔĔúă-ï~Ĕ h6ĄĔðĔÇñĔ ×KĔûēHĔ q%Ĕ ü.Ý-ĔćÞË Ĕ6Ĕ#ØĔÙ"'éĔ !ĔĔ !Ĕ/$P * P0Ĕ Ĕ'ĔA5Ĕ 1Ĕ B&+fĔ ÎĔ&Ĕ gĔ'ĔĔ ĔÓ p £Ĕ 0?Ĕ , ) vĔ Q 74Ĕ" Ĕ)ĔkĔ È êqĔÔĔjĔ Ĕ#ĔG eĔĔ&Ĕ ĔßĔĔ Ĕ ,.'ĔĔ ĔærÒĔ Ĕ. )Ĕ Ĕ KĔä,ĔĔo ĔKĔ "%Ĕ Ĕ 5Ĕf I5Ĕ ĔĔ#Ĕ NĔ ĉĔ Ĕ Ĕ Ĕ, )Ĕ(%ĔG&5Ĕ'ĔĔ IĔĔĔ )ĔĔjĔĔ . çĔĔ Ĕd. LĔàèĔGnĔ JmĔâ ĔhĔ JmĔĐoąĔ- áOĔ #ĔĔL+ ĎĔ đM Ĕ 3 ¾Ʌ #3 3 33 '3 ). 3 3 *33 /3 0 -3 ! 3 33 3 %3 3 3 3 3 +,3 13 3 3 $3 "3 %3 &3 3 3 323 3 3 3 3 3 3 (3 0OèɅ"Ʌ Ʌ {O Ʌ Ʌ"Ʌ ğ!V1Ʌ|Ʌv!% ZɅ Ģ¿Ʌ ± È3ɅɅɅ,F48Ʌ ! k " Q9 Ʌ Ʌ ļ) ɅɅɅ 3Ʌ)ɅÊɅ @Ʌ VɅ ɅǙO`ªɅ =Ʌ(!Ʌ,G§Ʌ Ʌ":Ʌ& )ģ0ɅɅ Ʌ'zyɅ%@Ʌ «Ʌ % Ʌ 3Ʌ=Ʌ !ƛɅ %(DɅ) Ʌ Z7ɅɅiQɅBĤĥ0ɅōɅĽɅȬ*]Ʌ_Ʌľ2ĦɅ âQǚɅYɅ(2Ʌ ùf ȦſƜɅƸvɅ ȶɅ*fVɅfGRɅ "ȷɅɅF:Ǜ ƝɅ JɅȋɅ4JÀɅ "²hɅɅGɅ Ʌ*,A1) %Ʌ=:Ʌ&z3W1Ʌ(!ɅAȸɅ OĠ Ʌ ɅɅ&ɅɅF! Ʌ 0Ʌ F_ȭ 'Ʌ ɅG4Ʌ ËAÁɅ BúɅ ³ hĿɅŀ Ʌ2Ʌ &Ʌ ȌɅg §Ʌ ƞ¤8bŎZ JɅŏƟȍɅ Ʌ])0ĄɅP1Ǽ&ƃɅkɅJɅRgɅ2ġlƒɅ {Ʌȴ*ɅƂP* '*´Ʌ pµÉƹɅ ǆ ^ɅÌƅɅû[.é}Íħ¬Ʌ ǜn£mɅ?Ơ ǇȁŐɅ ƀ Ʌ¥@So®Ʌ Ɠǈ ɅĖ ɅɅêÎĨą¯Ʌ 6ÏCĩWɅü£ő;IɅ Ʌ5ŁǿŒa:Ʌ ÐɅ ýQ.Ʌ ëK?ɅRĪœ#cɅ ȹɅ>LɅ<Ɣǉ+ȺĆćɅ ĚǝɅǊǋŔơīɅ TȻɅǌHìȎŕlɅ ǍHaíǞŖãĈ7ɅäȼɅ5łŗȂɅÃŃjǎLXǟ°Ʌ Y-ǠɅ ƺiǽ»îŘ/dřCĬɅ ŚɅ ǏǻïrþśĭɅ ǡ+ȏ'ɅMEɅ5ŜɅÄǐǢ¶ɅĝǣɅ.ĉƄŝCĮɅ d!Ʌě6Ʌ (Ş.ɅɅĊɅǤşįńȐIɅ Pÿ8ɅcŠ#Ʌ ÅSɅ $ǥɅ"Ʌ ÑɅ +%YȧɅ, Ƣ·Ʌ ǦɅyǃɅMȀšȃċɅ#ȄǾŢƣɅ ǧ\Ʌ ($ɅPƤp9Ʌȑ|ţȅɅ Æ/Ȓ¸Ʌ ÂɅ Ǒ4ɅuǨ,?BİɅǩɅL@ŤıɅ ]ȽɅDǪɅ/oȮsȆrɅÒȓ\ƻƥɅ ĲťȇcɅ ȾɅ~KƆɅ ƕǒȿɅ¥ɅŅÓ.Ʌ2ĳUĴt1ɅŦƦɅ ÔƧɀɅ3ɅȔ=9ɅĞĵŧĶɅȕ¤[Ũ;.Ʌ %ũȖņŪƨɅƩ<Ʌ¨¼©ɅɁǫɅǓHuð8'ūķɅ ŇtɅȗǬƖŬCUeŭƼƪɅƽǭɅȘXɅÕĀȯɅñșEƫɅ ~SƎƏɅ ǔ-ȰŮ'ɅeEɅMɅ EMɅAǕDɂɅÖ¡ɅǮɅ åw-ǯɅɅe\ƗɅėɅ}ČɅ dXǰƘů¢ŰƬɅ-Ʌ Ț<ǱɅTnȱǲ#Ʌ×műɅ&ɅāčØŲ+qɅȵų$9Ʌ`ÙțɅDwɅĎɅ ǳ#ƾƭɅ ǄɅ #Ʌ xǴɅ5>WɅȜ,ŴƮjȝŵɅ-HɅǵɅTĂȲďǶIɅŶɅ^+Ȩ7ŷĸɅ ƇƈɅ$Ʌ Ęò$ Ʌ ȩæINȞ?NŸ^ĹɅ K>Ʌ ɅǅɅǷÚȈƯɅ/7Ʌ ƐƑɅxÛóƉȉɅ 4¦ưɅ5ƿɅ ňĐɅ ǖ;Ǹa-ƱɅŉÜLɅ ô_ƲȟUăŹõȠɅ ȡŊ<Ʌ`ȪçKÝƳȢźÞbŻƴĺɅ ęßöȣ#¹Ʌ ;Ʌ Ç÷ŋɅ ǀbɅ sƙǗƊɃđǹɅ ȊŌà+ɅĻżȳɅ¦Ž$¡ĒɅ ¢[ĜƁ6/ȤžƵɅ NɅɅ6ȫǺƶNɅǁȥēƋɅ ƚǘƌɄºɅ BqɅǂɅĔáøɅƷgɅ>$ĕƍɅ ½Ʌ ! ! ! ! ! '+ + ++ + + )+ *+ ( $+ "+ + +#%++ !++++ &+ + + ++ + + +++ č ,č .č wč /č >č ?č @č }č +č č -č .č oxč p/č >č {č |č ~č +č č č .č ryč -/č -zč 7âÑĆ¨čEčõPčö¿Qč(č&ÀWgč ß¬č4ÁYčéč ·êčÂ²¸÷)č ĂNëčZPÃïč $Ílč &%č U(øÄFĀÎ×čð¹ č#čč č ³]"´čã6ØčHćč7Wč*4č[čc+eč º[ č ORä ĈNñmč © 5Ùčt=č »č1\č1 6č"ÔÕčí3ĉč 8č čå2ò"čàčù)čLÚGÛ¢ªčIĊč č*ċč !'£5ÒčFč!čč 8čHč æ:úMčÅčč dufč¤)VÆKă(Ą)č9K ččû č*`čáč CčA&hč čÇč :&2 č2Ðč± čč č Zk3č ;v: <č"Čč®üčÈč č9çąLčJač č `(=č č¼%ìIčî¯čýč\½č°8µ5Ü¶čMÉUÝ$«č_óč¦èþ§č bčÿ %č1ač !čč¾čÊbččCÞčAE čč*YčS'ččDDč ičsnqjč #č4č3 _'č^%č 0 č ]'$Ëč RT¡Xôč č !$SQ#č 0J āč !¥ÏÖT7#Oč BÌ čBÓX6č ,?č 09V^ččč ,@č # # # # !"# ;G<č č 5/22/2019 Chapter 5-32 WORKPLACE JUSTICE STANDARDS AT LARGE HOTELS https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Emeryville/html/Emeryville05/Emeryville0532.html 1/5 CHAPTER 32. WORKPLACE JUSTICE STANDARDS AT LARGE HOTELS Sections: Article 1 Measure C As Adopted by City of Emeryville Electorate November 8, 2005 5-32.1.1 Minimum Requirements 5-32.1.2 Any City Costs to be Covered by Permit Fees 5-32.1.3 Definitions 5-32.1.4 Enforcement 5-32.1.5 Findings Article 2 Repealed Article 1. Measure C As Adopted by City of Emeryville Electorate November 8, 2005 5-32.1.1 Minimum Requirements. No corporation, entity or person may operate a large hotel (as defined in Section 5-32.1.3) without annually obtaining a permit from the City, which shall be granted upon a showing that the following conditions will be followed: (a) Minimum Wages. Large hotels shall ensure that employees receive compensation of at least the following: (1) Minimum Compensation. The minimum compensation for each employee shall be at least nine dollars ($9.00) per hour. (2) Minimum Average Compensation. The average compensation of all employees in the hotel during a calendar year shall be at least eleven dollars ($11.00) per hour. (3) Credit for Health Benefits. “Compensation” shall be defined herein as wages (or salary) and health benefits. If employer contributions for health benefits are not paid on an hourly basis but the hotel nonetheless wishes a credit for such payments, the hotel shall present data to the City concerning hours worked and health contributions made, and the City Manager or his designee shall estimate the value of such benefits on an hourly basis. (4) Inflation Adjustments. The above rates shall be upwardly adjusted annually, no later than March 1, in proportion to the increase during the preceding calendar year in the region’s Consumer Price Index published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. No later than February 1 each year, the City shall distribute a notice reporting the amount of such increase to any person who has filed with the City a request for such notice. (b) Protection of Employees from Unjust Discharges When a New Employer Takes Over. 5/22/2019 Chapter 5-32 WORKPLACE JUSTICE STANDARDS AT LARGE HOTELS https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Emeryville/html/Emeryville05/Emeryville0532.html 2/5 (1) If there is a sale of the hotel or other change resulting in a new person or entity taking over as an employer at the hotel (such as subcontracting, subleasing, or replacement of subcontractor, lessee or sublessee), then the new employer shall retain all employees of the prior employer for at least ninety (90) calendar days unless there is reasonable and substantiated cause not to hire or to discharge such employee based on that employee’s performance or conduct. The fact that an employee previously enjoyed certain wages, benefits or working conditions does not provide cause for not employing him or her. (2) In the event of layoff during the first ninety (90) days of the new employer ’s operation, the laid-off employee shall be entitled to reinstatement should any position open up at the hotel within the following twenty-four (24) months which the employee can perform. Upon reinstatement, such employee must be given a trial period of at least ninety (90) days during which he or she can only be discharged for cause as defined in subsection (b)(1) of this section. (3) A finding of cause for an employee’s discharge made in a grievance procedure established by collective bargaining agreement shall be binding under subsection (b)(1) of this section, and the term “cause” in subsection (b)(1) of this section shall be construed in accordance with judicial and arbitral precedent defining “just cause” for discharge. (4) The right to retention herein does not include the right to retain supervisory or management responsibilities. (c) Workload Standards for Room Cleaners. Employees working as room cleaners shall be paid at least time-and-a-half the minimum average compensation set forth above for all time worked in a day if required to clean rooms amounting to more than five thousand (5,000) square feet of floor space in an eight (8) hour workday. For any room cleaner working less than eight (8) full hours per day, this maximum floor space shall be prorated evenly according to the actual number of hours worked. When a room cleaner is assigned in an eight (8) hour workday to clean any combination of seven (7) or more checkout rooms or rooms with additional beds such as cots or rollaways, this maximum floor space shall be reduced by five hundred (500) square feet for each such checkout or additional bedroom over six (6). (d) Paid Leave for Jury Duty. Each large hotel shall ensure that employees are provided with paid leave for jury duty. The pay during such leave shall be at least the employee’s regular rate of pay as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act. (e) Compliance with Enforcement Provisions. Hotel compliance with the enforcement provisions set forth in Section 5-32.1.4 shall also be a condition for a permit. (Sec. 3 (part), Ord. 08-005, eff. Sep. 18, 2008) 5-32.1.2 Any City Costs to be Covered by Permit Fees. Each large hotel shall pay a permit fee annually to the City reflecting its share of any City costs in enforcing this chapter. This share shall be based on each hotel’s portion of the total number of rooms at the hotels covered by this chapter, or based on such other formula as the City Council determines to be equitable. The Council by resolution shall set the initial permit fee based on the City Manager ’s projection of the City’s likely costs, and then shall update such fee annually. (Sec. 3 (part), Ord. 08-005, eff. Sep. 18, 2008) 5-32.1.3 Definitions. The following definitions shall apply throughout this chapter: 5/22/2019 Chapter 5-32 WORKPLACE JUSTICE STANDARDS AT LARGE HOTELS https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Emeryville/html/Emeryville05/Emeryville0532.html 3/5 (a) A “large hotel” means any hospitality facility with more than fifty (50) guest rooms. A “hotel” includes not only the facility’s guest rooms and common areas but also any subcontracted or sublet restaurants connected thereto or operated in conjunction therewith. (b) “Employee” includes not only common law employees of the operator, but also persons regularly engaged on the premises in providing services to hotel guests as a contractor, subcontractor, tenant, subtenant, licensee or sublicensee, or as an employee thereof. Workers who are not common law employees of the operator shall not be deemed regularly engaged on the premises unless they spend more than five hours per week there for more than four weeks. The permittee shall remain ultimately liable for compliance with this article regardless of whether or not it is the common law employer of the employees. “Employee” does not include any managerial or administrative employees receiving more than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) per year in wages, salary, bonus, commission or other compensation from the hotel. (Sec. 3 (part), Ord. 08-005, eff. Sep. 18, 2008) 5-32.1.4 Enforcement. (a) If after notice and hearing the City Council finds a large hotel has violated its permit requirements, the Council shall revoke such permit or attach conditions to the renewal of such permit sufficient to remedy past violations and prevent future violations. (b) The City, any City resident or organization operating within the City, or any employee of a large hotel believing the hotel has violated any requirements of this chapter shall be entitled to bring an action in superior or municipal court for injunctive relief and to collect damages for all persons injured by the violation, and collect penalties for the City. Each workday during which the hotel is in violation of this chapter shall be deemed a separate violation for which the hotel shall be liable for a penalty of at least one hundred dollars ($100.00) per day and not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day, the amount to be determined by the court. A prevailing plaintiff in such an action shall be entitled to recover from the hotel his expenses in pursuing the action, including reasonable attorney’s fees. The City shall not be liable under this article for any plaintiff’s damages or legal expenses. The remedies set forth herein are not exclusive of any other remedies available at law, and none is a prerequisite for pursuing another remedy. (c) No person may discharge or otherwise discriminate against any other person for making a complaint, participating in any of its proceedings, using any civil remedies to enforce his or her rights, or otherwise asserting his or her rights under this chapter. (d) Any waiver by an individual of any provisions of this chapter shall be deemed contrary to public policy and shall be void and unenforceable, except that employees are not barred from entering into a written valid collective bargaining agreement waiving provisions of this chapter if such waiver is set forth in clear and unambiguous terms. (e) Each large hotel shall maintain for each employee a record of his or her name, pay rate and, if the hotel claims credit for health benefits, the sums paid by the hotel for the employee’s health benefits. By March 31 of each year, the hotel shall submit to the City a copy of such records for the prior year. Failure to provide a copy of such records within ten (10) days of the due date will result in a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per day. (f) Each large hotel shall give written notification to each current employee, and to each new employee at time of hire, of his or her rights under this chapter. The notification shall be in each language spoken by more than ten (10) employees. 5/22/2019 Chapter 5-32 WORKPLACE JUSTICE STANDARDS AT LARGE HOTELS https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Emeryville/html/Emeryville05/Emeryville0532.html 4/5 (g) Each large hotel in the City shall permit reasonable access to its workforce inside the hotel to authorized City representatives and any organization assisting employees in the hospitality industry. Such access may be used solely for the purpose of monitoring compliance with this chapter and investigating employee complaints of noncompliance. This access shall include the right of City representatives to inspect and copy payroll records, which information shall be used solely for the purpose of enforcing this article. (h) If any provision or application of this chapter is declared illegal, invalid or inoperative, in whole or in part, by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions and portions thereof shall remain in full force or effect. The courts are hereby authorized to reform the provisions of this chapter in order to preserve the maximum permissible effect thereof. (Sec. 3 (part), Ord. 08-005, eff. Sep. 18, 2008) 5-32.1.5 Findings. The people of the City of Emeryville believe it is proper to regulate employment conditions at large hotels first rather than trying to regulate all employers because they believe that (a) large hotels are better able to afford the proposed conditions than other kinds of employers; (b) many large hotels in the Bay Area are already meeting the employment conditions required by this article, unlike the situation in other industries; (c) large hotels provide jobs similar to the janitorial jobs already protected by a similar State law on worker retention, Labor Code Sections 1060 through 1065; and (d) large hotels are generally less likely to respond to such regulation by closing or reducing employment than other kinds of businesses, which can more readily move jobs offshore or to other locations, as large hotels wish to be here because of our City’s location. Each of these factors alone is sufficient to warrant adoption of this article. (Sec. 3 (part), Ord. 08-005, eff. Sep. 18, 2008) Article 2. Limitations During Investigation of Administrative Complaints Repealed by Sec. 2, Ord. 08-005, eff. Sep. 18, 2008. 5/22/2019 Chapter 5-32 WORKPLACE JUSTICE STANDARDS AT LARGE HOTELS https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Emeryville/html/Emeryville05/Emeryville0532.html 5/5 The Emeryville Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 19-005, passed April 2, 2019. Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the Emeryville Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: http://www.ci.emeryville.ca.us City Telephone: (510) 596-4300 Code Publishing Company Chapter 14.25 - HOTEL EMPLOYEES HEALTH AND SAFETY 14.25.010 - Findings The people hereby adopt basic safeguards to protect hotel employees from assault and injury on the job, to improve access to affordable healthcare, and to provide a minimum standard of job security for hotel employees. This measure also includes strong enforcement mechanisms to ensure that hotel owners and operators comply with the law. Providing these protections to hotel employees will make Seattle's economy fairer and more resilient. Hotel employees are vital contributors to our community. The hospitality industry is a profitable and important component of our economy that receives substantial taxpayer support, including through the $1.5 billion expansion of the Washington State Convention Center. However, the hospitality industry has not adequately provided for the safety and security of hotel employees. Due to the unique nature of hotel work, hotel employees are subjected to a higher risk of harassment and violence on the job. Unregulated workloads result in injury rates for hotel housekeepers that are higher than those of coalminers. At the same time, hospitality employees have the lowest rate of access to employer-offered health insurance of any industry in the State of Washington and face unaffordable monthly premiums for family healthcare. Frequent property sales, changes in ownership, mergers and acquisitions in the hospitality industry mean that hotel employees face employment disruptions that are wholly beyond their control. As a vast majority of Seattle hotel employees are women, immigrants, and people of color, these hazards and instabilities within the hospitality industry exacerbate existing structural inequities experienced by these groups. It is appropriate and necessary to protect employees in the hotel industry - those who clean the rooms, change the sheets, and dice the vegetables - from assault and injury, unmanageable medical costs, and unnecessary job loss. (Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.) PART 1 - PROTECTING HOTEL EMPLOYEES FROM VIOLENT ASSAULT AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT 14.25.020 - Intent It is the intent of Part 1 of this measure to protect hotel employees from violent assault, including sexual assault, and sexual harassment and to enable employees to speak out when they experience harassment or assault on the job. Hotel employees are often asked to work alone in hotel rooms, which sometimes may be occupied, placing them at risk of violent assault, including sexual assault, and sexual harassment. (Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.) 14.25.030 - Providing panic buttons to hotel employees providing in-room services A hotel employer shall provide a panic button to each hotel employee assigned to work in a guest room without other employees present, at no cost to the employee. An employee may use the panic button if the employee reasonably believes there is an ongoing crime, harassment, or other emergency in the employee's presence. The hotel employee may cease work and leave the immediate area of perceived danger to await the arrival of assistance, and no adverse employment action may be taken against the employee for such action. (Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.) 14.25.040 - Protecting hotel employees from violent or harassing hotel guests A. A hotel employer must record the accusations it receives that a guest has committed an act of violence, including assault, sexual assault, or sexual harassment towards an employee. The hotel employer must determine and record the name of the guest; if the name of the guest cannot be determined, the hotel employer must determine and record as much identifying information about the guest as is reasonably possible. The hotel employer shall compile and maintain a list of all guests so accused. The employer shall retain a guest on the list for at least five years from the date of the most recent accusation against the guest, during which time the employer shall retain all writ ten documents relating to such accusations. B. If an accusation against a guest under subsection 14.25.040.A involves assault, sexual assault, or sexual harassment, and is supported by a statement made under penalty of perjury or other evidence, the employer shall decline to allow the guest to return to the hotel for at least thr ee years after the date of the incident. No employee may be required to provide such statement. C. The hotel employer must notify any hotel employee assigned to work in guest ro oms without other employees present, prior to starting their scheduled work, of any guest on the list established by subsection 14.25.040.A who is staying at the hotel, identify the room assigned to the guest, and warn the employees to exercise caution when entering that room during the time the guest is staying in the hotel. (Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.) 14.25.050 - Deterring assaults by notifying guests of employee protections Each hotel shall place a sign on the back of each guest room door, written in a font size of no less than 18 points, that includes the heading "The Law Protects Hotel Housekeepers and Other Employees From Violent Assault and Sexual Harassment," a citation to this Chapter 14.25, and notice of the fact that the hotel is providing panic buttons to its housekeepers, room servers, and other employees assigned to work in guest rooms without other employees present, in compliance with this Chapter 14.25. (Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.) 14.25.060 - Protecting employees who report assault or sexual harassment An employee who brings to the attention of a hotel employer the occurrence of an act of violence, including assault and sexual assault, or sexual harassment by a guest shall be afforded the following rights: A. Upon request, the employee shall be reassigned to a different floor, or, if none is available for the employee's job classification, a different work area away from the guest for the entire duration of the guest's stay at the hotel; B. The hotel employer shall immediately allow the employee sufficient paid time to contact the police and provide a police statement and to consult with a counselor or advisor of the employee's choosing; and C. The hotel employer, with the consent of the employee, shall report an incident involving alleged criminal conduct by a guest to the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction and shall cooperate with any investigation into the incident undertaken by the agency and any attorney for the complaining employee. (Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.) PART 2 - PROTECTING HOTEL EMPLOYEES FROM INJURY 14.25.070 - Intent It is the intent of this Part 2 to protect hotel employees from on-the-job injury. Hotel employees suffer an unacceptably high rate of on-the-job injuries from heavy lifting, repetitive tasks, and chemical exposure, and are 40 percent more likely to be injured on the job than all other service sector workers. The provisions of this Part 2 will help to protect hotel employees from such injuries. (Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.) 14.25.080 - Hotel employers must adopt reasonable practices to protect the safety of hotel employees Hotel employers must provide and use safety devices, and safeguards and use work practices, methods, processes, and means that are reasonably adequate to make their workplaces safe. (Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.) 14.25.090 - Hotel employers must protect their employees from chemical hazards Hotel employers must: A. Control chemical agents in a manner that they will not present a hazard to employees; B. Protect employees from the hazard of contact with, or exposure to, chemical agents; and C. Provide employees with effective information on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial job assignment. Information must be provided wh enever a new physical or health hazard related to chemical exposure is introduced into work areas. (Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.) 14.25.100 - Hotel employers must protect hotel housekeepers from injuries A. Significant injuries to hotel housekeepers result from the repetitive and strenuous tasks that must be performed in each guest room, including lifting requirements that can substantially exceed federal occupational safety standards. Hotel housekeepers face the highest injury rate of all hotel occupations. Risk of injury is increased when hotel housekeepers must clean more than 5,000 square feet of guest rooms in an eight-hour workday, and further increases when housekeepers are required to perform more than ten strenuous guest room cleanings during the da y or to clean guest rooms at an unsafe speed. Workplace interventions have been found to significantly reduce injury rates for hotel housekeepers. B. An employee providing housekeeping services at a large hotel shall not be required to clean guest rooms totaling more than 5,000 square feet of floor space in an eight -hour workday. When an employee performs ten or more strenuous room cleanings in an eight-hour workday, the maximum floor space shall be reduced by 500 square feet for the tenth strenuous room cleaning and for each such strenuous room cleaning thereafter. C. For an employee cleaning guest rooms for fewer than eight hours per day, the foregoing maximums and reductions shall be prorated according to the actual number of hours worked cleaning gue st rooms. D. If an employee performs cleaning in excess of the square footage allowed by this Section 14.25.100 in a day, the hotel employer shall pay such hotel employee at least time-and-a- half the employee's regular rate of pay for all time worked cleaning guest rooms during that day. (Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.) PART 3 - IMPROVING ACCESS TO MEDICAL CARE FOR LOW INCOME HOTEL EMPLOYEES 14.25.110 - Intent It is the intent of Part 3 to improve access to affordable family medical care for hotel employees. In Washington's economy, hospitality industry employers are the least likely to offer health insurance to employees and their contributions are second to lowest. The average monthly cost to a hotel employee for family medical coverage through an employer-offered plan exceeds $500 per month, forcing nearly half of eligible employees to decline such plans. Access to affordable medical care is critical for hotel employees to care for themselves and their families. Additional compensation reflecting hotel employees' anticipated family medical costs is necessary to improve access to medical care for low income hotel employees. (Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.) 14.25.120 - Large hotel employers must provide additional compensation reflective of the cost of medical coverage to low-income hotel employees A. A large hotel employer shall pay, by no later than the 15th day of each calendar month, each of its low-wage employees who work full time at a large hotel additional wages or salary in an amount equal to the greater of $200, adjusted annually for inflation, or the difference between (1) the monthly premium for the lowest-cost, gold-level policy available on the Washington Health Benefit Exchange and (2) 7.5 percent of the amount by which the employee's compensation for the previous calendar month, not including the additional wage or salary required by this Section 14.25.120, exceeds 100 percent of the federal poverty line. The additional wages or salary required under this Section 14.25.120 are in addition to and will not be considered as wages paid for purposes of determining compliance with the hourly minimum wage and hourly minimum compensation requirements set forth in Sections 14.19.030 through 14.19.050. B. A large hotel employer shall not be required to pay the additional wages or salary required by this Section 14.25.120 with respect to an employee for whom the hotel employer provides health and hospitalization coverage at least equal to a gold-level policy on the Washington Health Benefit Exchange at a premium or contribution cost to the employee of no m ore than five percent of the employee's gross taxable earnings paid to the employe e by the hotel employer or its contractors or subcontractors. C. If a household includes multiple employees covered by this Section 14.25.120, the total of all additional wage or salary payments made pursuant to this Section 14.25.120 to such employees b y one or more hotel employers shall not exceed the total cost for coverage of the household under the least-expensive gold policy offered on the Washington Health Benefit Exc hange. If one or more employees in the household are employed by more than one hotel employer, the hotel employers may coordinate their payments so that their combined payments do not exceed the foregoing maximum. In the absence of an agreement among hotel employers to so coordinate their payments, the amount of additional wages payable by each hotel employer shall be the amount due to each employee under subsection 14.25.120.A. D. The inflation adjustment required under subsection 14.25.120.A shall be ca lculated using the year- over-year increase in cost of the lowest cost gold level policy available on the Washington Health Benefit Exchange. (Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.) PART 4 - PREVENTING DISRUPTIONS IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY 14.25.130 - Intent This Part 4 is intended to reduce disruptions to the Seattle economy that could result from the increasing number of property sales and changes in ownership in the hotel industry and also to protect low-income workers. Even long-term and exemplary employees may find themselves terminated solely because a multinational corporation has decided to sell the hotel at which they work. (Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.) 14.25.140 - Worker retention A. When a hotel undergoes a change in control, the outgoing hotel employer shall, within 15 days after the execution of a transfer document, provide to the incoming hotel employer the name, address, date of hire, and employment occupation classification of each retention hotel worker. B. The incoming hotel employer shall maintain a preferential hiring list of retention hotel workers identified by the outgoing hotel employer, as set forth in subsection 14.25.140.A, and shall be required to hire from that list for a period beginning upon the execution of the transfer document and continuing for six months after the hotel is open to the public under the incoming hotel employer. C. If the incoming hotel employer extends an offer of employment to a retention hotel worker, the offer shall be in writing and remain open for at least ten business days. The incoming hotel employer shall retain written verification of that offer for no fewer than three years from the date the offer was made. The verification shall include the name, address, date of hire, and employment occupation classification of each retention hotel worker. D. An incoming hotel employer shall retain each retentio n hotel worker hired pursuant to this Section 14.25.140 for no fewer than 90 days following the retention hotel worker's employment commencement date. During this 90-day transition employment period, retention hotel workers shall be employed under the terms and conditions established by the incoming hotel employer, or as required by law. E. If, within the 90-day transition employment period established in subsection 14.25.140.D, the incoming hotel employer determines that it requires fewer hotel employees than were required by the outgoing hotel employer, the incoming hotel employer shall retain retention hotel workers by seniority within each job classification to the extent that comparable job classifications exis t. F. During the 90-day transition employment period, the incoming hotel employer shall not discharge without just cause a retention hotel worker retained pursuant to this Section 14.25.140. G. At the end of the 90-day transition employment period, the incoming hotel employer shall provide a written performance evaluation for each hotel worker retained pursuant to this Section 14.25.140. If the retention hotel worker's performance during the 90-day transition employment period is satisfactory, the incom ing hotel employer shall consider offering the retention hotel worker continued employment under the terms and conditions established by the incoming hotel employer, or as required by law. The incoming hotel employer shall retain a record of the written pe rformance evaluation for a period of no fewer than three years. H. The outgoing hotel employer shall post written notice of the change in control at the location of the affected hotel within five business days following the execution of the transfer docu ment. Notice shall be posted in a conspicuous place at the hotel so as to be readily viewed by retention hotel workers, other employees, and applicants for employment. Notice shall include, but not be limited to, the name of the outgoing hotel employer and its contact information, the name of the incoming hotel employer and its contact information, and the effective date of the change in control. Notice shall remain posted during any closure of the hotel and for six months after the hotel is open to the pub lic under the incoming hotel employer. (Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.) PART 5 - ENFORCING COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW 14.25.150 - Enforcement A. Exercise of rights protected; retaliation prohibited 1. It shall be a violation for a hotel employer or any other person to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any right protected under this Chapter 14.25. 2. No person may discharge, reduce any part of the compensation of, or otherwise discriminate against an employee, in response to the enactment of this Chapter 14.25, or in response to the employee asserting rights under this Chapter 14.25. Such adverse actions are deem ed to harm the public and the employees irreparably, and hence preliminary equitable relief and reinstatement shall be available to the affected employees in addition to all other relief. 3. It shall be a violation for a hotel employer to take any adverse action against any employee because the employee has exercised in good faith the rights protected under this Chapter 14.25. Such rights include but are not limited to the right to assert any rights guaranteed pursuant to this Chapter 14.25; the right to make inquiries about the rights protected under this Chapter 14.25; the right to inform others about an employer's alleged violation of this Chapter 14.25; the right to cooperate with the City in any investigations of alleged violations of this Chapter 14.25; the right to oppose any policy, practice, or act that is unlawful under this Chapter 14.25; the right to file an oral or written complaint with the City or to bring a civil action for an alleged violation of this Chapter 14.25; the right to testify in a proceeding under or related to this Chapter 14.25; the right to refuse to participate in any activity that would result in a violation of city, state, or federal law; and the right to oppose any policy, practice, or act that is unlawful under this Chapter 14.25. 4. It shall be a violation for a hotel employer to (a) communicate to an employee exercising rights under this Chapter 14.25, directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly, its willingness or intent t o inform a government employee that the em ployee is not lawfully in the United States; or (b) report or threaten to report suspected citizenship or immigration status of an employee or a family member of the employee to a federal, state, or local agency be cause the employee has exercised a right under this Chapter 14.25. 5. There shall be a rebuttable presumption of retaliation if a hotel employer takes an adverse action against an employee within 90 days of the employee's exercise of rights protected in this Chapter 14.25. The hotel employer may rebut the presumption with clear and convincing evidence that the action was taken for a permissible purpose and that the employee's exercise of rights protected in this Chapter 14.25 was not a motivating factor in the adverse action. 6. When the presumption in subsection 14.25.150.A.5 does not apply, proof of retaliation under this Chapter 14.25 shall be sufficient upon a showing that a hotel employer has taken an adverse action against an employee and the employee's exercise of rights protected in this Chapter 14.25 was a motivating factor in the adverse action, unless the hotel employer can prove that the action would have been taken in the absence of such protected activity. 7. The protections under subsections 14.25.150.A.2 and 14.25.150.A.3 apply to any employee who mistakenly but in good faith alleges violations of this Chapter 14.25. B. Notice, posting, and records 1. Each hotel employer shall give written notification to each current employee and to each new employee at time of hire of the employee's rights under this Chapter 14.25. The notification shall be in each language spoken by ten or more employees. 2. Each hotel employer shall maintain for three years, for each employee and former employee, by name, a record showing the following information: (a) for each workweek of employment, the employee's regular hourly rate of pay; (b) for each month of full-time employment at a large hotel, the amount of additional wages or salary paid as additional c ompensation reflective of the cost of medical coverage for low income hotel employees, as required by section 14.25.120; and (c) for each day of employment as a housekeeping employee at a large hotel, the total square feet of guest room floor space cleaned, the number of strenuous room cleanings performed, the number of hours worked, and the employee's gross pay for that day. The hotel employer must, upon request, make all such employee and former employee records available in full to any requesting employee and to the Office of Labor Standards for inspection and copying. C. Private enforcement action 1. Any person claiming injury from a violation of this Chapter 14.25 shall be entitled to bring an action in King County Superior Court or in any other court of competent jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this Chapter 14.25, and shall be entitled to all remedies available at law or in equity appropriate to remedy any violation of this Chapter 14.25, including but not limited to lost compensation and other damages, reinstatement, declaratory or injunctive relief, prejudgment interest, exemplary damages equal to the amount of wages wrongfully withheld or not paid on the established regular pay day when those wages were due, and to collect civil penaltie s as described in subsection 14.25.150.E. 2. A person who prevails in any action to enforce this Chapter 14.25 shall be awarded costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and expenses. 3. An order issued by the court may include a requirement for a compliance report to be submitted to the court and to the City by the hotel employer. D. Powers and duties of the Office of Civil Rights 1. The Office of Civil Rights may investigate charges alleging violations of this Chapter 14.25 and shall have such powers and duties in the performance of these functions as are necessary and proper in the performance of the same and provided for by law. 2. The Division Director of the Office of Labor Stan dards within the Office for Civil Rights, or the Division Director's designee, is authorized and directed to promulgate rules consistent with this Chapter 14.25, including rules that protect the identity and privacy rights of employees who have made complaints under this Chapter 14.25. E. Penalties 1. Each workday during which the hotel employer is in violation of this Chapter 14.25 shall be deemed a separate violation for which the hotel employer shall be liable for a penalty, exclusive of any damages which may be recovered by or awarded to any employee, of at least $100 per day per employee, and not more than $1,000 per day per employee, in an amount to be determined by the court. 2. Civil penalties shall be distributed as follows: 50 percent to the Office of Labor Standards; 25 percent to the aggrieved employees, distributed according to each employee's share of injury by the violations; and 25 percent to the person bringing the case. Penalties paid to the Office of Labor Standards shall be used for the enforcement of labor laws and the education of employers and employees about their rights and responsibilities under the laws governing labor standards, to be continuously appropriated to supplement and not supplant existing funding for those purposes. (Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.) PART 6 - DEFINITIONS 14.25.160 - Definitions For the purposes of this Chapter 14.25: "Change in control" means any sale, assignment, transfer, contribution, or other disposition of all or substantially all of the assets used in the operation of a hotel or a discrete portion of the hotel that continues in operation as a hotel, or a controlling interest (including by consolidation, merger, or reorganization) of the outgoing hotel employer or any person who controls the outgoing hotel em ployer. "Checkout room" means a guest room assigned to be cleaned by an employee due to the departure of the guest assigned to that room. "Compensation" means wages, salary, sick pay, vacation pay, holiday pay, bonuses, commissions, allowances, and in-kind compensation for work performed. "Employee" and "hotel employee" means any non-managerial, non-supervisory individual employed by a hotel employer who: 1. In any particular workweek perform s at least two hours of work within the geographic boundaries of the City of Seattle for a hotel employer; and 2. Qualifies as an employee entitled to payment of a minimum wage from any employer under the City of Seattle and/or State of Washington minimum wage laws. "Employee" and "hotel employee" include any individual (1) whose place of employment is at one or more hotels and (2) who is employed directly by the hotel employer or by a person who has contracted with the hotel employer to provide services at the hotel. Supervisory and confidential employees as defined under the National Labor Relations Act are not considered employees under this Chapter 14.25. "Employment commencement date" means the date on which a hotel employee retained by the incoming hotel employer pursuant to this Chapter 14.25 commences work for the incoming hotel employer in exchange for benefits and compensation under the terms and conditions established by the incoming hotel employer or as required by law. "Federal poverty line" means the poverty line for the size of the employee's house hold for the Seattle area as published in the Annual Update by the Department of Health and Human Services of the Poverty Guidelines for the 48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia in the Federal Register. "Full time" means at least 80 hours in a calendar month. "Hotel" means a hotel or motel, as defined in Section 23.84A.024, containing 60 or more guest rooms or suites of rooms. "Hotel" also includes any contracted, leased, or sublet premises connected to or operated in conjunction with the building's purpose, or providing services at the building. "Hotel employer" means any person, including a corporate officer or executive, who directly or indirectly or through an agent or any other person, including through the services of a temporary servic e or staffing agency or similar entity, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of any employee and who owns, controls, and/or operates a hotel in Seattle; or a person who employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of any person employed in conjunction with a hotel employer in furtherance of the hotel's provision of lodging and other related services for the public. "Incoming hotel employer" means the person that owns, controls, and/or operat es a hotel subject to a change in control after the change in control. "Large hotel" means a hotel containing 100 or more guest rooms or suites of rooms suitable for providing lodging to members of the public for a fee, regardless of how many of those rooms or suites are occupied or in commercial use at any given time. "Low-wage employee" means an employee whose total compensation from the employer is 400 percent or less of the federal poverty line for the size of the employee's household. "Outgoing hotel employer" means the person that owns, controls, and/or operates a hotel subject to a change in control prior to the change in control. "Panic button" means an emergency contact device carried by an employee by which the employee may summon immediate on-scene assistance from another employee, security guard, or representative of the hotel employer. "Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, limited liability company, business trust, estate, trust, association, joint venture, agency, instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity, whether domestic or foreign. "Policy" means an insurance policy available on the Washington Health Benefit Exchange that would provide coverage to the employee and, if the employee has any spouse and dependent children, to the employee's spouse and dependent children in addition to the employee. "Stayover room" means a guest room assigned to be cleaned by an employee where the guest's stay has not yet ended. "Strenuous room cleaning" means the cleaning of (1) a checkout room or (2) a stayover room that includes a cot, rollout bed, pet bed or crib. "Transfer document" means the purchase agreement or other document(s) creating a binding agreement to effect the change in control. "Retention hotel worker" means any employee (1) whose primary place of employment is at a hotel subject to a change in control, (2) who is employed directly by the outgoing hotel employer, or by a person who has contracted with the outgoing hotel employer to provide services at the hotel subject to a change in control, and (3) who has worked for the outgoing hotel employer for at least one month prior to the execution of the transfer document. "Wages or salary" means the gross amount of taxable cash earnings paid to an employee by an employer or the employer's contractors or subcontractors. (Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.) PART 7 - MISCELLANEOUS 14.25.170 - Waiver A. The provisions of this Chapter 14.25 may not be waived by agreement between an individual employee and a hotel employer. B. Any waiver by a party to a collective bargaining relationship involving a hotel employer of any provisions of Sections 14.25.020 through 14.25.060 and the applicable enforcement mechanisms under Section 14.25.150 shall be deemed contrary to public policy and shall be void and unenforceable. C. Except as provided in Section 14.25.170.B, all of the provisions of this Chapter 14.25, or any part hereof, may be waived in a bona fide written collective bargaining agreement waiving provisions of this Chapter 14.25, if such a waiver is set forth in clear and unambiguous terms. Unilateral implementation of terms and conditions of employment by either party to a collective bargaining relationship shall not constitute, or be permitted, as a waiver of all or any part of the provisions of this Chapter 14.25. (Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.) 14.25.180 - Severability and exceptions A. The provisions of this Chapter 14.25 are declared to be separate and severable. If any provision of this Chapter 14.25, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this Chapter 14.25 that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application; and to this end, the provisions or applications of this Chapter 14.25 are severable. B. The requirements of this Chapter 14.25 shall not apply where and to the extent that state or federal law or regulations preclude their applicability. (Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.) 14.25.190 - Short title This Chapter 14.25 is titled the Seattle Hotel Employees Health and Safety Initiative. (Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.) City of Chicago Office of the City Clerk Document Tracking Sheet O2017-3260 Meeting Date: Sponsor(s): Type: Title: Committee(s) Assignment: 4/19/2017 Harris (8) Mitts (37) Foulkes (16) Pawar (47) Laurino (39) Sadlowski Garza (10) Austin (34) Burnett (27) Dowell (3) King (4) Hairston (5) Quinn (13) Ordinance Amendment of Municipal Code Section 4-6-180 by requiring hotel employees assigned to work in guestrooms or restrooms to be equipped with portable emergency contact devices Committee on Workforce Development and Audit ORDINANCE WHEREAS, The City of Chicago is a home rule unit of govemment as defined in Article VI, §6(a) ofthe Illinois Constitution, and, as such, may exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its govemment and affairs; and WHEREAS, Promoting the health, safety and welfare of people who work within the corporate limits of the City is a matter pertaining to the govemment and affairs of the City of Chicago; and WHEREAS, Chicago's hotels and motels employ thousands of hard-working women and men, all of whom deserve protection against sexual assault and sexual harassment while on the job; and WHEREAS, A recent survey conducted by UNITE HERE Local I of 487 women employed in 13 Chicagoland hotels and casinos found that women working in the leisure and hospitality industry, many of whom are immigrants or women of color, experience rampant sexual harassment and incidences of sexual assault by male guests. Hotel housekeepers are in a particularly vulnerable position, as they often work alone in guest rooms; and WHEREAS, 49% of the housekeepers surveyed reported guests who answered the door naked, exposed themselves or flashed them; and WHEREAS, 58% of the female housekeepers surveyed reported being sexually harassed by guests, including being touched, comered, or shown sexual material that they did not want to see. Some of these instances include a guest who masturbated in the housekeeper's presence, a guest who blocked the door to the room with his naked body, and a guest who approached the housekeeper from behind and grabbed her breasts; and WHEREAS, Only one-third of the women surveyed reported that they told their supervisor or manager when a guest sexually harassed them. Some of the survey respondents indicated that when co-workers reported sexual harassment to their superiors, nothing changed, which discouraged them from reporting similar harassment; and WHEREAS, These findings have been replicated in other surveys. In its September 2016 report filled, "Survey of Downtown Seattle Hotel Housekeepers Reveals Frequent Sexual Harassment and Pain", the Puget Sound Sage found that 53% of surveyed Seattle housekeepers reported incidences of sexual harassment and assault, including being flashed or exposed to nudity, touched, groped and blocked from leaving the room, and that 51% of these incidents went unreported to supervisors. 95% of surveyed Sealde housekeepers reported that they would feel safer entering occupied guest rooms if they were equipped with a panic button; and WHEREAS, Hotel staff in larger New York City hotels have been equipped with personal panic buttons since 2012; and WHEREAS, Hotel employers in Chicago shouid safeguard their employees by providing housekeepers who enter hotel rooms alone with panic buttons to summon help in the event of unwanted sexual activity, and by adopting policies and practices that encourage workers to report incidents of sexual assault and harassment so that appropriate steps can be taken to protect employees from additional harm and to hold the perpetrators of these offensive acts accountable for their illegal and unacceptable behavior; and WHEREAS, The City of Chicago is committed to creating and fostering non-hostile work environments free from the fear of sexual assault and sexual harassment; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO: SECTION 1. Section 4-6-180 of the Municipal Code of Chicago is hereby amended by deleting the language stricken through and by inserting the language underscored, as follows: 4-6-180 HoteL (a) Definitions. As used in this section: "Anti-sexual harassment policy" means the written policy required under subsection (f)(2) ofthis secfion. "Employee" means anv natural person who works al a hotel. "Guest" means any invitee to a hotel, including registered guests, persons occupying guest rooms with registered guests, visitors invited to guest rooms by a registered guest or other occupant of a guest room, persons patronizing food or beverage facilities provided by the hotel, or any other person whose presence at the hotel is permitted by the licensee, but specifically excludes employees. "Guest room" means any room made available by a hotel for occupancy by guests. (Omitted text is unaffected by ihis ordinance) "Panic button" means a portable emergency contact device that an employee can quickly and easily activate to effectively summon to the employee's location prompt assistance by a hotel security officer, manager or other appropriate hotel staff member designated by the licensee. "Restroom" means any room equipped with toilets. "Sexual harassment" means any unwelcome sexual advance, request for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. (Omitted text is unaffected by this ordinance) (f) Legal duties. Each license engaged in the business of hotel shall a duty to: (1) equip employees who are assigned lo work in a guest room or rest room, under circumstances where no other employee is present in such room, with a panic button. The employee mav use the panic button to summon help if the employee reasonably believes that an ongoing crime, sexual harassment, sexual assault or other emergency is occurring in the employee's presence. Panic buttons shall be provided by the licensee at no cost to the employee: {2} develop, maintain and comply with a written anfi-sexual harassment policy to protect employees against sexual assault and sexual harassment by guests. Such policy shall: (al encourage employees ("complaining employee") to immediately report to the licensee instances of alleged sexual assault and sexual harassment by guests ("offending guest"): (b) describe the procedures that the complaining employee and licensee shall follow in such cases: (c) afford the complaining employee the right to cease work and leave the immediate area where danger is perceived until such fime that hotel security personnel or members ofthe PoUce Department arrive to provide assistance: fdl afford the complaining employee the right, during the durafion of the offending guest's stay at the hotel, to be assigned to work on a different floor or at a different station or work area away from the offending guest: (e) provide the complaining emplovee with sufficient paid time to: (i) sign a complaint with the Police Department against the offending guest, and (ii) tesfify as a witness at any legal proceeding that may ensue as a result of such complaint, if the complaining employee is sfill in the licensee's employ at the time such legal proceeding occurs: (f) inform the employee that the Illinois Fluman Rights Act and Chicago Human Rights Ordinance provide additional protections against sexual harassment in the workplace: and (g) inform the employee that subsecfion (gXl") of this section makes it illegal for an employer to retaliate against anv employee who reasonably uses a panic button or exercises any right under this subsection (f)(2') or discloses, reports or testifies about any violadon of this secfion or rules promulgated thereunder. Nothing in this subsection (f)(2) shall be constmed to relieve the licensee from compliance with Section 4-4-306: and (3) provide all employees with a current copy of the hotel's anti-sexual harassment policy, and post the policy in conspicuous places in areas of the hotel, such as supply rooms or employee lunch rooms, where employees can reasonably be expected lo see it. (g) Prohibited acts. It shall be unlawful for any licensee engaged in the business of hotel to: (1) discriminate against or take any adverse action against any employee in retaliation for such emplovee: (i) reasonably using a panic button, or (ii) exercising any right under subsecfion (f)(2) ofthis section, or (iii) disclosing, reporting, or tesfifying about any violation of this secfion or mles promulgated thereunder. For purposes of this subsection (g)(1). prohibited adverse acfions include, but are not limiled to. unjustified termination, uniusfified denial of promotion, unjustified negative evaluations, punitive schedule changes, punitive decreases in the desirability of work assignments, and other acts of harassment shown to be linked to any activity set forth in items (i) through (iii). inclusive, ofthis subsection (g)(1). (fh) Penalty - License revocation - One year wait for new license - Exceptions. (1) In addition to any other penalty provided by law, any person who violates any requirement of this section or any mle or regulation promulgated tliereunder shall be subject to a fine of not less than $250.00 nor more than $500.00 for each offense. Each day that a violation continues shall consfitute a separate and distinct offense. (Omitted text is unaffected by this ordinance) SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take full force and effect 90 days after ils passage and publicafion. Aldennan Michelle Harris, 8"' Ward Alderman Toni FbutKes, 16 ' Ward Alderman Margaret Laurino, 39 Ward Alderman Carrie M. Austin, 34"' Ward derman Emma Mitts, 37"' Ward Alderman Walter Burnett, Jr., 27"^ War5 Alderman Pat Dowell emian Leslie "A. Hairston, S"' Ward Aldermah Marty Quirfh, 13th Ward City of Chicago Office of the City Clerk Document Tracking Sheet SO2017-3260 Meeting Date: Sponsor(s): Type: Title: Committee(s) Assignment: 4/19/2017 Harris (8) Mitts (37) Foulkes (16) Pawar (47) Laurino (39) Sadlowski Garza (10) Austin (34) Burnett (27) Dowell (3) King (4) Hairston (5) Quinn (13) O'Connor (40) Burke (14) Silverstein (50) Beale (9) Smith (43) Valencia (Clerk) Ordinance Amendment of Municipal Code Section 4-6-180 by requiring hotel employees assigned to work in guest rooms or restrooms to be equipped with portable emergency contact devices Committee on Workforce Development and Audit SUBSTITUTE ORDINANCE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO: SECTION 1. Section 4-6-180 of the Municipal Code of Chicago is hereby amended by inserting the language underscored, as follows: 4-6-180 Hotel. (a) Definitions. As used in this section: "Anti-sexual harassment policv" means the written policy required under subsection (e)(T) of this section. "EmployeeCs)" means any natural person who works full time or part time at a hotel for or under the direction of the licensee or any subcontractor of the licensee for wages or salary or remuneration of any type under a contract or subcontract of employment, whether express or imphed. "Guest" means any invitee to a hotel, including registered guests, persons occupying guest rooms with registered guests, visitors invited to guest rooms by a registered guest or other occupant of a guest room, persons patronizing food or beverage facilities provided by the hotel, or any other person whose presence at the hotel is permitted by the licensee. The term "guest" does not include employees. "Guest room" means any room made available by a hotel for ovemight occupancy by guests. (Omitted text is unaffected by this ordinance) "Panic button" or "notification device" means a portable emergency contact device that is designed so that an employee can quickly and easily activate such button or device to effectively summon to the employee's location prompt assistance by a hotel security officer, manager or other appropriate hotel staff member designated by the licensee. "Restroom" means any room equipped with toilets. "Sexual harassment" means any unwelcome sexual advance, request for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. 1 (Omitted text is unaffected by this ordinance) (d) Departmental duties. (Omitted text is unaffected by this ordinance) (3) Investigations to enforce the provisions of subsection (e) of this section may be conducted, as appropriate, by the Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection or Chicago Commission on Human Relations ("CCHR"). Investigations to enforce subsection (f)(3) of this section shall be conducted by CCHR. (e) Legal duties. Each license engaged in the business of hotel shall a duty to: (1) equip employees who are assigned to work in a guest room or restroom, under circumstances where no other employee is present in such room, with a panic button or notification device. The employee may use the panic button or notification device to summon help if the employee reasonably believes that an ongoing crime, sexual harassment, sexual assault or other emergency is occuning in the employee's presence. Panic buttons and notification devices shall be provided by the licensee at no cost to the employee; (2) develop, maintain and comply with a written anti-sexual harassment policy to protect employees against sexual assault and sexual harassment by guests. Such policy shall: (a) encourage employees ("complaining employee") to immediately report to the licensee instances of alleged sexual assault and sexual harassment by guests ("offending guest"); (b) describe the procedures that the complaining employee and licensee shall follow in such cases; (c) instruct the complaining employee to cease work and to leave the immediate area where danger is perceived until hotel security personnel or members of the Police Department arrive to provide assistance; (d) offer temporary work assignments to the complaining employee during the duration of the offending guest's stay at the hotel, which may include assigning the employee to work on a different floor or at a different station or work area away from the offending guest; (e) provide the complaining employee with necessary paid time off to: (i) sign a complaint with the Police Department against the offending guest, and (ii) testify as a witness at any legal proceeding that may ensue as a result of such complaint, if the complaining employee is still in the licensee's employ at the time such legal proceeding occurs; (f) inform the employee that the Illinois Human Rights Act, Chicago Human Rights Ordinance and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provide additional protections against sexual harassment in the workplace; and (g) inform the employee that subsection (f)(3) of this section makes it illegal for an employer to retaliate against any employee who reasonably uses a panic button or notification device, or in good faith avails himself or herself of the requirements set forth in subsection (e)(2)(c); (e)(2)(d), (e)(2)(e) of this subsection, or discloses, reports or testifies about any violation of this section or rules promulgated thereunder. Nothing in this subsection (e)(2) shall be constmed to relieve the licensee from compliance with Section 2 4-4-306; and (3) provide all employees with a cun'ent copy in English, Spanish and Polish of the hotel's anti-sexual harassment policv, and post such policy in English, Spanish and Polish in conspicuous places in areas of the hotel, such as supply rooms or employee lunch rooms, where employees can reasonably be expected to see it. (e){jQ Prohibited acts., It shall be unlawful for any licensee engaged in the business of , hotel to: (Omitted text is utia,ffected by this ordinance) (3) retaliate against any employee for: (i) reasonably using a panic button or notification device, or (ii) availing himself or herself of the requirements set forth in subsection (e) (2)(c), (e)(2)(d) or (e)(2)(e) of this section, or (iii) disclosing, reporting, or testifying about any violation of this section or any rule promulgated thereunder. Any complaint alleging a violation of this subsection (f)(3) shall be filed by the aggrieved party with the Chicago Commission on Human Relations ("CCHR") no later than 180 days after the occurrence of the alleged violation and in accordance with rules duly promulgated by the Commissioner of CCHR. Two or more adjudged violations of this subsection (f)(3) within any 12-month period may result in license suspension or revocation in accordance with Section 4-4-280. Provided, however, that: (A) the subject matter of any such disciplinary hearing or proceeding under Section 4-4-280 shall be limited to the issue of whether the required number of adjudged violations of this subsection (f) (3) occurred within any 12-month period; (B) the licensee shall not be permitted at such disciplinary hearing or proceeding to challenge the adjudged violations themselves, nor any underlying facts asserted or determined therein; and (C) no fines shall be imposed on the licensee as a result of such displinary hearing or proceeding under Section 4-4-280. (f) (g) Penalty - License revocation - One year wait for new license - Exceptions. (1) fa Except as otherwise provided in subsection (f)(3)(C) of this section, and in addition to any other penalty provided by law, any person who violates any requirement of this section or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder shall be subject to a fine of not less than $250.00 nor more than $500.00 for each offense. Each day that a violation continues shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. (Omitted text is unaffected by this ordinance) SECTION 2. Section 2-160-090 of the Municipal Code of Chicago is hereby amended by deleting the language stricken through and by inserting the language underscored, as follows: 2-160-090 Violation - Investigation by commission on human relations - Prosecution. The Chicago commission on human relations Commission on Human Relations shall receive and investigate complaints of violations of this chapter, except where such duty is modified by intergovernmental agreement^ and complaints of violations of subsection (f)(3) of Section 4-6-180, and shall prepare and provide necessary fonns for such complaints. No person shall refiise or fail to comply with any subpoena, order or decision issued in the course of or as a result of an investigation. SECTION 3. Section 2-160-100 of the Municipal Code of Chicago is hereby amended by inserting the language underscored, as follows: 2-160-100 Retaliation prohibited. No person shall retaliate against any individual because that individual in good faith has made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under this chapter or under subsection (f)(3) of Secfion 4-6-180. SECTION 4. Following its passage and publication, that portion of this Ordinance that creates subsection (e)(1) of Section 4-6-180 shall take fiiU force and effect on July 1, 2018. The remainder of this Ordinance shall take full force and effect 60 days after its passage and publication. CHICAGO CITY COUNCIL CO-SPONSOR ADDITION /CHANGE Document No.: SO c^OU ' ^^(^0 4-0 U« (A}6p.<>A^hxJt>-tt x^vjM^<>vt c>^vJca.d^ ckj8,\j( o-^) . Please Add or Change-fKe Co-^ponsofas Shown Below Alderman Alderman Alderman Alderman Alderman / 3^ Ward Ward Ward Ward Please Remove or Change the Co-sponsor as Shown Below Alderman Alderman Alderman Alderman Alderman PATRICK J. O'CONNOR, Chairman Committee on Workforce Development and Audit Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward ro o —J — ^ —1 — CD n —I 1 cr> :x) —1 :x) —1 — rn *• CO cn o Final copies to be filed with: • Chairman of Committee to which legislation was referred • City Clerk CHICAGO CITY COUNCIL CO-SPONSOR ADDITION /CHANGE Document No.: Subject: Yj^,i /?yw.^orjft^ cuytujc^^v^j Ax3 u>tnie,>c/vc. CKJUL/^^ jftrnArtS bA. lu-^^Xf^^^yj^ 4-D Ue jta-^uLA^pf^ u^6t><>AJFai>^ jyvvJi^^Jifiyv-CL\ twJbo-d Please Add or Chan re c.o-bponsoras3hQwn 40 Ward Q ' Ward JjrL!_Ward _y3lLWard 50' Ward Please Remove or Change the Co-sponsor as Shown Below Alderman Alderman Alderman Alderman Alderman Ward Ward .Ward .Ward Ward PATRICK J. O'CONNOR, Chairman Committee on Workforce Development and Audit Final copies to be filed with: • Chairman of Committee to which legislation was referred • City Clerk o —J o-n —1 — —1 -<<^ n"; 1 o cr» r-O 33. re —•_ r-n •« CO cn :3rj rn CO — CHICAGO CITY COUNCIL CO-SPONSOR ADDITION /CHANGE Document No.: SO cSOll ' f^3.(o0 Subject: yrXii. pA^.^fyxjttJi cuuujyui/j 4o uxnte-AAA- rMjuiyvt-.j ••" • • - IK ju^^jX^i.^MJ wJ/Sp/<yvh)J^ -X^vv-i^u^^ Please Add Alderma Alderman Alderma Alderman I Alderman 7 40 Ward .9 Ward \ M, ' Ward j-\5^Ward 50 Ward Please Remove or Change the Co-sponsor as Shown Below Alderman Alderman Alderman Alderman Alderman PATRICK J. O'CONNOR, Chairman Committee on Workforce Development and Audit Ward Ward o —1-1'' .War(i<;o .Wa^i-; .Wafdf^ CD I cn X- o C*5 CJ7 Flnal copies to be filed with: • Chairman of Committee to which legislation was referred • City Clerk o —J o~n CD — ~n CD —i— —\ m -<^~^, 1 o n 1 LO n 1 ^< ••-D-^< -po—>i rs OTk m O o Chicago City Council Co-Sponsor Form Document No.: SO2Q17-3260 Subject: Amend Mufi. Code re: Equipping Hotel Employees with Emergency Contact Devices Adding Co-Sponsor(s) Please ADD Co-SponsorCs^ Shown Below - (Principal Sponsor's Consent Required) Alderman (Signature) Alderman (Signature) Alderman (Signature) Alderman (Signature) Alderman Ward) o c;^rd)8 rr-i o Ward) Ward) rd) \ Date Filed: (Signature) Principal Sponsor Chairman, Com}pu+k.<?or\ vOorl(2.-^i>fCi>^^dopm0a \-AocUt Removing Co-Sponsor(s) Please REMOVE Co-Sponsor(s) Below - (Priricipal Sponsor's Consent NOT Required) Alderman (Signature) Alderman (Signature) Date Filed: Final Copies lo be filed with: • Chairman of Committee to which Legislation was referred • Cily Clerk Ward) Ward) Co-Spon.wr Form OCC 9.2016 Policy Area Provision UNITE HERE! Local 11 Proposal Chamber/SMTT/Lodging Response Long Beach Oakland Emeryville Seattle Panic Buttons 1) Hotel Employer to provide each Hotel Worker with operational panic button 2) No Hotel Worker may be disciplined for using panic button 3) Hotel Employer to have designated on-site personnel to respond to panic button activation While Santa Monica hoteliers agree that workplace safety is of utmost importance, they have raised concerns around implementation challenges (aged infrastructure, limited staffing and additional costs). Proposal to modify "panic button" terminology to something broader. 1) "Panic buttons" for all hotels 2) Does not include 3) Does not include 1) "Panic button" for hotels with 50 or more guest rooms (different language in 2 places, also says for any cleaning employee) 2) Match 3) Does not include (some language later in retention section)Does not include 1) "Panic button" for hotels with 60 or more guest rooms 2) Match 3) Does not include Hotel Worker's Rights 1) Hotel Employee to allow sufficient paid time in addition to paid-time off mandated by Federal, State or local law to contact law authorities 2) Hotel Employer to cooperate with any investigation 3) Hotel Employer to provide reasonable accomodations for Hotel Worker that has been subjected to violence/threatening behavior All hotels in agreeance that safety of their employees is their top priority. 1) Does not specify "paid" 2) Match 3) Included but language is different 1) Match 2) Match 3) Included but language is different Does not include 1) Match 2) Included but language is different 3) Included but language is different 4) Hotel Employer must record/maintain a record of all accusations. Hotel Employer must decline to allow guest to return for 3 years and warn hotel employee of said guest if staying at hotel. Notice in Guest Rooms Signage on doors of public restrooms + guest rooms N/A Match (Guest rooms only)Match (Guest rooms only)Does not include Match (Guest rooms only) Training Provide panic button training within 3 months of ordinance effective date and within one month of Hotel Worker's date of hire The general response around training provisions has been positive. SMTT has agreed to host trainings.Does not include Does not include Does not include Does not include Square Footage Maximum 1) 3,500 sq. ft. per 8-hour workday 2) If > 3,500 sq. ft. in 8-hours, Hotel Employer must pay 2x regular rate 3) If < 8 hours, Hotel Employer must prorate evenly according to # of hours worked 4) If > 7 checkout or additional bed-rooms or pro-rated number of check-out rooms, max floor space to be reduced by 500 sq feet or or additional bed-room > 6 or prorated number 5) Applies to any combination of spaces (guest rooms, suites, meeting rooms, etc.) and regardless of furniture, equipment or amenities in room Numerous challenges with implementation. The hotel industry manages housekeeper/room attendants’ workload through a credit system based on time- motion studies measured by consultants who monitor the length of it takes for one cleaning tasks to be completed. The credit system is the industry standard (inc. hotels operating under CBA). Provision also presents numerous potential secondary impacts such as the loss of full-time employees, staffing issues and disruptions in staff morale. Overtime is regulated by State. 1) 4,000 sq. ft. per 8-hour workday 2) If > 4,000 sq. ft. in 8-hours, Hotel Employer must pay 2x regular rate 3) Only appies to hotels with 50 or more guest rooms 4) No proration 5) Match 1) 4,000 sq. ft per 8-hour workday 2) If > 4,000 sq. ft. in 8-hours, Hotel Employer must pay 2x regular rate 3) Match 4) No proration 5) Match 1) 5,000 sq. ft. per 8-hour workday 2) If > 5,000 sq. feet in 8-hours, Hotel Employer must pay 1.5 regular rate 3) Match 4) No proration 5) Match 6) Only applies to hotels with 50 or more guest rooms 1) 5,000 sq. ft per 8-hour workday 2) If > 5,000 sq. feet in 8-hours, Hotel Employer must pay 1.5 regular rate 3) Match 4) If > 10 rooms per day, reduce by 500 sq. ft. 5) "guest rooms" language only Hotel Worker Safety Measures Workload Compensation Voluntary Overtime If > 10 hours, Hotel Employer must receive written + signed consent Strongly against documented consent due to privacy issues.Match Match Does not include Does not include Preservation of Records 1) Maintain records for at least 2 years 2) Failure to provide records to result in penalty of $100-$1,000/day as determined by the Court N/A Match 1) Maintain records for at least 3 years 2) Does not include 1) Hotel Employer must submit records to City annually by March 31 2) Match 1) Maintain records for at least 3 years 2) Does not include 3) Maintain records of guests reported for violence for 5 years Hotel Employer's Responsibilities 1) Incumbent Hotel Employer to provide Successor Hotel Employer hotel employee information within 15 days of transfer 2) Successor to maintain preferential hiring list 3) Retain written verification of offer for 3 years S.M.M.C. 4.66.030 Right of Recall covers worker retention and would be duplicative 1) Does not inlcude 2) Does not include Does not include Does not include Match Transition Employment Period 1) Successor to retain Hotel Worker for no fewer than 90 days and provide written offer of employment (offer to be open for 10 days) 2) If Successor determines fewer Hotel Workers than incumbent, Successor to retain by seniority 3) No discharge of Hotel Worker without cause during 90-day 4) Successor to perform a written performance evaluation after 90-day and maintain records for 3 years Retention is the first choice by any new owner and have not been any issues previously brought to the City. Fundamental concerns with such worker retention provisions because they interfere with the basic right of employers to decide who they employ. Preempted by the National Labor Relations Act.Does not include Does not include 1) Does not include 2) Does not include 3) Match 4) Does not include 5) If laid off, Hotel Employee entitled to reinstatement should any position open up within 24 months Match Notice of Change in Control 1) Post written notice of Change of Control within 5 days N/A Does not include Does not include Does not include Match Workload Compensation Hotel Worker Retention Public Housekeeping Certificate 1) City to contract with Public Housekeeping Training Organization through competitive RFP process. Program to include at least 6 hours of training. 2) Hotel Employers to only employ those with a certificate 3) Funded by the City Workplace safety is regulated by Cal/OSHA. All hoteliers must have a Musculoskeletal Injury Prevention Program. State also regulates training for sexual harassment and human trafficking: SB 970; AB 1825; AB 1343 The general response around training provisions has been positive. Many of the training areas are already covered by the State. SMTT has agreed to host trainings. LA County Dept. of Health provides on-the-Does not include Does not include Does not include Does not include Areas of Training 1) Areas under adopted ordinance 2) human trafficking 3) Domestic and sexual violence or assualt 4) Cleaning techniques to prevent spread of disease 5) Identification of insect or vermin infestation 6) Identification of suspicious materials The general response around training provisions has been positive. Many of the training areas are already covered by the State. SMTT has agreed to host trainings. LA County Dept. of Health provides on-the- spot training during an inspection but does not provide general training.Does not include Does not include Does not include Hotel Employers must adopt reasonable practices to protect the safety of employees. Hotel Employers must provide employees with information on hazardous chemicals in their work area. City Responsibilities HED to develop process and proedures for receiving applications, issuing certificates and processing appeals N/A Does not include Does not include Does not include Does not include Effective Date Obligation of Hotel Employers to employ certified Hotel Workers to commence 1 year after ordinance effective date N/A Does not include Does not include Does not include Does not include Paid Leave 6 hours of paid leave in addition to regular existing paid leave, vacation or PTO N/A Does not include Does not include Does not include Does not include Recordkeeping Maintain training records for 3 years N/A Does not include Does not include Does not include Does not include No retaliation No retaliation No retaliation against any Hotel Worker for opposing any practice in this ordinance N/A Match Match Included but language is different Match Supercession Supercession by CBA All provisions or any part may be waived in CBA Ordinance should apply to all hotels, regardless of size or operating under CBA.Match Match Included but language is different Match Civil Enforcement Private Right of Action 1) May file civil action within 3 years of the violation 2) Upon prevailing, Hotel Worker entitled to legal or equitable relief including attoney's fees and costs. 3) Backpay no less than higher average of regular rate of pay during last 3 years of employment 4) Subsection violations shall be liable at each Hotel Worker at $100/day Serious concerns around adopting private right of action as enforcement methodology. Potential to open the entire industry to lawsuits. Would like the City to enforce. Via civil enforcement (i.e., Private Right of Action) but language is different Creation of Department of Workplace and Employment Standards for enforcement 1) No time limit 2) Match 3) Does not include 4) Failure to provide records within 10 days will result in penalty of $100/day Via civil enforcement (i.e., Private Right of Action) Training Program Notice to Employees Notice to Employees Hotel Employer to provide written notification to each current and new Hotel Worker of his/her rights. Notification to be in each language spoken by more than 10 employees.N/A Match Match Match Match Severability Severability If any provision is declared illegal, invalid or inoperative, remaining provisions/portions to remain in effect.N/A Match Match Match Match Chicago Los Angeles (Hotel Worker Retention) Los Angeles (Grocery Worker Retention) Santa Monica (Grocery Worker Retention) Providence (Hotel Worker Retention) 1) "Panic button" or "notification device" for all hotels 2) Included but language is different 3) Does not include Included but language is different Does not include Does not include Does not include Does not include Does not include Does not include 1) Match 2) Match 3) Match 1) Match 2) Match 3) Match 1) Match 2) Match 3) Match 1) Does not include 2) Does not include Does not include 1) Match 2) Match 3) Match 4) Match 5) Employees may bring action to Superior court within 3 years of violation for employers' who violate this chaper 1) Match but offer does not have to remain open for 10 days 2) Match 3) Match 4) Match 5) Employees may bring action to Superior court within 3 years of violation for employers' who violate this chaper 1) Match but offer does not have to remain open for 10 days 2) Does not include 3) Does not include 4) Does not include 5) Employees may bring action to Superior court within 3 years of violation for employers' who violate this chaper 1) Successor to retain Hotel Worker at lesat 3 months after commencement of operation for employees that have been employed for at least 2 months 2) If successor determines that fewer employees are needed, successor may retain that number of employees needed for its new operations 3) Does not prohibit employees' or employers' right to engage in strike or lockout 4) Employees may bring action in court within 3 years of violation for employers' who violate this chaper Does not include Match Match Match Does not include Does not include Develop, maintain and comply with a written anti-sexual harassment policy Does not include Does not include Does not include Does not include Include but language is different Does not include Investigations by Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection or Chicago Comission on Human Relations Included but only requires 3 languages Does not include 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Thursday, August 15, 2019 9:54 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Santa Monica Housekeeping square footage cap concerns From: Kreft, Erik <ekreft@ambrosehotel.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 4:36 PM To: Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Greg Morena <Greg.Morena@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Ana Maria Jara <AnaMaria.Jara@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net> Cc: Lane Dilg <Lane.Dilg@SMGOV.NET>; Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>; Andy Agle <Andy.Agle@SMGOV.NET>; Anuj Gupta <Anuj.Gupta@SMGOV.NET>; Jason Harris <Jason.Harris@SMGOV.NET>; Jennifer Flohr <jennifer@calodging.com>; Helen Yu <Helen.Yu@SMGOV.NET>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Santa Monica Housekeeping square footage cap concerns Dear Mayor Davis and esteemed members of the City Council of Santa Monica, thank you for taking your time to review my email. My name is Erik Kreft and I am the General Manager of The Ambrose Hotel on 20th and Arizona, a 3rd party certified eco‐friendly, boutique property with 77 rooms and 36 staff members. We are currently ranked 4th out of 38 in customer reviews on Trip Advisor in the city of Santa Monica and look forward to continuing to represent the city as a world class tourist destination! I have spent more than 20 years in the hospitality industry managing resorts and city properties around the United States. I have worked for Disney to The Ritz‐Carlton and understand my success in the hospitality industry is through my employees, specifically housekeepers. Although a guest’s initial visit will be an assessment of their appreciation of the design and overall feel of a property, we know that they will only return if the hotel is clean and the service is memorable. Hotel cleanliness and comfort are continuously rated the most important factors in hotel selection for both business and leisure travel guests, so it is paramount that we provide the proper tools to our employees in an effort to support them in these endeavors. Overworked employees create turnover, increased workers comp cases, a dirty guest room product, upset guests and ultimately a lack of repeat business. I have worked in Hawaii, California, Florida and Georgia. I am proud to be back in California, specifically Santa Monica where we offer the highest minimum wage for employees at $16.63 per hour, train all employees on the MMIP (Musculoskeletal Injury Prevention Program) safe work practices to reduce injuries, adhere to the California meal break law, provide complimentary Metro passes to all employees in an attempt to reduce their burden of transportation, operate a property wide non‐toxic housekeeping program that eliminates the risk of chemical exposure, and pay overtime for any minutes worked after 8 hours in a day. Combined, this is something no other city or state offers. Florida and Georgia only offer overtime after working 40 hours in a week, there is no meal break consideration and housekeepers pay starts as low as $7 per hour. The one thing that is consistent across the board, hotel to hotel, city to city, state to state is how housekeeping work is assigned and that’s via a “credit system”. The credit system is a way to ensure work is assigned fairly, housekeeper to housekeeper with in your specific hotel based on the time it takes to complete specific tasks that are unique to your hotel. Whether a city, resort, union or nonunion property, the housekeeping work standard is based on time. As you can imagine every room in every hotel is different and comes with different tasks to accomplish. Here are a few examples of standard in‐room housekeeping procedures:  Waste management (recycling/trash receptacles) Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2  Sink, Shower, Tub & Toilet disinfecting  Replacing towels, robes and slippers  Making Beds & Tending to soiled linens  Restocking guestroom inventory such as soaps, shampoos, paper products, etc  Cleaning the closet and patio  Vacuuming all carpeted areas  Folding, arranging and tidying guest items  Replacing collateral  Dusting all furniture, flooring and fixtures Each of the above tasks takes time based on your specific hotel. Standard procedure adds up the total time it will take, including time to travel from room to room/floor to floor, and creates a reasonable amount of work to fill a typical 8 hour shift. Other scenarios, such as tending to suites (larger rooms), a room with multiple beds, a full service room (Check out) or a stay over (tidying items, making the bed, etc) would be a percentage of that standard room credit since those rooms will have more or less timed tasks and therefore add up what can be accomplished in an 8 hour shift. This standard ensures that day to day, housekeeper to housekeeper, we are assigning an equal amount of timed work for their shift. This is the industry standard for the majority of hotels around the world and, as you can see, square footage is not taken into account. Because room set ups vary (you can have a spacious room with limited items in it or a small room with shelves stocked of guest amenities) If you are to implement a per day square footage cap you will be penalizing employees who have more timed worked to be accomplished based on the tasks in their specific room versus others. In my hotel specifically, housekeepers clean roughly 14‐16 rooms per day based on the set up of our individual rooms. We average 300 sq. ft. per room. This would be roughly 4500 square feet in a day. Our guests repeatedly comment on the cleanliness of the hotel, we have no workman’s comp cases and continuously train our staff on the MMIP to reduce potential risk of injury. If you are to impose the square footage cap as the City Council of Santa Monica you would directly reduce my staff’s hours by 23% per day. This would jeopardize their ability make Full Time hours (40 which we currently assign a week) and the benefits in which they depend upon along with it. After taking a pay cut of 23% and losing your benefits, there would be no reason to continue to work in my hotel as there are always openings for housekeepers in hotels in other cities. As a midsize hotel my largest cost is labor and my largest department is housekeeping. If the City Council of Santa Monica were to impose this square footage cap, I would not be able to financially afford to pay my staff the proposed overtime penalties of 1.5x or 2.0x their salary should I continue to schedule them 8 hours in a day to do the same amount of work we are currently accomplishing. There is so much variation hotel to hotel, room to room, meeting space to public space, that a square footage cap will be challenging to apply. Taking into account variations in the number of occupants, number of beds in a room, pillows & multiple linens, size of bathroom vanity space, you can see that a square footage cap standard will not apply fairly to each individual room. For instance, it takes less time to make a bed with two pillows a fitted sheet, a top sheet and a blanket than a bed with a feather duvet, feather bed, three sheets, bed skirt, 6 pillows, accent pillows and a throw blanket. It’s the same square footage but would literally take twice as long to tend to this one particular aspect. The average time to make a king size bed in my hotel is 7 mins. Now in that same square footage room you have two queen size beds. That changes the time to make the beds to 14‐15 mins; again it’s the same square footage. Having one bed or two, will directly affect how many rooms you can accomplish in a day and are assigned accordingly. If this assignment was based on square footage, a room with two beds would cause more work and burden on the room attendant then a room with a single bed. It would hardly be a fair or consistent system. Two reasonable size ballrooms at 2000 square feet would be completed in less than 2 hours. What would you do with the employee who completed this task? Send them home?) Again, this is why housekeeping work has traditionally been assigned based on time to complete the specific tasks in your specific rooms, rather than the square footage standard that is being proposed. Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 3 Multiple industry‐wide time motion studies have been conducted and tracked to mathematically assess how long it takes to complete each of the above mentioned tasks in a guest room. Vacuuming, sweeping, and dusting, depending on surfaces, all takes a different amount of time. Once you have clocked how long each of those tasks take to complete, you add up how much can be done (including travel time) and calculate out how many rooms your team members can service in an 8 hour shift. While I understand that this hospitality math and jargon may be foreign to you, I sincerely hope that I’ve been able to shine a light on just a few of the challenges I predict will come along with the square footage cap standard. At The Ambrose we are as committed to the health and wellness of our team members as we are to our most loyal clients and guests. One of our main priorities is doing whatever we can to ensure that our housekeeping team members are able to access their full 8 hour shifts so that they can continue to enjoy the full time benefits they rely on. It is from this commitment, that our credit system was created. Should we be held to the square footage standard, my management team would be forced to reduce the hours our housekeeping team members work in a day, requiring many of our employees to go part time and lose their full time benefits, a shift that would potentially prohibit them from continuing to work in Santa Monica. With the cost of living what it is, the majority of my team members commute to the hotel. Based on the results of our most current Worksite Transportation plan, we have a 3.76 average vehicle ridership. Our Metro pass benefit ‐ one of our most popular perks ‐ reduces the financial burden of transportation on our staff. The numbers (as well as our extremely low turnover rate) prove that our dedicated and loyal team members sincerely enjoy working at The Ambrose Hotel and are willing to commute long hours because they believe that they are compensated very fairly and cared about. I fear that this will change if the City Council of Santa Monica approves this non‐applicable square footage cap and question the intention behind the Union Local 11 who continues to push for this cap but wants to be exempt from the standards it sets. Wouldn’t they want to be the first to adopt this regulation? How did they come up with the 3500 square feet as a “humane workload” yet other cities passed 4000 and 5000 specifically? If square footage was truly a fair method of scheduling housekeeping staff hotel to hotel, city to city, state to state it would all be the same ‐ which is simply not the case. In my professional opinion, if Local 11 were truly behind it, each of their bargaining agreements would already be based on a square footage cap, which they are not. They are also based on the standard credit system; time based and varying accordingly from hotel to hotel. The city of Santa Monica is the vanguard of workplace protection of employees and compensation, something we are extremely proud to be a part of! We are all in agreement that we want safe and healthy work environments, with happy employees who are proud to be a part of the cities esteemed workforce. But we must be smarter than this, smarter than the cities who passed a non‐quantifiable, non‐relatable, variable square footage cap prematurely without thoroughly investigating how work loads are calculated throughout the industry. It’s in a hotelier’s best interest to have reasonable, consistent workloads so that you can ensure spotless, clean guestrooms and well rested employees who are not overworked and are compensated fairly. As a city, we are already ahead of every other city and state that I have worked in. It’s in our best interest to support our employees and our businesses to ensure that they continue to be a thriving and successful part of our world class destination. I am available to the members of the City Council of Santa Monica at any hour of the day, any day of the week for further clarification or to answer any questions you might have in public or in private. Please do not hesitate to reach out should you have any questions that I can answer. I believe that it is up to myself and my fellow industry professionals to co‐create the best rules and regulations possible as a city. We already face the challenges of combating the unfortunate effects of homelessness in our city, let’s not implement something else that will handicap our beautiful city’s tourism industry even further. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider the observations of someone who has worked in the luxury hospitality industry for twenty years and understanding the passionate advocacy I hope that I’ve clearly expressed on behalf of my hardworking and wonderful housekeeping team. Warmest Regards, Erik Kreft General Manager Item 7-B 08/27/19 3 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 4 www.ambrosehotel.com 1255 20th Street | Santa Monica, CA 90404 Direct: 310.315.3180 | Mobile: 310.968.4443 | Fax: 310.315.1556 AN INDEPENDENT COLLECTION HOTEL Item 7-B 08/27/19 4 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Tuesday, August 20, 2019 9:05 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy From: Marjorie Pearson <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2019 8:56 AM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 5 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. As we wait for the ordinance to come back before you, we want to make sure that the law that ultimately goes into effect will be comprehensive. We hope that the law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Marjorie Pearson marjorielouisepearson@gmail.com 1528 Yale Street Santa Monica, California 90404 Item 7-B 08/27/19 6 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Tuesday, August 20, 2019 9:27 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy From: michelle geil <mgeil@calhfa.ca.gov> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 1:03 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 7 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. As we wait for the ordinance to come back before you, we want to make sure that the law that ultimately goes into effect will be comprehensive. We hope that the law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. michelle geil mgeil@calhfa.ca.gov 4050 glencoe ave. #216 marina del rey, California 90292 Item 7-B 08/27/19 8 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:54 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy From: Sandra Barahona <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 10:50 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 9 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. As we wait for the ordinance to come back before you, we want to make sure that the law that ultimately goes into effect will be comprehensive. We hope that the law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Sandra Barahona sb807860@gmail.com 10360 Cayuga Avenue Pacoima, California 91331 Item 7-B 08/27/19 10 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:55 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy From: Saudy Sanchez <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 9:34 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 11 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. As we wait for the ordinance to come back before you, we want to make sure that the law that ultimately goes into effect will be comprehensive. We hope that the law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Saudy Sanchez myladream@gmail.com 1033 11th Street - apt D San Jose , California 90403 Item 7-B 08/27/19 12 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 13 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Parrish, Amanda <Amanda.Parrish@interstatehotels.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 21, 2019 9:28 AM To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Greg Morena; Sue Himmelrich; Ted Winterer; Ana Maria Jara; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Lane Dilg; Rick Cole; Andy Agle; Anuj Gupta; Jason Harris; Jennifer Taylor; Helen Yu; mail@hotelassociationla.com; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Attorney Mailbox; councilmtgitems Subject:Santa Monica Hotel Ordinance Proposal Letter August 21st, 2019 Dear Santa Monica City Council Members, I’m the General Manager of the Courtyard by Marriott Santa Monica. I’ve worked and lived in Santa Monica for over 20 years. My hotel has 136 rooms and we have 48 outstanding employees who serve as front‐line ambassadors for our city. Our team members not only work in Santa Monica, but also live here too. They have great pride in Santa Monica and love to tell our guests about Santa Monica and all of the wonderful things we have to offer here for travelers and residents. I’m writing because I’m concerned that the City Council will approve an ordinance that will do harm to the city of Santa Monica, to local jobs and workers, and to local businesses. Although described as safety for hotel workers, part of this proposed ordinance will have very real consequences on my business and my employees. If the City Council votes to restrict work available to housekeepers through an arbitrary and ambiguous square foot cap, it restricts the availability of local full‐time quality employment that provides benefits like health, dental, vision, childcare, vacation, paid sick‐leave and retirement. Santa Monica hotels support safety training and tools like personal notification devises (panic buttons), to ensure that our colleagues continue to feel safe at work. My hotel already has panic buttons, safety training, harassment training, and safety practices in place. Specific room credits issued to each housekeeper every day, to ensure that they do not have an overwhelming workload. We do not go over the amount of room credits and all team members help out when the workload increases. As a team we get the job done, including managers. Our main priorities are our guests and our staff. Without happy team members, we would not have a hotel to run in Santa Monica. Santa Monica hotels currently operate under California state laws and regulations that mandate hotel health and safety practices including:  Musculoskeletal Injury Prevention Programs (MIPP)  Exposure Control Plans for Bloodborne Pathogens The State of California also enacted laws that require annual safety training regarding:  Sexual Assault and Harassment Prevention (AB‐1825 and AB‐1343)  Human Trafficking Prevention (SB‐970) Item 7-B 08/27/19 14 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 The ordinance proposed here in Santa Monica risks any of the following results:  Usurping the statutory authority of the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health and becoming the subject of costly legal challenges.  Reducing available full‐time work for affected hotel workers and the elimination of overtime opportunities to accommodate daily square‐foot cleaning limits.  Increasing hotel labor costs by an average minimum of 32 percent with legislation that imposes specific square footage rules for housekeeping colleagues less than CalOSHA’s guidelines.  Increase in costs to hotel guests and visitors, harming Santa Monica’s reputation as a fun place to visit and reducing its tourism numbers.  Failing to provide protection for all hotel workers if any ordinance exempts hotels with 50 or fewer rooms, which is advocates’ true goal of increasing Big Labor membership rather than ensuring workplace safety for all.  Risking loss of revenue at Santa Monica restaurants and retail outlets when tourism dollars go elsewhere. The unintended consequences of this ordinance will have long‐lasting consequences for thousands of Santa Monica hotel workers and our hospitality and tourism industries. We urge you and your Council colleagues to protect local jobs and vote no on arbitrary square foot limitations. Sincerely, Amanda Parrish General Manager Courtyard by Marriott Santa Monica Amanda Parrish | General Manager Courtyard Marriott Santa Monica | 425 Colorado Ave, Santa Monica, CA 90401 T. 310.394.1700 F.310.394.1703 Amanda.Parrish@interstatehotels.com The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for addressee. The information may also be legally privileged. This transmission is sent in trust, for the sole purpose of delivery to the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in Item 7-B 08/27/19 15 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 3 error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail or phone and delete this message and its attachments, if any. This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com Item 7-B 08/27/19 16 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2019 8:14 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy From: Katherine Marino <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 6:18 AM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 17 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. As we wait for the ordinance to come back before you, we want to make sure that the law that ultimately goes into effect will be comprehensive. We hope that the law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Katherine Marino k.m.marino@gmail.com 944 17th St Apt 5 Santa Monica , California 90403 Item 7-B 08/27/19 18 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2019 8:16 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy From: Sarah Lyons <slyons@unitehere.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 5:29 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 19 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. As we wait for the ordinance to come back before you, we want to make sure that the law that ultimately goes into effect will be comprehensive. We hope that the law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Sarah Lyons slyons@unitehere.org 2626 w Armitage Ave Chicago, Jihomoravský kraj 69647 Item 7-B 08/27/19 20 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Sonia <Sonia@seashoremotel.com> Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:24 AM To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Greg Morena; Sue Himmelrich; Ana Maria Jara; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Lane Dilg; Rick Cole; Andy Agle; Anuj Gupta; Jason Harris; Jennifer Taylor; Helen Yu; mail@hotelassociationla.com; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Attorney Mailbox; councilmtgitems Cc:Greg; Chris Metz Subject:Motel/Hotel housekeeping ordinance Dear City Council, We are the owners of the Sea Shore Motel on Main St. We've been in business since 1972 and only have 21 rooms. Our housekeeping staff have been with us for over 25 years. Therefore, we are concerned about the ordinance being proposed and being passed. The regulation will be a big burden on our staff and our administrative duties. Our staff works as a team per each room from 9am‐3pm. We take our staff's safety very seriously. However, imposing a panic button regulation on our little establishment would be overkill. All of our rooms face the main office and we do have cameras throughout our property. We are also concerend about the square footage allowed for cleaning service each day. Our staff work in pairs and this has been successful as well as comfortable for them for several years. For such a small establishment I am hoping you reconsider these regulations. Sincerely, Chris, Greg, Sonia Metz Item 7-B 08/27/19 21 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2019 11:24 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy From: Barrie Levy <levyb@ucla.edu> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 9:18 AM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: Until recently, I worked for many years in Santa Monica, and I am a psychotherapist who works with people who have been sexually assaulted or sexually harassed, many of them residents of Santa Monica. I have been an advocate for violence prevention in Santa Monica, working with many non-profits, as well as the SMPD, Santa Monica Human Services, Santa Monica College and the Santa Monica schools. I who care deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room Item 7-B 08/27/19 22 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. As we wait for the ordinance to come back before you, we want to make sure that the law that ultimately goes into effect will be comprehensive. We hope that the law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Barrie Levy levyb@ucla.edu 3599 Ocean View Avenue Los Angeles, California 90066 Item 7-B 08/27/19 23 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2019 11:41 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy From: Lyda Eddington <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 8:53 AM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 24 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. As we wait for the ordinance to come back before you, we want to make sure that the law that ultimately goes into effect will be comprehensive. We hope that the law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Lyda Eddington allegroarts@yahoo.com 8404 Reading Avenue Los Angeles, California 90045 Item 7-B 08/27/19 25 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Maria Orozco <mariaoro310@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2019 12:14 PM To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Greg Morena; Sue Himmelrich; Ted Winterer; Ana Maria Jara; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Lane Dilg; Rick Cole; Andy Agle; Anuj Gupta; Jason Harris; Jennifer Taylor; Helen Yu; mail@hotelassociationla.com; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Attorney Mailbox; councilmtgitems Subject:Hotel Workers Ordinance Dear Mayor Davis , Mayor Pro tempore O’Day and members of the Santa Monica City Council My name is Maria Orozco, I have been working 16 years at Shutters on the Beach Hotel. I started as a room attendant, cleaning 13 credits, then our assignment went down to 12 credits and presently we clean 11 credits. I feel it is a fair system and fair work load, We have enough time to clean our assignment during our normal day. I’m very happy working here, I’m very grateful with the benefit package that we have, also the respect among us, managers and co‐workers. I’m afraid that the new proposed ordinance will negatively affect my wages and benefits, I know that our owners are always worried about our well‐being and have made sure we have always been provided the best pay and benefit package. This makes me very anxious and nervous and afraid about how this will change my ability to provide for my family. I encourage you to leave our credit system alone and not adopt a less worker‐friendly alternative. Respectfully, Maria Orozco Item 7-B 08/27/19 26 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 August 21, 2019 Re: Item 7A, 8/27/19, Hotel Workers’ Protection Ordinance Dear Councilmembers, The Steering Committee of Santa Monicans for Renters Rights urges you to support the upcoming ordinance protecting hotel workers against workplace sexual abuse and harassment, as well as providing other safeguards to ensure workers’ physical well-being and security. We request your support in keeping with our platform, which states that “SMRR is committed to workers’ rights,” specifying that “The City…and the business community should guarantee these rights [and] promote decent working conditions.” We believe that the proposed ordinance is needed to address specific issues facing workers in our local hotel industry. In particular, we share the concerns of the Commission on the Status of Women about the vulnerabilities faced by women in workplaces where they are physically isolated and abusers and harassers (who may be guests rather than coworkers or managers) have ready access to them, with the result that assaults and threatening behavior occur in circumstances where there will be no witnesses. Our tourism industry is thriving, bringing about 1.87 billion dollars into Santa Monica’s economy and adding over 50 billion dollars in transient occupancy tax revenues to the City’s coffers, and the industry depends on the hard work of these women, many of them Santa Monica residents, and most of whom support families by working these physically demanding jobs. Changes in ownership and management occur frequently in the hotel industry, and when that leads to mass layoffs, skilled workers may be lost. Onerous workloads, mandatory unscheduled overtime, and mass layoffs during changes in ownership or management can all jeopardize the ability of housekeeping staff to carry out their Item 7-B 08/27/19 27 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 work in a way that safeguards the health of guests and maintains good industry standards in this key sector of our economy. We call on you to pass an ordinance that addresses all these issues. Such an ordinance must be comprehensive and comprise a set of protections that include all of the following: (1) panic buttons and other measures that enable workers to summon onsite security, along with assurance that they can report harassment, threats, and misconduct, whether by hotel guests/customers or coworkers/managers, without fear of retaliation; (2) worker retention (a program that requires workers to be kept on for a period of time following a change in ownership or management, enabling employees to demonstrate they have the skills to perform their jobs while ensuring that housekeeping standards safeguarding the health of guests are maintained through such transitions); (3) humane workload (prohibiting mandatory overtime and requiring fair compensation for burdensome workloads); and (4) training (ongoing and appropriate training so that workers know how to identify and report harassment, threatening behavior, and assaults and covering issues they may encounter that also affect the public, including human trafficking, domestic violence, and risks to public health). A strong and protective Santa Monica law will help ensure the ongoing success of the hospitality and tourism industry, a key pillar of our economy, while strengthening our City’s standards of economic justice and dignity. Thank you. Denny Zane Co-Chair, Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights Item 7-B 08/27/19 28 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2019 1:50 PM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems; Anuj Gupta; Helen Yu Subject:FW: Santa Monica Forward position on the Hotel Worker Ordinance Council‐ Please see the below email regarding the Hotel Worker Protection Ordinance. Thank you, Stephanie From: Judy Abdo [mailto:judyabdo@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 12:43 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Santa Monica Forward position on the Hotel Worker Ordinance Statement of Santa Monica Forward regarding proposed Hotel Worker Ordinance Santa Monica Forward is committed to supporting safe and equitable workplaces for those who live and work in our city. We support the efforts of hotel workers who are asking the City of Santa Monica to ensure the following workplace protections: 1. Panic buttons and training for housekeeping staff, notices posted in rooms informing guests that the hotel is committed to shielding its employees from sexual assault and harassment, and whistleblower protection for workers who make reports. 2. A humane workload establishing maximum daily workloads for housekeepers, with overtime compensation for workers who choose to exceed the daily maximum workload. 3. Consistent with similar protections in other local industries, job retention for at least 90 days when a hotel changes ownership or management. 4. Housekeeper training to identify and report sexual harassment and assault, human trafficking, disease prevention, reporting, and protection for those who report. Judy Abdo CoChair, Santa Monica Forward 310‐422‐8827 Item 7-B 08/27/19 29 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2019 1:52 PM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems; Anuj Gupta; Helen Yu Subject:FW: Santa Monica Housekeeping square footage cap concerns Council‐ Please see the below email regarding the Hotel Worker Protection Ordinance. Thank you, Stephanie From: Kreft, Erik [mailto:ekreft@ambrosehotel.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 3:54 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Santa Monica Housekeeping square footage cap concerns Esteemed members of the City Council of Santa Monica, thank you for taking your time to review my email. I am the General Manager of The Ambrose Hotel on 20th and Arizona, a 3rd party certified eco‐friendly, boutique property with 77 rooms and 36 staff members. We are currently ranked 4th out of 38 in customer reviews on Trip Advisor in the city of Santa Monica and look forward to continuing to represent the city as a world class tourist destination! I have spent more than 20 years in the hospitality industry managing resorts and city properties around the United States. I have worked for Disney to The Ritz‐Carlton and understand my success in the hospitality industry is through my employees, specifically housekeepers. Although a guest’s initial visit will be an assessment of their appreciation of the design and overall feel of a property, we know that they will only return if the hotel is clean and the service is memorable. Hotel cleanliness and comfort are continuously rated the most important factors in hotel selection for both business and leisure travel guests, so it is paramount that we provide the proper tools to our employees in an effort to support them in these endeavors. Overworked employees create turnover, increased workers comp cases, a dirty guest room product, upset guests and ultimately a lack of repeat business. I have worked in Hawaii, California, Florida and Georgia. I am proud to be back in California, specifically Santa Monica where we offer the highest minimum wage for employees at $16.63 per hour, train all employees on the MMIP (Musculoskeletal Injury Prevention Program) safe work practices to reduce injuries, adhere to the California meal break law, provide complimentary Metro passes to all employees in an attempt to reduce their burden of transportation, operate a property wide non‐toxic housekeeping program that eliminates the risk of chemical exposure, and pay overtime for any minutes worked after 8 hours in a day. Combined, this is something no other city or state offers. Florida and Georgia only offer overtime after working 40 hours in a week, there is no meal break consideration and housekeepers pay starts as low as $7 per hour. The one thing that is consistent across the board, hotel to hotel, city to city, state to state is how housekeeping work is assigned and that’s via a “credit system”. The credit system is a way to ensure work is assigned fairly, housekeeper to housekeeper with in your specific hotel based on the time it takes to complete specific tasks that are unique to your hotel. Whether a city, resort, union or nonunion property, the housekeeping work standard is based on time. As you can imagine every room in every hotel is different and comes with different tasks to accomplish. Here are a few examples of standard in‐room housekeeping procedures: Item 7-B 08/27/19 30 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2  Waste management (recycling/trash receptacles)  Sink, Shower, Tub & Toilet disinfecting  Replacing towels, robes and slippers  Making Beds & Tending to soiled linens  Restocking guestroom inventory such as soaps, shampoos, paper products, etc  Cleaning the closet and patio  Vacuuming all carpeted areas  Folding, arranging and tidying guest items  Replacing collateral  Dusting all furniture, flooring and fixtures Each of the above tasks takes time based on your specific hotel. Standard procedure adds up the total time it will take, including time to travel from room to room/floor to floor, and creates a reasonable amount of work to fill a typical 8 hour shift. Other scenarios, such as tending to suites (larger rooms), a room with multiple beds, a full service room (Check out) or a stay over (tidying items, making the bed, etc) would be a percentage of that standard room credit since those rooms will have more or less timed tasks and therefore add up what can be accomplished in an 8 hour shift. This standard ensures that day to day, housekeeper to housekeeper, we are assigning an equal amount of timed work for their shift. This is the industry standard for the majority of hotels around the world and, as you can see, square footage is not taken into account. Because room set ups vary (you can have a spacious room with limited items in it or a small room with shelves stocked of guest amenities) If you are to implement a per day square footage cap you will be penalizing employees who have more timed worked to be accomplished based on the tasks in their specific room versus others. In my hotel specifically, housekeepers clean roughly 14‐16 rooms per day based on the set up of our individual rooms. We average 300 sq. ft. per room. This would be roughly 4500 square feet in a day. Our guests repeatedly comment on the cleanliness of the hotel, we have no workman’s comp cases and continuously train our staff on the MMIP to reduce potential risk of injury. If you are to impose a square footage cap as the City Council of Santa Monica you would directly reduce my staff’s hours by 23% per day. This would jeopardize their ability make Full Time hours (40 which we currently assign a week) and the benefits in which they depend upon along with it. After taking a pay cut of 23% and losing your benefits, there would be no reason to continue to work in my hotel as there are always openings for housekeepers in hotels in other cities. As a midsize hotel my largest cost is labor and my largest department is housekeeping. If the City Council of Santa Monica were to impose this square footage cap, I would not be able to financially afford to pay my staff the proposed overtime penalties of 1.5x or 2.0x their salary should I continue to schedule them 8 hours in a day to do the same amount of work we are currently accomplishing. There is so much variation hotel to hotel, room to room, meeting space to public space, that a square footage cap will be challenging to apply. Taking into account variations in the number of occupants, number of beds in a room, pillows & multiple linens, size of bathroom vanity space, you can see that a square footage cap standard will not apply fairly to each individual room. For instance, it takes less time to make a bed with two pillows a fitted sheet, a top sheet and a blanket than a bed with a feather duvet, feather bed, three sheets, bed skirt, 6 pillows, accent pillows and a throw blanket. It’s the same square footage but would literally take twice as long to tend to this one particular aspect. The average time to make a king size bed in my hotel is 7 mins. Now in that same square footage room you have two queen size beds. That changes the time to make the beds to 14‐15 mins; again it’s the same square footage. Having one bed or two, will directly affect how many rooms you can accomplish in a day and are assigned accordingly. If this assignment was based on square footage, a room with two beds would cause more work and burden on the room attendant then a room with a single bed. It would hardly be a fair or consistent system. Two reasonable size ballrooms at 2000 square feet would be completed in less than 2 hours. What would you do with the employee who completed this task? Send them home?) Again, this is why housekeeping work has traditionally been assigned based on time to complete the specific tasks in your specific rooms, rather than the square footage standard that is being proposed. Item 7-B 08/27/19 31 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 3 Multiple industry‐wide time motion studies have been conducted and tracked to mathematically assess how long it takes to complete each of the above mentioned tasks in a guest room. Vacuuming, sweeping, and dusting, depending on surfaces, all takes a different amount of time. Once you have clocked how long each of those tasks take to complete, you add up how much can be done (including travel time) and calculate out how many rooms your team members can service in an 8 hour shift. While I understand that this hospitality math and jargon may be foreign to you, I sincerely hope that I’ve been able to shine a light on just a few of the challenges I predict will come along with the square footage cap standard. At The Ambrose we are as committed to the health and wellness of our team members as we are to our most loyal clients and guests. One of our main priorities is doing whatever we can to ensure that our housekeeping team members are able to access their full 8 hour shifts so that they can continue to enjoy the full time benefits they rely on. It is from this commitment, that our credit system was created. Should we be held to the square footage standard, my management team would be forced to reduce the hours our housekeeping team members work in a day, requiring many of our employees to go part time and lose their full time benefits, a shift that would potentially prohibit them from continuing to work in Santa Monica. With the cost of living what it is, the majority of my team members commute to the hotel. Based on the results of our most current Worksite Transportation plan, we have a 3.76 average vehicle ridership. Our Metro pass benefit ‐ one of our most popular perks ‐ reduces the financial burden of transportation on our staff. The numbers (as well as our extremely low turnover rate) prove that our dedicated and loyal team members sincerely enjoy working at The Ambrose Hotel and are willing to commute long hours because they believe that they are compensated very fairly and cared about. I fear that this will change if the City Council of Santa Monica approves this non‐applicable square footage cap and question the intention behind the Union Local 11 who continues to push for this cap but wants to be exempt from the standards it sets. Wouldn’t they want to be the first to adopt this regulation? How did they come up with the 3500 square feet as a “humane workload” yet other cities passed 4000 and 5000 specifically? If square footage was truly a fair method of scheduling housekeeping staff hotel to hotel, city to city, state to state it would all be the same ‐ which is simply not the case. In my professional opinion, if Local 11 were truly behind it, each of their bargaining agreements would already be based on a square footage cap, which they are not. They are also based on the standard credit system; time based and varying accordingly from hotel to hotel. The city of Santa Monica is the vanguard of workplace protection of employees and compensation, something we are extremely proud to be a part of! We are all in agreement that we want safe and healthy work environments, with happy employees who are proud to be a part of the cities esteemed workforce. But we must be smarter than this, smarter than the cities who passed a non‐quantifiable, non‐relatable, variable square footage cap prematurely without thoroughly investigating how work loads are calculated throughout the industry. It’s in a hotelier’s best interest to have reasonable, consistent workloads so that you can ensure spotless, clean guestrooms and well rested employees who are not overworked and are compensated fairly. As a city, we are already ahead of every other city and state that I have worked in. It’s in our best interest to support our employees and our businesses to ensure that they continue to be a thriving and successful part of our world class destination. I am available to the members of the City Council of Santa Monica at any hour of the day, any day of the week for further clarification or to answer any questions you might have in public or in private. Please do not hesitate to reach out should you have any questions that I can answer. I believe that it is up to myself and my fellow industry professionals to co‐create the best rules and regulations possible as a city. We already face the challenges of combating the unfortunate effects of homelessness in our city, let’s not implement something else that will handicap our beautiful city’s tourism industry even further. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider the observations of someone who has worked in the luxury hospitality industry for twenty years and understanding the passionate advocacy I hope that I’ve clearly expressed on behalf of my hardworking and wonderful housekeeping team. Warmest Regards, Item 7-B 08/27/19 32 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 4 Erik Kreft General Manager www.ambrosehotel.com 1255 20th Street | Santa Monica, CA 90404 Direct: 310.315.3180 | Mobile: 310.968.4443 | Fax: 310.315.1556 AN INDEPENDENT COLLECTION HOTEL Item 7-B 08/27/19 33 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Teresa Michel <tmichel@shuttersonthebeach.com> Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2019 2:53 PM To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Greg Morena; Sue Himmelrich; Ted Winterer; Ana Maria Jara; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Lane Dilg; Rick Cole; Andy Agle; Anuj Gupta; Jason Harris; Jennifer Taylor; Helen Yu; mail@hotelassociationla.com; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Attorney Mailbox; councilmtgitems Subject:Proposed Ordinance for local Hotel Workers To; Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore O’Day, and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, My Name is Teresa Michel, I have been working at ETC Company for the last 20 years as an Executive Housekeeper. I started as a room attendant many years ago, cleaning between 18‐20 rooms a day. I worked all different positions in Housekeeping for 13 years, trainer, office coordinator, Lost & Found supervisor, Administrative assistant, Housekeeping supervisor and Payroll clerk. After this time I started in the Housekeeping Management position. I know things have change since 1974 when I started working in Housekeeping. I have worked in quite a few Hotels always in Housekeeping as you can see I love what I do. Working at Shutters on the Beach and Casa Del Mar has given me the opportunity to provide for my family and send my kids to College. I can assure you that the ETC company is the first company I have worked for that worries for the employees well – being all the time, the owners are always taking care of us, the employee’s, especially the hourly employees. Back in 2008 when the economy went down so bad, they did not sacrifice the employees annual increases and did not do any lay‐offs. ETC also created a Light House fund to help the employees needs i.e.; helping with rent, utility bills etc. when they are having a hard time. The Credit System used to make room cleaning assignments every day is one of the lowest one around in Santa Monica and Los Angeles area. The room attendants have enough time to complete their assignments and if they get behind for any reason we always help them to complete their assignments. Our employees are safe and feel secure. We have the best security department around the clock to make sure we the employees are safe in all areas and have proper training in work practices and harassment prevention. The Company implemented the panic button system for all employees several months ago. Also, we have the best benefit package in the area. The work load portion of the proposed ordinance will not benefit our employees, they will be harsh financially, full time employees will become part time employees, therefore they will be losing their benefits. Item 7-B 08/27/19 34 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Why is it that the Union Hotels are not implementing the proposed ordinance?? I have worked in union hotels during my career and never saw the Union taking care the employees other than collecting their dues. I encourage you to leave the credit system alone and NOT adopt a less worker‐friendly alternative. Respectfully, Teresa Michel Teresa Michel Executive Housekeeper Shutters on the Beach One Pico Blvd, Santa Monica CA 90405 p. 310.458.0030 ext 1710 shuttersonthebeach.com To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Shutters on the Beach To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic dowpicture from the Internet.ETC Hotels logo To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Preferred Hotels and Resorts Legend logo Teresa Michel Executive Housekeeper Shutters on the Beach One Pico Blvd, Santa Monica CA 90405 p. 310.458.0030 ext 1710 shuttersonthebeach.com To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Shutters on the Beach To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic dowpicture from the Internet.ETC Hotels logo To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Preferred Hotels and Resorts Legend logo Item 7-B 08/27/19 35 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 36 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 37 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 38 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 39 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 40 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 41 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 (310) 451-4138 August 26, 2019 VIA E-MAIL Santa Monica City Council 1685 Main Street, Room 102 Santa Monica, CA 900401 Re: Proposed Ordinance Establishing City of Santa Monica Work Rules for Housekeepers in the Hotel and Hospitality Industry Hearing Date: August 27, 2019 Agenda Item No. 7B Our Client: JW Marriott Le Merigot Hotel Our File No. 1370.1 Dear Councilmembers: This letter is submitted on behalf of the owners of the JW Marriott Le Merigot Hotel located at 1740 Ocean Avenue, Santa Monica. This letter addresses the proposed ordinance establishing work rules for housekeepers in Santa Monica lodging facilities. Our client supports personal security devices and training procedures. However, as this letter and the attachment explain, we have both legal and practical/policy concerns with the proposed ordinance’s workload/square footage provisions. Legally, the City is preempted by State law from establishing occupational safety and health regulations; in California, Cal/OSHA has exclusive jurisdiction to establish such regulations. All other agencies including municipalities are precluded from regulating occupational safety and health by Labor Code Section 142.3(a)(1). As a policy and practical matter, we oppose City Staff’s recommended ordinance insofar as it would impose a “one-size-fits-all” work rules requirement for housekeepers in Santa Monica lodging facilities. The proposed ordinance does not take into account that Santa Monica lodging facilities range widely from limited service motels to luxury hotels, nor does the proposed ordinance take into account the wide variation in the tasks housekeepers are asked to perform. kozal@hlkklaw.com Item 7-B 08/27/19 42 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Santa Monica City Council August 26, 2019 Page 2 Accordingly, we urge the City to proceed with an ordinance addressing personal security devices and training procedures but not to adopt the proposed ordinance’s workload/square footage provisions. I. CONCERNS ABOUT UNREASONABLE WORKLOADS MUST BE ADDRESSED BY THE CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH AND NOT THROUGH OVERTIME PAY Attached to this letter is a summary of our legal position that the City is preempted by state law from adopting occupational safety and health regulations such as the prosed ordinance’s workload/square footage provisions. These provisions in the City’s proposed ordinance constitute occupational safety and health regulations masquerading as wage and law provisions. This is an attempt to elevate form over substance to avoid state preemption. We assert this will be upheld by the courts. Furthermore, as a matter of public policy, if the City is concerned about unsafe or unreasonable workloads and the alleged consequences, requiring extra pay is not an appropriate remedy or solution. The Staff Report indicates the concern being addressed by the square footage threshold relates to unreasonable workloads that results in housekeepers who are “less likely to perform their work in a manner that adequately protects public health and allows them to meet family and personal obligations.” (Staff Report at p. 4.) Any concerns regarding unsafe, excessive or unreasonable workloads must be addressed by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, commonly known as “Cal/OSHA” as explained in the legal summary attached to this letter. The City is precluded from adopting occupational safety and health regulations. The City’s approach of requiring time and a half pay for unreasonable workloads in no way addresses the alleged detrimental effects on public health and workers’ family and personal obligations. It is illogical to assert the remedy for unreasonable or unsafe workloads is extra pay. It is also disingenuous for Unite Here to advocate for such square footage limits to address alleged unreasonable workloads and then have its members be exempt through collective bargaining agreements. Nevertheless, if the City intends to adopt some type of workload standards, then these should involve a credit system similar to what Unite Here negotiates in its collective bargaining agreements and not a square footage limit. It is telling that Unite Here negotiates credit and not square footage standards in its collective bargaining agreements. Item 7-B 08/27/19 43 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Santa Monica City Council August 26, 2019 Page 3 II. THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE’S “ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL” APPROACH TO REGULATING HOUSEKEEPERS’ SCOPE OF WORK IN SANTA MONICA LODGING FACILITIES SHOULD BE REJECTED FOR POLICY AND PRACTICAL REASONS We are concerned that the proposed ordinance does not sufficiently take into account the wide variety of lodging facilities in Santa Monica as well as the wide variation in the tasks housekeepers are asked to perform. For example, different types of lodging (e.g., luxury versus economy) have different requirements which directly impact the amount of time it takes to clean a room. And, the maintenance of a “stayover” room is vastly different from a “checkout” room (i.e., it takes much longer to prepare a room for a guest coming in after a checkout than for a daily maintenance of a stayover room). That said, many guests require more or less room attendant time depending on, for example, whether they want sheets and towels changed daily (or not) and whether the room might have requested no service at all (e.g., a “do not disturb” or “no service needed”). A square footage work limitation would not take into account all of the variations in housekeeper workload. Each hotel has its own requirements for when a room can be cleared as ready for a guest. More concretely, a 500 square-foot room could, in some instances, take less than 10 minutes to clean and 30 plus minutes in others. Below is a partial list of specific factors that affect a housekeeper’s scope of work when performing a room cleaning function:  Whether the housekeepers work alone, in teams or have inspector’s assistance.  Whether the housekeepers work on one floor or multiple floors.  Differences in room sizes.  The number of check-outs.  Number/size of suites.  Turndown service or tidy-only service offerings.  Room amenity differences, e.g., Item 7-B 08/27/19 44 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Santa Monica City Council August 26, 2019 Page 4 o number of sleeping and decorative pillows, o heavy furniture to move and/or clean, o pets allowed, o coffee makers/other coffee/tea set up, o in room glass wear (wine glasses vs. drinking glasses), o water bottles in the room, o mini-bar, o other furniture in room, like coffee table, chest of drawers vs. closet hanging only, o glass shower doors (vs. curtains), o 2 sinks vs. just 1, o balconies to clean, o couches (sleeper vs. non-sleeper), o rollaways/cribs, o number of mirrors or other glass to clean/polish, o vanity amenities, o ice buckets, o flooring (wood vs. carpet or rugs), o room service tray cleanup/removal, o furniture surfaces that require more/less attention when cleaning room. We understand that City Staff has consulted with Unite Here representatives in the course of preparing the proposed ordinance. Unite Here has negotiated multiple Item 7-B 08/27/19 45 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Santa Monica City Council August 26, 2019 Page 5 collective bargaining agreements for Santa Monica hotels, which include provisions addressing the work scope for housekeepers. We understand that these provisions generally include fairly complicated room cleaning credit systems that differ from hotel to hotel. To our knowledge, Unite Here does not utilize a “one-size-fits-all” approach in its collective bargaining agreements. Moreover, the Santa Monica hotels with collective bargaining agreements generally represent the higher-end hotels where a housekeeper’s work responsibilities per room are generally much greater than in more limited-service hotels. The proposed ordinance, which appears based on higher-end hotels, appears unworkable for more limited service hotels. Imposing such an ordinance on more limited service hotels potentially puts such hotels at risk of failure. At a minimum, the City Council should refrain from proceeding with the proposed ordinance without gaining a full understanding of its practical implications for all Santa Monica lodging facilities. III. THE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT REMEDY SHOULD BE ELIMINATED If the City asserts the issues addressed by the proposed ordinance are sufficiently important, then the City should institute its own enforcement procedure. A civil enforcement procedure will likely result in excessive litigation costs for hotels and lead to abuses. This is confirmed by City Staff in the August 8, 2019 Information Item at pages 22-23 as follows: “City Staff acknowledges the potential for private litigation costs can significantly impact the hotel industry, adversely affecting the competitiveness of Santa Monica hotel in an increasingly challenging regional context. … [T]he experience with other legislation, such as abuse of the Americans with Disabilities Act or the California Environmental Quality Act for motives beyond the intent of those laws, certainly signals potential for such abuse in the future.” Item 7-B 08/27/19 46 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Santa Monica City Council August 26, 2019 Page 6 IV. ANY PROPOSED ORDINANCE DEALING WITH WORKLOAD SHOULD NOT GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN ADOPTED. There are significant differences among hotels and hotel rooms and the time needed to clean rooms. The proposed ordinance at Section 4.67.100 anticipates the need to adopt administrative regulations that presumably will more carefully define how the ordinance’s broad square footage limitations are to be applied and implemented. But hotels should not be asked to speculate on application of the ordinance, especially given the litigation costs and risks posed by the civil litigation remedies, before such administrative regulations are adopted. Therefore, if the City adopts an ordinance with workload/square footage provisions, then the ordinance should not go into effect until those administrative regulations have been adopted. V. QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER Before taking action on the proposed ordinance’s workload/square footage provisions, we respectfully suggest that the City Council consider the following questions: 1. Is City Staff and the City Council confident that the proposed square footage limitation correlates to a reasonable workload given the wide range of Santa Monica lodging facilities in terms of room sizes and amenities? a. Has City Staff gathered any empirical data in this regard? b. Why not wait to adopt the ordinance and obtain performance data from other cities that have adopted square footage workload ordinances? 2. Why not adopt the security and training provisions but defer the workload provision until the gaps and ambiguities in the proposed ordinance are addressed, either in ordinance changes or in administrative regulations? 3. Overall, does the City Council have sufficient information about the proposed ordinance, including its consequences (anticipated and unanticipated for hotels and their employees) to render a judgement, especially given the overall importance of the hotel industry to the City? Item 7-B 08/27/19 47 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 48 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Page 1 of 4 SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 27, 2019 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7B ATTACHMENT TO HARDING LARMORE KUTCHER & KOZAL LETTER DATED AUGUST 26, 2019 SUMMARY OF LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT THE CITY’S PROPOSED ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CITY OF SANTA MONICA WORK RULES FOR HOUSEKEEPERS IN THE HOTEL AND HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY IS PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW ________________________________________________ BACKGROUND A. The California Occupational Safety And Health Act Of 1973. The California Legislature established the statutory structure for addressing occupational safety and health when it enacted the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 (including Labor Code Sections 6300-6708 and 140-147.1). The Act’s purpose is to assure “safe and healthful working conditions for all California working men and women” through enforcement of effective regulations. (Labor Code Section 6300.) Below is a summary of the Act’s key provisions:  The Act is administered by three agencies including the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (“OSHSB”). (Labor Code Sections 6302, 6305, and 6307.)  The OSHSB consists of seven members appointed by the Governor. (Labor Code Section 140.)  The OSHSB’s primary responsibility is to adopt, amend and repeal occupational safety and health standards. The OSHSB also has the responsibility to grant or deny applications for variances from adopted standards and to respond to petitions for new or revised standards. (Labor Code Sections 142.3 and 6305)  Occupational safety and health standards are enforced by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, commonly known as “Cal/OSHA.” (Labor Code Sections 142 and 6307.) Cal/OSHA is a division of the Department of Industrial Relations. The Act expressly addresses the OSHSB’s authority in relation to other public agencies, including cities. Labor Code Section 6316 states as follows: “Except as limited by Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 140) of Division 1, nothing in this part shall deprive the governing body of any county, city, or public corporation, board, or department, of any power or jurisdiction over or relative to any place of employment.” Item 7-B 08/27/19 49 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Page 2 of 4 Section 6316’s exception for Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 140) of Division 1 is directly relevant here. Section 142.3(a)(1) states in relevant part: “The board [OSHSB] shall be the only agency in the state authorized to adopt occupational safety and health standards.” B. The California Code Of Regulations: Occupational Safety And Health Standards. Pursuant to its authority under the Act, the OSHSB has adopted extensive occupational safety and health regulations. These regulations are codified in Title 8, Chapter 3.2 of the California Code of Regulations. These regulations address a wide variety of occupations including housekeepers in lodging facilities. C. Regulation 3345. In 2018, the OSHSB adopted a new regulation to protect the workplace health and safety of housekeepers in the hotel and hospitality industry. This new regulation is codified in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations as Section 3345. According to the California Department of Industrial Relations: “The new regulation requires employers in the hotel and lodging industry to establish, implement and maintain an effective Musculoskeletal Injury Prevention Program (MIPP). Hotel housekeepers frequently suffer musculoskeletal injuries from lifting mattresses, pulling linens, pushing heavy carts, and slipping, tripping or falling while cleaning bathrooms. The MIPP must include the following:  Procedures to identify and evaluate housekeeping hazards through worksite evaluations that include housekeeper input.  Procedures to investigate musculoskeletal injuries to housekeepers.  Methods to correct identified hazards.  Training of employees and supervisors on safe practices and controls, and a process for early reporting of injuries to the employer.” (Department of Industrial Relations news release dated March 13, 2018, news release no. 2018-18, which can be found at https://www.dir.ca.gov/DIRNews/2018/2018-18.pdf) This new regulation was adopted in response to a petition filed on January 24, 2012 by representatives of Unite Here (Petition File No. 526) with the OSHSB Item 7-B 08/27/19 50 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Page 3 of 4 requesting a standard to address the specific hazards faced by hotel housekeepers. After the OSHSB promptly granted Unite Here’s petition on June 21, 2012, CAL/OSHA held a series of public advisory meetings and conducted extensive research over a period of six years to identify the best means of protecting the health and safety of housekeepers. Regulation 3345 is the product of this process. STATE LAW GOVERNING OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH PREEMPTS THE CITY’S PROPOSED ORDINANCE A. State Law Preemption, Generally. In California, local legislation that conflicts with state law is void. This is commonly referred to as the State Preemption Doctrine, which is based on article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution.1 O’Connell v. City of Stockton (2007) 41 Cal. 4th 1061, 1067. This doctrine prohibits a city or county from adopting ordinances in conflict with general state law. When a conflict occurs, the local law is preempted. Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal. 3d 277, 290-1; Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute v. City and County of San Francisco (2018) 22 Cal App. 5th 77, 85-86; Action Apartment Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Santa Monica (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1232, 1242-43; City of Santa Monica v. Yarmark (1988) 203 Cal App. 3d 153, 161; and Ocean House Corp. v. Permanent Rent Control Board (Santa Monica) (1983) 147 Cal App. 3d 395, 397. State law preempts local law whenever (1) a local law explicitly conflicts with a provision of state law, or (2) the local law duplicates, contradicts or enters a field fully occupied by state law. For preemption purposes, state law is deemed to fully occupy the field of regulation when the Legislature has manifested its intent to do so, either expressly or implicitly. If a field of legislation has been fully occupied by the state, there is no room for supplementary or complementary legislation. People v. Nguyen (2014) 222 Cal App. 4th 1168, 1174-5; and Lancaster v. Municipal Court (1972) 6 Cal.3d 805, 807-8. B. State Law Expressly Occupies The Field of Occupational Safety and Health Regulation And Precludes Local Regulations Addressing This Subject Matter. In adopting Labor Code Section 142.3(a)(1), the Legislature expressly indicated that the state has fully occupied the field of occupational safety and health regulation. The statutory language could not be more clear in this regard: OSHSB “shall be the only agency in the state authorized to adopt occupational safety and health standards.”2 1 Article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution states: “A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” 2 Labor Code Section 144(e) (which like Section 142.3(a)(1) is also part of Chapter 6) states that “nothing herein shall limit or reduce the authority of local agencies to adopt and enforce higher standards relating to occupational safety and health for their own employees.” Moreover, outside of occupational safety and health, cities retain authority to enact regulatory measures addressing employment and workers. See Item 7-B 08/27/19 51 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Page 4 of 4 Thus, the state has expressly indicated its intent to fully occupy the field of occupational safety and health regulation. The courts have held that when the Legislature has expressly stated its intent to occupy a field of regulation, cities are prohibited from enacting local legislation in the same field. Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco (2008) 158 Cal App. 4th 895; County of Santa Cruz v. Waterhouse (2005) 127 Cal App. 4th 1483; and Doe v. City and County of San Francisco (1982) 136 Cal App. 3d 509. Consequently, any City ordinance addressing the safety and health of housekeepers in the hotel and hospitality industry would be an unlawful intrusion into a subject area that is the exclusive province of the state. Santa Monica’s status as a charter city is of no legal consequence here. Even charter cities are subject to preemption by state law in matters of statewide concern. Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options v. City of Santa Monica (2001) 88 Cal App. 4th 451, 457-8; County of Sacramento v. Fair Political Practices Commission (1990) 222 Cal App. 3d 687, 691; and Baggett v. Gates (1982) 32 Cal. 3d 128, 136. And, protecting the safety and health of workers is a subject of statewide concern, as reflected in extensive state laws codified in the Labor Code regulating work and labor including, without limitation, payment of wages (Labor Code Sections 200-273), working hours (Labor Code Sections 500-890), collective bargaining agreements (Labor Code Sections 1126-1128), wages, hours and working conditions (Labor Code Sections 1127- 1206), unemployment relief (Labor Code Sections 2010-2014), workers’ compensation (Labor Code Sections 6100-6149), and occupational safety and health (Labor Code Sections 6300-6708 and 140-147.1). See In re Work Uniform Cases (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th 328, 349 (Court assumed worker safety is a statewide concern). Like rent control, labor is not a purely municipal affair. See Santa Monica v. Yarmark, supra, 203 Cal App. 3d at 164-168 (City of Santa Monica unsuccessfully argued that rent control is a matter of purely municipal concern in which the City may override state law). Accordingly, Santa Monica is legally required to respect the OSHSB’s exclusive role in regulating occupational safety and health by not adopting an ordinance in this same field of regulation. Labor Code Section 6316 and Garcia v. Four Points Sheraton LAX (2010) 188 Cal App. 4th 364. Item 7-B 08/27/19 52 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 53 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 54 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Friday, August 23, 2019 8:47 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Please vote in favor of the Hospitality Working Conditions Ordinance From: Jeremy Arnold <jarnold@cluejustice.org> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 11:18 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Please vote in favor of the Hospitality Working Conditions Ordinance Santa Monica, Dear Honorable Councilmembers, Mayor, and Mayor Pro-Tem, I write to you as a proud Santa Monica native, as a product of our town’s political community, and as a justice seeker exporting Santa Monica values across the region and the nation, to urge you to vote Yes on the Hospitality Working Conditions Ordinance. For almost fifty years, Santa Monica has led the Greater Los Angeles region as an unapologetically progressive city and as a laboratory for good ideas. Our city broke new ground on rent control, community policing, environmental stewardship, and so many other important issues. I joined the organizing staff of CLUE last year In order to build on this legacy and continue the work of my mentor and role model, former Santa Monica Mayor Rev. Jim Conn. Now, among my many responsibilities, I am working tirelessly to promote a similar Hospitality Working Conditions law in the form of Measure B in Rancho Palos Verdes, where even my own Unitarians quiver at the prospect of publicly supporting anything remotely associated with unions. I know what many of these women and men in the shadows experience on the job, having listened to their stories and having been groped and sexually mistreated myself when I worked in the restaurant industry, as recently as June of last year. This is the right time to pass protections against sexual assault, in this moment when the backlash against #MeToo is gaining steam. This is the right time to pass it in council, in this moment when so many canvassers, organizers, and thinkers are gearing up to fight for truth Item 7-B 08/27/19 55 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 and justice at the highest levels of our society. Please take courage and vote Yes. Sincerely, Jeremy Arnold Jeremy Arnold jarnold@cluejustice.org 668 Marine St Santa Monica , California 90405 Item 7-B 08/27/19 56 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Friday, August 23, 2019 8:47 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy From: Rabbi Neil Comess‐Daniels <rabbi@bethshirshalom.org> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 6:45 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I serve Santa Monica’s oldest synagogue and I care deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. I’m writing to you particularly about women workers. Even more specifically I’m talking about housekeepers in the hotel industry i’m writing to you particularly about women workers. Even more specifically I’m talking about housekeepers in the hotel industry. These are mostly women and they work very hard. Sir no I’m good thank these are mostly women and they work very hard. Whether their pay is commensurate with their effort and commitment is s matter of opinion. My opinion is that they are paid poorly through systems that help owners and managers save money for the hotels on the backs of these workers. Many are employed part time and therefore are not eligible for any benefits. They work under heavy workloads. Most frightening are the stories that these workers tell of being sexually harassed when they enter a hotel room alone. Regarding wages, my tradition says that it is in moral to hold the wages of a worker overnight. Since these workers have been paid at a lower rate for a long time that means that essentially their pay has been withheld from them day after day after day. As for their workload, my tradition also mandates that we are not allowed to tie a strong animal with a weaker animal to the same harness because the weaker one will be dragged and it is considered cruel. If this is true for animals, how much the more so for human beings. As for their safety in the rooms, Santa Monica has some of the strictest laws regarding road safety anywhere especially for the new flock of Birds that are ubiquitous in the City. Why can’t the city make sure that hotels keep these women safe as well. Item 7-B 08/27/19 57 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Thank you for all you do for this community. Shalom, Rabbi Neil Comess-Daniels rabbi@bethshirshalom.org Beth Shir Shalom, 1827 California Avenue Santa Monica, California 90403 Item 7-B 08/27/19 58 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Friday, August 23, 2019 8:48 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy From: Father Michael Gutierrez <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 6:07 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am the former pastor of St. Anne’s Catholic Church in Santa Monica (1999-2009) who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 59 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. As we wait for the ordinance to come back before you, we want to make sure that the law that ultimately goes into effect will be comprehensive. We hope that the law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Thank you. Fr. Michael D. Gutierrez Pastor St. John the Baptist Church Baldwin Park, CA Father Michael Gutierrez gogutie66@yahoo.com 3883 Baldwin Park Blvd Baldwin Park , California 91706 Item 7-B 08/27/19 60 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 61 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 62 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Olga Valle Ramirez <olgavalleramirez@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 23, 2019 2:20 PM To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Greg Morena; Sue Himmelrich; Ted Winterer; Ana Maria Jara; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Lane Dilg; Rick Cole; Andy Agle; Anuj Gupta; Jason Harris; Jennifer Taylor; Helen Yu; mail@hotelassociationla.com; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Attorney Mailbox; councilmtgitems Subject:Must Read; Re; Hotel Ordinance - For your consideration To Whom it May Concern, I am an employee of Shutters on the Beach and have been for the past 26 years. Recently, we have been informed of changes that will directly affect my workplace and therefore affect and impact me. I don’t believe that any organization has the right to cause any problems in a workplace/environment that it is comfortable and peaceful. I don’t understand why people are coming into our company, we are happy to work here. We are happy working for a company that offers us great benefits and a nice work environment. Local 11, does not have the right to dictate to us what to do or make decisions for us and our company. They are jeopardizing the families that work in my company, by making decision we’re not in agreement with. And for those of you reading this letter, have a conscience, no one should have the right to dictate for others or make laws that would jeopardize those who are working and earning their living with the sweat of their own brow. Local 11 members pay dues because they have been promised help which never comes to fruition. Please do not move forward with changes regarding the room credits. I am very satisfied working with the credits I currently have. Please stop, don't create this law that will jeopardize and affect hard working employees simply trying to make an honest living for themselves and their families. Very Truly yours, Olga Valle Item 7-B 08/27/19 63 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 64 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 65 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 66 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 August 23, 2019 Mayor Gleam Davis Mayor Pro Tempore Terry O'Day Councilmember Ana Maria Jara Councilmember Kevin McKeown Councilmember Sue Himmelrich Councilmember Greg Morena Councilmember Ted Winterer 1685 Main Street, Room 209 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Mayor Davis and Members of the Santa Monica City Council: Thank you for acting upon recommendations made by the city’s Commission on the Status of Women to consider “common sense legislation” addressing the safety and compensation of the workers at Santa Monica’s 41 hotels and motels. I write to encourage your support for the efforts to enhance protections for workers in the hospitality industry that will be coming before you shortly. The regulations you will be considering have the potential to:  enhance protections against sexual violence and harassment;  ensure fair compensation for workers and defend them from unreasonable workloads or mandatory overtime;  educate the hospitality labor force about its rights and give them tools to help the city identify human trafficking and domestic violence; and Item 7-B 08/27/19 67 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19  assist in the retention of workers when changes occur in ownership or management. I recognize provisions of this ordinance continue to draw opposition from some of the city’s hospitality industry, and I commend you and your staff’s commitment to working with these parties to ensure the potential implementation of worker regulations is fair and practicable. As you know, similar measures are already in effect in the California cities of Long Beach, Oakland and Emeryville, as well as in Seattle, Washington. I believe that with your leadership Santa Monica—host to eight million annual visitors and a thriving hospitality industry—can make a concrete difference in the lives of workers and residents, affirming its steadfast commitment to the progressive values which guide our city. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, Ben Allen 26th Senate District CC: council@smgov.net Item 7-B 08/27/19 68 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Shahid Kayani <Shahid.Kayani@whg.com> Sent:Friday, August 23, 2019 3:58 PM To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Greg Morena; Sue Himmelrich; Ted Winterer; Ana Maria Jara; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Lane Dilg; Rick Cole; Andy Agle; Anuj Gupta; Jason Harris; Jennifer Taylor; Helen Yu; mail@hotelassociationla.com; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Attorney Mailbox; councilmtgitems Subject:Santa Monica Ordinance, Housekeeping Workload Regulations Dear Mayor Davis and honorable members of the City Council of Santa Monica: Thank you for making Santa Monica one of most recognizable and favorite city to visit. Your dedication and service to the public is greatly appreciated. My name is Shahid Kayani, and I am the General Manager of the DoubleTree Suites by Hilton in Santa Monica. As a regional GM, I have managed Hilton, Holiday Inn and Marriott hotels throughout the US for the past 25‐years. I have also worked on international hotel projects for my company. We are a busy 253 room all‐suite hotel and have 124 associates working for us. We became a Union hotel in June, 2018. Safety and security of our guests and associates is our utmost priority. Hilton, like many other brands is making it mandatory to equip our room attendants with panic buttons by the end of 2020. We understand that panic buttons are being proposed for the room attendants in the city of Santa Monica as well. We welcome that and looking forward to comply with the ordinance in the coming year. But we were astounded to know that the special interest is trying to fool the public by slipping the workload issue along with this safety ordinance. At the DoubleTree Santa Monica, our suites are over 450 sqft. Currently a room attendant cleans 13 rooms per 8‐hour guaranteed shift. During summer months we give them one less room to clean due to high volume and large families staying in the room. If the suite bathroom has a shower door instead of a shower curtain, the room attendant cleans one less room due to spending more time cleaning the shower door. These conditions are much more favorable to the associates, and are part of the Union CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement). However, since we adapted these new standards we see many of our room attendants finishing their work within six hours. Although we try to give them projects to deep clean other areas of the rooms, like windows, back of the TVs and picture frames etc. Many room attendants are seen waiting for the clock to hit the guaranteed 8‐hour paid mark so they can leave. Needless to say it impacts productivity, costs the hotel financially, and is unfair to the other associates who work hard during their shifts. Throughout the World and the US hotel industry, whether union or non‐union, the room attendants work is based on time. This is due to the different nature of each room. For example, a large room with one bed and couple of chairs and a table, a two bedded room and a sofa bed or a couch, a room with balcony, and other amenities in the room like microwaves, refrigerators, coffee makers etc. as well as size and type of bathroom (bathtub vs. stand‐ up shower.) Guests staying over or a check‐out room. If the proposed 4,000 square foot ordinance is adapted how would we address the following:  How do we calculate the bathroom space? Should the counters, sliding doors etc. count into the 4,000 sqft ?  Would dusting the room ceiling be considered into the square footage?  How do we calculate balcony, walls, windows in the room?  How about the hallways outside of the entry door? Room assignments are based on all these factors. The proposed square footage cap of 4,000 sqft. requirement would be impossible to implement and monitor. We can see its harming affects in the couple of cities it has been adapted. Both Item 7-B 08/27/19 69 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 the associates and businesses are confused and unhappy. For example, City of Long Beach is being sued by the city hotel & motels causing both parties to spend valuable resources of tax payers and businesses on litigation. If the ordinance is adapted here in Santa Monica, the only viable option for the hotels would be to schedule less hours for each room attendants to get the job done and go home. This would mean hiring more part‐time room cleaners. With the high cost of living, heavy traffic and an ongoing shortage of workers in Santa Monica, it will severely impact the hotels and its related businesses. Not to mention it will have a devastating effect on the current long termed room attendants. They will lose their full time benefits like pension, 401K, health, dental/vision coverage. To supplement their income, they will be forced to work two, perhaps three jobs to make the same income with no benefits. I am sure you can imagine the impact of associates hopping from hotel to hotel in busy Santa Monica traffic. They will be more prone to accidents and injuries, that will not only affect them but the tourist and the general public. Therefore, I would request that the City Council should only concentrate on the safety aspect of this bill and not the 4,000 sqft. Workload proposal. Thank you for your consideration. Shahid R. Kayani Area General Manager DoubleTree Suites by Hilton Santa Monica 1707 Fourth Street, Santa Monica, Ca 90401 Hotel Phone: (310) 395‐3332 ext. 7130 & 1| Fax (310) 452‐7399 Shahid.Kayani@hilton.com Shahid.Kayani@whg.com SantaMonicaSuites.DoubleTree.com | Become a fan on Facebook | Become a fan on Instagram Item 7-B 08/27/19 70 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 71 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 72 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 73 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 74 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 75 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 76 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:18 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Susan Stewart <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 1:05 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 77 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Susan Stewart muchasb@gmail.com 1914 11th St. Santa Monica, California 90404 Item 7-B 08/27/19 78 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:18 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Jim Stewart <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 1:04 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 79 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Jim Stewart muchasb@gmail.com 1914 11th St. #5 Santa monica, California 90404 Item 7-B 08/27/19 80 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 A CALL FOR HOUSEKEEPER DIGNITY: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL As community members of Santa Monica and Los Angeles County who stand in solidarity with workers, we call upon you, members of the Santa Monica City Council, to take a bold step on behalf of worker dignity and respect. On Tuesday, August 27, we urge you to pass a comprehensive ordinance that will protect our hotel housekeepers in the following four ways: • PANIC BUTTONS • FAIR COMPENSATION FOR HEAVY WORKLOADS • TRAINING • WORKER RETENTION Housekeepers play a vital, if often invisible, role in helping to ensure our tourist economy remains vibrant and in protecting the health and well-being of the public. We need you to accord housekeepers the protection and dignity they deserve. WHY PANIC BUTTONS: These devices enable workers to summon hotel security when confronted with threatening behavior or an ongoing crime. Many hotel housekeepers, the majority of them female, have reported experiencing some kind of threatening conduct on the job: 58% of housekeepers in a Chicago poll and 53% in a similar poll in Seattle. For this reason, several cities, including Chicago, Oakland, and Long Beach, have already adopted laws requiring panic buttons; Santa Monica should follow suit. The proposed ordinance would also allow workers to remove themselves from threatening situations and report threats without fear of retaliation. WHY FAIR COMPENSATION FOR HEAVY WORKLOADS: Hotel room attendants are frequently assigned heavy room cleaning quotas and unexpected overtime. These practices undermine the public interest in ensuring that room attendants can perform their work in a manner that adequately protects public health, interferes with their ability to meet family and personal obligations, and can undermine other employment protections intended to benefit hotel workers, such as Santa Monica’s hotel workers’ living wage. Workers have called for a provision that assures workers receive fair compensation when their workload assignments exceed 3,500 square feet and prohibits hotel companies from making them work long overtime shifts without their consent. None of these standards currently exist in the law. Item 7-B 08/27/19 81 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 WHY A THIRD-PARTY TRAINING PROGRAM: Panic buttons and workload compensation regulations are only part of what is needed to protect workers and the broader public. Workers are also calling for high-quality, third-party training for all Santa Monica hotel housekeeping workers on their rights under Santa Monica’s laws, as well as matters of public health and safety, including best practices to identify potential instances of sexual assault, domestic violence, and human trafficking and cleaning techniques to prevent the spread of disease and pest infestations. WHY A WORKER RETENTION PROGRAM: Workers are asking that the final provision of this ordinance complete these protections by addressing the frequent changes in management and ownership that occur in today's hotel industry. A staff's experience and training will count for little if a hotel's management changes or if the hotel itself is sold, resulting in layoffs of many experienced employees. Such mass layoffs also place demands on social services provided by the City and other governments. Workers ask that the fourth provision ensure that staff members will remain employed for a transitional period when a hotel is sold or management changes. DON'T BE FOOLED BY MISLEADING CLAIMS: As we have gotten closer to the vote on this ordinance, you may have heard a number of misleading claims promulgated by employers and their representatives: that the ordinance is unnecessary, duplicative, or that it would somehow actually harm hotel housekeepers. None of these claims are true, and they only serve to obscure the fact that this ordinance has been developed and demanded by the housekeepers themselves, who know better than anyone what they need to protect themselves and the broader public. The industry cannot be trusted to solve these problems on their own; workers have learned from experience that meaningful protections must be won and guaranteed through laws with teeth. We have heard the industry’s claims before that measures to protect and benefit workers will cause the sky to fall, as when worker and the community fought to win a dignified minimum wage. None of those doom and gloom claims—such as predictions of lost revenue and mass layoffs—ever came to pass, as the industry instead maintained record profitability. The industry’s scare tactics should not dissuade us from taking action now. This is a time to go forward, not back. As Council members, you now have the opportunity to affirm that the labor of hotel housekeepers is not simply a "unit cost" on a balance sheet, and that our entire community finally, visibly, acknowledges the worth and dignity of Item 7-B 08/27/19 82 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 individuals who contribute so much to the economic vibrancy and wellbeing of our city. Passing this ordinance is the step forward we need to take today. Signed: Rev. Dr. Young Lee Hertig, ISAAC Vice Moderator Eric Beck, Presbytery of the Pacific Shawn Landres, Santa Monica Resident Abby Arnold, Santa Monica Resident Patricia Young, Santa Monica Resident Naomi Steinfeld, Long Beach Meditation Lisa Raufman, National Council of Jewish Women Kathleen Ryan, member, St. Monica’s Catholic Church Judy Abdo, Co-Chair, Santa Monica Forward Deacon Joanne Leslie, Episcopal Diocese of LA Deacon John Steele, Holy Family Church Sandra Kroll, UU Church of Long Beach Lana Spraker, CLUE- Santa Monica Rev. James Boline, St. Paul’s Lutheran Church, Santa Monica Sarah Jakle, First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles Margarita Chulde, Community Advocate, ConPaz Joan Harper, Fair Trade LA Ligia Gonzalez, First Unitarian Church Los Angeles Rev. Bert Newton, Pasadena Mennonite Church Ms. Bonnie Johnstone, Santa Monica Resident Joseph Dov, Golden West College Rev. Calvin Moore II, First Presbyterian Church LA Marjorie Loring Gauley, Chalice UU Fellowship of the Conejo Valley Doris Hausmann Kogut, Santa Monica Resident Jean Prinz, Throop Church Rev Jim Conn, Retired United Methodist Minister, Santa Monica Resident Stacie Chaiken, IKAR Rev. Dr. Sarah Halverson-Cano, Fairview Community Church Donna Malamud, Santa Monica Resident, Temple Mishkon Tephilo Andrew Moss, CLUE-SM Dr. Gelya Frank, Professor, University of Southern California Tina Feiger, Emeritus Faculty, SMC Alice Wexler, TTRR Gil Leib, MLK Westside Coalition Ali Tweini, Exec Board, Teamsters Local 2010 Fred Diamond, CLUE-LA Joe Pardee, CLUE-Pasadena Mike Sinkov, First Unitarian Church LA The Rev. Eric Shafer, Mt Olive Lutheran Church The Rev. Deacon Steve Alder, St. Luke’s Episcopal-Long Beach Item 7-B 08/27/19 83 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Emily Abel, UCLA-Felding School of Public Health Dorothy Moore, M.D., Indivisible Beach Cities Mary Stancavage, Meditation Coalition Charles Jacobsen, Throop Unitarian Universalist Church Dr. Marjorie Pearson, Santa Monica resident Professor Emerita Karen Pearson, UCLA Blanca Malpartida-Glrard, CLUE Janice Lavine, IKAR Rabbi Aryeh Cohen, American Jewish University Carol Lewis, Ahavat Torah Lesley Hyatt, Shtibl, IKAR Rev. Rebecca Bijur, Santa Monica resident, CLUE Andrea Rothschild, HODG Sara Lee, Founder, CA-8 Rising Alyson Shelton, Field Team 6 Pastor Beau Wammack, Northland Village Church, PCUSA Judith Glass, CLUE POWER Rev. Frank Alton, St. Athanasius Episcopal Church Dr. Christine Danelski, Santa Monica resident, St. Augustine’s by the Sea Elina Antoniou, California Democratic Party Delegate The Rev. Nathan Rugh, St. Augustine’s by the Sea Episcopal, Santa Monica resident Jessica Craven, CA Democratic Party Delegate AD51 Rachael Mason, FIA Victoria Best, CLUE-SM Lisa Beebe, concerned citizen Jo Bollen, Founder, Vote Morongo Basin Julie Sharron, DSA Valerie Hurt, FIA Ms. Kellen Hertz, supporter Sarah Eggers, FIA Diane Factor, Worker Education and Resource Center Pastor Lyda Eddington, Westchester UMC Rabbi Ahud Sela, Temple Ramat Zion Reverend Adiel DePano, Santa Ana UMC Richelle Mancewicz, MFT Rev. Marcia L. Hoffman, Moderator of 47 congregations, greater LA Helen Eigenberg, HODG Kate Grodd, FIA Rev. Rae Huang, Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. Adam Overton, Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice (CLUE) Rev. Dr. Janet Bregar, Village Church Professor Tom Peters, Faculty Union Political Director, SMC Faculty Association Dr. Susan Stouffer, Sola Community Peace Center Jerilyn Stapleton, Policy Director, NOW-Hollywood Chapter Dorothy Christ, All Saints Church Pasadena Catherine Gentile, Santa Monica resident, UUCSM Item 7-B 08/27/19 84 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Rev. Felicia Parazaider, The Revolution of Love Rev. Francisco Garcia, EDLA Rev. Randy VanDeventer, UCC Rev. Jerod Yates, UCC Liz Purvis, Field Team 6 Paul Rosenstein, Former Mayor, Santa Monica Daryl Forman, Santa Monica resident, St. Paul Lutheran Church Curtis Raynor, Santa Monica Quaker Meeting Clarence Forman, Santa Monica resident, St. Paul Lutheran Church Vivian Rothstein, Santa Monica resident, CLUE boardmember Melissa Grant, Grassroots Democrats HQ Guillermo Torres, Director of Social Justice, First United Methodist Church of Wilmington Marsha Novak, Temple Judea, Interfaith Solidarity Network RJ Marti, All Saints Church, Pasadena Pamela Marshall, CSH/SRHT Kolieka Seigle, President, California National Organization for Women Rick Tuttle, former LA City Controller Item 7-B 08/27/19 85 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Ryan Edwards Insurance Agency Ryan Edwards, Agent. License#: 0H18089 2050 S Bundy Dr. Ste. 290 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Office: 424-371-5501 Fax: 424-371-5502 www.redinsurance.org Ordinance Component #2 Hotel housekeeper workloads and overtime compensation. Esteemed City Council, Though my office is in West Los Angeles, I conduct most of my business in Santa Monica and am an active member of the chamber of commerce. I wanted to highlight a perspective you may not have considered that can negatively impact both the business and residential community in Santa Monica. Because there is a lack of definition as to what types of surfaces constitute ‘square feet’, we’re leaving our local businesses and residents wide open for legal action from their employees. Most businesses want to adhere to guidelines, but if not defined, it will be impossible to do so. Once legal action sets a precedent, others will follow, and we’ll fine an increase in damages and fines being paid out by our local businesses. The impact to their insurance rates can be extremely detrimental, not just to hotels, but the entire business and residential community. Insurance rates are based on the number of claims, and the amount that was paid out in each claim. Business Example: If Hotel A’s Employment Liability insurance policy pays out 0-1 times every few years, but suddenly increases to 3-5 times it doesn’t just hurt Hotel A. Hotel A, Hotel B, Hotel C, and Hotel D’s insurance companies will look at the claims activity in Santa Monica over the previous year, and increase their rates to match the risk in that area. Residential Example: We have private citizens who employ housekeepers as well. Because of the increased risk of housekeeper related claims, private insurance rates will also increase. They are based on the job description. There will not be a separation of whether those housekeeping claims came from hotels or private homes. I urge the council to postpone until revisions can be made or ‘square footage’ can be properly defined or changed to a more measureable definition. Square footage is an arbitrary metric that does not account for the amount of furniture and amenities in a room, whether a room is being prepared for a new guest or cleaned for a stay over guest, or whether a housekeeper has to travel between rooms or floors. Housekeepers who finish their allotted 4,000 square feet in under eight hours will be sent home, costing them full-time hours, benefits, and overtime opportunities. The city is also considering leaving enforcement of this rule up to the courts, putting hotels at great risk of numerous and frivolous lawsuits. Thank you for your consideration and all you do for our great city. Ryan A. Edwards 424-371-5501 Item 7-B 08/27/19 86 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Felix Populous <smpopulus.felix@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 3:34 PM To:Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Rick Cole; Lane Dilg; Ted Winterer; Sue Himmelrich; Greg Morena; Ana Maria Jara; Councilmember Kevin McKeown Subject:Local 11 is asking the City to take over its job of advocating for and protecting hotel workers. https://www.smdp.com/let‐the‐people‐vote/178975 Editor: UNITE HERE! Local 11 is asking the City to take over its job of advocating for and protecting hotel workers. On the agenda for the next meeting of the City Council (8/27) is a staff report that lays out a new area of regulation for the City: setting workloads for hotel workers and supervising their training. Isn’t that the role of the union? Staff says the cities of Long Beach, Oakland, Emeryville and Seattle have adopted similar ordinances. But they note “through ballot measures approved by voters.” Santa Monicans are not given the option. Staff, without committing to a possible financial impact, says the oversight can be done by Code Compliance. Officers would have to be trained for a whole new set of regulations. This when the City said Code Compliance was too overburdened to continue supervising leaf blowers and can’t find money to patrol e-scooter riders on its sidewalks. There is no question that some workers are in vulnerable positions, but is it the City’s responsibility to enforce work rules? What next, regulating the number of bathroom breaks for shoe salesmen on the Promenade? Local 11 has a disproportionate influence on City Council because it provides money and campaign workers to incumbents. For once, Councilmembers should put the needs of taxpayers before a special interest by refusing to consider this proposed ordinance. If they truly think it’s in the public’s best interest, put it on the ballot. Item 7-B 08/27/19 87 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 88 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 89 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 90 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 91 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 92 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 93 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 94 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 95 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 96 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 97 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 98 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 99 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 100 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 101 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 102 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 103 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 104 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 105 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 106 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 107 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 108 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 109 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 110 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 111 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 112 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 113 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 114 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 115 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 116 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 117 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 118 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 119 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 120 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 121 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 122 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 123 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 124 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 125 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 126 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 127 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 128 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 129 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 130 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 131 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 132 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 133 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 134 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 135 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 136 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 137 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 138 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 139 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 140 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 141 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 142 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 143 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 144 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 145 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 146 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 147 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 148 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 149 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 150 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 151 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 152 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 153 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 154 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 155 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 156 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 157 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 158 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 159 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 160 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 161 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 162 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 163 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 164 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 165 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 166 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 167 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 168 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 169 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 170 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 171 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 172 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 173 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 174 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 175 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 176 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 177 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 178 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 179 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 180 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 181 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 182 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 183 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 184 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 185 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 186 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 187 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 188 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 189 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 190 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 191 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 192 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 193 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 194 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 195 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 196 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 197 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 198 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 199 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 200 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 201 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 202 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 203 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 204 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 205 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 206 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 207 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 208 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 209 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 210 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 211 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 212 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 213 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 214 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 215 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 216 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 217 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 218 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 219 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:18 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Mark Giorgione <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 12:22 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 220 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Mark Giorgione mgiorgione@gmail.com 3363 Vinton Ave. #3 Los Angeles, California 90034 Item 7-B 08/27/19 221 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:20 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Diane Kalan <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 12:19 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 222 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Diane Kalan voicesbydk@gmail.com 1736 Palisades Drive Pacific Palisades , California 90272 Item 7-B 08/27/19 223 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:20 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Stuart Miller <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 12:17 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 224 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Stuart Miller s.kanut.miller@gmail.com 1420 Sunset Avenue Santa Monica , California 90405 Item 7-B 08/27/19 225 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:20 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Victoria Rhodes <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 12:16 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 226 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Victoria Rhodes Vickihaha@aol.com 8755 Kittyhawk Avenue Los Angeles , California 90045 Item 7-B 08/27/19 227 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:21 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Stand with women workers From: Gary Tang <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 12:04 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Stand with women workers Santa Monica, Dear Council, I am a Santa Monica Resident and member of St Augustine’s by the Sea Episcopal. I hope you stand with the workers and listen to their voices this Tuesday. Please pass their ordinance! Best, Gary Gary Tang garyplusyou@gmail.com 1507 Seventh St Apt 109 Santa Monica, California 90401 Item 7-B 08/27/19 228 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:21 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Kenneth Phillips <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 12:02 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 229 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Kenneth Phillips kephillips123@icloud.com 5524 W 63rd street Los Angeles, California 90056 Item 7-B 08/27/19 230 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:21 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Anita Cuttler <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 12:00 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: Please help the housekeepers!!am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 231 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Anita Cuttler glowingartistry@gmail.com 1112 7th St. Apt. 714 Santa Monica , California 90403 Item 7-B 08/27/19 232 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:22 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Debra Michels <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 11:58 AM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 233 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Debra Michels debrasmichels@aol.com 13336 Maxella Ave unit 9 Marina del Rey, California 90292 Item 7-B 08/27/19 234 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:22 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Deborah Kaufman Giordano <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 11:56 AM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 235 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Deborah Kaufman Giordano erxhealthcare@hotmail.com 953 4th Street 101 Santa Monica , California 90403 Item 7-B 08/27/19 236 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:22 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Michael Gustafson <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 11:53 AM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 237 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Michael Gustafson michaeljgus@yahoo.com 2471 Oak St. Santa Monica, California 90405 Item 7-B 08/27/19 238 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:22 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Nancy Goglia <nancygo@msn.com> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 11:51 AM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 239 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Nancy Goglia nancygo@msn.com 842 12th St Santa Monica, California 90403 Item 7-B 08/27/19 240 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:22 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Laura Horton <hortonlaura@att.net> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 11:50 AM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 241 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Laura Horton hortonlaura@att.net 10944 Palms Blvd, Apt 6 Los Angeles , California 90034 Item 7-B 08/27/19 242 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:22 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Bryant Kirkland <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 11:49 AM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 243 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Bryant Kirkland brkirkland@gmail.com 1817 20th Street Santa Monica, California 90404 Item 7-B 08/27/19 244 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:23 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: peter lewis <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 10:35 AM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 245 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. peter lewis peterbarentlewis@hotmail.com 305 Olympic santa Monica, California 90401 Item 7-B 08/27/19 246 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:23 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Caldwell Williams <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 9:19 AM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 247 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Caldwell Williams cald.will415@gmail.com 5729 Brynhurst Ave. Los Angeles, California 90043 Item 7-B 08/27/19 248 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:23 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Michael Quist <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 9:17 AM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident who cares very deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 249 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do! Michael Quist mjquist@gmail.com 243 Mills St Santa Monica, California 90405 Item 7-B 08/27/19 250 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:23 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Protect Hotel Workers From: Lynn Blair <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 9:14 AM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Protect Hotel Workers Santa Monica, Please pass the new legislation that will protect house keepers from danger, excessive work. Thank you for your consideration. Lynn Lynn Blair lickebarrels@gmail.com 1111 street Los angeles, California 90068 Item 7-B 08/27/19 251 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:24 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Jason LaPadura <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 9:07 AM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 252 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Jason LaPadura jasonlapadura@gmail.com 712 Copeland Court Santa Mono, California 90405 Item 7-B 08/27/19 253 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:24 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Maryella Satinover <mbsatinover@roadrunner.com> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 9:06 AM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 254 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Maryella Satinover mbsatinover@roadrunner.com 110908 Windward Ave. Mar Vista, California 90066 Item 7-B 08/27/19 255 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:24 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Anthony Williams <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 9:02 AM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 256 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Anthony Williams anthonyawms@hotmail.com 1328 2nd St. Santa Monica , California 90401 Item 7-B 08/27/19 257 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:25 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Workers need protection From: Zaira Salazar <zaira73@gnail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 7:39 AM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Workers need protection Santa Monica, Hotel keepers are the first ones to get complemented by your guest, The minute you walk in a hotel you are seen how clean it is. So give workers what they deserve! Zaira Salazar zaira73@gnail.com 2842 Exposition Blvd Santa Monica , California 90404 Item 7-B 08/27/19 258 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:26 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Jerri Allyn <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 12:30 AM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 259 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Jerri Allyn uplift.the.arts@gmail.com 5507 Village Green LA, CA, California 90016 Item 7-B 08/27/19 260 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:26 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Harriette McCauley <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 2:15 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 261 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Harriette McCauley leosfirstgirl@gmail.com 3100 Neilson Way, Apt. B-126 Santa Monica, California 90405 Item 7-B 08/27/19 262 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:26 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Rosie Smith <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 2:12 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 263 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Rosie Smith rosiesmith7@gmail.com 2102 Virginia ave Santa Monica, California 90404 Item 7-B 08/27/19 264 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:27 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Kyle Smith <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 2:00 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 265 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Kyle Smith howell902@gmail.com 2014 21st st Santa Monica, California 90404 Item 7-B 08/27/19 266 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:27 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Yelena Zeltser <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 1:49 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 267 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Yelena Zeltser yelena.zeltser@gmail.com 1144 5th St Santa Monica , California 90403 Item 7-B 08/27/19 268 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:27 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Jim Shannahan <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 1:40 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 269 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Jim Shannahan jimshannahan@gmail.com 2302 23rd Santa Monica, California 90405 Item 7-B 08/27/19 270 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:27 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote yes 8/27/19 From: Gracie Gomez <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 1:32 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote yes 8/27/19 Santa Monica, It has come to my attention that there will be a vote to protect hotel workers from potential abuse in the work place. I think Santa Monica should pass the law to make it mandatory that hotels should give their workers that have to go in private rooms alone an alarm. With the increasing violence we here about, we should all have a personal alarm. I do. They say your mouth is the first thing covered, to prevent you from screaming. A personal alarm is an inexpensive and smart way to call for help, when you can’t scream. Please consider this and bot yes. Thank you, Gracie Gomez Gracie Gomez greyseamez@aol.com 2224 23rd St Santa Monica, California 90405 Item 7-B 08/27/19 271 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:27 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Kayla Munoz <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 1:30 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 272 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Kayla Munoz kmunoz0420@gmail.com 1935 cloverfield blvd apt 7 Santa Monica, California 90404 Item 7-B 08/27/19 273 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:28 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Elizabeth Priestley <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 1:29 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 274 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Elizabeth Priestley trailquest@hotmail.com 2250 23rd street Santa Monica, California 90405 Item 7-B 08/27/19 275 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:28 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Inas Ishak <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 12:40 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 276 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Inas Ishak foziinas@gmail.com 1424 Broadway Santa Monica , California 90404 Item 7-B 08/27/19 277 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:28 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Richard Hirsch <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 12:38 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 278 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Richard Hirsch richardghirscg@aol.com 2727 Washington ave Santa monica, California 90403 Item 7-B 08/27/19 279 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:28 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Stacey Kirby <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 12:32 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 280 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Stacey Kirby staceymarie696@gmail.com 503 Olympic Blvd Santa Monica, California 90401 Item 7-B 08/27/19 281 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:28 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy From: Keisha McDonald <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 12:23 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 282 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. As we wait for the ordinance to come back before you, we want to make sure that the law that ultimately goes into effect will be comprehensive. We hope that the law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Keisha McDonald k.camille.mcdonald@gmail.com 1922 18th St Santa monica, California 90404 Item 7-B 08/27/19 283 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:29 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy From: Steve Doverspike <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 12:23 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 284 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. As we wait for the ordinance to come back before you, we want to make sure that the law that ultimately goes into effect will be comprehensive. We hope that the law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Steve Doverspike steve.doverspike@gmail.com 645 w 9th st, apt 224 Los angeles, California 90015 Item 7-B 08/27/19 285 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:29 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy From: Lina Blomster <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 12:13 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 286 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. As we wait for the ordinance to come back before you, we want to make sure that the law that ultimately goes into effect will be comprehensive. We hope that the law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Lina Blomster lina.blomster@gmail.com 2011 17th street Los angeles, California 90404 Item 7-B 08/27/19 287 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:29 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy From: Lisa Ivemark Schéle <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 12:11 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 288 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. As we wait for the ordinance to come back before you, we want to make sure that the law that ultimately goes into effect will be comprehensive. We hope that the law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Lisa Ivemark Schéle lisaivemark@gmail.com 2011 17th street Santa monica, California 90404 Item 7-B 08/27/19 289 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:29 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy From: Christie Kelley <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 11:38 AM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 290 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. As we wait for the ordinance to come back before you, we want to make sure that the law that ultimately goes into effect will be comprehensive. We hope that the law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Christie Kelley iopsych1986@gmail.com 1020 ocean park blvd Santa Monica, California 90405 Item 7-B 08/27/19 291 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 8:30 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy From: Karla Alcala <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 10:41 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Santa Monica Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 292 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. As we wait for the ordinance to come back before you, we want to make sure that the law that ultimately goes into effect will be comprehensive. We hope that the law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Karla Alcala alcala_karla@yahoo.com 1615 e 117th Place Los Angeles, California 90059 Item 7-B 08/27/19 293 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 August 21, 2019 Re: Item 7A, 8/27/19, Hotel Workers’ Protection Ordinance Dear Councilmembers, The Steering Committee of Santa Monicans for Renters Rights urges you to support the upcoming ordinance protecting hotel workers against workplace sexual abuse and harassment, as well as providing other safeguards to ensure workers’ physical well-being and security. We request your support in keeping with our platform, which states that “SMRR is committed to workers’ rights,” specifying that “The City…and the business community should guarantee these rights [and] promote decent working conditions.” We believe that the proposed ordinance is needed to address specific issues facing workers in our local hotel industry. In particular, we share the concerns of the Commission on the Status of Women about the vulnerabilities faced by women in workplaces where they are physically isolated and abusers and harassers (who may be guests rather than coworkers or managers) have ready access to them, with the result that assaults and threatening behavior occur in circumstances where there will be no witnesses. Our tourism industry is thriving, bringing about 1.93 billion dollars into Santa Monica’s economy and adding 58 million dollars in transient occupancy tax revenues to the City’s coffers, and the industry depends on the hard work of these women, many of them Santa Monica residents, and most of whom support families by working these physically demanding jobs. Changes in ownership and management occur frequently in the hotel industry, and when that leads to mass layoffs, skilled workers may be lost. Onerous workloads, mandatory unscheduled overtime, and mass layoffs during changes in ownership or management can all jeopardize the ability of housekeeping staff to carry out their Item 7-B 08/27/19 294 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 work in a way that safeguards the health of guests and maintains good industry standards in this key sector of our economy. We call on you to pass an ordinance that addresses all these issues. Such an ordinance must be comprehensive and comprise a set of protections that include all of the following: (1) panic buttons and other measures that enable workers to summon onsite security, along with assurance that they can report harassment, threats, and misconduct, whether by hotel guests/customers or coworkers/managers, without fear of retaliation; (2) worker retention (a program that requires workers to be kept on for a period of time following a change in ownership or management, enabling employees to demonstrate they have the skills to perform their jobs while ensuring that housekeeping standards safeguarding the health of guests are maintained through such transitions); (3) humane workload (prohibiting mandatory overtime and requiring fair compensation for burdensome workloads); and (4) training (ongoing and appropriate training so that workers know how to identify and report harassment, threatening behavior, and assaults and covering issues they may encounter that also affect the public, including human trafficking, domestic violence, and risks to public health). A strong and protective Santa Monica law will help ensure the ongoing success of the hospitality and tourism industry, a key pillar of our economy, while strengthening our City’s standards of economic justice and dignity. Thank you. Denny Zane Co-Chair, Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights Item 7-B 08/27/19 295 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Ryan Edwards Insurance Agency Ryan Edwards, Agent. License#: 0H18089 2050 S Bundy Dr. Ste. 290 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Office: 424-371-5501 Fax: 424-371-5502 www.redinsurance.org Ordinance Component #2 Hotel housekeeper workloads and overtime compensation. Esteemed City Council, Though my office is in West Los Angeles, I conduct most of my business in Santa Monica and am an active member of the chamber of commerce. I wanted to highlight a perspective you may not have considered that can negatively impact both the business and residential community in Santa Monica. Because there is a lack of definition as to what types of surfaces constitute ‘square feet’, we’re leaving our local businesses and residents wide open for legal action from their employees. Most businesses want to adhere to guidelines, but if not defined, it will be impossible to do so. Once legal action sets a precedent, others will follow, and we’ll fine an increase in damages and fines being paid out by our local businesses. The impact to their insurance rates can be extremely detrimental, not just to hotels, but the entire business and residential community. Insurance rates are based on the number of claims, and the amount that was paid out in each claim. Business Example: If Hotel A’s Employment Liability insurance policy pays out 0-1 times every few years, but suddenly increases to 3-5 times it doesn’t just hurt Hotel A. Hotel A, Hotel B, Hotel C, and Hotel D’s insurance companies will look at the claims activity in Santa Monica over the previous year, and increase their rates to match the risk in that area. Residential Example: We have private citizens who employ housekeepers as well. Because of the increased risk of housekeeper related claims, private insurance rates will also increase. They are based on the job description. There will not be a separation of whether those housekeeping claims came from hotels or private homes. I urge the council to postpone until revisions can be made or ‘square footage’ can be properly defined or changed to a more measureable definition. Square footage is an arbitrary metric that does not account for the amount of furniture and amenities in a room, whether a room is being prepared for a new guest or cleaned for a stay over guest, or whether a housekeeper has to travel between rooms or floors. Housekeepers who finish their allotted 4,000 square feet in under eight hours will be sent home, costing them full-time hours, benefits, and overtime opportunities. The city is also considering leaving enforcement of this rule up to the courts, putting hotels at great risk of numerous and frivolous lawsuits. Thank you for your consideration and all you do for our great city. Ryan A. Edwards 424-371-5501 Item 7-B 08/27/19 296 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 5:22 PM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; Anuj Gupta Subject:FW: S.M. Hotel Issue Council‐ Please see the below email regarding the proposed hotel worker protection ordinance. Thank you, Stephanie From: Carolyn Hanlin [mailto:carolhan777@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 12:13 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: S.M. Hotel Issue Dear Council Members, If it "ain't broke, don't fix it." Listen to the hotel workers and stop interfering where you are not welcomed. Enough of your micromanaging hotel workers issues. Carolyn Hanlin Santa Monica Item 7-B 08/27/19 297 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 5:22 PM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; Anuj Gupta Subject:FW: Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy Council‐ Please see the below email regarding the proposed hotel worker protection ordinance. Thank you, Stephanie From: kiwi_zk=hotmail.com@mg.grassrootsunwired.com [mailto:kiwi_zk=hotmail.com@mg.grassrootsunwired.com] On Behalf Of kiwi_zk@hotmail.com Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 11:40 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: RE: Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy Dear Mayor Davis and City Councilmembers: I am a Santa Monica resident who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.87 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2016 and generated approximately $51 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. As we wait for the ordinance to come back before you, we want to make sure that the law that ultimately goes into effect will be comprehensive. We hope that the law will include the following provisions: 1. Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on‐site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2. Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8‐ hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime Item 7-B 08/27/19 298 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 3. Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4. Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Sincerely, Kerri Seger 1824 19th Street Apt 5 Santa Monica Ca 90404 Item 7-B 08/27/19 299 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 5:22 PM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; Anuj Gupta Subject:FW: Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy Council‐ Please see the below email regarding the proposed hotel worker protection ordinance. Thank you, Stephanie From: jadler=xrds.org@mg.grassrootsunwired.com [mailto:jadler=xrds.org@mg.grassrootsunwired.com] On Behalf Of jadler@xrds.org Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 11:35 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: RE: Hotel Housekeeper Protection Policy Dear Mayor Davis and City Councilmembers: I am a Santa Monica resident who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.87 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2016 and generated approximately $51 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. As we wait for the ordinance to come back before you, we want to make sure that the law that ultimately goes into effect will be comprehensive. We hope that the law will include the following provisions: 1. Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on‐site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2. Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8‐ hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime Item 7-B 08/27/19 300 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 3. Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4. Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Sincerely, Josh Adler 2231 Virginia Ave Santa Monica Ca 90404 Item 7-B 08/27/19 301 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 5:23 PM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; Anuj Gupta Subject:FW: New rules governing hotel workers Council‐ Please see the below email regarding the proposed hotel worker protection ordinance. Thank you, Stephanie From: Rajesh Gaur [mailto:rajeshgaur900@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 8:23 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: New rules governing hotel workers Hi I am a Santa Monica resident and a business owner in Santa Monica and I oppose the new rules concerning hotel workers. Rajesh Gaur Item 7-B 08/27/19 302 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 5:24 PM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; Anuj Gupta Subject:FW: Housekeepers' ordinance Council‐ Please see the below email regarding the proposed hotel worker protection ordinance. Thank you, Stephanie From: Cathie Gentile [mailto:cathiegentile1953@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 5:42 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Housekeepers' ordinance Honorable Mayor Davis and City Council: My name is Cathie Gentile and I am a 34-year-resident of lovely Sunset Park in our little beach town. I have seen the hospitality industry grow exponentially! This is why I am asking you to please pass the housekeepers' ordinance as it was written by the housekeepers.They know their working conditions best, in my humble opinion. Thank you for considering this. Cathie Item 7-B 08/27/19 303 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 5:24 PM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; Anuj Gupta Subject:FW: Standing with hotelworkers Council‐ Please see the below email regarding the proposed hotel worker protection ordinance. Thank you, Stephanie From: Rev. Rebecca Benefiel Bijur [mailto:rbijur@cluejustice.org] Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 4:08 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Standing with hotelworkers Dear City Councilmembers, Thank you for your commitment and leadership to our city in these extraordinary times. As a religious leader and a resident of Santa Monica, I am writing today to ask you to vote for an ordinance to provide comprehensive protections for housekeepers on August 27. In my Unitarian Universalist faith, we believe that everyone should have a voice in the decisions that concern them, and that is why I'm asking you to stand with the housekeepers who have asked for this comprehensive ordinance. When we lift one another up, we all rise together. In faith and solidarity, Rev. Rebecca Benefiel Bijur -- Rev. Rebecca Benefiel Bijur, Acting Executive Director | Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice: Building a Just and Sacred Society (CLUE) | 464 Lucas Avenue, Suite 202 Los Angeles, CA 90017 | ph 213.481.3740 | Your donation makes a difference. Support CLUE today! Item 7-B 08/27/19 304 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 August 23, 2019 Mayor Gleam Davis Mayor Pro Tempore Terry O'Day Councilmember Ana Maria Jara Councilmember Kevin McKeown Councilmember Sue Himmelrich Councilmember Greg Morena Councilmember Ted Winterer 1685 Main Street, Room 209 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Mayor Davis and Members of the Santa Monica City Council: Thank you for acting upon recommendations made by the city’s Commission on the Status of Women to consider “common sense legislation” addressing the safety and compensation of the workers at Santa Monica’s 41 hotels and motels. I write to encourage your support for the efforts to enhance protections for workers in the hospitality industry that will be coming before you shortly. The regulations you will be considering have the potential to:  enhance protections against sexual violence and harassment;  ensure fair compensation for workers and defend them from unreasonable workloads or mandatory overtime;  educate the hospitality labor force about its rights and give them tools to help the city identify human trafficking and domestic violence; and Item 7-B 08/27/19 305 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19  assist in the retention of workers when changes occur in ownership or management. I recognize provisions of this ordinance continue to draw opposition from some of the city’s hospitality industry, and I commend you and your staff’s commitment to working with these parties to ensure the potential implementation of worker regulations is fair and practicable. As you know, similar measures are already in effect in the California cities of Long Beach, Oakland and Emeryville, as well as in Seattle, Washington. I believe that with your leadership Santa Monica—host to eight million annual visitors and a thriving hospitality industry—can make a concrete difference in the lives of workers and residents, affirming its steadfast commitment to the progressive values which guide our city. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, Ben Allen 26th Senate District CC: council@smgov.net Item 7-B 08/27/19 306 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Tuesday, August 27, 2019 8:16 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Maria Nieto <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 6:20 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 307 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Maria Nieto marianieto75@yahoo.com 12319 Eucalyptus Ave Hawthorne, California 90250 Item 7-B 08/27/19 308 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Tuesday, August 27, 2019 8:29 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Elizabeth Perez <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 8:21 AM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. Item 7-B 08/27/19 309 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Elizabeth Perez elizabethxperez@gmail.com 836 w. 50th Place Los Angeles , California 90037 Item 7-B 08/27/19 310 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, August 27, 2019 9:08 AM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; Anuj Gupta Subject:FW: Hotel workers protection Council- Please see the below email regarding the proposed hotel worker protection ordinance. Thank you, Stephanie From: Diane Citron [mailto:d.m.citron@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 7:42 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Hotel workers protection The board of MidCity neighbors voted to support the ordinance pertaining to hotel workers protection. Sincerely, Diane Citron President, MidCity Neighbors -- Diane M. Citron Item 7-B 08/27/19 311 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, August 27, 2019 9:08 AM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems; Katie E. Lichtig; Anuj Gupta Subject:FW: Please vote YES to improve working conditions for hotel housekeepers in Santa Monica Council- Please see the below email regarding the proposed hotel worker protection ordinance. Thank you, Stephanie From: Marcy Winograd [mailto:winogradteach@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 9:24 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>; Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Please vote YES to improve working conditions for hotel housekeepers in Santa Monica Dear Santa Monica Council Members: As a homeowner in Santa Monica and someone who applauds our city's passage of a living wage, I urge you to vote YES on the proposed ordinance to improve working conditions for hotel housekeepers in Santa Monica. To me, this is a no-brainer: panic buttons to protect vulnerable workers, written employee consent for overtime beyond 10 hours (making beds, vacuuming and cleaning bath tubs and shower stalls is back breaking work for an 8 hour shift!) and limits on overly burdensome room cleaning quotas involving huge suites stretching 3500 square feet (almost twice the size of where I live). Please do the right thing and do not allow the Chamber of Commerce and hotel industry to exploit hotel house keepers. The hotels in Santa Monica are located in a paradise-like environment and will continue to make good money regardless of this ordinance. Without these protections, however, the men and women who push the heavy carts of towels and sheets and then work long hours cleaning guest rooms, scrubbing and dusting, will suffer needlessly. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Marcy Winograd Ocean Park Resident Item 7-B 08/27/19 312 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Dear Mayor Davis and City Council: Thank you for your service and for the thoughtful attention you give to all the important matters that affect the day-to-day lives of the residents of our city. I am a Pico Neighborhood resident and proud to call Santa Monica my hometown. One issue before you tonight is particularly important to me: upholding, reaffirming, and strengthening the rights of workers whose labor is directly responsible for our community’s prosperity. Visitors to our city bring with them nearly $2 billion annually through spending and an additional $51 million in hotel tax. It is the labor of Santa Monica’s hotel workers that makes all of this possible. It is through their work -- and the tax revenue that results -- that we Santa Monica residents are able to enjoy unparalleled public services, an amazing library network, excellent public schools, and all the other benefits that come with living here. It is our duty as a community to assure -- in the face of a national government aggressively hostile to workers’ rights -- that these workers, whose labor provides us with an extraordinary standard of living, enjoy the strongest job security, are fairly compensated for the work they do, and have the tools necessary to assure their personal safety on the job. Please pass the legislation before you in order to: ●protect hotel workers from mass layoffs should the hotels where they work change ownership. ●require employers to provide opportunities for training on workers’ rights and best practices to protect public health and safety. ●give hotel room attendants -- who often work alone in guests’ rooms with no witnesses or cameras and are vulnerable to threatening behavior, sexual assault, and other crimes -- the tools they need to adequately protect themselves. ●require that hotel room attendants not be forced to clean more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift, except in cases of voluntary overtime. Especially since Santa Monica leaders took the vital step of raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, hotel workers attending to guests’ rooms are often assigned unrealistic, overtaxing room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime. This undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections.Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants cleaning excessive square footage -- more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift -- should be compensated for their extra work. Our community is fortunate in no small part because of the tremendous wealth we enjoy. That wealth comes from the labor of these workers. It is our moral duty to stand with them and pass legislation that will ensure they are protected and compensated fairly for their hard work, which benefits us all. Sincerely, Jason Islas Pico Neighborhood resident Item 7-B 08/27/19 313 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, August 27, 2019 9:09 AM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; Anuj Gupta Subject:FW: Hotel Worker Ordinance - Please vote YES! Council- Please see the below email regarding the proposed hotel worker protection ordinance. Thank you, Stephanie From: Isabel Storey [mailto:isastor@aol.com] Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 5:25 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Hotel Worker Ordinance ‐ Please vote YES! Dear Santa Monica City Council Members, I am a Santa Monica resident who is deeply concerned about unsafe and unfair working conditions for hotel workers in our beautiful city. Hotel room attendants keep accommodations sparkling clean for the millions of visitors who come to Santa Monica each year. Yet they are unduly exposed to the threat of sexual harassment, excessive workloads, and unexpected mandatory overtime. I am writing to urge you to vote “Yes” on the proposed ordinance to improve hotel working conditions – without any changes to dilute it. A national survey found that more than 40 percent of women in the hospitality industry reported sexual harassment, the highest of any field. Hotel room attendants often work alone in guest rooms, exposing to them to risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. The proposed legislation would address this by providing a panic button to every hotel worker who works alone in rooms. The use of panic buttons in hotels has spread across the country, especially since the many stories about the sexual harassment of hotel workers came to light as part of the #MeToo movement. In California, Long Beach and Oakland have already passed measures to require panic buttons. Let’s not have Santa Monica be left behind on this kind of common- sense legislation. Hotel workers in our city are also often assigned overly burdensome room cleaning quotas and unexpected overtime. The proposed ordinance provides for a humane workload and reasonable limits on mandatory overtime. We are all lucky to live in the beautiful city of Santa Monica. Millions of visitors flock here each year to enjoy our lovely beaches and neighborhoods. Let’s not build our paradise on the backs of people forced to work under unsafe and unfair conditions. Please pass this legislation to ensure hotel workers are protected and fairly compensated for the hard work they do. Isabel Storey 2227 22nd Street Item 7-B 08/27/19 314 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Clerk Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, August 27, 2019 9:16 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Please vote YES to improve working conditions for hotel housekeepers in Santa Monica From: Marcy Winograd <winogradteach@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 9:24 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>; Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Please vote YES to improve working conditions for hotel housekeepers in Santa Monica Dear Santa Monica Council Members: As a homeowner in Santa Monica and someone who applauds our city's passage of a living wage, I urge you to vote YES on the proposed ordinance to improve working conditions for hotel housekeepers in Santa Monica. To me, this is a no‐brainer: panic buttons to protect vulnerable workers, written employee consent for overtime beyond 10 hours (making beds, vacuuming and cleaning bath tubs and shower stalls is back breaking work for an 8 hour shift!) and limits on overly burdensome room cleaning quotas involving huge suites stretching 3500 square feet (almost twice the size of where I live). Please do the right thing and do not allow the Chamber of Commerce and hotel industry to exploit hotel house keepers. The hotels in Santa Monica are located in a paradise‐like environment and will continue to make good money regardless of this ordinance. Without these protections, however, the men and women who push the heavy carts of towels and sheets and then work long hours cleaning guest rooms, scrubbing and dusting, will suffer needlessly. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Marcy Winograd Ocean Park Resident Item 7-B 08/27/19 315 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 A CALL FOR HOUSEKEEPER DIGNITY: A LETTER TO THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL As community members of Santa Monica and Los Angeles County who stand in solidarity with workers, we call upon you, members of the Santa Monica City Council, to take a bold step on behalf of worker dignity and respect. On Tuesday, August 27, we urge you to pass a comprehensive ordinance that will protect our hotel housekeepers in the following four ways: • PANIC BUTTONS • FAIR COMPENSATION FOR HEAVY WORKLOADS • TRAINING • WORKER RETENTION Housekeepers play a vital, if often invisible, role in helping ensuring our tourist economy remains vibrant and in protecting the health and well-being of the public. We need you to accord housekeepers the protection and dignity they deserve. WHY PANIC BUTTONS: These devices enable workers to summon hotel security when confronted with threatening behavior or an ongoing crime. Many hotel housekeepers, the majority of them female, have reported experiencing some kind of threatening conduct on the job: 58% of housekeepers in a Chicago poll and 53% in a similar poll in Seattle. For this reason, several cities, including Chicago, Oakland, and Long Beach, have already adopted laws requiring panic buttons; Santa Monica should follow suit. The proposed ordinance would also allow workers to remove themselves from threatening situations and report threats without fear of retaliation. WHY FAIR COMPENSATION FOR HEAVY WORKLOADS: Hotel room attendants are frequently assigned heavy room cleaning quotas and unexpected overtime. These practices undermine the public interest in ensuring that room attendants can perform their work in a manner that adequately protects public health, interferes with their ability to meet family and personal obligations, and can undermine other employment protections intended to benefit hotel workers, such as Santa Monica’s hotel workers’ living wage. Workers have called for a provision that assures workers receive fair compensation when their workload assignments exceed 3,500 square feet and prohibits hotel companies from making them work long overtime shifts without their consent. None of these standards currently exist in the law. Item 7-B 08/27/19 316 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 WHY A THIRD-PARTY TRAINING PROGRAM: Panic buttons and workload compensation regulations are only part of what is needed to protect workers and the broader public. Workers are also calling for high-quality, third-party training for all Santa Monica hotel housekeeping workers on their rights under Santa Monica’s laws, as well as matters of public health and safety, including best practices to identify potential instances of sexual assault, domestic violence, and human trafficking and cleaning techniques to prevent the spread of disease and pest infestations. WHY A WORKER RETENTION PROGRAM: Workers are asking that the final provision of this ordinance complete these protections by addressing the frequent changes in management and ownership that occur in today's hotel industry. A staff's experience and training will count for little if a hotel's management changes or if the hotel itself is sold, resulting in layoffs of many experienced employees. Such mass layoffs also place demands on social services provided by the City and other governments. Workers ask that the fourth provision ensure that staff members will remain employed for a transitional period when a hotel is sold or management changes. DON'T BE FOOLED BY MISLEADING CLAIMS: As we have gotten closer to the vote on this ordinance, you may have heard a number of misleading claims promulgated by employers and their representatives: that the ordinance is unnecessary, duplicative, or that it would somehow actually harm hotel housekeepers. None of these claims are true, and they only serve to obscure the fact that this ordinance has been developed and demanded by the housekeepers themselves, who know better than anyone what they need to protect themselves and the broader public. The industry cannot be trusted to solve these problems on their own; workers have learned from experience that meaningful protections must be won and guaranteed through laws with teeth. We have heard the industry’s claims before that measures to protect and benefit workers will cause the sky to fall, as when worker and the community fought to win a dignified minimum wage. None of those doom and gloom claims—such as predictions of lost revenue and mass layoffs—ever came to pass, as the industry instead maintained record profitability. The industry’s scare tactics should not dissuade us from taking action now. This is a time to go forward, not back. As Council members, you now have the opportunity to affirm that the labor of hotel housekeepers is not simply a "unit cost" on a balance sheet, and that our entire community finally, visibly, acknowledges the worth and dignity of Item 7-B 08/27/19 317 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 individuals who contribute so much to the economic vibrancy and wellbeing of our city. Passing this ordinance is the step forward we need to take today. Signed: Rev. Rae Huang, Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. Adam Overton, Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice (CLUE) Rev. Dr. Young Lee Hertig, ISAAC Vice Moderator Eric Beck, Presbytery of the Pacific Shawn Landres, Santa Monica Resident Abby Arnold, Santa Monica Resident Patricia Young, Santa Monica Resident Naomi Steinfeld, Long Beach Meditation Lisa Raufman, National Council of Jewish Women Kathleen Ryan, member, St. Monica’s Catholic Church Judy Abdo, Co-Chair, Santa Monica Forward Deacon Joanne Leslie, Episcopal Diocese of LA Deacon John Steele, Holy Family Church Sandra Kroll, UU Church of Long Beach Lana Spraker, CLUE- Santa Monica Rev. James Boline, St. Paul’s Lutheran Church, Santa Monica Sarah Jakle, First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles Margarita Chulde, Community Advocate, ConPaz Joan Harper, Fair Trade LA Ligia Gonzalez, First Unitarian Church Los Angeles Rev. Bert Newton, Pasadena Mennonite Church Ms. Bonnie Johnstone, Santa Monica Resident Joseph Dov, Golden West College Rev. Calvin Moore II, First Presbyterian Church LA Marjorie Loring Gauley, Chalice UU Fellowship of the Conejo Valley Doris Hausmann Kogut, Santa Monica Resident Jean Prinz, Throop Church Rev Jim Conn, Retired United Methodist Minister, Santa Monica Resident Stacie Chaiken, IKAR Rev. Dr. Sarah Halverson-Cano, Fairview Community Church Donna Malamud, Santa Monica Resident, Temple Mishkon Tephilo Andrew Moss, CLUE-SM Dr. Gelya Frank, Professor, University of Southern California Tina Feiger, Emeritus Faculty, SMC Alice Wexler, TTRR Gil Leib, MLK Westside Coalition Ali Tweini, Exec Board, Teamsters Local 2010 Fred Diamond, CLUE-LA Joe Pardee, CLUE-Pasadena Mike Sinkov, First Unitarian Church LA Item 7-B 08/27/19 318 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 The Rev. Eric Shafer, Mt Olive Lutheran Church The Rev. Deacon Steve Alder, St. Luke’s Episcopal-Long Beach Emily Abel, UCLA-Felding School of Public Health Dorothy Moore, M.D., Indivisible Beach Cities Mary Stancavage, Meditation Coalition Charles Jacobsen, Throop Unitarian Universalist Church Dr. Marjorie Pearson, Santa Monica resident Professor Emerita Karen Pearson, UCLA Blanca Malpartida-Glrard, CLUE Janice Lavine, IKAR Rabbi Aryeh Cohen, American Jewish University Carol Lewis, Ahavat Torah Lesley Hyatt, Shtibl, IKAR Rev. Rebecca Bijur, Santa Monica resident, CLUE Andrea Rothschild, HODG Sara Lee, Founder, CA-8 Rising Alyson Shelton, Field Team 6 Pastor Beau Wammack, Northland Village Church, PCUSA Judith Glass, CLUE POWER Rev. Frank Alton, St. Athanasius Episcopal Church Dr. Christine Danelski, Santa Monica resident, St. Augustine’s by the Sea Elina Antoniou, California Democratic Party Delegate The Rev. Nathan Rugh, St. Augustine’s by the Sea Episcopal, Santa Monica resident Jessica Craven, CA Democratic Party Delegate AD51 Rachael Mason, FIA Victoria Best, CLUE-SM Lisa Beebe, concerned citizen Jo Bollen, Founder, Vote Morongo Basin Julie Sharron, DSA Valerie Hurt, FIA Ms. Kellen Hertz, supporter Sarah Eggers, FIA Diane Factor, Worker Education and Resource Center Pastor Lyda Eddington, Westchester UMC Rabbi Ahud Sela, Temple Ramat Zion Reverend Adiel DePano, Santa Ana UMC Richelle Mancewicz, MFT Rev. Marcia L. Hoffman, Moderator of 47 congregations, greater LA Helen Eigenberg, HODG Kate Grodd, FIA Rev. Dr. Janet Bregar, Village Church Professor Tom Peters, Faculty Union Political Director, SMC Faculty Association Dr. Susan Stouffer, Sola Community Peace Center Jerilyn Stapleton, Policy Director, NOW-Hollywood Chapter Dorothy Christ, All Saints Church Pasadena Catherine Gentile, Santa Monica resident, UUCSM Item 7-B 08/27/19 319 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Rev. Felicia Parazaider, The Revolution of Love Rev. Francisco Garcia, EDLA Rev. Randy VanDeventer, UCC Rev. Jerod Yates, UCC Liz Purvis, Field Team 6 Paul Rosenstein, Former Mayor, Santa Monica Daryl Forman, Santa Monica resident, St. Paul Lutheran Church Curtis Raynor, Santa Monica Quaker Meeting Clarence Forman, Santa Monica resident, St. Paul Lutheran Church Vivian Rothstein, Santa Monica resident, CLUE boardmember Melissa Grant, Grassroots Democrats HQ Guillermo Torres, Director of Social Justice, First United Methodist Church of Wilmington Marsha Novak, Temple Judea, Interfaith Solidarity Network RJ Marti, All Saints Church, Pasadena Pamela Marshall, CSH/SRHT Kolieka Seigle, President, California National Organization for Women Rick Tuttle, Former LA City Controller Item 7-B 08/27/19 320 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Ellen Hannan <elhasm@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 27, 2019 10:03 AM To:councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox Subject:Hotel items for 8/27/2019 City Council Meeting Council Members: I am opposed to these two topics in a combined ordnance. For simple reasoning they are very different employment issues. Panic buttons could be a response to a criminal act. Is it mandated that the security guard will call SMPD or allow the hotel management to make the decision? Is there always a security guard on duty? Are they hotel employees or out sourced? Square footage may be a idea for vacuums but the other back breaking job of bed making, toilet and tub/shower cleaning are the area of physical stress. This only benefits workers in the high end hotels which have large quest rooms. It is a separate issue for workers from the panic buttons. I support both issues but again you are dealing with issues for the benefit of a special few of your supporters. Your are also giving yourselves the PR benefits of passing an ordinance even if it is ineffective. Do the right thing and reconsider both issues and provide 2 separate and thought out solutions. As a long term union member of UTLA workers deserve better than this. All hotel workers with or without hotel unions deserve respect and protection. Ellen Hannan 1218 9th St #6 Santa Monica CA 90401 Item 7-B 08/27/19 321 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 322 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Item 7-B 08/27/19 323 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 3 2 4 o f 3 5 3 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 3 2 5 o f 3 5 3 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 3 2 6 o f 3 5 3 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 3 2 7 o f 3 5 3 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 3 2 8 o f 3 5 3 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 3 2 9 o f 3 5 3 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 3 3 0 o f 3 5 3 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 3 3 1 o f 3 5 3 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 3 3 2 o f 3 5 3 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 3 3 3 o f 3 5 3 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 3 3 4 o f 3 5 3 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 3 3 5 o f 3 5 3 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 3 3 6 o f 3 5 3 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 3 3 7 o f 3 5 3 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 3 3 8 o f 3 5 3 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 3 3 9 o f 3 5 3 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 3 4 0 o f 3 5 3 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 3 4 1 o f 3 5 3 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 3 4 2 o f 3 5 3 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 3 4 3 o f 3 5 3 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 3 4 4 o f 3 5 3 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 3 4 5 o f 3 5 3 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 3 4 6 o f 3 5 3 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 3 4 7 o f 3 5 3 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 3 4 8 o f 3 5 3 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 3 4 9 o f 3 5 3 I t e m 7 - B 0 8 / 2 7 / 1 9 SANTA MONICA ALLIANCE FOR THE FUTURE www.futuresantamonica.com August 27, 2019 Santa Monica City Council City Hall, Room 213 1685 Main St., Santa Monica, CA 90401 RE: Agenda Item No. 7-B (Regulations Pertaining to Hotel Worker Safety, Fair Compensation, and Retention) Dear Mayor Davis and Honorable Councilmembers: We are writing to you to express our support for the adoption the proposed amendments to the Santa Monica Municipal Code (Chapter 4.67 et seq.) that would protect the safety and welfare of our city’s hotel workers. We are particularly encouraged to see that the proposed amendments include protections for the long-term retention of hotel workers. The Santa Monica Alliance for the Future is a coalition of Santa Monica residents, electors, and taxpayers who are committed to building a safe, sustainable, and equitable community for future generations. Maintaining the vitality of a safe and healthy workforce is a central component of this mission, and the proposed Municipal Code amendments will certainly advance these important goals. Because the proposed Municipal Code amendments will not become effective until January 1, 2020 (see § 4.67.130), we hope that city staff will work diligently to ensure that hotel owners and managers do not take preemptive steps to terminate hotel workers or otherwise undermine the intent of Municipal Code Chapter 4.67 before it becomes effective. Vigilant oversight will be crucial. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Ellis Raskin Chair, S.M. Alliance for the Future Kay Ambriz Secretary, S.M. Alliance for the Future Item 7-B 08/27/19 350 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 1 August 27, 2019 Santa Monica City Council 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Dear Mayor and City Council, The City Council is about to consider a major set of hotel regulations that could upend life for hotel housekeepers, put more burden on our struggling small businesses, and add further strain to our City’s budget. Hidden behind a proposal to require panic buttons for housekeepers — which the hotel community supports, and most are already doing — is an effort to increase staffing by limiting the number of square feet a housekeeper can clean in a day. As the organization representing more than 700 local businesses, the Chamber of Commerce knows that sometimes what sounds good on paper has unintended consequences. Most hotels are ahead of the City in implementing panic button devices and providing safety training that meets or exceeds state and federal standards. These include injury prevention, sexual harassment prevention, and human trafficking prevention. Nevertheless, we welcome the City’s efforts to ensure that all housekeepers in Santa Monica are safe from violence and injury at work. What we can’t support is a one-size-fits-all approach to managing the daily operation of 41 very different hotels. Our hotels offer a variety of room sizes and shapes. Daily cleaning depends on a multitude of factors. Some rooms have more beds, lamps, and desks than others. Some have more mirrors and windows. And let’s face it: some guests are messier than others! No hotel in Santa Monica assigns housekeeping tasks by counting square feet because every square foot of a hotel is different. Unite Here Local 11, the hotel workers union, has told City Council that housekeepers are overworked, underpaid and forced to work overtime. The truth is, the average housekeeper in Santa Monica earns well above the City’s living wage of $16.63 per hour, and overtime rules are already enforced by state and federal agencies. Many of our housekeepers spend their careers with their hotels, raising their families, putting their kids through college, and retiring. Limiting housekeepers to a certain number of square feet will force hotels to send them home after just a few hours, causing them to lose the income and benefits they and their families rely on. That means hotels will have to hire more part time housekeepers to cover the work that one full time housekeeper used to do. Those extra costs will be passed on to guests and visitors, resulting in higher rates for some hotels and the closure of smaller, more affordable hotels and motels. Item 7-B 08/27/19 351 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 2 This will make our city less competitive in the tourism industry. Venice, Marina del Rey, and Santa Barbara will take our tourists and the money they spend. Fewer guests at our hotels means fewer patrons at our local bars and restaurants, fewer customers in our shops and galleries, and fewer visitors to the Pier and Promenade. In a City that prides itself on supporting small businesses, this would be a devastating blow. Our hotels paid $200 million in state and local taxes last year and generated nearly $2 billion for our local economy. That money funds our police and fire departments, as well as services that aid our most vulnerable neighbors. At a time when the City is trying to trim its budget, while still maintaining high quality services and tackling the homelessness crisis, we cannot afford to jeopardize one of our strongest sources of tax revenue. We hope the City Council will do the right thing on August 27th and vote to protect housekeepers, and not to tell them how to do their jobs. Signed, Laurel Rosen, president/CEO and the Executive Board Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce Item 7-B 08/27/19 352 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Chair Laura Mciver Shutters on the Beach Past Chair Jeff Klocke Pacific Park on the Santa Monica Pier Chair Elect Dave Rand Armbruster Goldsmith & Delvac, LLP Treasurer Len Lanzi Los Angeles Venture Association Vice Chairman Colby Goff Rustic Canyon Family of Restaurants Vice Chairman Julia Ladd Santa Monica Place I Macerich Vice Chairman Ellis O'Connor MSD Hospitality LLC Vice Chairman Julie Reback Spencer Cedars Sinai Vice Chairman Peter Trinh Avery, Craftsman Bar & Kitchen Board Members Daniel Abramson RAND Corporation Alisha Auringer LAcarGUY Judi Barker Barker Hangar Josh Bradburn Charles Schwab & Co. Ted Braun UCLA Medical Center, Santa Monica Dr. Ben Drati SMMUSD Jeffrey Fritz Coldwell Banker Annie Goeke Earth Rights Institute Paul Graves Morley Builders SANTA MONICA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE August 27, 2019 Santa Monica City Council 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 RE: Item 7.b (August 27, 2019) - Hotel Worker Protection Dear Mayor Davis and Members of the Council: I write to you as the co-chair of the Government Affairs Committee of the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce. I have decades of experience in local matters involving business, government, and non-profit management. I am proud to work every day in Santa Monica and share its values and commitment to environmental sustainability, economic opportunity, and safety for all. I applaud your efforts to ensure every hotel housekeeper working in Santa Monica is given the training, education, and equipment necessary to protect themselves and others from all manner of harm, including violence, sexual violence, and human trafficking. Every employee deserves to feel and be safe while on the job and urge you to pass those protections tonight. But, I do not believe it is the City's responsibility to delve into the management of daily workloads. In fact, I believe this action will hurt the very employees you seek to protect by limiting their hours, benefits, and overtime opportunities. Our hotels have many housekeepers who have supported their families for decades on these jobs. I do not want to see their hours or benefits cut to appease an out-of-town interest group that does not know our community. I urge you to reject these work rules. Nat Trives Co-chair, Government Affairs Committee Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce Board Members, Cont. Stephanie Harris Carlthorp School Damien Hirsch JW Marriott Santa Monica Le Merigot Jeff Jarow PAR Commercial Kim Koury Spin PR Kevin Koza! Harding Larmore Kutcher & Koza/ Robert Kull The Lobster Hayden Lee Hayden Lee Coaching Intl. Marcel Loh Providence St John's Health Center John Loyacono Bank of America Brian MacMahon Expert DOJO Jennifer McElyea Watt Investment Partners Pam O'Connor Evan Pozarny Muselli Commercial Realtors Julie Reback Spencer Cedars Sinai Ali Sahabi Optimum Seismic Kathy Shepard KS Consulting Jon Shoemaker Gumbiner Savell, Inc. Heather Somaini Lionsgate Nat Trives New Visions Foundation John Warfel Metropolitan Pacific Becky Warren Elevate Public Affairs David Woodbury Arthur Murray Dance Center Jerry L. Yu Kaiser Permanente Item 7-B 08/27/19 353 of 353 Item 7-B 08/27/19 Chair Laura Mciver Shutters on the Beach Past Chair Jeff Klocke Pacific Park on the Santa Monica Pier Chair Elect Dave Rand Armbruster Goldsmith & Delvac, LLP Treasurer Len Lanzi Los Angeles Venture Association Vice Chairman Colby Goff Rustic Canyon Family of Restaurants Vice Chairman Julia Ladd Santa Monica Place I Macerich Vice Chairman Ellis O'Connor MSD Hospitality LLC Vice Chairman Julie Reback Spencer Cedars Sinai Vice Chairman Peter Trinh Avery, Craftsman Bar & Kitchen Board Members Daniel Abramson RAND Corporation Alisha Auringer LAcarGUY Judi Barker Barker Hangar Josh Bradburn Charles Schwab & Co. Ted Braun UCLA Medical Center, Santa Monica Dr. Ben Drati SMMUSD Jeffrey Fritz Coldwell Banker Annie Goeke Earth Rights Institute Paul Graves Morley Builders SANTA MONICA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE August 27, 2019 Santa Monica City Council 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 RE: Item 7.b (August 27, 2019) - Hotel Worker Protection Dear Mayor Davis and Members of the Council: I write to you as the co-chair of the Government Affairs Committee of the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce. I have decades of experience in local matters involving business, government, and non-profit management. I am proud to work every day in Santa Monica and share its values and commitment to environmental sustainability, economic opportunity, and safety for all. I applaud your efforts to ensure every hotel housekeeper working in Santa Monica is given the training, education, and equipment necessary to protect themselves and others from all manner of harm, including violence, sexual violence, and human trafficking. Every employee deserves to feel and be safe while on the job and urge you to pass those protections tonight. But, I do not believe it is the City's responsibility to delve into the management of daily workloads. In fact, I believe this action will hurt the very employees you seek to protect by limiting their hours, benefits, and overtime opportunities. Our hotels have many housekeepers who have supported their families for decades on these jobs. I do not want to see their hours or benefits cut to appease an out-of-town interest group that does not know our community. I urge you to reject these work rules. Nat Trives Co-chair, Government Affairs Committee Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce Board Members, Cont. Stephanie Harris Carlthorp School Damien Hirsch JW Marriott Santa Monica Le Merigot Jeff Jarow PAR Commercial Kim Koury Spin PR Kevin Koza! Harding Larmore Kutcher & Koza/ Robert Kull The Lobster Hayden Lee Hayden Lee Coaching Intl. Marcel Loh Providence St John's Health Center John Loyacono Bank of America Brian MacMahon Expert DOJO Jennifer McElyea Watt Investment Partners Pam O'Connor Evan Pozarny Muselli Commercial Realtors Julie Reback Spencer Cedars Sinai Ali Sahabi Optimum Seismic Kathy Shepard KS Consulting Jon Shoemaker Gumbiner Savell, Inc. Heather Somaini Lionsgate Nat Trives New Visions Foundation John Warfel Metropolitan Pacific Becky Warren Elevate Public Affairs David Woodbury Arthur Murray Dance Center Jerry L. Yu Kaiser Permanente COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES Brandon J. Feighner Senior Director CBRE Hotels Advisory NO HARD COPY TO FOLLOW CBRE, Inc. 400 South Hope Street, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 +1 213 613 3373 Office Brandon.feighner@ cbre .com www.cbrehotels.com August 27, 2019 Honorable Gleam Davis Santa Monica City Council 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Re: Proposed Ordinance – Chapter 4.67 Hotel Worker Protection Given our familiarity with the local Santa Monica Hotel and industry trends in general, we have been asked by Santa Monica Travel & Tourism (“SMT&T”) to share our professional opinions regarding a Municipal Code Ordinance that is currently being considered by the City Council of Santa Monica (“Council”). Per a recent report 1 to the Mayor and Council, Chapter 4.67 to the Santa Monica Municipal Code is intended to “establish regulations pertaining to hotel worker safety, fair compensation and retention.” Based on our review of relevant City of Santa Monica (“City”) reports, comparable municipal ordinances, current and projected trends in the hotel industry, and market participant interviews , we respectfully submit this letter report on behalf of SMT&T and would welcome the opportunity to answer any questions that may arise from the reading of this report. CBRE HOTELS ADVISORY As a brief point of background, CBRE Hotels (formerly PKF Consu lting) is a division of the CBRE Group, Inc., the largest full service, real estate and investment organization in the world with more than 80,000 employees located in more than 450 offices worldwide. CBRE Hotels operates as a specialized group within CBRE and provides hospitality and real estate industry professionals with a global practice with our one-stop shop of unparalleled, global and fully integrated real estate services and products. In the past ten years alone, we have completed nearly 50 engagements for both public and private sector clients active in the hospitality industry, including developers, lenders, investors, law firms, and the local touris m industry. As part of our monthly publication Trends in the Hospitality Industry we also collect, aggregate and analyze occupancy, average daily rate and revenue per available room statistics for the Santa Monica hotel industry and utilize these figures and trends to determine the appropriate annual Tourism Marketing District (“TMD”) classification for all Santa Monica hotels and to prepare forecasts of future anticipated TMD revenues, which constitute the primary source of funding for the SMT&T to promote Santa Monica as a premier conference, business and leisure travel destination . 1 From: Rick Cole, City Manager’s Office, Admiration to Mayor and city Council. Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance pertaining to Hotel Workers Protection. Page | 2 SANTA MONICA TOURISM Based upon the preceding, we find it prudent to note that the importance of tourism and its significant contribution to the City economy and General Fund cannot be overstated. I n 2018 nearly 8.4 million visitors 2 frequ ented the local destination and combined, spent approximately $1.93 billion. Th is spending generated approximately $60 million in hotel t ax revenue, $15 million in retail sales tax and supported approximately 12,600 local jobs. Generally speaking, the tourism industry generated the annual equivalent of $1,540 per Santa Monica household in taxes that pay for City services. By any measure, the hotel industry is a major economic contributor to the City. While Santa Monica’s vital travel industry was strong with record levels for hotel guest volume and total spending in 2018, total visitor volume of 8.4 million was 3.6 percent lower than 8.7 million in 2017. Additionally, t otal annual spending of $1.93 billion versus $1.96 billion in 2017, was off 1.4 percent mainly due to fewer day visitors and guests in unpaid lodging, and their lower average daily spending. Thus, while Santa Monica tourism remains solid, some weakness and shifts were evident and are only likely to be further tested as the likelihood of a national recession increases in probability. HOTEL MARKET SUMMMARY National CBRE Hotels Research forecasts a deceleration in U.S. lodging performance during the second half of 2019. After rising by 2.1 percent during the first half of the year, the pace of demand growth will slow to 1.4 percent for the balance of 2019. As a result, CBRE is forecasting the national occupancy level to decline by 0.2 percent from 2018 to 2019. Fortunately, changes in room rates tend to lag changes in occupancy, so the annual increase in average daily rate (“ADR”) will remain at 1.1 percent. For the year, CBRE is now projecting a revenue per available room (“RevPAR”) increase of just 0.9 percent, 110 basis points below the forecast we published in June of 2019. The slowdown in demand will show its impact on ADR during 2020. As we have in the past, CBRE is forecasting a 0.8 percent decline in occupancy during the year because supply growth rises to 2 A visitor is someone who resides outside of Los Angeles County, in Santa Monica for the day or overnight, for leisure, business, a meeting, special events or other temporary purposes except regular work or to attend school. Page | 3 2.1 percent. As a result of the reduced outlook for lodging demand in 2019, we believe ADR growth in 2020 will be limited to 2.0 percent. For 2020, CBRE is forecasting a RevPAR growth rate of 1.2 percent. While 2019 and 2020 growth has become disappointing relative to 90 days ago, CBRE’s outlook for the anticipated economic “blip” in U.S. lodging performance during 2021 has improved. Accordingly, our forecasts for demand and ADR growth in 2021 have been adjusted upward. CBRE is now forecasting a RevPAR gain of 0.8 percent in 2021, up from the 0.5 percent decline projected in our June 2019 reports. Local As a point of background for our analysis, we have analyzed historical trends relative to average daily rate and occupancy over the past roughly five and a half years , both on an annual and monthly basis . The followin g table presents the aggregate average annual available and occupied rooms, resulting occupancy levels, ADR, and REVPAR for the local market from 2014 to 2018, as well as year to date through July 2018 and 2019. City of Santa Monica Hotels Historical Market Performance of the Competiti ve Supply Annual Percent Occupied Percent Market Average Percent Percen t Year Supply Change Rooms Change Occupancy Daily Rate Change REVPAR Change 2014 1,035,870 N/A 888,620 N/A 85.8% $335.65 N/A $287.94 N/A 2015 1,036,600 0.1% 870,215 -2.1 83.9 354.61 5.6% 297.69 3.4% 2016 1,036,600 0.0 883,963 1.6 85.3 372.39 5.0 317.55 6.7 2017 1,117,113 7.8 950,332 7.5 85.1 369.57 -0.8 314.40 -1.0 2018 1,134,603 1.6 978,718 3.0 86.3 379.76 2.8 327.58 4.2 CAAG 2.3% 2.4% 3.1% 3.3% 07/18 ytd 661,745 N/A 577,055 N/A 87.2% $379.97 N/A $331.34 N/A 07/19 ytd 661,745 0.0% 561,516 -2.7% 84.9% 378.43 -0.4% 321.12 -3.1% Source: CBRE Hotels Rooms supply in the competitive market increased during the historical period, with the minor fluctuation attributable to a five-room addition at the Loews Santa Monica early in the period surveyed, bringing its room count up to 347. More significantly, 2017 welcomed the addition of the 136-room Courtyard in March and the 143-room Hampton Inn & Suites in April, which equated to a supply increase of 7.8 percent that year and an additional increase of 1.6 percent the following year as the rooms were annualized into the market. Demand for rooms as demons trated by occupied room nights has grown nearly every year of the historical five-year period, increasing at an annual average rate of 2.4 percent. Average daily rate saw a compound average annual increase of 3.1 percent between 2014 and 2018, driven prima rily by above inflationary gains in 2015 and 2016. Following a 2.8 percent gain in ADR in 2018, the competitive market ended the year at $379.76, reaching its highest level in the historical five-year period. Revenue per available room, a combination of occupancy and average daily room rate, incr eased at an average rate of 3.3 percent annually over the historical period. While much of the historical period surveyed exhibited positive metrics, year to date performance through the first seven months of 2019 indicates that even Santa Monica hotels are not i mmune to geopolitical forces that have begun to curtail air travel and led to growing fears of a mild recession. Through July of this year both the number of occupied rooms and average daily rate levels declined, resulting in a RevPAR decrease of 3.1 percent. Given local and national Page | 4 expectations for a continued slowdown in the economy and travel industry, it is unlikely that local Santa Monica hoteliers will be able to increase room revenues in the short to mid-term in order to offset the potential higher operational costs associated with the proposed workload requirements of the Ordinance currently being considered by Council, and more fully detailed below . SANTA MONICA TOURISM Based on our review of the City of Santa Monica Commission on the Status of Women (“COSW ”), the draft text of Ordinance 4.67, the aforementioned City Manager report, and discussions with local knowledgeable parties , we are of the understanding that the proposed ordin ance is comprised of five primary Components, as summarized in the following: Ordinance Component #1: Hotel housekeeper safety protections (4.67.020) The first Component of the proposed Ordinance is intended to protect hotel workers from all forms of sexual violence via panic buttons and other measures. The provision mandates equipping employees with personal safety devices and requires procedures to support the ability of hotel workers to report threatening behavior with out the fear of retaliation . Ordinance Component #2: Hotel h ousekeeper workloads and overtime compensation (4.67.030) This provision seeks to provide fair compensation for workload and supports protections against mandatory overtime by requiring Santa Monica hoteliers to implement a daily square footage cap for hotel housekeepers and to document overtime consent from hotel housekeepers. Ordinance Component #3 & #4: Hotel housekeeper training and education (4.67.060) The third and fourth Components are provisions to ensure that hotel housekeepers have the knowledge and skills to protect their own rights, public health and safety as well as identify potential instances of human trafficking and sexual and domestic violence. Ordinance Component #5: Hotel worker retention (4.67.040 and 050) The fifth Component addresses the changes in corporate ownership or management that can occu r in the hotel industry and seeks to prevent the displacement of hotel employees related to such occurrences by implementing procedures for hotels to retain employees in the event of a change in ownership, brand, or management. Additionally, it should be noted that Local 11 has proposed an Ordinance Component that is not part of Council direction, nor reflect ed in the COSW letter: supersession by collective barga ining agreement; although we note that union hotels would be exempt from the proposed Ordinance. FINDINGS It is our strong professional opinion that the majority of the Components of the proposed Ordinance are reasonable and prudent in light of well publicized workplace harassment and assault across numerous business sectors. Further, given that the overwhelming majority of h otel housekeepers are women, combined with the potential vulnerability of these women working alone and the nature of their work behind closed doors, it is imperative that their sa fety and welfare be of paramount importance and concern. Thus, we wholeheartedly (and all reasonable parties should) support Components #1, #3, and #4 of the Ordinance, and this legislation should be adopted at the Council’s earliest available opportunity. Although it should be noted that the training and education requirements included in the Ordinance are already covered by Page | 5 Cal/OSHA, and therefore may be redundant. Additionally, Component #5 of the Ordinance appears to be reasonable, although perhaps trying to solve a problem that does not currently exist , given that unemployment in national hotel industry is at its lowest level in the past 20 years 3, and a statement by the Hotel Association of Los Angeles that 25 percent of all hotels in the City currently have at least one housekeeping position open, with several having multiple open positions. However, in our capacity as hospitality and real estate professionals, Component #2 of the draft Ordinance is not only overly restrictive, but its adoption may potentially lea d to a number of negat ive unintended consequences t o Santa Monica hotels, the destination as a whole, municipal finances, and local residents. If adopted by Council, this Component of the Ordinance will likely: impose significant additional housekeeping costs ; impose hardships on certain housekeepers; create significant difficulties operationally; make it more difficult to attract hotel development to the City; and finally, reduce tax dollars to the City. Our rationale and findings are based upon a review of Capit ol Matrix Consult ing ’s March 2019 report entit led Potential Impa cts of a Proposed Ordinance Regulating Ho tels in Santa Monica California, the October 9, 2018 report prepared by BAE Urban Economics relative to the Long Beach Hotel Ordinance Impacts Analysis, discussions wit h local hoteliers and tourism professionals , and our understanding of th e tourism and real estate industries in the City. Significant Additional Housekeeping Costs – The recent Capitol Matrix report estimates increased housekeeping staff costs for a hypothetical 150-room hotel to range from 32 to 65 percent annually. Further, they note that the estimate is “best case” range, since it assumes that hotels are able to avoid a major number of violations, which could be difficult in circumstances of tight labor markets or unpredictable occupancy fluctuations. Their estimates are comparable to res ponses from hotels they in terviewed, which cited potential increases in ho usekeeping costs ranging from 20 percent to more than double. In their report BAE noted that labor is by far the largest expense line item for all hotels, and the effect of workload provision of the City of Long Beach Ordinance would cause hotel operators to employ additional housekeepers, which would certainly drive up their operating costs, without a corresponding increase in room rates to offset these costs. Specifically, BAE calcu lated the estimated impacts represent a 5.0 percent reduction in net operating income (“NOI ”) and value for the larger hotels, and a 10.0 percent reduction of NOI and valu e for t he smaller hotels. As was not ed in the BA E report and consistent with CBRE ’s institutional knowledge, it is reasonable to assume that smaller, limited-service hotels would be impacted by the Ordinance to a greater degree than full-service hotels , given that that a majority of employees at limited-service hotels are employed in a hou sekeeping capacity, rather than in the food and beverage or spa departments of larger full-service hotels. Separately, the Capitol Matrix report estimates that NOI levels (for all classes of hotels) could be reduced by anywhere from 7.5 to 21.0 percent. Hardships on Certain Housekeepers – The Capitol Matrix report notes that housekeepers would see a reduction in overtime opportunities, on which many of them rely for additional income. In some instances, they could also face reduced opportunities to even maintain full time shifts, as operators seek more flexibility to meet the n ew workload limit s by hiring part time workers or contracting with third parties. It would also potentially result in workers in exempt ed unionized hotels being required to do more work than in non-union hotels for less take home pay. In 3 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Unemployment Rate: Leisure and Hospitality, Private Wage and Salary Workers [LNU04032241], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU04032241, August 25, 2019. Page | 6 addition to these potential unintended negative consequences , we would also note that if adopted, the Ordinance could potent ially lead to the outsourcing of a hotel’s housekeeping department t o a cont racted provider. Significant Difficulties Operationally – The Capitol Matrix report also notes that the proposed Ordinance would eliminate any housekeeping team approach, as well as eliminate the ability of housekeepers to assist one another to manage their workloads. Managers would be expected to minimize the cost impact of t he additional housekeeping staff on their hotel’s bottom line. Hotel operators in Long Beach and Oakland in terview ed by the report ’s authors reported that managing to the new workload standards requires significant amounts of their time . One major difficulty is simply interpreting how the standards apply. The Long Beach ordinance does not specify, for example, whether to count the space under the bed as floor space, since it does not require cleaning, nor does it identify how much of the hallway or foyer must be counted against the square footage limit. These factors further drive up costs and depress profits. Difficulty to Attract New Hotel Developments – The Capitol Matrix report further notes that the workload measure would significantly reduce operating profits for hotels, making the City less attractive relative to nearby locations for new development. Also, the affected hotels could experience reduced maintenance and upgrades. The BAE report also notes that higher than expected costs to operate a new hotel due to the proposed Long Beach ordinance could make currently planned and proposed projects less feasible. BAE authors go on to note that if this occurs, it would result in a lo ss of Transient Occupancy Tax (“TOT”) revenues that would otherwise be gen erated. Reduce Tax Dollars to the City – Both the Capitol Matrix and BAE reports note that h igher costs and reduced profitability directly at tributable to the proposed workload lim itations will translate into a loss in market value of affected hotel properties. As these values decline, revenue collections by the City would be diminished as hotels are sold/purchased, since assessed value is based on expected profitability. Both firms note that it is unlikely that these impacts will n ot likely be noticeable in the short term, given the provisions of California ’s Proposition 13, alt hough the reductions in value will event ually be reflected in property taxes when current properties are sold at reduced prices, or when there is a material economic slowdown (and hotels and other properties seek a Proposition 8 temporary downward adjustments to their assessed values). Over time, Capitol Matrix estimates t hat the reduction in valuations could translate into property tax losses of up to $3 million annually. Further, to the extent that the lowered income discourages new investment, the City wou ld also lose the benefit of new property taxes and increases in TOT. As a result, City residents would be faced with a greater tax burden or reduced City services. To more fully illustrate the potential magnitude of the proposed Ordinance on hotel operations and assessed taxable value, we have utilized the actual financial statements from a representative sampling of seven Santa Monica hotels and their year-end 2018 performance. Hotels included in the sample include both large full-service hotels, smaller independent hotels and moderately sized branded hotels of a limited- and select -service nature. In aggregate and consistent with market data presented previously, these seven hotels had an occupancy of 86.2 percent and an average daily rate of $370.78. As has been calculated on the following page, a n estimated 10 .0 percent increase in housekeeping levels over 2018 performance would lead to a $7.9 million reduction in taxable valu e, or a 5.5 percent decrease from 2018. Assuming a 20.0 percent increase in housekeeping costs yields a $15.7 million reduction in value, or 11.0 less than calculated for year-end 2018. Page | 7 Representative Sample of Santa Monica Hotels 2 018 Aggregate Performance W / +10% Housekeeping Cost W / +20% Housekeeping Cost Number of Units: 165 165 165 Number of Months: 12 12 12 Number of Annual Rooms Available: 60,069 60,069 60,069 Number of Rooms Occupied: 51,796 51,796 51,796 Annual Occupancy: 86.2% 86.2% 86.2% Average Daily Rate: $370.78 $370.78 $370.78 RevPAR: $319.71 $319.71 $319.71 Amount Ratio Per Room P.O.R. Amount Ratio Per Room P.O.R. Amount Ratio Per Room P.O.R. Revenues Rooms $19,205,280 69.6% $116,396 $370. 79 $19,205,280 69.6% $116, 396 $370. 79 $19,205,280 69.6% $116, 396 $370. 79 Food & Beverage 6,927,012 25.1% 41,982 133.74 6,927,012 25.1% 41,982 133.74 6,927,012 25.1% 41,982 133.74 Other Operated Departments 1,4 66,705 5.3% 8,889 28.32 1,466,705 5.3% 8,889 28.32 1,466,705 5.3% 8,889 28.32 Total Revenues 27,598,997 100.0% 167,267 532.84 27,598,997 100.0% 167,267 532.84 27,598,997 100.0% 167,267 532.84 Departmental Expenses Rooms 4,719,343 24.6% 28,602 91.11 5,191,277 27.0% 31,462 100.23 5,663,212 29.5% 34,322 109.34 Food & Beverage 5,684,096 82.1% 34,449 109.74 5,684,096 82.1% 34,449 109.74 5,684,096 82.1% 34,449 109.74 Other Operated Departments 423,318 28.9% 2,566 8.17 423,318 28.9% 2,566 8.17 423,318 28.9% 2,566 8.17 Total Departmental Expenses 10,826,757 39.2% 65,617 209.03 11,298,691 40.9% 68,477 218.14 11,770,626 42.6% 71,337 227.25 Departmental Profit 16,772,240 60.8% 101,650 323.81 16,300,306 59.1% 98,790 314.70 15,828,371 57.4% 95,930 305.59 Undistributed Expenses Administrative & General 2,124,368 7.7% 12,875 41.01 2,124,368 7.7% 12,875 41.01 2,124,368 7.7% 12,875 41.01 Information and Telecommunication Systems 249,878 0.9% 1,514 4.82 249,878 0.9% 1,514 4.82 249,878 0.9% 1,5 14 4.82 Marketing 1,783,858 6.5% 10,811 34.44 1,783,858 6.5% 10,811 34.44 1,783,858 6.5% 10,811 34.44 Property Operations and Maintenance 861,048 3.1% 5,218 16.62 861,048 3.1% 5,218 16.62 861,048 3.1% 5,218 16.62 Energy and Utility 441,065 1.6% 2,673 8.52 441,065 1.6% 2,673 8.52 441,065 1.6% 2,673 8.52 Total Undistributed Operating Expenses 5,460,217 19.8% 33,092 105.42 5,460,217 19.8% 33,092 105.42 5,460,217 19.8% 33,092 105.42 Gross Operating Profit 11,312,023 41.0% 68,558 218.40 10,840,089 39.3% 65,698 209.28 10,368,154 37.6% 62,837 200.17 Base M anagement Fee 465,193 1.7% 2,819 8.98 465,193 1.7% 2,819 8.9 8 465,193 1.7% 2,819 8.98 Fixed Expenses Property Taxes 881,040 3.2% 5,340 17.01 881,040 3.2% 5,340 17.01 881,040 3.2% 5,340 17.01 Insurance 292,882 1.1% 1,775 5.65 292,882 1.1% 1,775 5.65 292,882 1.1% 1,775 5.65 Total Fixed Expenses 1,173,922 4.3% 7,115 22.66 1,173,922 4.3% 7,115 22.66 1,173,922 4.3% 7,115 22.66 Net Operating Income Before Reserve 9,672,908 35.0% 58,624 186.75 9,200,974 33.3% 55,763 177.64 8,729,039 31.6% 52,903 168.53 FF&E Reserve 1,103,960 4.0% 6,691 21.31 1,103,960 4.0% 6,691 21.31 1 ,103,960 4.0% 6,691 21.31 Net Operating Income After Reserve $8,568,948 31.0% $51,933 $165. 44 $8,097,014 29.3% $49,073 $156. 33 $7,625,080 27.6% $46,213 $147. 21 Selling Price Assuming a 6.0% Capitalization Rate $142,815, 802 $134,950, 230 $127,084,659 Estimated Reduction in Value N/A ($7,865,572) ($15,731,143) Estimated Percentage Change in Value N/A -5.5% -11.0% Source: C BRE Hotels Page | 8 CONCLUSION Generally, the overwhelming majority of the specific Components noted in Ordinance 4.67 pertaining to w orker safety are reasonable and are already being addressed by hoteliers in the local market or can be adopted without significant cost or disruption to day-to-day hotel operations. The singular exception is the housekeeper workloads and overtime compensation Component, which represents a fundamental shift in current housekeeping practices . If enact e d, this Component of the Ordinance will impose staffing costs that are unlikely to be recouped by higher room rates and thereby likely to result in decreased profitability levels across the board, with smaller, more limited-service hotels anticipated to be impa cted to a greater degree than full - service hotels . Over the longer -term, additional unintended consequ ences of the Ordinance would also potentially include a reduction in tax dollars as a result of lower assessed property values and the loss of future incrementally greater TOT revenues attributable to developers forgoing the opportunity to build in Santa Monica and instead choosing to locate their hospit ality developments in the nearby communities such as Marina del Rey or Culver City. Therefore, and as indicated in the City Manager’s report to the Mayor and Council, that the direction of the Council should be to advise union and hospitality stakeholders to identify an alternative workload model that is complementary to the hotel industry standard. We appreciate the opportunity to offer ou r professional opinions on this important matter and look forward to answering any questions you may have regarding our conclusions presented herein. Sincerely, Brandon Feighner Senior Director CBRE Hotels Advisory Addendum Terms and Conditions TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. CBRE, Inc. through its advisor (collectively, “CBRE”) has inspected through reasonable observation the subject property. However, it is not possible or reasonably practicable to personally inspect conditions beneath the soil . 2. The report, including its conclusions and any portion of such report (the “Report”), is as of the date set forth in the letter of transmittal and based upon the information, market, economic, and property conditions and projected levels of operation existing as of such date . The dollar amount of any conclusion as to value in the Report is based upon the purchasing power of the U.S. Dollar on such date. The Report is subject to change as a result of fluctuations in any of the foregoing. CBRE has no obligation to revise the Report to reflect any such fluctuations or other events or conditions which occur subsequent to such date. 3. Unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report, CBRE has assumed that : (i) T itle to the subject property is clear and marketable and that there are no recorded or unrecorded matters or exceptions to title that would adversely affect marketability or value. CBRE has not examined title records (including without limitation liens, encumbrances, easements, deed restrictions, and other conditions that may affect the title or use of the subject property) and makes no representations regarding title or its limitations on the use of the subject property . Insurance against financial loss that may arise out of defects in title should be sought from a qualified title insurance company. (ii) If any, existing improvements on the subject property conform to applicable local, state, and federal building codes and ordinances, are structurally sound and seismically safe, and have been built and repaired in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices; all building systems (mechanical/electrical, HVAC, elevator, plumbing, etc.) are in good working order with no major deferred maintenance or repair required; and the roof and exterior are in good condition and free from intrusion by the elements. CBRE has not retained independent structural, mechanical, electrical, or civil engineers in connection with this report and, therefore, makes no representations relative to the condition of improvements. CBRE advisors are not engineers and are not qualified to judge matters of an engineering nature, and furthermore structural problems or building system problems may not be visible. It is expressly assumed that any purchaser would, as a precondition to cl osing a sale, obtain a satisfactory engineering report relative to the structural integrity of the property and the integrity of building systems. (iii) Any proposed improvements, on or off-site, as well as any alterations or repairs considered will be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices. (iv) Hazardous material s are not present on the subject property. CBRE is not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea formaldehyde foam insulation, cont aminated groundwater, mold, or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. (v) N o mineral deposit or subsurface rights of value exist with respect to the subject property, whether gas, liquid, or solid, and no air or developme nt rights of value may be transferred. CBRE has not considered any rights associated with extraction or exploration of any resources, unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report. (vi) There are no contemplated public initiatives, governmental development controls, rent controls, or changes in the present zoning ordinances or regulations governing use, density, or shape that would significantly affect the value of the subject property . (vii) All required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, nor national government or private entity or organization have been or can be readily obtained or renewed for any use on which the Report is based. (viii) The subject property is managed and operated in a prudent and competent manner, neither inefficiently or super -efficiently. (ix) The subject property and its use, management, and operation are in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, laws, and restrictions, including without limitation environmental laws, seismic hazards, flight patterns, decibel levels/noise envelopes, fire hazards, hillside ordinances, density, allowable uses, building codes, permits, and licenses. (x) The subject property is in full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). CBRE is not qualified to assess the subject property’s compliance with the ADA, notwithstanding any discussion of possible readily achievable barrier removal construction items in the Report. (xi) All information regarding the areas and dimensions of the subject property furnished to CBRE are correct, and no encroachments exist. CBRE has neither undertaken any survey of the boundaries of the subject property nor reviewed or confirmed the accuracy of any legal description of the subject property. Unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report, no issues regarding the foregoing were brought to CBRE’s attention, and CBRE has no knowledge of any such facts affecting the subject property. If any information inconsistent with any of the foregoing assumptions is discovered, such information could have a substantial negative impact on the Report . Accordingly, if any such information is subsequently made known to CBRE, CBRE reserves the right to amend the Report, which may include the conclusions of the Report. CBRE assumes no TERMS AND CONDITIONS (continued) responsibility for any conditions regarding the foregoing, or for any expertise or knowledge required to discover them. Any user of the Report is urged to retain an expert in the applicable field(s) for information regarding such conditions. 4. CBRE has assumed that all documents, data and information furnished by or behalf of the client, property owner, or owner’s representative are accurate and correct, unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report . Such data and information include, without limitation, numerical street addresses, lot and block numbers, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers, land dimensions, square footage area of the land, dimensions of the improvements, gross building areas, net rentable areas, usable areas, unit count, room count, rent schedules, income data, historical operating expenses, budgets, and related data. Any error in any of the above could have a substantial impact on the Report . Accordingly, if any such errors are subsequently made known to CBRE , CBRE reserves the right to amend the Report, which may include the conclusions of the Report. The client and intended user should carefully review all assumptions, data, relevant calculations, and conclusions of the Report and should immediately notify CBRE of any questions or errors within 30 days after the date of delivery of the Report. 5. CBRE assumes no responsibility (including any obligation to procure the same) for any documents, data or information not provided to CBRE, including without limitation any termite inspection, survey or occupancy permit. 6. Any cash flows included in the analysis are forecasts of estimated future operating characteristics based upon the information and assumptions contained within the Report. Any projections of income, expenses and economic conditi ons utilized in the Report, including such cash flows, should be considered as only estimates of the expectations of future income and expenses as of the date of the Report and not predictions of the future. Actual results are affected by a number of factors outside the control of CBRE, including without limitation fluctuating economic, market, and property conditions. Actual results may ultimately differ from these projections, and CBRE does not warrant any such projections. 7. The Report contains professional opinions and is expressly not intended to serve as any warranty, assurance or guarantee of the performance of the subject property. Accordingly, CBRE shall not be liable for any losses that arise from any investment or lending decisions based upon the Report that the client, intended user, or any buyer, seller, investor, or lending institution may undertake related to the subject property, and CBRE has not been compensated to assume any of these risks. Nothing contained in the Report shall be construed as any direct or indirect recommendation of CBRE to buy, sell, hold, or finance the subject property. 8. No opinion is expressed on matters which may require legal expertise or specialized investigation or knowledge beyond that customarily employed by the advisors. Any user of the Report is advised to retain experts in areas that fall outside the scope of the advisor for suc h matters. 9. CBRE assumes no responsibility for any costs or consequences arising due to the need, or the lack of need, for fl ood hazard insurance. An agent for the Federal Flood Insurance Program should be contacted to determine the actual need for Flood Hazard Insurance. 10. Acceptance or use of the Report constitutes full acceptance of these Assumptions and Limiting Conditions and any special assumptions set forth in the Report . It is the responsibility of the user of the Report to read in full, comprehend and thus become aware of all such assumptions and limiting conditions. CBRE assumes no responsibility for any situation arising out of the user’s failure to become familiar with and understand the same. 11. The Report applies to the property as a whole only, and any pro ration or division of the title into fractional interests will invalidate suc h conclusions, unless the Report expressly assumes such pro ration or division of interests. 12. The maps, plats, sketches, graphs, photographs, and exhibits included in this Report are for illustration purposes only and shall be utilized only to assist in visualizing matters discussed in the Report. No such items shall be removed, reproduced, or used apart from the Report . 13. The Report shall not be duplicated or provided to any unintended users in whole or in part without the written consent of CBRE, which consent CBRE may withhold in its sole discretion. Exempt from this restriction is duplication for the internal use of the intended user and its attorneys, accountants, or advisors for the sole benefit of the intended user. Also exempt from this restriction i s transmission of the Report pursuant to any requirement of any court, governmental authority, or regulatory agency having jurisdiction over the intended user, provi ded that the Report and its contents shall not be published, in whole or in part, in any public document without the written consent of CBRE, which consent CBRE may withhold in its sole discretion. Finally, the Report shall not be made available to the public or otherwise used in any offering of the property or any security, as defined by appli cable law. Any unintended user who may possess the Report is advised that it shall not rely upon the Report or its conclusions and that it should rely on its own consultants and advisor s for any decision in connection with the subject property. CBRE shall have no liability or responsibility to any such unintended user. 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, August 27, 2019 1:19 PM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; Anuj Gupta Subject:FW: Urging Protections for Hotel Workers... Council‐ Please see the below email regarding the proposed hotel worker protection ordinance. Thank you, Stephanie ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Curtis [mailto:curtisraynor@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 9:26 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Urging Protections for Hotel Workers... Hello Council Members! Thank you for your for your efforts to make Santa Monica a city that supports the varied population that lives, works, and visits here. My request is that you endorse and pass a very strong ordinance that will protect the safety and worker rights of the housekeepers who staff our many hotels. I work several nights of the week, Tuesdays being one of them, so I am not able to attend tonight’s meeting. However, I very much wanted to pass my thoughts and request onto you. Curtis Raynor 1959 Cloverfield Blvd #213 Santa Monica 90404 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, August 27, 2019 1:20 PM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; Anuj Gupta Subject:FW: Hotel Panic Button Measure - Davis, Winterer, Morena and O'Day Council- Please see the below email regarding the proposed hotel worker protection ordinance. Thank you, Stephanie From: Jackie Pepper [mailto:jackiepeppersports@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 11:16 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Hotel Panic Button Measure ‐ Davis, Winterer, Morena and O'Day Dear Council Member, I'm Jackie Pepper, a Santa Monica resident and member of Indivisible CA-33 who is deeply concerned about unsafe and unfair working conditions for hotel workers in our beautiful city. Hotel room attendants work extremely hard keep accommodations in mint condition for the millions of tourists (and locals!) who visit our establishments each yet, yet they are unduly exposed to the threat of sexual harassment, excessive workloads, and unexpected mandatory overtime. I am writing to urge you to vote “Yes” on the proposed ordinance to improve hotel working conditions. A national survey found that more than 40 percent of women in the hospitality industry reported sexual harassment, the highest of any field. Hotel room attendants often work alone in guest rooms, exposing to them to risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. The proposed legislation would address this by providing a panic button to every hotel worker who works alone in rooms. The use of panic buttons in hotels has spread across the country, especially since the many stories about the sexual harassment of hotel workers came to light as part of the #MeToo movement. In California, Long Beach and Oakland have already passed measures to require panic buttons. Let’s not have Santa Monica be left behind on this kind of common-sense legislation. Hotel workers in our city are also often assigned overly burdensome room cleaning quotas and unexpected overtime. The proposed ordinance provides for a humane workload and reasonable limits on mandatory overtime. 2 We are all lucky to live in the beautiful city of Santa Monica. Millions of visitors flock here each year to enjoy our lovely beaches and neighborhoods. Let’s not build our paradise on the backs of people forced to work under unsafe and unfair conditions. Please pass this legislation to ensure hotel workers are protected and fairly compensated for the hard work they do. Thank you. Sincerely, Jackie Pepper -- Jackie Pepper TV . Radio . Film . Web 310.980.6410 www.JackiePepper.com 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Tuesday, August 27, 2019 2:09 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Santa Monica is a liberal city From: catherine eng <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 1:54 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Santa Monica is a liberal city Santa Monica, PLs think of your female workers and better safeguards catherine eng damecat@mac.com Gardner St Weho, California 90046 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Tuesday, August 27, 2019 2:10 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Satchel Forrester <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 11:33 AM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Satchel Forrester satchelforrester@gmail.com 121 cold hill Granby, Massachusetts 01033 1 Vernice Hankins From:art is the answer <shineshuge@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 27, 2019 2:14 PM To:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; Lane Dilg Subject:Item 7B Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Please be aware that what I did sign online was not what is being presented tonight or by the "written comments" of Unite Here Local 11. I thought I was signing to stop low paid women workers‐ most of color from sexual harassment and other wrongs on the job.. ..that is it.. nothing more.. I do not support the method Unite Here Local 11 is using with this .. and I withdraw my signature which was requested under false pretenses.. Thank you Danelle Charney Resident “I will always be on the side of those who have nothing and who are not even allowed to enjoy the nothing they have in peace.” ― Federico García Lorca 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Tuesday, August 27, 2019 4:45 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: haRa Beck <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 2:57 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Please cite hotel managers who treat their workers unfairly. Please give them job security, and a chance to advance. They have families just like everyone else. And get those panic buttons or cell phones out to workers, especially on night shifts! Thanks for your prompt action. haRa Genser Beck Please protect our workers and help them get more security (physical and otherwise) at work. haRa Beck laughingsun4@yahoo.com 138 Wadsworth Avenue Santa Monica , California 90405 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Tuesday, August 27, 2019 4:45 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th From: Patricia Ellis <dredone@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 2:18 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox <Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Vote to protect housekeepers on August 27th Santa Monica, Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: I am a Santa Monica resident or visitor who cares deeply about the workers who make our city thrive. As you know, tourism is one of the most important industries in the City of Santa Monica, as visitors injected approximately $1.93 billion into the Santa Monica economy in 2018 and generated approximately $58 million in transient occupancy tax. Hotel workers are the backbone of this lucrative industry. Yet hotel room attendants, who work alone in guest rooms, where there are no witnesses or cameras, face unique risks of threatening behavior, including sexual assault and other crimes. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. Workers need tools to protect themselves. Room attendants are also frequently assigned excessive room cleaning quotas and unexpected mandatory overtime, which undermines their ability to adequately protect public health, interferes with their ability to meet family obligations, and can undermine other employment protections benefitting these employees. Overtime should be voluntary and room attendants made to clean excessive square footage—more than 3,500 square feet during a single shift—should be compensated for their extra work. 2 Workers also deserve protection against the kinds of mass layoffs that frequently occur when hotels change ownership and opportunities for training on their rights as workers and best practices to protect public health and safety. This upcoming Tuesday, we hope that you will vote for a law will include the following provisions: 1) Panic buttons – operational panic buttons housekeepers can use if there is an ongoing crime or threatening behavior to notify on-site security for assistance and protection against retaliation 2) Humane workload – fair compensation if workers are required to clean more than 3500 square feet during an 8-hour shift and a prohibition on mandatory overtime 3) Hotel worker retention – a worker retention provision ensures that changes in hotel ownership or management do not result in worker layoffs but instead requires a period of transition where workers are kept on 4) Housekeeper training program – training on workers’ legal rights, as well as on key issues affecting the public, including potential threats or crime including human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence, and risks to public health. Please stand with workers and pass this common sense legislation that will ensure they are protected at work, and compensated fairly for the hard work that they do. Patricia Ellis dredone@sbcglobal.net 4454 Cabot drive Grand Prairie , Texas 75052 Introduction and First Re ading of an Ordinance Pertaining to Hotel Workers’ Protection Presented by: Anuj Gupta, Deputy City Manager / Director of Policy Helen Yu, Management Fellow City of Santa Monica | Agenda Item 7B | 8/27/2019 Hospitality & To urism At a Glance City of Santa Monica | Agenda Item 7B | 8/27/2019 Over 8 Million Visitors 41 Hotels Approx imately 2,100 Housekeepers $60.8 Million in Tr ansient Occupancy Ta x Generated for FY18-19 Santa Monica Hotel Landscape City of Santa Monica | Agenda Item 7B | 8/27/2019 Ty pe of Property # of Properties % of Rooms Ve ry Small (under 50 rooms)17 41% Small (under 100 rooms)8 20% Medium (101-300 rooms)13 32% Large (over 300 rooms)3 7% To tal 41 100% Milestones June 2018 Local 11 presents to COSW September 2018 COSW sends letter to Council October 2018 1. COSW presents to Council 2. Council direction to staff November 2018 -July 2019 1. Stakeholder engagement 2. Research of other cities’ ordinances 3. Development of policy and legal analysis August 2019 1. Information Item published 2. Additional Council direction 3. First reading of Ordinance City of Santa Monica | Agenda Item 7B | 8/27/2019 Stakeholder Engagement City of Santa Monica | Agenda Item 7B | 8/27/2019 Community Lodging Labor Cities •Commission on the Status of Women •Santa Monica Hotel General Managers •Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce •Santa Monica Travel & To urism •California Hotel & Lodging Association •Hotel Association of Los Angeles •UNITE HERE! Local 11 •Long Beach, CA •Oakland, CA •Seattle, WA •Emeryville, CA •Los Angeles, CA* •Providence, RI* *Worker Retention Provision Council Direction Prepare an ordinance addressing the following 5 areas: 1.Hotel worker safety protections 2.Hotel housekeeper workloads and overtime compensation 3.Hotel housekeeper training on personal rights and safety 4.Hotel housekeeper education and training to identify and prevent instances of human trafficking; domestic violence; sexual violence; and public health and safety 5.Hotel worker retention in instances of a change in ownership* * Additional Council direction received on 8/13/19 City of Santa Monica | Agenda Item 7B | 8/27/2019 Component 1: Safety Protections City of Santa Monica | Agenda Item 7B | 8/27/2019 Wo uld require hotels to provide protections for the safety of their workers by mandating that they: 1.Eq uip their employees with operational panic buttons or other personal security devices 2.Implement procedures re: workers’ ability to report criminal and threatening behavior to authorities without fear of retaliation Component 1: Staff Analysis & Concerns City of Santa Monica | Agenda Item 7B | 8/27/2019 •Ability to adapt to ever-changing technology •Ongoing industry trends toward voluntary adoption •Costs of implementation, in particular for smaller hotels •Limitations of adopting narrow, device-specific language Component 1: Comparison to Other Cities City of Santa Monica | Agenda Item 7B | 8/14/2019 City Covered Employees Ty pe of Device Lodging Applicability Long Beach All hotel employees assigned to work in a guest room or bathroom without other employees present Panic button All Oakland All hotel employees assigned to work in a guest room or bathroom without other employees present Panic button 50 or more guest rooms Seattle All hotel employees providing in-room services Panic button 50 or more guest rooms Chicago All hotel employees assigned to work in a guest room or rest room where no other employees are present Panic button or notification device 50 or more guest rooms Component 1: Staff Recommendation Adopt a provision with broadened language—the term “personal security devices”—to give hoteliers flexibility in the type of device required, while meeting the objective of giving workers the ability to raise an alert in the event of criminal or threatening behavior •Rights of hotel workers to activate •Hotels required to assign designated staff to respond City of Santa Monica | Agenda Item 7B | 8/27/2019 Component 2: Wo rkload & Overtime Compensation City of Santa Monica | Agenda Item 7B | 8/27/2019 Seeks to provide fair compensation and supports protections against mandatory overtime by requiring Santa Monica hoteliers to implement: 1.Daily square footage cleaning cap unless the hotel employer pays the room attendant a premium rate above State wage requirements for all hours worked during that shift 2.Documented overtime consent in advance when workdays exc eed 10 hours Component 2: Staff Analysis & Concerns City of Santa Monica | Agenda Item 7B | 8/27/2019 •Precedent of other cities’ regulations •Challenges associated with implementation •Defining cleanable space •Industry standard –credits system •Po tential unintended / secondary consequences •Federal/State role in regulating and enforcing overtime Component 2: Comparison to Other Cities *Rate paid for all hours worked in a shift where the max square footage is exceeded City of Santa Monica | Agenda Item 7B | 8/27/2019 City Maximum Square Footage Overtime Compensation Rate* Long Beach 4,000 2x Oakland 4,000 2x Seattle 5,000 1.5x Emeryville 5,000 1.5x Component 2: Staff Recommendation Adopt a provision that sets a daily square footage cap of 4,000 square feet of floor space per hotel housekeeper and re quires a 1.5x compensation rate fo r all hours worked when the workload exceeds the 4,000 square footage maximum •Square footage cap prorated when a room attendant works less than 8 hours, reduced when assigned 7+ checkout rooms •Wr itten consent for working >10 hrs. in a workday City of Santa Monica | Agenda Item 7B | 8/27/2019 Components 3 & 4: Education & Tr aining City of Santa Monica | Agenda Item 7B | 8/27/2019 Maintain City ’s interest in protecting public safety via a “Public Housekeeping Tra ining Program” with the following elements: 1.All safety and workload provisions adopted in this ordinance 2.Best practices for identifying insect/vermin infestations, suspected instances of trafficking, sexual and domestic violence 3.Standardization of training requirements and administration 4.Examination and certification to ensure ongoing compliance Components 3 & 4: Staff Analysis & Concerns City of Santa Monica | Agenda Item 7B | 8/27/2019 •Ensuring efficacy and comprehensiveness of training •Overlap / duplication with State,local training requirements •City capacity and resources –administer/conduct training vs. set standards and certify Components 3 & 4: State Mandate d Tra ining City of Santa Monica | Agenda Item 7B | 8/14/2019 Cal/OSHA: Musculoskeletal Injury Prevention Program (MIPP) (2018) Senate Bill 970 (2018) Assembly Bill 1825 (2004) Assembly Bill 1343 (2018) Safety Requires annual workplace safety training, specific to housekeeping Public Health Required training to protect from bloodborne pathogens Human Trafficking Requires 20 minutes of human trafficking training /education once every two years Sexual and Domestic Violence Requires sexual harassment training for supervisors every two years Requires sexual harassment training for supervisory (2 hrs.) and non-supervisory (1 hr.) positions for employers with over five employees by 1/1/20 Components 3 & 4: Staff Recommendation Adopt a Public Housekeeping Training Program as follows: 1.City acts as oversight agency,certifying Public Housekeeping Training Organizations (PHTOs) as meeting specified program requirements; 2.Hotels contract with a certified PHTO to administer Tra ining Program, Examination, and Certificate requirements; 3.Hotels and PHTOs document compliance with City; 4.Exemption of areas adequately covered by State or local requirements •Employees –certificate required within 120 days, valid for 5 years •Hotel employers –required to hold training annually City of Santa Monica | Agenda Item 7B | 8/27/2019 Component 5: Wo rker Retention City of Santa Monica | Agenda Item 7B | 8/27/2019 Seeks to mitigate potential displacement and impacts from a change in ownership by requiring hoteliers to implement: 1.Procedures to notify hotel workers of a change in control 2.Procedures to establish a transition period for a successor hotel to retain hotel workers from the incumbent hotel Component 5: Staff Analysis & Concerns City of Santa Monica | Agenda Item 7B | 8/27/2019 •Precedent –Seattle, L.A./LAX, Providence for hotel workers; Santa Monica, L.A. for grocery workers •Whether displacement / retention is a substa ntial concern in ownership changes •Public interest in sector-specific retention Component 5: Comparison to Other Cities *Council directed City to use as a model City of Santa Monica | Agenda Item 7B | 8/14/2019 City Wo rker Retention Provision/Ordinance Applicability Long Beach No N/A Oakland No N/A Seattle Ye s 60 or more guest rooms Emeryville No N/A Providence Ye s 25 or more guest rooms Los Angeles (LAX-area hotels only)Ye s 50 or more guest rooms Los Angeles (Grocery Workers)Ye s Over 15,000 square feet in size Santa Monica (Grocery Workers)Ye s Over 15,000 square feet in size Component 5: Staff Recommendation Incorporate a hotel worker retention provision consistent with City of Los Angeles (LAX-area hotels) and Providence, RI •Notice of change in control •90-day transition period –Successor hotel to maintain and hire from list of existing hotel employees •Wr itten evaluations at end of transition period City of Santa Monica | Agenda Item 7B | 8/27/2019 Other Potential Components: Supersession Ability to waive certain provisions via collective bargaining agreement •Allows hotels and employees flexibility to barga in for terms of employment more mutually beneficial than ordinance provisions •Supersession provisions present in City ’s minimum wage, hotel living wage, grocery retention ordinances •Staff Recommendation: Adopt supersession limited to workload/ compensation and worker retention/change in control provisions City of Santa Monica | Agenda Item 7B | 8/27/2019 Enfo rc ement Civil Enforcement (i.e., private right of action) –recommended •Any hotel worker may file a civil lawsuit against a hotel for violating any provision adopted in this ordinance •City does not assume responsibility or costs of enforcement •Long Beach, Seattle, Emeryville have adopted City Enforcement –would require: •On-site inspection/audit procedures, citation fee structure •Onboarding of at least 2 new full-time Code Enforcement Officers (projected annual cost of $370,200) City of Santa Monica | Agenda Item 7B | 8/27/2019 Alternatives •Adjust proposed 4,000 square footage cap and/or 1.5x overtime compensation rate •Direct staff to advise union and hotels to identify alternative workload model –90-day deadline •Decline to adopt training provisions in light of State requirements City of Santa Monica | Agenda Item 7B | 8/27/2019 Summary: Recommended Actions •Component 1 –Require personal security devices and assigning of designated staff to respond immediately if activated •Component 2 –Daily 4,000 square footage cap, 1.5x compensation rate if exceeded; written consent for working 10+ hours in workday •Component 3 & 4 –Public Housekeeping Training Program with City as oversight agency, hotels required to administer annually and document compliance •Component 5 –Wo rker retention for 90-day transition period; notice of change in control to be posted for 6 months •Effe ctive Date –Jan. 1, 2020 (except training provisions) •Enforcement –Civil/private right of action •Supersession –Wo rkload/Overtime and Retention only City of Santa Monica | Agenda Item 7B | 8/27/2019