Speaker 1: Thank you. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 2: A Jeanette M to resolution 31808 relating to the for high transportation industry, establishing a work program for the City Council to review the administrative rules and regulations to improve customer service and lower cost to participants and to explore ways to ensure equal market access to all participants. The committee recommends a resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. So, first of all, I want to thank everyone for coming out, taking time out of their busy day to testify on the resolution. And even though some of the policy points in this resolution may be inconsistent with what you want or what you believe is right. I appreciate everyone coming out and taking playing a role in the process. And having said that, I like the few expressions that I heard in this resolution, which is basically a resolution to this establishing a work program to address a number of issues, not just race, but a number of issues in this industry. The expression, as I like, were debunking the myths, and I think someone said that the Teamsters brought this resolution. There's nothing farther from the truth on that latter allegation. The Teamsters did not bring this resolution. It was actually drafted by center staff here, working collectively with all industry participants. Representatives, yes. Labor groups, drivers and and writers. And having said that, what we're trying to do is, yes, we are trying to ensure a level playing field, equal market access for all industry participants. And I would remind folks that are really fascinated with the new technology, the new platforms that have been invented, that there are people who have worked for decades in this industry keeping our mobile transportation alive. And I don't think it's consistent with our policies to simply not consider the legacy participants in addressing issues of fairness in moving forward. So it's not a question of flattening all tires. It's a question of looking at our core values in an industry that continues to evolve and trying to get the data that we need to make smart decisions. And that is what this this resolution is attempting to do. Most importantly as well, it make sure that we have a safe and reliable ride experience for consumers and cost effective. We are aligned. We align ourselves in all of our legislation with issues of equity and fair compensation and transparency. And while we applaud. Uber or Lyft or TNC folks for getting so many people down here to testify. We also listen to folks that, for whatever reason, could not get down here and could not be the first to sign up in the first 20 slots who are out there right now, perhaps even working in a legacy taxi cab charging race that we, in my opinion, heavily, heavily regulate. And I think we are trying to go to a playing field where we will see more of a policy, a less of a regulatory feel and more of a free market feel, but making sure that issues of fairness to every participant is first and foremost. So what does this resolution do to debunk the myth? First of all, it will establish a minimum rate. We are not raising the rates for it for consumers out there. That is a myth. That is, as I was quote in the newspaper and saying false and misleading, the rate may be to 40 per a drop or per mile. It may be to 30 or 150. That is why we are trying to establish the data. And the 240 was not pulled out of a hat. It was looking at what the rate per mile was back in 2014. That rate is now at 135. But we heard considerable testimony, considerable testimony from a large segment of TNC drivers that the reduction to 135 actually called lower compensation, which is actually lower than our minimum wage. That's why we wanted to do a deeper dove into this issue. At this time, the data regarding fares, charge and hours worked and the total number of drivers and driver compensation from all market participants is not shared with the city. It is not. So this resolution attempts to extract that information. And dare I say that I even think some of the information you are getting from whomever is false and misleading. And so our attempt is to get that information to make rationally based decisions. Don't underestimate our ability to use analytics, to use data to drive decision to make sure you all are compensated well. The drivers have good effective rates and that again, are issues of fairness and parity are reflected in the final piece of legislation that we'll be working on. Secondly, we do believe a regional license system for all market segments may make sense. I was very critical years ago where certain cars could come into the city, drop people off and not be able to pick up someone on the right when they're standing right there and saying, May I get a ride somewhere? So that's another issue that we think would make sense. The leveling of operating fees we think needs to be consolidated and potentially lowered. And the work that I'm about to describe goes into some of your is constituent a lot of your testimony when you said, well, look at the legacy taxes and perhaps you may want to lessen some of the restrictive conditions that we've historically placed on some of these entities. And so that's what that part is about. The conversion of for hire vehicles to meter taxicabs or or allowing them to choose convert. The reason why we're considering that is, quite frankly. There's a lot of competition and a lot of artificial constructs in this competition. Where were you trying to take pasture A? From A to B, I should say. And we're looking at whether that continues to make sense to have these kinds of artificial distinctions if we're all going to compete in this space. The flexibility and the financial obligations of driver drivers and owners in the taxi industry is another part of this. WORKPLAN And we're looking at the insurance standards. We're looking at the conditions by which legacy taxicab drivers and for hires and others are required to do to make sure that, first and foremost, we are keeping our driver, our riders safe. But we're also not imposing a financial burden upon the the the drivers. And I think I would argue that we have in the past expanding a Seattle King County Taxicab Advisory Commission, another commission. There's more inclusive. There are new participants now, participants that ten years ago you'd asked me what Uber stand for, and I couldn't tell you Lyft. These things were not invented now. So we're looking at perhaps revamping that commission to make sure that we have a voices from all industry participants and then expanding the issues specific to wheelchair accessible taxis, again , consistent. I want to thank Councilor Herbold for four amendments she will speak on in a minute by making sure that very important service that we provide and those that provide this service are recognized in terms of our policies moving forward. So we believe this resolution is a smart workplan. Again, requesting data from these tenses, we will find our own data and make sure there's a match and make sure both the fares reflect that data. And, again, our values of inclusive and inclusivity, equity and transparency are first and foremost in this legislation. Now we have some amendments that that are incorporated in here, and I will move the amendments formally, but I would ask that each speaker, if they like, to sort of talk about their amendments. So I think based on our discussion this morning at briefing, you're aware of those amendments. So I will just first move it and then I'd ask each person to sort of speak to it because it's all part of the First Amendment. So bear with me for one moment. Well. I was so off script. I really lost my notes here. Sorry about that. I'll move to amend resolution 31808. Is there a second? Second? Okay. Now, can people describe those amendments in Councilmember? Who would like to go first on the amendment, if anybody? Councilmember O'Brien. No. Councilmember Mosqueda.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for your work to pull together this underlying bill. Thank you to Councilmember O'Brien, Herbold and others who've weighed in. Thanks also to the testimony we've heard not just today, but over the last few weeks. I think that we have a shared interest in making sure that we get accurate data, that we're making informed decisions with this data, and that we're protecting the safety of drivers of our community, of those who are passengers in the cars. We need to have, I think, shared respect for when we have these discussions, because they will be ongoing and we don't want to impugn the motives of anybody who comes up to testify, just like what we've heard today. We've tried to be reflective in the legislation before us to make sure we get that accurate data. The piece of legislation that we have in front of us incorporates some requests that I have put forward so that we can actually have apples to apples comparison, that we look at getting data that's anonymized and that we protect the safety and privacy of individuals, but that we also have the type of data that we need to make sure that we're looking at the frequency of trips, not just the trips, but when an app is turned on, when a driver is paid, whether that's for when somebody is pinged or when they're picked up. These are the types of differences I've heard from drivers that I work with on a daily basis who say that they want to make sure that we have access to accurate information so that the data is truly an apples to apples comparison. So I appreciate that council president has included these in his amendment and they've been incorporated into the legislation in front of us today. Ultimately, this is about being informed so that we can protect driver safety, so that we can protect our local economy, and that we can make sure that we move forward with an informed piece of data in front of us. And so we create a final legislation that helps lift up our community as a whole.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Mosquito. I want to make a technical just a technical clarification on a motion that I made. So rather than move the amendment, we had already worked out the amendment. So I'm actually just doing a substitution. So I will move to substitute version three for version two. Is there a second? Okay. So that contains the language I described in my synopsis. Thank you for that. Councilmember Herbold, did you want to speak about the your your amendment that's incorporated in the new version? Thank you.
Speaker 2: Short and sweet. The amendment is pretty straightforward. It simply adds to the list of issues to be addressed in the in the work plan, issues related to specifically wheelchair accessible taxis. We currently have, I think, around 55 wheelchair accessible taxis in the county. These are a really important service to our disability community. Some issues have been raised around the implementation of the wheelchair accessible taxi sort of infrastructure, specifically the question of whether or not we should begin to consider criteria for a specific wheelchair accessible taxi medallion and also addressing the process and the criteria for taxi or for higher conversions to wheelchair accessible taxis. And then finally, another issue that's been raised is the training standards for new wheelchair accessible taxis.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Herbold, are there any other comments on this resolution that anyone like to make? I'll say a few closing words at the end. Is Councilmember Swan.
Speaker 6: A general remark on the resolution? Yes.
Speaker 1: Yes. Just on a general resolution.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. PRESENTER Terrell, this resolution, as was mentioned, does not implement any new policy or law. It lays out simply lays out a workplan for future discussions about the conditions imposed on drivers by giant companies like Uber. I will be voting yes on it, but I also would like to make some general points about worker organizing in 2018 because I think that's very relevant to what we're talking about here. Uber is a $15 billion multinational corporation that uses its money and power to skirt labor law and to avoid having to pay drivers living wages or basic benefits. They have attempted to deny drivers the right to democratically organize and form a union by calling drivers independent contractors rather than workers. As we all know, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will soon rule on the Seattle D.A. driver collective bargaining ordinance. The court does the right thing and restores the right to democratically organize to D.A. workers. Then unionizing should be the first thing on the movement work plan. If not, I think we need to take the lessons from the inspiring strike of West Virginia teachers only a month ago. West Virginia is one of those states which has the anti-union legislation with the misleading name of Right to Work, which I think really should be called Right to work for less. Teachers in West Virginia could not legally organize a close shop union. They could not legally bargain their contract collectively, and they could not legally go on strike. But as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, whose 50th anniversary of assassination just occurred, said one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. And that is exactly what the West Virginia teachers did. They organized a united strike, shutting down every school in all 55 counties of the state and brought all those striking workers to the state capitol to protest the legislature and the governor. And keep in mind.
Speaker 1: No interruptions, please. No interruptions. That would be disruptive. Thank you very much, ma'am.
Speaker 6: And this nine day wildcat strike was enormously successful because the teachers knew that without their work, the schools could not open. Just like, you know, that without drivers, Uber and Lyft at this moment cannot make their profits. I think these are general lessons that have been taken seriously, not only by teachers in other states like Oklahoma and Kentucky to strike for school funding, but their influence is starting to spread. And I think the whole labor movement and workers as a whole, all of us, workers as a whole, should be taking lessons from what teachers have achieved in West Virginia because they have showed the world that workers have immense power. When we get organized, whether we are drivers, a bus drivers, taxi drivers, teachers, custodial workers, no matter what work we do. And if workers do that, I will, of course, as a working person and as a rank and file member of the labor movement myself, I will stand with you. I do have one message, a friendly message of solidarity to the drivers who have come here under the label of drive forward. I hope you will take that into consideration. I don't think you will agree with me right now, but I would like to convey that friendly message to you. I don't think. And we as workers, whether you agree with us or not at this moment, I don't think we shouldn't be making, which I think is a fatal mistake of thinking that a corporation like Uber or the millionaires and billionaires who run these companies are on your side, or that you will be offered a real choice . I could I could I could make a general point about this. But just very specifically, I wanted to make one point that I think we should all be aware of. From its very inception, the whole ad driver ratio industry, the venture capitalists who have put money in this, they have been wanting to develop driverless drivers or other or in other words, robo cars. They have made more than $1,000,000,000 of investment in this. And the only barrier that stands in front of them is technology, you know. You know, they need safe driverless cars. And there were the recent accident where there was a fatality. And that's why there have been you know, there's been a real barrier for them to do that. But they're not stopping. They're putting all the money, a lot of the money that they're making in profit in order to put you all out of your jobs. So I think. I think that rather than make the fatal mistake of thinking that venture capitalists and CEOs on our side, I think we should all unite as drivers. And you should all be talking to your sisters and brothers who are organizing with the Teamsters because your interests are aligned with theirs, not with the CEO.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilmember Swan. Thank you. I'm going to ask that we show a little we show a little discipline. So. So. So I'm going to ask that we show a little discipline. I know this is emotional for everyone. It seems to me that before we vote on this resolution, that the people that oppose this resolution are saying that they work extremely hard, that they think this would impose a hardship to them, and that they want the free markets to kick in and their hard work to kick in, and they want to make a reasonable wage in order to be free from this kind of regulation. So I get that and I understand that. I also get that the fact that some people may not be making as much money and we've gotten a lot of testimony there that I think is somewhat offensive to think that some of these folks are not hard workers as well, because I know for a fact that some of these people would take these jobs when none of you would take these jobs and these people work extremely hard. So I don't think it's a question of a work ethic. I think that what's happened is, once again, we are a city of innovation and technology has gotten in front of the policies. And so what we are trying to do through this resolution is to look at the data and to try to develop a win win. And to Councilmember Swan's point that many of you who are enjoying somewhat of a fruitful relationship with Uber or Lyft or some of these Rideshares that we don't rely on faith and hope like that. We rely on data and we are prepared, whether it's in the courts or just through working with representatives, to try to find what that data is to come up with something that wins. So we're on this journey together. And I'll tell you, if this was easy, if this was easy, cities would have figured this out by now, which they have not. Okay, so we're working with you. We commit to working with you collaboratively, and hopefully we'll come up with an industry that works for all drivers, riders, TNC companies, and everyone that understands how hard it is in Seattle to get from A to B. So having said that, I'm going to call for a vote. Those in favor of adopting. I'm not going to call for a vote. The substitute motion is still pending. So those in favor of the substitution please say I, I, those opposed say no. The ayes have it. So now I can call on the vote on the substitution. Those in favor of adopting the substitute a resolution. Please vote i i. Those opposed vote no. The resolution carries and is adopted. The chair will sign it. Thank you very much. Now we have the report of the full council. Items three and four.
A RESOLUTION relating to the for-hire transportation industry; establishing a work program for the City Council to review the administrative rules and regulations to improve customer service and lower costs to participants, and to explore ways to ensure equal market access to all participants.