Speaker 0: Where an item number 23. And we'll take that one by itself, I believe. So why don't we read that one into the record?
Speaker 1: Agenda item 23 Accountable 119 684 Relating to taxation imposing a tax on transportation network companies. Committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 0: Okay. And this is the one I believe council members want has some has an amendment. I do have a question on not this amendment, but I can I'll ask Councilman Swan directly. Your amendments are four or four numbers, 23 and 25, but not 24. Correct. Okay. So let's take 23/1. That's been read into the record. And Councilman Swan, would you like to explain your amendment?
Speaker 7: Sure. Do you want me to do that before the description of the bill itself?
Speaker 0: So. Maybe in the bill you could sort of describe it. I wasn't prepared to. It's been sort of described a little bit. Let's see, this is let me look at your amendments. That'll give me a little. She's here. So one was just a simple language change. I think that that was the script, the name of the resolution center. Why don't you just start off with the amendment and I'll sort of chime in after, if you don't mind, because I got to get my notes together here. So let's start with number 23.
Speaker 7: So I would first move the bill to.
Speaker 4: Good guys.
Speaker 0: So the bills.
Speaker 4: It was I mean.
Speaker 7: It moved the amendment, not the bill.
Speaker 0: So cast members in and walk us through what document we are should be looking at I think it's.
Speaker 7: There should be.
Speaker 0: See we have on.
Speaker 7: Your desk that says TNC.
Speaker 0: Yeah so this is the first one is just the description of what we're calling it. Correct. And the second one is more substantive on the addition. So. Okay. So. So it's been moved counts bill 119684 is being moved. We have you should have this I have this this version which basically is section D, I think. Go ahead. Customers who want.
Speaker 7: I'm Amendment one to add a driver solidarity and resource center to the list of acceptable uses of the funds from the TNC ducks.
Speaker 0: Okay. That's the amendment as described as their second. Is there a second.
Speaker 2: Or second tier discussion?
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember O'Brien, second floor discussion. Go ahead, Councilmember. Sure.
Speaker 7: Thank you. As you said, President Harrell correctly, the substantive part of the amendments come into the language of the resolution. That will be item number 25. But since they're all related, I just wanted to speak once and for all and then have the points applied to item number 25 as well.
Speaker 0: Yeah, it's sort of hard. Your First Amendment supports the larger amendment, which is a more comprehensive center. So maybe what we could.
Speaker 7: Yeah, but both amendments are about that.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I understand that. So maybe just from a practical standpoint, what we can do, it's a little unorthodox, but maybe if this has legs, the name should logically change. So maybe we should just get into the substantive one and then come back and vote for the number 23 because.
Speaker 7: I'm okay with that.
Speaker 0: Are you okay?
Speaker 1: You can move to hold this item and then we can move on to item move to hold this item until after consideration of item 25.
Speaker 0: So what I was hoping to do, I can do it that way, but perhaps an easier way is just for Casper and SWAT to describe these two. And then we'll do the pro con or who likes who doesn't. And then after that transparent discussion and we'll just come back and take the votes. That's that may make sense to me at least. But does that. Is that so? Even though number 25 isn't, which is the resolution isn't introduced. We could openly talk about it because it's related to number 23. Okay. AM I'm going to go to Joe. So if I do that, you're get a.
Speaker 1: Sense the similarities but only item 23 stuff for you right now. Okay. Only one before.
Speaker 0: You. Okay. So only 23 is before me. It ties in 25. We're not going to vote on 25, but council members want maybe you could just try the whole concept which in bodies 25 but only 23 is in front of us.
Speaker 7: Yes. Okay. I can do that for sure. I think before going into the substance of my amendments, what it does. So we have item number 23, which is right now in front of us, which is the bill that establishes the the the language for how the proceeds of the tax on Uber and Lyft corporations would be used . And so we already have a possible items for which the tax revenues could be used, like administrative costs related to tax investment, affordable housing, transportation and transit investments. So there's already a, B and C, of course, which all of which I strongly support and I strongly support all the efforts by the Teamsters Union. So first thing, firstly, to clarify, this is not in in conflict with what the d what the Teamsters Union has worked on. This is in addition to soit. So this amendment of that is relevant for item number 23 would add an item D in among the list of uses for potential uses for the revenues of the tax . And that's a driver solidarity and resource center, including a driver resolution center. And the driver resolution center is already in in the original language. And then when we come to item number 25, that's a resolution. That's not the ordinance. That's a resolution to describe all the you know, what kind of eligible uses there would be for the funds generated from the transportation network company tax. And in that, the amendment goes into more detail about what does Solidarity and Resource Center, what kind of services they would provide if if we had such a center. So if I can clarify that and again, moderate, why.
Speaker 0: This. Yes, please do.
Speaker 7: Thank you. First of all, thank you so much to the Teamsters Union, everybody, all the organizers, staff, organizers and the members, both the Seattle and Bass Drivers Association, which is working more directly with the Teamsters and also the Seattle Rideshare Drivers Association, which is also associated with the Bass Drivers Association. And many of the drivers are collaborating among themselves. But there are additional points that the Right Rideshare Drivers Association wants to bring, and this is about that. It is not in any way in antagonism to the point that the Teamsters have already brought up, which we strongly support, my office strongly supports. Also, another thing I want to say at the outset is that as a union member myself and as a strong supporter of the Teamsters Union, I completely and unambiguously resist this about any anti-union sentiment or any anti Teamsters sentiment that has been that may have been brought up by certain individuals. Some of it is all from outright company, a company shills or company spokespeople, lobbyist, and sometimes they are brought up from genuine activists and workers who may have certain doubts or confusions. And I just wanted to assure everybody here and everybody who is watching or listening that this is in no way meant to and is and isn't as of, as a matter of fact, something that is antagonistic to unions. And and, in fact, I want to go even farther than that and say that all throughout history of working class people, not just in the U.S., but around the world, we have seen that without union organizing, there has been nothing that has stood for us . It's literally it's when workers got organized into unions that we were able to win even a modicum of rights in a deeply hostile and exploitative system that we live in, which is capitalism. And unions were built in this country by workers who are organizing before there was a legal right to a union, which means that many of the earliest organizers made tremendous sacrifices, sometimes through life and limb, in order for the right for future generations to have unions. And that's the kind of courage we are we stand on the shoulders of. And so we have to be very, very clear about that. The purpose of this amendment is to support the demand of hundreds of Uber and Lyft drivers for Driver Solidarity and Resource Center. And I want everybody is listening to know that the reason my office and I came to support these demands is after having doctored dozens of the 300 drivers that were reported, you know, who have signed the petition. For this, many of whom over them overwhelmingly are immigrants or even refugees from East Africa, from South Asia, from my home country, India, many of whom face systematic marginalization and oppression in our society. And that the end objective of all of this effort, whether it's what the Teamsters Union brought forward or their solidarities and resource center, all of this, I think we have a shared objective of building the power of rank and file drivers, because that is the only thing building power among the rank and file and building really strong rank and file unions. That is the only thing that can go up against the massive power of this sweatshop on wheels, which is Uber and Lyft corporations. There's nothing, nothing new, nothing innovative about this exploitation. This is old fashioned, good, old fashioned garden variety exploitation of a so-called gig economy workers. And the only thing that we can do to overcome these powerful corporate executives, the venture capitalist and all the other gatherers who have a stake in maintaining these exploitative companies is for workers to get organized and always share that goal. So having said that, the reason I'm bringing this forward is because after having talked to dozens of drivers, I was quite convinced that this is even if we don't I mean, if I don't win this amendment today, which I don't think I will. I wanted to bring this forward as a topic of important discussion. And to accomplish this, it requires these two amendments. So we've discussed it. I've personally talked to dozens of drivers, but between my staff and I, we've probably talked to over 100 Lyft and Uber drivers about their working conditions, needs and concerns. We know that Uber and Lyft have generated, you know, really just incredible amounts of wealth for the top executives and other, you know, the major shareholders and so on. But the drivers, most of the drivers remain in deep and further deepening poverty and continue to do grow desperate. Drivers are struggling to survive economically, especially with the rising cost of housing. Many like healthcare. Some drivers are even living and sleeping inside their vehicles. Others are having trouble paying rent every month. And that is, you know, that's just worsening throughout the region. It's not just Seattle. Even drivers who are living in the southern extremity of King County are also facing that. Many of the drivers were former taxicab drivers who own taxi medallions and owning being. I'm using that term loosely because they run into massive amounts of debt to get a medallion in the first place. They borrowed huge sums of money in order to start their taxi business. And then Uber and Lyft disrupted the paid transportation sector, and the medallions lost nearly all of their value, destroying the hard earned assets of the taxi drivers and throwing many of the drivers into deep debt. Hence the need for suicide prevention and counseling in the Driver Solidarity and Resource Center. There is a strong need to prevent suicide, and the reason is because many of the drivers are stuck in debt. And in fact, I'm sorry to share with you and I already shared with you in earlier budget discussions that when we were when we were organizing for this in the last month and a half in that same period, one of the drivers who is of East African origin actually committed suicide in that time and lost his life. Deeply tragic event that falls directly at the doorstep of the Uber and Lyft corporations. And so I find this a very compelling issue, and I hope that in the coming year we are able to work towards it and make sure that it's not about what we call it. It's not about the name Solidarity and Resource Center, although it's a very apt name. It's about what what the drivers, the what the workers want out of such a resource center. And that is why I mentioned one of those things that they're asking for, which is suicide prevention and counseling, direct, you know, family assistance and support services, multilingual workshops, because many of the drivers are immigrants. English is the second, third or even fourth language for them. They need to be organized to advocate effectively for their rights in dealing with Uber and Lyft, an English language and English classes. Naturalization from immigrant into citizenship also is an important aspect of it because uber misclassified drivers as contractors rather than workers. Drivers are far more complicated taxes as well. And so there are all kinds of barriers and obstacles that the drivers face to have a decent standard of living. And, you know, we don't even imagine those things because as as non Uber drivers, we may not face the same needs. One of the most important issues that the best legislation is needed for is to address the long history that Uber and Lyft have had of arbitrarily firing drivers on. Or as they call it euphemistically, deactivating drivers. Deactivating drivers is nothing but firing without cause. That's what it is. And drivers will tell you they faced this almost on a day to day basis. It is absolutely outrageous. So the driver resolution center that is in the base legislation is intended to address that issue. However, I have a concern that all of that depends on Uber and Lyft agreeing to voluntarily participate in the driver resolution. Same token, I mentioned this before. And these companies do not have a good track record of treating drivers fairly. And I feel that that's a that's a stretch that it will happen. I will be thrilled if the companies are willing, but I also don't think we should assume that it will happen either. So if I drive a resolution center, start overturning the activations, we need to be real about how Uber and Lyft we anticipate will respond . There is one way to actually hold Uber and Lyft accountable, which is do, and that is to truly have the power to stop unfairly activations and to win a living wage. And that is, as I already said, is for drivers to get organized into a powerful union, because Uber and Lyft could not make a penny if the drivers went on strike and refused to drive. And they did that refusal in an organized way until their demands were met. And I'm not raising this as if to say that would be simple. We, many of us who have been in unionizing, driving the labor movement, we know that is one of the hardest things to do. It will take a lot of sacrifice. It will take a lot of community support. But it is worth raising because it is so crucial in building worker power. And also because this has been done in New York State and in New York City. The New York Taxi Drivers Alliance has won historic victories against Uber and Lyft corporations, winning practically the right for the drivers to be considered employees and not contractors. So we're not talking in the abstract. This has this we have examples to follow. We also saw the extremely successful Ab5 bill in California that was just won. So we have tremendous examples that we can build off of, maybe not in every single detail, but the overall model of worker organizing and power building is something that is is going to stand us in good stead. So just to go to a little bit of a specifics in the drivers, all Italian resource center drivers can come together to advocate collectively for their rights within the rideshare industry and get services including the legal support, training and community organizing to challenge driver deactivation. It will help them get organized because they will come and talk to each other over there and, you know, build your own power membership, meeting space for these organizing meetings, multilingual workshops, tax and financial training, voter registration and voter rights training, immigration and Naturalization Assistance, which I can tell you as an immigrant myself that you absolutely need that in order to make sure that you are not falling into some sort of bad situation. Driver Family Assistance and support services, counseling and mental health care, as I said, suicide prevention, English language meeting. So all of this is sort of encompassed in the idea of a solidarity and resource center. And that's why, as I said, even if this amendment doesn't pass today, I hope I look forward to the new council working together in making sure that these needs are fully incorporated in the uses for the revenues from the tax collection. And also one more thing I wanted to say. I mean, just as a testament to how wonderful leader drivers of organizing, how much courage it has required on their part because they are some of the most marginalized sisters and brothers. We have the Right Shirt Drivers Association. You know, in 2014 they really began their organizing under the Egis of the Teamsters, and they organized a strike against unfair deactivation and low wages. And I was there that day when they were courageously throwing their phones into a cardboard box that that was their strike, because the phone is where the app you reach the app to be a driver. And it took incredible courage. And I'll never forget that moment when all the drivers were throwing the phones into the boxes. And I want you to recognize Omar Mumin and Abdi Chau, who are part of the leadership of that alongside the Teamsters. And I wanted to hold up the sign. The sign has been hanging in my office since 2014, and it's a testament to how long the drivers have been organizing. And and I and I bring this up to point out that organizing works, fighting back works, because we wouldn't be here today with this bill in front of us if the drivers and the union hadn't taken those steps five years ago. And just to clarify, as I said, the budget amendment does not say anything specific about how much money should be allocated to this Solidarity and resource center. Instead, it merely includes the center at Indy approved list of uses for DNC tax revenues. And that will be in the resolution. So I will stop there. But in conclusion, really reiterate my hope that the Teamsters Union, the King County Labor Council, the rank and file drivers and progressives on the city council that we can really fight to make sure that the drivers have their fully full rights guaranteed in the next year or so.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council members want we have amendment on the table that's been moved in second and I'll have some discussion. I don't want to. I'll go first off if others don't want to go first. First of all, I appreciate all of the comments and there's nothing in the resolution that by any stretch of the imagination is bad . It's all really good stuff. During the conversations on the base legislation, I talked about the name the first. We're on item 23, which really just changes the name Drivers Resolution Center for me. It should be more than that. And while Solidarity and Resource Center doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. The point being is I certainly would be receptive to a name that really talks about solidarity and empowerment and resources. And so I think that we're on to something there. Here's the challenge I have with the amendment and is why I will not support it at this time is number one. And what's likely to happen next year is the spending plan will have to come back to the council. It'll be more granular. We'll have data. The after labor standards will have gotten more information from the drivers and from customers and from the projections from the finance folks who know what kind of money we've generated. And there will be likely a supplemental budget or another ordinance in place. And it would seem to me that the primary thrust of the resolution center are that first resolving port deactivation. That's the first. That's the focus. And then what I had the language I had originally had come up with that got stricken by. We got some input from law and some other editors was retooling of drivers because at the end of the day we wanted them to have good jobs and if they didn't have good jobs to help them get good or even better jobs. And from that, we looked at it having an opportunity to both organize and have them have a stronger ability to do greater things for their lives and for their their families. But my concern at this point is whether we are losing focus on the sort of the competency of the center, number one. But number two, we've had to sort of look at this legislation during the budget process. That's been real tough. It's there's several components to it. And I just think, again, a next year that a council will sit down and talk to all of the drivers, get feedback and really make sure that we're investing the way consistent with what the all of the constituents are saying. It's a very sort of it's a tough constituent base because you certainly can't please anyone in this world of tenses. I've found that out. So I'm just wondering if it's a little premature at this point to be as granular in the approach. And that's pretty much my objection to it, not for what's what's in there. The other, I guess point I would make is that all of these components of the amendments, multilingual workshops, tax and financial training, voter registration, etc.. Again, all outstanding investments. And we are sort of creating these great services for a subset of the of our population drivers. And I'm where the question I would have is whether this great enriched work is better served in looking at what other groups and demographics outside of just the drivers circle we may want to support if we are to invest in that kind of center. So again, I do not oppose this approach. In fact, it's all really good stuff. I just wonder at this stage of the legislation whether we should be that granular. And as you may recall, the language we did approve during the budget process sort of talked about an organization with a proven commitment to workers rights and experience in providing resources to drivers and contractors and workers, particularly with cultural competencies, competencies with disadvantaged groups and disadvantaged socioeconomic groups. And so I think we were trying to head in that direction this year in hopes that we could be a little more granular next year. So those are reasons why I'm not supporting the amendment, but I want to thank Councilmember Swan for bringing it forward during the budget process. Any other comments or questions? We're just voting on 23, by the way, although we're talking about 25. I'll just stop there and see if anyone else raised her hand. We can't remember her.
Speaker 5: But I'm just to reorient myself. You just said we're just voting on 23.
Speaker 0: Not well or. Yeah, because we haven't even gotten to 2420. Councilman Swan basically described and I asked her to describe number. 23 and number 25, but we haven't read 25 into the record. But I've we're sort of talking about 25. 23 is a name change of 25, the substance of what she's presenting. That's why I said.
Speaker 5: If we are intending to speak to the amendment, when is the appropriate time to do that now? Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 7: Just to clarify, clarify, I'm non if this amendment for item number 23 doesn't pass and I'm not planning to bring forward the amendment for item number 25 because that it doesn't make sense. But if you don't mind, personnel, I would like a few closing remarks.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. Absolutely. Because her role did you it was ask your question is you.
Speaker 5: Have a question.
Speaker 0: Okay. So now will be the time to talk about 25, although it's not read into the record as it relates to the name change. I'm trying to squeeze that somehow. So yes.
Speaker 5: So I do see this amendment as broader than a name change and I certainly.
Speaker 4: Support.
Speaker 5: Its objectives as I understand the process going forward is that we as the Council will be briefed on the components of an RFP before it goes out. And I want to thank you, Council President, for reminding me of legislative language that is actually in the ordinance or the are. Well, right now it's a council bill. I hope hopefully will be an ordinance soon. But language in the council bill itself, that gives, I think, some good direction to the executive of what we would like to see coming back before an RFP goes out. And it specifically says that we would like a driver resolution center to consider contractual partnerships among entities to achieve the direct participation of organizations primarily focused on diversity and advocating for the civil and economic rights of workers from disadvantaged socioeconomic groups. So for me, that language. Uplifts the council's intent for a driver resolution center. And I think it sends a strong message that we want a entity that is bidding on the funding for the center to do more than simply resolve employer employee conflict complaints. And so I'm comfortable with this direction and am supporting this language and not the amended language to the or the amendment to the resolution.
Speaker 0: Thanks, Herbert Council Member O'Brien. Did you have some comments you like to make?
Speaker 2: I did. Thank you all. And I reiterate some of the comments that I've heard from others, but I fully support. And Councilmember Swan, I think you're absolutely right on the direction that this work needs to go. I'm not going to support this amendment because frankly, as Council President Harrell said, the timing of this, not the amendment, frankly , but the timing of this work coming to the council and the work required and the outreach required to do this properly. I think I haven't had that time during the budget to do that, but I do believe there will be opportunities in the New Year to do that work. I think that what's critically important going forward as we transition from this phase where legislation was drafted and introduced and started to be publicized during a very busy budget season and turn into a process that it will hopefully be a much more transparent and inclusive process where where people can engage thoughtfully in how they want to see this work move forward, that it's going to be incumbent upon the council next year to be making sure that that process is open to everyone and transparent. I've been aware for a number of months that this work was happening here at City Hall, but frankly, as a council member, I was not part of those discussions and was largely in the dark, and that's as a council member. I can only imagine how it felt to be a driver knowing that conversations were happening about your future and you're not participating in those conversations, let alone being even aware of where that happens. And when those when actions like that happen, it breeds a lot of mistrust. And I will say that the people that were party to that I understand why the conversations happened the way they did. I don't believe anyone is intending to undermine anyone else's interests. But there's an opportunity that I think the city needs to lead on in the new year, which is opportunity to bring the drivers together in a very transparent and inclusive way to understand their concerns. There's a lot of different drivers out there with a lot of different backgrounds and a lot of different interests. And those interests aren't always exactly aligned. But in my number of years of working with the drivers, what I know is that they're a dedicated, passionate group who can build consensus and work together to find a way to make this move forward to benefit all drivers. And if we fail at that and the drivers do not have the trust of each other, unfortunately, the folks who will continue to make money and exploit them will be the big corporations that are doing so today. And so it's in all of our interests to figure out, to do that hard work, to get folks coming together . And Councilmember Swan, I think the language in here goes a long way to indicating that. I just have some concerns about the specific wording and how it's used and would prefer, since this is really just largely a resolution to say what the council is going to do next year to see what I hope the council does next year, but not vote yes on this resolution or the other name change. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Brian, before council members want closer debate on her proposal there, any other questions or comments from anyone our customers want? You want to close this out?
Speaker 7: Yes. Firstly, on your point, President Harrell and.
Speaker 4: Fully I mean, I.
Speaker 7: Didn't exactly understand, but I think your point about what can we have a broader impact, a broader community impact than just drivers? First of all, I just want to point out that the drivers come from marginalized communities themselves. So whatever we do to directly help the drivers also helps their families and their children and their spouses. And they are all part of a deeply marginalized community. So I honestly would not worry about that in any way. Also, I would say that in the New Year, when we think about revenues for this tax, we have to and I hope the new council will have the courage to do this, because the voters have certainly given us their mandate that we will have the courage to not do the business as usual of pitting Peter to, you know, robbing Peter to pay Paul and pitting various needs against one another, because which is a direct result of a lack of political courage to really aggressively go for progressive revenues of different kinds. So rather than posing the question of can we have a broader use of revenues from the TNC tax, I would much rather pose it as can we make sure that their drivers and their families get the maximum benefit out of the TNC tax? And can we also browse the Amazon tax? Can we also pass impact fees on corporate developers? And can we also post vacancy fees? And can we also make sure that every that no stone is left unturned in raising progressive revenue so that we don't say, well, are there other communities that need to be supported? Because, frankly, the vast majority of social needs in our city and region are not being supported at this moment. The other thing I wanted to say, just to echo other Councilmember Arun made a very important point, which is that I think all organizers on the ground have an obligation to make sure that we prioritize unity and power building among the drivers, and that that obligation lies with me as a councilmember. I take that responsibility seriously. And as a union member, I will say that responsibility lies on union organizers also. We all have to take that responsibility seriously. And I think we all understand the way the balance of forces work that if drivers are not brought together and don't work in a strong united fashion, then those entities that end up benefiting is not the union, but it's Uber and Lyft Corporation. And so I really appreciate this allows me to lift up an important point that came up during the organizing that both the drivers who are primarily organizing with the app based drivers association and the drivers who are primarily organizing under the banner of the Rideshare Association have actually themselves put an emphasis on their own unity regardless of what anybody else is doing, and that I wanted to appreciate. And so in addition to thanking brothers, Omar and Abdullah also wanted to thank Brothers Don Cleary, Peter, Cool and Latoya, Ammad and also Sister Julie Davis, who've all really well, I mean, we may not all be on the same page on every last thing, but we are clearly on the same page that workers, drivers need to be united. And that gives me a lot of hope and I look forward to the next year. And just last but not least, as far as the specific wording, I honestly don't think that the wording we've brought forward is specific. It's very general and these are all needs that we clearly know the community has. I don't think there's anything controversial in that. I hope that in the new year we will see driver needs being prioritized. But my message is also for my sisters and brothers who are drivers, that we are not going to win any of that unless we keep getting organized and we keep building unity and building power among ourselves to.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we have an amendment on item number 23. It's been moved in a second and I'm going to take a vote just on the amendment, not on the base bill. Okay. So we're just voting on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment. Please vote I and raise your hand.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 0: Okay. All those opposed. Say no and raise your hand. No, no, no. So the amendment fails, but the base legislation is still intact. And now we can vote on the best base legislation. So please call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 119684.
Speaker 1: Pacheco I saw what.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 1: Saw. Gonzalez Purple. Juarez Mascara. O'Brien President.
Speaker 0: Harrell All right.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed. Sure. Sign it. Please call. Please read it. You're not number 24 and into the record.
AN ORDINANCE relating to taxation; imposing a tax on transportation network companies; adding a new Chapter 5.39 to the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Sections 5.30.010, 5.30.060, 5.55.010, 5.55.040, 5.55.060, 5.55.150, 5.55.165, 5.55.220, and 5.55.230 of the Seattle Municipal Code.