Quantcast

Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Citizens Union
Loading

CITY

City

Stated Meeting: Clearing the Way for Open Grills


Photo (cc)i_follow

Window shoppers and graffiti artists have been put on alert.

After July 2011, no business owner can purchase an opaque, security grill in the five boroughs and will have to opt for transparent security gates instead. By 2026, all businesses will have to comply with the new gates. Approved by the City Council on Monday, the ban, which has been nearly four years in the making, will deter vandalism and allow passersby to window shop all night long, according to the bill's supporters.

Also on Monday, the council approved legislation that requires abatement and demolition procedures be conducted separately -- the council's final response to the Deutsche Bank fire in 2007.

Graffiti be Gone

Flash forward to 2026, said the bill's (Intro 138-A) sponsor Peter Vallone Jr. of Queens, and not a single opaque grill will exist in the five boroughs. The security devices normally seen barricading small businesses, including pharmacies, pet stores and boutiques, will be extinct.

In their place will be openwork gates less vulnerable to the blast of a spray paint can. The gates typically cost approximately $400 more than an opaque version, said council officials.

Under the legislation, any business replacing a security gate after July 2011 must install one that leaves more than 70 percent of the area visible. The regulation will apply to thousands of small businesses throughout the city, including banks, beauty salons, copy shops, retail stores and department stores. The bill was approved by a vote of 45 to 0 with one abstention from newly minted Councilmember Ydanis Rodriguez.

"Our streets will no longer look like a graffiti strewn war zone after closing time," said Vallone, who initially proposed the bill to take effect immediately. It was revised to address the financial burden put on small businesses, said officials.

To ensure business owners are aware of the new regulations, the Department of Buildings, which will oversee the law's implementation, must institute an outreach campaign in coordination with other city agencies.

If business owners do not comply, they will be fined $250 for the first violation and no more than $1,000 for each subsequent violation.

Demolition Done Alone

The Deutsche Bank fire of 2007, which killed two firefighters, may have been started by a cigarette.

But the City Council is not taking any chances.

That's why the council approved a bill Monday (Intro 998-A) that would ban the simultaneous demolition of a building and abatement to remove immediate hazards at the site -- the circumstances surrounding the Deutsche Bank blaze. In buildings where abatement is considered an emergency and a necessity, the city's Department of Environmental Protection can issue a waiver.

"Until this bill gets passed, you were allowed, almost as a matter of course, to do demolition and asbestos abatement at the same time," said Council Speaker Christine Quinn. "We are now saying the standard is, 'No, you can't do them both at the same time.'"

Quinn said the two practices are inherently a safety hazard. Abatement often entails plastic sheeting, which is combustible, over contaminated spaces, while demolition often includes the use of hot tools.

The bill is the last in a package that was approved in response to the Deutsche Bank fire. Other bills include requirements for color-coding standpipe and sprinkler systems and air pressurized systems, which ensure standpipes are not inadvertantly dismantled.

This bill was approved by a vote of 45 to 0 with one abstention from Rodriquez.

Busting Backflow

The council also passed legislation (Intro 935) which will require property owners whose buildings are at risk of backflow -- the process where water in a plumbing system flows in the wrong direction, effectively sending used water back into peoples' faucets -- to verify with the Department of Environmental Protection that they have installed backflow prevention devices.

Backflow can occur, said council officials, when water pressures are different inside and outside of the building. Such pressure differences can be caused by elevation or boilers as well as improper plumbing connections, and they can result in the contamination of the building's water supply.

Similar legislation exists on the state level, said Councilmember Jim Gennaro, the bill's main sponsor, but it has received lax enforcement. The city's bill will require certified professionals to submit plans proving backflow prevention has been installed and is up to agency standards.

The Fight over Paid Sick Leave


Photo (cc) The Suss-Man

With the swine flu fears raging and the seasonal flu supposedly on its way, the City Council this week will take up a measure that its proponent hope will keep New Yorkers healthier in the face of these illnesses. The bill would require that all employers in the city - profit and nonprofit -- offer paid sick days to their employees.

The measure has mobilized forces on both sides of the issue. Some labor groups tout it as a top priority for protecting public health, while organizations representing businesses in the city adamantly oppose adding what they see as a costly burden in the midst of a recession.

Our coverage of the debate follows.

The Council Bill

Paid Sick Day Would Help Workers and Business -- Amy Traub, Drum Major Institute

Why Business Cannot Afford It -- Carl Hum, Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce, ob behalf of the 5 Boro Alliance

The Council Bill

The bill, Intro 1059, sponsored by Councilmember Gale Brewer holds that "providing workers time off to attend to their own health care and the health care of family members will ensure a healthier and more productive work force in New York City." It would give workers at small businesses up to five days of sick leave a year and those working for larger places, nine. Workers could use the days to care for a sick child or other relative and, in the case of domestic violence victims, to get counseling. Employees could also use the time if the city shuts their child's school for a health emergency -- such as a swine flu outbreak.

So far 38 of the council's 51 members have signed on in support -- far more than a majority and more than the number needed to override a veto by the mayor should there be one. The bill is a high priority for the Working Families Party, which played a key role in the election of several new City Council members this fall.

The measure, though, is not assured of passage. City Council Speaker Christine Quinn has not yet said whether she supports the measure, according to a spokesperson. In the past Quinn has not allowed legislation she did not support to even come to a vote. Whether the results of this week's elections and grumbling in the council about her leadership have made Quinn more accommodating remains to be seen.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg also has not announced his position on this specific bill. At a Working Families Party forum in July he reportedly endorsed paid sick days for people who worked for large companies, although he said he had concerns about what effect requiring paid sick leave might have on smaller businesses. That statement came as Bloomberg was wooing the Working Families Party, hoping for its support for his re-election campaign. (He didn't get it.)

A spokesman for the mayor said Friday that Bloomberg still supports requiring large employers to provide sick days but has questions about the effects such a law could have on smaller businesses.

The action here parallels steps now under consideration in Washington and in other states and cities. Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut has proposed emergency legislation that would provide six paid sick days for people diagnosed with H1N1. A national Healthy Families Act would give workers an hour of sick leave for every 30 hours worked. The Obama administration has announced its supportfor the legislation.

While an overwhelming percentage -- almost 90 -- of state and local government workers have paid sick leave, only about 60 percent of workers in the private sector do. In general, according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics report, the likelihood of a worker having sick leave correlates with his or her wages. While only 22 percent of workers whose wages rank in the lowest 10 percent can call in sick and still get paid, 88 percent of those earning in the top 10 percent can.

In New York City, the number of low-income workers without sick leave has increased, according to a Community Service Society study. It found that only a third of workers in households earning $18,000 to $36,000 a year now have paid sick leave, compared to 56 percent of those workers in 2007. Low-income Latino workers are the New Yorkers least likely to have paid sick days.

Since many low-income workers cannot afford to do without their paychecks, some probably go to work sick, prompting concerns that they could spread swine flu and other diseases. Opponents say the measure would be costly and that the number of workers forced to go to their jobs when ill, particularly when suffering from a contagious disease like the flu, has been exaggerated.

Arguments for and against the bill appear below.

Paid Sick Days Boost the Health of Workers and Businesses

By Amy Traub

As he celebrated his re-election victory, Mayor Michael Bloomberg vowed to pursue a bold policy agenda in his third term. Among many campaign promises, the mayor pledged to "extend the most ambitious public health agenda in the country … taking the best ideas, no matter where they come from." One place Bloomberg should look for good ideas is San Francisco, a city that has taken great strides in addressing a public health problem New York has only begun to consider: the widespread lack of paid sick time.

Replicating San Francisco's landmark policy of guaranteeing earned paid sick days to all employees would enable working New Yorkers to take better care of their own health and that of their families, improve workplace productivity, and potentially help prevent outbreaks of the H1N1 virus and other infectious diseases.

San Francisco's track record demonstrates that the policy does not negatively affect employment or business performance. Despite early concerns about the law, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce has affirmed that "we really have not heard much about it being a major issue for a lot of businesses."

After all, thousands of workers are now healthier, more productive, and more secure in their employment. The Earned Paid Sick Time bill currently before the New York City Council would bring San Francisco's remarkable success here.

New York City's Bureau of Communicable Disease has translated a brochure advising city residents to "stay home when you are sick," into 14 languages. But for a growing number of city residents, that public health message is beside the point. That is because as many as 1.85 million working New Yorkers do not have a single paid sick day, according to an alarming new survey by the Community Service Society of New York. They are disproportionately low-income workers -- those who can least afford to miss a paycheck. So when they or their children become ill, they are forced to make a wrenching choice between health and well-being and the need to pay rent. Some even fear that they’ll be fired or otherwise penalized for taking unpaid time off.

It is no surprise that the Community Service Society found that workers without paid sick days are more likely to go to work when they are ill and send their kids to school sick. This is the opposite of what public health agencies advise. When these employees don't take time off, their illnesses may become worse, and they may spread infectious disease like the H1N1 virus or the seasonal flu to coworkers, customers and clients -- not to mention their fellow commuters sharing crowded subway cars, buses and sidewalks. Not yet convinced that this is a public health threat? Consider the fact that the workers handling food in the city’s restaurants are among those least likely to have paid sick days.

Most of the world’s nations have national policies guaranteeing employees paid time off when they get sick, but in the United States this reform is still at the city level. In the most significant advance in this country to date, voters in San Francisco in 2006 approved a ballot initiative guaranteeing that every person working within city limits receive paid sick time, including temporary and part-time employees.

The broad outlines of San Francisco’s successful law are the same as the bill proposed in New York: Employees earn one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours they work. Workers can amass a maximum of 72 hours (the equivalent of nine full-time days) of paid sick time in a year. Because policymakers recognize that small businesses face greater challenges filling in for absent workers, companies with fewer than 10 employees are required to provide only 40 hours of paid sick time in a year.

In both cities, employees can use the paid leave to recover from a personal illness or injury, seek medical care or provide care for a relative (including domestic partners). In New York, employees may also use the leave if their workplace or their child’s school has been closed by the authorities due to a public health emergency. Victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse can use the time to get counseling, obtain services or seek relocation.

Concerned business owners should pay special attention the law’s positive impact in San Francisco. Before San Francisco’s paid sick leave ordinance was passed, businesses -- especially representatives of the restaurant industry, where paid sick time was rare -- claimed that the law would harm their bottom line and force them to lay off workers. But in the year after the law was implemented, job growth in San Francisco remained strong relative to surrounding counties that lacked similar legislation. In fact, employment in the restaurant and hospitality industries grew at an even faster rate than it had the year before.

This is consistent with international research suggesting that paid sick days do not increase unemployment. It is no surprise, then, that the Golden Gate Restaurant Association ultimately described the law as successful. A recent employer survey conducted by the Urban Institute sustains this conclusion: Most employers reported no more than a minor impact on their bottom line.

New York’s paid sick days law will cost employers just 21 cents per hour worked for each employee, and only 15 cents per hour for small businesses. And these estimates do not capture the other significant benefits to companies in terms of improved employee retention, increased productivity from a healthier workforce, and reduced spread of disease on the job.

Other business concerns have been extensively addressed in New York’s legislation. The bill includes provisions ensuring that employees don't misuse their sick time, even though the best research available indicates that employee abuse is rare. In fact, half of all workers with paid sick time do not take any days off for illness in a given year. Employers that already offer equivalent paid time off or vacation time don't need to change their policies.

The success of San Francisco’s paid sick time law has already inspired nearly three quarters of the New York City Council, led by Councilmember Gale Brewer, to co-sponsor the New York bill. Now Bloomberg, who already expressed cautious support for paid sick days at a forum over the summer, should commit to signing it. It is the next logical step in New York's ambitious public health agenda and it would enable the city to lead the way to much-needed national legislation.

Amy Traub is director of research at the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy in Manhattan.

A Measure Business Cannot Afford

By Carl Hum

It is rare when a diverse array of business owners, entrepreneurs, not-for-profit organizations, trade groups, chambers of commerce and other organizations that are committed to providing goods, services, and jobs throughout the five boroughs come together united against a proposed bill. The legislation in question is Intro 1059 that will mandate businesses -- both for-profit and non-profit, and regardless of size -- to provide paid sick time to full- and part-time employees.

While Intro 1059 is no doubt well-intentioned, it simply does not take into account the day-to-day costs and challenges of doing business and creating and maintaining jobs in New York City. In response to the biggest economic crisis since the 1930s, many businesses, big and small, have already cut overhead, payroll and services. Add to that increased taxes (including the new mobility tax on payrolls to support the cash-poor Metropolitan Transportation Authority), increased water and electricity rates, and additional fines and fees, and it becomes clear why New York City is renowned for being a difficult and costly place to do business.

Despite this, the business community continues to press forward -- even now during what is being called the Great Recession -- by providing needed jobs and contributing to the New York’s tax base. Meeting the requirements of Intro 1059 will force business owners and organizations to reconsider adding new employees, increasing wages or even extending additional benefits. This assumes, of course, that these businesses can even survive these tough economic times.

Proponents of the bill have cited the relatively low per-employee cost of implementing paid sick leave as contemplated by this bill at less than $10 per week depending on the size of the business. Now, assuming that the figures proffered by the Community Service Societyindicating that as many as 1.85 million workers do not have paid sick leave are accurate, Intro No 1059 will cost New York City businesses a minimum of $684 million to enact.

And beyond the millions Intro 1059 will add to the cost of doing business, numerous regulatory requirements included in the bill will make operating a company in the New York City a legal and logistical nightmare.

For example, in addition to disregarding size, revenues or the nature of a business, the proposed legislation does not include any guidance or provisions for businesses with multiple offices headquartered in or out of New York City; it leaves employers vulnerable to employees who can use the legislation to avoid legitimate disciplinary actions; and, by broadening the traditional definition of sick time, which this bill does, businesses will now be mandated to pay for absences not covered in many generally accepted sick leave policies. At the end of the day, Intro 1059 will put New York City businesses at a distinct competitive disadvantage with other cities and states (including, for that matter, other cities within the state).

Over the past several weeks, proponents of the bill have showcased many unfortunate workers who have either been fired or reprimanded for taking a sick day, or were too frightened to take a sick day in fear of losing their job. There is no doubt that in a city as large as ours that these stories exist and will continue to exist. However, let’s address the bad actors on a case-by-case basis through creative, alternative means, such as enabling the Human Rights Commission to hear such complaints, rather than enacting a one-size-fits-all law that will end up compromising the competitiveness of our business community.

Let’s be clear, the business community is not opposed to employees being entitled to paid sick time. In fact, a healthy, committed workforce is what successful businesses and organizations are built upon. What the business community opposes is a mandate that deprives it of the ability to be flexible in the midst of the worst fiscal crisis our nation has faced since the Great Depression. This broad stroke approach neglects the diversity of New York City’s business community, its varying needs and strategies for creating and maintaining jobs.

Carl Hum is president and CEO of the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce. He is writing on behalf of the 5 Boro Alliance, a coalition of the Brooklyn, Bronx, Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island Chambers of Commerce created to express their collective membership’s strong opposition to the New York City Council’s proposed sick time bill (Intro No 1059).

Bloomberg and Quinn: Chapter 2


A week after besting an unsuspecting comptroller by a narrow 50,000 votes, according to preliminary results, Mayor Michael Bloomberg may now have bigger things to worry about.

Come January, the so-called wounded mayor could face a drastically different City Council -- one that members say will be not only be more progressive, but also more aggressive.

With 13 new members, the 2010 City Council class, armed with Tuesday's general election results and fueled by anti-term limit extension rhetoric that dominated many of their campaigns, could bring more bite than Bloomberg bargained for. Members old and new are promising to turn the council from what critics say is a rubber stamp into the check that it's meant to be.

"It was certainly not a mandate, and hopefully this will empower and embolden a new City Council and the leadership that reflects that," said Councilmember Letitia James of Brooklyn of last week's results.

The question remains whether Council Speaker Christine Quinn, a longtime Bloomberg ally, can survive the council's overhaul and if the issues and positions that dominate 2010 will reflect some council members more combative approach.

Four More Years

For some of the past four years, the City Council has been marred with claims of complacency and controversy. Quinn shepherded through an unpopular approval of congestion pricing and spearheaded the divisive extension of term limits -- both votes, critics say, were done at Bloomberg's behest. In the past, members have accused the speaker of bottling up legislation, despite having dozens of sponsors at the council.

Quinn was weakened by the now-notorious slush fund scandal and, more recently, angered members by delaying a late and tepid endorsement of Democratic mayoral candidate Bill Thompson. All the while, Quinn's relationship with Bloomberg has been seen as extremely amicable.

Tuesday's results were not only a message to the administration, say new and incumbent members of the City Council, but also a directive to the City Council to trade in its roses for thorns.

"The results were very clear on Tuesday that there is a great level of dissatisfaction with the status quo," said Councilmember Melissa Mark-Viverito, who ran unopposed last week for a second term and was a Thompson supporter. "I think that’s a mandate for us to be more vocal on the issues that people want to be vocal on," she added.

Some members question (for the most part behind the scenes) whether Quinn is the right person to lead that team.

"I am going to be supportive of whoever is interested in really being that countermeasure," said Mark-Viverito.

Quinn argues she is. Saying she is "extraordinarily confident she will be re-elected speaker with little to no opposition," Quinn cites successfully standing up against the mayor's proposal to close firehouses earlier this year as an example of her independence. But as other Democratic members of the City Council say last week's margin of victory represents a call to arms against the administration, the speaker attributes the results to voter dissatisfaction with the economy.

When asked by Gotham Gazette if she would stand up to the administration more in a third term, Quinn said, "Fighting for the sake of fighting, that's not going to get anyone a job."

"When we can't agree, " she added, "we are going to hold firm to our principles just like we did in the first term."

If you take a look at the legislative record, the council and the mayor have only sporadically disagreed in the last four years. Under Quinn, the council overrode nine mayoral vetoes -- averaging about two a year. Her predecessor, who was also a candidate for mayor while speaker, jumped at the chance to oppose Bloomberg, leading the council in overriding the mayor at least 40 times.

There is no question, said Baruch College's School of Public Affairs Dean David Birdsell, that Quinn's tact has been more conciliatory than her predecessor's, Gifford Miller. Given Tuesday's results, that approach might pose a challenge for her now.

"When the animosity pumps up and the benefits erode you're going to have more direct opposition to the mayor and more vigorous opposition to the mayor," said Birdsell. "It does pose a political problem for her own caucus."

Birdsell said he would be "really surprised" if Quinn did not see a challenge to her leadership now.

On the other hand, some of Quinn's veteran colleagues argue the council will be stronger in a new term with Quinn holding the reins.

"Any leader is always feeling the pulse of the members," said Councilmember Robert Jackson, who said he supports a second stint as speaker for Quinn. "No one," he added, "wants a coup."

The Freshman Class

Some of the council's new members, however, are not ready to commit to another term with Quinn.

Like Daniel Dromm, who beat incumbent city Councilmember Helen Sears in district 25 in Queens in September's primary.

"You're definitely going to see a much more independent council and much more progressive council, fighting for the issues that have not been brought to the table before," said Dromm. Issues like requiring businesses to provide paid sick leave, he added.

"I have not made a 100 percent commitment to her," Dromm said of Quinn. But, "my response to a lot of that is who is the other candidate?"

Newly minted Councilmember-elect Ydanis Rodriguez of Washington Heights also declined to say whether he supported Quinn's candidacy for a second term as speaker.

Many of these new members, which include several activists and public school teachers, are expected to push the council more to the left and put forward an agenda that is likely to challenge the mayor more than the one seen under Quinn. Some of the council's new members are already committing to getting paid sick leave approved and are requiring more say at the Department of Education. For instance, Dromm, a public school teacher, said he wants to see less of a focus on testing at the Department of Education and more accountability to parents.

Adopting lines from the Thompson campaign, some incumbents, including Councilmember Leroy Comrie, the deputy majority leader, say the council is ready to take on more aggressive policies to curb the city's cost of living and bail out the middle class.

Stepping Up to the Plate

Despite the call for a more anti-Bloomberg council, most agree that Quinn will likely end up winning another term as speaker. Some say it's because members value her leadership style, while others say it's, in part, because no one with widespread support is willing to challenge her. Although Councilmember Charles Barron announced last week he would step up to the plate, it is unlikely (given his often divisive stance) he could garner a majority.

Among the names some have floated is Inez Dickens, a popular councilmember from Harlem. According to a staff member, Dickens is not running for speaker.

Some political observers say what's important to them is not who is in charge on the east side of City Hall, but what issues they bring up. For some of Thompson's most vigilant supporters, they are hoping the council adopts their candidate's platform, and some are happy to see Quinn be the one to do it.

"Is she willing to challenge the mayor to achieve it?" asked Arthur Cheliotes, president of the CWA Local 1180, of Quinn's candidacy for speaker. "I'll give her the benefit of the doubt, I think she can."

"We’ll be expecting it," said Cheliotes. "More than expecting it, we'll be demanding it."



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: Defeated on Con Con, Gerald Benjamin Plots His Next Move Defeated on Con Con, Gerald Benjamin Plots His Next Move Gotham Gazette: Possible GOP Gubernatorial Candidates Weigh Chances to Unseat Cuomo Possible GOP Gubernatorial Candidates Weigh Chances to Unseat Cuomo Gotham Gazette: Max & Murphy Podcast: Previewing De Blasio's Second Term Max & Murphy Podcast: Previewing De Blasio's Second Term Gotham Gazette: City Council Speaker Candidates Address Power, Reform and Transparency City Council Speaker Candidates Address Power, Reform and Transparency


Comments
Comment(s)

The comments section is provided as a free service to our readers. Gotham Gazette's editors reserve the right to delete any comments. Some reasons why comments might get deleted: inappropriate or offensive content, off-topic remarks or spam.