Employment Advisory Committee Meetings
EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE
MINUTES
April 1, 2004
Members Present
Commissioner Vernon Grigg, Bridgett Brown, Leo Chyi, Rodney Hampton, Jerry Jones, Greg Marutani, Guillermo Romero, Judy Starbuck Sorro, Norma Tecson, Len Vetrone, and F. Ross Woodall.
Members Absent
Commissioner Larry Lee and Stan Warren
Staff Present
Linda Chin, Kabir Hypolite, Mary Gin Starkweather, Frank Anderson, Larry Brinkin, Ed Campos, Emil De Guzman, Bayard Fong, Hadas Rivera-Weiss, Mary Tramil
Guests
Selena Wong, District Administrator, Department of Fair Employment and Housing
Call to Order/ Roll Call
Acting Chair Jerry Jones called the meeting to order at 1:35 PM. A quorum was present.
Adoption of Agenda
F. Ross Woodall moved to adopt the agenda. Len Vetrone seconded and the motion was carried unanimously with no discussion.
Adoption of Minutes of February 5, 2004 and March 4, 2004
Judy Starbuck Sorro moved to adopt both sets of the minutes and Len Vetrone seconded. Both sets of minutes were unanimously adopted.
Report of the Chair
No Report
Staff Report
No report
New Business
1) Presentation on the State of California Department of Fair Employment and Housing – Selena Wong, District Administrator, DFEH
A large amount of the Human Rights Commission’s work is the resolution of complaints of discrimination in employment. The Commission staff works closely with both the State and federal agencies in order to assist complainants and ensure that their rights are secured. The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) accepts, investigates, conciliates and makes determinations on complaints of discrimination on behalf of the State of California.
In 1959 Governor Edmond G. (Pat) Brown signed legislation which formed the 5 member Division of Fair Employment Practices. Discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, ancestry and religion was prohibited. In 1970 the act was amended to include protection on the basis of sex and age (40-64). Between1974 and 1979, physical handicap, medical condition, marriage status, violence or threat (Hate crime) and pregnancy were added. Also the upper age limit of 64 years was eliminated. In 1979 the Division became the Fair Employment and Housing Commission. In 1993, in order to conform to the Americans with Disability Act, "physical handicap" was changed to "disability" and persons who were HIV+ or who were living with AIDS were also protected. In 1994, sexual harassment and gender was added and in 1995, in response to the federal Family Medical Leave Act, California adopted the California Family Rights Act. In 2000, sexual orientation, actual or perceived gender identity (transgender), as well and genetic characteristics under Medical Condition, were added.
In response to a number of court cases over the years, the California legislature enacted laws which covered the following issues: 1) a company cannot lay people off based on salary, because it has an adverse impact on older workers who have been with a company a longer time than younger employees; 2) an employer is responsible for an employee’s actions; 3) the Prudence Kay Poppink Act, in which the term "substantial" has been removed from the definition of disability, which now reads "a physical or mental impairment which limits one or more of major life activities…" Also; the provision of reasonable accommodations is an interactive process between an employee and employer and an employer may not make inquiries regarding an employee’s physical or mental health. 4) an employer cannot adopt or enforce any rule prohibiting the use of foreign languages by employees (with exceptions); 5) an employer cannot deny training or education programs to employees because of age; 6) an employer cannot deny employment to an applicant because of immigration status; 7) a company can be liable if an employee is sexually harassed by a customer; 8) an employee may file a complaint of harassment (not necessarily on the basis of a protected class) 9) emotional distress damages were increased to $150,000.
DFEH has the following procedure for filing a complaint: 1) Contact DFEH at 1-800-884-1684 to make an appointment; 2) there is a brief screening to determine of the complaint has a basis under law; 3) a brief video explaining the process is shown to the complainant; 4) there is a one-on-one interview with an investigator. If the complaint is accepted 5) a letter of complaint is sent to the complainant’s employer who has 30-60 days to respond; 6) DFEH conducts an investigation and attempts to resolve the situation through 7) informal mediation. If the mediation fails, DFEH may proceed to 8) an Issuance of Accusation. The case can then be heard 9) before the Fair Employment and Housing Commission or 10) go to court.
In 2003 18,986 complaints were filed. The greatest number of these was filed on the basis of race, followed by disability, retaliation, sexual harassment and age. Southern California received more complaints than Northern California. About 50% of the complainants only file in order to receive a "right-to-sue" letter and proceed directly to court. About 70% to 80% are successfully mediated under a pilot program that has been discontinued because of budget cuts. Approximately 20 Accusatory Charges were processed and one-half were resolved. Of the complaints received, about 40% to 60% are dismissed for lack of merit and 20% to 30% are settled.
For more information, one may go to the website at DFEH.gov or call (916) 227-2873.
*At this point in the meeting Jerry Jones relinquished the Chair to Commissioner Grigg.
- In honor of National Fair Housing Month:
Report on the Interrelationship of Employment and Housing – Emil DeGuzman, HRC Housing Representative (Discussion)
Following is Mr. De Guzman’s report:
SAN FRANCISCO POPULATION, HOUSEHOLD, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING TRENDS AND FORECASTS
The San Francisco Planning Department was the source of the information for this presentation. The title of their book is the Housing Element, An Element of the San Francisco General Plan.
The data used is the most reliable available for assessing the existing conditions. Such standard sources provide a basis for consistent comparison with older data and form the basis for the best possible projections. Historically, San Francisco’s housing market and economy have been strong; suggesting those current economic conditions may be temporary.
Almost all the data you will see is from three sources: Year 2000 US Census and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) statistics and the San Francisco Planning Department.
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT
The housing needs are driven in San Francisco by population and employment trends.
In regards to population, the 1990’s were a period of growth for San Francisco. In 2000, the Census counted 776,733 San Franciscans and there were 634,430 jobs in the City. Over the ten-year period, the population grew 7.3% (52,774 new people) and employment 8.6% (49,680 new jobs) new jobs. The growth was most pronounced in the later 1990’s.
San Francisco continues to be a culturally and racially diverse place. In 1990, all "minority" ethnic groups combined represented a majority of the city’s population. In year 2000, Census statistics mark the first time in modern history that no single racial group constituted a majority. Although a robust economy has generated considerable wealth and opportunity for the San Francisco Bay Area, many San Francisco residents have not shared these economic gains. 26% of San Francisco households still learn less than 50% of the region’s median income, which is $91,000. (The region is qualified as Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties).
HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
According to the 2000 Census, the number of San Francisco households grew from 305,584 in 1990 to 329,700 an increase of 7.9% growth. The definition of household according to the Census is a categorization of family or non-family. The reason this is important is that families are defined according to relations by birth, marriage and adoption. Unmarried domestic partners or same sex unions are not considered families except couples that have adopted children or where there is a biological parent to the children. According to ABAG projections, the number of total households will continue to increase, growing to 342,730 in 2010 or about 1,303 new households annually.
HOUSEHOLD BY ETHNICITIES
Note that the average household size is 2.3 people. If you look at those which are largest, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander and Other Race has 3.53 persons per household and 3.69 persons per household respectively.
San Francisco continues to have comparatively small number of family households. According to the 2000 Census, family households comprise 44% of the total household population. This is considerably less than the Bay Area average of almost 65% family households.
Another fact is that family median income is not enough to afford the average rent of $2,050 for a 2-bedroom home. The development of larger units of affordable housing for families in San Francisco is an on-going need.
EMPLOYMENT
Employment growth in San Francisco directly affects the demand for housing. From 1990-2000, San Francisco experienced an overall job growth rate of 9.5%, an increase of 55,0000 jobs in 10 years. The population grew by 52,700 people during the same time corresponding to a 1:1 growth ration of people to jobs. The forecast is growth of 56,000 new jobs in this current decade and an additional 55,180 new jobs by the year 2020 (8% increase).
Job growth in San Francisco will be strongest in retail and service sectors. Overall 111,200 new jobs will be created in the City, more than any other city in the region. However, much of the growth in the service sector will be in low-to-medium-skilled jobs such as cashiers, cooks, general managers with pay scales ranging from $15,000 to $70,000 a year. San Francisco residents through the First Source Hiring Program will absorb some of the growth. However, this is considered a limited program since it only applies to city contracts and commercial development that is over 25,0000 square feet.
San Francisco serves as a regional center for employment, "it also has a duty to house its workforce to the greatest extent possible*. The average income for the San Francisco workforce demonstrates the lack of housing affordability to many workers, both residents and commuters.
With an average rent of $2,057 for a two-bedroom apartment in 2003, an employee must make $98,400 to afford such a unit.
*As stated by the San Francisco Planning Department
QUANTIFIED HOUSING GOALS
According to the San Francisco Planning Department, the projection of San Francisco’s fair share of the regional housing for January 1999 through June 2006 is 20,372. Furthermore, they add that even with very aggressive policies and programs coupled with the mature, built-up city with limited large tracts of undeveloped land and the previous years housing production record, this "fair share" is likely not to be achievable.
Projected forecast of housing production shows a shortfall of the housing production targets. The shortfall projected is 1,8888 units. Part of the problem is capital to bridge the gap.
CONCLUSION:
People, especially families, are being priced out. If not for rent control, rents would not be affordable for the growing diverse populations of ethnic minorities, others flocking from other states, immigrants and refugees. Looking at the housing trends and the needs, given employment increases over the next twenty years, this will compound the housing crisis the City presently faces.
Important criteria of individual households that should have been weighed but were not explained by the San Francisco Planning Department document are the following factors: quality of schools, public safety, air quality, transportation, open space, and accessible food markets. Families are moving out of San Francisco to buy homes. It is their only chance to afford homes. And like other commuters, they must clog the freeways to come to work if they still want work in San Francisco. This adds to the growing trends of attention to air quality Bay Area wide and regional transportation to meet the urban sprawl.
In addition, Frank Anderson stated that the housing report demonstrated that employment issues cannot be viewed in a vacuum. We need to also take into account the segregation that still exists in our schools and neighborhoods as well.
- Local Hiring Program for Construction Contracts: History, Challenges and Trends – Discussion of Chapter 6, San Francisco Administrative Code - and
4)Discussion of Development of Employment Program Goals for Construction Contracts: general scope of work and tentative schedule for the revision of goals and related requirements – Frank Anderson, HRC Senior Contract Compliance Officers and Ed Campos, HRC Employment Representative
Frank Anderson began the discussion by explaining that as the work of the group progresses the Committee will be kept up-to-date periodically.
The Local Hiring Ordinance was enacted 10 years ago and was driven by the Community Based Organizations (CBOs). There was a high unemployment rate, which severely impacted the minority communities within the City. There was a perception that most of the construction jobs that were available went to people who lived outside the City. It was recognized that availability studies needed to be done: however, no funds were ever made available to study employment trends. The Board of Supervisors enacted Chapter 6 of the Administrative Code, which required that 50% of the hours worked on City funded construction projects were to be filled by local residents. There were 25 crafts in the program. Although the contractors utilized good faith efforts to meet the goal, the 50% requirement has never been met. The numbers hovered around 26%-31%. Later, a neighbor hood residency goal was set for some projects. The end result, however, has been that the statistics started to fall because after people got good jobs they moved out of the City in order to obtain affordable housing.
The Working Group will need to consult with various resources including construction contractors and Unions in order to obtain existing availability statistics. A joint meeting with the M/W/LBE Committee also needs to be arranged. The Working Group will begin the project this month. Rodney Hampton and Judy Sorro expressed interest in joining the Group.
- Discussion on Committee Plans and Goals for the 2004 term.
Because of time constraints this item was continued until the next meeting.
Old Business
None
Public Comment
Several committee members expressed their desire to have Item 5 placed first on the agenda for next month. The members wanted to especially discuss and have input regarding compliance and monitoring issues. They stated that they wanted to see more active cooperation between the HRC and CBOs. Members also stated that they did not want any more "presentations" at the meetings and wanted to have more in-depth discussions. Jerry Jones inquired about the make-up of the Working Group for Goal Revision. Greg Marutani, Guillermo Romero and Bridgett Brown all said that they had been contacted and asked about their availability to serve.
Announcements
None
Adjournment
Greg Marutani moved that the meeting be adjourned. Jerry Jones seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous and the meeting was adjourned at 3:40p.m.
Next Meeting
Thursday, May 6, 2004
1:30pm to 3:30pm
25 Van Ness Avenue, 8th Floor
San Francisco, CA. 94102