Item 3: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman asked if there was any momentum behind the bill. Ms. Wilson said no. It was introduced on behalf of the Northwest Workers Justice Project. Ms. Taylor was concerned about temporary workers who were actually permanent but kept in that status to be kept at lower wages. She thought the intent of the bill was good. Ms. Towle pointed out the City’s part- time employees were represented by bargaining units and were fully benefited. The bill would impact the City’s ability to provide the services now provided by temporary workers. Ms. Grube noted that the City recently added 20 regular positions to replace what were formerly temporary positions because those employees were regularly working more hours. The department continually evaluated its use of such employees and they were all seasonal or sporadic, based on existing needs. Ms. Bettman asked why the bill would have such a significant financial impact on the City if it was doing a good job for its temporary employees. Ms. Towle said it eliminate wage differentials between temporary and regular employees and required a 30 percent surcharge to be paid to temporary employees. Ms. Bettman did not want to create a financial burden on the City but suggested the bill might be a good bill otherwise. She suggested that the City’s take a position of oppose with an amendment that made the bill consistent with what the City offered its temporary employees. Ms. Towle explained that a unionized environment helped keep the use of temporary employees down as the union owned the work being done and had a right to bargain regarding the use of temporary employees. All the City’s union contracts limited the use of temporary employees to a certain number of hours in a calendar year. She suggested that the bill could be amended to exclude temporary employees who worked less than a certain number of hours; less than half time in a year was the City’s most generous definition. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about the progress the bill was likely to make, Ms. Wilson said the bill was very complex but it did not take into account many other issues such as PERS and had it far- reaching implications and would be very difficult to administer. Ms. Towle thought it would be difficult to amend because it was so complex. Ms. Wilson thought it would be easier to kill the bill than amend it. Ms. Towle said the City did not support the misuse of temporary employees and had worked hard with the Recreation Division to identify the distinctions between employees. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to accept the proposed status of Priority 1 Oppose and seek amendments related to the definition to be crafted by staff. Mayor Piercy said it the bill emerged, the committee should be careful to say it supported the intention of the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2118A Ms. Bettman indicated she had the opportunity to review the bill and accepted the staff recommendation for House Bill (HB) 2118A. HB 3264 Mr. Weinman said both bills, HB 3624 and HB 3363, were a lot of work without benefit to the City. He termed the reporting requirement in HB 3624 an unfunded mandate. Ms. Bettman agreed, but said she believed the bill provided a means of ensuring public disclosure and accountability in regard to how money was spent on economic development. She said that in the past, Eugene had attempted to target its subsidies MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 19, 2007 Page 2