Title
October 26, 2011
To the President and Members of
The Council of the City of Philadelphia:
For the following reasons, I am returning to your Honorable Body without my signature Bill No. 110557, which was passed by Council at its session on October 13, 2011.
Bill 110557 would require certain City contractors who provide services for the City, depending on the size of the contractor, the size of the City contract and whether or not the contractor is a "for-profit" entity, to provide all full-time employees who work on those contracts up to seven days of earned sick leave a year. The bill also requires certain recipients of City financial assistance, such as grants and tax incentives, of more than $100,000 to provide employees who work in connection with the benefited project the same benefits.
As my Administration has testified, both in connection with this bill and with Bill 080474-AA, I certainly am sympathetic to the policy goal of promoting employment that includes good benefits that allow employees to care for themselves and their families when they are sick. Moreover, I appreciate that, unlike Bill 080474-A, which would have applied to all employers in the City, Bill 110557 is far more limited and is directed to workers whose job is supported to some degree by public dollars.
In developing my views regarding this bill, however, I have had to balance my views regarding the social benefit of the mandate against the potential costs to the City of instituting it.
When the City contracts for services, our primary duty is to ensure that the City gets the best service while trying to limit costs, in order to maximize our limited budget. Establishing employment requirements on City contractors generally may have some impact on the cost of some contracts, as contractors who do not provide the benefits incorporate their potential added costs into their overhead charges. The bill might also impact the pool of available contractors, if co...
Click here for full text