Agenda Item #6A
February 2, 2016
Action
MEMORANDUM
January 29, 2016
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
County Council
t
Amanda Mihill, Legislative
Attomey(Jl1r8JtLU
Action: Bill 43-15, Contracts and Procurement -
Amendments
Wage Requirements ­
Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee recommendation (3-0): enact Bill 43-15
with amendments to:
• remove the exemption in the living wage law for employees subject to a collective bargaining
agreement;
• specify that the wage required to
be
paid
to
a contractor's employees is based on gross pay;
• prohibit contractors for deducting amounts from an employee's paycheck for items necessary
for the employee to perfonn the functions of the job;
• allow the County to recover costs for performing an audit as a result of the enforcement
action; and
• require quarterly (as opposed to bi-weekly) submission of payroll records.
Bill 43-15, Contracts and Procurement - Wage Requirements - Amendments, sponsored by Lead
Sponsors Councilmembers EIrich and Navarro and Co-Sponsors then-Council President Leventhal
and Councilmember Riemer, was introduced on October 20,2015. A public hearing was held on
December 1, at which all speakers supported Bill 43-15 (see testimony on ©18-28). A
Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee worksession was held on January 21.
Bill 43-15 would require certain contractors or subcontractors to submit certain payroll records to
the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO); specify the remedies for a violation of the wage
requirements; and specify that a violation of the wage requirements law is a potential cause for
debarment or suspension.
Issues/Committee Recommendation
Collective Bargaining Exemption
County Code §l1B-33A(d) requires each of the County's
contractors and subcontractors to pay an employee a specific living wage (currently $14.35/hr).
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Section llB-33A(f) exempts certain employees from the living wage requirements, including
employees "for whom a lower wage rate is expressly set in a bona fide collective bargaining
agreement." Several speakers at the hearing urged the Council to remove this exemption. This
language was included in the living wage law as originally enacted by the Council in 2002. Council
staff is unsure as to the rationale for including it in the law; the Committee agreed with the
recommendation to remove it. If it is the Council's policy that employees of contractors should be
paid a certain rate, then even employees subject to a collective bargaining agreement should be
paid that rate at a minimum.
Committee recommendation
(3-0): remove the exemption in the
living wage law for employees subject to a collective bargaining agreement (©3, lines 34-35).
Annual Cost of Living Increase
Some speakers at the hearing noted that some companies
indicated that they would seek cost adj ustments from the County, but would not pass those
adjustments on to their employees through higher wages. These speakers urged the Council to
amend the living wage law such that employees of contractors are entitled to receive an annual
cost of living adjustment. The Committee discussed this issue at length. Council staff noted that
the current law already requires the CAO to adjust the living wage that contractors and
subcontractors must pay their employees by the average increase in the Consumer Price Index
(§IlB-33A(e)(2». However, because those employees were subject to a collective bargaining
agreement, they were not provided the living wage. The Committee's recommendation to remove
the exemption in the living wage law for employees subject to such agreements would rectify this
issue.
An
additional issue that the Committee discussed was that the County's contracts allow contractors
to seek price adjustments for unanticipated increases in the cost of doing business
in
the County.
One example noted was a dramatic increase in the cost of fuel. Ms. Branson noted that these types
of adjustments do not require that the contractor pass through to its employees a wage increase.
After much discussion, the Committee agreed to have a further discussion on this issue at a
worksession to be scheduled at a later date.
Other issues
In
the Procurement Director's testimony as well as meetings between Council staff
and Executive staff, several issues were raised. These issues are discussed below:
1.
Gross v. Net Wages.
Section llB-33A(e) requires that each covered employer pay each
employee a specific amount for the time the employee actually provides services to the
County. In her testimony at the hearing, Procurement Director Cherri Branson questioned
whether the amount required is based on gross wages or net wages (after deductions of
certain amounts).
Committee recommendation
(3-0): The Committee agreed that it
would be beneficial to clarify this in the law and recommended that the law specify that
the amount to be paid is gross wages (©2, line 5). Council staff notes that Bill 43-15 would
require a contractor to also report fringe benefits by type and amount (see ©4, line 63).
The Committee further recommended
(3-0) amending Bill 43-15 to prohibit contractors
from deducting amounts from an employee's paycheck for items necessary for the
employee to perfonn the functions ofthe job (©2, lines 20-22).
2. Audit Costs.
Current law (§11B-33A(i)(2» requires the CAO to perfonn random audits as
part of the enforcement of the law. Bill 43-15 would make amendments to this Section to
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
allow for regular audits and provide for certain sanctions. These amendments would
confonn the audit and sanction to those specified in the prevailing wage law. Director
Branson notes that this language does not clearly indicate whether the County can recoup
its costs for perfonning an audit as a result of the enforcement action. Committee
recommendation
(3-0):
amend Bill 43-15 to specifically allow the County to recover costs
for performing an audit as a result of the enforcement action (©6, line 109).
3. Debarment.
Bill 43-15 would specify that a violation of the living wage law could be a
cause for debarment or suspension under the Procurement law ©8, lines 163). Director
Branson noted her belief that the debarment and suspension system needed to be changed,
but suggested that the changes "occur holistically" in a separate bill. Council staff concurs
that it would be beneficial for the Executive and Council to consider whether changes to
the debarment and suspension process are warranted. However, that does not prevent the
Council from adding living wage violations to the list of causes for debarment/suspension.
Even with this amendment, a future bill can revise the debarment/suspension system in its
entirety. Committee recommendation
(3-0):
specify that a violation of the living wage
law could be a cause for debarment or suspension.
4. Submission ofPayroll Records.
Bi1l43-15 would require payroll records to be submitted
within 14 days after the end of each payroll record. TIlls would mirror the payroll record
submission requirement in the prevailing wage law. Procurement staff requested that
payroll records be submitted quarterly. Council staff's understanding is that there is
currently an automated process used to spot issues of concern regarding prevailing wage
and that the automated process is not available for the living wage law. Council staff is not
opposed to amending Bill 43-15 to require quarterly submission of payroll records, but
suggests that the Office work toward having an automated process similar to reviewing
prevailing wage payroll records so that more frequent reporting can be required.
Committee recommendation
(3-0):
require quarterly submission of payroll records (©3,
lines 43-46).
This packet contains:
Bill 43-15
Legislative Request Report
Press Release
Fiscal and Economic Impact Statements
Select correspondence
Circle#
1
9
10
12
18
F:\LAw\BILLS\1543 Contracts And Procurement-Wage Requirements\Action Memo.Docx
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
43-15
Concerning; Contracts and Procurement
Wage
Requirements
Amendments
Revised:
112812016
Draft No. 5
Introduced:
October 20. 2015
Expires;
April 20. 2017
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
ChI _ _,
laws
of Mont. Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
Lead Sponsor: Councilmembers EIrich and Navarro
Co-Sponsors: Council President Leventhal and Councilmember Riemer
AN
ACT
to:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
ill
require certain contractors or subcontractors to submit certain payroll records to the
Chief Administrative Officer;
specify the remedies for a violation ofthe wage or records requirements;
amend the causes for debannent or suspension; [[and]]
prohibit certain contractors or subcontracts from deducting certain amounts from an
employee's paycheck: and
generally amend the County procurement laws.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter lIB, Contracts and Procurement
Section IlB-33A and IlB-37
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double undedining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
1<
1<
1<
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deletedfrom existing law by original bill.
Added by amendment.
Deletedfrom existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves thefollowing Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 43-15
1
Sec.
1.
Section IlB-33A is amended as follows:
IlB-33A. Wage requirements.
(e)
Wage requirement.
2
3
4
(1)
Each covered employer must pay each employee who is not
exempt under subsection
(t)
a gross wage of at least $10.50 per
hour during the time the employee actually provides services to the
County.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
(2)
The Chief Administrative Officer must adjust the wage rate
required under this subsection, effective July 1 ofeach year, by the
annual average increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index for
all urban consumers for the Washington- Baltimore metropolitan
area, or any successor index, for the previous calendar year. The
Chief Administrative Officer must calculate the adjustment to the
nearest multiple of 5 cents, and must publish the amount of this
adjustment not later than March 1 of each year. Each adjustment
under this paragraph applies to any contract covered by this
Section which:
(A)
(B)
is in effect when the adjustment takes effect, or
takes effect during the next 12 months.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Q)
A covered employer must not make any deduction for any item
necessary for an employee to perform the essential job function
unless the deduction is permitted by Executive regulation
21
22
23
24
*
(t)
*
*
Exceptions to wage requirement.
The wage requirements of this
25
Section do not apply to any employee:
(1)
who performs no measurable work related to any contract with
the County;
f:\law\billS\1~tracts
and procurement-wage requirements\bill5 committee.docx
26
27
Q
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
43-15
28
29
(2)
who participates in a government-operated or -sponsored
program that restricts the earnings of or wages paid to employees
to a level below the wage required under this Section; or
30
31
(3)
who participates for no longer than 120 days in any calendar year
in a government-operated or -sponsored summer youth
employment program[[; or
32
33
34
(4)
for whom a lower wage rate is expressly set in a bona fide
collective bargaining agreement]].
35
36
37
38
(g)
Wage reporting.
(1)
The Director must insert into each contract subject to this Section
a provision that requires a covered employer to submit to the
Director a report (on a schedule determined by the Director)
showing a summary of the wages paid to its employees, who
performed direct, measurable work under the contract, by gender
and race.
39
40
41
42
43
44
ill
Each contractor and subcontractor must submit
§:
complete
~
of
its payroll records for work performed on
§:
contract covered
by
this Section to the Chief Administrative Officer or
§:
45
46
47
designee
within 14 days after the end of each [[payroll period]] quarter.
ill
The payroll records must contain
§:
statement signed
by
the
48
49
50
contractor or subcontractor certifying that:
(A)
the payroll records are correct; and
the wage rates paid are not less than those required
by
this
Section.
lID
51
52
ill
Each payroll record must include:
(A)
the name, address, and telephone number of the contractor
or subcontractor;
53
54
f:\Iaw\biIlS\1~tracts
and procurement-wage requirements\bill5 committee.docx
Q
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
43-15
55
56
57
lID
(Q
the name and location ofthe job; and
each employee's:
ill
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
name;
current home address, unless previously reported;
daily straight time and overtime hours;
total straight time and overtime hours for the payroll
period;
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
ill
(vi)
rateof~
fringe benefits
Q:y
~
and amount;
(vii) gross wages; and
(viii) the employer and the employee share of any health
insurance premium provided to the employee.
65
66
67
ill
Each contractor or subcontractor must:
68
69
®
keep payroll records covering work performed on
~
contract
covered
Q:y
this Section for not less than
.2.
years after the
work is completed; and
70
71
lID
subject
to
reasonable
notice,
permit
the
Chief
72
Administrative Officer or
~
designee to inspect the payroll
records at any reasonable time and as often as the Chief
Administrative Officer deems necessary.
73
74
75
®
The Chief Administrative Officer or
~
designee must make payroll
records obtained from contractors or subcontractors under this
Section available for public inspection during regular business
hours for
.2.
years after the Chief Administrative Officer receives
the records, unless disclosure of
federal or state law.
~
76
77
78
79
80
81
record is prohibited under
[(2)]
m
*
*
*
f:\Iaw\bills\1~ntracts
and procurement-wage requirements\bill5 committee.docx
Q
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 43-15
82
[(3)]
00
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
[(4)]
(2)
[(5)]
ilQ)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(i)
Enforcement.
(1)
The Chief Administrative Officer must require each covered
employer to:
(A)
certify that the employer and each subcontractor is aware of
and will comply with the applicable wage requirements of.
this Section;
(B)
90
91
92
93
94
keep and submit any records necessary to show compliance;
and
(C)
conspicuously post notices informing employees of the
requirements of this Section, and send a copy of each such
notice to the Chief Administrative Officer's designee.
95
96
97
98
99
(2)
The Chief Administrative Officer or
f!
designee must [enforce this
Section,] perform random or regular audits [and any other audit
necessary to do so,] and investigate any complaint ofa violation of
this Section. If the Director determines that
f!
provision of this
Section has been violated, the Director must issue
f!
written
decision, including imposing appropriate sanctions, and may
withhold from payment due the contractor, pending
f!
final
decision, an amount sufficient to:
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
[[illll
CA)
~
each employee ofthe contractor or subcontractor the
full amount of wages due under this Section; [[and]]
[[(ill]]
all
satisfy f! liability off! contractor for liquidated damages
as provided in this Section: and
f:\Iaw\billS\1~ntrads
and procurement-wage requirements\bill5 committee.docx
Q
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
43-15
109
110
111
(Q
reimburse the County for the cost ofthe audit.
(3)
An employer must not discharge or otheIWise retaliate against an
employee for asserting any right under this Section or filing a
complaint of violation. Any retaliation is subject to all sanctions
for noncompliance with this Section.
112
113
114
115
(4)
The sanctions ofSection IlB-33(b) which apply to noncompliance
with nondiscrimination requirements apply with equal force and
scope to noncompliance with the wage requirements of this
Section.
116
117
118
(5)
Each contract may specify that liquidated damages for any
noncompliance with this Section includes the amount of any
unpaid wages, with interest, and that the contractor is jointly and
severally liable for any noncompliance by a subcontractor. In
addition, each contract must specifY:
(A)
that liquidated damages may be imposed on the contractor
in the event that a
[a]
covered employer violates the wage
reporting or payroll records reporting requirement in
subsection
(g)~
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
including for providing late or inaccurate
payroll records; and
(B)
that an aggrieved employee, as a third-party beneficiary,
may by civil action enforce the payment of wages due
under this Section and recover any unpaid wages with
interest, a reasonable attorney's fee, and damages for any
retaliation for asserting any right under this Section.
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
®
If
f!
contractor or subcontractor fails to submit, or is late in
submitting, copies of any payroll record or other report required to
be submitted under this Section, the County may deem invoices
f:\law\bills\1
~ntracts
and procurement-wage requirements\bill5 committee.dOC)(
Q
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 43-15
136
137
138
unacceptable until the contractor or subcontractor provides the
required records or reports, and may postpone processing
payments due under the contract or under an agreement to finance
the contract.
IlB-37. Debarment or suspension.
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
'"
(c)
suspension may include:
(l)
'"
'"
Causes for debarment or suspension.
The causes for debannent or
conviction for commission of a criminal offense incident to
obtaining or attempting to obtain a public or private contract or
subcontract, or in the performance ofthe contract or subcontract;
(2)
conviction of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification
or destruction of records, receiving stolen property, kickbacks or
any other offense indicating a lack of business integrity;
(3)
conviction under state or federal antitrust statutes arising out ofthe
submission of bids or proposals;
(4)
violation of County contract provisions of a character which is
regarded by the Director to be so serious as to justify debannent
action. These provisions may include:
(A)
deliberate failure without good cause to perform under the
specifications or within the time limit provided in the
contract; or
(B)
a record of failure to perform or of unsatisfactory
performance under the provisions of one or more contracts;
however, failure to perform or unsatisfactory performance
caused by acts beyond the control of the contractor are not
a basis for debarment;
Q
f:\law\bills\1
~ntracts
and procurement-wage requirements\bill 5 committee.docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
43~
15
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
(5)
violation ofthe wage requirements in Section 11B-33A;
any other serious cause the Director determines to be so
compelling as to affect the competency or integrity of a potential
contractor, including debarment by another public entity; or
®
[(6)]
ill
violation
of the ethical standards set forth in this Chapter or
Chapter 19A.
(
d)
Decision.
The Director must issue a written decision to debar or suspend.
The decision must:
(1)
(2)
state the reasons for the action taken; and
inform the debarred or suspended person of the right to an
administrative appeal, after the decision becomes final, to the
Circuit Court under the Maryland Rules.
(e)
The Director must send a copy ofthe decision to the person involved and
the Chief Administrative Officer who may approve, revise, or remand the
decision. If the Chief Administrative Officer takes no action within 5
working days, the decision ofthe Director becomes final.
(f)
Appeal to court.
The debarred or suspended person may appeal the
decision to debar or suspend to the Circuit Court under the Maryland
Rules governing administrative appeals. The debarred or suspended
person and the County may appeal the decision ofthe Circuit Court to the
Court of Special Appeals.
182
183
184
f:\lawlbills\1
~tracts
and procurement-wage requirements\bill5 committee.docx
~
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill 43-15
Contracts and Procurement Wage Requirements
-
Amendments
DESCRIPTION:
Bill 43-15 would require certain contractors or subcontractors to
submit certain payroll records to the Chief Administrative officer;
specify the penalties for a violation of
the
wage requirements; amend
the causes for debarment or suspension; and generally amend the
County procurement laws.
There have been reports that some County contractors and
subcontractors may be implementing paycheck deductions for benefits
that employees have not requested and services like cellphones and
uniforms. There are not adequate reporting requirements in the current
Living Wage law.
To strengthen enforcement of
the
Living Wage law.
Procurement
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be researched.
Amanda M. Mihill, Legislative Attorney 240-777-7815
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
N/A
N/A
F:\LAw\BILLS\1543 Contracts And Procurement-Wage Requirements\LRR.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Montgomery
County Council
For Immediate Release
Oct.
16,
2015
Contact: Neil H. Greenberger 240-777-7939/ Delphine Harriston 240-777-7931
Sonya Healy 240-777-7926/ Namita Acharya 240-777-7819
N
Montgomery Councilmembers Marc Eirich
and Nancy Navarro to Introduce Bill to
Strengthen Reporting Requirements and
Enforcement of County's Living Wage Law
New Law Would Close Reporting Loopholes and
Expand Enforcement Options
ROCKVILLE, Md., Oct. 16, 20 IS-Montgomery County Councilmembers Marc
EIrich, chairs the Council's Public
Safety
Committee, and Nancy Navarro, who
chairs the Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee, on Tuesday, Oct.
20, will introduce Bill 43-15 that would strengthen enforcement of the County's
E
W
S
R
E
Living Wage Law. The bill, which is also co-sponsored by Council President
George Leventhal, would require additional reporting requirements for County
contractors and subcontractors and expands enforcement options to help ensure
compliance with the County's living wage requirements.
"There have been reports that certain County contractors and subcontractors
implement paycheck deductions for benefits, which employees have not requested,
and services like cellphones and uniforms," said Councilmember EIrich. "These
deductions reduce employee pay below the County's living wage. The new
reporting requirements and enhanced enforcement actions proposed in Bill 43-15
are intended to crack down on these practices. County law requires that our
contractors pay a living wage, and the actions by some to circumvent the intention
of that law have made this legislation necessary."
The bill will be introduce during the morning session of the Council's regular
weekly meeting that will be held in the Third Floor Hearing Room of the Council
L
E
A
S
E
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
2
Office Building at 100 Maryland Ave. in Rockville and will be televised live by
County Cable Montgomery (CCM-Cable Channel 6 on Comcast and RCN,
Channel 30 on Verizon). The broadcast also will be streamed at:
http://tinyurLcom/khktggw.
A public hearing on the bill is tentatively scheduled for I :30 p.m. on Nov. 17.
"Companies that do business with Montgomery County have an obligation to treat
their employees fairly," said Councilmember Navarro. "Bill 43-15 will help
protect working families by ensuring that contractors and subcontractors are truly
paying a living wage to their employees and are not side-stepping their responsibly
by implementing unauthorized payroll deductions and other fees. This bill expands
reporting requirements and provides real penalties for those who fail to comply
with the County's Living Wage Law."
The County Council enacted its Living Wage legislation in 2002 (Bill 5-02). The
law requires certain businesses that provide services to the County to pay
employees working on a County contract a minimum living wage that was
originally set at $10.50 per hour. The County's chief administrative officer must
adjust the rate each July I by the annual average increase, if any, in the Consumer
Price Index for
all
urban consumers for the Washington-Baltimore metropolitan
area. Effective July 1,2015, the living wage is $14.35 through June 30, 2016.
As proposed, Bill 43-15 requires County contractors and subcontractors to submit
a complete copy of all payroll records for work performed within 14 days after the
end of each payroll period and must certify that the records are correct and that the
wage rates comply with County law. In addition, County contractors and
subcontractors must retain payroll records for no less than five years after the work
is completed. The chief administrative officer or a designee may inspect payroll
records at any reasonable time and as often as necessary.
In addition, Bill 43-15 provides that the County may withhold payments from a
contractor
in
an amount sufficient
to
pay each employee the full amount of wages
due and may postpone payments due until the contractor or subcontractor provides
the required records or reports. If a violation of the County's living wage
requirements is found, debarment or suspension of a contractor may be considered.
"This measure will improve the County's ability to ensure our law is being
complied with, and workers are being treated fairly," said Council President
Leventhal.
####
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
13
L/5~'5
Email Viewer
L§essage
Page 1 of 1
!1PJ
..---­
al~
Attachments
I
Details
I
I
Headers
I
Source
I
HTML
"JOI<:!
LI­
From: "Zhang, Felicia" <Felicia.Zhang@montgomerycountymd.gov>
Date:
11130/20152:52:38
PM
To: "County Council" <County.Council@montgomerycountymd.gov>, "Lauer, Linda"
<Linda.Lauer@montgomerycountymd.gov>, "Pecoraro, Karen"
<Karen.Pecoraro@montgomerycountymd.gov>
Cc: "Kirkland, Bonnie" <Bonnie.Kirkland@montgomerycountymd.gov>, "Austin, Lisa"
<Lisa.Austin@montgomerycountymd.gov>, "Nunni, Joy"
<Joy.Nunni@montgomerycountymd.gov>, IILacefield, Patrick"
<Patrick.Lacefield@montgomerycountymd.gov>, "Beach, Joseph"
<Joseph.Beach@montgomerycountymd.gov>, "Hughes, Jennifer"
<Jennifer.Hughes@montgomerycountymd.gov>, "Espinosa, Alex"
<Alex.Espinosa@montgomerycountymd.gov>, "Platt, David"
<David.Platt@montgomerycountymd.gov>, IICoble, Monika"
~7:-,..,f'i
<Monika.Coble@montgomerycountymd.gov>, "Babra, Gulshan"
.::):(
:;
<Gulshan.Babra@montgomerycountymd.gov>, "Mia, Naeem"
,.::
"fry
<Naeem.Mia@montgomerycountymd.gov>, "Finn, Erika Lopez
ll
00
c:
<ErikaFinn@montgomerycountymd.gov>, "Branson, Cherri"
z
<Cherri.Branson@montgomerycountymd.gov>
-(
Subject: RE: FEIS for Bi1143-15, Contracts and Procurement - Wage Requirements­
Amendments
Please see the attachment of the FEIS for Bi1143-15, Contracts and Procurement - Wage
Requirements - Amendments.
Thank you.
Felicia Zhang
Administrative Specialist
Office of Management and Budget
Montgomery County Maryland
(240) 777-2788
IFelicia.Zhang@montgomerycountymd.gov<mailto:Felicia.Zhang@montgomerycountymd.gov>
@
https:llmccouncilmd.1mhostediq.comlcounty_council/view_eml_2.aspx?rid=5087663&oid...
12/1/2015
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Fiscal Impact Statement
Council BilI 43-15; Contracts and Procurement - Contracts and Procurement - Wage
Requirements - Amendments Wage Requirements - Amendments
1. Legislative Summary.
The proposed legislation will require contractors or subcontractors to submit certain
payroll records to the Chief Administrative officer; specify
the
remedies for a violation of
the wage or records requirements; and amend the causes for debarrilent or suspension.
The proposed legislation also requires audits to be perfonned and shortens the time for
contractors to submit payroll records from one quarter to fourteen (14) days.
2. An
e~mate
of changes in County revenues and expenditures regardless of whether the
revenues or expenditures are assumed in the recommended or approved budget. Includes
source of inforIIlation, assumptions, and methodologies used.
The proposed legislation does not affect County revenues.
The proposed legislation would require additional stafi'time, estimated at 2.0 FIEs
($184,268 total), redaction costs ($4,200 for software), and audit costs ($100,000).
3. Revenue and expenditure estimates covering at least the next 6 fiscal years.
Over 'the next six years staffing costs would be $1,105,611 for the two FTEs. Audit costs
are estimated at $600,000.
4.
An
actuarial analysis through the entire amortization period for each bilI that would affect
retiree pension or group insurance costs.
The proposed legislation does not affect retiree pension or group insurance costs.
j.
An
estimate of expenditures related
to
County's infonnation technology
OT)
systems,
including Enterprise Resource
~lanning
(ERP) systems.
The proposed legislation does not affect ERP systems.
6. Later actions that may affect future revenue and expenditures if the bill.authorizes future
spending.
The proposed legislation does not authorize future spending.
7.
An
estimate ofthe staff time needed to implement the bilL
Procurement estimates two full-time FIEs, a Procurement Specialist and aLiving Wage
Program Manager, at a grade 23
to
implement the bilL Staffing costs are estimated at
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
$184,268, and associated one time, operating expenses are $2,074 (furniture, desk
installati on).
0'
The Living Wage Program Manager (Grade 23) Wbuld review vendors' wage
requirement law (WRL) eligibility, conduct site visits, review payroll reports, track
submission status, follow up with vendors on submissions, and validate compliance. The
position also would compile and analyze operational reports, monitor audits and manage
audit contractors, process
and
track lV1PIA requests, monitor and follow up on violating
contractors' corrective actions, and conduct outreach. Procurement estimates this
additional wQrk would require 2,035 annual hours on its employees, or a one FTE staff
equivalent. DBRC estimates biweekly tracking logging and reviewing payrolls at 1,020
hours per year. Site visits would account for 680 hours, and audit related activities
(memos, meetings, and logistics) would be 100 hours for four random audits and two
regular annual audits. DBRC estimates vendor outreach at 35 hours per year and
redaction efforts
at
200 hours per year.
The Procurement Specialist (Grade 23) would manage the increase in the number of
compliance related contract actions, research and analyze alternative contract options and
interim contractors on an emergency basis, provide analysis and guidance on
determinations and findings, increase outreach to using departments on operational
impacts resulting from recommended actions or options, as contractor violations are
identified. Procurement estimates an approximately 2,000 annual hours for its employees,
or one
FrE
staff equivalent. The proposed legislation will add 760 hours for increased
frequency of payroll reports and new auditing requirements.] Procurement estimates 260
hours for
data
management, website updates, redactinginfonnation, and reviewing
impacts
to
other contractors.
1
Procurement estimates 900 hours fOr Contract
Administrator training, identifying issues, and making recommendations related to the
procur~ent
process under the enhanced enforcement.
8. An explanation of how the addition of new staff responsibilities would affect other duties.
The proposed legislation requires COntractors to submit payrolls "within 14 days after the
end of each payroll period". The
current
requirement is quarterly payroll reports. For a
comparison, the Prevailing Wage Law (PWL) Program uses a contractor to monitor bi­
weekly payroll submission for all County constructions contracts. The contractor uses a
payroll submission and monitoring system (LCPtracker) and 2-3 full time employees for
the monitoring services.
The proposed legislation also requires the County make the records available for public
inspection. Payroll records often contains personal and proprietary information (ex:
social security numbers, home addresses. etc.) which must be redacted. Redactions will
be a significant workload and potential legal issue
if
Procurement inadvertently discloses
figure is based on eight hours per contracts
and
an increase of 95 contracts.
2
This figure
is
based on five hours estimated per week on these tasks for 52 weeks.
1
This
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
a record prohibited under federal or state law. Redactions may also involve coordination
with other departments and the contractor.
The proposed legislation also requires random audits, and Procurement
has
used the
Internal Audit Office's auditors. Given then increase
in
audits required by the legislation,
Procurement estimates $100,000
in
associated audit costs which include contracts for
auditing
and
in
house
staff
time to administer the audit contractor(s) and resulting
procurement contract actions.
9.
An
estimate of costs when an additional appropriation is needed.
The proposed legislation would require additional staff time, estimated at 2.0 FTEs
($184,268
total),
redaction costs ($4,200 for software), and audit costs ($100,000).
10. A description of any variable that could affect revenue and cost estimates.
A key variable which could influence revenue and cost estimates are the number of
payroll records Procurement receives.
11. Ranges of revenue or expenditures that are uncertain or difficult to project.
Not applicable.
12. If a bill is likely to have no fiscal impact, why that is the case.
Not applicable.
13. Other fiscal impacts or comments.
The proposed legislation may add an administrative burden to small businesses in order
to
comply
with
added requirements to the WRL.
14. The following contributed to and concurred with this analysis:
Pam Jones, Office of Procurement
Grace Denno, Office ofProcurement
Erika Lopez-Finn, Office of Management and Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
, Economic Impact Statement
Bill
G~15,
Contracts and Procurement - Wage Requirements - Amendments
Background:
This legislation would:
• require certain contractors or subcontractors to submit certain payroll records
to
,the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO),
~ify
the remedies for
a
violation of the wage or records requirements; and
~end
the
causes for debannent or suspension.
Essentially, Bi1l43-l5 amends Section llB-33A(g)(2) of Chapter 11B, Contracts and
Procurehtent, of the County Code that would require eaeh contractor and subcontractor
to
submit
~
complete copy of its payroll records to the CAO
within
fourteen (14) days
after
the end :ofeach payroll period. Section
1I
B-33
A(g)(4)
lists the items included in each
payroll record
that
is submitted to the CAO. . .
1.
The sources of il:tfonnation, assumptions, and methodologies used.
The source ofinformation
is
the Office of Procurement (procurement). There are no
assumptions or methodologies used in the preparation ofthe economic impact
statement Based on the information provided by Procurement, there are over 400
contractors and subcontractors that are affected by
BiIl43~15.
According to
Procurement, Bil143-15 could impose additional administrative costs on vendors to
comply with the legislation. Without specific data, it is uncertain the amount of
additional administrative costs. Such additional costs could include additional
administrative staff to the vendor or additional hours for the current staff
to
complete
the new requirements.
2. A description of any variable that could affect the economic impact estimates.
The variables that could affect the economic impact estimate are the number of
additional
staff,
the additional
hours
for the
current
staff
to complete
the
new
reqillrements, and the number of vendors affected
by
the legislation.
3. The Bill's positive or negative effect, uany on employment, spending,
savings,
investment, incomes, and property valnes in the County.
Bill 43-15 may impose additional administrative costs on vendors but the potential
negative effect could be offset by a positive effect on the County's economy through
an increase in wage and salary income with the addition of staff or the additional
hours for current employees. The difference in the amount ofthe offset between the
County's business income and employee's wage and salary income is uncertain
without specific data. Therefore, if both effects are equal, that is, the cost to the
vendor.
is
identically
o~et
by the incomes to
staff,
Bill 43-15 would have no
economic impact
Page 1 of2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impact Statement.
BiD 43-15,
Contracts and
Pro~rement-
Wage Requirements· Amendments
4.
If
a
Bill is likely to have no economic impact,
why
is that the case?
.
It
is uncertain without specific data whether Bi1143-15 would have a net economic
impact
on
employment
and
incomes
in
the County.
5. The following contributed to or concurred
with
this analysis: David Platt,
Mary
Casciotti.
and Rob Hagedoom.
Finance; Grace
Denno,
Office
of
Procurement: Erika
Lopez-Finn. Office ofManagement and Budget.
Department of
Finance
Page 2 of2
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
I
Testimony on behalf of County Executive Isiah Leggett
Bill 43-15,
Contracts and Procurement - Wage Requirements Law - Amendments
Good afternoon, Council President Leventhal and Members ofthe County Council. I am
Cherri Branson, Director of Montgomery County's Office of Procurement, and I am here
to testify on behalf of County Executive Isiah Leggett regarding Bill 43-15, Contracts and
Procurement Wage Requirements Law amendments.
If enacted, Bi1l43-15 would require contractors and subcontractors subject to the Wage
Requirements Law ("WRL") to submit bi-weekly payroll records to the County; provides
specific remedies for a contractor's violation of the WRL's wage or records requirements;
and adds a violation of the WRL to the list of items for which a contractor may be
debarred or suspended.
The County Executive supports the intention of this Bill and the Council's efforts to give
the Office of Procurement more WRL enforcement authority. However, there are certain
provisions which may undermine the goal of improving the efficacy of our WRL
enforcement efforts, and we look forward to working with you to resolve these concerns.
The County has approximately 400 contracts subject to the Wage Requirement Law.
. Although worker transition makes it difficult to produce an exact number, we believe that
these contracts employ at least 4,500-5,000 people.
Currently, the Office of Procurement requires quarterly submission of the payroll records
ofthese vendors. A quarterly submission schedule requires the submission of the payroll
records of each covered employee. More frequent submissions may enable us to detect a
failure to pay employees properly under the WRL. Once a WRL violation is suspected,
an audit is commenced. Thus, more frequent inspections may trigger more audits.
However, it should be noted that more frequent payroll submissions would also increase
the administrative costs of implementing this program. Additionally, while the language
of the bill provides for withholding payment in the event of a violation, it should be noted
that withholding payment during an on-going service contract may affect the ability of
the vendor to meet payroll obligations.
Further, while the County Executive supports the bill, it would be helpful for this bill to
address ambiguities within the law that also may negatively impact the enforcement
process.
When we meet for the upcoming work session on Bill 43-15, there are several issues
which we would like to put forward as potential items for discussion:
1) The WRL specifies that a violation occurs when the wage rate is less than the
established dollar amount. However, the law does not specify whether the
relevant dollar amount to be considered is the Gross Wage or the Net Wage.
Many desirable fringe benefits that positively affect employee well-being may
reduce the net wage dollar amount resulting in a figure that is lower than the
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
living wage. On the other hand, consideration of the gross wage as the only
measure which should be relied upon would increase the efficiency of
enforcement. Because each measure---net wage and gross wage---has advantage
and detriment, a legislative clarification of whether the dollar amount that should
be considered is the net wage or the gross wage would be helpful.
2)
As
the County Attorney has noted in his Memorandum dated October 29,2015,
the bill requires the CAO to make payroll records available for public inspection.
The Maryland Public Information Act prohibits the disclosure of an individual's
fmancial information. Therefore, to comply with the MPIA and this bill,
additional staff time would need to be devoted to assuring the proper redaction of
. personally identifiable information.
3) The bill permits the County to withhold payments from a contractor if a violation
of the WRL is found. However, the bill does not clearly indicate whether the
county may recoup the audit costs it incurs as a result ofthe enforcement action.
We would ask that audit costs be included in those liquidated damage costs that
the county may recoup.
4) The bill acknowledges the need to reconsider. the county's current suspension and
debarment system. We agree that the system needs to be changed and ask that the
changes occur holistically in a separate bilL
County Executive Leggett supports the intent ofthis bill and believes that stronger
enforcement of the WRL will send a powerful message to the contractors and their
employees. Executive branch staff is committed to working with the Council on this
measure.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Testimony of Adisa Muse
Political and Legislative Director
~ID
Working Families
on B43-15
December
1,
2015
Thank you
~.;;venthal
for holding this hearing today on B43-15. My name is AdisaMuse,
and I serve as the political and legislative director for Maryland Working Families. We are in
conversation with thousands of Montgomery County residents every year, including the working
people that we support and are assembled here today.
Maryland Working Families supports the concept of a living wage and without a doubt
we
support
B43-15. The modem living wage movement started in Maryland when Baltimore passed an
ordinance requiring firms that did business with the city to pay employees a rate above the minimum
wage while working on city contracts. Since then, over 120 communities have followed, some
setting wage floors more that twice the federal minimum
wages, and others, like Montgomery County, have required various benefits.
The most common themes among our fellow proponents of a living wage are (I) that wages should
be
high enough to allow workers to meet basic needs, and (2) that municipal policy should encourage
or require living wages for its employees and contractors, rather than exacerbate the problems faced
by low-wage workers.
It has been proven that living wages lift workers out of poverty and improve local economies by
increasing the circulation of money. But the only way for workers to benefit from living wage laws
is if they are covered by laws that are implemented and enforced.
If
few workers are covered and/or
policies are not actually implElftted or enforced, there is little reason to think that workers will gain.
~~lor~
~pl~~
B43-15 accomplishes
six
critical
things
that strengthens accountability procedures for the County's
Living Wage contractors and increases penalties for violators:
1.
Requires the county's Living Wage contractors to submit certified payrolls.
Maryland Working Families
I
2524 North Charles Street, Ste 3A
i
Baltimore, MD 21211
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
2. Allows the CAO or a designee to perform regular not just random audits for Living Wage
compliance.
If
there is a violation, the Director must issue a
written
decision and impose appropriate
sanctions.
3. Allows the Director to withhold a sufficient amount of payment from a contractor violating the
Living Wage to pay the back wages due to employees.
4. Extends liquidated damages to include providing late or inaccurate payroll records.
5. Allows the cOlmty to withhold payments to
Ii
ving wage contractors who fail to submit or are late
in submitting payroll records.
6. Adds violations of Living Wage requirements as a cause for debarment or suspension.
Finally, in this specific case, the CBA carve out shields Potomac Disposal from the automatic wage
increases needed to comply with the County's living wage law, and the company has used this
technicality to deny workers any cost ofliving increase. We need to fix this, and B43-15 provides
the opportunity to do so.
For more information contact Adisa Muse, Legislative and Political Director,
amuse@workingfamilies.org or (804) 721-5011
Maryland Working Families 12524 North Charles Street, Ste 3A 1Baltimore,
MD
21211
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Testimony
of Blanca
Portillo on B43-15
December 1, 2015
Thank you Madam Chair for holding this hearing. My name is Blanca Portillo. I am a
proud resident of Montgomery County. I live in Poolesville, Maryland. I am also
employed as a driver by Potomac Disposal.
I support B43-15 and ask that you pass this bill. I have worked for Potomac Disposal
for about four years. I have experience with Living Wage enforcement in
Montgomery County. The October 2014 audit conducted by the county found that
my employer had failed to pay me the Living Wage, and that I was owed several
hundred dollars in back pay. Unfortunately, it took me many, many months to get
my back pay from Potomac Disposal. B43-15 will allow the county to withhold
payments to its contractors who are Living Wage violators. The county would then
use that money to pay back wages so that other workers won't have to wait as long
as I did. As a mother ofthree, I could have used the back pay sooner.
I was also part of the LiUNA team that met with the management of Potomac
Disposal late last year to discuss an annual wage increase. The owner of the
company told us he was satisfied with what he was paying his workers, and that he
was going to apply for, but not share, any cost of living increase with those of us who
actually collect the trash. Please change the Living Wage law so that all county
contract workers are entitled to receive at ieast an annual cost of living adjustment.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
843-15
G,NO RENNE PR£S,!)ENT
YVETTE Cl:FFIE
SECRS-ARy-TREASuRER
NE~VIN
RANSOME RECORDER
WWW.MCSEO.ORG
S
Testimony of Erin Yeagley,
UFCW
Local 1994 Field Services
Representative/Organizer on 843-15 - Strengthening
Enforcement
of
the County's Living Wage Law
The 8,000 Montgomery County employees we represent enjoy protections from a
negotiated agreement that pays a living wage. However, we've discovered on too
many occasions that contractors working for our County are bilking their workers
despite the protections the County has put in place.
The workers at Potomac Disposal know this reality all too well. They've seen this
unscrupulous employer take advantage of loopholes in the living wage law, refusing
to negotiate wages despite having gained price adjustments on its County contract
They've also failed to pay back wages in a timely manner despite being ordered by
the County to do so. This is unacceptable.
We need to eliminate any employers' ability to work the system. The intent of price
adjustments is to give companies with long-term County contracts a tool to cover
increased operating expenses - including increases in labor expenses consistent
with the Consumer Price Index. Bill
43-15
would close the loopholes being exploited
by contractors like Potomac Disposal and would force living wage contractors to
submit certified payrolls. This creates parity in the contracting system, since
prevailing wage contractors are also required to submit certified payrolls. Record
keeping like this would help deter wage theft. The bill would also allow the County
to impose appropriate sanctions when necessary.
Companies that do business with the County should be held to the highest standard,
and the County needs to do all it can to protect workers and their families from
employers who would rob them of a living wage. Strengthening the enforcement
and reporting requirements for County Contractors will send a clear message that
its unacceptable to
try
to circumvent the law.
UFCW Local
1994
MCGEO urges the Council to pass
B43-15 .
..:
U
LU
....J
0::
u
o
L
L
o
o
VICE PRESIClENTS:
FRANK BECKHAM
""
o
JErl,RY
BONAPARTE
ROBER' LEHMAN
MARJORIE
BRONN
TERRI
MI~LEQ.
SEAN COLLINS
Tm,y
THOMilS
DICKSON
SW[;AP"A
P":JLETTE KEE-DUD,-EY
DE·'JlSE BRUSKN-GAMBRLl
J"
ROWE
,.~".
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Testimony of}bunio Medina on 843-15
December 1,2015
Thank you Chairwoman Floreen for holding this hearing today on B43-15.
My name is Jhunio Medina. I am a business agent with Local 657 of the Laborers'
International Union of North America, or LiUNA for short. Local 657 represents more than
1,600 members in the Washington DC area, including the 80 drivers and helpers of
Potomac Disposal, a company with a county contract to pick up residential trash and yard
waste. Potomac Disposal drivers and helpers work very hard. They service roughly 40,000
homes and collect between 60 and 100 tons of trash and yard waste each day.
LiUNA supports B43-15. In 2013, a county audit was undertaken at Potomac Disposal to
investigate workers' claims of underpayment. The audit covered a two-and-a-halfyear
period-May 2011 through November 2013-and found violations. The audit found that
29 drivers and 20 helpers were owed back wages, and that the employer was not
maintaining proper documentation. B43-15's requirement that Living Wage contractors
submit certified payrolls will more easily provide the county with the data it needs to
perform audits, and will increase contractor accountability. B43-15 will also allow the
County to withhold payments to a contractor and use that money to pay employees any
back wages due from Living Wage violations. This would have helped the workers of
Potomac Disposal. While the company was instructed by the county to pay employees any
back pay owed within two weeks of receiving the October 2, 2014 final aUdit, workers
waited considerably longer than two weeks.
I would also like to ask that you modify B43-15 to remove the exemption of collectively
bargained agreements from the Living Wage law. The county allows companies with long­
term sanitation contracts to request price adjustments to cover increased operating
expenses - including increases in labor expenses consistent with the Consumer Price Index.
Our agreement with Potomac Disposal provides for annual negotiated adjustments to
wages. In late 2014, LiUNA representatives, including me, met twice with Potomac Disposal
to discuss wages. During these negotiations, the company refused to discuss any wage
increases whatsoever. The owner told us that the company was seeking price adjustments
for its sanitation contracts with the county. He told us that if the price adjustments were
granted, he had no intention of allocating that money toward employee wage increases. He
said he was satisfied with what his workers were being paid. When we sought assistance
from the county, we were told there was nothing that could be done because of the
exemption. Situations such as this surely were not anticipated when the Living Wage law
was originally passed. Please eliminate the CBA carve out. When the Paid Sick leave bill was
passed in June, the Council rejected a CBA carve-out because the goal was to create a
minimum standard that must be met by businesses working in the county. We ask that you
apply the same principle here.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
December
1
8t,
2015
The Honorable Nancy Floreen
Montgomery County Council
Council Office Building
100 Maryland A venue, 5th Floor
Rockville, MD 20850
CAS'
A
I
~
\..
~
~
WE ARE CASA
SOMOS CASA
Dear Council President Nancy Floreen and members of the county council,
CASA is the region's largest organization serving the immigrant community,
representing more than eighty thousand lifetime members, operating 4 locations
within Montgomery County, and strongly supporting Bi1l43-15 because it protects
the rights of our workers.
CASA supports Montgomery County Living Wage Law Bill 43-15 for the 3
following reasons.
1. It strengthens enforcement of the county's living wage law by requiring that
county contractors and subcontractors maintain proper payroll documentation
providing the county with data to perform audits.
2. It ensures that unjust contractors have an economic incentive to pay their
workers a county mandated living wage when on a timely basis.
3. It also creates a base for county contractors to pay all of their workers the
living wage.
Furthermore, CASA strongly supports Bill 43-15 because it enforces the County's
existing Living wage law and moves us toward the right direction ensuring that our
hard working families, the backbone of our communities, are treated with respect
and dignity by being paid a wage that covers their basic needs for a safe, decent
standard of living. Montgomery County contract and subcontract employees should
be the example of living wages not the case for it. CASA respectfully urges a
favorable report. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kim Propeack, Esq.
Chief for Politics and Communications
8151 15
th
Ave, Hyattsville, Maryland, 20783
kpropeack@wearecasa.org
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Testimony of Michael Rubin, Jews United for Justice Board Member, for Bill 43-15
Good afternoon, members of the County Council, my name is Michael Rubin, and I am here representing
Jews United for Justice, where I serve as a member of the Board of Directors. JUFJ encourages your full
support of Bill 43-15 and agrees fully with the two sponsors, Council Members Navarro and Eirich and
co-sponsor, Council President leventhal, on the need to strengthen accountability procedures for the
County's living Wage contractors and increase penalties for violators. These needed changes are clearly
in line with the intent of the County's living Wage Act.
It is my understanding that Potomac Disposal and CAMCO, two county contractors covered by the living
wage law have both violated this law by underpaying employees in the case of Potomac Disposal, and
charging workers for cell phones and deducting such costs from the living Wage in the case of CAMCO.
Additionally, the current CBA carve out shields Potomac Disposal from the automatic CPI-based wage
increases due employees under the current living Wage law, while still allowing the company to request
CPI-based price adjustments.
I know that labor costs are the primary expense in any service business such as those provided by
CAMCO and Potomac Disposal. In the nonprofit where I work, 85% of our expenses are labor and
benefit costs. I would imagine that those of these county contractors are similar. It is immoral to get a
CPI-based price adjustment to a county contract and not pass on a fair share to those working at or it
seems sometimes below the living wage of $14.35 per hour. In my mind that is a clear violation of the
intent of our living Wage Act.
Bill 43-15 will do much to improve on current deficiencies:
Requiring certified payrolls will increase contractor accountability. Regular audits performed by the CAO
or designee creates a uniform policy which is always good government practice. Allowing the Director
to withhold payments to living Wage violators will speed up the payment of back-wages due
employees. Extending liquidated damages to include providing late or inaccurate payroll records gives
the law more teeth and provides greater incentives for compliance. So too, with allowing the county to
add living Wage requirement violations as a cause for debarment and suspension of a contractor.
The Jewish tradition teaches the importance of treating workers fairly, particularly low wage workers
who require prompt payment of wages for basic needs. The Torah or Bible tells us in leviticus 19:13:
"Thou shalt not oppress thy neighbor, nor rob him: the wages of a hired servant shall not abide with
thee all night until the morning"
Our County's living Wage law is an important way to ensure fair treatment of laborers providing
services paid for by public funds. It appears that the current law has some loopholes that allow for what
the Torah would call"oppression of our neighbors."
JUFJ encourages full-Council support of Bill 43-15 which improves the current law and should ensure
improved compliance with the living Wage Act. It is moral, it is good government and it is the right
thing to do. Thank you.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
State Headquarters
33 University Boulevard East
Baltimore Office
Mailing Address:
9 W. Mulberry
st,
4th
Floor
Baltimore, MD 21201
Phone: 301.494.4998
P.O.
Box
2181
Silver Spring, MD 20915
Silver Spring, MO 20901
www.ProgressiveMaryiand.org
q
Contact@ProgressiveMaryiand.org
Testimony on Montgomery County Bm 43-15
DATE:
POSITION:
December 1st, 2015
Support
Thank you to CounciLmembers Elrich, Navarro and Council President Leventhal for sponsoring Bill 43-15
and the opportunity to testify on this issue. I am here on behalf of Progressive Maryland, a grassroots,
nonprofit organization of more than 23,000 individual members and 35 organizational affiliates
statewide. Our mission is to improve the lives of working families in Maryland. Please note our strong
support for this bill.
As advocates for working people in Maryland, we recognize the need for decent wages that allow
workers to provide for the needs of their families. As wages stagnate and anti-labor policies become
increasingly commonplace nationwide, it is crucial for Montgomery County to set itself apart as a
progressive community that protects the hard fought victories of working people.
We fully support efforts to ensure compliance with the County's living wage requirement. It is not
enough to have such a law 'in place if employers are able to skirt its requirements without penalty.
Furthermore, workers should not have to wait months to receive compensation for back wages when
violations are found to have occurred. Many of our families rely on every dollar we earn to pay for life's
basic needs such as rent, utilities, food, and childcare. When employerscheat the system and fail to pay
their workers what is due, the consequences for families can be severe.
Workers deserve quick recourse when these situations occur and the County must have the authority and
financial means to pay them the wages they are due. We therefore support this bill's proposal to allow
the County to withhold payment to contractors who have violated the living wage statute for the
purpose of paying back wages and recouping damages.
In addition to our support of this bill, we ask the Council to eliminate the collective bargaining carveout
currently in place. Because of this existing provision, organized workers have no recourse when
employers refuse to raise wages even after they receive cost adjustments from the County. These
adjustments are intended to cover additional operating costs, including labor, but that is not always the
reality. We stood against the collective bargaining carveout for paid sick leave and do not believe it
should be the policy of the Council to exclude organized workers from any workforce protections.
In closing, we ask that you support Bill 43-15 to ensure all County contractors comply with Montgomery
County's living wage standard. We also urge you to modify this bill by eliminating the collective
bargaining agreement carveout. Thank you.
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Testimony
of Estanis
Lagos on 843-15
December 1, 2015
Thank you Chairwoman Floreen for holding this hearing. My name is Estanis Lagos. I
have worked for Potomac Disposal for the past four years. I am employed as a
driver. I am also a resident of Montgomery County. I live in Germantown.
I am here to ask you to pass B43-15. In 2013, my co-workers and I went on strike
because many of us were being not being paid the county's living wage. The County
investigated our claims and found that 49 workers were owed back wages. It took
the company a long time to pay the back wages. B43-15 will allow the county to
withhold payments to contractors who are violating the Living Wage, and use that
money to pay back wages to workers. This change in the law will be very beneficial
to workers.
I would also ask that you update the Living Wage law to address another situation.
The workers at Potomac Disposal have a collectively bargained agreement that
requires management and labor to meet and discuss a wage increase each year. Late
last year, when our representatives sat down with management, they were told that
the company was unwilling to provide a 1.6 percent cost of living increase to
workers. Management also said that the company was going to apply for a cost of
Hving increase and not give the employees a raise. I was very upset when I heard
this. We went to the county for help and we were told there was nothing that that
the county could do because of the way the Living Wage law is currently written.
Please fix the law so that all county contract workers are entitled to receive at least a
cost of living increase each year.
@