Loading...
(a) An Awarding Authority may allow a Successor Contractor or Subcontractor to fill a position under a Contractor with a person who has been employed by the Contractor or Subcontractor continuously for at least 12 months prior to the commencement of the Successor Contract working in a position similar to the position to be filled in the Successor Contract. The Successor Contractor or Subcontractor shall first obtain written approval of the Awarding Authority by demonstrating that: (a) the person would otherwise be laid off work; and (b) the person’s retention would be helpful to the Contractor or Subcontractor in performing the Successor Contract.
(b) Nothing in this article shall limit the right of the DAA to waive the provisions herein with respect to a Contractor if it finds it is not in the best interest of the City.
SECTION HISTORY
Added by Ord. No. 170,784, Eff. 1-13-96.
Amended by: Ord. No. 171,004, Eff. 5-18-96; In Entirety, Ord. No. 184,293, Eff. 6-27-16; In Entirety, Ord. No. 185,356, Eff. 1-26-18.
This article shall not be construed to limit an Employee's right to bring legal action for wrongful termination.
SECTION HISTORY
Added by Ord. No. 170,784, Eff. 1-13-96.
Amended by: Ord. No. 171,004, Eff. 5-18-96; In Entirety, Ord. No. 184,293, Eff. 6-27-16; In Entirety, Ord. No. 185,356, Eff. 1-26-18.
This article shall apply to the expenditure, whether through Contracts let by the City or by City Financial Assistance Recipients, of funds entirely within the City’s control and to other funds, such as federal or state grant funds, where the application of this article is consonant with the laws authorizing the City to expend such other funds. City Financial Assistance Recipients shall apply this article to the expenditure of non-City funds for Contracts to be performed in the City by complying with Section 10.36.2(i) and by contractually requiring their Contractors with Contracts to comply with this article. Such requirement shall be imposed by the recipient until the City financial assistance has been fully expended.
SECTION HISTORY
Added by Ord. No. 171,004, Eff. 5-18-96.
Amended by: Ord. No. 172,337, Eff. 1-14-99; Ord. No. 172,843, Eff. 11-4-99; In Entirety, Ord. No. 184,293, Eff. 6-27-16; In Entirety, Ord. No. 185,356, Eff. 1-26-18.
The DAA shall promulgate rules for implementation of this article and otherwise coordinate administration of the requirements of this article.
SECTION HISTORY
Added by Ord. No. 171,004, Eff. 5-18-96.
Amended by: Ord. No. 176,155, Eff. 9-22-04; Ord. No. 176,283, Eff. 12-25-04, Oper. 9-22-04; In Entirety, Ord. No. 184,293, Eff. 6-27-16; In Entirety, Ord. No. 185,356, Eff. 1-26-18.
If any subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this article is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this section, and each and every subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof not declared invalid or unconstitutional, without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION HISTORY
Added by Ord. No. 171,004, Eff. 5-18-96.
Amended by: In Entirety, Ord. No. 184,293, Eff. 6-27-16; In Entirety, Ord. No. 185,356, Eff. 1-26-18.
Section
10.37 Legislative Findings.
10.37.1 Definitions.
10.37.2 Payment of Minimum Compensation to Employees.
10.37.3 Health Benefits.
10.37.4 Employer Reporting and Notification Requirements.
10.37.5 Retaliation Prohibited.
10.37.6 Enforcement.
10.37.7 Administration.
10.37.8 City is a Third Party Beneficiary of Contracts Between an Employer and Subcontractor for Purposes of Enforcement.
10.37.9 Coexistence with Other Available Relief for Specific Deprivations of Protected Rights.
10.37.10 Expenditures Covered.
10.37.11 Timing of Application.
10.37.12 Express Supersession by Collective Bargaining Agreement.
10.37.13 Liberal Interpretation of Coverage; Rebuttable Presumption of Coverage.
10.37.14 Contracts, Employers and Employees Not Subject to this Article.
10.37.15 Exemptions.
10.37.16 Severability.
The City awards many contracts to private firms to provide services to the public and to City government. Many lessees or licensees of City property perform services that affect the proprietary interests of City government in that their performance impacts the success of City operations. The City also provides financial assistance and funding to other firms for the purpose of economic development or job growth. The City expends grant funds under programs created by the federal and state governments. These expenditures serve to promote the goals established for the grant programs and for similar goals of the City. The City intends that the policies underlying this article serve to guide the expenditure of such funds to the extent allowed by the laws under which such grant programs are established.
Experience indicates that procurement by contract of services all too often has resulted in the payment by service contractors to their employees of wages at or slightly above the minimum required by federal and state minimum wage laws. The minimal compensation tends to inhibit the quantity and quality of services rendered by those employees to the City and to the public. Underpaying employees in this way fosters high turnover, absenteeism and lackluster performance. Conversely, adequate compensation promotes amelioration of these undesirable conditions. Through this article, the City intends to require service contractors to provide a minimum level of compensation which will improve the level of services rendered to and for the City.
The inadequate compensation leaves service employees with insufficient resources to afford life in Los Angeles. Contracting decisions involving the expenditure of City funds should not foster conditions that place a burden on limited social services. The City, as a principal provider of social support services, has an interest in promoting an employment environment that protects such limited resources. In requiring the payment of a higher minimum level of compensation, this article benefits that interest.
In comparison with the wages paid at San Francisco International Airport, the wage for Los Angeles airport workers is often lower even though the airports are similar in the number of passengers they serve and have similar goals of providing a living wage to the airport workforce. Studies show that higher wages at the airport leads to increases in worker productivity and improves customer service. Higher wages for airport workers also results in a decline in worker turnover, yielding savings to the employers and alleviating potential security concerns. Therefore, the City finds that a higher wage for airport employees is needed to reduce turnover and retain a qualified and stable workforce.
Many airport workers who provide catering services to the airlines are paid below the living wage. Federal law allows employment contract agreements between airline caterers and its workers to remain in effect without an expiration date, effectively freezing wages for workers. Long-term employment contract agreements provide little incentive for employers to renegotiate the employment contract agreements with their workers. Airline catering workers often struggle to pay their bills, sometimes having to choose between paying medical bills and buying food for their families. The City finds that airline caterers should pay their workers, at a minimum, the living wage with benefits.
Airport workers are also the first to respond when an emergency occurs at the airport. In order to properly assist first responders during a crisis at the airport, the City finds that airport employees of Certified Service Provider License Agreement holders should be formally trained for an emergency response at the airport.
Nothing less than the living wage should be paid by employers that are the recipients of City financial assistance. Whether workers are engaged in manufacturing or some other line of business, the City does not wish to foster an economic climate where a lesser wage is all that is offered to the working poor.
The City holds a proprietary interest in the work performed by many employees of City lessees and licensees and by their service contractors, subcontractors, sublessees and sublicensees. The success or failure of City operations may turn on the success or failure of these enterprises, for the City has a genuine stake in how the public perceives the services rendered for them by such businesses. Inadequate compensation of these employees adversely impacts the performance by the City’s lessee or licensee and thereby hinders the opportunity for success of City operations. A proprietary interest in providing a living wage is important for various reasons, including, but not limited to: 1) the public perception of the services or products rendered to them by a business; 2) security concerns related to the location of the business or any product or service the business produces; or 3) an employer’s industry-specific job classification which is in the City’s interest to cover by the living wage. This article is meant to cover all such employees not expressly exempted.
Requiring payment of the living wage further serves a proprietary concern of the City. If an employer does not comply with this article, the City may: 1) declare a material breach of the contract; 2) declare the employer non- responsible and limit its ability to bid on future City contracts, leases or licenses; and 3) exercise any other remedies available.
SECTION HISTORY
Article and Section Added by Ord. No. 171,547, Eff. 5-5-97.
Amended by: In Entirety, Ord. No. 172,336, Eff. 1-14-99; In Entirety, Ord. No. 184,318, Eff. 7-7-16; In Entirety, Ord. No. 185,321, Eff. 1-20-18.
Loading...