City of Chicago City Council Rules of Conduct for Public Meetings, 2023-2027
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of Order and Procedure,
the Sergeant-at-Arms sets forth the following rules of conduct for members of the public.
These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing gallery or room is open for a meeting of the City Council or any of its committees.
All individuals and their belongings are subject to search at entry or upon request.
Individuals must remain seated at all times except 1. when entering or exiting the gallery,
2. when providing public comment during the portion of a meeting set aside for that purpose,
or 3. when asked to rise and be acknowledged by a member of the City Council.
Profane threat.
threatening, harassing, abusive, or defamatory behavior, or speech, which in the judgment of
the meeting's chair, or the sergeant-at-arms, may lead to a breach of the peace, or disrupt the
orderly conduct of the meeting, is not permitted. Disruptive or distracting actions, such as the
stomping of feet, waving of arms, throwing any item, whistling, booing, shouting, or other loud
utterances, are not permitted when in the judgment of the meeting's chair, or the sergeant-at-arms,
such actions are disrupting or impeding the orderly conduct of the meeting. Any item that
poses a potential safety hazards, as determined by the sergeant-at-arms, is prohibited in the gallery.
Such items include, but are not limited to, 1. Any pointed objects, including knives of any kind,
2. Banners, flyers, or other forms of signage. 3. Food and beverages, including in glass or metal
canisters. 4. Backpacks, large bags, and sealed packages. Clear bags, not tinted in color, that do
not exceed 12 inches by 6 inches by 12, are permitted and subject to search. And 5. Firearms, ammunition,
fireworks, laser pointers, stun guns, tasers, mace pepper spray, and toy weapons. Cell phones and
other small handheld recording devices must be placed in silent mode, can only be used while seated,
and can only be used in a manner that does not interfere with the ability other individuals to
view or hear the proceedings. Individuals or groups failing to adhere to these rules will be subject to
removal from the remainder of the meeting by the sergeant-at-arms. City of Chicago City Council
Rules of Conduct for Public Meetings, 2023-2027. Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of
Order and Procedure. The sergeant-at-arms sets forth the following rules of conduct for members of the
public. These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing gallery or room is open for a meeting
of the City Council or any of its committees. All individuals and their belongings are subject to
search at entry or upon request. Individuals must remain seated at all times except, one, when entering or
exiting the gallery. Two, when providing public comment during the portion of a meeting, set aside for
that purpose. Or three, when asked to rise and be acknowledged by a member of the City Council.
Profane, threatening, harassing, abusive, or defamatory behavior, or speech, which in the judgment of the
meeting's chair or the sergeant-at-arms may lead to a breach of the peace or disrupt the orderly conduct
of the meeting, is not permitted. Disruptive or distracting actions, such as the stomping of feet,
waving of arms, throwing any item, whistling, booing, shouting, or other loud utterances, are not permitted
when in the judgment of the meeting's chair or the sergeant-at-arms, such actions are disrupting or
impeding the orderly conduct of the meeting. Any item that poses a potential safety hazards,
as determined by the sergeant-at-arms, is prohibited in the gallery. Such items include, but are not limited
to, one, any pointed objects, including knives of any kind. Two, banners, flyers, or other forms of signage.
Three, food and beverages, including in glass or metal canisters. Four, backpacks, large bags, and sealed
packages. Clear bags, not tinted in color, that do not exceed 12 inches by 6 inches by 12, are permitted
and subject to search. And five, firearms, ammunition, fireworks, laser pointers, stun guns, tasers,
mace pepper spray, and toy weapons. Cell phones and other small handheld recording devices must be
placed in silent mode, can only be used while seated, and can only be used in a manner that does
not interfere with the ability other individuals to view or hear the proceedings. Individuals or groups
failing to adhere to these rules will be subject to removal from the remainder of the meeting by the
sergeant-at-arms. City of Chicago City Council Rules of Conduct for Public Meetings 2023-2027
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of Order and Procedure, the sergeant-at-arms
sets forth the following rules of conduct for members of the public. These rules shall be in effect at all
times that a viewing gallery or room is open for a meeting of the city council or any of its
committees. All individuals and their belongings are subject to search at entry or upon request.
Individuals must remain seated at all times except, one, when entering or exiting the gallery,
two, when providing public comment during the portion of a meeting set aside for that purpose,
or three, when asked to rise and be acknowledged by a member of the city council.
Propane, threatening, harassing, abusive, or defamatory behavior, or speech, which in the judgment of the
meeting's chair, or the sergeant-at-arms, may lead to a breach of the peace, or disrupt the orderly conduct
of the meeting, is not permitted. Disruptive or distracting actions, such as the stomping of feet,
waving of arms, throwing any item, whistling, booing, shouting, or other loud utterances,
are not permitted when in the judgment of the meeting's chair, or the sergeant-at-arms,
such actions are disrupting or impeding the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Any item that poses a potential safety hazards, as determined by the sergeant-at-arms,
is prohibited in the gallery. Such items include, but are not limited to,
one, any pointed objects, including knives of any kind, two, banners, flyers, or other forms of
signage, three, food and beverages, including in glass or metal canisters, four, backpacks,
large bags, and sealed packages, clear bags, not tinted in color, that do not exceed 12 inches by
six inches by 12, are permitted and subject to search, and five, firearms, ammunition, fireworks,
laser pointers, stun guns, tasers, mace pepper spray, and toy weapon.
The Joint Committee on License and Workforce will now come to order. Today we are here for a subject
matter hearing on SO2025-0018778, an ordinance amending titles four and six regarding regulation
of last mile warehouses and e-commerce fulfillment centers. We have the latest version of the
substitute ordinance was sent to Alders last night. Industry and advocates got it about a week ago.
This is a subject matter hearing, and there will be no votes taken today, so we will not be adopting
this version at the meeting today. Before we begin, I will be conducting a roll call of our members of
the esteemed License Committee and the Workforce Committee in order to establish quorum to conduct
today's meeting. Alderman Alderman Alder Yancey, Alder Wagespec, Alder Villegas, Alder Vasquez,
Alder Teleferro, Alder Spasado, Alder Scott, Alder Riley, Alder Ramirez, Alder Quinn, Alder Quesada,
Alder O'Shea, Alder Napolitano, Alder Moore, Alder Mitts, Alder Martin, Alder Lawson, Alder Hall,
Alder Gutierrez, Alders Gardner, Curtis, Conway, Coleman, Clay, Alder Chico, Alder Cardona,
Alder Beal, Alder Beal, Chair Rodriguez is present, and Chair Silverstein. We have a quorum of 15 members
of the joint committee. There are 29 members of both committees. 15 is a quorum. The following
Alders have requested Rule 59 participation. Alderman Yancey, Quinn, Clay, Mitts, Gardner,
and Talia Ferro can have a motion to approve Alder Quesada. So moves, all those in favor signify by saying
I, Alder Fasado is a no, and the opinion that chairs the I's habits. Alders Yancey, Quinn, Clay,
Mitts, Gardner, and Talia Ferro will be reflected as present for the meeting. At this time, we'll begin
the public comment period. I want to note that written comments received prior to the deadline
have all been distributed to committee members. Extra copies are available if anyone needs so.
The public comment period will be 10 minutes, and we will begin, three minutes each, with
Mr. George Blakemore. Three minutes each.
Thank you very much, sir. I was acting a little irrational.
Thank you.
For some of these young people that's not familiar with how public government work, these Amazon workers,
one thing on your job, you've got to be on time.
You keep being late at Amazon, they'll fire you.
So you saw that your office wasn't on time.
Another thing I advocate for, why didn't you have agendas?
But each citizen is entitled to an agenda, to know what's going on.
Nothing is going on here.
It's just a subject matter.
Only it's a dog and pony show.
Workforce development.
Who are the workers?
And where do they work?
A lot of them are illegal.
Mr. Blakemore, what are you talking about?
Now, these altruists voted for illegal immigrants to come here and get jobs, goods, and services,
and especially some of the black ones, when your own people are not getting these jobs, goods, contracts, and services.
And another thing, citizens, they are all Democrats, a one-party system, like Communist China.
Did you know America and China, they trade with each other?
Oh, yes, they do.
Oh, and Russia, all of them about the money.
And you little workers are peons to all the parties, the Democrats and the Republican parties.
They give nothing about you.
It's about the money.
And now they're having something to move all the workforce out, artificial intelligence.
And these young people here, when you know better, you do better.
My name is George Blakemore, and I demanded an agenda, an agenda to read.
Read is fundamental.
Each one of y'all should have had an agenda because somebody told you you would come down and make a difference.
This is only on subject matter.
Only.
No laws will be passed to help you.
Okay?
So it's very important.
I'm glad to see all of you.
And I'm using this as a time to inform and engage and enlighten people to educate you how a non-fessional, they work in their own selfish interest.
So now you're quiet.
Now you've been a part of meeting Mr. George Blakemore.
And I'm old, I'm poor, and I'm black, and I'm nappy, and I am somebody.
And each one of you are somebody.
Don't let the system play you.
You've been played on.
Either you're going to be a player or you're going to be played on.
Amazon, play on you.
Uh-huh.
They want the illegal, we're poor team.
No, thank you, sir.
All right.
Forgive me, I misspoke.
We'll have public comment for 30 minutes.
Next up, and I'm going to read off the next couple of speakers so you'll be ready.
So the next speaker, immediate speaker, is Jason Davis, and following him will be Rogelio Moreno.
So, Mr. Davis, if you'd approach the mic, and you have three minutes.
And Mr. Moreno, if you could line up behind him, please.
Mr. Davis, your time begins when you speak.
Go ahead.
Good afternoon, Chairman Stevenson, Chairman Rodriguez, and the members of the committee.
My name is Jason Davis, and I am a driver for Trademark Logistics.
I have been there for over a year.
This job has provided me with opportunities that I never thought were possible.
Before this, I was doing whatever I could do to make ends meet.
I do not have the education to get a higher-paying corporate job.
I did whatever I could do to pay the bills to make ends meet.
When I found this job, I was happy for it.
When I found out that y'all was talking about shutting the job down and doing everything else
and making it where we would be penalized for something that we don't even understand,
I had to come down here and say what I needed to say to make sure that my company is able to do the things that they need to do
so we can protect our livelihood.
Thank you very much.
Recognizing Alderman Vasquez for the quorum, next up is Rogelio Moreno, followed by Patrick Shueska.
Rogelio Moreno?
Okay.
We'll move on to Patrick Shueska.
Good afternoon.
Thank you, Chairwoman Silverstein, Chairman Rodriguez, for letting me speak today
and to all the members of the committee here today.
My name is Patrick Shueska, and I'm General Counsel for the Illinois Manufacturers Association.
I'm here today to express IMA's opposition to the proposed ordinance before you today.
The IMA represents nearly 4,000 companies throughout the state of Illinois.
We employ over 650,000 members through those manufacturing companies and workers throughout the state.
We, too, share a goal of keeping Chicago streets safe for drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, delivery workers,
but we have serious concerns about the ordinance that's in front of you today
that creates a new sweeping regulatory regime here in the city of Chicago.
This ordinance will require businesses operating facilities outside of the city of Chicago to obtain a Chicago license
simply because the goods originating at those facilities are ultimately delivered to Chicago consumers.
The ordinance expressly states those facilities outside Chicago are within its intended reach
and characterizes the license as a condition of using Chicago streets to conduct commercial delivery business.
That's an extraordinary expansion of municipal regulation,
and it creates a precedent that should be concerned for businesses throughout the region.
We're also concerned about how some of these requirements could actually affect safety.
The ordinance would regulate who can supervise couriers,
and under certain contracting arrangements prohibit a licensee from determining the sequence or timing of deliveries
or using technology to monitor an individual's driver's location, speed, driving behavior, or task base.
Those technologies are important safety tools,
and real-time information about speeding, unsafe driving, routing, vehicle conditions, and driver behavior
can allow a company to identify risks and intervene before accidents occur.
We should be extremely cautious about adopting rules that could discourage
or restrict the use of legitimate safety technology
while simultaneously holding companies responsible for what happens on Chicago city streets.
This ordinance also imposes extensive requirements governing employer transitions,
employer retention, discipline, and termination.
This places city government deeply into decisions traditionally made by employers and contractors.
Finally, these requirements come with substantial enforcement consequences,
including private rights of action, lawsuits, attorney's fees, damages, and penalties
that can accrue separately for each infraction.
If the objective is safer city streets, the city should directly regulate unsafe conduct on those streets.
It shouldn't use traffic safety as the basis for regulating employment relationships,
contracting structures, technology use, or facilities that locate outside of the city of Chicago.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
Next up, the next two individuals will be Enrique Holguin and Abdul Kareem Savaya, I believe.
Enrique Holguin.
Good afternoon.
My name is Enrique.
I've been a driver at Amazon for three and a half years.
I have firsthand experienced the stress and pressure that Amazon enforces on their drivers.
I've been injured on the job and still told by dispatch to deliver in a timely manner without providing proper assistance or accommodations.
In order to meet those demands, I was pressured to cut corners, drive in an unsafe manner,
which meant I had to start rushing to deliver packages, park in front of fire hydrants, and block crosswalks,
all so we could keep up with Amazon's unreasonable expectations.
These working conditions were so demanding that even on the risk of further injury, we were expected to keep up pace.
I knew of facilities even going as far as suspending drivers for up to a week if they ever finish the route after a designated time.
How is this providing safe working conditions for Amazon delivery drivers when you're constantly pressuring them to finish the routes?
Many drivers in the city can relate to this and are constantly put in situations where they risk the public's well-being in order to avoid being penalized for not completing a route on time.
These are some of the reasons why I support the DPA, and I believe this would help promote safety and security for the public and Amazon drivers around the Chicagoland area.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And I would like to see this Protection Delivery Act passed just because I've seen how Amazon is treating their drivers.
And I would like to see the right as a worker, benefits, and job protection just like us, UPS.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Next up, Daniel P. followed by Asconio Africano, I believe is the name.
Daniel P.
Good afternoon, members of the committee.
My name is Daniel Panzarella, and I own Veterans Logistics, LLC.
I'm a Marine combat veteran, and I chose to move to Chicago after I got out of the Marines to go to DePaul on the GI Bill.
And then I chose to stay and start my business here in the city because I think that Chicago is a great place.
Today, we employ over 200 people at Veterans Logistics.
Most, if not all of them, live within the city of Chicago around where our warehouse is located at, at 35th and Ashland.
My employees make my company.
Without them, there's nothing that I'd have.
They run the operations day to day, making sure they deliver all the packages.
I started my business after DePaul, but I chose to stay here, and I hear that from my employees all the time, that they love it.
It confuses me why city officials work against themselves through initiatives like this.
My proposal, the proposal is framed as a worker safety initiative.
I don't see anything in the proposal that promotes safety.
What I do see is a series of complex new mandates related to contracting, training, personal decisions, technology, extensive record keeping,
and more responsibility on human resource professionals to manage those responsibilities.
For owners like me, small business owners, these requirements would create significant impasse to being able to run our business,
businesses, and it would put extreme financial burden on us that will ultimately force myself and others that have these small businesses to close.
Businesses like mine were not consulted about this proposal, nor were we even clear on what it includes and how it affects the very people that it claims to protect.
A new ordinance is being introduced, and we haven't even had a chance to fully review it.
We can see that this is intended to stack together new rules that intentionally make it difficult for us to understand and operate as small businesses.
With that, I urge the city council to reject the proposal and put more time into working with us on this issue.
I support worker safety and workplace accountability, and this is not addressing either of those concerns
and ultimately will not lead to better safe conditions on our streets.
Thank you.
Next up is Asconio Africano, followed by Sanjay Tekchandani.
Good afternoon, all.
My name is Asconio Africano.
There are many here with more impressive resumes and more well-versed in public speaking than me,
so I ask you all for a bit of humility while I submit my experience.
A little bit about me.
I was born and raised in Chicago, and I have a degree in nursing from our own Malcolm X University and the University of Illinois Chicago.
Throughout my education, I worked for Amazon both in the warehouse and at driver facilities in Chicago for more than four years.
During this time, I've seen the intense pressure of Amazon's constant push for productivity with complete disregard for worker safety and public safety.
Amazon knows the standards they set forth for the workers both inside the warehouse and, more importantly, on the road is simply not attainable while adhering to a standard of safety fitting of those operating in the public space.
So they came up with the DSP model as a means to protect themselves and shift the blame for the inexorable consequences.
Some examples of these consequences are drivers working through breaks and lunches, drivers getting injured on the job due to poorly maintained equipment,
drivers having to illegally park in order to keep up with the quotas enforced,
drivers inadvertently committing traffic violations while attempting to adhere to the so-called safety,
to the so-called standards set forth by the safety technology that our vans are outfitted with.
So I ask, is this what we have come to expect from the largest delivery company in the city, the state, and the country?
A company that makes over $50 billion a year.
What I believe we need is a new standard of safety set for those drivers, not only to their benefit,
but also to the benefit of the public in this city.
This is why I support the Delivery Protection Act.
Thank you.
Next up, Sanjay Sakjadani, followed by Melanie Perez.
Good afternoon, Chair Silverstein, Chair Rodriguez, and members of the committee.
My name is Sanjay Tekjadani, and I'm the owner of Timestamp Logistics,
and we operate out of DXH1 in Archer and Halstead, at Archer and Halstead.
I started my business, my small delivery business, during COVID-19.
And this was a fantastic opportunity, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, to use my previous experience to create something.
I was able to build my company from the ground up, and today I employ over 120 people at the delivery station.
I was born in India, and I have lived in three different continents, but my family and I ultimately chose to make Chicago home.
My wife is a teacher at Chicago Public Schools.
I love this city because it has given me the opportunities to become who I am today, including a small business owner.
And as we know, Chicago supports small business owners, and we are the fabric of the city of Chicago.
When I was made aware of this proposal, I was confused.
Doing business in Chicago is a privilege, but proposals like this can make it unnecessarily complicated and costly.
Unlike large corporations, I don't have the resources to completely restructure my team and to build a team up again from ground up.
When you see that blue van delivering packages for you, that could be one of my drivers.
Amazon has provided me that opportunity to be a delivery service partner, but I do not operate a mega corporate corporation.
I employ about 120 people, and almost all of them are from the community.
Most of my employees don't have a high school education, but my company is able to provide them a competitive wage.
We provide health benefits.
We provide 401K, and we also provide them tuition reimbursement.
The proudest moments I have are when Ricardo tells me he just bought a house.
Luis tells me he just went and got himself a car.
Amari just told me that she signed up for the education allowance because she wanted to kind of further her career.
Those are the moments that melt my heart and make me proud as a small business owner.
We are family.
They are my extended family.
The proposal would not only have a trickle-down employee on my family, but also all the employees that are my extended families,
and also a lot of small businesses that support us to ensure that we deliver packages on time
and deliver those customer smiles safely to customers in Chicago.
I started this business because I wanted to give back to the community.
I just want to reiterate, my extended family, they're a responsibility.
I take responsibility.
It's no longer about me, but it's about protecting them and being responsible.
Thank you, sir.
Next up will be Melanie Perez, followed by M. Omar Khan.
Good afternoon.
My name is Melanie Perez.
I've been a delivery driver from Amazon for three years, and I'm proud to be here as someone who has experienced firsthand what it's like to work inside Amazon's delivery system.
My experience as a driver opened my eyes to how much control Amazon has over the work we do,
while us drivers are often left without protections, accountability, and a voice that we deserve.
I'm organizing in support of the Delivery Protection Act because I believe Amazon should be held accountable for us workers and communities that keep its delivery operation running.
I know what it's like to be on the other side of that van door.
I know the pressures drivers face, and I believe we deserve better.
I'm here to help make sure Amazon workers have a voice, a seat at the table, and the power to stand together.
I urge you to stand for work and public safety and support the Delivery Protection Act.
Thank you.
Thank you.
M. Omar Khan, followed by our last speaker, Christopher Torres.
Good afternoon, Chair Silvestri and Chair Rodriguez and members of the committee.
My name is Omar Khan, and I started Starfleet Logistics back in October of 2020 during the height of the COVID pandemic as well.
I actually came to the United States as an immigrant.
I was born in the United Kingdom.
We moved to the U.S. in 1989.
We moved to Chicago in 1998.
I've been here ever since.
I became a citizen myself in 2021.
Shortly after I started my business.
Currently, Starfleet, we employ 104 individuals.
And just to give you an idea right now, that represents almost $3 million of income.
That represents approximately three-quarters of a million dollars in payroll taxes.
It represents a countless amount of health care benefits.
It also represents tuition reimbursement, dental, vision, et cetera.
My opportunity to speak here is focused on one primary thing.
Prior to becoming a DSP owner, I actually...
Prior to becoming a DSP owner, I actually...
worked in the regulatory space. I worked as a derivatives regulator. And we had a conversation
amongst my colleagues. And one very interesting thing came up. We noticed that for every ounce
of regulation we applied, there was easily a pound of cost. And there's no difference here
with this particular ordinance. Our concerns are that the cost to implement this ordinance would
put us out of business. That means that $3 million is gone. That means that that tuition
reimbursement is gone. The 401k, that's gone. That's something that we can no longer provide.
I know my drivers. I know them inside and out. We work together. I don't have a board of directors
to report to. I'm a private company. I don't have shareholders. I speak to my employees directly.
My job is to work with them to make their lives as easy as possible. And we work together,
sometimes above and beyond what Amazon would require. And our goal is to work together to
solve the problem every single day of delivering north of 10,000 packages a day here in the city
of Chicago. I'm based out of 35th and Ashland. Over 90% of my work staff comes from the area
where I am based out of. So that is, again, income and opportunity that is going to leave
if we cannot meet the demands of this regulation, which as it stands right now, I can tell you
confidently we cannot. I would like also for people here to consider that while we are working
to solve all the problems that come up during delivery, at no point is it our goal to ever make
the driver's life miserable? We are, as I said, private companies, all the DSP owners that you
hear from today. We are all competing for the same employment staff. And the only way we can actually
do that is by providing better benefits, better time management, better scheduling, and et cetera,
for our drivers. Yes, we do. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. And last, we have Christopher Torres. Christopher Torres.
Hello, everybody. My name is Christopher Torres. I have been a driver for two years. And in my experience,
I would say the DSP model has been the greatest contributor to Amazon's success, largely in part
because it has allowed Amazon to dodge its responsibility to its employees. Sitting here and
listening to people talk about DSPs as a small business, the reality is that if you are a small
business, you would operate outside of Amazon's bounds and you would not be, you would not be
withholding to Amazon's regulations. I was a previous employee of Starfleet and I didn't even know you
were the CEO. I'm sure you didn't even know me. And that's, that's the bottom line of Amazon is it
works in the shadows. You work as somebody who is apart from everybody else and you are separated
in any way. As a worker, the city of Chicago is essentially your home. It is our workplace.
Wherever we are going on the street, it is our workplace. And we demand safety. As, as an employee,
you, you will go through hell. You will go through storms, snow, intense heat, terrible customers,
terrible neighbors. And through the end of it all, you have to smile. And it doesn't matter
what you go through. At the end of the day, you go home and then you go to sleep and you rinse and
repeat. And that was my life for two years. And even then I had to work a second job because I
couldn't make ends meet. Amazon as a company is the largest company in the world, in the world.
Not just the country, in the world. And you have the audacity to sit here and claim yourself as a
small business with over a hundred employees. That is not a small business, my friends. That is not a
small business. A real, a real small business are these mom and pop shop homes. The, the actual shops
that have to deliver out of their personal vehicles that aren't demanding their employees off of shift
to go and deliver a package because the customer wasn't home. And if Amazon finds out that that
package wasn't delivered, everybody will hear about it. So as, as an employee, as a driver,
it is important that you, Alderman, please hear us. This, this is not a game for, for our lives,
realistically. The city of Chicago is our workplace. We demand what is fair for us. Thank you.
This concludes the public comment period. We are now moving on to the subject matter hearing
on SO2025-0018778. Before moving on to our guest panelists, I want to note that we have with us
Assistant Commissioner Chris Jessup. I think you're sitting in the back somewhere. I saw you.
There he is back there. We also have Chief Assistant Corporation Counsel, Ray Phillips-Santos
from the Department of Law and Miguel Campos. Are you here? Miguel's in the back. Okay.
Director of Labor Standards, also sitting in the box. Today we have with us expert witnesses,
Teamsters, Local 705 Vice President Juan Campos, e-commerce, Commerce Director,
Ash Shora Brooks, and e-commerce driver and organizer, Luke. Not sure how to say your last
name, but okay. On the pro side. We also have Carl Gutierrez from the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce,
Michael Harris from the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, and Sarah Whitfong from the Supply
Chain Federation, expressing concerns about the ordinance. We have with us as well the Chief Sponsor,
Alderwoman Ramirez, who will provide some opening remarks and a short presentation. Alderwoman Ramirez,
you have the floor.
Awesome. Wonderful. Hello, everyone. Good afternoon, Chair Rodriguez, Chair Silverstein. Thank you for
this joint committee. All my colleagues, there are many of us that consist of these two committees and
licensing and workforce. I'm excited. I'm honored as a freshman alder to present this legislation
that help protect and represent the needs of so many workers in our great city of Chicago,
like the ones right here in this room today. I just want to share that I'm proud of so many of you
for coming here and how brave it is for you guys to share your experience and feel like you can speak up
in these council chambers. So my presentation today is about an accountability gap in this last mile
retail industry. And guess what? This ordinance would actually close that accountability gap by
ensuring that there's a safety climate that allows the city, public, and especially our workers to
address unsafe conditions on the city streets. Talk a little bit before about how we got here.
On this slide is a screenshot of one of the first in-depth pieces of investigative journalism
documenting the public safety crisis caused by the explosion of last mile delivery. This impacts
all of us. I'm sure we've all ordered online. It discusses Amazon DSP delivery service partner
business model. That piece was published over five years ago in 2019. And finally, we have a chance to do
something about it. It highlights details of several horrific crash incidents involving Amazon DSP vehicles
and pedestrians right here in this in this great city of Chicago. The exact title, as you see on the
slide, Amazon's next day delivery has brought chaos and carnage to America's streets. But the world's
biggest retailer has a system to escape the blame. That's what we're trying to solve today.
Next, just a few years back in 2024, this slide highlights the most prominent Senate oversight
today of the crisis of public safety and accountability in this last mile industry.
It's fueled by the growth of Amazon's DSP model. Mounting coverage and public outcries over the lack of
accountability and safety in this industry fueled Senator Murphy to spearhead an in-depth oversight
inquiry on Amazon's DSP model. The initial letter garnered 34 Senate sign-ons, like to mention that
Illinois Senators Durbin and Duckworth signed on to that, alongside three Republicans. For context, again,
the oversight letter in this effort was sent in January of 2024. And after several months of unsuccessful
efforts to get answers from Amazon, Senator Murphy and his colleagues went public with their frustrations.
So to follow after this hearing, my staff will share copies of both the Daily Beast and Senate
oversight letters mentioned. I strongly encourage all of our members here to review them after today's
hearing as necessary context to understand the long-standing sense of urgency that has been absent
all throughout this country. But again, we can do something right here in Chicago.
Chicago. Let's look at the numbers. The numbers don't know.
We care about data. In the 12th Ward alone, the Ward that I represent, we have seen over a 500%
increase in delivery vehicle crashes over the last 10 years. That means 31 crashes a year,
and citywide, the trends are even worse. We have documentation actually representing the numbers
and all the impacts Ward by Ward that we're happy to share with everybody after this hearing.
That's because private carriers now make an estimated 149,000, close to 150,000 curbside
stops a day in Chicago, and that's always growing. 54.7 million a year.
187,000 units spread across 23,000 residential block segments. We're all impacted. With such
high demand, delivery vehicles frequently have no lawful place to stop. We've been talking a lot
about this this year. Double parking, standing in a bicycle lane, standing in a bus lane, blocking a
fire hydrant, blocking a crosswalk. We all get calls about this in our Ward. Each of this is
unlawful. The worst of it, the company that sets the route, the parcel, the delivery window, and the
vehicle, they don't care about the penalty, and ultimately, Amazon stays unaccountable. So let's
secure that safety compliance at the front end through this ordinance. There's currently an
accountability gap, as I've mentioned. The framework in our ordinance is designed to give the city
improved visibility into this fast-growing industry, and it's not going to stop. I don't know if you've
guys seen, I can get deliveries overnight while I'm sleeping. Sometimes they ask me if I want a
delivery 4 to 6 a.m. We see sometimes drivers having to use their own personal vehicle.
So this ordinance is going to do principal elements, such as set licensing, establishing a municipal license
for operations of urban delivery centers, worker protections, introducing baseline protections for
warehouse personnel, training, that recurring training requirement, and notice and record-keeping
provides for advanced notice of termination in appropriate circumstances and enforcement.
So contemplates administrative enforcement by the BACP.
And I do want to note, effective dates, transition periods, and the interaction with collective
bargaining, bargains terms are expected to be refined, and consultation with affected
stakeholders, including industry, labor, community organizations, and city departments. And so this is a
hearing. It's for educational purposes, and I hope that we can continue this conversation to pass soon.
This last slide, again, as we have all been living amongst the changing industry that has led to a
public safety crisis, let's come together to support this ordinance that offers delivery safety,
oversight, and accountability to our workers. This ordinance offers an opportunity to establish
citywide oversight, address the root cause of unsafe traffic conditions, close this accountability gap,
create transparency and enforceable safety conditions, reduce pressure on drivers and our workers, protect workers
who report safety issues, and require recurring safety training and establish records. So thank you so much. I really
appreciate everybody listening today. And I'm honored to pass on over to our three panelists to talk about their lived
experience. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderwoman Ramirez. Now I would like to move on to our panelists and allow them a few minutes to speak to this item.
Before opening the floor up to questions, all of you will be allowed two minutes to speak. We will start with Vice President
Campos. Thank you for the opportunity to be here before you. I am a member of the Chicago Federation of Labor.
I'm also a Secretary-Treasurer of Local Joint Council 25 that represents over 100,000 members. I'm also the principal officer of Teamsters Local
75705 that represents 17,000 members, 12,000 UPSers, 5,000 ABF, and every other carrier out there that we represent.
I'm also the international vice president of the Teamsters. We represent over 1.3 million people across the country.
But my most proudest titles are these two. The father of four, the grandfather, the grandfather of four
children, kids. Their safety is the utmost importance. At UPS, we negotiate a lot of language, not only for the
safety of our workers, but the safety of our community. We have language that addresses heat exhaustion,
fatiguedness, safety, unsafety equipment, hours of service in case you get injured.
We have language that protects them. We have a safety committee that's committed of 50% management,
50% of union that has teeth. We get to say that person's overworked. When you have corners
that is tied to your money, you will cut corners because you got to pay your goddamn bills.
And if your bills don't get paid, you're going to cut those corners. And that is what the first
thing that goes is safety. That is the first thing. I don't know about you, but I heard a lot of this
employers saying how they're a family, how they love their people, how they work with them. Well, I tell you
what, I love my kids. I want them safe. This should be no problem. There shouldn't be a value of safety.
There shouldn't be a value on keeping our community safe. We have, we have to...
President Campos, I also, before we go on to the next speaker, I want to recognize Alderman Conway,
Curtis, and O'Shea as part of Quorum. The next speaker is Ashura Brooks.
Good afternoon. My name is Ashura Brooks. I'm a mother and Amazon driver from DIL 7 Skokie
and now an organizer. I became an organizer of Amazon drivers for the reasons I'm telling you here
today. When you see an Amazon van on your block, you see a package arriving, but I see the pressure
happening behind the windshield. Ash, if you don't move faster, I'm going to have to let you go.
Those words came directly from my manager on day four of my job and they stayed with me every shift
after that because when your livelihood is threatened over how fast you move, that pressure
follows you behind the wheel and onto the streets. Amazon contracts with delivery service partners
who employ drivers like me, but let me tell you what that looks like in practice. We wear Amazon
branded vests, Amazon branded shirts, and Amazon branded pants. We drive Amazon branded vans where
we are heavily monitored by surveillance systems required by Amazon. We use the Amazon Flex app to
follow Amazon routes and deliver Amazon packages to Amazon customers. But when it comes to responsibility
for the conditions we work under, suddenly we're told that we don't work for Amazon. Yet from the moment
we start our routes, our time, our progress, and our performance are being tracked by Amazon, and that
pace is relentless. I'm expected to hit around 30 stops an hour and think about what that means in
Chicago. Apartment buildings, traffic, pedestrians, cyclists, finding parking, getting in and out of
the van, and the clock never stops. I've double parked in bike lanes because searching for legal
parking meant losing time. I've worked through lunch and gone without restroom breaks, and I felt the
pressure at traffic lights knowing that every stop meant falling further behind. And those may sound
like small decisions, but when you're behind the wheel of a vehicle weighing up to 10,000 pounds,
they could become life-changing ones. The pedestrians crossing the street doesn't know I'm expected to
make 30 stops an hour. The cyclist beside my van doesn't know how many packages I have left or that
I'm behind schedule. The child stepping off the curb doesn't know what delivery demands I'm trying to
meet, and they shouldn't have to. Chicago residents should not suffer the risk created by
delivery system. They had no part in designing and have, as it stands, no voice in regulating.
This is why the Delivery Protection Act is bigger than worker protection. It is public safety because
our workplace is in a city street. Your time is, we asked you, we gave you two minutes and your time
is up. Thank you. The last, firstly, the last of the proponents we have here is Luke, who, if you will
announce, say your last name. Cienciato. Thank you. Go ahead. Good afternoon. It's easy to invoke
change, but hard to mean it. I would know. My name is Luke Cienciato. I started as an Amazon driver in
2022 at DIL 7 in Skokie. Two years later, we became the first facility in the country to demand
wall-to-wall union recognition for drivers. Now, what compelled my friends and I to pour our entire
selves into a movement that cost me so many nights of sleep? It was necessity. Change driven by
necessity. I need you to understand the pain that is normalized within the walls of an Amazon
warehouse. Hunger, eviction, desperation, uncertainty. You see, it wasn't organizing itself that kept me up
at night. It was the indignation and anger that a system like this be allowed to persist while those
who benefit from this system make more money than every single one of us in this room combined.
It was also
it was also the
weight that came with carrying the hopes and dreams of my friends who placed their trust in
our simple message that all we need to create a better world is right here in front of us,
each other. That was over two years ago. But the great irony is that we find ourselves here today
facing a similar quandary. The context is different. We're in City Hall, not a bar on
Tui and Western. And this is a bill about public safety and worker rights, not a community of
drivers cultivating worker power. However, the necessity and moral through line is the same.
So, too, is the culprit at hand. To cut to the chase, Amazon has claimed authority over our city
streets, sowing chaos in the process. The amount of gross negligence and disregard for public and
worker safety that is normalized by Amazon and the DSP system should be no surprise to any one of you.
You all use the city streets. How many times have you encountered a delivery van parked somewhere it
wasn't supposed to be? And that is the most benign offense. Delivery vehicle crashes are up by orders
of magnitudes throughout the city since the institution of Amazon's DSP program.
Similarly, delivery industry suffers some of the highest rates of worker injury.
Finally, the reportedly independent third party contractors known as DSPs that Amazon employs
are thrust into some of the worst contracts you can imagine. In fact, just this last week,
two DSPs, NICE and KKDI, were terminated with no notice.
Thank you. Thank you.
I'd like to recognize Alderman Villegas as part of Quorum.
We are now going to move on to
Mr. Carl Gutierrez from the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce.
Good afternoon, Co-Chair Silverstein, Co-Chair Rodriguez, and members of the Joint Committee.
My name is Carl Gutierrez from the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, representing over a thousand
companies, as well as strides and shapes industries across our city region.
I'm also here with my two counterparts as members of the Chicago Delivers Coalition to express our
serious concerns with the proposed ordinance before the committee today.
Like the coalition itself, these concerns comprise of issues both small and large
and are consistent with the issues raised by coalition members to this committee,
both in written and public comment. In the interest of time, I will hold on
remunerating those issues specifically, but to identify two core aspects of this policy
development for us today. One is the fundamental problem-solution
relationship that is fundamental to policy creation. That is,
if there is a problem, identify it, construct a solution
that addresses it, and then pursue that solution. And if that solution requires
public policy engagement, pursue that solution through a good-faith public policy process.
Bringing me to the second component
that I'd wish to highlight, and that's process itself, and that is
good-faith engagement with impacted stakeholders.
That's because we are a big city.
Our issues are complicated, and we are all in this together.
Rob, could you speak a little closer in the microphone?
Because we're just having trouble.
Is it too low in peso?
That's because our city is big, issues complicated, and we are all in this together.
Bringing us to where we are now, the proposal before this committee today is deeply
and fundamentally flawed in no small part because it has come about in the absence
of those fundamental components.
We are responsible for the predictable consequences of our own actions,
and in the absence of the discipline of problem identification, policy development,
and the absence of good-faith public policy process with impacted stakeholders,
that if predictable consequences, the proposal, such as it is,
it creates needless and damaging harm.
Needless for a harm that is widespread, unfair, and unjust to the residents
and entrepreneurs of the city, whether directly to the passionate, hardworking,
and intrepid entrepreneurs or small business owners or others,
as well as the broader economic vitality of our city region.
I don't raise those points lightly.
I'm speaking on behalf of an entity that is economic development,
workforce development as a core advocacy and mission.
And thank you.
Thank you.
Next speaker is Mr. Harris.
Good afternoon, members of the committee.
After reviewing the substitute, our position is clear.
The ordinance should not advance.
Our objection is not to worker safety, fair treatment, or public waste safety.
Our objection is to a regulatory framework that is overly broad,
operationally contradictory, and potentially beyond the city's jurisdiction.
The ordinance would theoretically allow regulation and licensing of facilities
located outside the city simply because goods are ultimately delivered to a Chicago consumer.
Hold facility operators responsible for carriers, contractors, affiliates,
and individual delivery activity they may not directly control.
Simultaneously, it would restrict the technology and operational tools those businesses use
to manage safety and delivery performance.
It would allow a company's ability to serve Chicago consumers to be threatened by broad,
defined violations, included but not limited to parking, standing, loading, idling, equipment, labor,
and building matters.
Those violations may be attributed to parents, subsidiaries, and commonly controlled affiliates.
The only way to avoid them is to not deliver, as the proposed ordinance makes delivery
incomprehensibly complicated and inconvenient for everyone.
Beyond licensing, the ordinance imposes mandatory third-party training,
contractor retention requirements, termination restrictions, extensive data production obligations,
presumptions of wrongdoing, daily fines, treble damages, attorney fees, and a private right of action.
In communities commonly described as food or pharmacy deserts,
delivery can help bridge gaps in access to groceries, prescriptions, and essential goods.
Policies that make delivery models more costly or difficult to operate could unintentionally make those access challenges worse.
These provisions don't affect only one company or one business model.
A retailer may be exempt, but the third-party delivery network server that the retailer is relying on is not.
If requirements increase the cost or reduce the flexibility of those delivery relationships,
the result can be higher fees, fewer delivery windows, and narrow service areas.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We're going to recognize Alderman Waxback as part of Quorum.
And then the last speaker is Sarah Wiltfong from the Supply Chain Federation.
You have the floor.
Thank you.
My name is Sarah Wiltfong, and I'm here on behalf of the Supply Chain Federation,
who represent ports, warehouses, transportation, retail, labor, and other key parts of the supply chain.
Chicago is one of the country's most important logistics hubs,
with nearly half of intermodal rail traffic passing through the region.
More than 210,000 area residents are employed in freight and logistics,
helping deliver critical goods to the people of Chicago, including medicines, food, consumer products, fuel,
and raw materials for construction and manufacturing.
The modern supply chain is a complex, interconnected system-of-system involving ports, trucks, ships, trains, warehouses,
and third-party logistics providers.
Maintaining flexibility makes it possible to distribute products direct to households in a efficient and affordable manner.
Many of our members rely on moving goods through Chicago,
and as such, ordinances that impact logistics industry in this region are incredibly important to the overall supply chain
and of great interest to our members nationwide.
We, of course, care about labor protections and safety.
However, we are concerned that the proposed ordinance doesn't address safety,
but instead threatens to disrupt the system in several ways.
First, it extends far beyond a single company, capturing facilities using Class 6 and smaller trucks,
whether inside the city or not, potentially impacting nearly every retail, direct-to-consumer brand,
furniture delivery company, and home improvement business.
Second, the proposed licensing program creates duplicative regulations by mandating driver safety training
under an undefined city organization, even though commercial safety is already heavily regulated
by the FMCSA, OSHA, and the Department of Labor.
Third, it inappropriately interferes with contracts between independent businesses
by requiring a new delivery company to first offer jobs to the previous delivery company's drivers
if a warehouse decides to change contracts due to cost, performance, or safety.
These are companies with their own workforce operating standards and responsibilities,
and the city should be incredibly cautious about interfering with such contracts.
And finally, the ordinance would undermine safety by restricting warehouses
from requiring standard technologies like in-cab cameras, automatic braking, lane-keeping assistance,
and electronic logging devices that help enforce federal requirements.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you to all of our speakers.
I'm now going to open the floor to questions from the committee.
We're going to limit each to 10 minutes.
And we're going to start with a little woman, Scott.
Thank you.
I just have a few questions.
I want to ask one to the Amazon worker.
Brooks, is that your last name?
Yes.
Do you speak into the microphone?
Oh, you can't hear me?
Let me move over.
Okay.
So when you talk about safety for Amazon, do you feel that there's a high turnover rate for delivery drivers?
Absolutely.
When you're – so I'm asking.
So I just want to go on record that I was an employee for UPS for over 13 years.
So I am very aware of the system, the process, everything, because I worked and lived big brown, right?
How are you all – are you all trained?
Give us, like, some examples.
Are you all trained on – because I want to make sure that I fully understand this.
What is it of safety that you all don't have or what you do have?
I want to hear from you, like, what are the safety procedures that you feel like you don't have, protections?
So –
I can just walk you through what training looks like.
It's three days of sitting in a classroom watching slideshows.
The trainings are hosted by Amazon.
And then after those three days of watching slideshows, we are put on a route with a co-worker.
Ironically enough, my co-worker was Luke, who trained me for one day.
And after that, I was expected to go on the road and just know what to do.
So I had three days of slideshows, one day on the road with a co-worker.
And after that, I was put on the road by myself.
So in this ordinance, what's the model that we're asking for city council to uphold for Amazon?
I guess it's not – I'm going back to the other woman.
And Miguel Campos, can you come to the mic?
What are we doing?
She's asking about training and what the ordinance would have the workers – what the training compliance would be.
Good afternoon.
Miguel Campos.
I'm the director for PACP's Office of Labor Standards.
The ordinance, as currently written, would mandate that a licensee contract with a third-party vendor to provide safety training with the requirements that are written in the ordinance.
So we have two different issues.
We have the Amazon workers and we have the DSP workers, right?
No.
No.
Amazon workers are DSP workers.
Okay.
Well, I'm confused.
So I'm –
Exactly.
Excuse me if – I may sound confusing, but I want to get this straight.
So DSP workers are Amazon workers, but do you all go through the same training as the Amazon workers?
So – or you are Amazon workers, but you're hired from a third-party company.
Yeah.
Luke, do you want to speak to the model, please?
Absolutely.
Thank you for your question, Alderwoman Scott.
One second.
Just for the purpose of this committee, we will have the chair direct who will be answering.
So I think this is a good question.
Alderwoman Silverstein and I think that we should have an individual from each side answer this question because it's an important question, and we want the committee to get both sides on that.
So why don't we have one of you offer up a less than two-minute response and then one of you.
Forgive me for –
No problem.
That sound okay?
Yeah.
Okay.
So to answer the first part of your question, anybody who drives an Amazon truck does not work for Amazon.
They work for a DSP, right?
And like Ash said, when you enter into becoming an Amazon driver, you do go through Amazon's training program in spite of the fact that we don't work for Amazon.
But like Ash said, this training program that Amazon says gives us has no on-the-road training.
There's no safety training.
There's nothing about the standards of delivery, right?
And then it's passed on to the DSP who – again, the DSPs, there's no consistency across their business model, right?
So some DSPs do training, quote-unquote, better.
Our DSP actually did it pretty well.
Others, maybe you get a trainer, right?
Maybe not.
Maybe it's two hours on the road with one person, and then the next day you have an entire route, right?
So this inconsistency across the DSPs in terms of how they handle training is where the problems come from because we're getting no guarantees that the drivers who are driving these trucks on the road every single day are really actually getting meaningful time behind the wheel with somebody who has experience, who can make sure that they're setting them up to do the job well over time, right?
Which brings in the element of the third-party model, right?
This isn't foreign to Amazon.
If you become a step-van driver, you go through J.J. Keller, that's a third-party organization that trains you to drive the big C-class trucks.
But the people who are in the vans or the U-Haul vans, they don't get the benefit of that three-day training, which actually had a CDL-licensed driver who drove us through the parking lot.
We had to parallel park, all that other kind of stuff, right?
I received that training from J.J. Keller because I'm a step-van driver, and after having that, I was like, okay, I'm a career driver now.
I know what to do.
But reflecting on my experience before that, I was like, you know, I'm at best a gig worker who's figuring it out on the fly.
Can we hear from one of you?
Thank you.
Sarah Wiltfong with the Supply Chain Federation.
So I think it's important to note, and thank you for that answer, this would apply to not just Amazon workers.
This applies to the DSP and DSP model everywhere.
So it's not just regarding Amazon in particular.
It applies to a lot of different companies.
One of the things I know that we are particularly confused about, and I would actually be interested to know two more, is how the training that is specifically mentioned in the ordinance will actually happen.
I think it very broadly says that a third-party, like nonprofit or something like that, is going to be overseeing the training for drivers.
We'd like to know who exactly that is, what exactly that's going to look like, what that's going to contain.
And it's also commanding that of the warehouse instead of the courier itself.
Usually it's the truck drivers and the trucking companies that actually provide the training, and that's where it should lie.
But I believe the ordinance specifically addresses the warehouse to do it, even though it's the trucking company itself that actually employs the employees.
So that's kind of where a little bit of the confusion that we have when it comes to the training requirements that are recommended within this ordinance.
So it didn't, but just one second, please.
We're not going to have those outbursts.
I'm with you guys, but we're going to have order.
Thank you.
So I just want to know, was there any kind of feasibility study done from the city as to see how many small businesses will be affected if this ordinance passed?
Because there's a lot of small businesses, including UPS, DHL, a lot of freight carriers who operate under a DSP, and they often, like many of your packages, it may say UPS, but it's being dropped off by a DSP worker.
And so how would that affect many small businesses if this model took place?
Because right now we're only talking about Amazon workers, because I didn't hear that from UPS.
We haven't heard that from DHL.
We haven't heard that from, can't think of another one right now, but, I mean, FedEx.
Like, we haven't heard that from, and they've been operating way before Amazon.
I believe UPS is 1907.
1907, I'm not sure, I can't remember, but they've been operating for a very long time.
And so how would this affect small businesses that use this model?
Speaking besides Amazon, Amazon is putting up the fight, but this will affect a bunch of other folks.
We'll have a one-on-one again, please.
Mr. Kompos, do you want to take that one?
Sure.
The sponsor would like Mr. Kompos.
Sure.
I can tell you that UPS has been around for 100 years, and they've been practicing safety forever.
Actually, it's the utmost importance.
In fact, they have a class that's called Intergrad.
Before you even go touch a truck, before you put you on the street, they set you up in a hotel or a place,
and they train you for two weeks at Franklin Park.
They teach you how to grab the package.
They teach you how to step down the trucks.
They teach you how to exit the back of the street.
They teach you how to announce.
They teach you how to beep the horn.
Make sure you make eye contact.
Move your eyes.
All those training things are put in place two weeks before they get in the truck.
Prior to that, after that, they go on a ride, not for one day, two days, but five days with a supervisor,
they're learning how to deliver the package and make announcements and making sure they're utilizing the tools they were given.
For the next 30 days, that employee is still being monitored, still being checked, making sure that they have the tools that they need.
And I can tell you, UPS makes billions of dollars, even though they practice safety.
I can tell you DHL, because I represent those guys, same mentality with the safety, because safety is the utmost importance.
Like our police officers, we want our drivers to come home to their families.
And safety is the utmost importance.
Danza is the same way.
ABF is the same way.
I could go on with all these carriers.
And these other DPSs, as you speak of, they'll fall right on the line.
They should be in the same mentality as everybody else.
I have my grandkids on the street.
You can wrap up.
Go ahead.
I'm sorry.
Oh, I have my grandkids and you have your loved ones.
We got to make sure that what we put out there isn't the value of the money, but the safety of the employee
and making sure they come back and not hurt anybody and still make a dollar for their company.
And the other side, please.
That's it.
Thank you.
And thank you to Alderwoman Scott for the questions.
She identified some of the main concerns that we have as well, which is that though the identification
and the kind of citation is around a single company, the impacts are widespread.
The other thing, too, is the incongruency between the connotional safety concerns and the car
vibes that are made and the seemingly arbitrary standards for licensing that are set.
If it is about safety, then it's about safety.
Then we build it out from there.
But if it's going to be tailored around licensing for one company that includes even carve out
or one one.
One.
warehouse with certain thresholds and then
include certain carve-outs based on the delivery types of products that are from there,
why does one product make something safe and another
product not safe? Those are the kind of incongruencies and the things that I was speaking to
earlier with regard to problem solution identification and just due diligence process
in terms of developing policy that makes sense.
She's got one. I'll give you one more.
So, who's going to enforce the compliance?
I do think that's a question for Citi and
BACP to talk to, so why don't we have BACP step forward for that question?
Thank you, Alderwoman Scott. Miguel Campos, BACP's Office of Labor Standards.
The Citi would be tasked with identifying
last mile training organizations that meet the requirements
that are set forth in the ordinance. It could be more than one entity
that's providing them. Then it's a responsibility of the Urban Delivery Center
to use a list of certified organizations
with approved Citi training, and then they're the ones doing the training.
The Urban Delivery Center is keeping records,
and if we get a complaint, we would ask for the records,
show us when couriers, when drivers, when employees were trained,
that it's being done on an annual basis.
So, it would be the city's responsibility
to enforce that.
And who, okay, so
you just said a mouthful,
but I want to know
the training.
You said it goes to a delivery center
that trains?
So, like, I know UPS does their own
in-house training.
So,
we're only focusing right now on Amazon.
Because it's not,
I don't think that it's affecting any other,
it's not affecting UPS,
it's not affecting DHL.
We're only talking about Amazon.
So,
who's going to train,
because
from what I'm hearing
is that this is about safety.
And so,
if it's about safety,
who's training the Amazon worker?
Because I don't hear any,
we didn't bring
UPS up,
we didn't bring DHL,
so I don't think that this is a fair observation
of delivery services
and how safety is important
in our communities.
It's with one carrier,
and that's Amazon.
So,
is this ordinance just for Amazon,
or is it going to be widespread
through other
DSP
delivery drivers?
Yeah, we,
I think that was more of a statement there,
so if you want a round two,
we'll come back.
Is that okay?
All right, thank you very much.
Question.
That was a question,
who would you like to answer it?
This is the hearing.
So,
I,
I just wanted to know,
like,
who,
who sponsored you?
All right,
let's go to the sponsor on that question.
Is that okay?
Yes.
All right.
Is that okay?
Okay,
so currently,
through the model that we're working on
that we're trying to fix,
there are different DSPs
that are not held
to the same standard,
as Luke said.
So,
you're at a certain DSP
and they may give you a training
or they may not.
And so,
I think what Miguel was trying to address
is that this ordinance
will then allow the ability
for people to file official complaints,
but then also set a standard of training
where the city would be able
to provide different organizations
that could potentially step in
to facilitate a training
and a model that allows everybody
to get the same training.
So,
it sets a standard.
We do have a company now.
The question around other trainings
and other models
have actually worked.
And so,
I don't know if Juan and Luke
want to speak
to sort of some of the models
that are working
as delivery carriers
and sort of that standard
that we're trying to uphold.
I think we need to move on to that,
but I think your point was,
this is about Amazon training
and you are concerned
about training
for all the other companies
that aren't mentioned right here.
Is that correct?
Alderwoman, Scott?
Oh,
I'm sorry.
I didn't see you had a point of information.
Go ahead.
Would that impact DSL
and would it impact UPS?
Yes
or no?
Are you Alderwoman?
I am.
Alderwoman?
Oh,
okay.
So,
the training requirements,
I want to step away
from naming specific companies.
If someone is required
to have an urban delivery center license,
then that company,
whoever they might be,
needs to contract
with a list of approved vendors
to go through a training program
that's approved by the city.
So,
Chairman,
Chairman,
all I wanted to know,
if we pass this ordinance today,
does it impact DSL and UPS?
That is all.
So,
no vote today.
The question was answered.
There's a point of information.
That question was answered.
If we didn't like that question.
No,
it wasn't answered.
It's yes or no.
It does it.
One second.
This is getting out of control.
We had Alderwoman Scott
for more than 10 minutes.
First question,
a little clunky for us
to arbitrate that.
We're going to ask
each of the responses
to be no more than 30 seconds here
so that we can get
each Alder person's answers
in a good space.
We'll come back around
to you,
Alderman Moore,
for your line of questions.
I'm sure
there was a point of information
on the question
because her question
wasn't answered.
It was just a simple yes or no.
Does it impact DSL and UPS
if we pass this ordinance today?
Would you like to hear
his response to clarity?
I just want to hear yes or no.
Mr. Campos?
Alderman Moore,
I can't give you
a yes or no answer.
There's a CBA.
That's okay.
You don't have to say nothing else.
There's a CBA.
No, no, no.
Let him answer.
There's a CBA exemption
in the ordinance
so I'm unaware
if DHL or UPS
has a collectively
bargained agreement
so I cannot provide
an accurate answer.
Thank you.
Okay.
Next up,
Alderman Scott,
if you want to round two,
we could come back to you.
But we're going to move on
to Alderman Cazada.
Thank you.
Thank you,
Chair Rodriguez
and Chair Silverstein.
I want to begin
by expressing my support
for the Chicago
Delivery Protection Act
and for the workers
who make deliveries
across our city
every single day.
The way we receive goods
has changed dramatically.
Chicago households
now receive hundreds
of thousands
of private deliveries
every day,
which means our public streets
and infrastructure
are increasingly being used
as workplaces
and as commercial infrastructure.
And as one of the witnesses
mentioned earlier,
Chicago is one of the most
important logistics hubs
in the country.
That is exactly why
it should be our responsibility
as a city
to make sure workers
can do their jobs safely,
that pedestrians
and cyclists are protected,
and so that companies
cannot create
dangerous conditions
through unsustainable quotas
and delivery demands
while avoiding accountability
for the consequences.
This legislation
takes an important step forward,
closing that accountability gap.
It gives the city
greater visibility
into delivery operations,
establishes basic protections
for workers
who raise safety concerns,
and recognizes
a simple principle
that no worker
should have to choose
between following the law
and keeping their job.
With that,
I'd like to begin
with a few questions
for our witnesses.
To Ash and Luke,
we talked a little bit
about some of the conditions
that are impacting
both workers
and our community.
Can you provide us
with a little bit more insight
on what is needed
to improve those conditions
for workers,
the drivers,
and the public together?
Yeah, I would say
that accountability
is what's needed
because our workplace
is in the Chicago streets.
So the company
that is setting
the conditions
needs to be accountable
for how those conditions
affect the drivers
and the public.
And can you talk a little bit
about what that accountability
would look like
and what kind of conditions
are you seeing
on the ground
that need
that accountability for?
Well, see,
the issue is that
Amazon pressures us
with the delivery demands
that are set.
So accepting accountability
would be
allow me to slow down
without having
to face retaliation.
Got it.
I guess that feeds
into my second question,
which is who decides
how many packages
you deliver
in a single shift
and the pace
that you need
to maintain it?
Who controls that?
Who sets that?
Amazon.
Amazon controls my route,
my package count,
the volume,
the pace,
and we're expected
to complete
what's assigned to us.
And can you provide us
some context
as to, like,
what are some of those quotas
and your assignment
on a given day?
What does that look like
in a workday?
In a workday,
that looks like
maybe about
30 plus stops
an hour.
An hour?
An hour.
Whoa.
And how many hours?
Realistic when
we are also delivering
at apartment buildings
and different companies
and things like that.
And on average,
how long is a shift?
How many hours
are you working in a shift?
Oh.
It could vary,
right?
Because it depends
on how big your route is.
So you can work
anywhere between
five to eight hours
when you actually
receive a route
on the day
that you're scheduled
to work.
Got it.
How many breaks
do you have
in between those?
Zero.
Wow. Thank you. To Secretary-Treasurer Campos, thank you for being here and for your advocacy as well. If there are consistent problems with the UPS route, for example, if the volume gets too heavy, as one of the workers just mentioned, who does a driver report that to, and what can the company do about it?
So under the collective bargaining agreement that we have with United Parcel and others, such as UPSDHL, there's a mechanism in place. If a driver is fatigued and seems to be tired or overworked, there's a request for eight hours, regardless if they finished a route or not, as long as they get it, or if they just want to work nine and a half hours because they've been working 10 hours, 12 hours the day before because it just happened to be heavy.
But there's no ramification for them to be penalized for their pay.
The mechanisms they have in place also is if they're heavy, they're lined up no different than Amazon. In a dock like this, they butt up to it, and they'll give 20 or 30 stops.
Just a few more seconds.
30 or 20 stops to their buddies or people near, or they just tell the supervisor.
Supervisor takes it out, and they open up what's called a baseline route, where they have somebody else to do the deliveries to relieve the employee because the employee is the most important thing, not the package.
Thank you, Secretary-Treasurer.
We're just trying to keep the responses short because there's a lot of questions.
Thank you very much.
I'll close by saying clearly the modes of production are rapidly and dramatically transforming in the 21st century.
Our workers are on the front line helping maintain and uphold this new economic system that is putting pressures on everyone.
And if we're going to have sustainability in this new form of economy, in this mode of production, our workers need protections.
They need simple protections.
So I really encourage my colleagues to continue leaning in on this conversation, into this legislation, because I believe we have a responsibility as a city to make sure that we are maintaining this for all of our whole city, our whole county, our whole state.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Alderwoman Gutierrez.
Thank you so much, our chairwoman, chairman, for this hearing.
As you all know, in the 14th Ward, it's coming a big last mile distribution center.
There's demolishing happening as we speak, and they're about to build a new facility of Amazon in the southwest side.
That means 400 new drivers are coming to our streets, 400 new drivers that, unfortunately, as I could hear from you all, will not be trained properly.
They will not be able, you know, to continue with this work like that in our southwest side if we don't take the measurements that we need to.
I'm really worried, of course, not only as a freshman, but also as a community member, raising my three kids close to the facility as well.
Gage Park is right there where our community is the youngest in the southwest side in these areas.
I'm just worried about having four schools around the facility and having all those 400 drivers not even trained properly to take over our streets.
We've been working with Amazon.
We've been making so much progress.
I'm grateful that they have listened to our community loud and clear.
But I still need to continue to advocate for my community to make sure that not only the workers are taken care of,
but also that our community is safe around this new development.
With that said, I have a couple of questions to ask.
But the most important one, I would like to ask to the city, if there's currently licensees that do businesses in the city,
but they're based out of the city of Chicago.
I would like to know if those companies have a proper license within our city to operate with their businesses,
with their drivers in our beautiful city.
Lee, BACP?
Lee, A.J. Lee, Deputy Commissioner for Business Licensing at BACP.
Delivery drivers specifically or any businesses being licensed that are based outside the city?
The companies that hire these drivers.
Not that I'm aware of.
I could get you information through the chair if you want a deeper search that's specific.
So that means they're operating their businesses in our city without a proper license.
Okay.
So then that's something that we need to take care of and make sure that doesn't happen, continue to happen.
And then also wanted to ask for the drivers.
Thank you so much for your advocacy and your hard work towards this.
I'm just curious about if you were ever, if you ever been told or if you ever witnessed someone being told that the number of packages and the number of stops,
it's not decided by the DSP.
Yes.
What happens if someone reports a safety defect with a ban?
We're actually told not to because that means grounding the van.
Amazon has to ground that van legally.
So you're being told not to report it?
We're being told not to report damages on the vans.
Does it affect how many routes can be handled that day?
Yes.
And who control your workday?
Amazon.
And what happens, because I know some of you are driving their vans, but what happens to the drivers that are driving their own cars?
Who pays for gas?
Who pays for insurance?
Who pays when your car breaks down?
When an accident happens?
Like, it's all on the driver or Amazon or the DSP response for that?
If you're talking about flex drivers who deliver out of their personal vehicles, that's pretty much Amazon Uber.
So that's entirely on those drivers completely.
Damages, insurance, gas, all of the above.
So thank you so much, Alderwoman Ramirez, for bringing this ordinance to us.
Let's continue to work, because I know there's still so much work to get this done.
I'm really grateful to be here in this hearing.
And I'm coming in as a supporter.
We just need to continue to advocate for our workers, but also for our communities.
Because, as we can tell, some stuff is not being handled the right way.
Thank you.
I'd like to recognize.
Before we continue, I'm going to recognize Alderwomen Coleman and Clay as part of CORM.
Moving on to Alderman Moore.
Thank you so much, Chairman.
First question, if somebody can answer.
How many delivery service partners does Amazon have?
In the city of Chicago, Alderman?
Yeah, I guess in the city of Chicago.
In the city of Chicago, it's somewhere around 20, is my understanding.
Some of those operate in Melrose Park and Cicero, but they deliver in the city.
It's about 20 total.
Okay.
And someone mentioned, I don't know if it was you, that they terminated without notice.
Correct.
And about the ones that they terminated without notice, about how many employees did they have?
My understanding is one of them was 75.
The other one was 60-something, so 130 to 150 total.
So, right, when they terminated that contract, all 130 people just instantly lost their jobs?
Correct.
Okay.
My next question is, are these DSP employees, are you all allowed to unionize?
I think that's a complicated – wait, am I allowed to speak or do I need to wait for –
whoever can ask it.
So, I think Amazon will say that we're allowed to unionize.
They'll say because we don't work for them, so that we're allowed to unionize the DSPs that we work for.
In practice, that's a harried question.
Four DSPs that have demanded union recognition have been terminated around the country.
Alderman Moore, did you want to get another response from both sides or –
Yes, please.
Okay.
I think that's fair.
Do you guys want to respond to that?
Can you restate the question?
Are the DSP employees – are they allowed to unionize?
I think one of the things that I wanted to continue to reiterate is sort of factual points and aspects of policy development and process,
that the holistic impact that this is not about – the policy itself, all the motivations behind it might be about a single company.
The policy itself, the ordinance itself has a broad and all-encompassing impact that I do want to continue to reiterate,
and that kind of highlights the concern.
And so while, you know, whatever focus we want to have on one company, as far as a matter of policy, it's a different matter.
The other thing, too, just a quick opportunity.
You know, it's a problem of mine, apparently.
I'll just go closer to the mic.
Yeah, I want to ask you to wrap it up so he can ask a few more questions.
Great.
Yeah, no, and I would encourage the committee and members on factual work, you know.
Thank you.
place policy questions with this single company to, while no doubt the integrity of the intent
of the statistics cited, I would encourage those to, if it's about a single company,
check with a single company, whether or not it's Amazon or any others, because these are
empirical questions and it's important to get the factual point straight. Additionally,
with the Alderman Gutierrez, as far as the crossing into the city, the concern there has
to do with some constitutional issues about prevention of licensing or any entity from
crossing into the border of the city of Chicago. So that's another thing as a part of an aspect of
concern that is fundamental and intrinsic to this proposed ordinance. And my view, you know,
comes about in the absence of policy development that's appropriate and exhibits due diligence.
We can stop there. I don't want to, I mean, only because I didn't have any questions,
I didn't stop you. I understand nothing you said or what it meant. But I just wanted to know what
they're allowed to unionize. And hopefully they are allowed to unionize. But if somebody's saying
they're not, that's another question there. But I think from what I heard, at least the other side
answered, they are allowed to unionize. But you said if they do unionize, then Amazon fire these
companies. That's going to be, I guess, their business model is at some point, they're going to
get hurt by that, in my opinion. So those are my own questions I had.
There's just been a consistent microphone issue there with Mr. Gutierrez. So I don't know if you
need to speak louder in the future or with the other mic.
I think I dropped the mic.
That's not any better.
Because we want to hear you. We want to hear what you have to say.
All right. Thank you, Chairman.
Are you down Alderman more?
Yes, I am.
Okay. Alderman Sposato?
I'm so glad. We're just like hiring a judge.
So first, I want to start off by saying my esteemed colleague from the 24th Ward wasn't
the only person that worked at UPS. I worked there for 16 years, four on the docks and 12
on the streets. So, Ramon, when I started driving, it was three days of a classroom and then a five
day of training. But the five day of training was kind of learn the route that you were doing.
And most people would probably think, well, how long would it take to learn the route?
Well, you may know the address, but you never knew what door to go, the front door, the side
door, the back door, who to see. That was always a real challenge. So, in my 12 years of driving,
I mean, it was pretty hard, pretty substantial work. And I made a damn good living. And I can't
begin to tell you how many people, and Monique could probably verify to this, that their first
day, they'd walk out that day. You wouldn't see them a second day. Where'd Johnny go? And Johnny
quit, you know, just like that after a couple days. And, you know, I made a, like I said,
once again, a damn good living and was able to support a family with my wife staying at
home. But, well, I want to start by giving you all a safety lesson, a 30 second safety
lesson. So, you may all laugh and hear at me about it, especially my colleague, but this
doesn't apply to just the drivers. And you probably all think I'm nuts, but it's called
the Smith System. It's, it's A, well, it's called A, I'm sorry. It's A, I'm sorry. There's, it's an
acronym. It's A-G-K-L-M. For A is aim high when driving. G, get the big picture. K, keep your eyes
moving. L, leave yourself an out. And M, make sure they see you. That's a safe driving thing you can
know. And you always would exit your vehicle on curbside. You would never exit on, on street
side. So, just a little tip for you all, a little free advice, not just for the drivers, but also
for my colleagues there. So, is there just drivers here or warehouse people here too? That's one of
my questions. I don't know who I should direct that to. Could you say that again? Are there just
drivers here, Amazon drivers or Amazon warehouse people here also? Is it just about drivers or
the drivers? Predominantly drivers, Alderman Sposato, though there might be some representation
of warehouse workers. No, I don't have, well, I have warehouse advice too, but I did meet with Luke
and I did meet with the Teamsters and that was about a month ago and they, they tried to explain
it to me and I'm still, I'm here to learn today because I'm still a bit confused about all of this.
So, it's a bit confusing. So, I'm trying to figure out. So, this, so Amazon tells the delivery
service companies what to do, what your route should be. I mean, or, or, or, or the DSPs determine
that. I think you said that Amazon determines that. So, I think the way to look at it, Alderman
Sposato, is Amazon controls the operations and the DSPs manage it, right? So, Amazon defines
our geography that we're delivering in. They define the number of routes that each DSP receives.
They define the number of packages on each route. That information is communicated to
the, to the DSP and then the DSP through whatever practices or standards of their own distributes
that work across their labor force, right? But the margin of flexibility that the DSP operates
in is extremely narrow, right? Everything from the space that we deliver at to the photos
that we take to the customer feedback, that's all monitored by Amazon and it's put on a whiteboard
at every single DSP's desk, right? Right. So, DSPs are ranked anywhere from fantastic
plus down to below average, right? And then that then thusly determines how many routes
you get the next day, right? So, there's this sort of...
Yeah, I got it. I got it. I just don't know who determined it. So, I'm well aware of, and
Ramon would tell you this also, time studies. UPS would have a time study. They'd send out
with a route, and if your route was supposed to be a nine-hour day and you did it in 11,
you'd be in big trouble. But, you know, if you did it in eight, you're a great driver. So,
that's kind of how things used to work. It was quite demanding. Once again, we made a good living.
Alderman Sposato, I think the other side wanted to answer that as well.
Michael Harris, Illinois Retail Merchants Association. I wanted to address in regards
to the ordinance creating a direct operational contradiction. You know, the problems here
in this ordinance are structural. You know, the ordinance expects the operators to ensure
safe, lawful, and reliable deliveries while restricting their ability to manage individual
delivery activity and use technology necessary to do so. The city cannot simultaneously restrict
operational control and then impose liability for failing to control the operation. Routing
systems, telematics, driving safety monitoring, inspections, and real-time communications are
not automatically abusive surveillance. There are also tools used to prevent accidents,
document compliance, and respond to emergencies and protect workers and the public.
Thank you, sir. Thanks, Mike. I appreciate it, but I'm reclaiming my time. It had nothing to do
with my question. So, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Listen, listen, listen. Mike is
my friend. That's not a knock at you, Mike. So, Mike is my friend. All right. Next question. Keep
going. Yeah, okay. Just like, once again, reclaiming my time. So, but yeah, all right. I'm just here to
learn. I mean, I'm just trying to, it's a bit confusing for me. I have to tell. You're all
right. Thank you. Well, I mean, I feel for the DSPs. I don't know. I guess maybe some of your
drivers are like, screw them or whatever, but I believe they're small business owners. I believe
they're, I believe two of them came up here and they're newly Americans in the past few years or
whatever, 10, 15 years. So, I mean, I feel sorry for the DSPs. I mean, it appears to me to be the
bad guy here is Amazon. I mean, I'm probably one of the few people in this room that doesn't have an
Amazon account. So, okay. So y'all can say what you want. I don't have an Amazon account. All right. So,
y'all talk a big game, but I don't even have an Amazon account. So, but yeah, that's about it.
I just, I'm just trying to learn. It's a very confusing thing to me. I just, it's all about
safety. UPS was all about safety. Ramon could tell you that. And I just think Amazon's got to
get their heads out of their butts and get a little more, you know, helping the DSPs to teach
their drivers how to do better and how to drive safer. If that's the big concern, I would recommend
Amazon, if anybody from Amazon's listening in, hire somebody from UPS out of one, teach safe driving
and package handling methods. And, you know, and I think there'll be a much better company. So
with that, I appreciate the time. I didn't need to reclaim my time. So thank you very much.
I thought I was going to have to add a few extra minutes.
How are you going to follow that? Come on. All right. So,
actually, thank you, Audemars Sposato. As you kind of stated, because we talked a little bit
earlier, being able to do that kind of job, to be able to pay for the family, be able to have
your partner at home is incredibly important. Now you had all those benefits when you were driving
because you were a union member at the time, correct? That's directed to my colleague.
Oh, I'm sorry. Can I direct to the chair to direct to our colleague?
No, no, please.
No, absolutely. It's the point. I need that.
Yes, Nick, please answer it.
I think we're going to ask the questions.
You can take my time. You can take my time to answer the question.
We're going to just continue asking the questions here.
Thank you. So, okay.
Please, I'm trying to reclaim my time now. Thank you.
No. So the reason why I mentioned that is, as was answered earlier,
if there is an existing bargaining agreement, they're exempt from that.
We're addressing the people who don't have that.
You've got a bunch of drivers.
are doing the same job who have to make sure they come back home and they can provide for
their families and they're not as well. So when you're talking about all the different things
that are part of legislation and the benefits that you have as a driver, it's something that
at minimum these drivers deserve. And it's why we're looking to improve the legislation. So
I think it's important for our colleague, Alderwoman Ramirez, to be pushing forward,
and I'm glad to be in support. I have a number of questions. Amazon's here?
No. Is there anyone here who could answer for them as to how they determine what safety means,
what those metrics are, how they set the numbers, anything at all?
We don't represent Amazon, so I don't have that answer.
Okay. I just want to clear it here because there's so many answers about
what it's doing to different companies and how Amazon cares about safety, and there's no one
here to talk about it or prove it. Amazon doesn't care about anyone's safety. Amazon cares about
their bottom line. If Amazon could get drones to deliver things, they would do it. If Amazon could
get robots to deliver it, they would do it. They do not care about the drivers. So when we're trying
to establish legislation for the city of Chicago because we care about Chicagoans, that's not a
hard decision. And if they had any level of decency, they would answer the questions themselves and let us
know how they determine safety. If you're trying to tell somebody, hey, this is how many deliveries
we think you could do in a certain amount of time that is safe, show me where they get the numbers
from. At least explain it to the drivers if there's any case to make about improving safety and not
just productivity and profits because that's what it's ultimately about.
So look, on behalf of the chair, I would say that we reached out to the business community
opponents and asked for three members of that group to speak, and they determined who it would
be. So if you guys want to speak to that, how you selected each other.
The process of selection was based on the impact of the ordinance itself, identifying, you know,
Sarah, who could speak to the broader supply chain dynamics of this, identifying Mike as somebody who
could speak to the retail consumer impact of the proposal as an ordinance. And then myself as
representative of the Chicagoland chamber, they could speak to the broader holistic impact
of the ordinance itself. We did not consider Amazon or any member, certainly the Chicagoland
chamber individual member, because it's not about one individual company, at least the impact isn't
it? It goes broad space. And so one of the great speak to that broad based impact.
I appreciate that. So do it because everyone wants to make clear. It's not just about Amazon.
So through the chair, what I would like for any at all, any companies hire any level of
DSP or the like, if they have any track record over the last five years of how many vans are
making delivery stops on Chicago streets, how many different subcontractors are being used
by those companies, and how often they're making unsafe stops on Chicago streets, any violations
that they have. If you can get that through the chair for any company that has any level of
delivery service providers, that would be my ask, because I don't know that they track all that.
And I'd like to know if they do, if they care about safety. It is unfortunate, whether they were
asked, invited or not, that we're seeing the same dynamics that always play out. The large corporations
that make all the money in the world subcontract somebody small, and they put them in front to take
the hits. And then those folks who are having a hard enough time making their margins and just
following orders, then come to us and say, it's pretty hard being a DSP owner as well. Yeah,
it probably is. Because Amazon screwing you over too. So, so when you come, when people are coming
to government to find solutions, because the private sector is not going to do it. That's not us being
against those small business owners. It is us setting regulation. So those large guys stop playing you.
And so I want to make sure we get that information. And I guess, similarly to any of the companies that
you may know at the chamber that represent that have DSPs or anything that's similar,
any piece of documentation related to what happens if a driver says, hey, I don't think I'm fit enough
to finish this drive. And any level of, hey, I can't make 20 deliveries, I can maybe do 15,
I can't even see straight. I'd like to know what there is in documentation related to coaching,
any level of disciplinary action, any protection from retaliation, anything at all that is documented
by those companies. Because if you want to make the case that you're a responsible business in the
city of Chicago, and you don't need legislation, you better have that stuff written down first.
So all this stuff needs to be dated. If you've got emails, timestamps, everything possible to show us
that you're actually doing anything to actually care about the people who are delivering these
things. And the other thing I'd ask is, separately, my last question, these trucks, no matter who's
driving them, are blocking bike lanes, are blocking bus lanes, are blocking all of this. And they get
ticketed by the city of Chicago. And we don't always collect on all those violations. And when they do,
I'd like to know how much those companies have all paid out to the tickets in comparison to the
tickets they get. Because they're not even taking care of the roads. They're not even following the
rules in here. So the way they treat our city is just a microcosm of how they treat their employees.
They need to do better across the board. And I think we need to look at that. I need to look at
legislation. When any of those companies decide they want to use AI to try to get this done quicker and
just lose the employees that have been helping them, we need to get ahead of what this is looking
like, because technology is going to make it even worse. So I appreciate all your work,
Alderman Ramirez for the work. I appreciate the chairs. I can't understand why any city council
member would be against something like this and look at Chicago and in the face that's trying to
do this work. Thank you very much. Alderman Cardona.
Alderman Cardona. I'm sorry, are we allowed to respond to that very quickly?
Oh, yes, go ahead.
Just to be clear, so DSPs are standard across the board. There's a lot of warehouses, a lot of
businesses that utilize them. It's not just Amazon, it's not just UPS, it's not just FedEx,
it's a lot of businesses. They're also all subject to OSHA, Department of Labor, the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Act, and a myriad of other regulations as well. So when you're talking
about workplace breaks and minutes and time off and whether or not there's safety issues,
they should be heavily documented and they're already heavily regulated. So if there are DSPs not
following those regulations, then that is a serious problem and they do need to be followed up on.
But to be clear, that is already in existence. Go ahead, Alderman.
Thank you. Yeah. Thankfully, before I got this job, I had a whole bunch of other ones.
They were all OSHA required as well. And those companies were required to internally have a
culture and communicate to their employees how they take care of them, what conduct should be like,
and how to report things if you aren't feeling okay. So I'd like to know not only the OSHA ones,
because those are easy. You can copy paste that from the federal government. I want to know what they do
internally as a company who says they're responsible to the people that actually do the work.
Thank you.
Got it. Thank you. Alderman, do you have a question?
For a point of clarification, and this goes back to Alderman Sposado and Alderman Vasquez's
question about whether Amazon was invited to be here, they were clearly aware and they made the
conscious decision to not show up today. So I did wanted to ask the three panelists in the box if
they have been hired or in communication with Amazon to represent them today in this hearing.
Yeah, I can wholeheartedly say no. Hired to represent them. They have their own higher
contract lobbyists. We are a membership organization. We include a thousand companies,
big, small, all sizes. To be sure, Amazon's a member, but we were having member outreach on this
issue across the board of our membership scope because of the across-the-board impact that this has.
Again, I mean, if you want to talk to their representatives, I think you know how to reach
them, Alderman.
The other two are the same.
While Amazon is a member of Irma, we represent 1,300 companies, representing 27,000 stores across
the state. And so this issue affects more than just the Amazon. It affects our general merchandising,
retailers, pharmacies, grocery stores, and things such as that. And so while they are a member of Irma,
we are representing more than just Amazon. Basically the same answer. Amazon is a member
of ours, FlyChain Federation, but we were not recruited by Amazon to be a peer. It was actually
Chicago Land Chamber and several other businesses who asked us to come and speak today.
Thank you.
Alderman Cardona.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, everybody, for being here, especially people in the galley.
Okay. Got a question. Does the DSP have a target for – have targets for deliveries?
Can I go ahead, Chairwoman? Okay. Yeah. So there's a desk in every Amazon warehouse called
OTR. That's Amazon management that works that desk. And there's a big TV on the front that
has all the DSPs, the number of packages they have as a whole on that TV. So you can see how
the DSP is doing, and then that DSP breaks down to the individual drivers. That is available
to the OTR, so they can see every single –
individual driver, whether they're in green, yellow, or red. And then if a driver's in yellow
or red, OTR will walk over to the dispatch at the DSP and tell them, you have to call this guy.
He's behind. What's going on? Right. I hope that answers your question, Alderman Cardona.
It kind of does. How about if the driver is running behind and it's not getting to their
deliveries? How does that work with those other drivers come and pick up their share to help out?
Yeah. So it depends on the DSP. Some DSPs will leave that driver out to dry and that driver is
out there until 8 or 9 p.m. And then that driver, to be honest with you, probably going to lose their
job. Or the DSP will send you a sweeper and that sweeper will take some allotted amount of packages
off your route. But that person who had the packages taken off their route, if that means two less hours
that you're working, you're not getting those hours anymore. Whereas at UPS, for example,
those hours are guaranteed. Right. So you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. You're
constantly hustling because you don't want to get that call from dispatch, but you're also trying
to slow down because everybody's trying to make their money to pay their bills. Right. Right.
Wow. That's that's really hard. The reason I say and the reason I say this is because my son
works for Amazon for the summer and he was telling me all the nightmares that was happening because
basically he it was a summer gig, but technically he's a he's a teacher. So he was telling me all
the things that were happening in Amazon. And I'm really I understand what you guys are coming from.
But also I want to ask you something about what is the standard standardizing minimum safety training?
Because we talked about safety, improve road conditions for your members and the general
public. Can you answer that? What it would look like to improve safety standards for drivers in
the general public, correct? Yeah. I think the the the main point is that the longer you do a job,
the more safely you're going to be able to do it. Amazon has a hundred fifty percent turnover that
we've referenced numerous times at this point. So if a driver is there for two weeks, maybe even three
months, you can't really expect them to do their job safely or well because they're not veterans in
the way that people at UPS are who have been there 10 years. So I think it's about creating
long term pathways for long term employment. Right. And also collapsing the accountability gap
that Alderwoman Ramirez identified. So if there are bad actors within the city of Chicago that are
circumventing our safety regulations and laws that are erected in order to maintain and ensure safety in
our city streets, that those bad actors are identified and, you know, addressed accordingly.
OK. Accountability, transparency and consistency.
OK. Do you guys have anything to answer with that?
Any chance? I mean, could you please repeat the question?
I'm not sure I understood it correctly. So we're talking about safety.
Basically, the safety training to improve the members for general public. So basically safety
for the general public and them delivering packages.
What's the question? The question question is, like, what is the stat? Is it is there a standard
in the safety operations of delivering packages like what he was just addressing?
If I may, I think the question is and tell me if I'm wrong, Alderman, is around whether there is an
existing standard in his nation existing in training for these DSPs. Is there a consistent mandated
training for these DSPs? Yeah. Is that right? I think that's it.
I believe so for class three and above trucks. Class two a I'm not sure.
OK. So it depends on how big the truck is, if I recall correctly.
And we'll give you more time. But what are what are we don't know?
What are you be specific? What the two way and the classifications?
Class three and above is 10,000 pounds and above. Class two way, I think, is between
5,000 and 8,000, if I recall, which is more of the smaller trucks. That's Amazon delivers. Correct.
So the bigger trucks have safety with the smaller, smaller individuals don't.
They're kind of I think they're in between what's called like commercial and residential
trucks. They're not quite considered commercial.
Not quite residential either. So that's the reason. But I do believe Amazon and I do believe
OSHA and several other state laws do have their own separate qualifications for that.
And it'd be good for the city of Chicago to know for class three and above.
Yes. So our specific training standards by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
that they're required to have.
Okay. Well, thank you for breaking that down. And hopefully we can make changes so they could
have training as well for safety issues for the smaller deliveries. Thank you for for being here.
Thank you for giving me the time to speak. I yield my time.
Thank you. Alderman Hall.
First of all, I want to say thank you so much for both of you all, all of you all for convening this joint meeting.
It's much needed. I want to specifically start with our Amazon workers.
What's some of the some of the challenges that you all face currently in the conditions of being put forth by Amazon?
What's some of the things that if you had the opportunity to change it, what's some of those things that you want to see change?
I know. I'd like to just I don't want to rush anymore.
I don't want to have to speed through a route because I know that I'm expected by Amazon to complete it in a certain amount of time.
I want to be able to take a proper restroom break.
I want to be able to stop for a moment and enjoy my lunch without feeling like I won't have a job the next day
because I'm unable to complete this route based on what Amazon thinks, how fast it should be done.
Quick question.
What's been some of the patterns that you've seen done by Amazon for those who don't, quote unquote, comply with efficiency according to their expectation?
You will either risk not having a route on your scheduled day of work.
When you don't have a route, what does that mean?
Route as in work.
So you won't be able to clock in and, you know, retrieve a van with packages and do a route on the road or you'll just be terminated.
Sometimes it's as simple as that.
Who's going to say something, too?
Yeah.
To build off of what Ash is saying, let's say you have a schedule that's Wednesday through Saturday.
If you're an employee that is identified as a good employee, you're probably going to get those four routes.
If you're an employee who's still learning and new or you decide to take your time, then you might go to work on Thursday
and Amazon is just going to tell you there's no route for you that day.
So you took the train all the way from who knows where to get to work and you're going back home with no pay.
So oftentimes people are expecting 40 hours, but they come back with 20 hours on their check.
That's super normalized.
Got you.
So from the coalition side, hearing these conditions, work conditions, what do you say to these things
that they are facing as a result of their current condition, which they want to change,
what do you say to the current conditions that they're facing, to the coalition?
Michael Harris, Illinois Retail Merchants Association.
We want to state that this discussion seems to be almost exclusively focused on Amazon and their delivery drivers.
And, again, we are not opposed to worker safety, fair treatment, or public waste safety.
Those are all legitimate concerns that we believe deserve serious attention.
However, our concern is with the fundamental drafting of the ordinance.
The language is not narrowly tailored to one company, one business model, or even delivery drivers alone.
It establishes a broad regulatory framework that could capture retailers, grocers, pharmacies, distributors,
fulfillment operators, establish carrier contractors, and employees involving in sorting, loading, staging, and handling goods.
So it's not – those issues are valid, and we are not in opposition to worker safety or fair treatment.
All right.
But we know the language isn't proper.
Okay, I got you.
So for the last minute and some change, what are y'all proposing from the coalition that makes sense to make it fair?
To make it fair?
Yeah.
What's your proposal?
I mean, one, I think, as Michael just said, you know, there's very little in this ordinance that we actually think addresses safety.
We totally see the concerns that are being addressed here by the Amazon workers.
This ordinance does not just impact Amazon.
It represents a wide swath of businesses and direct service providers.
But our, you know, answer to the safety question is this is sort of like a nationwide issue with a rise in e-commerce.
Every single city is working with it.
So the city needs to work with the Department of Transportation and start figuring out curb management,
how we're going to handle all these additional trucks.
And in addition to that, I would encourage the city, too, to try to understand more what labor laws are already in place
and how the DSPs that are not potentially following that need to follow that and how they can be held better accountable.
Because I absolutely agree.
I mean, there's nothing that I'm listening to here that I don't disagree with.
That's a problem.
Workers do need to be treated with respect.
Absolutely.
I don't think any of us are denying that.
I think our problem, though, is what the ordinance has written.
We don't necessarily believe this actually accomplishes that.
Yeah, so thank you for your perspective.
In concluding, one of the things that, you know, when getting the opportunity...
To serve the six in this in the city, both the six war residents, some of which will be impacted by this, some of which have been sent home.
Some of these conditions have been repeated over and over and over again.
And one of the things that I pledge allegiance to was fair wages and fair working conditions.
And the way it's currently set up, wages are under attack and working conditions are wrong.
So what do we do? Stand up and fight back. And so to that end, I think that no matter what position, we must always remember the workers where rent is up five percent.
Food is up two percent. Gas is up forty two percent. And so workers should not be penalized for showing up, willing to work.
But the conditions are not making it workable. And so I stand in support of making sure that not only you have great working conditions,
but wages to reflect the work that you all put in and currently the way it stands, both of under attack.
So not only do you have my support, but my prayer is that we get it done sooner than later.
So no workers have to go back home because of retaliation from a greedy company.
We're billionaires on a yacht and not delivering boxes. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Thank you, chairs.
I thank everybody for being here. When we talk about safety and talk about the drivers, I want to circle back to the actual vehicles because that's pretty important here as we talk about in this hearing.
What kind of transparency are around the vehicles as far as routine maintenance, oil changes and everything that comes along with driving a vehicle all day, pretty much every day as you guys do?
I'm just curious to see what that looks like. So, again, thank you, Alderman Chico.
So, again, it all depends on the DSP. Our DSP had a fleet manager.
He's back there somewhere and he single handedly did a very good job on staying on top of those things.
But that was because he as an individual is motivated to do it.
A lot of DSPs don't have fleet managers. The size of their fleet varies depending on the number of freight they have.
Right. So that's why you see a lot of Amazon drivers and U-Haul trucks where they literally have to get out and go around and go to the back in order to get the packages.
Right. And to go to what Ash was saying earlier, like on your phone at work, you have the Amazon safety inspection.
We're told not to report anything on there because that vehicle will be grounded for three days.
Right. So the tires might be bald. The side view mirrors might be blown out.
Right. The back doorstep might be flapping. And if you watch the Amazon trucks in our city, you'll see that.
Right. And the reason that's not getting fixed is because it's not getting reported on the Amazon app.
And then the DSP, like I said, has a varying degree of how much they care about that dangling doorstep.
Some change it. Others don't. Right. And then so, again, there's just no consistency.
So the quality of the vehicles is subpar and frankly quite dangerous.
And if you bring that to a DSP supervisor, what would happen?
It depends. Right. You might lose your route that day. Right.
Because they're just going to say there's no truck for you anymore. Right.
Or they'll say, well, figure it out. I need you to deliver that route.
And now you're in the rain and your backup camera doesn't work.
You know, which is super common. So many backup cameras don't work.
So many side view mirrors are blown out like all the time.
And in your experiences, how often does something happen on the roadway where you need to call for further assistance or some need to be maintenanced on the roadway itself?
Again, Michael, Daddy, I could probably attest to it, but every day, every day, there's something happening out there.
Accidents, things falling off the truck, the battery in the truck dying.
That's like pretty much every single day.
And then they have to come out with the battery pack to jump it.
And then what does that do to your pay when it's the battery dies?
When your battery dies, you're sitting there waiting for somebody to come get you.
Somebody will probably sweep the route off of you and put it in a different truck in a U-Haul, probably.
And then you're sent home like that. That's it.
You know, that's it. Thank you.
Alderman Riley.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair, both of the chairs today and everyone here in the box testifying.
Like Alderman Sposato, I've been here trying to piece all this together.
I haven't been very engaged in all the initial discussions in forming the ordinance or the proposed ordinance.
And I'll be honest.
And based on some of the testimony that I'm hearing here today, I can't tell who I need to hold more accountable,
whether it's Amazon or the DSP.
I'm trying to see through this.
I have just a couple of basic questions.
And I think it was mentioned earlier in testimony.
How many DSPs are or roughly are currently serving Amazon's delivery needs?
In Chicago, I'd say roughly 20.
Roughly 20.
And, again, I know you don't run a bunch of DSPs, but do most of these DSPs have a workforce of over 100 or under 100?
Probably the average is around 100.
It probably tops out 130.
And at minimum, it goes down to 40 or 50.
Okay.
The reason I ask is that just a few minutes ago it was brought up.
People were talking about employment standards and worker protections and these sorts of things.
And I think this gentleman here who just spoke, what was your name again, sir?
Luke.
Luke.
Thank you, Luke.
Luke was explaining that people are taking the train to work to find out whether or not they have a shift that day
or for the upcoming week.
And that bothered me a bit, knowing that we actually have a scheduling ordinance on the books here in the city of Chicago,
Fair Work Week, which requires employees to have 14 days notice of their set schedule, correct?
And so it makes me sick to my stomach to hear that we have employees taking a train to go to work to find out they're not working,
which then begs the question, why are we not blowing the whistle on the DSP?
Because that's a violation of city law and a violation of the workers' rights.
So in that particular instance, I'm not happy with the DSP because it's not Amazon telling them to pound sand.
It's the DSP.
Now, likewise, I'm also concerned about some of the things I'm hearing about Amazon.
And I'm incredibly frustrated that Amazon executives are not here today to answer to this directly and instead are hiding behind industry groups.
That's not acceptable to me.
Otherwise, it allows us to do a lot of finger pointing without anyone taking any responsibility for the policy of the practice, correct?
And so, you know, I wonder having I also at one point worked for a really big company that had its own track record and how it treated various types of employees.
And I can tell you that when subcontractors were used, oftentimes the middleman, typically the equivalent of a DSP, would blame the mothership, the big brand, big company, for how they were treating their subcontracted employees.
So in this case, the DSP saying, well, yeah, it really stinks and you can't have a break, you can't go to the bathroom, you can't have your lunch, you've got a tight deadline, and it's all Amazon's fault.
Not our idea.
Oh, gosh, you know, we wouldn't want to do that.
You know, the boogeyman or, you know, Satan made me do it, right?
And so what I would have loved to have had was perhaps Amazon executive here with some DSP owners and let them kind of duke it out in the ring so we can get to what's true and what's not.
So, you know, as a fact-finding hearing, which I appreciate you hosting today, I'm going to be walking away from it feeling a little unsatisfied.
Because at the end of the day, we want to make sure all of our workers are being traded fairly and with dignity and with respect.
This is the city of Chicago.
But in order for us to do that and to apply this ordinance properly, I want to make sure we're getting at the problem where it exists so that we can curtail it and eventually end it, right?
And so that's how I'm approaching this.
I have not made up my mind on how this all comes to be.
I know it's still under negotiation.
Hearing the stories that I'm hearing, the current conditions are not acceptable.
I've also seen these trucks in horrible repair.
It makes me a bit concerned to hear that the DSP is telling their drivers don't report the damaged vehicle that requires maintenance.
Amazon has to fix those.
We want the employees and the drivers in safe vehicles that work, right?
And likewise, we want the general public who are interacting with these vehicles, either crossing a street in front of them or parking, whatever, to also be safe.
And so I promise to get more engaged on this issue because I need to learn more about it.
But I do think it's important as we craft public policy that we make sure that we're bopping the right offenders over the head with the right mallets rather than putting it all on one entity.
And I'm not in any way defending Amazon.
They should be here defending themselves.
That's their job, not mine.
I'm not taking it anymore.
I'm not targeted again to it.
Thank you.
So. So. So I will I will keep an open mind on this, and I hope to hear from someone from Amazon, whether that's publicly on the record or otherwise, to explain an account for some of this, because it is disturbing to hear.
Thank you, Chairman. Any other.
OK, any other first round questions?
Chair, could I like a quick comment on one of Alderman Riley's comments?
Go ahead. You know, obviously, a lot of what he spoke to was consistent to the issues that I personally raise in terms of problem solution, work through issue, go through process, et cetera.
But there's one thing with respect, Alderman Riley, that I took exception to, which is that the notion that any individual company executive is hiding behind, you know, myself, the chamber, et cetera.
You remove this, you know, all respect, remove this one company that we've been focused on out of this.
It's the policy remains the policy and might still be here even if you remove that out.
It's the policy we're focused on, the policy we want to work through.
And then go back again to where I am aligned and we are aligned with Alderman Riley, which is problem, solution, process, et cetera, to make good policy.
So one point of I'd like to make. Thank you.
If I could respond to be very clear, I'm not trying to paint anyone in the box in a poor light.
I understand the Chamber of Commerce has its mission to represent its members.
Amazon is one of them. Likewise, the retail merchants, et cetera.
The list goes on.
I that does not change my opinion on Amazon's failure to be here today.
And I think if you were to look in the gallery to see who's here, these are the folks who work for that company.
And many of the anecdotals being shared with us as a committee today are related to that specific company.
And I don't think we should be crafting public policy specifically aimed at a company.
And I have no doubt that there are other companies that have similar practices.
But knowing that today's hearing was going to involve a large number of subcontractors to Amazon,
I think it would have been appropriate for Amazon to have an executive here to speak for themselves.
And so I value the position and the work that is done by trade associations and chambers of commerce.
That's not what this is about.
I know that that other Fortune 50 companies, when there's a major public policy initiative that impacts their bottom line or their practices,
they show up in person to account for it, debate it and educate us.
And so I just want to make that very clear, not picking on folks here in this room today.
I'm picking on folks that chose not to be in this room today.
Thank you, Chairman.
We'll move to round two, which is Alderwoman Scott.
Thank you, Chair.
I just want to say, I didn't say when I started speaking before, but I wanted to thank the Amazon workers.
Everyone in here receives a package probably daily, and your work is probably not always complimented.
But thank you.
Thank you for the hard work that you do.
Thank you for the service that you've done within the city.
I appreciate you all.
Thank you very much.
So I'd like to thank you all for being here today.
I know, oh, Alderwoman Coleman.
Thank you, Chair Rodriguez and Silverstein.
I have to echo the sentiments of all of my colleagues in giving you all your flowers.
In communities like Inglewood and Lawndale and Chatham, so many of our pharmacies have closed,
and I don't think that Chicago recognizes how important Amazon has been because of you drivers
in delivering seniors and sick children their prescriptions.
And so in light of when corporations have left our city, you all have certainly stood in the gap
and helping communities of color and all over Chicago.
So I just wanted to say thank you.
Sometimes we have a thankless job, but on behalf of us at city council, we say thank you.
I'd like to close by thanking Chairwoman Silverstein.
We've had a good process to come together as committee chairs to make this happen.
May we serve as an example of how you do this right?
So it's a pleasure.
I'll give ourselves kudos.
Also to Chairwoman Ramirez, who has worked so diligently on this process,
has shown patience where patience has been called for, but has shown our sharp elbows as well
when sharp elbows are called for.
Thank you for your leadership.
Give her a round of applause.
I'm very impressed.
She started this off by saying that she's a freshman, but she is now a seasoned member of the city council.
And without further ado, and seeing no more questions,
I'll take a motion from Alderman Chico to adjourn this meeting.
Seeing no opposition, so ordered, this meeting is now adjourned.
I'll let them adjourn, but my hand still raised.
They don't want to recognize it.