Board members introduce emergency paid-leave measure and call for enforcement of gig-worker protections

Supervisors at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors meeting on March 24 introduced emergency measures aimed at worker protections during the COVID‑19 pandemic, including a resolution urging rapid enforcement of Assembly Bill 5 and an emergency ordinance to create a new category of paid leave for public-health emergencies.

Supervisor Marr introduced a resolution, cosponsored by Supervisors Haney, Walton and Ronan, urging the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement to establish rapid enforcement procedures to address misclassification of San Francisco workers and ensure local compliance with Assembly Bill 5. "Paid sick leave, unemployment insurance, and family medical leave aren't just nice to have, they're the difference between workers being able to feed their families or not," Marr said. The resolution asks the City Attorney, the California Attorney General and the State Labor Secretary to help gig workers access benefits under AB 5 and urges the Department of Public Health to set minimum health and safety guidelines for app‑based transportation and food delivery drivers, including sanitary supplies and workers'‑compensation protections if they are exposed to infected customers.

Marr also introduced an emergency ordinance intended to create a new category of "public health emergency leave" for San Francisco workers. Marr said the ordinance would allow employees of large private companies to immediately access "additional weeks of paid leave," closing a gap she described in recent federal legislation, but did not specify the exact number of weeks in the introductory remarks.

Separately, Supervisor Haney introduced a resolution urging the mayor to require large grocery stores, drugstores and food‑delivery services to provide expanded worker protections during the emergency, including hazard pay, extended sick leave and access to personal protective equipment. Haney said those workers are "unsung heroes" who remain on the job to keep food and medicine flowing and that city emergency powers could be used to require additional protections.

Supervisor Bolton asked the City Attorney to draft legislation to create a Family Income Relief Fund that would provide $500 per month to San Francisco residents with children or dependents attending San Francisco Unified School District schools who do not qualify for federal stimulus programs; Bolton’s proposal would explicitly include permanent residents, undocumented immigrants and independent contractors among eligible residents. Bolton said city staff and the controller would work to identify funding sources and draft rules and procedures for implementation.

Supervisor Safaie said he has been in ongoing conversations with Muni operators and SFMTA leadership about protecting transit workers, including fare‑collection changes and boarding procedures to protect operators and passengers; he also asked the City Attorney to draft language expanding presumptions of workplace injury for frontline first responders and health workers so they would not have to prove they contracted COVID‑19 at work.

None of these items were adopted during the March 24 meeting; the measures were introduced for consideration, and supervisors asked staff and the City Attorney's office to draft legislation or orders as described. The Board did not take final votes on the emergency paid‑leave ordinance, the hazard‑pay resolution or Bolton's Family Income Relief Fund during the session.

Background and context: supervisors cited concerns that federal relief left gaps for many workers, especially gig‑economy drivers and independent contractors, and said local action was needed to ensure workers could take time off for sickness, care for family members and avoid spreading infection. Supervisors named companies such as Uber, Lyft and DoorDash when urging that app‑based employers follow state law and provide sanitary supplies and compensation consistent with AB 5.

Looking ahead: supervisors said they would return with drafted ordinances and resolutions for consideration at future meetings and asked the relevant city departments—Office of Labor Standards Enforcement, Department of Public Health, and the City Attorney—to prepare enforcement and implementation plans.