☆ How SJ's CM Dev Davis brought developers and Labor together for the Council's unanimous wage theft compromise
Rick Kirby, Cross the Divide, 2000. Image by B on Flickr.
Local media likes to position SJ politics as bloodsport between Labor and Business--but independent Counclmember Dev Davis isn't buying it. She walks us through the process she led for building trust, agreement, and ultimate win-win on the prickly wage theft issue. An exclusive comprehensive phone interview with Opp Now's Christopher Escher.
Opportunity Now: Everybody of good faith is in favor of wage theft protections, but in December of '23, it seemed as though SJ developers and Labor were headed for a conflict on the issue. How did this happen?
Dev Davis: At the city level, we had been a little siloed, and hadn't done our work to make sure that all the stakeholders gave input and were heard. Staff had worked with Labor, but there was a lot of discord because the developers and the construction industry felt they hadn't had a chance to give substantive input. As a result, they found the solution worked through by Labor and staff was not workable for them--and they were the people who actually had to implement the program. So we had a problem.
Look, we are a participative, representative democracy. And especially at the local level, people feel--quite rightly--that they should be consulted by their local representatives when something is going to impact them. And if you don't consult adequately, you're going to get resistance. That's how the process is supposed to work, and that's how it did work.
ON: So how did the situation look to you in December, 2023?
DD: There was widespread agreement we needed to do something to prevent further wage theft from happening in the construction industry in San Jose; there was 100% agreement from all players--unions, developers, construction businesses--on that big objective. But we were a long way from having a consensus about what specifically we should do and how we could do it.
ON: Walk us through your process.
DD: The first thing I did was ask staff to do more outreach and come back to us in January. Over the Christmas holiday, one of the staff members called me and said they were unable to get Labor and business in a room together--and asked for my help. It was a holiday break, sure, but it was clear to me that lack of trust was a barrier.
So instead of trying get 20 people in a room together, I decided to start small. I texted two people I am close to--one on each side--and said, "Hey, let's just have a conversation and see where we are."
I spent the time before the meeting trying to figure out two things: Where was our common ground, and was this the right moment? I believe that good policy can only be made in the moment when the iron is hot, when possibilities are open--that's when you have to strike.
ON: Why did you feel it was the moment and was there common ground?
DD: We were at a time of uncertainty--for both sides. I'll be frank: we were entering a primary season, and there were enough seats in play such that both sides had to be unsettled about how those races might go. The longer we waited to solve this problem, the more risk there was for both sides: there was an incentive to get a deal done, and get it done soon.
So at the start of the meeting, which we had in my office, I said to players:
"Am I right in assuming that we all agree on the following:
We are against wage theft. We want workers to be paid fairly."
And everyone agreed.
"Can we agree that we don't want to hire contractors who have wage theft judgments outstanding? "
And again the answer was yes.
And from there, we started to get down into the specifics of how we can prevent developers from contracting with these businesses that have outstanding judgments in a way that wasn't onerous.
This did require getting into the weeds of the policy details, because that's where the points of disagreement were. Here's the deal we hammered out:
Developers have to search one specific database for outstanding wage theft judgments at the beginning of their project.
And then, they have to document the search results and document that any firm working on their project either isn't on the list or satisfies their judgment before they work on the project.
The City makes sure that process happens, and only developers that neglect this process can have their certificate of occupancy withheld at the end of their project (until they cure the negligence).
ON: So what were the conflict points?
DD: The question of how many databases had to be checked and how many times during the process was a sticking point. In a way, the bureaucracy of the state and federal governments helped solve those questions, because the federal database is years and years out of date, and the state doesn't update theirs on a regular schedule. But then there was the question of other local databases, which everyone ended up agreeing were too difficult to keep track of.
ON: So how did it all end up?
DD: I was really hoping for a unanimous vote on Council, because that was the best way to ensure that this wouldn't be a campaign issue for anyone. Thankfully, there were enough people from both Labor and Business who publicly commented in support of the compromise at the meeting that we easily got a unanimous vote.
ON: Local media played this as yet another example of the Labor/Business divide. You have been a strong voice saying that the Labor/Business divide in SJ is hyperbole.
DD: Of course there are differences between Labor and Business, but there is a lot more agreement than most people realize. It's an easy story for political operatives and local media to latch onto, but the truth is the groups overlap a lot, and have common values and common objectives. This perceived divide may be an influential factor in political fundraising, but it's not the driving force on the Council, by a long shot.
We are all participants in the economy: without Labor, business doesn't get done, and without business, Labor doesn't have jobs. As we say on the dais, when we are talking about fees, any percent of zero is still zero.
It's important to remember that everybody--and I mean everybody--wanted to get the construction industry back on its feet as quickly as possible. This was very important to me as a councilmember: a strong, thriving construction industry is tremendously important to the city at this moment in time, given our housing difficulties.
ON: What are the big lessons from this experience regarding Best Practices for creative compromise in SJ politics. How do you get to win-win?
DD: When you start from a place of agreement and move forward, the road gets smoother.
I was really trying to get at the heart of what Labor was concerned about, and then trying to find a way to make their concerns workable in the business process.
But I think there were four key elements to success in this negotiation that are applicable to similar conflicts:
1). Find a point of common ground.
2). Work with as few people as possible. Because you have better discussions that way. And it's more frank.
3). Try to see if there's shared leverage--in addition to getting what each side wants, is there agreement on what they both don't want?
4). Build trust quickly. I could not have led this effort cold, I needed to start from a place of trust with people from both sides.
Related:
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.