Strategy and tactics in the living wage campaign

This monthly column was forged out of my resolve to do the intellectual work of defining the progressive agenda and applying a ‘best practices’ matrix to the toolkit of tactics for achieving that agenda in the real world. That template could be applied to the Black Lives Matter campaign and Sonoma Measure B as well as the county living wage campaign.

The Sonoma County chapter of Jobs with Justice, which was the organizational successor to the Living Wage Coalition, has been waging a protracted siege on the Board of Supervisors to pass a Living Wage Ordinance for all workers employed by the county. Most of the approximately 3,000 direct report county workers, excepting a few categories, were already at the living wage standard. The additional workers include private businesses that have major contracts with the county, nonprofit social service agencies, and the in-home care workers (In Home Support Services or IHSS), who are the largest contingent, numbering around 4,000 members represented by SEIU UHW. There are a few hundred workers who are employed by the private and nonprofit contractors.

After an extended campaign for the ordinance, waged with intensity by Jobs with Justice and their allies within the North Bay Labor Council, the Supervisors arrived at a compromise package (nicknamed “The Potemkin Plan”). The Board voted unanimously to offer the living wage rate to private contractor’s employees and a graduated path to the county living wage standard for the nonprofit employees. Former Sonoma Mayor Ken Brown testified at that hearing, based on his solid support and leadership for the City of Sonoma Living Wage Ordinance, passed in 2006 following an 18-month campaign by the Living Wage Coalition.

Conspicuously absent from the compromise ordinance were the IHSS workers. Board Chair Gorin directed the coalition campaigners to resolve any wage issues in collective bargaining between the county administrator, Veronica Ferguson, and SEIU UHW. The coalition strenuously objected to this compromise plan and persuaded the Supervisors, who have been inundated with calls and e-mails for over a year, to delay implementation of this plan. Supervisor Gorin, however, spoke for all her colleagues when she firmly asserted that the IHSS wage issues will be addressed at the bargaining table. That’s where the matter stands and I did not see any wavering on that point. That’s the deal.

Supervisor Gorin sought to persuade the coalition that this was a victory for their efforts, since the principle of the living wage standard would now be on the books. The Supervisors pleaded for a cessation of the daily phone calls and e-mails, which has made this issue a big part of their staff workload. I was not at all surprised by this outcome, given the grave political realities that the Board is facing. The recent loss, by a substantial margin, of the proposed ‘Road Tax’ measure is going to be more salient in their political calculations than the coalition campaign. It would have been very awkward and politically hazardous to approve a multi-million dollar wage increase while lacking the funds to meet the widespread public demand for road maintenance.

Many of the coalition activists were deeply angered by the Board’s decision and resolved to intensify their efforts in the months ahead. The political concerns of the Supervisors did not even enter into their tactical frame of reference, in my view.

Here’s where I will offer two bits of advice to the coalition. First, craft a long-term public education program with lots of graphics to make the budget priorities of the county transparent, so that the money for decent wages for the in-home workers can be re-allocated from the bloated public safety/criminal justice administration budget. Secondly, shift the target of the campaign from the Board to the County Administrator. The Board will not reverse their decision, and continued hammering on the sore spot will not improve their disposition, so the action now centers on collective bargaining for IHSS workers with the County Administrator, Veronica Ferguson. Time for a new target.

Ms. Ferguson has deeply compromised the Supervisors by opening bargaining with the insulting and punitive offer of a 10 cent an hour raise each of the next two years. That’s not even keeping up with basic inflation. That’s probably intended to be the first hand played at the table, but all that it has accomplished is to incense the coalition advocates and make the offer of the Supervisors to send the question to bargaining look like a cynical ruse.

I hope to meet with Supervisor Gorin and ask this question directly: “Do you have any input into the tone and content of the collective bargaining process? Or is this matter entirely in the hands of the County Administrator?” That’s the question at hand.

The Supervisors would be well advised to make public comment on how they want the negotiations to proceed. I don’t want to believe that the County Administrator’s negotiating stance represents the intentions of the Board. Who does Veronica Ferguson answer to?