Transcript:

Well, the first time I met Bill Gould was when I was out on campus for Admitted Students Day, and I had sought him out because I was interested in dispute resolution and labor and employment law, and he was gracious with his time to, you know, spend a few minutes with sort of a, you know, newly admitted student, and that time with him helped cement my interest in coming to Stanford.
Kind of as a for, for law school. And then once there I had the opportunity to, to take his labor law class and to connect with him from time to time I also took a series of courses over at the Gould center, not after this school, the different Gould, but for dispute resolution and sort of a combination of his knowing of my interest in those programs.
As well as sort of my, my connections with him through his, his class that he sort of, you know, kept me in mind when he had this opportunity emerge. I had Bill as a professor there, and then a few years after law school, he contacted me. Not about, you know, sports tickets to the Red Sox coming to Chicago or the Celtics in Chicago, but to work with him closely in designing and implementing a independent monitor program for a company’s labor organizing disputes.
The company was first group out of the UK. And they had a series of U. S. operations sort of in the school bus industry, as well as transit sort of campus and airport kind of transit facilities and greyhound. And so he, he invited me to, to really establish a, a 1st of a kind kind of independent monitor program during a company’s union organizing campaign.
Came back to me shortly thereafter and invited me to, to be his special assistant alongside of him to really sort of implement this to coordinate with other investigators that we had on our team, you know, to, to document sort of the fact finding to, to go out in the field and do the investigations sort of myself.
And, you know, I could spend an entire, you know, hour or more describing all the experiences we had there, but as it related to my professional development. You know, this really helped accelerate that you know, doing this design, implementing execution of the independent monitor program. You know, I was still a fairly junior associate when I left the law firm.
And when I returned to the law firm a year later we were still running the program, but it didn’t require my full time attention. You know, I felt like I was operating at a young partner level at that point and being able to work alongside him. And learn from him and his approach to these things, again, really sort of accelerated my own professional development.
And I’m grateful for that. And so when you started with him, you were really building this business from the ground up. I really have to point to sort of the education at Stanford Law School so give a give a plug for the law school there, you know, just the, the courses and the opportunity to be sort of a well rounded lawyer, you know, thinking about litigation angles transactional angles dispute resolution.
You know one at one of the courses at the law school. Those offers complex resolution system design, you know, so that. You know, this fell squarely within that that bucket there. And so being able to marry that that sort of legal education experience with sort of the labor law and employment law expertise that that bill bill brought, I think, really helped make us a good a good pair.
During the Obama administration when I was at HUD dealing with fair housing and and, and, and one of the areas of the Fair Housing Act that when I came in, they said, well, here’s, here’s this called section, section three, and section three is the principle of that the dollar spent by HUD. In the in the community should be used to hire individuals who are either low income or public housing residents And when I got there my briefer said well, this is part of the fair housing act But it really has nothing to do with fair housing and I said actually it has everything to do with the people who live there and and and bill was very Instrumental in advising us on project labor agreements may bring bringing unions and apprenticeship apprenticeship programs to the table.
And I saw that once again talking about the impact on people. When we went into some of the public housing places in New Orleans, I recall very vividly a woman coming up to me saying the section three of hiring individuals who live here. They are, they are building their own community. And she said the best thing, the best thing is when the fathers and adults come home, and they worked hard and they demonstrate to their children.
We are building our community, and that is part and parcel of what it means to have labor law protections, what it means to have equality in fair housing, and also what it means, what it means in, in, in, in voting, the ability of individuals to be able to have A voice have a say and have and really direct their own futures.
So I appreciated Bill’s involvement with our work, bringing together not just housing, but housing and employment and make and making sure that the labor issues are part of what we were doing. It hadn’t been done before by by by previous administrations of either party. And we were able to make an impact through that.
So my name is John Holtzman. I graduated from the law school in 1981. I am the managing partner of Rennie Public Law Group, which is a firm that’s devoted to representing government, local governments around the state of California. And my connection to Bill was, he was, of course, my professor when I was in law school.
At Stanford Law School, my labor professor, I had no interest, particularly in labor law never considered the possibility that I would practice it. And of course, I’ve practiced it now for 40 40 odd years and was head of the labor section of the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office and involved in a lot of the charter changes relating to how the city handles collective bargaining.
And so for, for a For a period of time, you have both worked in private practice and with your firm and also with city government in dealing with problems of the city and county of San Francisco, among others, and that developing solutions to problems that the city and county had. Yeah, so from the time I, so I, I ended up going to the city after I was at Morrison and Forster for a number of years, a clerk before that, but after that I went to the city and I was lucky enough to land in a pretty high level job considering at the time I was 30 years old and so basically landed as head of labor and employment, which For the city attorney’s office and also at a time when the city was really having to reevaluate how it went about labor relations.
City is extremely antiquated, probably the most antiquated city in. State in terms of how the city handled labor relations. And so it was a critical time in the city and I was able to participate in completely revamping the system labor relations system. City has, you know at the time it had about 50 unions, which is far, far more than L.
A. For example so to put that in in perspective and very, very complicated system to try to handle it. So anyway, that’s and so give me a time frame on when you began on that particular project, roughly about 1988 is or 89 or so we, the reforms themselves, maybe about 89, I guess, maybe even 90, And he was brought in.
I mean, I was very delighted because, of course, I knew him from law school. But he was actually brought in by a woman named Maggie Jacobson, who was a very famous mediator and who then became head of our employee relations division in the city for a brief period of time. And very, you know, really smart and so the reforms themselves took place really in 91.
It was the first big Set of reforms and he was named to a panel, which, you know I guess, you know, in retrospect, we might have renamed given how life has changed. It’s called the four wise men. The and so four you know, very, very senior You know, employment kind of gurus, all of whom were, you know, you know, at the top of the field.
The one, the other one I remember is Walter Kintz, who was a very famous arbitrator. And so he was named to this panel to help us design and for them to recommend, you know, how we should restructure our labor relations going, going forward. And so this was really a very complicated. Project that you were starting on.
I mean, just dealing with the unions and dealing with 50 unions and they was a lot of history and involved there. And so it was getting everybody to come together on a solution. Yes. Yeah, absolutely. And, and, and that was, you know, it’s very challenging. San Francisco is obviously one, two, excuse me.
San Francisco is one, you know, very you know, got very strong labor, as you know, labor unions. It’s an unusual city Because all of the craft unions, for example have their own bargaining units, which most cities don’t don’t work quite that way. And so you’ve got all the crafts as well as, of course, police, fire you know social workers, whatever.
Excuse me. So yeah, a lot of very disparate interests very different kinds of unions, very, you know, with really different kind of approaches and you know, it’s also a city that has kind of an interesting labor history because it despite San Francisco being viewed as a fairly progressive city, which, which it is it had a very big strike in the eighties and the, the, the strike had soured the public on the possibility of.
Of public sector strikes. And so one of the big challenges was how to how to come up with a fair system to compensate, negotiate with all these different unions, one that’s workable on the one hand, but also took account of this very strong desire by the public not to have strikes, which is something that, you know, in San Francisco, one would have thought could have been a real risk.
And so this was not only a difficult problem you were facing, but it was a unique problem because San Francisco having so many union is that you couldn’t look to some textbook and say, this is how it ought to be organized. Not at all. There was no model and to this day, there’s no model at San Francisco has a system that does not have.
Much in common with any other system in the, in the United States. And so Bill was chosen and in our previous conversation, it was like Bill was the perfect guy to be in the position to essentially redesign all of the labor relations activities in the city and County and San Francisco and deal with many years of history of how things were done.
And so it was his job to be in charge of strategizing and then implementing, implementing this huge change. Yeah, I would say more strategizing than implementing because the implementing took off in its own world which is something that actually frustrated Bill a little bit one of the one thing that happened in this was a lot of his ideas are incorporated in in what we ultimately adopted.
But one thing in politics is you can never tell. When things are going to happen in the moment for it to happen, happened sooner than we really expected that it would. And the thing sort of took off on its own steam at some point, Bill was like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, you know, you know, we got to get this right.
We got to get this right. And, you know, it’s like the idea sort of got, you know, got out of the gate and that was and just kept running. But yeah, so he was, yeah, he was a critical guy. He was, he was certainly the, you know, the person who You know, I mean, we had the wise men were all, you know, really smart, thoughtful folks.
But you know, Bill was obviously the, you know, the, the biggest thinker in the group about structurally what would work. And he had the greatest access in a sense to understanding what models existed out in the world, you know, that could, that could help us. So so as things proceeded was the solution became apparent pretty early.
Or was it the solution apparent, but it was getting people to line up behind that? And how much did, was Bill’s role in pushing this solution forward? Well, you know, the core of the solution emerged I think, you know, relatively early on, although I have to say it was a long time ago, I’m not really sure the which was that we adopted a system that was based on interest arbitration and interest arbitration, you know, is a, is an unusual form of arbitration.
You explain, could you explain interest arbitration? Yeah, so interest arbitration is is, is a, a, a impasse resolution mechanism. So once you’ve reached an impasse at the bargaining table you know, in simple terms, really what happens is an arbitrator can step in and can actually determine in a binding way the terms of the labor contract.
So it’s different from what we think of as, as rights or grievance arbitration, because there you’re interpreting or applying the terms of a labor contract. In interest arbitration, you’re actually creating the terms of that contract. So the structure of interest arbitration, you know, is a very, very powerful tool, but the structure of it.
Is is extremely important to make sure that you get decisions that are you know that are not, you know, way out of bounds because it is a very powerful tool. You’re delegating the power of the legislative body to an arbitrator. So and it poses, you know, some. So there are issues, for example, about different models of interest arbitration.
One big issue is, and San Francisco has this the adoption of what we call MEDAR model which is mediation Followed by arbitration or vice versa, so that you’re trying to bring the parties closer together on a voluntary basis before you’re making a binding decision. So there’s a lot of there’s a lot of structural issues there.
The other complexity was that the San Francisco had so many. Unions that the question was really, you know, could we sustain a system whereby, you know, potentially multiple unions in any given year could, you know, could go to arbitration. Essentially go to trial. You know, and and with the system, you know, would we be able to coordinate a system like that?
And what kinds of rules would go into a system like that to allow it to be governable and operable without, you know, it being kind of a full time, you know, problem. I understand from you that the solution really. Valued stability over independence that the unions gave up powers to act and the city and in return for getting stability and preventing the strikes that have been so harmful.
That’s right. Yeah, that is, that was the the value in a lot of ways of interest arbitration was that it, it prevents strikes so they’re prohibited and interest arbitration. And so so, yeah, so you’re buying a lot of stability or also, you know, in. theory, at least, buying a system that is fact based. That, you know, because the arbitrations are are complex, they’re based upon you know issues such as you know, your ability to pay comparability you know Looking at things like, you know, recruitment, retention, etc.
And so this is a system now that’s operated in San Francisco, since, well, since 1991. And although it has not been glitch free you know it has prevented strikes. Since 1991. And we have not had a major strike in San Francisco and which if you think about San Francisco and how what a dynamic political environment, labor environment is is actually pretty remarkable.
And so, as you’re observing bill, as you’re working with them at moving toward this solution, were there any particular moments that stand out to you and that he did something that that. Yeah. that other people might not have been able to do or had a viewpoint and a perspective or a strategy that other people wouldn’t have been able to figure out.
Well, I think, you know, I think that bill came at it, you know, I mean, it’s not going to come surprise anybody. Bill is, is, is, you know, it’s pretty pro labor and and and so I think the biggest thing bill did was, was really more that he I think he had a ton of credibility with the unions. So to me, I think the biggest thing, you know, he was he was, you know, the big respected guy for labor.
And you know, there, there were unions that were very hesitant. There were two unions, SEIU and Local 21, that, that wanted interest arbitration. I think it’s fair to say all of the other unions were either neutral or negative on the idea. So I, you know getting people to the point, and by the way it took Longer, there was a second charter amendment in 1994.
So the 1991 Charter Amendment, this was not Bill’s idea. In fact, he didn’t like this idea at all. The 1991 Charter Amendment was was opt in to interest arbitration. In 1994, everybody was actually put into interest arbitration whether they wanted to be in it or not. So it took a little while, even, even after we’d established it.
By the way, the city has used him in arbitration or used him, you know, as well in that setting, you know, he’s clearly, you know, the guy to go to when you want somebody with deep knowledge, you know, and a deep understanding of how these things will work, you know, I mean, among us labor lawyers is probably a dirty little secret that, you know, we have little compartments for different types of arbitrators.
And, you know, there are some cases that are better for an arbitrator is not thinking too deeply. You wouldn’t want bill on that case.
You know the system has worked. I mean, recently it’s it’s it has had some challenges with curb. Interestingly, with the public employee relations board, and there’ve been some You know, things have shifted in some ways. So there are aspects of the system that are beginning to fall apart a little bit.
But, you know, if you think about a system that has lasted 91 to now, what, so more than 30 years through a lot of change in law, because California labor law has changed a lot over the, that time. It’s done incredibly well. We haven’t had strikes in San Francisco. Labor costs in San Francisco are You know, they’re on the high end of cities, but, but that’s not terribly shocking because the cost of living San Francisco and well, etc is also on the high end of cities.
It’s not it has not been disastrous, which is what we all feared, honestly, that, you know, that would just be a huge cost driver. And it has. kept, you know, labor peace. It’s also a system. And I don’t remember whether Bill was involved in this part of it or not, to tell you the truth. It has very, very, very tight timelines.
And so there are really only three months a year. In any year when labor contracts are open, where this process goes on. So it, it, it’s, it’s, it’s unique in a different respect, which is that it, it compresses the labor negotiation process into a relatively short period of time, which I personally think is a great thing.
And I say that despite the fact that I make my money from labor negotiations because you know, labor negotiations aren’t like a fine wine. They don’t get better over time necessarily. And getting them done in an expeditious way, especially when you’ve got 50 unions, now they have somewhat fewer because they’ve collapsed some of the bargaining tables, but getting them done in an expeditious way so that you’re not constantly dealing with open labor contracts is you know, is great.
And so in a lot of ways, I mean, I think it’s, maybe it’s telling that there is not and has not been for 30 odd years in San Francisco a press to change the system in any broad way. I don’t think there’s any accomplishment I can point to in, well, maybe one other in my career you know that is comparable and this is, you know, again, I’m just talking about myself here, this is really about Bill, but, but the value to me Having been able to be involved in designing this, you know, complex, one of a kind system for a very complex city that has, you know, that has worked at a level that most cities have not been able to achieve.
And I’m talking big cities like New York or anything like that, you know, where they where we are able to get labor contracts in place. We have pretty good labor piece. You know, actually pretty positive labor relations overall. You know, I, I think, yeah, I look back on it as probably one of the two or three biggest accomplishments of my career and obviously never would have happened without Bill.
Oh, I think he’s, you know, very good at trying to find sometimes the different angle that people maybe. You know, didn’t didn’t identify that could unlock a solution to a problem. I mean, right now, you know, he is giving the labor unions a tough time because this is an enormous opportunity for them. He sees because public support for labor unions is the highest.
It’s been since probably the mid 1960s and, you know, he sees it as a great opportunity. But he doesn’t want complacency, but he has shown some additional tools that can be used in disputes. Like, for instance, you know, Bill has pointed out how antitrust law sometimes can be used. Apple. Kind of conceded, you know, neutrality in a labor struggle because they were worried that the unions were going to, going to take up Apple for antitrust violations, which they probably are very vulnerable on many of these Big platform capitalist companies and, you know, Apple’s gotten very involved in that space.
They’re very vulnerable. So when Bill looks at a problem, sometimes he, he does find another angle that maybe none of the other people have been been thinking about. But at the same time, he really does challenge people in the labor movement. You know, he really he Has embraced this new study by a fellow named Chris Bonner, who’s shown that the labor unions between 2000 and 2020 have had a big increase in resources, but many of them, a few exceptions, but many of them are not putting those resources into organizing activities.
And Bill is giving them a tough time about it, including we had him in our classroom at Harvard for the Harvard Trade Union program. And he, you know, really was pushing the labor leaders to see, you know, that this is an opportunity, especially, you know, I appreciate how much Bill’s in touch with the energy of young people.
We have all these young people. Many of whom had no familiarity with unions and they’re organizing at Starbucks. I saw the trader Joe workers organizing. You know, even that Amazon warehouse in Staten Island that got organized. That was that was quite an unsurprising outcome to many people. But, you know, Bill’s paying attention to these things and opportunities and he’s Telling our labor movement that you’ve got to find a way and there there are more tools and things out there that you can discover if you, you know, really put your mind to it.
And what I like about Bill, I say this to my students a lot of times, some of the knowledge we’re giving you in the labor movement is. Sometimes we like to talk about people need to have militancy and passion, but we don’t want mindless militancy. We need the good ideas that are going to help you. Ultimately triumph and it’s not enough just to have passion and being angry and out in the streets.
You really got to have a good strategy and Bill does give people some some really good ideas on how they can can intervene and fix difficult things and challenges that they’re dealing with.