Bookmark and Share Email this page Email Print this page Print

Labor of Love

The Changing Face of Hawaii's Unions

(page 2 of 2)

The changing relationship between business and labor inevitably reflects a change in union leadership. Perhaps no one has had a more comprehensive a view of this change than Timothy Ho, president and CEO of the Hawaii Employers Council, an organization that handles labor negotiations for nearly 200 companies. To Ho, the most dramatic change in Hawaii unions has been the growing level of professionalism at the top. “There’s not as much saber-rattling or fist-pounding these days,” he says. “I would have to say that union leadership has become a lot more sophisticated.” And he doesn’t think that sophistication is an accident; it’s the result of coordinated efforts at both the local and national level. “In the past, it was sort of an on-the-job training thing. Now, I believe they go to class and there’s a curriculum for them.”

Randy Perreira, executive director of the Hawaii Government Employees Association, which, with nearly 44,000 members, is the state’s largest union, agrees with Ho. “Our national union, AFSCME, has really stepped up its efforts,” he points out. “We have far more comprehensive training than was available in the past. We even have on-line classes, so you don’t have to show up physically someplace.” He also notes that much of the training nowadays is increasingly about how to run a large organization. “They offer training for individuals who are new at the administrative process. It goes over less how to be a union man than how to run a business.”

Naturally, all that training and sophistication have affected labor negotiations. To begin, it has injected a greater level of objectivity into the process. On the one hand, that means more emphasis on gathering information. “We don’t enter into the process without careful consideration of the employers’ ability to pay,” says Perreira. In HGEA’s case, that means delving into the arcana of government budgets and programs. “We don’t have an economist on staff, but we’ll engage an economist if negotiations are bogging down.”

In the end, unions are increasingly realistic about what’s possible. “I think that’s a key element,” Perreira says. “Employees may deserve more —in fact, we believe the employees are worth a hell of a lot more than they get paid —and yet, there are economic limits that we have to live with.” Even Wayne Cahill, chief administrator of the Hawaii Newspaper Guild, and in many ways one of the state’s most old-fashioned union leaders, allows that this sort of pragmatism is inevitable in contract negotiations. Though he may distrust management (“Gannett probably wrote the book on union-busting in this industry,” he says), he’s quick to note, “Obviously we’re not going to bargain any company out of business.”

Despite all the talk about change, some union leaders still believe in traditional unionism. Few, though, have as hardboiled a view as Cahill. “I think the struggle was the same in the 1930s as it is today,” he says. “Maybe we’re a little more civilized and we don’t use such earthy language, but I think it’s the same.” For traditionalists like Cahill, all the talk of change and partnership is beside the point; unionism is simply a counter to a basic flaw in human nature. “If a worker wants to go bargain for himself, the boss is going to tell him, ‘If you don’t like it, quit.’ It’s only by getting together and forming a union that the worker has a shot. And that’s what it was all about in the 1930s.”

Others, though they may not offer the same grim views as Cahill, are still traditionalists at heart. Nate Lum, chairman of the longshoremen’s unit of the ILWU, acknowledges there have been a lot of changes and improvements in the union, but he believes most of those changes are the result of good old-fashioned organizing. “I still believe that we’ve got to educate our young leaders,” Lum says. “It’s very positive for these guys. But they’ve got to go to grass roots classes — the basics. They’ve got to be in the trenches.” Even so, he acknowledges that even this kind of professional development is a change. “I never had that opportunity. They fricking just turned me loose,” he says.

Some of the other members of Lum’s young, motivated executive committee cast an even more skeptical eye on the putative professionalism of Hawaii’s union leaders. One member, Dustin Dawsun, excoriated the leadership of other unions for their high salaries: “I could be wrong, but I think a lot of guys got greedy and they forgot where they came from.” He points out that longshore leaders, like Lum, only work part-time for the union, and only get paid for lost time from their dock work. “We don’t get no salary of $100,000 here. It’s just for the love of the union.”

There’s no mistaking the fact, though, that most of those union leaders have given up jobs as carpenters, machinery operators and laborers to run large, increasingly complicated organizations. They conduct tense, complex negotiations. Some of them manage a staff of thousands. (Or, as one leader put it, “I have thousands of bosses.”) In that light, it’s not surprising that today’s union leaders should view themselves as partners with Hawaii businesses. After all, as Art Tolentino explains, “Running a union, itself, has changed into running a business. Unions are businesses now that have a membership. The faster you realize that, the better it will all work out in the end.”

Hawaii Business magazine invites you to comment on our articles and the issues they raise. Comments are moderated for offensive language, commercial messages and off-topic posts and may be deleted. Some comments may be chosen for inclusion in the magazine on the Feedback page.

Add your comment:


Don't Miss an Issue!
Hawaii Business,February