State-UH faculty talks seem designed to fail

If the state and the University of Hawai‘i faculty union come to a salary agreement before the April 2 strike deadline, it will be despite a series of unnecessary distractions.

The Cayetano administration — facing budget demands throughout the state — has steadfastly refused to entertain the union proposal for a 14.9 percent raise spread over four years. That’s neither unusual nor unexpected.

But the counteroffers from the state almost appear designed to irritate faculty negotiators rather than move them toward a settlement. It is as if Gov. Ben Cayetano’s open unhappiness with some university faculty is being reflected in the state’s official negotiating stance.

An earlier offer proposed to put up money, but only for merit pay — no across-the-board wage hikes. This would have divided the faculty and would have cut directly against the movement toward university autonomy.

Since then, the state has revised its offer to include across-the-board raises of 6 or 7 percent, plus some money for merit pay, to be decided on a campus-by-campus basis.

This is clearly an improvement. And it is somewhat mystifying why the offer was not made sooner. After all, the change was not so much in the amounts that would be spent as in the manner the money would be allocated.

All that was accomplished by the earlier offer was the loss of serious negotiating time.

But the latest offer comes with its own irritant. In exchange for the raise, the state proposes to pay faculty salaries only over a nine-month period. That means the faculty would be on their own for health benefits in the summer and would lose time-in-grade for retirement purposes every year.

Again, the proposal appears designed to drive negotiators away from the bargaining table rather than toward a settlement.

Obviously, UH faculty are long overdue for a raise. And the amount the union is seeking is not particularly out of line. But it may be more than the state can afford, given the press of other obligations.

But within financial limits, the two sides should be working toward a package that offers the faculty the greatest flexibility and academic autonomy possible.

To date, the effort appears to have been aimed in the opposite direction.

[back to top]