Walkout will result in major changes
By Jerry Burris
Advertiser Editorial Editor
The last time Hawai'i's public school teachers went on strike, they had to go to an outside mediator-arbitrator to resolve the matter.
In that 1973 strike, mediator-arbitrator Sam Kagel came up with a settlement that tilted somewhat toward the teachers and away from the position held by the state administration. The total value of the year-and-a-half contract was something in the range of a 13 percent salary boost.
But Kagel had something other than money in mind for the teachers. He set up a system that — in theory — could have guaranteed that 1973 would be the first and last teachers' strike Hawai'i would ever experience.
Looking at the possibility of another strike following that bitter walkout, Kagel said that "neither the public nor the parties should be required to endure such a possibility."
Kagel's settlement of the 1973-74 contract included a requirement that the teachers give up their right to strike in negotiations for the contract that would follow. The two parties were obligated to settle the next round of contract talks peacefully or submit to binding mediation-arbitration.
The legal right to strike would be suspended.
Some theorized that this innovation ended the possibility of teacher strike forever, since the next arbitrated settlement could contain the same ban, and on and on forever.
Obviously, the plan didn't work. But in some ways it is a good thing. Because the settlement of the current strike will require more than finding a middle ground between union and management on such basic matters as pay levels and work hours.
This strike is the result of an effort to fundamentally restructure the relationship between the teachers and management — represented by the school superintendent and the governor.
Both Gov. Ben Cayetano and School Superintendent Paul LeMahieu have strong ideas about how teachers teach and how they are rewarded. The governor wants greater emphasis on performance and professional development as well as a pay structure that tilts toward attracting new teachers.
LeMahieu is pushing hard for more flexible management rights and a system that rewards educators who meet high standards and offers support for those who do not.
The teachers aren't opposed to any of this in theory. But they would like to see such innovations added to the existing structure rather than replacing it. They want these 21st-century innovations built on a tried-and-true system that recognizes and rewards tenure and longevity.
Thus, in some ways the two sides are not negotiating over money, per se, but rather how that money would be spent.
Yes, the actual cash value of the contract is important. Cayetano is firm in his belief that giving the teachers what they want — or close to it — will drain too many dollars from other needy programs. The teachers sincerely believe there is more money available than Cayetano admits.
That part of the dispute — the cash part — is perfect for a mediator-arbitrator. But the other elements — the changing management-union relationship and the shift to a new model of professionalism — are not really suited for negotiated compromise.
They are education matters that get resolved through collaboration and plain hard work by those who know education best: teachers and their bosses. Which makes the current strike particularly unfortunate, because the best that can come out of it is a resolution in which neither side is seen as the major loser.
What is needed is a resolution in which both sides come out as winners.
