By Jerry Burris
Advertiser Editorial Editor

Buried in the arbitrator's report on the latest contract between the state and counties and the Hawai'i Government Employees Association is a fascinating bit of political history that helps explain the current furor over arbitration and the power of public worker unions.

Most attention has focused on the wage aspects of the arbitration award, which split the difference between union and management offers.

Gov. Linda Lingle already has declared the award is too expensive for the state. She has offered an alternative, which she will detail tomorrow.

But in addition to wages, the arbitrator also dealt with another issue that has plagued management for some time: the rich menu of non-wage entitlements enjoyed by unionized public employees.

There was a time when such entitlements were an offset for wage scales that trailed the civilian market. That is less true today, and management has made a determined effort to scale back on some of the more lavish entitlements.

One particular example is the sick leave and vacation benefit available to employees. Before 2001, HGEA members were entitled to 21 days of vacation and an additional 21 days of sick leave (which they were encouraged to take) from their very first year of employment.

That's eight weeks off a year, a prospect that might seem typical in Europe but unusual in the United States.

In July 2001, Gov. Ben Cayetano, taking the lead for the employers, struck an unusual bargain with the HGEA: He would recommend approval of that year's arbitrated contract if the union agreed to a new two-tier system for vacation and sick-leave accruals. New employees would be required to gain weeks of vacation and sick leave over time, as their seniority increased.

In time, this presumably would save money and put the public payroll on a more equal footing with private employers.

HGEA Executive Director Russell Okata told the arbitration panel he agreed to this deal with the understanding that other general public-employee union, the United Public Workers, would fall under the same two-tier rules.

But that never happened.

In one case, the counties apparently did not go along with the idea and in another, it was offered but then withdrawn.

Okata's conclusion, and the arbitrator agreed, was that the two-tier arrangement was then good only for that one contract. It restored the old "21 and 21" arrangement.

What is striking is that for all the talk of union greediness and stubbornness, the HGEA was willing to accept a change that reduced a longstanding benefit. The only condition (other than getting the contract ratified) was that the new system had to apply to all public-employee units.

The deal fell through. But the lesson is that much can be accomplished between union and management based on a handshake and mutual trust.

That was how the two sides dealt with each other in the early years, and there's no reason they cannot continue to do so now.

Jerry Burris is editor of The Advertiser's editorial pages.