|
By John H. Radcliffe "Astounding!" was the only word that long time Hawaii labor leader Walter Kupau could come up with when he learned that SHOPO, the police union had endorsed Orson Swindle over Congressman Neil Abercrombie, the fellow who has for twenty two years unfailingly supported SHOPO's legislative positions; Senator Bobby Bunda over perennial union supporter, Congresswoman Patsy Mink; and Representative Susan Chun-Oakland over powerful, supportive, eighteen year legislative veteran, State Senator Milton Holt. In an earlier endorsement imbroglio, the SHOPO rank and file had voted to endorse Mayor Jeremy Harris, the SHOPO Board overturned that action, endorsing Arnold Morgado, and was later forced to recant and re-endorse Harris. The HGEA leadership had planned to endorse their former staffer and political ally, Arnold Morgado for Mayor but when they took the precaution of polling the HGEA rank and file they found that Harris had overwhelming support and they were forced to endorse him but, shockingly, some HGEA leaders are actively campaigning for Morgado. The UHPA rank and file, in a nearly unprecedented recent action, overturned the recommendation of its Political Action Committee and rejected the candidacy of Senator Holt, one of the union's most consistent, most productive, legislators. What's going on? Has union discipline disappeared? What does this auger for the future of union lobbying and unions in general? Union discipline, if not having disappeared, has certainly diminished. Many union members do not remember the struggles to attain benefits and status, they tend to see their leaders in a negative light, they tend not to pay attention to anything which is not of immediate and personal concern. Unions in Hawaii are in decline as a political force. Traditionally, unions exist to first get and then keep wages, rights, benefits, and prerogatives for the membership, their families and the union itself. However, currently, the attitudes and philosophy (if it can be called that) of the X generation rules among union members in Hawaii. "What's in it for me?" "Where's mine?" is the cry. And, ominously enough for those who say it, "We need radical change." The union recently did a poll of business leaders in Hawaii which will be shared with members at about the same time as we are able to get this report out to you. Business leaders also want to see radical changes. They'd like to see tenure taken away. They'd like make the determination over what your research will be. They'd like to mandate that you do much more community service and be more like them. The general attitude of the business and social community of Hawaii, that which we sometimes call "town," can be summed up by this anecdote. On Bob Rees's television show, ISLAND ISSUES, some time ago, I was engaged in a debate with Bob over the contributions that faculty make to the economy of Hawaii. I said, " UH faculty researchers bring in about $150 million in grant moneys every year and employ about 2,000 local people to assist them in their research projects. Take Alex Malahoff for example. He is an outstanding teacher and has been with the University for over thirty years, he regularly brings in about $4 million in research dollars every year and his research activity annually underwrites the jobs of 34 others. The University pays him about $80,000 a year. Can't you agree Bob that a $4 million return on an $80,000 investment, is a hell of a deal for any investor?" He replied, "I'd rather get it for $50,000." Bob's a real reformer. It may be appropriate to discuss the history and the purpose of union political endorsements and union political action. Fifty years ago, Hawaii was racially stratified. Workers had no rights and few benefits. Many children went without the beneficence of schooling or the protection of medical insurance. Dental insurance, worker's compensation insurance, union or state provided life insurance were all unknown. There were few laws protecting workers in the work place and if you were hurt, you were hurt and if you were killed on the job you were dead. Those were not the problems of your betters who had been generous enough to have given you the opportunity to earn your rice by the sweat of your brow. Sanford Zalburg noted in his seminal biography of Jack Hall, A Spark Is Struck, that if the bosses on the docks looked at a worker and failed to see sweat streaming down his face, he was fired on the spot. And it wasn't as if the guy could get another job. From then on, he could fish for subsistence or he and his family could die. Whatever. It was of no consequence to those running society. Women had even fewer rights than men and the concept of "equal pay for equal work" did not yet exist. Many people of color did not register to vote for fear of retaliation. The political work done by the public sector and the trade unions in conjunction with the Democratic Party during the past four decades has transformed Hawaii from a racist, Republican plantation society to one of the most diverse, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural societies on earth. Government mandated or guaranteed benefits have, until very recently, protected the poor from the depredations of the rich and had a tempering, moderating effect on the entire society. All of those laws, policies, mandates and directives established to make life a better, safer, healthier place for Hawaii's people were passed and enacted into law by the endorsed candidates of the unions of Hawaii. By the 1970's, and '80's, having attained middle class status as result of the efforts of the unions, many of Hawaii's unionized citizens were beginning to wonder what their unions had done for them lately. Most had not lived through the strikes of the trade unions or later on, the strikes of the HSTA and the UPW. Some were beginning to doubt the need for a union at all. After all, hadn't the battles been won in the class wars? Wasn't it time to recalibrate, to balance union achieved advances for workers with a new "pro-business" attitude? In short, union members and others began to think that the unions were no longer relevant--and in fact, a hindrance to progress. Coincidentally, as the ardor for unions by newer union members began to cool, those same union members began to act like non-unionized folks, in that they began to vote in fewer numbers. When they do vote, they tend to disregard the union's recommendation and/or to consider recommendations of other groups and individuals with whom they are associated. The Sierra Club, Common Cause, the NRA, the Democratic Party Chair, all and sundry, you name it are welcomed into the act, not to mention the media and the alternative press. In absolutely no time one's union recommendation has became but one of many sources and resources upon which to base one's judgment for one's vote. Ironically, this has diluted the influence of the union to demand and get (and keep) legislative action on a broad front. Today's union member is as likely as not to base his/her vote on such things as personal appearance1 as on the needs of the basic organized group, the union. Unions endorse mainly for economic reasons and for reasons that will most likely result in the protection of the rights and benefits already gained. Who are the respected ones, the ones that other legislators look to when they have to decide which side of the fence to jump to? Who has delivered? Who can be counted on to deliver? Being able to "deliver" is the primary quid pro quo that politicians have. With a Milton Holt or a Donna Ikeda, the union has no difficulty whatsoever because they both have a decades long record of delivering their support to the benefit of the union and its members. Another important consideration in making endorsements is the "word" of the candidate. As examples of this trait, here again, when Milton or Donna say that they will do some thing, they will do it. When they say, "I'll try" they try. With some others, "I will do it" means "I'll try" and "I'll try" means "I don't have the guts to say no to you." After decades of working in these particular legislative vineyards, the union's lobbyists know just about everything there is to know about the incumbents, and almost as much about their challengers, including the names and ages of their children and pets. It is the responsibility of the lobbyist to remember every advantage given, every time that a particular legislator stood up for the union and every time s/he ran away from a commitment. The lobbyist needs to know the election histories of all of the candidates, the demographics of every district, and the issues that "play" there. In Hawaii, incumbency counts. With incumbents you can answer the question: Did s/he help the union or hurt it? With incumbents we have a record. The difficulty, the confusion, that many UHPA members feel is that the union cares most about protecting the mass of its members and in enhancing the rights and benefits and privileges of the mass and the individual cares most about his/her personal political agenda. What has been happening, is that when the two agendas are not congruent, the union member goes off on his/her tangent--despite having had the opportunity to vote on the matter. The principle of union discipline is shattered when the members, after having had the right to vote, choose to disregard the results of the ballot. That way lies chaos. Unions support most incumbents because they are known quantities, they already have demonstrated either support, or a willingness to leave our interests alone, some have the power to help us reach our goals. Incumbency particularly counts with the Congressional delegation where seniority drives everything. People wonder about Senator Inouye's amazing ability to get things done for Hawaii. While it is true that he is an extraordinarily adept practitioner of the political arts it is also true that he has continuously served the people of Hawaii in Congress since statehood. Out of the one hundred most powerful elected legislators in the world, serving in a body that is ruled by the courtesies of seniority, only three members outrank him.2 But the new union member, without a sense of loyalty or union discipline or institutional memory, is all too often given to finding a reason NOT to support the union's endorsed candidate. It isn't enough that the lobbyists recommend candidates based on records, ability, likelihood of winning, and other criteria, or that the Political Action Committee spends hundreds of hours interviewing the candidates in order to ascertain if the candidate understands and agrees with the union's goals and objectives. Nor does it seem to count that the union only endorses a candidate after the rank and file has had a chance to vote and the union's board has ratified the results of that vote.3 Political action consists of responding to the union's requests during session that members testify on measures, as well as to write, fax and phone legislators when the occasion demands it. But it also means that union members come out, in what the candidates can see is an organized manner, to campaign. This, UHPA members just will not, appreciably, do. A few will do friend to friend cards, urging others to vote for a particular candidate, but only if they are individually motivated by friendship with, or admiration for, that candidate. We have tried phone banking and have found that our members are surprisingly shy and difficult to train to talk to others.4 Sign waving is anathema to our members. "Does this really work?" "Isn't this counterproductive?" "Who is this guy you want me to sign wave for?" "How does this particular signwaving event help me personally?" "It's dangerous." "It's silly." And on and on.5 Neither do our members like to collate, fold, staple and organize for mass mailings.6 Canvassing neighborhoods can be an exhausting, nerve wracking, even dangerous business and UHPA members can rarely be talked into it in numbers much beyond two. One has to go to a central point at a time certain, pick up bags of "walking pieces," get directions as to where to canvass, read a map, walk to the specified homes--and wherever possible, actually stop and talk to potential voters, urging them to vote for the person being endorsed. And then one has to return to the central point and report on one's accomplishments.7 UHPA members have not yet demonstrated an affinity for direct organized political action. What the union had settled on as a meaningful political act, and one which went to the heart of the matter without involving extraordinary amounts of sweat, blood, time and tears, was to make fair sized monetary contributions to endorsed candidates. This we have, in some cases, done. While it does not take the place of the kinds of direct actions that have been described, candidates nonetheless always need the mothers milk of politics and appreciate our efforts in that way. SUMMARY Political discipline among all union members in Hawaii is breaking down but may be weakest among UHPA members. In a few cases, unions are going against the earned record of legislative support and endorsing certain candidates who have done nothing for, and may even hurt the union. Some union leaders are actually supporting the opponent of a candidate that their union endorsed.8 Fewer union members are registering to vote, fewer are voting, and when they do vote, fewer of them are bothering to vote the union line (even, in the case of UHPA, where they themselves create it). Younger union members especially, are questioning the need for unions, for political action, or even joint protection. At the same time, the community may be becoming more intolerant, more "single issue," more politically conservative, more "business" oriented, less politically and socially inclusive, less appreciative of union values. The value of the union's endorsement is based on the obverse of the reason that unions endorse. It is based on the union's ability to "deliver" the votes of its members and whether or not it can "deliver" the necessary political and monetary support to help the candidate win. Once it is determined that the union is impotent, favorable legislative action becomes a matter of charity. CONCLUSION UHPA members have shown a remarkable ability to focus on issues that they believe affect them directly, and an equally stunning ability to ignore those that they think irrelevant to themselves. The ability of faculty to put their considerable individual intellectual prowess to work when they have grievances, tenure and promotion problems, or other work related difficulties is truly wonderful to behold. The working relationship between union staff and union members at those times sometimes verges on the symphonic. However, in the political arena, faculty have almost no shared or common ground beyond a cynical belief that all politics is worthless and all politicians are corrupt or in training to be corrupt. This despite the fact that the ability to grieve, to have tenure, to negotiate raises, receive merit increases, have labs, libraries, classrooms, equipment, supplies, to survive at all in a system which is steeped in a very pervasive and unique brand of politics is 100% political. Voting into office and keeping in office, men and women who will support higher education in Hawaii, support faculty, is vital to our own collective well being. Despite that, only about 65% of UH faculty are registered to vote. About two thirds of that number tend to vote in all elections.9 That means that in any given election about 1400 faculty members will vote and another 1900 will not.10 Among unionized public employees in Hawaii, that is the worst voting record going. Neither does faculty seem to care much for union democracy. As a rule only about one third of the members vote in the candidate preference elections run by the Legislative and Political Action Committee. In the most recent election, 87.3% chose not to participate. In the controversial Holt recommendation, the vote was 156 to 186, had just sixteen people voted the other way, those voting would have voted to endorse the Senator. It is just a guess, but it is likely, given the strong anti-Holt sentiment in some important university related quarters, that many more than 186 out of 3300 faculty do not want him re-elected. Ironically, unless and until faculty come to grips with this problem and solve it by deciding to become involved in the political process, in ways that the community and community leaders, including elected officials, can understand, UH faculty will never be free to teach, do their research, and live a truly unfettered academic life. The answer is as simple as the mission of the UHPA. The union exists to resolve disputes of members with management; to advance the broad economic needs of members; and to assist members in the realization of their needs for peace and freedom to be professional educators at the highest and best levels that they cann attain. Without a unified, active political arm, the achievement of that mission will always be problematical. Shall we all work to toward a common end?
|