I finally realized what was bothering me about today’s coverage of the union lawsuits over the governor’s furlough plan.

I read the Advertiser and Star-Bulletin this morning, and went back to check broadcast coverage from last night.

It looks as if everyone simply worked for a press release and perhaps a press conference, as the stories are full of “he said, she said” comments from different sides or perspectives. Everyone seemed to have something to say about the suits and either their prospects or their repercussions.

So what’s missing? Actual news coverage of the content of the lawsuits. I didn’t see a single quote from any of the three complaints, nor any indication that any of the reporters had actually read the complaints. Since the supposed subject was the lawsuits, wouldn’t you expect to actually learn a bit substantive about them?

The Advertiser reports:

The HGEA, the state’s largest public-sector union, contends the governor cannot unilaterally impose furloughs and circumvent the collective bargaining process. The HSTA and the UPW claim the governor’s furlough plans are unconstitutional violations of the right to organize for collective bargaining and the separation of powers with the state Legislature, which has the authority to appropriate state money.

The Star-Bulletin:

The unions — the Hawaii Government Employees Association, United Public Workers and Hawaii State Teachers Association — filed separate lawsuits against Lingle yesterday.

They contend furloughs had not been negotiated and that the governor cannot unilaterally implement them.

KHON said:

All three lawsuits claim the governor has failed to negotiate future wages and other issues in good faith under the state’s collective bargaining agreement. The unions are asking for a preliminary injunction, preventing Lingle from moving forward with her furlough plan.

That’s it. The reporting seems to reflect a view that the actual content of the legal complaints is somewhat irrelevant to the story they want to present. I can’t help finding fault with that. I’m a documents kind of reporter. I want to see the paperwork. I want the substance. Once you’ve got that down, then you can seek reactions. It seems to me that this litigation is important enough to report on directly, not simply limiting the news to reactions from different interested parties.

And there are interesting things in the complaints, in addition to quite a whirlwind tour of the history of public employee collective bargaining rights in Hawaii. It would have been simple, for example, to derive a timeline of the development of bargaining rights drawn directly from this history.

Here’s another interesting example. The UPW suit notes that since 1989, furlough policies have been a matter of negotiation. Section 38.02 of the current contract provides a process for “leaves without pay to delay a reduction-in-force”.

The union then alleges that the administration never indicated its interest in amending this provision or any other contract provision to provide for the three day per month furlough.

It remains to be seen what will happen in court. In the meantime, pay attention to what isn’t being reported.