The UH Professional Assembly sent another special letter to its members earlier this month, expanding on its reasons for opposing much of HSTA’s pending complaint before the Hawaii Labor Relations Board.
HSTA went to the labor board in an attempt to block the state from imposing the terms of its “last, best, and final offer.”
The 6-page letter is signed by UHPA President Adrienne Valdez and Executive Director J.N. Musto.
Simply put, the approach the HSTA has chosen to achieve its goals in bargaining is totally unnecessary. It delays the ability to yield an expedient resolution on behalf of the teachers it represents. In addition, it can lead to decisions from the HLRB that erode our rights under HRS Chapter 89 and invite legislative proposals that diminish collective bargaining for the public sector. Finally, because HST’s approach promises to be long and protracted, UHPA and HGEA both worry that it will undermine the public’s support of public sector collective bargaining.
UHPA notes that HSTA issued subpoenas to force testimony by leaders of HGEA and UHPA without first seeking their voluntary participation, and has not explained what information it is seeking.
However, UHPA believes HSTA is “seeking the unfettered right to gain disclosure of confidential discussions that have occurred between other public sector unions and the employer during periods of bargaining.”
In the case of HGEA, HSTA has even subpoenaed “the individual notes of members of HGEA’s bargaining team during their private caucuses.”
UHPA aims several barbs at HSTA attorney Herb Takahashi, more familiar as lead attorney for UPW.
To intervene in a case is not out of the ordinary, and HSTA attorney Mr. Herb Takahashi has intervened, usually on behalf of his other client, the UPW, in complaints brought to the HLRB by UHPA in University-related matters. Mr. Takahashi has never been shy in encouraging his clients to intervene in cases brought by other unions. However, he didn’t hesitate to immediately object to UHPA being allowed as an intervening party, stating that he could protect UHPA’s interests in the case.
But it’s the inter-union fight over health benefits that appears to be the central issue. Teachers are being integrated back into coverage provided by the Hawaii Employer-Union Health Benefits Trust Fund, after having a temporary exemption for several years. During that period, teachers were covered by their own health plan. HSTA says teachers benefited. Leaders of other unions don’t disagree, but say it came at the expense of all other public employees, who benefit from the largest insurance pool of covered employees.
In an op-ed published yesterday in the Star-Advertiser, retired union executive Van Horn Diamond speculates that the series of HSTA actions is designed as part of a political plan to get legislators and the Abercrombie administration to approve the renewal the exemption in exchange for ratifying the state’s contract offer.
I think it’s important to keep in mind that this involves more than teacher benefits and costs. State Auditor Marion Higa reported that in 2009, HSTA’s separate health plan or VEBA (voluntary employees beneficiary association) collected $2.4 million in fees from the state, and racked up an additional $1 million in administrative expenses.
The majority of the HSTA VEBA trust’s administrative expenses were comprised of the costs of its third party administrator, consultant, and attorneys, as well as other expenses such as bank fees, office supplies, postage and printing.
Higa said HSTA administrative costs paralleled those of the EUTF, a situation which she found “unnecessary, costly, and duplicative.”
In addition, experience has shown that these pockets of money within the public employee unions can allow for mischief. It was union insurance contracts that gave former UPW executive director Gary Rodrigues leverage to arrange kickbacks in the form of consulting gigs for his daughter from companies he selected to provide union coverage. And when one of my early articles for the Star-Bulletin called attention to payments she was receiving from PGMA, which provided union health coverage at the time, Rodrigues arranged to have the consulting payments routed through a Royal State Insurance subsidiary. Rodrigues, and other union leaders, had served as directors of various Royal State companies.
The following is from my entry back on October 24, 2002, where I wrote:
Yesterday’s main witness was Lilia Yu-Lum, who heads VEBAH, the Voluntary Employees Benefit Association of Hawaii, one of these Royal State companies. A number of the charges in this case relate to a contract awarded to Rodrigues’ daughter, Robin Sabatini, for consulting as part of Vebah’s servicing of the union’s insurance plans. How Robin was selected to do the work, as well as what work she actually performed, are central issues.
Yu-Lum testified that Sabatini was chosen because she was qualified. However, she also testified that no one else was considered. Yu-Lum said she knew at the time that Sabatini was Rodrigues daughter because she was told by her boss, Mel Higa, the central figure in the Royal State companies.
Prosecutors painfully elicited testimony on the makeup of the tight little network of companies, all located at 819 S. Beretania. For years, Rodrigues served as a director of several Royal State companies alongside Higa and Yu-Lum. Both testified that their relation with Rodrigues was not a factor in hiring his daughter, but failed to provide any other rationale to explain why she was the only candidate considered for the UPW-related work.
According to testimony yesterday, Sabatini initially received a percentage of the UPW business which amounted to around $11,000 a month, which was later reduced to a flat monthly fee of $6,000.
Garrett Ing, who heads Management Applied Programming, the Vebah/Royal State affiliate that actually contracted with Sabatini, testified that he had little contact with Sabatini, was not part of her hiring, never received reports from her, and only met her during public meetings held annually to sign up new members for the UPW insurance plans.
The bankruptcy of the HSTA Member Benefits Corporation was another warning of problems behind the scenes involving health insurance premiums and fees (also check their statement of financial affairs filed with bankruptcy court).
All this is a long way of wondering why HSTA is going so far, spending so much, and squandering good will of other public employee unions, the legislature, and the public, to fight against a contract that had received the approval of its bargaining committee. I can’t help feeling there’s more there in the background that has not yet become apparent.
