State government furloughs

[tutusue]

Re: State government furloughs

[...]Perhaps had folks like Dawson and the rest of her staff at the film office spoke out in support of the Governor's furlough proposal at the start and tried to talk some sense to the HGEA/UPW leadership, then things wouldn't have gotten to this point.

Do we know for sure whether Donne and others in the film office did or didn't discuss their support of furloughs with the union?

[Frankie's Market]

Re: State government furloughs

Do we know for sure whether Donne and others in the film office did or didn't discuss their support of furloughs with the union?

If they did, it wasn't effective. Not just the film office staff, but in every state dept. When it came to expressing opinions to the media, I sure heard a lot of anti-furlough sentiments from the union leaders, but virtually nothing from the rank-and-file members who were pro-furlough,.... at least, nothing until reality sunk in that the governor would be issuing layoff notices.

It's a bummer if the state film office had to close. But it's no less so for the students and parents of the now-closed Wailupe Valley Elementary School. Or for any communities affected by public library closures, if the BOE can't otherwise balance its budget. Or for the homeless people who now have to pay rent to stay at emergency shelters. And so on and so forth.

If anybody thought that the state budget shortfall was just a boring discussion about numbers that have no relevance to them, well, now they know better. The bottom line is that all of these budgut cuts will adversely affect, reduce, and in some cases, eliminate important services that have an impact on some segment of the community. There's simply no way for everyone to escape some form of difficulty, inconvenience, and hardship in the face of such drastic cuts in govt. spending.

[helen]

Re: State government furloughs

It's a bummer if the state film office had to close.

It hasn't closed yet. The layoffs are a plan B kind of thing. The governor still wants to do furloughs and/or pay cuts but in order to do that needs to meet with the union leaders since those kind of actions was never any of the union contracts. Layoffs on the other hand require time to take effect. Hopefully the situation with the furloughs would be resolved before the layoffs kick in.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: State government furloughs

It hasn't closed yet. The layoffs are a plan B kind of thing. The governor still wants to do furloughs and/or pay cuts but in order to do that needs to meet with the union leaders since those kind of actions was never any of the union contracts. Layoffs on the other hand require time to take effect. Hopefully the situation with the furloughs would be resolved before the layoffs kick in.

I don't know how much time you are thinking about, as far as exactly how long it would take for layoffs to take effect. Are you thinking in terms of several months? A year maybe? It's comforting to think that we still have so much time to figure something out,..... IF that were true.

But in the case of the state's Healthy Start programs that are targeted for closure (i.e. all of them, except for two remaining areas), workers are slated to be laid off in less than a month from now.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/ar...gram+being+cut

Healthy Start, for anyone who is not familiar with it, is a program that provides aid to families and children who are at-risk for being abuse victims. Needless to say, child abuse victims are among the most vulnerable in society if they have no one to come to their help. Hard for a 4 year old kid not going to school to seek out aid for himself if he's getting beat by both parents and is isolated from the outside world.

As I said, every budget cut will hurt somebody. The process of shrinking the size of govt. and the scope of its services to the public will not be painless. Anyone who thinks that there is some way around this fact is in serious denial. If its not a dollar taken away from (fill in the name of your favorite pet program), it could be a dollar taken away from a program designed to help at-risk children. If its not a dollar taken from a program that benefits at-risk children, it could be a dollar taken away from a program that assists elderly shut-ins. Etc. etc. etc.

[helen]

Re: State government furloughs

I don't know how much time you are thinking about, as far as exactly how long it would take for layoffs to take effect. Are you thinking in terms of several months? A year maybe?

Not a year, maybe 2 to 3 months but it's not like you get the layoff notice today and you are gone by next week.

[Pretender]

Re: State government furloughs

Not a year, maybe 2 to 3 months but it's not like you get the layoff notice today and you are gone by next week.

True. Per CB agreement permanent State civil service employees are entitled to a 90 day notice during the first layoff round. The employees referenced in the Healthy Start program appear to be non-profit employees funded in large part through State grants.

[Bobinator]

Re: State government furloughs

Perhaps had folks like Dawson and the rest of her staff at the film office spoke out in support of the Governor's furlough proposal at the start and tried to talk some sense to the HGEA/UPW leadership, then things wouldn't have gotten to this point.

That's unfairly passing the buck. No one foresaw the Court ruling as it did, nor did anyone expect to receive the Governor's "Notice", even though they knew some were going to receive them, especially not Dawson. Besides, government employees don't get much say in these matters, not to mention being frowned upon for publicly taking sides.

I'll also add that most State workers silently agreed with the furloughs. But it's like, how do you execute punishment upon yourself and be cheerful about it. It hurts any which way you turn. If public employees disagreed with the Governor, you'd certainly hear about it. Otherwise, they show their acceptance by being silent. Hope that made sense.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: State government furloughs

That's unfairly passing the buck. No one foresaw the Court ruling as it did, nor did anyone expect to receive the Governor's "Notice", even though they knew some were going to receive them, especially not Dawson.

Unfairly passing the buck? You're entitled to your opinion. I'm simply calling it as I see it.

"No one foresaw the Court ruling?" That misses my point, which is that union members who were in support of furloughs and were willing to make personal sacrifices for the greater good should have voiced their opposition to the lawsuit BEFORE Judge Sakamoto took the case.

Besides, government employees don't get much say in these matters, not to mention being frowned upon for publicly taking sides.
I'll also add that most State workers silently agreed with the furloughs.

This one is a classic "Cry Me A River."

If most of the govt. employees "agreed with the furloughs," then they should have been expressing disagreement with the position of the unions to the media. The union leadership aren't their bosses. It's supposed to be THE OTHER WAY AROUND. The union is supposed to exist and serve for the benefit of the members. If the majority of the rank-and-file are too weak-willed to stand up and voice their dissent to the union executives, then they have only themselves to blame.

But it's like, how do you execute punishment upon yourself and be cheerful about it. It hurts any which way you turn.

That's what I've been talking about in this entire thread, Bob! The drastic reduction in tax revenue leads to a cut in govt. spending, which inevitably results in somebody, somewhere, getting hurt. Read my previous post. The idea that this is supposed to be a painfree process is not facing up to reality. The closing of Wailupe Valley El. hurts the students and the families who were being served by that school. The closing of most of the Healthy Start centers and the staff layoffs hurt child abuse victims who would otherwise benefit from their existence. And yes, the layoffs hurt those displaced case workers as well, who will now need to find other jobs.

Decreasing the size and scope of govt. in the face of shrinking tax revenue is a painful process for everyone. It requires a recognition on everyone's part that some personal sacrifices need to be made in order for our state to get through this tough time. Yes, taking a paying cut hurts. Nobody expects govt. employees to be "cheerful" about accepting it, GMAB! But I think the general public expects members of HGEA, UPW, HSTA, and UHPA to be cognizant of the fact that folks in the private sector are likewise feeling the effects of the recession and are also having to tighten their belts with pay cuts and shortened work hours.

If public employees disagreed with the Governor, you'd certainly hear about it. Otherwise, they show their acceptance by being silent.

Nope, that's nothing but shibai.

By being silent, the employees were letting the union leadership speak on their behalf. And as a result, some of their rank are now facing the possibility of layoffs. And it's hard for someone like me (who works for a company dealing with a drop in business and making gutwrenching decisions on scheduling cuts) to feel much sympathy for public employees who crying about getting laid off now when they didn't earlier stand up together as a majority to overturn their union's leadership in trying to legally block the furloughs.

[tutusue]

Re: State government furloughs

[...]That misses my point, which is that union members who were in support of furloughs and were willing to make personal sacrifices for the greater good should have voiced their opposition to the lawsuit BEFORE Judge Sakamoto took the case. [...]

There is still the possibility that many did express opposition. We don't know for sure. And, there will always be those who allow the union to speak for them, afraid to take a stand against it's decision.

If most of the govt. employees "agreed with the furloughs," then they should have been expressing disagreement with the position of the unions to the media. The union leadership aren't their bosses. It's supposed to be THE OTHER WAY AROUND. The union is supposed to exist and serve for the benefit of the members. [...]

"Micro-governments" (my term!) like unions and even condo boards of directors, while elected to serve on behalf of the members/owners/whatever, don't always do so. Many can have other agendas. Yes, the members/owners are the bosses but sometimes the elected leadership doesn't have the best interest of their bosses in mind. I've witnessed, first hand, what can happen in that situation. Frivolous law suits and harrassment to name 2.

All that said...I'm in no way implicating the unions that are involved in this furlough/lay-off situation. I have no facts, one way or the other. Just saying, it's not always as simple as it might sound to buck the system. It should be, but often it's not. And I'd guess the union officials would not want it made public how many members, and who, were opposed. There's more than meets the eye in these types of situations.

[tutusue]

Re: State government furloughs

Obviously the existance of the Hawaii Film Office is very important to me and my job which is why I'll devote more time to it in this thread than other gov't offices. Regardless, I feel for everyone involved, be it furloughs or lay-offs.

Here is a video that explains the importance of the HFO.

[joshuatree]

Re: State government furloughs

There is still the possibility that many did express opposition. We don't know for sure. And, there will always be those who allow the union to speak for them, afraid to take a stand against it's decision.

"Micro-governments" (my term!) like unions and even condo boards of directors, while elected to serve on behalf of the members/owners/whatever, don't always do so. Many can have other agendas. Yes, the members/owners are the bosses but sometimes the elected leadership doesn't have the best interest of their bosses in mind. I've witnessed, first hand, what can happen in that situation. Frivolous law suits and harrassment to name 2.

Is it possible for one to drop out of the union? Just wondering because if I was one getting the notice, I may take my chances by not being union and taking a furlough. Just thinking out loud on possible scenarios.

[tutusue]

Re: State government furloughs

Is it possible for one to drop out of the union? Just wondering because if I was one getting the notice, I may take my chances by not being union and taking a furlough. Just thinking out loud on possible scenarios.

It's the job that's signatory to the union and it must be filled by a union member or by someone who is Taft-Hartley'd and will become a member. As I understand it, should a union member drop out of the union, s/he would lose that union job. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Sharilyn]

Re: State government furloughs

blah blah blah... sorry, I edited to delete comment

[D'Alani]

Re: State government furloughs

In some private industry companies one is allowed to drop out of or not join the union but you would lose out on all the benefits that the union member receives. You would still get whatever the wage is for that job but you would be on your own for medical, dental, pension, and so on. You would also not be covered by whatever lay off provisions that is in the collective bargaining agreement. At least this was my understanding where I was employed. Naturally no one chose to drop out of or not join the union.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: State government furloughs

It's the job that's signatory to the union and it must be filled by a union member or by someone who is Taft-Hartley'd and will become a member. As I understand it, should a union member drop out of the union, s/he would lose that union job. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yep, that's pretty much the way it is. The way that it HAS to be, really, for a labor union to exist and be effective. If employees of a certain job/unit could be permanently hired as non-union workers, then you know what the employers/management will start doing. When they interview people for job openings, they'll only hire those applicants who say they won't join the union.