SOME FRIENDLY ADVICE FOR HSTA

The reality of human decision-making is really not all bad news. The
reason is the human mind is an amazing synthesizer of information. We
are genetically programmed to behave in ways that maintain our species.

Most negotiators, in both the public and private sectors, are expected
to be wary of decision traps set by management on both sides of the
aisle who wish for quick and partial solutions.

In Hawaii, the public sector is advancing toward a management trap.
The Hawaii State Teachers Association (HSTA) is expected to begin
talks this week for a new contract. This, after a deadline requiring
random drug testing of all public school teachers passed almost six
months ago, with no teachers being tested. Last year teachers ratified
a two-year contract, which included generous pay raises and a random
drug testing requirement that should have been implemented by June of
this year. Their current contract expired in June, and the state paid
the teachers most of their 11-percent raise. But HSTA continues to
oppose drug testing, citing privacy concerns.

In July, the state filed a complaint with the state Labor Relations
Board to force the teachers to abide by the contract, but the board
has yet to rule on the issue.

The governor said that contract talks will not likely be productive
unless the drug-testing issue is resolved.

If a case study is ever done on decision traps on the public sector,
this would be a perfect example of management springing their trap. I
would be the first to admit that the members of the HSTA get along
perfectly without any advice from anyone, but there is room for
improvement.

The first step in the trap is allowing the union to anchor its
thinking to a first impression. In this case, it is a suggestion that
it will not budge on the issue of random drug testing citing privacy
concerns. If HSTA had not ratified its contract and not accepted its
generous pay raises, it might have been in a position to preach the
status quo. The pay raise received by the HSTA represents a sunk-cost
for the state.

In retrospect, the state made a bad choice. This leads to where we
find the taxpayers on the cliff of the confirming-evidence part of the
trap. Which means both sides are seeing what they want to see. The
other side will speak, but no one on the other side will hear. Said
another way, don't let the facts get in the way of what we believe.
The obvious fact is that in collective bargaining, a ratified contract
has the power of a law - you break the bargaining agreement, you are
breaking the law.

This leads to the framing trap, where one of the parties goes all out
to solve the wrong problem. What one side is framing as a "gain" the
other side is framing as a "loss." Even though both parties have no
use for prescriptive advice, they might do a quick study of biases and
traps and always rethink their first response. Why? because most
negotiators do what they always have done or what comes naturally.
What I'm suggesting here is to consider doing the opposite.

Now that the management trap has been set, the governor can go to
phase two and then to the end game. Management can present a budget
plan to the Legislature that balances the state budget, but doesn't
call for any layoffs, then in the final phase of the trap call on the
HSTA and other public unions to delay renegotiating a new contract for
one year. If they do what they have in the past, they would probably
call for a strike or binding arbitration.

In the end game of this trap, the arbitrators award them their raises,
negate random drug testing and the die is cast.

In the checkmate stage of the endgame, management's only recourse to
balance the budget is massive layoffs and cutbacks, which by law they
must do.

This may be a good lesson for other public unions to observe from a
distance so they can exploit others' mistakes.

Consider this: The state has a shortfall of $1.2 billion - that's
roughly half of the Department of Education's annual budget. This
might not be a good time to focus on one objective and fail to
investigate tradeoffs among others, like taking care of the youngsters
first.

Also, how will such a move affect other public employee unions?