Skip to main content
Please wait...

The 2004 Legislature passed a number of good bills that bring real and substantial benefit to working families. However, a look at the voting records on eight issues supported by the ILWU reveals a big difference in how Republicans and Democrats in the State Legislature look at these worker friendly programs.

The eight issues were: 1) Improving Education; 2) Lowering the Cost of Prescription Drugs for the elderly and needy; 3) Dealing with the Substance Abuse problem; 4) Reaffirming Family Leave benefits; 5) Ending Discrimination for legitimate use of Sick Leave; 6) Improving Unemployment Benefits; 7) Protecting the Environment by Blending Gasoline and Ethanol; and 8) Requiring employers to give a longer notice when they fire workers or evict workers from company housing.

Very bad on worker issues Governor Linda Lingle opposed the 1) Education Bill, 2) continues to undermine the Prescription Drug Bill, 3) opposed part of the Substance Abuse Bill, 4) undermines the Family Leave Resolution, 5) opposed the Sick Leave Bill, 6) opposed the Unemployment Bill, 7) opposed the most important part of the Ethanol Bill, and 8) opposed giving longer notices to workers. Lingle scores a 0 on workers’ issues.

Slom has perfect record— against working people
Following the party line set by Governor Lingle, Republicans in the House and Senate also voted against working people. In the Senate, Sam Slom, District 8 - East Oahu, voted against all 8 bills; Fred Hemmings, District 25, opposed 6; District 24 - Bob Hogue voted against 5 worker bills; District 12 - Gordon Trimble voted against 4 bills; District 3 - Paul Whalen voted against 2 bills. The average score for Senate Republicans was a very low 38% in support of worker issues.

Stonebreaker, Ontai, Meyer worst
 In the House of Representatives, three Republicans District 17 - Bud Stonebraker, District 37 - Guy Ontai, and District 47 - Colleen Meyer had the worst record, voting against working families six times.

They were closely followed by six more Republicans who voted against five of the bills—they are:
District 6 - Mark Jernigan; 
District 10 - Brian Blundell; 
District 12 - Kika Bukoski; 
District 18 - Bertha Leong; 
District 23 - Galen Fox; and 
District 40 - Mark Moses. Voting against four bills are: District 27 - Corinne Ching; District 32 - Lynn Finnegan; and District 49 - David Pendleton. District 50 - Cynthia Thielen voted against 3 bills. District 11 - Chris Halford and District 19 - Barbara Marumoto voted against 2 bills.

The average Republican score in the House was a low 44% in favor of working people. ◆

Who’s good on worker issues? Overwhelmingly, the Democrats

On the other hand, Democrats in the House and Senate sided most often with working people. In the Senate, nine Democrats had perfect scores and voted in favor of all eight bills. These senators are: Bunda, Espero, Hanabusa, Inouye, Kanno, Kawamoto, Kokuban, Menor, and Taniguchi. Another seven had nearly perfect scores— they had reservations about the Sick Leave bill—but also voted in favor of all eight worker issues. These senators are: Baker, Chun Oakland, English, Fukunaga, Hooser, Kim, and Tsutsui. Aduja and Ihara voted against one bill and Ige voted against 2 of these bills. Sakamoto had the worst records - voting against 3 of the worker friendly bills. The average score among Senate Democrats was a very good 96% in support of working families.

House Democrats were strongly in support on these issues important to working people—34 had perfect scores. Only two had less than perfect scores, Evans and Tamayo, casting no votes against the Unemployment Bill. The average score for House Democrats was an excellent 99% in favor of working people. ◆

What were these bills about?

1) Improving Education—SB 3238 established a formula for funding to each school based on the needs of students in the school. It also provided school principals with greater authority to implement programs and services to ensure student success. This was vetoed by the governor, but the veto was overridden by the legislature. 

2) Lowering the Cost of Prescription Drugs for the elderly and needy—SB 3237 attempts to lower the cost of prescription drugs for those who have no drug insurance by first providing a discount card and second requiring the State to negotiate rebates from drug manufacturers.

3) Dealing with the Substance Abuse problem— HB 2003 included stiffer laws for drug trafficking, allowed judges to sentence nonviolent first time offenders to treatment, and required health insurance plans to offer the same level of benefits for substance abuse as other illnesses. HB 2004 provided more funding for treatment, prevention, rehabilitation, education, and monitoring programs. 

4) Reaffirming Family Leave benefits—HCR 77 is a resolution that clarified an act from last year that requires companies with 100 or more employees to allow their workers to use up to 10 days of accrued and available (paid) sick leave for family leave purposes.

5) Ending Discrimination for legitimate use of Sick Leave—SB 469 would have made it unlawful for any employer or labor organization to discipline or discharge an employee for using accrued and available sick leave for legitimate illnesses that are non-chronic and short term. This was vetoed by the governor.

6) Improving Unemployment Benefits— Unemployment benefits do not cover 100% of what workers earn before becoming unemployed. HB 1774 would have allowed workers who become unemployed to claim unemployment benefits that would not be reduced by any supplemental wages that they are able to earn.

7) Protecting the Environment by Blending Gasoline and Ethanol—The governor vetoed SB 3207, which would have set a date for implementing an existing mandate to blend ethanol in gasoline. Ethanol production would help Hawaii’s sugar industry to survive. 

8) Requiring employers to give a longer notice when they fire workers or evict workers from company housing—Vetoed by the governor, HB 2740 would have increased the notice requirement from 60 to 90 days for employers planning to sell, close or relocate their business. It would also require 120 days notice if the employer is terminating housing for employees. This bill would have helped give workers time to deal with the affects of a layo