Beware of adding state employees

It’s just what the state government doesn’t need: More state workers. Although Gov. David Ige is bound by an 18-year-old court decision that limits privatization of government service in Hawaii, it would be a step backward to add more public workers to the state payroll.

The state has begun the painstaking process of evaluating contracts with private companies to see whether the work needs to be performed by government employees. The move is required under the 1997 state Supreme Court decision called Konno v. County of Hawaii and a subsequent mediated agreement with the United Public Workers union.

In Konno v. County of Hawaii, the court ruled it was a violation of state law for state or county agencies to hire private contractors to perform tasks that were traditionally handled by civil servants.

Under a court-ordered mediation agreement, Ige on July 1 began instructing state departments to submit proposed contracts to the Department of Human Resources Development (DHRD) for review if the work to be done under those contracts has customarily and historically been performed by UPW members.

So far, 506 proposed contracts have been reviewed by DHRD. Of those, 105 that covered automotive repair, plumbing and tree cutting were approved on an emergency basis. Nearly 100 that covered electrical repairs, janitorial work and other areas were given conditional approval, meaning the departments are expected to request funding for public workers to handle this work in the future. For taxpayers, this raises alarm bells.

Just how much it will cost the state to revert private contracts to public work is still unknown. The Ige administration must swiftly review the contracts and costs — and negotiate firmly when it doesn’t make good fiscal and common sense to ditch a private contract.

Let’s not forget that with each government hire, there is an investment of wages, health and retirement benefits, as well as generous sick pay and vacation pay. The state should not be adding to the cost of government when private contractors are meeting the needs of the state and are able to provide a quick turnaround on services. In essence, err on the side of privatization. Paying substantially more for the same services simply does not make good fiscal sense.

In the meantime, lawmakers will need to keep a close watch on how the issue takes shape in terms of added costs.

State House Majority Leader Scott Saiki said the privatization issue is yet another example of Ige inheriting an unresolved problem.

Lawmakers will have to see the results of the Ige administration’s review of contracts before any action is taken, if any, he said.

“I don’t see the need for a broad-based legislative action” at this point, Saiki said.

Instead, lawmakers will likely have to make decisions on a case-by-case basis as funding requests make their way through the session.

Already, Senate Minority Leader Sam Slom said he expects the Ige administration will have to ask state lawmakers for additional funds to hire workers to handle what is being done under existing contracts with private companies.

The best-case scenario would result in minimal staffing level changes. But if legislation is in order, perhaps lawmakers will be forced to redefine what qualifies as “traditional” civil service work so as to make the laws current.

With so many other worthwhile funding needs, there is no good reason to upend the state’s use of private companies when the benefits outweigh needlessly growing state government.