Editorial: Dial back demand for HPD hazard pay

Police officers were among the first-responder workers who were on the front lines of the COVID-19 health emergency, many of them in ways that put them at greater risk than what others might have faced during the worst, least-protected phase of the pandemic.

However, that doesn’t mean that all of them should be in line for the exceedingly rich 25% hazard pay differential that their union, the State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers (SHOPO), insists that they should get.

In a labor grievance the union has filed against Honolulu, Kauai, Maui and Hawaii counties, SHOPO is defining what it considers the peak years of the pandemic as March 2020 to March of this year.

SHOPO is not alone in pushing for this compensation. For instance, the Hawaii Government Employees Association has been advocating for temporary hazard pay for all workers required to report to work since the shutdowns began in early 2020.

In July 2021, a settlement was reached between HGEA and the City and County of Honolulu to allow employees to apply for hazard pay of “15% for severe cases and 25% for most severe cases,” according to an announcement the union posted on its website at the time. Contracts across the public-worker unions vary in how they address the issue.

What is most concerning about the benefit sought for police is its breadth. SHOPO is seeking an across-the-board differential of 25% for all hours worked by all uniformed police officers during that two-year period. This would apply regardless of the actual risk shouldered by the officer involved — and the contrast with other unions, where some gradation of risk is assigned, seems unjust.

Just using the Honolulu Police Department as an example, a starting metropolitan police officer who earns $71,656 a year would receive a temporary hazard pay differential of $17,914 each year.

This is on top of the hazard pay that is already part of the officer’s base salary, which is not the case for other city jobs, one reason the city Department of Human Resources rightly denied the union’s claim.

SHOPO’s grievance is being arbitrated by Marie Milks, a retired state judge.

She must determine whether the differential being sought is justifiable, based on the facts. Among these: 721 HPD officers either got infected with the virus or had to isolate due to exposure. One case of an officer being infected through exposure to an infected suspect has been recorded. But pinpointing how most infections occurred — on the job, or off-duty via family? — would be near impossible.

Proceedings are still playing out, but the taxpayer already has at least two questions.

Is this fair? Arguably not, considering how many employees with even more workplace exposure to the virus have not been given hazard pay. These include private- sector health workers and supermarket employees who may not have union advocates, of course, but even in the public sector, the differential sought is not as rich.

The second question: Can the counties afford what could mount into a significant expense? That is easier to answer: No.

The fiscal impact, which ultimately will fall on taxpayers, likely will grow beyond what is under consideration for police. The ripple effects are unknown at this point but commonly a settlement in one union sets a precedent, and other public-worker unions then seek a comparable deal.

Without a doubt, police were among the many first responders who had close contact with the public. Officers served the public during the pandemic, enforcing restrictions aimed at keeping the community safer.

COVID-19 left a broad, deep scar, but the risk fell most heavily on individuals documented to have the greatest exposure. If anything, they are the ones with the strongest claim on hazard pay.