Editorials
Monday, October 25, 1999Dock settlement
is a huge reliefHAWAII breathed a collective sigh of relief with the announcement that the dock workers union and the shipping companies had reached agreement on a new contract and thereby averted a dock strike.The issue: An anticipated dock strike could have blighted the state's efforts at economic recovery.
With about 90 percent of all goods brought into the state coming by ship, Hawaii remains acutely vulnerable to work stoppages on the waterfront. And this would have been a particularly bad time for a dock strike. It could have crippled efforts to mount a recovery from Hawaii's prolonged economic stagnation.
Many Hawaii residents stocked up on rice, toilet paper and other necessities in anticipation of a strike, remembering the problems created by the 1949 and 1971 stoppages. It turned out to be unnecessary.
Governor Cayetano had expressed concern over the prospect of a strike and had offered his assistance in mediation if needed. But with the negotiations restarting, he expressed confidence that a strike would be avoided.
A crisis atmosphere began to develop when dock workers stopped work for a day and then proceeded to work at a slower pace for several days. When federal District Judge David Ezra issued a restraining order against further slowdowns, the ILWU announced cancelation of its contract and held strike authorization votes on all islands through last week.
However, ILWU leaders emphasized that the votes did not mean a strike was imminent.
With pressure mounting on both sides, marathon negotiations began Saturday morning. After 19 hours, the talks recessed at 4:30 a.m. yesterday, resuming at 10 a.m. At 12:35 a.m. today a tentative settlement was announced. ILWU leader Eusebio Lapenia said he was confident the agreement would be ratified by his members.
ALTHOUGH no terms were immediately disclosed, it was known that the dock workers were seeking parity with their West Coast counterparts.
The negotiators on both sides deserve credit for making every effort to find ways to reach this agreement and keep the docks operating. As a result, Hawaii residents have been spared considerable inconvenience and damage to their fragile economy.
Contrasting Senate
votes on abortionIN successive votes last week, the U.S. Senate voted to support the 1973 Supreme Court decision recognizing the right to abortion and to outlaw a type of late-term abortion. Score one victory for abortion-right supporters, one for opponents.
If that is somewhat unsatisfying, it's because Congress reflects the nation's ambivalence about abortion, one of the most emotional issues of our time.
The vote on the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision came first. By 51-47, with eight Republicans joining the Democrats, the Senate affirmed that the decision established "an important constitutional right" and should not be overturned.
The nonbinding resolution took the form of an amendment to the late-term abortion bill, which passed 63-34. This was four votes short of what would be needed to overcome a promised veto by President Clinton, who has vetoed two earlier ban bills, if all 100 senators voted.
The bill would ban certain late-term abortions called partial-birth abortions unless the mother's life was endangered by her pregnancy. Clinton opposes the measure because it lacks an exception for a woman whose health but not life was endangered by the pregnancy.
Its sponsor, Rick Santorum, R-Pa., described the measure as an attempt to ban a brutal procedure that involves partially delivering a live fetus before emptying its skull and killing it. Santorum insisted that the proposal was not an attempt to change or overturn Roe vs. Wade. "At least we should be able to draw the line that when a child is in the process of being born, it's too late to have an abortion," he argued.
But the votes on the two proposals showed considerable overlap, reflecting the substantial numbers of hard-core advocates on both sides of the abortion issue.
Texas Gov. George W. Bush applauded the vote against partial-birth abortions and urged Clinton "to do the humane thing and sign this bill." Vice President Al Gore called the Republican senators' mostly anti-abortion votes "a wake-up call to all Americans as to what is truly at stake in this election."
Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., predicted that abortion rights are "going to be an absolutely huge issue next year." She said, "Now we see the extremists in the United States Senate."
It's doubtful that the abortion issue has ever decided a presidential election and it's not likely to decide the next one. However, it could be a factor in the outcome. With Bush and Gore, the two parties' front-runners, staking out conflicting positions early, battle lines are already being drawn on the basis of these Senate votes.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
