Dear Editor, April 27, 2013

It is scary.  I know, I have done it:  changing jobs.  “What if it is really hard and I can’t learn it?  Can I do the job at all?”  

As I have done it, I know the answer to it:  You can do it!  It is both challenging and very rewarding.  

Banner Health will not be throwing people out on the streets and taking their jobs from them.  Yes, some of you may have to go through additional training.  Who cares, they pay you while you train.  Maybe you are bored with your job anyway?  

When we stop sending patients to Oahu, we will absolutely need every employee we have and then a whole lot more, to run a large hospital.  Those of you who are studying nursing on Maui, this includes you!

These people want to help us.  Please watch this video someone sent to me. (Video: 'This is Banner Health')

Shame on HGEA for fighting against a new hospital! It is the union who is costing us our Maui healthcare jobs!  HGEA sends these jobs to Oahu, along with our patients who must go there for care.

Watch for my next letter.   I will tell which politicians let our community down.  I will tell you who played the “We need a Task Farce” game. We already had a “Task Farce”, which Senator Baker then ignored.  It’s a political game where the union runs the government by endorsing certain candidates who then vote the way the union wants.  These politicians pretend to care about us.

Jan Shields L.V.T., B.S.N, RNC-NIC

* * * * *

'Sensible Slate' for Neighborhood Board

Dear Editor,   April 25, 2013

At last night's meeting, your Neighborhood Board threw the community under the bus.  They gave the city the go-ahead for 68,655 more homes in Central and Leeward, which will bring us 68,655 more cars ;  they gave their okay to increasing the peak hour commuter travel by another 45 minutes each way for every one of us ; and they gave their approval to putting houses on one-third of the Oahu farmland currently producing crops for the local market.   So much for fresh, local produce!  None of this is exaggeration whatsoever.  I have been on the Board for fourteen years.  This was one of the worst votes ever by arrogant people serving the wants of developers and unions, and in some cases their own businesses, who couldn't care less about you. 

But it couldn't have come at a better time to do something about it.  Tomorrow voting information for Neighborhood Board elections will start arriving in the mail.   It is absolutely essential that you vote, and vote for the right people. There are seven candidates you need to support:  Dean Capelouto, Thad Spreg, Evelyn Souza, Dr. Jeff Healy, James Macey, MarissaCapelouto, and me, Kioni.  Make your votes stronger by casting only seven, rather than nine votes.

You can get more information at www.SensibleSlate.com.
Kioni Dudley 
Kapolei, Oahu 
  *   *   *   *   *

Schatz Evades Jones Act Question?

Dear Editor,

In an interview with Star-Advertiser reporter Alan Yonan published on April
4th, U.S. Senator Brian Schatz should have the courage of his Jones Act
convictions and answer Mr. Yonan's direct question regarding the limited
Jones Act exemption from the U.S. build requirement for the Alaska, Hawaii
and Puerto Rico trades.  This exemption was proposed by House Concurrent
Resolution 150 (HCR150), which was introduced on a bipartisan basis into the
current session of the Hawaii State Legislature.

After declining to answer Mr. Yonan's direct question, Sen. Schatz went on
to say that he supports the Jones Act.  Although not stated explicitly, Sen.
Schatz presumably means he supports all facets of the Jones Act including
the U.S. build requirement for the aforementioned trades.  Sen. Schatz
justified his support on the usual vague canards regularly repeated by the
Jones Act shipping companies and unions, from whom the members of the Hawaii
Congressional delegation receive substantial political backing.

Sen. Schatz claims for Hawaii to have "reliable shipping . . . that's got
to comes from within the U.S." implying we need to keep the domestic build
and other requirements of the Jones Act.  For the most part, the entire
world enjoys reliable shipping today, without any of its components coming
from within the U.S. - making this argument specious.  Mentioning the issue
of reliability purposefully conjures up the old demons of voracious foreign
shipowners who, without the Jones Act to protect us, would swoop down on the
Hawaii trade, strip the state clean, and move on to other victims.  In the
age of globalization with very high levels of international trade -
virtually all of which is carried by ships other than those registered in
the U.S. - this notion is completely outdated, if, in fact, it were ever
true.

The national security arguments made in support of the Jones Act are
important to Sen. Schatz, he said.  There are two sides to the national
security issue in respect of U.S. shipping policy.  One side is the
shipbuilding capacity and the other is the sealift capacity.  The Jones Act
reform proposal contemplated by HRC150 addresses only the shipbuilding side.

The major U.S. shipbuilding yards have constructed fewer than two (2)
oceangoing commercial ships - of the size and kinds used in the interstate
noncontiguous trades - per year since 1992 (the year Matson's R J Pfieffer
was delivered).  In contrast, Japan builds approximately 200 such ships each
year.  The current U.S. production of commercial oceangoing ships is so low
that it can't possibly contribute to maintaining a major shipbuilding base
for military purposes, completely eviscerating Sen. Schatz's national
security assertion on the shipbuilding side.  In fact, the extremely high
cost of U.S. ship construction adversely affects the U.S. Navy and Coast
Guard shipbuilding budgets by substantially reducing the number of ships
they can afford.

Saying any change to U.S. control of shipping infrastructure would threaten
U.S. labor and environmental standards, Schatz affirmed his support for the
Jones Act.  However, contrary to Sen. Schatz's assertion, eliminating the
U.S. build requirements for commercial oceangoing ships in the noncontiguous
trades would not threaten those standards.  The exemption would not affect
the other Jones Act requirements - U.S. flag, U.S.-crew and U.S. ownership.
Therefore, ships operating under such an exemption would still have to fully
comply with all U.S. labor and environmental laws and regulations.

We ask Sen. Schatz to answer Mr. Yonan's question regarding the Jones Act
reform proposal put forward by HCR150. We would also encourage Sen. Schatz
to ask State Representative Ryan Yamane, who is chairman of the House
committee on Transportation to hear the resolution, which he has so far been
unwilling to do.  If Rep Yamane held a hearing, all sides of these issues
could be ventilated in a public forum.

Regards,

Michael Hansen
President, Hawaii Shippers Council