Gov. David Ige may have boldly vetoed an exorbitant bill to provide extra severance and retirement bonuses for workers affected by the privatization of Maui County hospitals, but the $25 million compromise he’s offered up to legislators is still a raw deal for taxpayers.

Lawmakers will have to muster political courage Monday when they take up an amended Senate Bill 2077, which aims to provide affected hospital workers with a negotiated separation benefit — a package that in its current state totals $25 million — or let the veto stand. The Ige administration estimated the original SB 2077 would have cost the state more than $60 million, far too steep a sum.

Neither amount is acceptable to the public purse, though — and lawmakers must act boldly on behalf of all taxpayers by rejecting any further cushion for the 1,400 workers at Maui Memorial Medical Center, Kula Hospital and Lanai Community Hospital. The state simply can’t afford the overly generous benefits.

Legislators, who gathered in a special session Tuesday, did right in not overriding Ige’s veto. However, House Speaker Joseph Souki has already signaled that Ige’s proposed amendment does not go far enough in providing benefits to Maui County hospital workers — a disappointing, yet predictable, response from the Maui representative.

Further, lawmakers have said they may be able to amend the bill in a way that also resolves a lawsuit between the United Public Workers union and the state that has stalled the privatization, originally set for July 1. Ige and legislators will need to tread carefully in their negotiations with the unions, which in this case represents a small fraction of the state’s workers.

IT’S UNCLEAR what SB 2077 will look like in its final form, but the inclusion of any additional payouts to workers would be ill-advised, setting an expensive precedent should the state decide to privatize other financially struggling public hospitals.

Rather than sink more money into the ailing Maui County public hospitals, the state brokered a deal with Kaiser Permanente, sanctioned under last year’s Act 103, to take over the three hospitals. The state was being fiscally responsible in privatizing — with Ige stating it would save the state $260 million in hospital subsidies over 10 years — and any subsequent decisions should follow the same tack.

The Hawaii Government Employees Association (HGEA), which supported the super-sized SB 2077, argues that the state should pay damages for breaching its bargaining unit contracts via privatization. But in fact, most of those workers will likely be hired by Kaiser Permanente — so SB 2077 would allow some to retire with full benefits, claim the severance payments and be hired back in their old jobs.

Ige’s veto and subsequent amended $25 million offer was a politically savvy move, but one that still leaves taxpayers footing an unnecessary bill.

In explaining his veto decision, Ige said SB 2077 jeopardizes the tax-exempt status of the Employees’ Retirement System (ERS) because it allows affected employees to choose between a lump-sum cash payment that is taxable as wages and a special, employer-subsidized early-retirement benefit. The amended version does not offer a choice.

IN ADDITION, the “bill also allows employees separated from service to claim a lump-sum cash severance payment but does not appropriate funds to make the payments,” Ige said in a statement of objections to legislators. “While I agree that most layoffs have adverse effects, I am not convinced that every layoff under the civil service laws and collective bargaining contract requires, or warrants the provision of severance, or retirement and health plan benefits for the employees who are laid off.”

Indeed, by May, Kaiser had offered jobs to 1,538 civil service and exempt employees, whether they were included in a collective bargaining unit or worked for the state for less than a year, and more than 95 percent of the employees had accepted Kaiser’s offer of employment. Therefore, Ige rightly argues, “a substantial number of employees might not have to face the economic hardships to the degree that prompted the Legislature to consider and pass the current bill.”

Yes, the unions are looking out for the interests of their members. But the numbers — whether at $60 million-plus or $25 million — simply do not pencil out for Hawaii taxpayers.