JUNE 9, 1997
路 Dispatches
HEALTH SCIENCES ASSOCIATION SASKATCHEWAN
HSAS:
A GA71-IERING
PLACE
LAST
FDR
HEALTH
CARE
PRDFESSIDNALS
REMINDER
ALL PRACTITIONERS YOUR VOTE COUNTS! HAVE YOU... ? 1) CHECKED TO SEE IF YOU ARE ON THE VOTERS LIST? (you must be: (a) employed in any health district as of January 17197 (b) full-time, part-time, casual or on leave of absence) 2) CHECKED TO SEE IF YOUR HOME MAILING ADDRESS IS CORRECT? (advise employer immediately 路if it is different) ECE/VED ALL THE INFORM/; JON YOU NEED TO MAKE A INFORMED CHOICE? (if not call the number on the back page/)
buSHOULD RECEIVE YOUR sE bJ Er MAIL-IN BALLOT AT YOUR f;3 ME
ADDRESS FROM THE LRB DURING THE WEEK OF JUNE 16/97.
**REMEMBER TO MAIL YOUR BALLOT EARL Y--YOU MUST: "Mail the return envelope to the Labour Relations Board on or before Wednesday, July 2 1997, at 5:00pm. No postage is needed for the return envelope."
I
A THANK-YOU FROM ALLTHE STAFFAT HSAS n
In the last few 1nonths the staff and 1ne1nbers of HSAS have travelled thousands of kilo1neters and talked to hundreds of Practitioners . We have 1net new people, visited old friends, and gained a renewed understanding of the diverse occupational groups in the Practitioner unit. Though it has been an exhausting catnpaign, we were privileged to have had
the opportunity to hear firsthand 1nany of the concerns and issues of professional people in health care. It will be of great value to us when we win the vote and begin the n1a1nn1othundertaking of serv1c1ng the new Practitioner unit. Finally, we would like to express our 1nost deep appreciation to all those individuals who volunteered their titne to help us spread
I
the HSAS word to as 1nany people as possible--We literally could not have done this without your help. We also wish to acknowledge all those people who welco1ned us in the districts and did their best to 1nake us feel at hotne.
TJ,a11k-yo11all for your gellerous a11d thoughtful assista11ce! I
771&~s~s S7tJ7:!II
THE POLITICS OF HEAL TH CARE REFORM 'Pdlif. 3 1-ISASAND LABOUR U.EFORM IN llEAL TH CARE
Imagine,if you will,that there could be a wlion which provided a frameworkor contextwithinwhichyou coulddemocratically developideas, dream utopias, and transfom1 . workinglife.5tyles Such a wlion would have to be sufµciently strong in nwnbers to pose a COWlter-baJance to the employer'spower, but not so bw-eaucratically inflatedthat it wouldn't be, at the same time,attentiveto the needsand conunwlity of interests of all of its wtlon members. It's purposewould not be to promote confrontation and last minute negotiated settlements,but, ratl1er,on-goingconversations and mutualwxlerstandingand transformation . When necessary, it would embody a commwlityof resistance.At all times it would articulatea commwlityof hope. As it turns out, the sort of tmion describedabove is preciselythe kind of union HSAS has struggledto realizefor the past 25 years. In Part 2 of the "Politicsof HealU1 Refonu" we argued that the attempt to refonn labour relations to meet the demands of a reconfigured health delivery system was doomedto fail. 111iswas because U1eneed to keep- ~~ place tlte status quo of power rel~uu•.shipsfar outweighedthe valueof actual labourrefonn. If heaJU1refonu rutd labour refom1 are l t truly realized,it will be in one of two ways: ( l) unions, employers, and SAHO wtdergoa radicalslliftin tl1inking,followedby a similarlyradical institutionalmake-over,or (2) a gradualmetan10rphosis overlime. With respect to option ( 1) we have previously argued tlt.at in a stmctuml, organiz.ationalway, U1elarger unions and to someextentthe employer,are stillcaughtup in and entirely fashioned by old institutional models~ models tit.at are grounded in a
centralized health delivery system ru1d ru1 tied to tl1e notion U1at tl1ey must always promote tlieir own selfinterest al tl1eexpense oftenadversariallabourrelationsclimate. We are tlien left with option (2). of patients and clients. Nor is our union Now, Utere is a real sense in which tl1e regulatedby relationshipswltlch are derived 'healUt district' system is not a naturally from legalisticinstitutionalarrangementsthat occuringconm1wtltybut rathera /egislalive{v promoteadversaryru1dantagonismraU1erUtan imposed one. Becauseof tl1isUierewill need conversationand cooperation. Now there an: UK>Se to be from both wtlons and employersan who wiU argue eITortto help aeate healtl1conuuunitcs,in a Utal if practitioners are isolated in a small way that balancesintegrationand autonomy. independentw1ion,U1eywill be vulnerableto What would be required for tl1e gradual employerinfluenceand eventual control.11,e movementaway from tl1emore fragmented conventionalorthodoxysays that without Ute bureaucratic approach to an integrated protectionof a broaderbasedwlion,employees commwlity based understanding, is, of simply will not be able to meaningfully course,a visionof wellnesstliat is grow1ded participc1te in setting Uie rules wltlch govern in education,prevention,and tl1etreatmenl'of U1cworkplace.Holding such a view appeals tl1ewholeperson,(andnotjust tlierusease) . mo1~ lo the institutional interests of larger What wouldbe requiredto realize Ullions tl1an U1c occupc1tionalinterests of these healU1care goals from Ute lahour employees. relationsside wouldbe a recognitionof the 11ie truth is that both facltk'lllyand need to refomutlate traditiort.alworking historically,it is incorrectto claim tlt.atsmaller patterns ruld a cooperativelybased ratl1er wlions crumotprotectand advocateon behalf tit.anadversarialemployer/union relationship. of tl1eirmembers-HSAS has been a small Secondly, both the Ullion and independentwtion for more than 25 years and SAHO would need to encouragea flexible we havehadno experiencesthat even resemble approach to the particular and distinct the one outlined above-our wages, contract problems each of the communities and rights, local agreementsand benefitsare on a districts have. A heavy-handedcentralized par if not better than anything offeredby tl1e bureaucraticapprO?"l\would only serve to largerunion. ,,_... alienate commwlit. and further fragment If practitioners vote in )llf of practitionersfrom tl1eiremployersand tlieir HSAS we will encourage them to form an occupationalcommunitythat strengtltenstl1eir tmions. 1l1ereis ast one union that can connectionto tl1epatients,residents" • clients realize this sort of environmen~and that is of their neighborhood commuruty, tlteir HSAS. 111etransitionto a 'wellnessmodel' professionalpeers, their employer, and the will be facilitated much easier in a labour heaJtl1ofhealtl1-careitself It is tl1islatterconnectionwhich will relationsclimate tlmt includes HSAS. 111e simple reason is tltat our 1mion,in vinue of ultimately secure tl1e future employment its smallersizeand independencefrom larger interestsof all professionalsand in so doing institutionalunionvalues,implicitlyfollowsa demonstratehow HSAS can be tlie exemplar decentralized 'community' oriented for tmderstandinglabour relations refom1 in 1mderstru1dingof union representation- he'llthatre. HSAS professionalsare not institutiort.ally
A PERSONAL MESSAGE TO PRACTITIONER 1be reasonI havebecomepersonally involved witl1 the HSAS campaign to represent the Practitioner Unit is my detennination to ensure the existenceof our muon. uniquelyprofessiort.al What I find so distwbing about the notionof being representedby the SGEUafter this vote is the reputationof SGEU in dealing with disputes with the employer. BoU1tl1e general public and its own members have come to associate SGEU witl1 strike votes, picketlinesru1dtllfeatsof the politicalcoststo tl1egovernmentfor "crossing"the m1ion. • The idea that SGEU can eitlier ensuremy supportto a particularpoliticalparty or threatenthe withdrawalof the supportof its memberscollectively,is particularlyoffensive to me sincethe union doesn'taccompanyme to the polling booth. What support are they referring to? Campc1ignsupport by union
VOTERS
Scienceswasestablished25 years ago to meet activistsperhaps? HSAShas neverinlpliedor offered tl1e needs of professional health care the politicalsupportof its membersor staffto employees.Youhm1e the uniqueopportunityof behalf . We are a non-pc1rtisan assuringour continuedworkonJX)Ur any political pc'lrty organi:zation . 111e strike-oriented SGEU Sincerely, HSAS philosophyfostersa misleadingnotion tlial "RobertaEkberg", Pmt Presu/e,,t, union members are only concerned about Member,Boardof Goven,ors tlieir salaries-a mes&1gewhich tl1c ntedia and U1egeneralpublictranslateintogreed. I preferU1atmy W1ionpromotemy HSAS~ professional obligation to my clients, recognizemy commitmentto my peers and ,,,-. .; 9 my profession,and supportme in my day-toA vote for HSAS day relationshipwirh my employer.From is a vote to maintain discussionswitl1colleaguesover the years the existence of a unique health care and duringthe votecampaign,I know many professional union of yousupporttl1isviewpoint. I encourageyou to consider tltis Pi ¥M'ii messagewhen marking your ballot. Health
SGEU AND EXTENDED HEALTH CARE BENEFITS: DO NOT BE MISLED!! The policy of HSAS is: We have been advised e1nployeeswho were "devolved'' 1) We will negotiate lo 1nainlai11 or that practitioners are being told to the 1-lealth Districts. No health care union in 'red circle' the cunent extended that if they vote SGEU they will autotnalically inherit the Saskatchewan, including SGEU health care benefits for devolved provincial govenunent (PSC) and CUPE, has been able to SGEU and CUPE tne1nbers,and, Our priority will be lo extended health care benefits negotiate tl1e extended benefits (2) wit11 SAHO and the Health negotiate the best extended health package. care benefits package possible for THIS IS FALSE ANJJ Districts. MISLEADING. SGEU has not been able all PractitionerUnit e1nployees. The SGEU/PSC extended to negotiate the extended benefits health care benefits package was with SAI-10for its own 1nen1bers SG'EU IS IN NO BETI~1l 11/AN llt\'AS negotiatedin lieu of a l% increase in I-l01neCru ·e nor its 1ne1nbersin l~1TJON in the last round of bargainingwith the institutional agree1nent al REG'A/lJJJN(,' 11/E FV1VRE the provincialgovenunent. Wascana Rehab Centre, Lakeside POS..\1/JILITY 01" EAT/iNJJJN(,' TI1ese benefits apply Hotne, ru1d Parklru1d Regional TO PllAC1JTI<JNE&\ Tl/E PSC' /1E4L111 CARE PAC1(A(i'EI ONLY lo provincial govenunent Care Centre. 1
$500
**Lower DIP Premiums \..
$176 Si_&•~
BASEDON $40,000 PERYEAR
HSAS: .44% gross regular monthly earnings SGEU: 1.25°/ogross regular monthly earnings
**Lowest Union Dues $420 BASEDON $40,000 PERYEAR
HSAS dues are based on 1.15o/oof gross regular earnings to a maximum of $35.00 per month or $420.00 per year.
SGEU dues are calculated on the basis of 1.50°/oof gross earnings (including over-time and premium pay) with no maximum.
D
DISPATCHES AN UNTOLD STORY: SGEU/ SFL AND THE BACK ROOM DEAL~ OF COll.PORA TE UNIONISM
Many of us would not be startled al above has any application to U1epractitioner otlter health au-e rntions, ''acted 011 the basis of U1esuggestionU1atthere is a parallel between Ute 1uul vote between two wtlotis-a large muon, selfi11terest rather than trade union principle . " powerfulbw-eaucraciesof corporationsand U1ose SGEU, wluch is affiliatedwiU1U1eSFL, and a Yel, U1eSFL an<l Ute0U1ermuons were in fact of large wuons. small independent rntion, HealUt Sciences following pra:isely the logic of corporate Even Utough initially Ute wtion Association,which has lustoricallyrepresented tu1ionism. 'J11epetulant SGEU just needed lo be mandate is to collectivelyrepresent the general professionals who have conunon occupational whipped into shape. Once they realized that U1ey i.Jtt~est of all workers, Utis end soon becomes objectivesand a sintllarco1mnwtityof interest. needed help from SFL because of the real tJ1reat indistinguishable from U1e coqX>ralegoals of Firstly, many of you will by Utistune pose<lby I !SAS, tltey were perfectly willing to ensuringand fwthering institutionalinterestsand have received Ute May 21/97 package from <lropall Ute high-minded criticism against Uteir . economicwell-bei.J1g SGEU wiU1an attached letter of supJX>rtfrom \m<lemocralic'rivals in rettlllt for an endorsement llte movementaway from U1einterests U1eSaskatchewru1 Federationof Labour(SFI.). from U1eSFL. of the membersltiptowards the perpetuationof a On U1e sw-face U1ese doctunenL'> 17,e ra11kf are cb,sed, tl,e e11e1101will be more narrow self-interest is perhaps the appear to be no more U1ru1U1e usu.al abs"rbed ,,r defeated inevitable consequence of existing wiUtln a propaganda Utat 'bigger is better'. Yet, An<l who is Ute enemy'n Well it is competitivemarket economy-and w1ionsare not concealed beneaUtUte rhetoric is a history of simply rutyone that exists outside--anyone Umt exempt from market i.Jtlluences . It is also, events tltat cwnulativelyillustrate how: promotes the right of individuals to choose their however,someUlingUiatflows nalw-allyfrom the ( l ) large wtlons deal witlteach 0U1eri.Jtorder to associations and promote Uteir own community monopolizingtendencyof large organizations. maintain a mono1x>lyrepresentation, thus of shared interests-in short, it is l ISAS. Left w1checked, large wuons will curtailing U1efreedomto associate promotedby While all Utisis happening I !SAS has competewith each 0U1erfor members. However, smaller wtions-(eitlter by trying lo absorb been inundatedwiUtoilers from Utebig 1mionsto at some point, U1eymay, raUter Utan exist in U1em , mtd if U1isis tmsuccessfi.11 by attempting join Utem. Typically, Utey would oller llSAS a intenninable rivalry, co,porately 'merge' or lo tenninate their existence)and, deal, rutd when we refhsed, which we aniliate wider a central body-a provi.J1cial (e.g. (2) large muons conceal Uteir narrow self- unflinchingly did, Utey woul<l inuuediately SFL) or national(e.g. CLC) federation. interests, first by selliltg or trading-off 1mion Uueaten to do everyUti.ngin Uteir power to lltls ensures every wuons' sphere of members behind closed doors, and U1enby eradicateus. Whal is interestingabout U1eSGEU iltlluence and, ilt Uteory, no one muon should waging a pro1>agmtdacampaign about Utcir aunpaign is Umt in order to woo voters in U1e gain an upper hand. If an attempt to i.Jtcrease deep concern for ~nembership interests' at practitioner w1il, U1eyhave had lo Jill from membersltipis made by one wtlon at Uteexpense large. l lSAS, Ute lrutguage of conmumity an<l of U1e0U1ers,these latter can band togeU1erwider A few monUtsago U1eSFL, along independenceand link this, (quite i.ncoherently), a 'federation' wnbrella and apply JX>litical wiUtCUPE, SUN and SEIU, publiclyendorsed wiU1Uteirargmnent Utat'bigger is better'. pressure or even legally i.J1vokediscipliltary U1efinal Dorseybargailti.ngwt.itconfigw-ation . SGEU is, in fact, prontising to create measures. Like corporate monopolies or oil lltis amow1tedto a 'betrayal' as far Ute very muon Utat HSAS /1as bee11 for 25 cartels, large wtlons do not want competitionbut as SGEU was concerned, sil1ceit contradicted years!! Yet, what SGEU is offering to raU1erto secw-emtd solidifya sphere of influence rut origil1al agreement signed by 4 1mions prnctiliouers nms complelely cotu1ler to from l' ptential infiltrationof rivals. (CUPE, SUN, sor an<l SEIU). "lltis evcl)1l1i11gU1cy ru1d Utcir corpora( ,u1io11 " ···There are important consequences to docmnent stipulated thm U1epruties agree lo co1mteq>arts stand for. WiU1i.J1 SGEU you simply all this. 111e first is tl1at such a federation of "ensure lo t11eextent possible tlml ctui·ent will nol have autonomy, nor conununily, nor wuons wltlch exists ilt a mutually beneficial, representationrights enioye<lby Utetmionsru·e meaningful p.uticipalion. What SGEU would albeit • .nes, w1easyallimtce,will not be able preserve<l"-(somlimes \w lo euphemistically like lo oiler you is, in foct, noU1ingm U1ru1 to lo]erate outsiders who pose a threat lo U1eir as the "5 rn1io11S in, 5 unions out" principle). what I ISASa/reatl)' pro,ides its members. monopolyownersltip. In advocating Ute final Dorsey On Uteotlter hand, what you will ,wt It follows U1atJarge wtions mid their fonnula UteSFL, SUN, CUPE mid SEIU were /,a,ie with I ISAS is anilialion lo Iru·ge corporatefederalions will do everyUungin Uteir agreeing lo eliminale from healU1care one of htu·cmu;ratic m1ion orgrutizations Utal use Ute power to ensure UiatU1eJX>silive freedom lo fonn Ute original five tmions ( eiU1er SGEU or Jru1guageof community aud freedom. while associationsby workers who share a conunwtity I ISAS). 'l11e SFL, according to SGEU, promoting their own seU:-iuterest;tmions that of interest will be eradicated. encouraged SGEU to "cut a deal" wiUt the mirror Ute coqx>rnte mandate of interest tradellte second consequence of a 0U1erbig w1ions in or<lerensure Utal l )SAS offs and back-room deals; wu~ns Uiat are monopolisticall-powerfulfederationof wuons is would no longerexist in hea)U1care. intolerant of ru1yopposition Utat Uirealens U1eir Utat U1eywill need to actually co11ceal Uteir llte SFL 'backroomdeal' would see monopoly interest'>.WiUt I ISAS, practitioners attempts to cw1ail Ute freedom of groups who SElU and CUPE sell a few members lo SGEU will 1,ot /,a,ie lo pay 75 cents per capita (or for ru1SGEU agreement to give over $15,000/yr.) to U1e SFL in exchange for an wish to fonn associations, by conducting a in ret1U11 campaign of subterfuge Urroughthe continuous its members from I lomeCare,Wascana Rehab. occasionalletter of endorsement. generationof a barrageof ntisinfonnation,empty mtd all U1eirnlll'ses. When SGEU refused to Whal you will l,a,ie wiUt HSAS are participate U1eywere,in U1eirown words, met slogm1sand emotionallyappeali.Jtgplatitudes. U1eUtreemost important principles of tutlo1usm: llie purposeof this sortof propagrutda is witJ1"tl,e threat (from other tmions) of taking participation, representation and communitybe to mask l\W thin~: (1) that large rntion all they could f,'0111 SGEU". Oh yes, an<l Ute lowest union dues in healU1 and feclemtionsof wti011S operatefrom organiz.ations If SGEU had taken Ute "<leal"U1ere care! narrowself-interest and, (2) Utalthey must,insofar would be no need for a representation vote, as thisis true,ahwys act so as lo disco,uagesmaller since U1eprofessional wtlt would have been 11,erest is idle and empty d,etmic. tmionstltat promotefreedomof associationbasedOil configw-edso as to give SGEU a majority, ru1d a canmtmityofinterest. I ISAS would be driven out of healUtcare once Let us now move to Ute present mid for all. According lo SGEU, Ute SFL ru1d situation and look lo see wheU1erwhat was said
1111 ••••••
•II..-..I _--·•~c•~•-~ •~•~•::•~•• •:•-•I •.::w:cw_ c11=m:.: cw::wI.11. ....
~ Health ~
-·-= ~-. :,. ,J~-·~
-------------
·-
_LIL•
S_d~~~~;__ ~ssociation of Saskatchewan
• • -• • • • • ...
~
~-·~~-1[1. ·:~-•..1[1 -~~-=-c ·-··~::· -·_JI-· ••_._•••..••_._._
-~~ :·111 -IIIT~ ·· ·Tlll :~·:Q :]JI
Health Sciences Association of Saskatchewan #2-3002 Louise St. Saskatoon, Sask. S7J-3L8
11
S11sk11toon Office: (306) 9.55-3399 Fax: (306) 955-3396 Toll-Free: 1-888-565-3399
ExecutiveDirector: Tim Slatlery Labour Relations: Alice Robert AdministrativeAssistant: Lynn Regier
Regina Office: (306) 766-4680
Regina Office (RGH):Roberta Ekberg
F,,x: (306) 766-4964