JUNE 9, 1997

HEALTH · Dispatches SCIENCES ASSOCIATION

SASKATCHEWAN

HSAS: A GA71-IERING PLACE FDR HEALTH CARE PRDFESSIDNALS

LAST 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 · 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/)

bu SHOULD 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 ALL THE STAFF AT HSAS n I In the last few 1nonths the opportunity to hear first- the HSAS word to as 1nany

the staff and 1ne1nbers of hand 1nany of the concerns people as possible--We HSAS have travelled and issues of professional literally could not have done thousands of kilo1neters and people in health care. It will this without your help. talked to hundreds of be of great value to us when We also wish to Practitioners . We have 1net we win the vote and begin acknowledge all those people new people, visited old the n1a1nn1oth undertaking of who welco1ned us in the friends, and gained a renewed serv1c1ng the new districts and did their best to understanding of the diverse Practitioner unit. 1nake us feel at hotne. occupational groups in the Finally, we would like Practitioner unit. to express our 1nost deep TJ,a11k-yo11 all for your

Though it has been an appreciation to all those gellerous a11d thoughtful exhausting catnpaign, we individuals who volunteered assista11ce! I were privileged to have had their titne to help us spread

771&~s~s S7tJ7:!II

Imagine, if you will, that there could be a wlion which provided a framework or context within which you could democratically develop ideas, dream utopias, and transf om1 working life.5tyles.

Such a wlion would have to be sufµciently strong in nwnbers to pose a COWlter-baJance to the employer's power, but not so bw-eaucratically inflated that it wouldn't be, at the same time, attentive to the needs and conunwlity of interests of all of its wtlon members.

It's purpose would not be to promote confrontation and last minute negotiated settlements, but, ratl1er, on-going conversations and mutual wxlerstanding and transformation. When necessary, it would embody a commwlity of resistance. At all times it would articulate a commwlity of hope.

As it turns out, the sort of tmion described above is precisely the kind of union HSAS has struggled to realize for the past 25 years.

In Part 2 of the "Politics of HealU1 Refonu" we argued that the attempt to refonn labour relations to meet the demands of a reconfigured health delivery system was doomed to fail. 111is was because U1e need to keep- ~~ place tlte status quo of power rel~uu • .ships far outweighed the value of actual labour refonn.

If heaJU1 refonu rutd labour refom1 are l t truly realized, it will be in one of two ways: ( l) unions, employers, and SAHO wtdergo a radical sllift in tl1inking, followed by a similarly radical institutional make-over, or (2) a gradual metan10rphosis over lime.

With respect to option ( 1) we have previously argued tlt.at in a stmctuml, organiz.ational way, U1e larger unions and to some extent the employer, are still caught up in and entirely fashioned by old institutional models~ models tit.at are grounded in a

THE POLITICS OF HEAL TH CARE REFORM 'Pdlif. 3

1-ISAS AND LABOUR U.EFORM IN llEAL TH CARE

centralized health delivery system ru1d ru1 often adversarial labour relations climate.

We are tlien left with option (2). Now, Utere is a real sense in which tl1e 'healUt district' system is not a naturally occuring conm1wtlty but rather a /egislalive{v imposed one. Because of tl1is Uiere will need to be from both wtlons and employers an eITort to help aeate healtl1 conuuunitcs, in a way that balances integration and autonomy. What would be required for tl1e gradual movement away from tl1e more fragmented bureaucratic approach to an integrated commwlity based understanding, is, of course, a vision of wellness tliat is grow1ded in education, prevention, and tl1e treatmenl'of tl1e whole person, (and not just tlie rusease).

What would be required to realize these healU1 care goals from Ute lahour relations side would be a recognition of the need to refomutlate traditiort.al working patterns ruld a cooperatively based ratl1er tit.an adversarial employer/union relationship.

Secondly, both the Ullion and SAHO would need to encourage a flexible approach to the particular and distinct problems each of the communities and districts have. A heavy-handed centralized bureaucratic apprO?"l\ would only serve to alienate commwlit. and further fragment practitioners from tl1eir employers and tlieir tmions.

1l1ere is ast one union that can realize this sort of environmen~ and that is HSAS. 111e transition to a 'wellness model' will be facilitated much easier in a labour relations climate tlmt includes HSAS. 111e simple reason is tltat our 1mion, in vinue of its smaller size and independence from larger institutional union values, implicitly follows a decentralized 'community' oriented 1mderstru1ding of union representation­HSAS professionals are not institutiort.ally

tied to tl1e notion U1at tl1ey must always promote tlieir own selfinterest al tl1e expense of patients and clients. Nor is our union regulated by relationships wltlch are derived from legalistic institutional arrangements that promote adversary ru1d antagonism raU1er Utan conversation and cooperation.

Now there an: UK>Se who wiU argue Utal if practitioners are isolated in a small independent w1ion, U1ey will be vulnerable to employer influence and eventual control. 11,e conventional orthodoxy says that without Ute protection of a broader based wlion, employees simply will not be able to meaningfully participc1te in setting Uie rules wltlch govern U1c workplace. Holding such a view appeals mo1~ lo the institutional interests of larger Ullions tl1an U1c occupc1tional interests of employees.

11ie truth is that both facltk'llly and historically, it is incorrect to claim tlt.at smaller wlions crumot protect and advocate on behalf of tl1eir members-HSAS has been a small independent wtion for more than 25 years and we have had no experiences that even resemble the one outlined above-our wages, contract rights, local agreements and benefits are on a par if not better than anything offered by tl1e larger union. ,,_...

If practitioners vote in )llf of HSAS we will encourage them to form an occupational community that strengtltens tl1eir connection to tl1e patients, residents " • clients of their neighborhood commuruty, tlteir professional peers, their employer, and the heaJtl1 ofhealtl1-care itself

It is tl1is latter connection which will ultimately secure tl1e future employment interests of all professionals and in so doing demonstrate how HSAS can be tlie exemplar for tmderstanding labour relations refom1 in he'llth atre.

A PERSONAL MESSAGE TO PRACTITIONER VOTERS

1be reason I have become personally involved witl1 the HSAS campaign to represent the Practitioner Unit is my detennination to ensure the existence of our uniquely professiort.al muon.

What I find so distwbing about the notion of being represented by the SGEU after this vote is the reputation of SGEU in dealing with disputes with the employer. BoU1 tl1e general public and its own members have come to associate SGEU witl1 strike votes, picket lines ru1d tllfeats of the political costs to tl1e government for "crossing" the m1ion.

• The idea that SGEU can eitlier ensure my support to a particular political party or threaten the withdrawal of the support of its members collectively, is particularly offensive to me since the union doesn't accompany me to the polling booth. What support are they referring to? Campc1ign support by union

activists perhaps? HSAS has never inlplied or offered

the political support of its members or staff to any political pc'lrty. We are a non-pc1rtisan organi:zation.

111e strike-oriented SGEU philosophy fosters a misleading notion tlial union members are only concerned about tlieir salaries-a mes&1ge which tl1c ntedia and U1e general public translate into greed.

I prefer U1at my W1ion promote my professional obligation to my clients, recognize my commitment to my peers and my profession, and support me in my day-to­day relationship wirh my employer. From discussions witl1 colleagues over the years and during the vote campaign, I know many of you support tl1is viewpoint.

I encourage you to consider tltis message when marking your ballot. Health

Sciences was established 25 years ago to meet tl1e needs of professional health care employees. You hm1e the unique opportunity of assuring our continued work on JX)Ur behalf

Sincerely, "Roberta Ekberg", Pmt Presu/e,,t, HSAS Member, Board of Goven,ors

HSAS~ ,,,-. .; 9 A vote for HSAS is a vote to maintain the existence of a unique health care professional union

Pi ¥M'ii

SGEU AND EXTENDED HEALTH CARE BENEFITS: DO NOT BE MISLED!!

We have been advised e1nployees who were "devolved'' that practitioners are being told to the 1-lealth Districts. that if they vote SGEU they will autotnalically inherit the provincial govenunent (PSC) extended health care benefits package.

No health care union in Saskatchewan, including SG EU and CUPE, has been able to negotiate tl1e extended benefits wit11 SAHO and the Health

THIS IS FALSE ANJJ Districts. MISLEADING. SGEU has not been able

The SGEU/PSC extended to negotiate the extended benefits health care benefits package was with SAI-10 for its own 1nen1bers negotiated in lieu of a l % increase in I-l01neCru·e nor its 1ne1nbers in in the last round of bargaining with the institutional agree1nent al the provincial govenunent. Wascana Rehab Centre, Lakeside

TI1ese benefits apply Hotne, ru1d Parklru1d Regional ONLY lo provincial govenunent Care Centre.

**Lower DIP Premiums

\.. $176 Si_&•~

The policy of HSAS is: 1) We will negotiate lo 1nainlai11 or 'red circle' the cunent extended health care benefits for devolved SGEU and CUPE tne1nbers, and, (2) Our priority will be lo

negotiate the best extended heal th care benefits package possible for all Practitioner Unit e1nployees.

SG'EU IS IN NO BETI~1l l~1TJON 11/AN llt\'AS REG'A/lJJJN(,' 11/E FV1VRE POS..\1/JILITY 01" EAT/iNJJJN(,' TO PllAC1JTI<JNE&\1 Tl/E PSC' /1E4L111 CARE PAC1(A(i'EI

$500

BASED ON $40,000 PER YEAR

HSAS: SGEU:

.44% gross regular monthly earnings 1.25°/o gross regular monthly earnings

**Lowest Union Dues

$420 BASED ON $40,000 PER YEAR

HSAS dues are based on 1.15o/o of 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°/o of 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

U1e suggestion U1at there is a parallel between Ute powerful bw-eaucracies of corporations and U1ose of large wuons.

Even Utough initially Ute wtion mandate is to collectively represent the general i.Jtt~est of all workers, Utis end soon becomes indistinguishable from U1e coqX>rale goals of ensuring and fwthering institutional interests and economic well-bei.J1g.

llte movement away from U1e interests of the membersltip towards the perpetuation of a more narrow self-interest is perhaps the inevitable consequence of existing wiUtln a competitive market economy-and w1ions are not exempt from market i.Jtlluences. It is also, however, someUling Uiat flows nalw-ally from the monopolizing tendency of large organizations.

Left w1checked, large wuons will compete with each 0U1er for members. However, at some point, U1ey may, raUter Utan exist in intenninable rivalry, co,porately 'merge' or aniliate wider a central body-a provi.J1cial ( e.g. SFL) or national (e.g. CLC) federation.

lltls ensures every wuons' sphere of iltlluence and, ilt Uteory, no one muon should gain an upper hand. If an attempt to i.Jtcrease membersltip is made by one wtlon at Ute expense of U1e 0U1ers, these latter can band togeU1er wider a 'federation' wnbrella and apply JX>litical pressure or even legally i.J1voke discipliltary measures. Like corporate monopolies or oil cartels, large wtlons do not want competition but raU1er to secw-e mtd solidify a sphere of influence from l' ptential infiltration of rivals.

" ···There are important consequences to all this. 111e first is tl1at such a federation of wuons wltlch exists ilt a mutually beneficial, albeit • .nes, w1easy allimtce, will not be able to lo]erate outsiders who pose a threat lo U1eir monopoly ownersltip.

It follows U1at Jarge wtions mid their corporate f ederalions will do everyUung in Uteir power to ensure Uiat U1e JX>silive freedom lo fonn associations by workers who share a conunwtity of interest will be eradicated.

llte second consequence of a monopolistic all-powerful federation of wuons is Utat U1ey will need to actually co11ceal Uteir attempts to cw1ail Ute freedom of groups who wish to fonn associations, by conducting a campaign of subterfuge Urrough the continuous generation of a barrage of ntisinfonnation, empty slogm1s and emotionally appeali.Jtg platitudes.

llie purpose of this sort of propagrutda is be to mask l\W thin~: (1) that large rntion organiz.ations and f eclemtions of wti011S operate from narrow self-interest and, (2) Utal they must, insofar as this is true, ahwys act so as lo disco,uage smaller tmions tltat promote freedom of association based Oil

a canmtmity ofinterest. Let us now move to Ute present

situation and look lo see wheU1er what was said

------------- ·-

above has any application to U1e practitioner 1uul vote between two wtlotis-a large muon, SGEU, wluch is affiliated wiU1 U1e SFL, and a small independent rntion, HealUt Sciences Association, which has lustorically represented professionals who have conunon occupational objectives and a sintllar co1mnwtity of interest.

Firstly, many of you will by Utis tune have received Ute May 21/97 package from SGEU wiU1 an attached letter of supJX>rt from U1e Saskatchewru1 Federation of Labour (SFI. ).

On U1e sw-face U1ese doctunenL'> appear to be no more U1ru1 U1e usu.al propaganda Utat 'bigger is better'. Yet, concealed beneaUt Ute rhetoric is a history of events tltat cwnulatively illustrate how: ( l ) large wtlons deal witlt each 0U1er i.Jt order to maintain a mono1x>ly representation, thus curtailing U1e freedom to associate promoted by smaller wtions-(eitlter by trying lo absorb U1em, mtd if U1is is tmsuccessfi.11 by attempting lo tenninate their existence) and, (2) large muons conceal Uteir narrow self­interests, first by selliltg or trading-off 1mion members behind closed doors, and U1en by waging a pro1>agmtda campaign about Utcir deep concern for ~nembership interests' at large.

A few monUts ago U1e SFL, along wiUt CUPE, SUN and SEIU, publicly endorsed U1e final Dorsey bargailti.ng wt.it configw-ation.

lltis amow1ted to a 'betrayal' as far as SGEU was concerned, sil1ce it contradicted rut origil1al agreement signed by 4 1mions (CUPE, SUN, sor an<l SEIU). "lltis docmnent stipulated thm U1e pruties agree lo "ensure lo t11e extent possible tlml ctui·ent representation rights enioye<l by Ute tmions ru·e preserve<l"-(somlimes \w lo euphemistically as the "5 rn1io11S in, 5 unions out" principle).

In advocating Ute final Dorsey fonnula Ute SFL, SUN, CUPE mid SEIU were agreeing lo eliminale from healU1 care one of Ute original five tmions ( eiU1er SGEU or I ISAS). 'l11e SFL, according to SGEU, encouraged SGEU to "cut a deal" wiUt the 0U1er big w1ions in or<ler ensure Utal l )SAS would no longer exist in hea)U1 care.

llte SFL 'backroom deal' would see SElU and CUPE sell a few members lo SGEU in ret1U11 for ru1 SGEU agreement to give over its members from I lomeCare, Wascana Rehab. mtd all U1eir nlll'ses. When SGEU refused to participate U1ey were,in U1eir own words, met witJ1 "tl,e threat (from other tmions) of taking all they could f,'0111 SGEU".

If SGEU had taken Ute "<leal" U1ere would be no need for a representation vote, since U1e professional wtlt would have been configw-ed so as to give SGEU a majority, ru1d I ISAS would be driven out of healUt care once mid for all.

According lo SGEU, Ute SFL ru1d

otlter health au-e rntions, ''acted 011 the basis of selfi11terest rather than trade union principle . " Y el, U1e SFL an<l Ute 0U1er muons were in fact following pra:isely the logic of corporate tu1ionism. 'J11e petulant SGEU just needed lo be whipped into shape. Once they realized that U1ey needed help from SFL because of the real tJ1reat pose<l by I !SAS, tltey were perfectly willing to <lrop all Ute high-minded criticism against Uteir \m<lemocralic' rivals in rettlllt for an endorsement from U1e SFL. 17,e ra11kf are cb,sed, tl,e e11e1101 will be abs"rbed ,,r defeated

An<l who is Ute enemy'n Well it is simply rutyone that exists outside--anyone Umt promotes the right of individuals to choose their associations and promote Uteir own community of shared interests-in short, it is l ISAS.

While all Utis is happening I !SAS has been inundated wiUt oilers from Ute big 1mions to join Utem. Typically, Utey would oller llSAS a deal, rutd when we refhsed, which we unflinchingly did, Utey woul<l inuuediately Uueaten to do everyUti.ng in Uteir power to eradicate us. Whal is interesting about U1e SGEU aunpaign is Umt in order to woo voters in U1e practitioner w1il, U1ey have had lo Jill from l lSAS, Ute lrutguage of conmumity an<l independence and link this, (quite i.ncoherently), wiU1 Uteir argmnent Utat 'bigger is better'.

SGEU is, in fact, prontising to create Ute very muon Utat HSAS /1as bee11 for 25 years!! Yet, what SGEU is offering to prnctiliouers nms complelely cotu1ler to evcl)1l1i11g U1cy ru1d Utcir corpora( ,u1io11 co1mteq>arts stand for. WiU1i.J1 SGEU you simply will nol have autonomy, nor conununily, nor meaningful p.uticipalion. What SGEU would like lo oiler you is, in foct, noU1ing m U1ru1 what I ISAS a/reatl)' pro,ides its members.

On Ute otlter hand, what you will ,wt /,a,ie with I ISAS is anilialion lo Iru·ge htu·cmu;ratic m1ion orgrutizations Utal use Ute Jru1guage of community aud freedom. while promoting their own seU:-iuterest; tmions that mirror Ute coqx>rnte mandate of interest trade­offs and back-room deals; wu~ns Uiat are intolerant of ru1y opposition Utat Uirealens U1eir monopoly interest'>. WiUt I ISAS, practitioners will 1,ot /,a,ie lo pay 75 cents per capita ( or $15,000/yr.) to U1e SFL in exchange for an occasional letter of endorsement.

Whal you will l,a,ie wiUt HSAS are U1e Utree most important principles of tutlo1usm: participation, representation and community­Oh yes, an<l Ute lowest union dues in healU1 care!

11,e rest is idle and empty d,etmic.

1111 • • • • • • •II..-..I_-·-•~c•~•-~•~•~•::•~• • •:•-•I •.::w:cw_ c11=m:.: cw::wI.11 . .... _LIL• • • -• • • • • ...

~ Health S_d~~~~; __ ~ssociation of Saskatchewan ~ 11 ~ -·-=~-. :,. ,J~-·~ -~~ :·111-IIIT~ ·· ·Tlll :~·:Q :]JI ~-·~~-1[1. ·:~-• .. 1[1-~~-=--c·-··~::·-·_JI-· •• _._ •••..•• _._._

S11sk11toon Office: (306) 9.55-3399 Executive Director: Tim Slatlery Health Sciences Association Fax: (306) 955-3396 Labour Relations: Alice Robert of Saskatchewan Toll-Free: 1-888-565-3399 Administrative Assistant: Lynn Regier #2-3002 Louise St. Saskatoon, Sask. S7J-3L8 Regina Office: (306) 766-4680 Regina Office (RGH): Roberta Ekberg

F,,x: (306) 766-4964