Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to Mr. Wayne Elhard’s letters published in various newspapers this past May. I will begin by saying that I am a self-employed registered massage therapist, and also a part-time journeyman cook employed by Cypress Health Region. I have spent my working life in both union and non-union places of employment.
I take issue with many of Mr. Elhard’s statements, but most specifically the essential services legislation, also known as Bill 5, and the contract negotiations which are at a standstill between SAHO and the health care workers.
The contracts which were in place for 25,000 health care workers expired on March 31, 2008, which left the tri-unions in a position to bargain for a new contract. On May 14, 2008, Bill 5 came into effect. Mr. Elhard states that he was surprised that union members weren’t aware that they could negotiate numbers in the event of a dispute. We are well aware of the contents of Bill 5. The fact of the matter is that numbers are the only thing under Bill 5 that the union is allowed to dispute. So, technically, Mr. Elhard is correct. However, under Bill 5, in the event of an unresolved dispute, with no essential services contract being in place, the employer has the power to name numbers.
Which is exactly what they did. At the Shaunavon Hospital and Care Centre, the employer deemed every single employee, with the exception of the schedulers, activities and office admin position, as essential. Other facilities and hospitals throughout the province had numbers deemed essential which were greater than the actual numbers of staff on duty. Under Bill 5, no person deemed essential is allowed to participate in strike action, pending individual fines of $2,000 and an additional $400 per day.
The unions can petition the Saskatchewan Labour Board to arbitrate in this case, being the unbiased, non-partisan and objective body for such disputes. But wait, the Sask Party fired the chair and two vice-chairs of the board without cause (their records showing only a handfull of decisions overturned by the court systems). They were promptly replaced with Ken Love, a strong supporter and financial contributor of the Sask Party, as is the law firm he works for. Mr. Love also served as vice president of the Regina South constituency association. Mr. Love’s past record of cases in front of the board are few, and those few have proven him to be pro-management, anti-union. The Sask Party has no difficulty politicizing the Labour Board.
If  the final offer tabled by SAHO and the offer Mr. Elhard wishes the health care workers to sign, were merely a percentage increase/decrease number to be disputed, negotiations would indeed by quick and simple. In reality, any contract is dozens of pages long. Our contract is over 100 pages long. The legal language of a contract affects monetary, equity, benefits and actual working conditions of the workers for years, if not decades, to come. The language I saw in SAHO’s final offer amounts to roll backs for the health care workers, on all levels. It was SAHO who walked away from the bargaining table with a conciliator present, a conciliator they requested. The “final offer” tabled at that time has not changed significantly in the past five months. Not all is as it seems, including negotiations and if SAHO would spend as much time and money actually bargaining, rather than attempting to tell the public half truths via the media, we would have had a contract long ago.
His statement that the unions have no interest in negotiating a contract because of our direct ties to the NDP is laughable. Because of Bill 5, SAHO has no interest in bargaining, as they are now in a position to bully and dictate. They have even posted memos in health care facility washrooms, stating that if the “final offer” contract is not signed, the workers will lose up to $250 per month in retro-active pay. Mr. Elhard’s statement that we are losing money the longer we don’t sign, reiterates the bullying tactics adopted by SAHO. So, whom, I ask Mr. Elhard, is really not interested in negotiating a fair contract? It would seem that the Sask Party is eager to test the essential service legislation, to the detriment of all involved. As a constituent, my message to him and to SAHO is to go back to the table and bargain in good faith, unlike they bargained with the Saskatchewan Chiropractic Association.
Mr. Elhard seemed upset that a group of health care workers would rally outside his office and accused his constituents of misrepresenting his willingness to meet with him. It really is of no consequence if they called 10 times, one time, or no times to meet with him. It is their right to rally and voice their opinions on issues of importance to them. Well, until Bill 43 passes.
For the past two years, I have watched as the Sask Party has misinformed the public on a number of issues. They have stated time and again “in consultation with” various stakeholders and groups involved. Bill 5, Bill 6, Bill 80, Bill 43, the potash and subsequent “balanced” budget, the New West Trade Agreement, the Wildlife Habitat Protection Act, the Conservation Easements Amendment Act. All passed under a veil of half truths and outright misinformation. “People who live in glass houses....”, Mr. Elhard.
It would appear that the only option we have is to fight these bills in court. I do hope the Sask Party is not using MY tax dollars to defend legislation which infringes on MY human rights under the Charter. That would be wrong. The other action I can take is via the ballot box come 2011.
Linda Cuell
Shaunavon, Sask.