Dear OMA board member . . . about that mandate for negotiations

Dear OMA board member, I read, with interest Ontario Medical Association (OMA) board chair Dr. Cathy Faulds' update last Friday. There’s the usual information in there about the goings on at the OMA (which sadly not enough members pay attention to, though they should). Critically for most members however, was this comment by Dr. Faulds: “The board will hold a special meeting at the end of September to finalize the negotiations mandate for use by the Negotiations Task Force (NTF).” This is a big step in the negotiations process and to truly understand that, members need to understand what a “mandate” is. Allow me to briefly expand on what Dr. Faulds wrote. The short version is that a mandate is the minimum offer the NTF can accept from the government. If the government offers an increase that is equal to or exceeds the mandate, then the NTF will automatically accept that offer on behalf of the board. The corollary to that, which some board members did not understand when I was on the board, is that if the mandate is met, and the NTF accepts, then it will automatically mean that you as a board have to accept the offer as well. As per board rules, you will then have to endorse the government offer to the membership. You can’t very well tell the NTF “you must achieve XYZ,” and if they do achieve XYZ, turn around and say it’s not enough. Therefore, it is incumbent on you as a board, to make sure the mandate is sufficient for the membership as a whole, given the times we live in, and the environment around us. To that end, without spilling specific secrets, I will state that there was quite a lot of discussion about what an acceptable mandate was during my time on the board. There were some board members who wanted to be “reasonable” and some who wanted to take a hard line and keep the mandate high. I would, respectfully, point out that for the most part, mandates are never met. Usually the NTF comes back to the board with “we tried – but this is the best we could get” and presents that to the board. To be clear, I’m referring to all labour negotiations in general, not just physician ones. Negotiations Legal Counsel told us this last time, just ask them. Whatever you (or any board) sets as the initial mandate, there is a strong chance the NTF will come back to you later and ask you to lower that mandate. You will need to keep that in mind when setting your mandate. To that end, I would encourage you to recognize that the time really has never been better to set the bar extremely high for the NTF mandate. It’s not just that physicians are considering leaving the profession. It’s not just that healthcare is collapsing all around us. It’s not just the ongoing problems with both recruiting and retaining physicians. You already know about all of those issues in excruciating detail. No, the reality is that we now also have some significant competition for physicians within Canada from other provinces. And I mean strongly significant. Not sure how many of you have seen this summary form the recently approved Physicians Services Agreement (PSA) in Nova Scotia. On the surface there would appear to be a fairly minimal 10% raise over four years. A deep dive however shows significant add-ons like improved parental benefits, funding for overhead, funding to hire allied healthcare professionals, funding for admin work, enhanced FTE and income stabilization for specialists and so on. That, plus a retirement fund! Similarly, in Manitoba, their recent agreement was widely hailed as a landmark and a game changer. I spoke to a friend from Manitoba who confirmed that it too contains things like a retention bonus ($21,000 and higher for those in rural communities), funding for admin time, funding for new models of care, additional funding for those patients who are older and an equity lens applied to fees. In short, the increase is widely viewed to be in the double digits percentage wise per year. Look, I know the NTF knows all the stuff I’m pointing out (but others who read my open letter may not). I also would acknowledge that Dr. Nikolina Mizdrak is a fine chair for the NTF and is (in a very good way and said with total admiration on my part) a real pitbull on behalf of the profession. I also have full confidence that the NTF did it’s due diligence in reviewing the many asks by the leaders of all the specialties. But at the end of the day, it is up to you, dear board member to set the minimum acceptable deal (mandate) and it is up to you dear Board Member to ensure that Ontario remains a competitive place to attract physicians. To that end, you must ensure that if there is a negotiated agreement, it must at least equal the increase in Manitoba or Nova Scotia (whichever is higher). Anything less would, quite frankly, be rightly viewed as the board selling the profession out. (If we wind up going to arbitration, that’s a different story—but at least we will have gone there because the board refused to take a sub optimal deal). All of which is a long way of saying that since it is quite likely that an initial mandate may not be met, it is incumbent on the board to set a mandate for the NTF that is HIGHER than what was achieved in Manitoba/Nova Scotia. This will allow for the usual process of the NTF having to come back and say what parts can be achieved and what can’t, and allow some wiggle room. If you set the bar lower, well, frankly, I have to wonder how you can justify saying that you are advocating for the doctors of Ontario. Yours truly, An Old Country Doctor. Dr. Sohail Gandhi is a former president of the OMA and opinions are his and not necessarily the opinions of the OMA Board. This article is a reprint from his blog: justanoldcountrydoctor.com.

Dear OMA board member . . . about that mandate for negotiations

Register for free access or login.

Related Topics