It appears CLRCS’s Executive Director Jennifer Lavallee is feeling the heat. In fact, it appears the Board of Directors is feeling the heat as well.
Go figure.
Lavallee peppered the email inboxes of some community members and supporters with a statement indicating that she is entirely flabbergasted by the “campaign” she claims has been launched at OPSEU’s request, a campaign reliant upon the input of what she describes as a “questionable” source.
I guess that would be me.
Lavallee felt the need to defend the veritas and gravitas of the board members, upstanding citizens in all respects, something that I totally agree with and something readily observable and appreciated in the community. I just pointed out what appears to be their support for her and her seeming inflexibility in negotiations with OPSEU. I’ve made my opinion known that I view this stance to be harmful to the community at large, to the security of her workers, and to the sustainability of the services provided to clients. I’ve also made my opinion known that I believe supporting such a stance may be inconsistent with these individuals and their past-proven noteworthy track records of positive community service. I do not suggest they do so willingly, but rather do suggest that they’ve found themselves in an awkward spot not necessarily of their own making.
Like most people occupying positions in upper management, it appears Jennifer has a rather thin skin. They don’t mind playing hardball themselves, but they get all rattled and offended when you stand up to them or challenge them in any way. I guess she, and perhaps the others, just aren’t used to being challenged.
She is incredulous that it’s been suggested that she won’t return to the bargaining table. She says in the email that she has given notice to the union and a ministry-appointed conciliation officer, and it’s the union that refuses to come to the table.
Nice try.
When you say you’re willing to go to the table, but say at the same time that you’re unwilling to talk about any significant issues, then I’m sorry, but to me that’s the same thing as saying you’re not prepared to negotiate in good faith. You can’t set the terms for your table appearances in such a manner that it’s obviously unacceptable to the other party. This can only be done for purposes of window-dressing, so you can say it’s you trying to solve this thing, and then go ahead and say that in your letter. But sorry again, this, in my opinion, is an attempt at sabotaging the process intentionally.
Further, she mentions a ministry-appointed conciliation officer.
Is she actually suggesting with a straight face that this so-called conciliation officer is actually a neutral party seeking the righteous middle ground for an agreement between the parties? She clearly said ministry-appointed, as if that actually means something. So, in what will probably be interpreted as more “questionable” commentary, I will argue that the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services or the Ministry of Labour. — she doesn’t say which — are both parts of the Ontario provincial government. And further argue that, as such, they are direct parties to these negotiations themselves. They’ll argue up and down to the contrary, but I don’t have to believe them.
So, okay, we’re clearly getting under her skin. So how about this?
If she is steadfast in her assertion that she has sought table meetings but have been rebuffed by OPSEU, why doesn’t she go ahead and make the union local look bad by revealing the items that she’s willing to negotiate at the table. But conversely, also including the items that she refuses to talk about, and her reasons for that. Seems transparent and reasonable enough to me. Show us all that it’s actually the union holding things up. Convince us that it’s the union that’s mucking things up. Take the high ground.
Show us your position. Then defend it. Simple.
Just be ready for the tired old “we don’t negotiate in the media” stuff these types traditionally attempt to hide behind.
We are judged by our words, but we are predominantly judged by our actions.
I’m of the opinion that this Executive-Director doesn’t mind inspiring fear in her workforce and with her client base, but she bruises easily and has her tender sensibilities offended when anyone dares point that out. She claims the commentary coming her way, and I suppose the board’s way, as being surprisingly “personal.” My goodness, Ms. Lavallee, but the things you don’t seem to want to talk about are the same things that have people fearing for their jobs, their futures, and their ability to support their families.
Even though these things go to the existential core of your worker’s lives, you seem to be taking the position that they’re not allowed to take any of that personally. You grant only yourself the right to be offended, but view what seems to be the evisceration of your local workforce as nothing personal, just business.
Right.
I don’t work for OPSEU, nor did they seek me out. The only thing I’ve taken from them was two overcooked burgers and a hot dog, and they ran out of freaking ketchup to boot. Hardly the stuff of high conspiracy. And, as I said, if the Executive-Director ever wants to invite me to the CLRCS Executive Picnic and Barbecue Classic, I’ll be there in a heartbeat, camera in hand.
I’ll bet those guys eat the premium burgers and never run out of ketchup.
NEWSMAGRENFREW 