“CLRCS remains committed to bargaining in good faith with the goal of reaching a fair and reasonable agreement for all parties. Our priority continues to be the wellbeing of the people we support, their families, and our staff.”
CLRCS Executive-Director Jennifer Lavallee
A person can make all the commitments they want, and say all that they want to say in the hopes of encouraging their prospective audience, but saying you’re going to talk while seemingly having no intention of talking is, well, sort of like talking out of both sides of your mouth.
The introductory quote comes from an email sent out by the Executive-Director to her, as she puts it, families and supporters. In it she falls over backwards to ensure that her audience is fully aware of the great lengths she’s prepared to go to in order to get to the bargaining table and hammer out a collective agreement with OPSEU Local 472 that brings warmth and happiness to all parties of the dispute. Hell, she even assures them of her “good faith” in pursuing these lofty goals.
Honestly, I don’t know what to make of that.
Later in the same email, she goes on to list OPSEU’s “demands” and diminishes them as being greedy, unwieldy, and harmful to the overall operation of the agency. She makes claims that some of what the workers want to talk about, such as Bill 124 remedies, have already, in fact, been remedied. In short, her hands are as clean as Pontius Pilate’s were all those many years ago.
Um, ya. So about those clean hands.
Good-faith bargaining doesn’t show up when one side says “all the things you’re talking about are detrimental to the operation of the agency and to the services we provide, and further, we just can’t tolerate them, nor will we discuss them,” and then pat yourself on the back as being a fair and just negotiator. That quote, by the way, is mine, sort of what I view as a summary of what she said in that email relative to the union’s position.
In fairness, that email was sent out towards the end of June. Nevertheless, the paint is certainly still fresh on these sentiments expressed by our Executive-Director, and late June was only a couple of weeks ago, so if anything’s changed in that time, somebody on that side of things should clarify and maybe say something.
Lavallee indicated her “willingness” to come to the table, but at the same time accuses the union of being the ones evading negotiation efforts. So she’s willing to talk, but just can’t help herself if the opportunity arises to poke the union in the eye as many times as she can on her way to the discussion table.
It appears the strategy may well be to appear as unattractive as possible as a negotiating partner, so as to give the other side pause as to whether they want to engage with that kind of person, and that sort of tactic. And if the union does pause to calculate the situation, management can thump their chests and point at the union’s “reluctance” — my parentheses — as proof that they’re the intractable ones, that they’re the irresponsible ones.
Please, somebody wake me up when there’s any evidence of good-faith in any of that.
The union extended an invitation to talk, based upon a mass mediation format and including the presence of the government — aka The Funder — and mediation teams. Lavallee responded to that invitation by saying that she has no influence over the funder making an appearance —and that’s true, she doesn’t — but is still willing to talk anyways. Yet she made no mention of any sort of mediation being part of those talks, so that may emerge as a reason for her to stay at home and not talk.
And we have no idea whether she’s softened her tone around what she says are the totally unrealistic goals of the union, and honestly, if she really is prepared to talk about any of them.
All she says is that she wants to talk, but then there’s no talk.
I understand the tremendous frustration both sides must face when dealing with an irresponsible provincial government that many of its own MPPs have said should be funding developmental services more adequately. You’ll never find these MPPs saying this in public, but behind the scenes, MPPs are people too and they’re not entirely a bunch of out-of-control ideologues. You’d be surprised how many of them are deeply uncomfortable over all of this, and they’re keenly aware of the government’s seemingly “official” stance of not being a party to this dispute, despite spending what may amount to hundreds of millions in prolonging it.
So no, the Executive-Director, by herself, is not going to be able drag Uncle Doug to the table, and we know he’s sure as hell not going to show up at the request of the union. Unfortunately, the only people he’ll listen to are pollsters, especially the ones who tell him the things he wants hear. Which means the only people who are going to compel the government into action are people like you and me, taxpayers and voters.
I applauded the Executive-Director for accepting the invitation notwithstanding the government and their shenanigans. But I’ll have to hold my applause if she’s unwilling to discuss the union’s legitimate issues, as she as much as indicated in that email that I derived the introductory quote from.
“This is an impossible demand…We can’t accept these demands.”
CLRCS Executive-Director Jennifer Lavallee
So, it would appear that we’re right back where we started, nobody at the table talking. Management blames the union, but makes the public declaration that, sure, they’ll talk. But then what they don’t say is that there’s nothing to say, at least as far as they’re concerned.
If this is a correct reading of the situation, then this amounts to the same old obstructionism that appears to come out of the management side quite often. That said, it must be understood that these are management types, and they likely don’t know any better.
Apparently, her claws are always going to be out in defence of the empire.
In my questionable opinion, this does not amount to good-faith bargaining. To me it has the smell of really bad politics taking over somebody’s thinking .
It’s true, essentially nothing will get done to the degree it ought to if nobody can rope in that provincial government and bring it to heel, or at the very least encourage it to act like a grown-up. But the government isn’t needed necessarily to talk about everything on the union’s agenda. It’s not the government specifically that’s attacking worker seniority, it’s the local Executive-Director. So it would seem she’d be a logical person to turn to for an explanation of why rolling back negotiated worker rights is a good thing to do. Unless, of course, there’s a worry that such a position may be unpalatable to enough people as to make her look silly, or worse, hard-hearted and mean-spirited.
I have what I consider to be a positive gesture where some much-needed good-faith could be built up, but I have to provide context with another quote from that emaii.
“We are in regular communication with the government, advocating for more funding for the people we support and our staff.”
CLRCS Executive-Director Jennifer Lavallee
First of all, if that’s, in fact, true, then can you provide any proof of correspondence to that effect? And better yet, irrespective of whether you have or haven’t been lobbying the provincial government just as you say, what would prevent you from saying that in a general media release?
And in an attempt at absolute clarity, would she be willing to refer to that entity she’s lobbying as the provincial government, rather than the dreaded and publicly ambiguous “funder”?
Would she be willing to publicly call upon the provincial government to adequately address its responsibilities in this critical sector by providing a responsible amount of funding? Like would she say that out loud?
Would she call out the government?
Because I want to hear her say that out loud for all the world to hear.
It’s not much of a test, but it’s something, maybe even a start, maybe even the first step in the right direction. If she’s willing to indicate the need for greater funding in a closed email chain, and this is something she truly believes, what would be the harm of saying that out loud to the rest of us?
If a person is to be taken seriously, then they must be demonstrating actions that speak to that seriousness. So far I’ve not seen our heard anything of the sort. Not saying it’s not there, but I am saying I haven’t picked up on it yet.
The union made a legitimate offer to talk. But management can’t hide behind the skirts of a government refusal to come to the table. Prior to the invitation, talks were going nowhere. So the question to management would be in the area of “What exactly are you prepared to talk about?”
Because if we’re to take her word from that internal email from a couple of weeks back, it seems she’s of the opinion that the union and their so-called demands are impossible to deal with, and therefore impossible to accept, and therefore not worthy of discussion.
There is more than a reasonable risk here where, despite indicating that she’s willing to talk, the Executive-Director may be viewed by the public as blowing smoke. Presenting herself as reasonable and fair-minded while painting her opponent as being unreasonable and unfair. All the while firing chaff into the air.
And that’s not cool, not by a long shot, if that’s what’s happening here.
So yeah, she can say whatever she wants, sure, but what matters most is what she says at the bargaining table for everyone to hear.
And judge.
But you have to be willing to get to the table first.
IMAGE RANDOMLY GENERATED VIA ChatGPT
NEWSMAGRENFREW 