“…we call upon OPSEU to focus their campaign on the funder rather than going after these dedicated members of our local Renfrew and Arnprior communities.”
Executive-Director Jennifer Lavallee
First of all, OPSEU’s not going after anyone.
It’s been me asking all the questions that make this person’s feelings so bruised. And for the record, I’m not going after anyone either. I’m just searching for accountability, as in who has it? Who has whatever it takes to own responsibility for the decisions made by the management side in this labour dispute?
To borrow a phrase from Harry Truman, where does the buck stop here?
Is it the Executive-Directer herself and by herself? Do the Board of Directors have any influence in any of this, because the agency’s organizational chart suggests that they have oversight responsibility over that same Executive-Director?
I’ll have something more to say about tomorrow.
Or is the provincial government? Is this the “funder” she’s referring to in that email letter she sent out to clients, families, and supporters, whoever they might be. I’m not sure upon what basis any supporters would base that support on, but I suppose people will always find their reasons, whatever on earth those might be. The management side has done squat-diddly to help bring this impasse to a mutually agreeable ending. Hell, they won’t even talk. So, honestly, what is there to support there?
Anyways, it was interesting that Mrs. Lavallee referenced the existence of another entity, one she labelled the funder, as if it’s de-facto involved in this dispute. Was this her inadvertently giving life to the notion that the provincial government is involved? A tacit admission that the government is the source of the problem due to underfunding?
Because that’s been the union’s position from the very beginning.
If the funder is the issue, why can’t the Executive-Director just come out and say that, rather than playing little games of peek-a-boo? If that’s the truth of the matter, what then would be the problem with stating that truth publicly?
There are an increasing number of taxpayers who want to know who is accountable for the position of management in this dispute. They want to know who’s driving the bus on this, and again that’s for accountability and transparency reasons.
We can clearly see the names of the people representing the union in negotiations, but we’ve been given nothing of the sort from the other side. Officially it’s the Executive-Director, but is it really? We just want to know, because we feel we have a right to know who the accountable party is. Who it is that we direct our questions to?
We all know the identity of the so-called funder, and that’s Doug Ford’s provincial government. We also know that critical underfunding in this and other vulnerable sectors is the reason behind all this disruption.
So, if we can all agree that the funder is an important part of this, and that nothing can apparently be done without their full participation, then why can’t the Executive-Director just say that and perhaps remove herself from a good chunk of the criticism that’s being levelled in her direction, and by extension, her Board of Directors?
Back to the underfunding. If the Executive-Director is aware of the impact this underfunding has on her own budget, then surely she must plan for that underfunding in order to properly allocate those funds. She must surely know that with reduced funding, tough decisions need to be made. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons she’s taking such a tough stand on wage issues and promotions.
It’s somewhat unfortunate that it appears her own 10% raise didn’t trouble her greatly or become part of her calculus, despite the serious and critical shortage of funds. Maybe it’s that old banking adage of “pay yourself first” that’s in play here. But it does, unfortunately, look like executive pay packages are not something needing to be addressed as far as management is concerned. What of the pay of her managers? Have they been similarly taken care of?
But at the same time management seems to feel they’re beyond reproach, beyond the reach of any kind of transparency or accountability. They feel they can go about their business any way they see fit and nobody has the right to say anything about it. Or ask questions apparently.
It’s like they feel they can do whatever they want and nobody can lay a glove on them.
If true, that’s a pretty naive and entitled position to take.
NEWSMAGRENFREW 