We’re all more than familiar with the axiom that there are two sides to every story.
No truer words may have been spoken, but as an axiom, or as a general principle, it only lives up to its greatest potential when you actually have two sides to a story.
I’ve been hounding a story for the better part of three months now, but have expressed frustration at the communication levels practiced by both sides. At the outset, I was only hearing from one side, the side of organized labour. And even with that, one still has to apply critical thinking skills to assess and evaluate the information given, and to sort out any potential “spin” that may have been added to make one side appear more reasonable than the other.
The other side was even less forthcoming, maintaining a curtain of silence, content to let facts on the ground speak for themselves, even if those facts were definitely unappealing to the agency’s public support. Their only communication has been through a series of closed emails that periodically go out from the Executive-Director to impacted client families. As I was not included in that email chain, I had to rely on others to share that information with me.
So getting to the other side of the story is difficult when the two sides either don’t want to talk or, when they do, they speak using the talking points of their leadership. Not exactly the best way to be getting at the truth of two sides to the same story.
I was out the other day and ran into somebody I’m somewhat familiar with but don’t really know. This person has been reading my blog — thank you — and expressed to me an unhappiness with my coverage, calling it one-sided.
There’s absolutely no doubt that I’ve been hard on the agency, its Executive-Director, and the members of the Board of Directors. I have my theories and my suppositions, and in the absence of any direct line of communication, the vacuum created cries out for speculation. I’m willing to say that perhaps I got some stuff wrong. But I’m also sure I got some stuff right, too, and that can make things uncomfortable.
But still, the coverage has been notably one-sided, not by intent, but rather as a representation of the level of communication I get from the two parties.
I have stated clearly that all clients and client families have had things made more difficult for them through this labour dispute. There is absolutely no doubt about that. But their stories are different, each client from the next, and there’s no cookie-cutter solution that impacts all clients equally.
The person I stopped to chat with is also the parent of a client serviced by Community Living Renfrew County South. And while that parent shared with me the difficulties experienced through the strike with their child specifically, it was not the horror story I may have heard from some other impacted parents.
The point is that every person has a story, a perspective, a point of view. Nobody shares an experience exactly the same way as everyone else, and so it stands to reason that there might be parents out there who are not as negatively-inclined as some others towards the agency.
According to the parent, their child is “thriving” and has been throughout the past fifteen weeks. And while there are certainly bumps in the road, the parent insists there were always bumps in the road, developmental services not being the most exact of sciences. And to this point, the parent was willing to point a bit of a finger at the union as much as anyone else for the situation that everyone finds themselves in.
This is me sharing a communication with a parent. It is not me selling out the union. I’m not a member of the union. Nor do I have any affiliation with CLRCS. I’m a taxpayer and concerned citizen who wants the best care for a vulnerable population, a fair deal for the workers who provide support, and a transparent and open management style whereby everyone in the system can trust everyone else in the system.
I also want a stop the to needless taxpayer dollars being funnelled into this impasse by a provincial government that refuses to accept its responsibilities to everyone involved.
So when I say all clients and their families are negatively impacted, I mean it. But what might be different from case to case is the point of view of certain parents as to how the whole thing got started.
So far as I can see, most of the parents I’ve spoken with have been entirely supportive of the union.
But “most” is not the same thing as “all.”
It’s a distinction that needs to be made, and I suppose I’m one of the people out there who Is supposed to get it right.
And nobody should be taking offence to that.
FEATURED IMAGE FROM RDNE STOCK PROJECT
NEWSMAGRENFREW 