|
We are calling on you for action Normally in negotiations, it’s best to keep the details of bargaining confidential.
It helps the parties come to agreement if they aren’t bargaining publicly.
Your Central Team has respected this process. We have not divulged details of what was on the table.
Now that we have gone through conciliation, we can give you more information.
We tried hard to come to a deal. But in the end, we couldn’t.
The employer’s wage offer is unbalanced. And they are not making sufficient movement on our other priority issues.
So we are off to arbitration. But the employer is trying to juggle the arbitration process to its advantage.
Obviously we are fighting this, and we will be calling on you for your support in this effort.
With the move to arbitration, both sides have backed away from their last positions.
This bulletin gives you the details of what we were seeking and what the OHA offered.
Below is the monetary situation.
What we want |
What they offered |
Wage increases of 25
per cent over a two year term to achieve RT/RN parity
RT/RN parity, with maintenance of relative positions for jobs above and below RTs |
- April 1, 2002
2.5 per cent for below-RT jobs
3 per cent RT and above (plus additional 2 per cent for employees at the maximum)
- April 1, 2003
3 per cent below RT jobs
3.2 percent RT and above
- A job evaluation study to look at jobs, beginning with the issues of RT/RN parity
- The offer includes the provision that wage adjustments shall not be challenged by either party under the Pay Equity Act.
Would not give us RT/RN parity |
A comprehensive pay
grid structure, with:
- no overlap of start rates
- uniform increases between steps
- uniform increases between pay bands
- shorten the time it takes to get to the maximum rate |
Three grids, stuck together:
- A grid for jobs below RT
- A grid for RT, Seniors and Charges
- A grid for Biomedical Technologists and jobs above RT
Elimination of overlap of start rates
Elimination of the first two steps for RTs
Unequal increases between steps |
Appropriate
placement of all classifications onto the wage grid |
- Movement onto the grid:
No increase for below-RT jobs
3 per cent for RTs, Seniors and Charges (plus a temporary allowance of 3 per cent for MRI, Ultrasound and RRCP)
2 to 13 per cent for above-RT jobs
- Some jobs were reclassified: BSW and Dietitian to the Occupational Therapist/Physiotherapist level, Autopsy Master, Echo Technician and Chiropodist to the RT level.
- They refused to consider all other reclassifications or to put other non-central classifications onto the grid. |
Don’t get sucked in by the offer
The OHA money may look good. But don’t be sucked in.
Only certain classifications, with relatively few people working in them, get the big money.
Where’s the balance?
We tabled a standardized wage grid, and wage increases that average 25 per cent over two years. In bargaining we moved to wage parity between RTs and RNs. We would have maintained the relative positions for members above and below the RT level.
The OHA came back with a partial grid structure. When they moved positions on to their partial grids, less than 20 people out of 5,000 got 13 per cent increases. Others got nothing. That’s not fair. On top of that the OHA offered different general wage increases for different classifications.
Very little for members below RT level
Even after combining the movement onto the grid and the across-the-board increases, most members get very little.
Members working below the RT level – more than 20 per cent of the members in central classifications – get just 5.5 per cent in total over two years. The OHA says these jobs are the same as clerks and cleaners and should therefore get the same as CUPE and SEIU.
More than 80% get 11.2% or less
The vast majority of Registered Technologists, Seniors and Charges, who as a group make up more than 60 per cent of the members in central classifications, would get only 9.2 per cent or 11.2 per cent at maximum over two years. This is still 10.9 per cent behind where we need to be.
Others who would get 11.2 per cent or less include Biomedical Technologists, Occupational Therapists, Physiotherapists, Speech Language Pathologists, MSWs, Psychometrists, Audiologists and Psychologists.
Hurtful and divisive
The OHA wage offer is divisive. Different increases for different groups always are. It is particularly hurtful when there is no clear reason for the differences. Some jobs, for example, Dietitians and BSWs, get reclassified – as they should. Others that are just as worthy of reclassification don’t. Some jobs
get more because of shortages, others where there are also shortages, don’t.
The OHA says, “let’s let the job evaluation study determine whether they should be reclassified.” While at the same time, it moves some jobs forward without providing any good reasons.
Nothing for catch-up
The OHA offer does not address the need for catch-up. We have given these employers major concessions in the past and we need to catch up.
It also does not address the fact that many people have received market adjustments since the last contract. For them, the OHA offer provides little or nothing.
No RT-RN parity
The offer does not address the need for parity between Registered Technologists and Nurses. The RT/RN wage gap has grown in the decade since we lost parity at arbitration simply because of nursing shortages. The OHA is asking us to put our faith in a job evaluation study. There is no guarantee that even when the
study shows that we should be paid the same as (or more than) nurses, that the OHA will come up with the money.
Nothing for working conditions
Most importantly, the OHA offer does not address our long-term and critical priorities: horrendous working conditions, overwork and staff shortages. The OHA offer tries to address the shortage problem with the least amount of money.
Bumping start rates won’t solve shortages
For some professions, the OHA sees staff shortages as simply a problem with recruiting. So for Physiotherapists, Occupational Therapists and Registered Technologists, the OHA will only put big money into the start and first steps, and not in the higher steps where most members are. This is a cheap strategy for
the OHA, because there are few people in the start levels. It is doomed to failure as a strategy to deal with shortages. People considering entering the profession look at the end rate. And obviously, it ignores retention. Why would our members in the middle or top steps stay with this kind of pay?
In other professions, it ignores shortages completely. Will 10.8 per cent on the top rates fix the chronic shortage of Speech Language Pathologists and MSWs?
Unless the employers fix wages, shortages will continue to get worse. Retirements over the next few years will create more vacancies. New people will not be attracted to our professions. And those who are left will move to better jobs elsewhere.
What we wanted |
What they offered |
Early Retirement Benefits
We want the employer to provide benefits for those who retire early.
|
The OHA offered benefits if the employee paid both the employer and employee share of the premium, or if the employee is laid off they would pay 50 per cent. The latter part was removed from its offer tabled at conciliation |
Call Back
We want the minimum call back period to be increased from two hours to the industry standard of four hours. |
The OHA would not agree. It would only give us a letter saying it could be discussed at Labour Management. It removed this from its off tabled at conciliation. |
Family Leave
We tabled 10 paid days per year, for family emergencies and medical appointments |
The OHA refused to address this issue. |
Contracting Out
We tabled a clear ban on contracting out of work of our members |
The OHA refused to address this issue. |
Lesser vs. Least
on Payroll
We tabled bumping language based on lesser seniority instead of the current least senior.
|
The OHA agreed to lesser for bumping, but it was tied to a concession that would restrict the number of offers of early retirement in a layoff situation. |
Training on
Layoff
We want training the same as provided to a new hire to be provided to people who bump.
|
The OHA refused to address this issue. |
Equal Vacation
We tabled full equalization of vacation for jobs below RTs with RTs and jobs above RTs.
|
The OHA would only move to 3 weeks after 1 year of service, effective March 31, 2004, the last day of the contract. It refused 4 weeks after 3 years of service. Then it withdrew this offer from its conciliation document. |
Pregnancy,
Parental and Adoption Leaves
We tabled replacement of the 10-month eligibility period with 13 weeks. We also tabled increases to the SUB amount and extension of the time employees receive the SUB. We also want continuation of the Percentage in Lieu of Benefits and Vacation Pay for Part Time Employees on leave. |
The OHA would only agree to delete the 10-month eligibility period and replace it with 13 weeks. |
Your bargaining team
Aimee Axler, Chair Local 444 Kingston General Hospital
David Hancock Local 571 Toronto University Health Network
Robby Hersh Local 583 Baycrest Geriatric Care Centre Toronto
James O’Leary Local 106 London Health Sciences Centre
Patty Rout Local 348 Lakeridge Health Corporation Oshawa
Leslie Sanders Local 348 Lakeridge Health Corporation Oshawa
Yves Shank Local 659 Sudbury Regional Hospital
Moya Beall Staff Negotiator
Michèle Dawson Haber Staff Researcher
Copies of this bulletin will be mailed to HPD stewards and posted on our web site. Please print, post and distribute.
Authorized for Distribution:
Leah Casselman, President |
