Download SAHO has publicly defended their proposal to HSAS by saying that it`s

SAHO has publicly defended their proposal to HSAS by saying that it’s “competitive” with Western
Canada. We are so puzzled that you have such a strong conviction about this that we checked the
dictionary for the definition of competitive.
Competitive: Well suited for competition; having a strong desire to compete or to succeed; useful to a
competitor; giving a competitor an advantage.
So, given this, we are to assume that you believe that being #3 or #4 amongst the Western provinces
makes the employers well suited for competition, and that the proposed wages and benefits will be
useful to them as a competitor as it will give them an advantage over their competition.
So we ask you, when was the last time you bet on the #4 team to beat the #1 team? How much of a risk
would you be willing to take with your own money that the #4 team is going to have the ability to beat
the #1 team? That is the game you are playing with the future of our professions in the province of
Saskatchewan. The fact is that the health care employers DO have many competitors. Their
competitors include other Canadian provinces, private clinics, and even the lure of opening one’s own
private practice. In fact, the diversity of this Union also means that health care employers are
competing with themselves. We have many members who are Registered Nurses doing the work of an
HSAS employee to ensure that a well-rounded service is provided. All of the Registered Nurses in this
Union could be gone tomorrow for the more lucrative SUN jobs.
You seem to be determined that the only relevant competitor is Western Canadian health care
employers. Namely, British Columbia and Manitoba. First we need to determine if those provinces are
really a competitor. When looking at the Manitoba wages, which are from 2009, even with the
increases SAHO has proposed, a number of Saskatchewan professions will STILL be the lowest paid in
Western Canada. We don’t think a competitor is someone you are sure to beat, unless you enjoy
picking on the small guy.
We can accept that British Columbia is somewhat of a competitor. But again, even with the increases
you have proposed, 42% of the occupations have a higher pay rate than Saskatchewan. With BC being
so far away, albeit having better weather, it is not a reasonable competitor to use for the determination
of appropriate wages in Saskatchewan.
Alberta is the most logical province to consider when comparing wages. Alberta is the province where
our relatives and children go. And also the province where most of the country chooses to go. It’s just
the reality of migration within Canada. This is wholly acknowledged by the Government of
Saskatchewan. In the last few years, the Saskatchewan Government has advertised in Alberta to recruit
people BACK to Saskatchewan to work. We are unaware of any similar advertising in the other Western
provinces. This initiative by the Government is of course supported by HSAS, but unfortunately, it’s
ineffective in recruiting and retaining our members. If any allied health care professional in Alberta was
interested in moving here, they would quickly discover they would be forced to take a decrease in pay
by about $10.00/hour. No amount of decreased traffic irritations or laid back lifestyle could make up for
having to work for 30% less but pay the same for everything else, and pay more tax.
These professionals may be lured to Saskatchewan, however, they would not be going to public health
care employers. Rather they would be going to other employers in the province, such as private clinics.
It also begs the question, when our kids leave Saskatchewan to go to school because they can’t get the
training here, how will we get them to come back? We have many members who have told us their
children are leaving to Alberta for health sciences training which is not offered in the province, and they
don’t plan to come back. They tell their parents it’s not worth it. Not to work for 30% less. It’s time
you accept that the real competitor, the province that is well suited to compete, and that has a
competitive advantage is Alberta, and only Alberta. Not BC and not Manitoba.
All that being said about Alberta, we are also concerned that you seem to be missing an obvious and
proper comparison. Internal equity is just as important as comparing yourselves externally. It only
makes good sense to look at your other employees, with the same level of training, and providing the
same direct patient care, when comparing wages. The only group that matches this exactly is the
Registered Nurses. They work shift work providing one-on-one care. So do we. They have either a 2
year Diploma or a Degree. So do we, but we have more. Yet you feel it was appropriate to compare the
nurses to the Alberta market only, but for some reason it isn’t appropriate for HSAS members. On May
12, 2008, you made a proposal to SUN which you said “closed the gap in comparison to wages of Alberta
nurses”. On May 25, 2008, you issued a press release in which you called your offer to SUN “Historic”
and stated, “The proposal presented by SAHO offers wage increases that would have Saskatchewan
nurses achieve Alberta wage parity, less cost of living adjustments, in less than a year.” How is it then
that you expect our members to not worry about being on par with Alberta? Just because most of them
don’t have the initials “RN” behind their name doesn’t mean that the service we provide to residents of
Saskatchewan is of less significance.
We know that you have offered “Market Adjustments” to certain members. We also know that a
number of those “adjustments” do not address the problem of the wage gap! For example, even with
the market adjustment offered to Paramedics, they are STILL the lowest paid in Western Canada. That
just doesn’t make sense to us, and it shouldn’t make sense to you either.
On Wednesday, March 16, 2011, Don McMorris, the Minister of Health, was quoted as saying “We
haven't met every wage in Alberta but I can tell you it's fair and competitive and if we're not No. 1, we
may be No. 2 but not far behind No. 1,". Unfortunately, Mr. McMorris was not properly briefed. The
fact is that we are not anywhere close to No.1. Unless you call an average of $10.00/hour, or 30% less
“close”. We don’t. Perhaps if Mr. McMorris was informed of the correct numbers, he might feel
differently about your offer.
In an article recently posted in the Regina LeaderPost, the Saskatoon Health Region is quoted as
knowing that insufficient money was being spent on both space in the Pharmacy and, more significantly,
on Pharmacist staffing. They acknowledged that they did nothing to fix either issue. In fact, the number
of budgeted full-time pharmacists dropped from 48 in 2008 to 37 in 2010. According to the Saskatoon
Health Region, as a result of the insufficient staffing levels and insufficient space, four babies received
incorrect medications. Yet in the last three Market Supplement reviews for Pharmacists, the conclusion
is that “Health regions report either no service delivery issues or minor issues”. We don’t consider the
error with four babies to be a “minor issue”, and we believe this is proof of how broken the Market
Supplement program is. It is ethically intolerable that the employer believes the employees and the
residents of Saskatchewan should shoulder this risk.
As you know, LPNs were recently re-evaluated and moved up two pay bands. LPNs now earn more than
our Paramedics. LPNs don’t work in near the same environment as a first responder, but you found a
way to place a value on these positions that warranted a $5.00/hour increase. This is almost at par with
our wage rate for a 4-year degree holder. Other than a love for the profession, why would our kids
choose to go to school for 4 years and incur debt for an extra 2 years and lose an additional 2 years of
earning an income, only to earn as much as their 2 year diploma colleagues? It makes better sense to
take the LPN program instead of the any health sciences degree program. Or, if they do choose to go to
school for 4 years, it makes better sense for them to take Nursing. $12.00 more per hour is probably
enough motivation for most people to take Nursing instead of Social Work.
We want to continue negotiating with you to achieve a fair deal. We believe that being competitive IS
the right strategy. But the current offer simply does not meet the definition of competitive. We believe
that, although it has been a long journey, we were able to effectively bargain both our non-monetary
proposals and your non-monetary proposals. We felt as though we had hit a productive stride and that
when we presented our financial proposals, we would still be able to bargain. Unfortunately, it seems
as though that has changed.
Although the proposals we are dealing with now are indeed monetary in nature, we are still of the belief
that they can be bargained in a win-win situation. When drafting our latest proposal, we thoughtfully
considered how we can achieve a win-win scenario. We considered our interests and your interests, or
what we assumed to be your interests. Our interests are ensuring our members are staffed adequately
to do their jobs to their professional standards. Our fear is that with these wages, the health regions
won’t be able to recruit new employees, which will leave our current members even more overworked.
Another interest of ours is ensuring that our members are able to achieve a work-life balance, the lack
of which would no doubt spill over into the workplace. We also want to be working with the best of the
best, to challenge ourselves, and to provide the best possible quality of care. Again, we fear this will not
be possible with the low wages being offered by you. We also want the recognition that our members
are a valued part of the health care team, and that the employers recognize them as such. Above all,
our members desire to maintain high quality health care for all residents of Saskatchewan.
We have made the assumption that your interests include economic well-being, having our members
work to the level that their professional standards demand, having employees who are well, recruiting
the best of the best, and maintaining a quality health care for all residents of Saskatchewan. All this
while still maintaining management rights in the workplace. Obviously we have common ground in our
interests. We believe that our proposal today fully supports the employer in meeting the interests of
our members, in addition to the interests of the employers, and that it allows us to find a win-win
situation.
Regarding the proposal itself, we have included a sheet outlining the changes and withdrawals. I will
highlight for you that, with this proposal, we have proposed to delete the market supplement program
in its entirety. The implementation of the monetary proposal will be negotiated.
In your last two proposals, you introduced “Market Adjustments” for just over 1300 of our members.
We take that as an acknowledgment that the current Market Supplement program is defective. We
agree with that, and have chosen to follow your lead with “Market Adjustments”. Our proposal includes
wage corrections for ALL of our professions.
Thank you for listening to us today. We look forward to your response.