Interview, Jeff Begley, President, Federation of Health and Social Services (FSSS-CSN)Workers' Forum: The FSSS-CSN recently presented its sectoral demands for the renewal of the collective agreements of its members. What is their thrust? Jeff Begley: We have demands in terms of work organization. Since the reform of the health care system carried out by the previous Liberal government, we have witnessed a fairly significant disorganization. With regard to work organization, a much more serious dialogue is needed than what has transpired in the past. One of the symptoms of disorganization is the mandatory overtime that we are intent on ending. We're tackling a situation where employers are demanding that workers increase their availability, even though this results in discouraging them. As a result of the creation of mega-establishments, the unions are now huge. There are regions where an establishment can cover hundreds of kilometres. Even within Montreal, the area can be spread out between Pointe-aux-Trembles to Maisonneuve-Rosemont hospital, which is a very wide area. There are employers who are demanding that workers make themselves available everywhere, on different shifts. In 2020, it's amazing that someone can be made to work three shifts in rotation -- the day, evening and night shifts -- over a period of a few weeks, sometimes in various locations. It doesn't make sense. That's not the case everywhere, but there are places where employers continue to demand full availability on three shifts. It's very detrimental to one's physical and mental health. That has to be addressed. If you want to encourage people to work, you have to give them the opportunity to work in a stable environment, even if they are on the recall list. Enough jobs exist for that. The practice of workers being used as pawns that can be moved around at will must stop. It is necessary to ensure that there are enough workers on the floor, which is how we can ensure that mandatory overtime, amongst other problems, is eliminated.
At the sectoral table, we have a lot of health and safety demands. At the same time, we are asking the government and the CNESST to ensure that health and social services are recognized as a priority group by the CNESST. This is not the case at the moment although health and social services are one of the groups with the highest rate of accidents and occupational diseases. Being recognized as a priority group would mean that compulsory prevention committees would be established, with workers freed up full-time to do prevention. Problems must be eliminated at their source. The committees that currently exist in our sector are empty shells. There's no prevention and no results. We're intent on finding the cure. In addition, employers are systematically contesting workers' claims. It's one of our top priorities. If we fail to obtain priority group status with the CNESST, we're going to insist on incorporating all the elements specific to a priority group in the collective agreement. WF: Several unions have expressed concerns that seem to be emerging as a result of the sectoral approach of the government and the management negotiating committees. What's your take on this? JB: Yes there are things that worry us. We had thought that during the last local negotiation employers were beginning to understand that their demand for flexibility at all costs was detrimental. However, through the language they're using, the demand for flexibility keeps coming back. In our sector, for example, less than 40 per cent of care attendants are full-time. We had asked that measures be put in place to convert part-time positions into full-time jobs. But that work has not been done everywhere or in the same way in all places. Furthermore, because of mandatory overtime, many have not applied for full-time positions. Employers claim they have done the necessary work but that people did not participate in the project. In fact, if people are reluctant to apply for full-time jobs, it's because of the mandatory overtime. This is the case for nurses, in particular, who say that if they remain part-time and are forced to do mandatory overtime, at least they'll not be forced to work all the terrible hours that full-time nurses are required to work. I must point out that for us, things are still not entirely clear as to the intentions of the government and the management committees, when they raise the need for flexibility. It remains somewhat vague. But that's our concern. In conclusion, I want to say that although money is important, if we get better wages but our conditions don't improve, we won't be able to attract people to come and work in our sector. Of course it's necessary to invest and improve wages substantially, but that alone is not enough.
This article was published in Article Link:   Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca |
Another very
important point is the issue of health and
safety at work. There are departments and places
where over a quarter of the staff is on leave,
either because they are sick or on compensation
from the Labour Standards, Pay Equity and
Workplace Health and Safety Board (CNESST). In
many places, this is not the exception. If we
could cut that in half, suddenly the problem of
staff shortages would be greatly reduced.