Ontario Medical Union

Diving-boardUnions formed to fight bosses who demanded more work for less pay in unsafe conditions. Majority support allowed ruthless employers to dictate wages without negotiation. Labourers built unions to force entitled elites to listen, to back down.

Premier Wynne and Minister Hoskins swagger through parliament. They attack new physician graduates with impunity and slander established doctors without shame. Then they lie about it (see We Expect Honesty from Our Government). Many physicians cry out for a union to fight back.

Union versus Association

Unions bargain collectively. Union bosses fight every instance of oppression. But they also shield low performers, promote incompetence in the name of seniority and willingly kill their young to get higher wages for senior dues-payers. Unionists lust after bigger membership lists, more dues, more power.

Associations work to promote an industry and ideals supported by trade professionals. Associations acknowledge excellence and kick out members who underperform. Individual workers get help only if their case shows potential to harm other members; unique cases get ignored. Unions and associations usually share features; they overlap.

Ontario Medical Union

The government legislates all physicians to be dues paying members of the Ontario Medical Association. The Rand formula makes collective bargaining doable. Even libertarians have no appetite for negotiating separately with over 60 physician specialty groups.

Forced dues and collective bargaining feel like unionism. But government carries the clubs and demands collectivism.

Design

The OMA acts like a union in collective bargaining but was never designed to fight for individual physician rights. There’s no dispute resolution when collective bargaining fails, and no work grievance process. The government can cut as much as voters will allow during ‘negotiations’. And it can treat individual doctors however it likes in between. There are no union bosses around to help.

Over time, the OMA has increased representation for individual physicians and beefed up its legal department. It offers contract review and advice for individual compensation issues. However, it does not show up for every grievance in the way a union boss does for his members.

Even without a 25-30% cut to net income, MDs fume that politicians can mistreat doctors with no legal reprisal. It enrages doctors and fuels cries for unionism. But the current OMA does not have the legislative authority, constitutional structure or mandate to behave like a union. This frustrates physicians even more.

Medical Union = Demise of Medicare

A union of 27,000 physicians would crush Medicare. The Ontario physician services agreement is the largest labor contract in North America. If MDs were fully unionized with dispute resolution and job action, the economy could not produce enough taxes to support such a beast.

The only reason Medicare hobbles along is because politicians can deal unfairly with physicians when times get tough. They make unilateral cuts or massively curb access, like they did all through the 1990s and from 2012 – present.

Patients and physicians face uncertain and troubling times in Ontario. But crisis creates opportunity. Let’s hope physicians and patients get a meaningful voice in the change that follows. When money runs out, governments tend to increase control. Politicians could decide to become even more regressive – more totalitarian – in their management of nationalised industry.

Our toes grip the end of the healthcare diving board this spring. A splash will follow. Let’s hope it’s not a flop.

photo credit: theguardian.com

OMA Mid-Life Crisis

One ThiOrganizations risk becoming irrelevant and detached from their members.

Wynne’s attack on doctors puts the Ontario Medical Association in a bad spot. Front line docs will resent government initially. But unless they see the OMA as their champion, physicians will eventually turn against their association.

Relativity grates on doctors every time they drive in to do a case at midnight or try to wake up a cushier specialty at 3 in the morning. Invariably, the cushy guys generate a much bigger income. Everyone knows it, but no one can fix it. Docs give it less attention when times are good.

Repeat failed contracts weaken the OMA. People forget the totalitarian approach government took in ‘negotiations’. Doctors just see failure. Physicians do not suffer fools lightly. MDs believe serving in leadership is half as hard as clinical practice. Many think they could do a better job if they were in leadership but just don’t have the interest or time to spare.

Disruptive technology pops up when the status quo gets too big, expensive and unwieldy. Personal computers took over when mainframes became more powerful than necessary and too hard to access.

Is the OMA risking a disruptive innovation?

The Ontario Coalition of Family Physicians formed after family practice nearly died in the 1990s. Many of the coalition members got on the OMA board and improved things for family practice in the early 2000s. They saved family practice from extinction.

Family doctors now face a 25-30% income cut by 2017 from 2012 levels. It’s not the OMA’s fault. Premier Wynne slashed doctors to finance Liberal debt and scandals. But doctors won’t remember that. They’ll just see that their collective bargaining agent didn’t come through for them.

Crucial Conversations

The OMA faces a critical juncture. It needs to ask some hard questions.

  • Why does the OMA exist?
  • Who does it serve?
  • Where does it draw the line between serving members and partnering with government?
  • Does the OMA take members for granted?
  • Does the OMA resist change and avoid competition?
  • What political philosophy does it espouse?
  • How does OMA policy and bureaucracy help or hinder its mandate?
  • What needs to change?
  • Can the OMA improve member involvement and if so how?

The late Brenda Zimmerman inspired us to ask ‘wicked questions’ that include seeming opposites. For example, how can we increase services AND spend less? Love of wicked questions aside, we often struggle to hold onto more than one thing at a time.

OMA Mid-Life Crisis?

Billy Crystal played Mitch Robbins in the 1991 Movie, City Slickers. Mitch has a mid-life crisis and signs up for a cattle drive on a ranch in New Mexico to clear his head. An old cowboy, Curly Washburn, played by Jack Palance, offers Mitch some advice.

Curly: Do you know what the secret of life is?

[holds up one finger]

Curly: This.

Mitch: Your finger?

Curly: One thing. Just one thing. You stick to that and the rest don’t mean sh**.

Mitch: But, what is the “one thing?”

Curly: [smiles] That’s what *you* have to find out.

What is the OMA’s one thing?

Without member support, the OMA loses relevance. It can have the best leadership, policies and bureaucracy, but without support, it’s weak and lost. How can front line physicians help the OMA through to find its one thing, to continue being relevant, strong and connected?

 

Doctors Won’t Fight The Nanny

nanny stateSteve Paikin, host of TVO’s The Agenda, wrote a blog: Doctors no longer have all the power in Ontario’s Health Care.

He writes that the Ontario Medical Association used to stand and fight in the 80s and 90s. Earlier, he asked the OMA president, “What do the doctors have planned now?” I blogged about it here.

Paikin assumes most doctors do not vote Liberal. I suspect he’s wrong.

Physicians tend to support the party in power like most other voters. Doctors want stability and predictability. They like big government handouts.

Beyond the practicalities of clinical care, many doctors hold idealistic notions about society. They ask the state to legislate healthy behaviours. Diabetes experts lecture about menus, food choices in supermarkets and even neighbourhood design. They believe government should plan society to promote health. Many doctors call for levels of state control seen only in totalitarian regimes.

Physicians should re-examine their politics. If they support:

  • Expanding government size and control
  • Government ownership and control of services and production
  • Increased wealth redistribution
  • Increased handouts with little attention to warrant
  • Complete insulation of society from risks associated with personal behaviour
  • State help for bad business outcomes
  • Penalizing professionals for hard work
  • Unearned handouts

Then physicians should accept their cuts and be quiet. Wynne’s attack on doctors follows from her political philosophy.

On the other hand, if doctors support

  • Responsible spending
  • Individual choice (e.g., telephone, air travel, postage, education)
  • Self-reliance for things most individuals can handle
  • Government doing what only governments can do (e.g., military, courts and banking)
  • Letting voters direct tax dollars (e.g., remove hospital block funding, school vouchers)
  • No handouts without some effort except for those completely incapacitated
  • Not insulating people from all the risks of their choices about debt, behaviour and lifestyle
  • That professionals should control their workplaces and practices, not bureaucrats

Then physicians should fight.

They could start a human rights challenge of the CPSO ban on physician job action. They might challenge the legality of the ban on physician billing outside of Medicare. They should ‘raise hell’ as Paikin mentioned.

Do doctors refuse to fight because they support the nanny state and want more of it? Doctors won’t fight the party they love.