Many people criticize the model that prevails in negotiations between the state and its unionized employees, but, basically, it has not changed one iota since the 1960s.
There is a whole set-up on both sides where we negotiate for months at a snail’s pace before this overly long play generally concludes with a meeting, preferably at night, between the first minister and union leaders.
Each side develops its list of demands, knowing that some are downright exaggerated. These will be abandoned at the appropriate time, as a sign of supposed good faith. Just one striking example, on the union side, the Fédération interprofessionnelle de la santé du Québec wants hours worked between Friday 4 p.m. and Monday 8 a.m. to be increased by a 50% premium. The request is excessive to be taken seriously.
In the public sphere, in general, we today demand the greatest transparency for all kinds of good reasons. But negotiation seems to escape this rule. However, any negotiation, in the long term, conditions the way in which services in health, education and other areas will be provided to citizens.
In addition, it is our taxes that are at stake. That a negotiation in the private sector takes place only between the two parties concerned is normal. When we broadly transpose this same model into a public sector negotiation, we forget that there is a third party concerned, namely the citizens, sometimes as beneficiaries, sometimes as contributors, for the services provided by the state employees.
In the current state of affairs, there is a certain opacity in the proposals made, both by the management side and the union side. For example, the government, in its first proposal, said it was offering a 13.3% increase over five years. But he neglected to mention that this included additional hours for certain job groups and that it also included the cost of adding positions, such as help in classes. Prime Minister François Legault says he wants more flexibility in collective agreements, which provokes a lot of reaction from the unions, but he gives few examples. What about a new subject, like teleworking?
Difficult for the citizen, despite being extremely concerned, to have a relatively clear vision of the negotiation and its evolution. The information is not systematized. This often happens through indiscretions, calculated leaks, cross-checking, etc. This situation also prevents journalists and analysts from doing their work correctly and informing the population.
From now on, both the management and union sides should, in a sort of dashboard, publicly display offers and requests and make updates, when required, so that we can follow their progress until the final settlement.
Could we not go even further and install a video camera at the various negotiation tables, as is done in the National Assembly and in the parliamentary committees? We should think about it. It’s 2023!
Such measures would not solve all the problems, but they would surely have the merit of making each party more responsible, under penalty of losing support in public opinion. In addition, citizens’ sympathies or disagreements would be better founded!
Both the State and the unions say they want the greatest good for the population. It is time for citizens to be able to make their own assessment before everything is cemented in collective agreements.