Dear Editor:
In the Lets Talk Taxes column in the Oct. 13 edition of Yorkton This Week Colin Craig is the one in the "dark" when it comes to understanding the recent CUPE v. Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region arbitration decision regarding the use of for-profit clinics.
Contrary to what Mr. Craig states, Arbitrator Ish concluded in his decision that: "Even if additional capital expenditures have to be made, in the long term there is little doubt that the internal costs of carrying out both surgical and CT procedures would be less than the costs associated with the provisions of those services by a third party if the costs were similar to those contained in the OMNI contract and the proposed contracts as reflected in the vendor responses."
While the arbitrator accepted the Health Region's argument that it lacked the capacity to meet the government's mandated wait list targets by the end of 2013, he did not feel confident in the employers' costing calculations comparing for-profit clinic and in-hospital costs. In fact, he commented that a more rigorous costing exercise may very well show that the Ministry of Health principle that third party contracts must be less costly than in-house procedures might not be met.
Mr. Craig is also misguided in his understanding of collective bargaining. He does not seem to comprehend that there are two parties to an agreement - the union and the employer - and both parties must agree to the language contained therein. According to the CUPE/SAHO agreement, health care employers agree that health care services should be publicly delivered and that health care dollars won't be spent on for-profit delivery unless it is more cost effective and maintains the quality of health care services.
Such language protects the public and health care workers from anti-union ideologues such as Mr. Craig, who would seem to prefer for-profit health care delivery at any cost.
Suzanne PosyniakNational RepresentativeCanadian Union of Public Employees
