Couillard and the doctors : wear
In the news the past few weeks, one important question, however, has almost not been discussed. As if it was reluctant to do it. Should we tear up the agreements of 2007, with the doctors ?
Thursday, march 15, 2018 10:12
Thursday, march 15, 2018 10:37
Look at this article
This is not the extent of the corruption that reveals the wear and tear of power. This sclerosis, it becomes obvious where the power is nothing better than being confined in a pitch can to sell his salad. When it becomes too obvious that they make fun of you, it does not remain large-thing of the credibility of one who claims to make righteous choices in the name of all. And this is precisely the impression that currently leaves in Quebec, the government of Couillard and the file of the compensation medical.
A lot of things have been said and written about the doctors in the last few years. In the past weeks, the pressure has become unbearable, more precisely since the announcement was stunning by the government that we would bring to nine billion within a few years the envelope of money already too stocked discount to physicians each year. The pressure is so strong that until today the president of the Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec (FMSQ) has taken refuge away from the spotlight and only intervened to denounce the journalists and what she describes as a ” fake news “. Wear, this is it.
But it is also that of Philippe Couillard when he declares : “we will continue to declare that it is dependent on what happens elsewhere to the remuneration of doctors? I think these are legitimate questions to ask.”
As incredible as it may seem, it is the same Philippe Couillard, who has signed in 2007 the agreement excruciating that cause most of the problems we face today. It is he himself who has made a fortune in the doctors under the pretext that it was necessary to catch up with the doctors in the rest of Canada. Now that it is done and that this comparison is no longer useful, he would simply cease to compare. It is a bit much to make fun of people.
Ten years ago, the envelope for the remuneration of doctors amounted to a little less than four billion dollars. It has since increased by over 100% and under the agreements of last month, it will reach close to nine billion by 2022-2023. It’s huge. And it is public money.
While the doctors are swimming in money, the other health care workers écopent as we have seen with the case of the nurses, which is only another facet of the tragedies that happen to live on a daily basis in the network of health and social services. Ultimately, it is everyone who scoop as even as it applied to cuts extremely hard in the services, the government increased without discomfort of 7-8% each year the money paid to doctors. So we were with the situation presented in the infographic below.
A decade later, taxpayers realize that they have been cheated. They have paid a lot more than the expected level. We also neglected to do the required follow-up to monitor the state of catching up. Worse still, we saw that, during this time, the productivity of doctors had decreased rather than increase, or simply maintain. It was this that showed once again last week Damien Contandriopoulos.
In the news the past few weeks, one important question, however, has almost not been discussed. As if it was reluctant to do it. And as if it was hesitant to do so because we are dealing with doctors. Should we tear up the agreements of 2007 ?
Some believe that it is no doubt possible, since if the government can not deny his signature, the Parliament may vote a special law which would make it null and void. The legislative power is superior to executive power and it is even greater than the power of the medical, which is not saying much. When such a thing occurs, this usually is not a glorious moment because it is usually used against those who do not have other means of defending themselves, of the workers on strike, for example.
Others think the opposite. This is the case of Francis Vailles of La Presse, which is picked up in Saskatchewan a judgment which states that ” the State may not restrict by law the right of its employees to enjoy the freedom of association guaranteed by the Charter of rights and freedoms, except in specific circumstances “. It seems thin to conclude that the agreement with the doctors is unassailable. After all, the doctors were still largely denied the status of employees. Several have even incorporated over the years to reduce their tax burden. In addition, doctors are in the 1% most rich and the most powerful note company, and this agreement indefensible will further strengthen this status. I’m not a lawyer, but there is certainly something to advocate for that side.
Finally, note that the government has not had the same reservation to the place of the managers of the health network. In fact, in July 2017, the superior Court gave reason to the executives who had seen their compensation starting cut in two in a way that is purely arbitrary by the minister Barrette at the result of mergers of health facilities. The government would have had to pay back $ 200 million to the executives harmed, which would have negated the promises of savings that had been made to the minister. But rather than appeal the decision, Gaétan Barrette has simply passed a law to the national Assembly to validate its earlier decision and that ” despite any decision of an administrative, quasi-judicial or judicial decision made after 23 march 2015 “. Simple as that.
History shows us that workers are often taken of the special laws in the mouth, of which the most famous is the one that René Lévesque imposed in 1982 to cut off $ 2.3 billion (in dollars of that time!) the remuneration of the employee·e·s of the State.
We very much doubt that Philippe Couillard has the courage to take on such a battle. He also may not be interest because if the comedy of errors linked to the remuneration of medical should be able to contribute this year to the electoral defeat of the liberal Party, the prime minister would find working conditions safe and advantageous if he returns to his old job.