Like many of us in Canadian real estate, I have been watching the conversation around the Ontario Realtor Wellness Program (ORWP) in REM. By now, we are all aware of the recent court case challenging the ORWP. The plaintiffs are alleging human rights violations including, among others, age discrimination for those who have to pay the same as everyone else but receive lower benefits, and inferior coverage for those who have spousal or other benefits.
To date, leadership at OREA has held firm on the mandatory nature of the plan. So, today, I would like to reflect on the arguments being made on both sides from the standpoint of ethics.
Mixed sentiments
In a previous REM article, many claims were made in the comments section including such arguments as the detractors are “a fringe minority”, “they [OREA] are just lining their pockets”, and my personal favorite, “it was a democratic process so if you don’t like it, leave”. There was also an open letter to the editor extolling the virtues of the program.
I would like to address the letter and the comments before making my main argument as to the correctness of the decision. The letter writer made some very good points about how the program benefitted her, and having been a realtor most of my life, I certainly empathize. That said, the fact that something is good for me is not an argument to make it mandatory for someone else.
“The will of the majority, with respect for the rights of the minority”
Regarding the comments made, I would like to deal with the last one first. “It was a democratic process so if you don’t like it, leave” is perhaps the most undemocratic statement I’ve heard in a long time. How often do we hear democracy described as “the will of the majority”? For some inexplicable reason (inexplicable because I hated social studies), I have always remembered the words of my high school social studies teacher, Miss Mondea: “Democracy is the will of the majority, with respect for the rights of the minority.”
Backing up her statement, in Democracy in America, one of the most influential books of all time on government, Alexis de Tocqueville warned us about the tyranny of the majority. I am not claiming that anyone is acting as a tyrant, but I am simply saying that when we are in the majority, ethics demands that we respect the rights of the minority – one day, we will have our turn in the minority.
Now, the first two arguments are called ad hominem arguments, or arguments against the person. These are essentially non-arguments. The detractors may or may not be a fringe minority and OREA may or may not be lining its pockets, but even if both were true (which they are almost certainly not) they have no bearing on whether or not the policy is good.
Only the relative merits or demerits of any position are what matters. Only arguments that speak to the issue are valid. And, on that note, I would like to address the policy strictly on its apparent merits and demerits.
Leadership is responsibility
I must first address the issue of management responsibility. Here, I’m reminded of when Robert Joss became dean of the Stanford Graduate School of Business, he received an organizational chart showing him, the dean, at the bottom below staff, faculty and students. The message was clear: being the leader isn’t about power – it’s about responsibility and you are responsible to all of these people.
Perhaps the greatest management guru to have ever lived, Peter Drucker, said it best: “Leadership is responsibility.” FULL STOP.
The big question
Here’s the question, then: is making the OREA benefits package mandatory for all members an appropriate exercise of responsibility or an exercise of power?
If the evidence shows it to be a wise exercise of responsibility, then it is justifiable. But, if it proves to be an exercise of power, it’s questionable. So, let’s examine the pros and cons of the mandatory policy.
Arguments for and against
From all I’ve read, the only argument for making the policy mandatory is it will lower costs for all members.
On the flip side, the arguments against a mandatory plan are that some members
- Already have their own plan which they prefer,
- Have spouses with their own plans,
- Have plans that are apparently superior to the OREA plan, or
- Just don’t want the plan.
We need to ask if the difference in cost for the members who want the plan outweighs the rights of those who don’t.
And this is where I am going to leave the discussion to you, as I do not know the answer.
It’s up to you, all 96,000 members, managers and directors of OREA to look at both sides of the issue. What is best for all members of OREA? What is the best policy for everyone? A good ethical decision is not what we have a right to do, it is what is the right thing to do.
Gerald has been a licensed real estate agent for thirty years and an industry instructor for over twenty. He has served on several committees with the Realtors Association of Edmonton and on the Board of the Real Estate Institute of Canada (REIC) Edmonton chapter. He is also an ethics instructor for REIC nationally and enjoys family, various sports, and the outdoors. Check out his popular real estate podcast The Real World of Real Estate here.
A marvelous outline. Simple and fundamental. Profound. A clear statement of the principal which caring leadership must apply. I too found the reference to democratic in response to my own piece, very early on and published in REM, and then edited because OREA leadership complained that my piece missed some ‘facts’, one that the call for this program was approved democratically.
There is a very good piece on the danger of the argument decisions are democratic. Worth the listen. It is found at https://www.facebook.com/reel/722939522997650.
Testing to see if the commenting bug is fixed.
An interesting and balanced read IMO! “with respect to the minority” is a great statement. You see I would hope for that regardless of the outcome and something I don’t feel should be dismissed casually. OREA has not handled this well and no matter how this turns out it is not a good look for the current crop of directors.
The so called “democratic” process of OREA is very flawed as is organized real estate and the eyes of Ontario realtors have been opened up wide. One Board, TREBB has 49% of the vote over every other Board (34 I think). This is a one sided democratic system which needs to change. Also, one random survey was sent to all Ontario members by their Boards. (or it was supposed to be) with lots of Boards not bothering to mention the mandatory aspect of this health insurance and lacking critical information in order for us to fill out the survey. This survey was sent out 4 weeks prior to OREA pushing this agenda through, in my opinion trying to get things done under the radar. Is a survey a vote? or is it an information gathering tool? Also, realtors have since discovered by one of the OREA members that apparently they have hopes of becoming their own insurance brokerage. Hmmmm? Is this wanting to have responsibility or more power?
In my own opinion, We are self employed independent contractors not employees of OREA. Our personal health insurance choices should be our choice not the choice of a few select ppl on OREA’s “task force”.
The fact that the entire Board of Directors at TRREB was voted out last week speaks volumes. Several of the smaller real estate boards who initially voted yes, with little or no consultation with their members initially, are now changing their tunes because they actually took the time to survey their members.
A board must make decisions in the interest and will of its members, not to go along with the behemoth because “we have so little influence”.
As a realtor for over 25 years in the province of Ontario as well as a senior citizen, I do not want the ORWP plan as it currently stands.
I have my own health and wellness provider through my husband’s employer as well as my own insurance.
I would support the ORWP if it were not mandatory as I think that young realtors getting into the industry could benefit. But, to have my license and livelihood jeopardized by a forced insurance plan I don’t want or need, is wrong.
If I have to make a choice of YES or NO to ORWP, without an OPT OUT option, my clear choice is NO.
I think the RFQ was rushed and needs to go back to the table. I am sure that there are some better options out there for NON mandatory participation.
Well said!!!
Absolutely right! ORWP should be open to the members who are willing to participate and leave the rest who are not in favour of the group health insurance free of all mandatory participation.
It is a clear violation of our individual rights… we are self-employed, independent contractors and our associations have NO right to try and force anything like this on us. Better plans are easily available elsewhere… OREA is not doing this for our “wellness” at all… quite the opposite, it is for their wellness.
Great point James! INDEPENDENT & SELF-EMPLOYED.
We pay a fee to be a member. All other is “independently” up to us what added benefits we choose to have and pay for.
We are independent contractors. We are not employees and I didn’t sign up to be dictated to an “association”.
Thank you for writing this article. I guess I’d be classified in that “fringe minority” of which you speak. However if you dig deeper, I believe if the local Boards and OREA ‘s voting process had been transparent and that of a one member, one vote system then this “fringe minority “ may very well have been “the majority”. The entire idea of a benefits plan was so hastily introduced by OREA with initial (and current) emails touting it as “being OFFERED” to its members. OFFER implies CHOICE. The word MANDATORY was’t there. The word is there now, but according to OREA it’s too late. It’s a done deal which when it comes into effect in January 2024 will cause the following:
1. A lot, and I mean a LOT of Ontario realtors who still have no idea what’s about to happen will be crying the blues and wonder why their “dues “ have gone up by 700%
2. Many agents over 65 will leave the business because of the age discrimination nature.
3. Many others who have either their own private plan or one through a spouse, may have their current plans jeopardized or complicated with the addition of ORWP. They may end up leaving the business as well.
4. Many agents will “park” their license, go to a non-board brokerage and continue to sell without the advantage of access to MLS which is technically holding our livelihood hostage for not wanting a benefits plan.
5. Some agents will carry on business as usual because they don’t currently have a plan and don’t really care that this plan is mandatory and may affect their colleagues.
6. Some of the pro-ORWP agents are seeing this plan as a means of weeding out part-timers and/or forcing older agents to retire. Less competition may mean more business for them.
One good thing that has come of this, is that it had made many of us question the very existence of OREA, and even how our own local Boards operate. An overhaul is needed in both.
Your article questions “do benefits outweigh rights?” My answer: Rights should outweigh a forced benefits plan. It appears OREA has painted themselves into a corner and is willing to sit there for a very long time. Come January when the paint is dry they will crawl out knowing that they have successfully divided their 96,000 agents. Good plan OREA, good plan.
Responsibility or power? Benefits or rights? Democracy over dictatorship? What’s your choice?
Nothing democratic about being forced Into an Insurance policy that you do not need or do not want. The cost for coverage is being labeled as membership dues, which will represent a 700% increase in OREA dues. Members who do not sign into the mandatory insurance program will lose their membership status in OREA, CREA , their local Real Estate Board and with their Brokerage. They will also lose access to their MLS system, a vital tool for Realtors to serve their clients. All of this so OREA can become self insured in a couple of years, take over the insurance policy, provide OREA with ongoing funding to remain relevant in our real estate industry. This is solely for the wellness of OREA and not the members. There is nothing democratic about mandatory
I feel the plan is expensive and lacks good coverage considering you have 96,000 paying into it, we have a Chambers plan with a small amount of people that is much better covering dental, drugs and Doctors and hospital and many more benefits and it’s very reasonable. My plan covers myself and my wife and it’s much cheaper relative to the Realtor plan plus I’m over 65 and also have OHIP. If you have 96,000 members it should be cheaper and better and it shouldn’t be compulsory. But today we live in a society that lacks freedom
FROM Mon Nov 27 — when the REM comment page was java-disabled
Dear Gerald,
Wise for you to stay away from taking a side.
Today (yesterday) Nov 27th the TRREB Survey on ORWP ends — it’s results will be available ….soon?
On Wed Nov 29th a Special General Meeting of OREA (convened by objecting Board-members wishing a re-examination of a) mandatory and b) implementation date plus c) which I cannot recall without looking) will consider the motions made by the “Please Reconsider ORWP – Our Local SBF [look it up] Registrants Feel Disabused by the ORWP Process AND the Policy Itself” Member Boards.
The results of both will be announced soon.
The survey is not being overseen by a neutral third party. The results will be what TREB wants them to be regardless of the true outcome of the vote.
Thank you Gerald for your thoughts. I think your message is that we need to do the right thing. Of course that is the correct response. And in your message I think you are assuming that those opposed are the well off and ‘not in need’. That is short sighted as many realtors are feeling the pinch and already have coverage. We have already paid for health insurance and remain stuggling to pay our mortgage.
And your flip side states that OREA must be ‘corrupt’. Hum, might there be other reasons why OREA is pushing this through and will not give up. Ie obviously it gives them something to do, which is not corrupt in itself. Others might weigh-in and suggest other justifications.
And for those minority who REALLY need health care, I would rather send them $700 to help with their family directly than support a program (and an organization) that does not listen to it’s members. jf
The job of any democratic governing body is to protect the minority not the majority. In order for a democratic society to be inclusive, it must protect the rights of the minority. I think if they were to take a vote today on whether we should simply dispose of OREA, the majority would agree, they add little or no value to our industry and would kick them to the curb. Can we please put that to a vote on OREA’s future. Then we will see how they then feel about how unjust a democratic vote to protect the majority.
Well written & well put Gerald!
As I’ve mentioned before, I’m still confused about how our real estate boards, staff and management are supported by members, and these people appear to dictate the how, what and when and we have little or no say.
As OREA defends itself, this court battle is essentially funded by the members to defend the beliefs of those who we employ.
Isn’t t amazing how easy it is to spend someone else’s money. Ohh wait… is just like politics! Those cheques are so easy to write at someone else’s expense!
And yes! Definitely discrimination for those over a certain age who have to pay the same as everyone else but receive lower benefits and inferior coverage.
I’m not there yet, but would be really peed off if that were to or when the time comes that it will affect me.
As for the recent survey. Did OREA intentionally make it difficult to find and access?
I attempted to do the survey but couldn’t get in. Links to it took me in circles and was never able to access.
At least 3 other members I spoke with had the same issue.
Were they simply making sure we couldn’t access to minimize the votes against?!
No different than the original. I don’t recall any survey or voting as they continuously defend.
Not suggesting I’m against. Just believe the dictators haven’t done enough to convince me. A lot of changes needed to make it appealing.
Sir, you are lost in your own world, not even close to your audience…. really; “Backing up her statement, in Democracy in America, one of the most influential books of all time on government, Alexis de Tocqueville warned us about the tyranny of the majority.”
Your attempt to prove your “intellect” shows how far you miss the point. Your head sir, is far up in the clouds, and is not the place for this discussion.
45% votes say no per the results we were delivered yesterday, that is around 40000 members many enough to build another sort of OREA II. Why not!!! Where is our government? Those members might unite to fight in courts of human rights tribunal of Ontario and Competition Bureau Canada. Apparently OREA goes too far away from a real estate related association. It is just a voluntary membership per RECO. Its weapon is MLS. Otherwise who needs its membership?
BTW, the article for “Ontario boards vote to keep ORWP as mandatory” keeps deleting comments. They are afraid of different opinions.
100% of the above comments are opposed to the mandatory ORWP!
This is to show the votes n surveys are skewed. Where are the yes sayers to this programme?
Well, well, well: I’ve been out of real estate for about twelve years now, have not been keeping up with the game, or REM articles, and just now stumbled across this discussion. Seems to me nothing has changed re the O.R.E.A. vs the unwashed-masses debate. Never assume the oligarchs at O.R.E.A. do not view their serfs as anything other than tax-paying low-lives unworthy of ‘their’ time re time-wasting persuasive-argument attempts. Don’t you all know who your masters are? I’m sure you heard the following before, but it bears repeating; “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Humans can’t help but let power go to their heads. That’s why most elections essentially serve first and foremost to get rid of the bastards vs electing new ones. “Mommy: Why do the bastards only come out when Daddy’s driving?” Enough said.
There is no such thing as pure democracy as is currently being practiced within this dictatorial organization. Pure democracy is simply daily referendum votes on every issue as was practiced by the ancient Athenians (the citizens) within their city-state form of government. Your real estate government officials are simply representative first-past-the-post elected dictators who serve for specified terms to essentially do as they wish within said time frames. Wannabe government-types love telling others what to do and what to think. It’s simply in their D.N.A. The best leaders are those who do not seek power, but exercise it responsibly once tapped for the job without seeking it beforehand. You don’t have that reality within your organization.
Nothing has changed, nor will it, unless the serfs (taxpayers) get together and demand it…by way of withholding dues on a mass scale. Revolutionary? Yep!
Correction: Re my above comment: “There is no such thing as pure democracy as is currently being practiced within this dictatorial organization.” should read: “There is no such thing as pure democracy as is being trotted out as currently being practiced within this organization.”
I’m out of practice writing this stuff.
ORWP is inadequate and expensive. No eye exams, no dental, nothing of value. We’re independent contractors and should have the right to opt out. It’s a cash-grab scheme. Nowhere on the questionnaire did it mention it would be mandatory or cost $660/year. Reco talks about ethics in everything we do. OREA is clearly exercising a double standard on this one. Their voting method had no transparency. I don’t want it. I don’t want to pay for it. Shame on them for forcing this on Ontario agents. Health insurance has nothing to do with Real Estate and they shouldn’t have the power to insist we need it to be in good standing with OREA.