As most in the industry have heard, there’s going to be a new mandatory health plan for all members of the Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA).
I’ve had people reach out from both sides of the debate, in more colourful wording, with accusations of being both a shill for OREA and the Ontario Realtor Wellness Program (ORWP) and as someone trying to kill ORWP and hurt OREA. As a news organization, we expect criticism. But I have a lot of friends in the industry who aren’t happy I’m not doing more with REM to support their side. That’s not what REM is here for, to support the people I like or the causes I like or dislike. REM is here to report on what matters to realtors and the industry at large. We’re receptive to feedback, but my personal relationships do not control what gets published.
We’ve worked hard to find people to write opinion pieces that aren’t negative. The vitriol online at anyone posting positively about it is as ugly as you see nowadays in politics. It’s made it hard to get opinion pieces or quotes from people in the undecided or positive camp. We’ve had many people reach out with positive things to say about ORWP. They don’t want to get quoted because of how others are being treated. The personal attacks need to stop.
The debate around the ORWP has highlighted one thing for me. Something many of those involved in the industry know. It’s how little many in the industry know about how organized real estate works.
Most of the focus has been on OREA bringing this mandatory plan in. Some even saying, “How can non-realtors force us to do this? We didn’t vote for them!” This wasn’t brought in by OREA staff or people you didn’t vote for.
To oversimplify it, you elected people at your boards to represent you. The elected volunteers asked OREA to look into it. OREA did and presented a plan to the volunteers, and then they voted on it. This was a realtor-led initiative.
I know a lot of the realtors involved in the process on a personal level. They all want the same thing, to do what’s best for the industry. I’ve attended many conferences and AGMs over the years. It’s very common for them not to hit quorum or barely hit it. The election turnout is incredibly low from membership. This means that a small percentage of voters are the ones influencing the whole industry.
The people you chose, either by voting or indifference in the voting process, passed ORWP. Knowing full well it was mandatory, and knowing the details about how the plan worked. They knew it would be controversial. They knew some wouldn’t be happy. Despite knowing that, they chose to vote for what they thought was for the betterment of the industry. OREA didn’t bring this in; your colleagues did with the goal of making our industry better. You can disagree with them, but the answer is to get involved, not attack them.
OREA is bearing the brunt of the anger. Yet it was those elected to the boards who are responsible for bringing it in. Boards pushed for this. OREA got tasked to bring forward a plan, they did, and then your elected representatives voted on it. Agree or disagree with your colleagues; they did what they thought was right. OREA has even proposed changing the system in the past to a one-member, one-vote system, and the board representatives voted to keep the existing system.
With approximately 96,000 people licensed in Ontario, no decision will make everyone happy. The people you elected are among the best informed on what’s happening in the industry. They had all the details about the plan. Then they voted it in with an overwhelming majority.
Could most boards have communicated better? Could they have communicated with more clarity before voting? I bet, at this point, many of them wouldn’t even disagree. This wasn’t done quietly or with keeping people in the dark, however. Those who volunteer their time and get involved have been talking about it for a while. It’s hard to get a lot of feedback when members don’t engage with requests for feedback.
Could OREA have done a better job at communicating both before and after the vote? Definitely, I firmly believe, though, that a lot of the anger at them over the plan itself is misplaced. There are valid criticisms of the communications since.
Realtor apathy towards what happens in the industry has been a major issue for years. There’s been anger towards things like the new exclusive listing policy from CREA and now ORWP. Most acted like these came out of nowhere. They didn’t for those who chose to get involved. There have been debates for years at different levels.
To me, the story isn’t whether ORWP is mandatory or not. It’s that we’re all seeing in real time the impact of what apathy towards organized real estate can cause.
You need to get involved. You need to vote for people who share your views or run yourself and give OREA the mandate to repeal it or continue it. OREA has to follow the mandates given to them by their members. If you turn online activism into in-person action, you have a better chance at getting what you want. All it takes for a new assembly meeting is 10 per cent of boards requesting it, and OREA has to call it as per their bylaws. If you want a new assembly meeting called, reach out to your local board.
I hope that if the ORWP accomplishes anything in Ontario and beyond, it’s that it spurs more of you to get involved. More of you voting, more of you running for elected positions and joining committees. Our industry needs your voice. It needs more diverse voices and opinions and needs less apathy. I hope this is a turning point for getting involved.
Andrew Fogliato – The G is silent – is the owner of Real Estate Magazine and Just Sell Homes. He mostly talks about marketing but sometimes ventures into other topics in the real estate world. Sometimes he also writes bios in the 3rd person.
Well said Andrew. I know many are not happy with the program and many others don’t know a lot about it and have questions. I see a lot of misinformation out there on social media about how the process to bring this program to be voted on at the AGM came to be and appreciate you shedding some light on it. I hope that this encourages Realtors to get involved with their local boards, attend AGMs and seek more information about their profession. The more engagement and discussions we have about our profession, the better it will be.
If the volunteers making the decision had provided fulsome details before asking opinions, I suspect there would be less backlash. It’s easy to reply “yes” to, “do agents need more and better insurance?” However, any accountant will tell you that there is a fine line when it comes to mandatory benefit plans, between being an independent contractor (which we are, and are taxed as such) and an employee (which puts a LOT more responsibility on the association, and changes our tax status).
Young parents who want flexible work and seniors are just two of the groups that probably have very strong feelings. More communication before the die was cast would have been a smarter option.
Agree. But let us not forget what the last 3 years did to engagement.
This was well published. Fact is very few registrants ever read any OREA news , Association News or CREA news. I have attended many meetings over the past 20 years where a member will stand up a state.” How come I am just hearing about this now?” A common comment despite the matter being communicated in many different ways long before any meetings took place. Making themselves looking like loud mouthed fools, in my opinion. Uninformed loud mouths, for some reason , believe they are always the correct , smartest person in the room. This is never the case. I continue to hear, “we are independent contractors,” Well as independent contractors you should be taking the time and efforts to be fully informed independent contractors. Independent contractor does not mean you can happily go along never knowing what is happening at you Association , or Provincial and National Association . That just means you are an independent fool. I hear , “ we run our own businesses” A true entrepreneur would be fully informed of their business at all times and everything that affects that business. So before making any comments , as an independent contractor, make sure you have researched all the facts. In other worlds “Do you due diligence.”
Brock,
What year did CREA receive permission from Local MLS systems to communicate directly with members ?
Why was CREA prevented from communicating directly to members for over 60 years ?
What year did your Local MLS no longer need OREA to license the realtor trademark and access to realtor.ca ?
The REM archives were a great repository to learn more about realtors before you paint any of them as fools.
Wow Brock, that’s certainly an interesting take on how an association that’s there to advocate for its members has thrown us under a bus. There are members with plans thru divorce or previous employment that they were packaged out of which have benefits much greater than this plan. They will lose those plans due to becoming a primary on ORWP. We have agents with thousands of dollars a year in medical expenses for conditions this plan will now exclude due to the pre-existing clause in the policy. This is an association that took advantage of its members, no doubt about it. Maybe you should do some more listening and less typing?
You’re not even a registrant. Stay in your own lane Brock.
Hmmm I read all emails and fill in all surveys. Trebbs survey was not clear, they never mentioned mandatory!!! My board lakelands did and voted against due to Orea’s poor communication cheers
As independent contractors, most of us are fully capable of providing for our own health and that of our families. And have. In most cases, registrants are already covered by a plan, hence the opposition.
Now who sound like a loud mouthed fool?
If this was well communicated as you had suggested, why has OREA sent out 10x more email communication and 5x more townhalls to sell ORWP than they did BEFORE ORWP was voted in?
To make this plan “mandatory ” is more than an overreach it lacks the integrity of responsible decision making. This rushed through mandated plan is outside OREA’S role as an association and as such should have involved all membership with a vote. I am so disappointed with the lack of process and if OREA is listening to membership mandatory should be changed to optional.
Thank you for the opportunity for feedback.
Interesting Andrew….Realtor apathy when the largest group does a survey not mentioning the mandatory aspect of the program?
Thanks
I disagree that OREA followed a process with any level of member involvement. The truth is that OREA is an association and not the employer of real estate agents and to “mandate” participation in an insurance program is morally and ethically wrong. TREBB has 49% of the voting power and local small boards align their voting with TREBB giving them well over 60% control. This is not new to realtors we have always known this. So TREBB pushes the insurance program through and OREA says 80% of members want this???
If OREA is publicly announcing on a daily basis that 80% of realtors want this, then they should with confidence have a membership vote. They won’t because 80% of realtors DON’T WANT THE PROGRAM.
It’s a money grab, they know everyone either has benefits from spouse or they won’t use them and the few that will use them will just be a fraction of the big MONEY they will make. So why wouldn’t you just force people to sign up, it’s an easy way to make a lot of extra money. There is a lawsuit here waiting to happen.
Amen. Well stated and well positioned, Andrew.
Andrew whether there is more involvement or less involvement, there is absolutely no justification for a mandatory plan that does not fit our individual needs. Sure offer a plan for those who need it but do not make it mandatory. We’re not children, we can decide for ourselves whether it is what our family needs or not. You saying that more of us should get involved is understandable but getting involved would not prevent other policies from being made mandatory. Nothing should be mandatory that does not affect the trade of real estate.
On a personal level, I’d have preferred a plan that had an opt-out but I also understand its more expensive. Would be great if OREA could show the exact difference in price if it had been or not.
Getting involved could stop more from being made mandatory. It gives you the vote. With the low engagement, it doesn’t take more than a handful of engaged voters to make decisions, especially if you’re on the TRREB board as they control 49% of the vote for the province.
So would many Realtors who are covered with other insurance programs through their spouse, or even their other employment. I seem to remember a time when TREB sales people did not have a vote on that board. Suddenly all members had a vote. (I forget what caused the change, it may have been when the Board tried to force members to use a certain lock box). I suspect that OREA’s articles do not give it the authority to impose insurance benefits on us, unless it has recently been added. If they do have the right, I suggest that they postpone implementation, until there is more discussion by the members. There’s no reason why members cannot vote on the their terminals. Let those who want it, have it, don’t make everyone pay for coverage that they do not want or need! What other self employed person is required to have the benefits that OREA wants to impose on all?
Are you an agent?
Are you asking if I am? I was but let it go a couple of years ago.
Thank You, Andrew. I think you did well to identify the true issue and the facts. This is not a right-or-wrong scenario…..it actually shines light on the real truth, that most Realtors do not understand (nor do they care to understand) the processes and legally, ethically scrutinized methods for leadership and decision-making in Organized Real Estate. The board leaders at OREA, and each individual local Association are folks who truly want to serve and do the very best for our industry. Of. course, Members can definitely disagree and make efforts to change any plan or process……but please, please, please respect the “processes” and use them properly. They are there for our benefit and protection. Regardless of my opinion on the “Plan”…. I know there are legal, proper avenues to either support it or discourage it…..and for those “Rights & Privileges”, I am very thankful.
I agree with Andrew. OREA is a political body and works the same. Much as our Political parties, if you vote in the wrong people and you then live with the taxes and programs that they impose. You live with your voting decisions until the next election – plain and simple…..
Yes and no. I vote in every single election and still not once did my candidate win. Bad luck I guess?
Among other things you lost me at “they chose to vote for what they thought was for the betterment of the industry” Forcing 96,000 members to have and pay for individual Wellness insurance that they do not want or need does absolutely nothing for the industry…that statement is as much of an over reach as mandating this policy. Let’s not forget, suck it up or lose access to our most important tool of the trade…MLS.
FYI the “They” is you. Obviously your level of comprehension is remedial. And maybe that is where the issues arise in this industry. Intelligent levels of an elementary level. Try and think before you speak.
I can appreciate your position as a messenger of information.
This entire fiasco of a mandatory life and health insurance plan “crossed the line” into members’ personal life decisions. OREA and local boards have yet to justify this to many members but have no issue “putting a gun to my head” for obedient submission or else I’m terminated.
For the record, I’ve volunteered extensively with my local board DRAR including as 2014 President, CREA and RECO, and never received any request nor participated in any meetings or conversations about offering what’s before us today. When I read the June 20th agenda for the special general assembly meeting, I provided my questions and feedback directly to my board and just keep getting the same rhetoric. I honestly didn’t think any voting delegate could support the mandatory aspect of the plan. I’m 66. I just want to opt out as I don’t want or need these coverages. Apparently OREA and my board deem themselves my essential caregiver and I know I didn’t provide them with power of attorney.
Well said!
Wow Brock, you always this much of an ass?
The article touched upon how and why the program was initiated and executed. But there could have been more of “What” the program actually consists of.
Yes and no. I vote in every single election and still not once did my candidate win. Bad luck I guess? Democracy is a tyranny of majority over minority and individually we have very little influence over the system unfortunately. Let just hope more people wake up thanks to incidents like this mandatory benefits.
Andrew, thank you for this platform. You’re in a tough position for sure. If it’s any consolation to you, REM prior to your taking over had the same issues. It’s about respecting the rights of a publisher to not be pressured by anyone, whether a reader or a close friend or peer to suppress or sensor a narrative they don’t like.
They’ll get over it and if they can’t well, that’s their flaw not yours.
You’re very right about the indifference and lack of interest by the membership to pay attention to what is going on within the industry. There really is no excuse – no one is that busy they can’t take 10, 15 minutes a week to read the headlines on their board’s landing page or open an email.
At the same token I opened my one week’s notce survey, immdiately posted to TRREB’s Meta page that I opposed the mandatory notion only to have it remain unpublished. That post had the ability to reach almost 3,000 members who may not have opened their email, but no, just as the email did not ask about accepting a mandatory plan, the membership cannot know what is withheld from them.
Once more REM proved vital in that were it not for the Q&A raised by Sabine Nassar, the petition and group that rallied the soon to be 11,000 petiton members would probably still be a thought not yet materialized.
But! every member of every board has the right to expect, even if they didn’t vote, that the persons elected to represent their best interests will actually do so. I do not agree that in all circumstances whatever they do they do so in the best interests of their members just because they’re volunteers. We do not have the ability to properly vet the qualifications or acumen frankly of the members who run for the job of director.
It is plainly obvious that boards do sometimes make very bad decisions. But that is not on the membership, nor is it on the membership to babysit their every move so as to know when they’re messing up.
That is why, years ago when CREA sudddenly decided it would create a tech co that is under the board’s control and untouchable by its members, this very publication brought that to light which alerted the oblivious membership to raise a stink. They were successful. That OREA or anyone else doesn’t like that is too bad, we’re a democratic society and no one ought to better know that Tim Hudak who sought to sensor Mr. Nolan,
This ORWP however is a different animal altogether in its creation and without meaning any disrespect at all to you, everything about it screams sneaky, underhanded tactics intended to rush it through and around the membership. Consider, neither OREA nor any board can yet explain why they cannot produce all these surveys they supposedly had since 2019 and why they did not ask the membership in the after-the-fact survery with a one week window, if they would want a mandatory program.
They know they went about this the wrong way, but they don’t care. Every email or op-ed they put out is a middle-finger to the membership more or less saying, you’re going to pay for and like it!
That attitude alone makes it unpalatable to those in opposition. But it’s more than that, It’s an enactment of participation that’s not just mandatory, it’s also another blatantly and bald mandate that says we either accept their hair-brained autocratic – yes, Tim Hudak, I said it – scheme or they’ll boot us out of the monopoly which supplies the only system in the nation that we paid or over years and destroy our livelyhoods. That we would still be licenced is farcical nonsense!
And that is what about this whole thing that makes it so odious! They just don’t care.
And in the words of my Cameron Nolan – Let that sink in!
There’s a lot of *very fair* criticisms of how this was brought together and the communication since. It’s been slow and not as transparent as we’d like it to be. At this point I think their best course of action is to host an in-person town hall and let everyone come and speak their part and get answers.
I have an article for next week (maybe the one after?) with some ideas to incentivize more participation in the industry that I think can start some good disucssion.
Thank you kind sir. Looking forward to reading it.
Exactly right. Unacceptable in any free society. It will cause many to retire early or leave the industry altogether sadly. I did not (I repeat) not receive any communication at all from anyone going back to 2019 be it my board (that voted NO thankfully), be it from OREA or be it from TRREB (albeit I did stop my TRREB membership last year) about the mandatory part of it prior to the boards voting on it. I checked every single inbox including Junk all the way back to 2019. I also participated in one of the surveys a few years back as I recall and nowhere was it ever mentioned the plan would be mandatory either, I’m still for voluntary benefit package even though I think organized Real Estate has no business getting involved in it as we are independent entrepreneurs but thats beside the point. Even most employees across other industries have the opportunities to opt out, why can’t we as independent business owners and OREA threatens us with membership cancellation if we don’t comply. I wrote several letters to OREA and got response finally. Yes, they are very blunt about it.
You are correct. A lot of members will leave the Industry, because nobody, especially independent thinkers, are used to being Bullied into something they do not want. As a member, for close to 50 years, I have no interest in having an Insurance plan shoved down my throat; and then be threatened to cancel my membership by OREA. I have said it before, and I will say it again, we should review the purpose and the functioning of Associations like OREA. We pay them to lobby at government levels and to act in our best interests. That has now been breached, and OREA might have outlived the intended purpose. I personally will take a very serious look at opting out of this program since it does not apply to me, and I will not pay to carry someone else. The Boards were formed as an information sharing venue by Real Estate Brokers to progress, pre-computer age, and internet age. Since we are now all very tech-Savvy and can garner information from numerous sources, then some Organizations might be mute. When January comes and I will not pay for this Insurance, then my membership at all levels will be terminated. I will still be a Broker, and Licensed, and can function well without all the distraction. Think about it, it starts at $600 plus per year times 96000; that is over $57 million a year. I know that the cost will go up annually, and we would have no choice but to pay. I would love to be the Insurance agent that sold this Plan, they can retire immediately on the Residuals.
Good there are too many Dinosaurs in this industry. Ancient sales reps living in a different era. Maybe this was a conspiracy to get rid of the extra baggage dragging down the level of professionalism this profession. Hats off to OREA for coming up with this diabolical plan.
How would OREA benefit from lower membership (getting rid of ‘extra baggage’.? Makes zero sense from their point of view at least. I will not be renewing either so I must be a dinosaur 🦖😀
Great idea Andrew.
Two of the biggest challenges our boards face are:
1. Member Apathy
2. Communication
These are not new issues, nor are they unique to our industry. These two specific challenges are discussed at length every time a board sets out to form their next strategic plan. It is a timeless pursuit.
We have long way to go – this is clear by voting numbers at local board levels, email open rates, and AGM attendance numbers. And everyone knows this.
That’s why, for this particular initiative, it should have been all hands on deck shouting across all open channels to the membership. Extra efforts should have been made to contact brokerage owners and management to have them discuss the looming vote, and complete and accurate information should have been ready to provide for that discussion, including the mandatory nature of the ORWP so that members could have a fulsome and informed dialogue.
The fact that the mandatory aspect of this plan was known to be controversial at these board meetings should have lengthened the task force discovery time, and it appears that instead this initiative was expedited. It is not reasonable to fall back on the old explanation that the membership doesn’t open their emails, not for something of this magnitude.
I do believe that every local and provincial board member engaged in this endeavour did so with good intentions. I also believe that the leadership should have had the foresight to anticipate this opposition, and therefore ought to have committed more time, communication, and clarity to the membership at large before putting this before a vote.
There is still a large portion of the membership who have no idea that their OREA dues will increase substantially come January 1st. We could argue who’s fault that is, but the boards need to do better, no matter how challenging it may be.
Member engagement is low, but didn’t OREA hold the special meeting on June 20th behind closed doors? REM article from June 20th says that it was pretty much “the first time in OREA’s history” that non-voting members were not allowed in the room, and were not given the opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns.
It sure sounds like there was a determination in rushing the ORWP through and making sure that the 96,000 pawns who will pay for the plan, have nothing to say about it.
Non voting members were in attendance. Once again a comment made without doing any due diligence. Just spouting off based on other groundless comments and info. As for searching you emails did you ever think of going to the OREA web site? Probably not genius.
Please show me one single email communication from OREA to the non voting members about mandatory nature of benefits plan before the special meeting and vote took place. Be it a letter or survey. I haven’t received any.
Hey Brock, thank you for your comment. Do you know what a quote is???
I was directly quoting REM article from June 20th, where Andrew Fogliato made the comments and wrote an entire article on this issue. Look it up! It is titled: Mandatory health benefits: OREA members not permitted to speak at Tuesday’s special meeting.
Are you saying that he did not do his research??? Very peculiar.
I don’t know about his genius, but I would give Andrew the benefit of the doubt and say that he did research a thing or two before publishing.
Were you by any chance at the meeting of the assembly? How do you know who was there?
They were in attendance, they weren’t allowed to speak.
Liz – I’d like to take credit for a lot of the writing but the only things I write are the letters from the publisher pieces and some marketing related content.
Coverage is done either by our editor or some of our writers.
I agree PED! Well said!
Why is it mandatory?? What does it cover??
Andrew….how can you say it’s not OREA fault???? They are billing us for this and if we don’t pay, we DON’T work!!! If OREA doesn’t want to be involved in this then they should step down and tell these “volunteers” we don’t want to be involved in this and that personal realtor matters are not our jurisdiction. And don’t tell us they don’t have that power, we are not stupid. As told OREA we want you to As quoted above: This entire fiasco of a mandatory life and health insurance plan “crossed the line” into members’ personal life decisions. OREA and local boards have yet to justify this to many members but have no issue “putting a gun to my head” for obedient submission or else I’m terminated.
The big issue here is the fact that this very “mediocre” benefits plan is being made MANDATORY for 96,000 independent contractors, many of whom already have excellent benefits plans already in place. MANDATORY is a very slippery slope, and I cannot help to wonder about “what’s next”?
Since when is a mandatory benefit plan necessary for 96,000 realtors to be able to do their job? At the very least, this plan should be optional. The sad thing is that if we would choose to not partake in this plan, we would lose our membership in OREA, which in turn means that we would lose our access to the MLS.
I hope they release more about what the options were and the justifications for this plan over the others considered and for mandatory vs optin/optout coverage.
I’m not an insurance expert so it’s hard for me to say whether its good, mediocre or bad. My experience mostly stems from what I give my employees which definitely costs me quite a bit more compared to this plan.
If enough get involved who are opposed, I’m sure they could get it changed from mandatory. It may not be right away but eventually.
I’m sure your plan is quite a bit more but I suspect that you do not employ anywhere near 96000 employees. This is a significant number. To put it in perspective, there are more members in OREA than employees of RBC across Canada.
According to The International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans… When there is comparable coverage elsewhere. An employee may have a spouse whose employer also offers employer-sponsored health benefits. If the employee’s spouse pays less money and has better coverage, then the employee may opt out of their own employer’s plan in favor of the benefits offered by their spouse’s employer. 80% of employers allow employees to opt out of the plan when they have comparable coverage elsewhere.
I too would like OREA to provide the cost differential between mandatory vs. optional. What estimated enrollment number was used to provide a quote for optional coverage?
There are many factors that go into underwriting a group insurance plan such as age, sex and marital status. How did they determine this information for the people that would opt-in?
So many questions, so few answers.
And the elephant no one is addressing is that part-time component. If we use the 80/20 rule, and I had to guess only 20% of 96,000 agents are active, the remaining 80% are part-time and barely trading. How will an additional $550 of expenses affect those part-time realtors?
Oh and since Orea is a condition of TRREB membership (it’s bundled together but itemized on our invoices, no-opt out), do those part-timers really need TRREB membership?
Hey TRREB did you really think this through? Yes I said TRREB! I mean you get your $700+/yr regardless from your membership, but imagine your part-time cash cow decides to go non-board because of this OREA decision?
Think about it 76,800 part-time realtors just poof, vanish. $53M+ is a lot to part ways with because OREA is still trying to figure out their value proposition.
Mandatory is the stumbling point,,,,,,,,,I’m 87 and I aready have a plan as do many others………………mandatory is NOT acceptable……..it smacks of a dictatorial leadership.
100%
Well said, Andrew.
I am one of those people who were on the fence. I can see that some have partners that have health benefits and see this as unnecessary, I myself have most of the life insurance in place, but would love dental & prescriptions as part of my benefits. I voted and told others to vote, if they have not voted, they should not be the ones speaking out now. Everything in your article was well said. Congratulations on encouraging voting and being part of the process in our industry.
Very informative, however, from what I understand, yes, the boards voted but one board (TREB) controlled 49 % of the vote. How is that considered fair? Is this a TREB initiative at the expense of the rest of us?
Yes they control 49% of votes because no single board is allowed to have more than 49% and I have been told they voted for it but I don’t know if they put all 49% of their votes for it or split them. I think it’s a safe bet they put all or the vast majority in the yes.
Even if you took TRREB out of the equation, the majority of the other boards still voted in favour. So even if it was a TRREB led initiative, its the majority of boards that voted it in.
Can you share a list of the number of votes of all the other boards and how they voted ? Thank you
I’d have to confirm but I believe we did ask for that but its considered confidential how they voted as per the OREA by laws so I doubt we’ll get an answer to how each board votes break down.
This is how they decide the number of votes each board gets:
Each Member Board shall have the number of votes set out below:
•
•
•
•
Boards with up to 250 Individual Members = 1 vote
Boards with more than 250 Individual Members and up to 500 Individual Members = 2 votes
Boards with more than 500 Individual Members and up to 1,000 Individual Members = 3 votes
Boards with more than 1,000 Individual Members and up to 2,000 Individual Members = 4 votes
Revised OREA By-law – As passed by the Assembly at its June 20, 2023 Special Meeting of the Association.
Page 33 Article 12
The Assembly
•
•
•
Boards with more than 2,000 Individual Members and up to 3,000 Individual Members = 5 votes
Boards with more than 3,000 Individual Members and up to 4,000 Individual Members = 6 votes
Boards with more than 4,000 Individual Members shall be entitled to one additional vote for each additional 725 Individual Members or part thereof.
Provided, however, that no individual Member Board shall be entitled to more than forty-nine percent of all the votes capable of being exercised at the Assembly.
I simply don’t understand the rationale here. How does mandating this insurance benefit any or all members. Most of us are over insured anyhow and I like to have options and CHOICES on what programs are available to me.
Good question Sabine.
Where is the proof?
Of course they’ll say this is private, which again is hiding the facts.
Actually Andrew, we do not know if the majprity of boards voted in favour. OREA has cleverly disguised their words to make everyone think that. They state:
“Nearly 80% of the member board nominees.” That means, nearly 80% of the voting delegates. A board can assign 1 or more votes to a delegate. We have no idea how many TRREB sent. Here is an example of how easy it is to reach the 78% it more accurately is, where the votes per board are estimated at 155 based on the by-law allocations for each board’s published membership count. TRREB then would hold 76:
40% of the total vote allocation is all that was necessary for a quorum provided that it represents 67% of the total boards:
Only 23 boards need to be present. Each of which has a varying number of votes from 1 – 6 and 76
~ TRREB 76 votes.
~ the 5 next largest boards (if Brampton had a vote) who we
are told are yes, account for 25 votes.
~ 2 smaller yes boards accounted for 2 votes
~ The 9 boards we’re told voted no equal 33 votes
~ The remaining 6 votes can be as many as 16 votes as few as 6
Votes present = 152 boards present = 23
yes votes = 76+25+2+16 = 77%; boards = 14 or 61% of boards present.
14 boards can meet their ‘nearly 80%’
OREA’s By-Law does not state the vote shall be confidential at an assembly, it states the nominee shall not be identified. The nominee is the delegate for the board.
Since all that’s required is a show of hands/flash card, either there was a ballot or OREA took a count of the show of hands. OREA absolutley knows by requirement which boards were present with delegates. If in fact it was 80% of the boards they’d proudly proclaim:
The vote was passed by 80% of ALL member boards.
They didn’t,
Because it wasn’t!
Very good article with very good points. Even though I am okay with this coverage I can certainly understand why people already covered under their spouses or people over 65 would not want this coverage. I question why this vote was not put out to all realtors – we do it for our various elections and everyone gets a vote. The other point I would like to make is that if the majority of Realtors supposedly wanted this would there not have been enough people to secure a good rate?
OREA did propose, I believe in 2017, to change the system to each member gets to vote instead of the existing model. The boards voted to keep the existing system. So it’s not actually OREA’s decision to vote this way. You’d need to get your local real estate boards to vote for a one-member-one-vote system.
To your other point, I think that’s one of the things OREA should put out all the information that highlights why the proposed plan was mandatory. Put out all the numbers. I guess its possible that details of bids were confidential but if that’s the case, they could also say that. Just more transparency on how it all came together in general and why this was the plan they picked for the boards to vote on.
It absolutely has to be one member one vote. Even when we choose delegate, we don’t know him/ her personally, only what their credentials telling us. In current system the delegate should contact directly people who sh/he represents. It is never done, thus so called delegate ASSUMES he/ she is doing great thing and ASSUMES he/ she represents majority. These decisions cannot be made on assumptions.
Well Said!
Skating a fine line — which is what you stated at the outset of this
Part of the fun of buying REM!
I agree in essence. Involvement is the key to change and most of us are guilty of apathy in this matter. Communication however from the boards as well as OREA (as you’ve pointed out) was miserable to say the least. My board in all fairness voted NO. What I don’t understand is how OREA agreed to facilitate such request from the boards that has zero to do with Real Estate? I understand they are bound to execute what boards ask them to do but not to raise any red flag on mandatory aspect of it which goes well beyond the scope of our industry related matters is absurd in my opinion. We have to look more into our boards and especially TRREB controlling vast majority of our livelihood as well as their influence on other boards and leverage they use through MLS system. I, won’t be renewing my membership with OREA and sadly not be able to use MLS or Webforms (just like many of my colleagues it seems) because of the bureaucracy and design structure of organized Real Estate in Ontario since it leads to it by default despite theoretically OREA being a voluntary membership. Well, on a positive note at least we, the voices of opposition are starting to be heard now and getting involved. I wish for a new system without boards controlling us and for eliminating duplicity plus centralized systems like OREA or CREA. Free entrepreneurs deserve better.
I did a survey put out by OREA and another put out by our Board (NAR), both times in the survey I was in favor of the mandatory policy. I am 65, so some of the coverage is limited, however for the price it is certainly good! For the record, I do have a private Heath Care policy and it does have more coverage although it does cost a lot more but in looking at the extra coverages you can get through this policy, I will likely switch to it instead. I am anxiously awaiting the plan for spousal coverage as well. In the grand scheme of things, the mandatory portion cost is insignificant.
Please share the results from the OREA survey that indicated a mandate, I did the OREA survey on April 28th (apparently after the deal was signed), Not a word about mandatory and I have never seen the results, The WRAR board did a survey and it was overwhelmingly “no”, So our board voted “no”, I am under the impression that NAR never disclosed any results or how the voted but that may have changed since the last time that was discussed,
There’s no question your description of the process is accurate and the apathy of the membership has been well known for decades. Equally well known is the memberships focus on costs and it’s aversion to dues increases. All the more reason that anything that would increase dues 700% should be moved forward slowly and clearly with ample time for the membership to understand it before a vote. One might say especially if that change may appear to be outside the mission of the organization in the first place.
Having been involved at the board level locally and provincially – through several data sharing negotiations – amalgamation talks – the implementation of the DDF, the competition fiasco …. I have never witnessed any initiative fast tracked like this was. Why ?
I agree that this is an example of what can happen when too few are involved maybe that’s the change that’s needed.
Definitely happened faster than a lot of other initiatives. That is a feature of the current system of governance I guess. With smaller groups able to make changes, they can do things pretty quick if enough people aligned on it.
If it was a one vote per member system it would be a lot harder to make things happen quickly!
Really though, I don’t see any reason why this had to happen as quickly as it did. Even my own Board stated to us that they voted against it because of lack of information to make an informed decision, plus their fiduciary duty to protect their members.
I do agree that more people should get involved with organized real estate. I did my time on my local Board for 9 years, plus a year as President. No, it is not an easy job at times. I was President the year that mere postings came into play. That was a tough one.
Having said that, I am totally opposed to this plan. They should have taken more time, as some have said, to be sure that membership understood what they were getting into. There are still so many that have no idea that this is mandatory and are going to be in for a huge surprise.
I will be 65 before this comes into affect, so will not need a lot of it. I also have a pre-existing illness, which means I will not be covered for a lot it either. It is unfair for people who cannot use it to have to pay for it, or lose their livelihood.
I don’t believe the governance model has changed at all. This was just something they wanted to fast track, so they varied from the normal process.
The question is why the rush ?
Lightening speed
– to meet a deadline ?
– or to avoid scrutiny in the light of day ?
Real estate professionals in Ontario have every right to be very upset over mandatory ORWP.
OREA representatives for years have stated OREA DOES NOT have the authority to mandate use of any of OREA forms. Thus,…if that is the case then…..
How and when did OREA get the authority to dictate & mandate items of a personal private matter that affects the financial situation of the membership as a whole?
Acting without any consideration for members individual circumstances which can affect existing coverage in place? This is not a real estate matter! This is an overstep of their role.
What questionnaire or voting by membership? There was nothing sent to EVERY member to vote on whether or not members wanted any plan for 0RWP , yet alone a mandatory plan. Why were there not details of the type of plan including coverages and exclusions included in any request for vote?
If they say there was, then why have thousands of us members never received it? Why was it not a news highlight flagged immediately on mls sign on for members to see before progressing in the system? On an item of such importance, why no 2nd email/or mailing to those who had not responded? Why were there never any details provided regarding the result of any such a vote?
As for voting for our individual real estate board representative to OREA, I feel it is always very important to vote for those who will represent our us on REAL ESTATE MATTERS to OREA.
However, under NO CIRCUMSTANCES DID I REALZE or HAVE ANY IDEA or INDICATION THAT THE REPS ON OREA HAD THIS TYPE OF POWER! Again, with this type of authority, they should have been mandated to get a qualified vote from their respective boards BEFORE voting on our behalf.
All this should have been handled in a democratic process, and in the end with all results published to the membership as a whole. Any boards who have life insurance plans which retired members are able to pay for and continue should also have given those persons the ability to vote. If those life plans would be affected by any new plans implemented.
This ORWP has been handled so badly that it invites the membership to suspect all types of scenarios happening behind the scenes. Rightly or wrongly, that is the case !
A non-optional plan can & will affect the existing coverage that many members or spouses already have. I know of real estate people who will have to resign OREA membership if this mandatory plan continues. They can not jeopardize their current plans in force that will end up affecting themselves and families coverage.
Taking it all into account, I can’t help but wonder if this is part of a master plan as a way “to thin the heard” ???…. we often hear comments in the industry there are too many real estate sales representatives.
The only way to move forward with everyone’s best interest is for OREA to MAKE the plan OPTIONAL even if it means a higher premium, OR SCRAP IT COMPLETLEY.
You raise a lot of good points and some have been addressed in different places by OREA. The only way to change the existing system of governance is from within. You’d need to elect people with a goal to overhaul how its all done. Doable but would not be an easy road!
Hear, Hear! Very well said.
Apathy is rampant in every profession and this is well known among associations and organizations. That’s ripe territory for bad policy to find its way through. That being the case, and knowing it would be controversial, it was incumbent upon OREA to ensure individual members had an opportunity to vote for or against this proposal. Since OREA has already an annual voting mechanism in place for members to vote for Directors – with lots of reminders to combat apathy – it begs the question: why was a vote of this importance given to Board representatives rather than to each member?
OREA has tried to bring in a system to give each member a vote at their AGM and the boards did not pass it. OREA can’t bring that in without the local boards approving.
This is the best written piece on the subject I’ve seen in quite awhile. 100% agree with you Andrew. There is an anti-ORWP group very vocal online, one which I refuse to join because of the comments I see. It sounds like a lot of people do not have a clue what they are talking about and I shake my head daily with what some are saying. Not to mention the extreme hateful comments and threatening tones. I’m on the fence on the ORWP. I could take it or leave it. It really doesn’t matter to me and I sure wouldn’t spend my time worrying about it as many are. There are far greater things to worry about IMO. The conspiracy theorists are truly over the top and need to stop pointing fingers.
Very well said. Getting volunteers to participate at the Board (any board) level is very low. Getting them to fill out surveys and to participate in events is a daunting task. So, try to understand the gravity of the situation and the seriousness of the issue around the ORWP when almost 11,000 OREA members have already signed a petition indicating their disapproval of the program. Let that sink in!
OREA’s conduct around the ORWP has proven that it does not understand its members, nor does it care to. There was no consultation with non-voting members on the desire of a “mandatory” health plan that is not related to the real estate industry. OREA makes platitudes without any proof on this matter. When members ask for proof OREA ignores all the requests. For years, members have asked OREA to work on one-province-wide MLS and OREA refuses to do so; something that is related to the industry and would be beneficial to our clients. Instead OREA gets distracted with unrelated projects that no one asked for.
When pressed for proof of members requesting mandatory health plan, OREA changes the rhetoric and places the decision-making power on the local boards. That is a very cleaver tactic. However, OREA should have never brought it up to the table for discussion in the first place. It was not a board that called the special meeting and the idea did not come from a local board but from OREA. Local boards were presented with anecdotal stories and wowed with the wonders of the plan, rather than any concrete facts. They did not even have enough time to get members properly engaged. For example, my home board gave members 15 days notice and my secondary board gave 20 days notice before it went to vote on our behalf. OREA did not help spread the word or increase engagement either, as there is no one single email before June 20th that mentions the word “mandatory” in its discussion of a benefits package. So how were members to know? How were board delegates to know what their members want or need?
The ORWP does not help members “succeed in building stronger communities” as stated in OREA’s mission. If anything, it removes $659.88 from our budget that could have gone to local charities and truly build stronger communities. Instead, that money will now go to subsidizing a health plan for failed business owners who do not plan for a rainy day and prefer someone else to pay for their lunch.
OREA makes blanket statements about its grandiose vision and is shaming members for speaking out. I can appreciate its altruistic vision of offering a benefits package to all members. What I don’t understand however, is why OREA insists on a mandatory program for all. Many members already have plans, or will have reduced benefits due to their age; wouldn’t it be reasonable to give them the opportunity to OPT-OUT of ORWP? Does OREA even know how many members have other plans or are over the age of 65? Did OREA get a quote for a benefits package of 70% of its membership vs 100%? What was the price difference? OREA has no answers to any questions and no solutions to any objections. Its actions are not reasonable, and it behaves like a spoiled brat.
ORWP is a farce. It should never be MADATORY, and at the very least, it should have an OPT-OUT option.
Liz Polak’s comment should be wrapped up in a bow along with OREA’s By-Laws, the disrespectful responses they put out and the petition that by Monday will exceed 12% of OREA’s membership and delivered to:
The Office of The Public Guardian and Trustee, every MPP and the Commissioner of Competition.
Time to move the needle.
Let’s see if that will sink in!
Fully agreed Liz. Thanks for taking the time to write your thoughts in such coherent and understandable manner.
A BIG DITTO TO WHAT LIZ POLAK SAID! OREA and voluntary board members: Stay out of our personal business! Or at THE VERY LEAST make this ridiculous insurance MANDATORY!
Do we know the benefits coverage and costs?
Is there something available to us
outlining the proposed program?
I may have missed it but if not it sure would help.
Am I to believe that with all this grumping and griping going on we have no idea what the plan is offering? No idea of the coverage it’s costs or benefits. Really … tell me it isn’t so.
Among other things you lost me at “they chose to vote for what they thought was for the betterment of the industry” Forcing 96,000 members to have and pay for individual Wellness insurance that they do not want or need does absolutely nothing for the industry…that statement is as much of an over reach as mandating this policy. Let’s not forget, suck it up or lose access to our most important tool of the trade…MLS.
Well written Andrew I think the attacks on OREA and their elected directors have to STOP. They are volunteers and they give a lot of the time to make our organizations do a good job for its members. I personally know most of them and I thank them for their service. In this case my only concern is not giving agents an option to opt out. I completely understand that it will cost lot less if everyone is part of it but I rather pay more than than force agents to be part of it even if they do not need or want it. If I was at OREA board I would agree to do more work and have more feed back from the agents and do what the majority want. It is not never too late to do the right thing. Why such a rush? I know their intentions are good but in this case they need to have more consultation with members. Every realtor is a member not just the boards. Good news is the agents are finally paying attention to organized real estate and how the boards and association operate.
Andrew, you articulated the overal situation in your story very well. REM has done a good job of navigating all the mine fields. When both sides are upset with you, it probably confirms you’re doing the proper reporting. This has been a divisive issue and one that will leave scars for some and provide assistance to others and their families. Those in favour believe its a step forward and those who disagree believe its a step back.
Even now in the comments above you see some focused on one sentence or a small part of the issue. Apathy is the real problem and with apathy comes poor communication. How does a board reach its members when it already utilizes email, eblasts, calls, social media posts, text (at some) and has members call in or reply to complain and rudely berate staff for trying to communicate with them and keep them up to date.
Since I began in organized real estate five years ago we have repeated the mantra at our local board for our members “to be the change”. Attend the meetings, follow the conversations, understand the changes that are currently before us and those that are coming. Positive change only comes from the grass roots at the local level.
As difficult as this has been, I’m glad members are finally discussing the bigger picture and how voting and governance works in our industry because it has impacted all of us directly. The true test will be when we see survey returns climbing with feedback, membership asking to be on committee’s and run as directors. If this doesn’t change then we will have more of the same.
Well said Nelson. You and I both started in this industry 34 years ago and we’ve seen lots of changes. Being proactive rather than reactive can lead to change and more positive results. With regards to local real estate boards/associations, some have always been better than others in communicating with their members. The directors of these boards carry your votes. I think with all of the resulting comments and reactions due to the ORWP initiative, agents who had no clue about ORE are getting up to speed. I hope that some will choose to become future leaders in the industry.
I cannot disagree with many of your comments Andrew.
However, at the end of the day this is over reach at its highest.
What would happen if CAA made one of its insurance plans mandatory to continue your membership in CAA? They would have next to ZERO members hence they would never consider such an ill fated plan. And CAA owns its insurance co!! The issue IS the mandatory nature and it is wrong. Period. Whether a result of apathy it is still wrong and either needs to go away now or the entire industry in Ontario is in for a long legal battle I am sure neither side wants. The country is on the edge of a recession, a housing crisis and no quick fix to inflation. Respectfully, ML
Most of the realtors I see against the mandatory insurance are senior and don’t want to start an active roll in boards or committees at this point in their career. I was told about the potential for the ORWP a week before it was voted in. I’m 70 but immediately complained but to no avail.
Andrew,
“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”.-John Lydgate
Best wishes for the continued success of REM.
I would willingly pay the increase if I can choose not to use the plan. I have no problem supporting those that need the insurance. As someone over 65 with provincial benefits as well as my husband’s government employee insurance, I do not wish to be forced to submit claims to 3 different plans. My Ontario plan (for those of us over 65) pays at source not out of pocket for my prescriptions. Due to this mandatory insurance will I lose this benefit and have to pay for all my prescriptions and then submit to the OREA plan? I have asked this question directly to OREA and members of the task force and have never received a reply! I have also been warned that I must declare to my other providers that I now have this mandatory insurance that will take priority over my other plans. FYI, I am a former OREA Director, multiple OREA Committee member, former Director of my local board and another Board in Ontario and continue to sit in both local and CREA Committees. I consider myself informed, however, I can truly state that this policy came out too quickly and with far too little information for any person to make an intelligent decision.
Excellent piece Andrew – I agree that we need to more aggressively manage our own destiny! Part of that is to demand better and effective program management / development at OREA. I think the package is flawed – we deserve better and clearly the only way that will happen is for us to change ‘the system’
Andrew well said.
However, belonging to 2 large groups in real estate on FB which have been very vocal, it has become apparent that TRREB did not reach out to everyone in their membership. I, with many of my fellow realtors did not receive a survey from TRREB or OREA. They needed to send out the survey more than once if there were lack of members filling in the survey.
Those that say they did receive the surveys, the questions were one sided. The survey was very misleading in their approach to advertising what we would get. Some of the questions that should have been asked but
weren’t:
Questions like do you want a MANDATORY Wellness Plan through Orea?
Will you lose an existing plan if a Mandatory Wellness Plan is instituted through OREA?
Would you like an Opt-In Wellness Plan through OREA?
Would you like A Wellness Plan Tied in with your dues to OREA.
Would you be prepared to pay an additional $600.00 on your DUES for a Mandatory Wellness Plan?
In fact CBS did not provide the value of the plan to OREA until April, long after any surveys were sent out. Those surveys were not sent out with anyone filling them in being informed.
TRREB has the largest vote, 49%, and based on the fact that they did not get a majority of members filling out the survey for this MANADATORY plan they should never have ASSumed that was what the majority wanted. They should never ASSumed that realtors not filling out the survey at all represented apathy. I repeat many never received that survey. Other boards who voted yes to ORWP also ASSumed that is what their members wanted without a majority returning the survey they sent out.
TRREB by-laws give each have a single vote. Not so in OREA. TRREB has 73000 members, which means they should have had 36,500 members voting yes. TRREB members, the largest board, need to get 7,300 people to get together to get a special meeting to relook at their yes vote . It is not OREA that we need to call for a special meeting as their by-laws on voting are member board based.
When OREA approached CBS, the insurance provider, they never asked for 2 different categories of quotes. One quote, which they only asked, for was based on 96,000 members having the Plan. The 2nd quote, never asked for, was Opt-In. Nowhere was there competition in the RFS of these two types of quotes.
There were many Member Boards that voted no, but it only took one more board along with TRREB to vote yes and it was a done deal. There was no reason for OREA to change the by-law prior to the vote on June 20, 2023 if they didn’t know that vote was going to be Yes.
We as members should have been provided with the complete outline of ORWP, that was posted after June 20, on OREA’s Website, prior to the the surveys. After the vote, and knowing how little, and yes restrictive the plan is, there is no excuse for OREA’s Board President sending out emails now to justify it. It has just infuriated many realtors more.
I agree that this plan will be beneficial to many without any insurance plan in place. It appears than there are more realtors that will be negatively impacted by this plan.
Do realtors realize within the Medical Services and Supplies category with a cap of $500.00 annually?:
Hearing aids average $2500.00;
Orthotic shoes $800.00;
oxygen containers $2000.00-$60000.;
Leg braces $500.00-800.00;
Incontinence supplies $200–300/month.
These are, to name a few whereby in one claim the $500.00 is spent and then there is the out of pocket coverage to make up the difference.
Seniors are greatly disadvantaged because OHIP covers most of our prescriptions and those medicines that are not covered 30% is out of pocket. Seniors are subsidizing this plan and many seniors already have far better coverage through large companies like Manulife, Des Jardin and even Greenshields (who is the Medical Services in ORWP).
There are realtors through divorce or separation, have court ordered benefits to the ex’s medical plan. There are many who will lose these benefits and will have to go back to court to get these benefits revised. OREA did not take this into account. Perhaps OREA or the member board should cover the legal costs.
In conclusion, it is not about having the Wellness Plan, it is the fact that is was not made OPT-IN.
By now it is apparent that a significant number of Ontario Realtors are against this mediocre plan being mandatory. Time for OREA to go back to the drawing board and come back with a better plan that is optional. The argument that they need 96,000 members to provide an affordable plan with good coverage is a sham. My spouse’s plan is far superior, 100% dental, 100% prescriptions, 80% vision etc and her workplace has 5,000 employees. There was no mention of this plan being mandatory before it was voted in.
I’m still curious as to what the coverages, benefits and costs are or anticipated to be. Even if it just an ectimsted guess from the insurer.
I can’t believe that with 100% membership participantion, mandatory or not, it’ll be a bad deal for the membership.
I’m excited about this plan..
It should be well worth the wait.
Hopefully I’m not disappointed.
No need to wonder what this offers . It’s all over the OREA website. It’s terrible plan and the people opposing this are not against the program but against the MANDATE. We are forced to pay almost $ 700 up front while the premiums are actually due monthly. Most people with their own plan now have to pay up front for services / products, then claim through ORWP first. Once their claim is processed (approved or not ) they then have to apply for coordination of benefits through the only plan they want. There is no dental and no vision. Caps on the various items that are covered (mostly at 70 %) are ridiculously low. To more than 20 % of realtors that pitiful prescription plan means nothing since they don’t pay for prescriptions anyway. I could go on but it’s not my job to educate the ill informed. Have a lovely day
Very well said Andrew. We need to grow up as an industry and take responsibility for ourselves. Pretty easy to point fingers when you disagree with something. If we want to call ourselves “professionals” it’s time to step up and be professionals. The posts in that anti-ORWP Facebook group are embarrassing at best. The threats against the President and the CEO should be dealt with by the authorities and the great thing is, they can just pull the names of everyone in the group and put them on their watch list. Guilty by association.
What’s funny is that some realtors think they can make their own MLS. Some think they can operate through house sigma. Some don’t know how to unlike a Facebook post. Can’t even make this stuff up. If you can’t “unlike” a Facebook post, I’m guessing you haven’t even understood what a benefits plan really offers. I cannot believe some of the screenshots from these posts. More and more Realtors are joining the group for entertainment and sharing these screenshots. So many talk about leaving the industry January 1st. In my opinion, I think it will be good for the industry if they do leave. But then again, I think in one of the polls, there was only 20 people that actually said they may leave. Before all 4,000 decide to comment, key words there were “in MY opinion”. You’re welcome to have your own. 🙂
Let’s see, you make a veiled threat toward Karl Liu and noe you think we can be found guilty by association.
Go ahead report us to the authorities.
I’m guessing you actually believe your desperation doesn’t come across in your whining.
Asif, it is unfortunate you would claim all are alike in any Facebook group, although not surprising in as much as you support a program that treats all registrants as having the same need for insurance.
It is not easy to be opposed to the OREA decision. Many of the calm, cool and collected minds opposing mandatory coverage have been attacked. I suppose if it comes to pass there is a determination the decision was poorly arrived at, poorly thought through, then all those who would support, let us say all those who did not demonstrate opposition to the insurance plan are guilty of the failed leadership analysis by association.
Perhaps it is too literal an interpretation of the guilt by association reference.
You may be correct there is insufficient understanding of what the benefits program offers. Of course, if that is true and if it is true registrants cannot manage to “unlike” a Facebook post previously ‘liked’, the indictment ought to go to OREA and to RECO for their collective failure to ensure competency among the professional members.
In your opinion it is a good thing for people to leave the profession. So be it, that is opinion.
Should it be presumed your support for a mandatory program is that in your opinion OREA should be doing so, that it should require many to fund a set of benefits they do not completely have available to them in order for others who compete with them for business to pay less for more? The essential truth is that insurance is risk management but usually managed where the participants have an equal access to benefits. Imposing unequal treatment, not being forthrightly interested in the real impact and perceived impact on members who you know have no direct say, hiding behind HRC rules, is just not right. Supporters and volunteers do not deserve threats, or many other forms of social media retribution, even if some labels are warranted, in my opinion.
For an organization that demands integrity, transparency, responsible judgement, and professional conduct it is very rich of OREA to say it was simply acting on its voting members wishes when the evidence is that its due diligence obligations were implemented at a level of competency of the kind your comment assigns to those guilty by association.
Asif, I can’t believe that you as a broker of record and a fellow realtor would make fun of an elderly realtor that might not understand technology (i.e. not knowing how to unlike a post).
That tells me everything I need to know about you.
Who had the majority vote when they voted to not move to a one vote, one member democratic style of voting? Oh that’s right, TRREB. Why on earth would TRREB allow THAT to go through? The way things stand, OREA and all its members are TRREB’S “*itches”. Anything TRREB wants for our industry in Ontario, TRREB will GET, since they control the vote.
I’m curious to know if you’re aware there were no fewer than 8 meetings where the ORWP was discussed and explicitly written that they “still have not mentioned that it will be mandatory”. Looks transparent to me.
I’d love to know what elected representatives brought this to OREA’S attention. Because I thought it was the members survey (that nobody can find and orea won’t produce) done in 2019. And apparently surveys sent out in the interim showing the membership expressed “time and time again” they wanted. (Again, requested these surveys and have yet to receive even a canned response). This is truly the first I’m hearing that it was elected volunteers who encouraged OREA to look into this program. It seems odd to be hearing this for the first time 7 weeks after the vote.
Andrew, you cannot say you’ve been impartial on this topic. You haven’t written a single article looking at this from a “participate or I’ll make it impossible for you to sell real estate in Ontario” position. Why isn’t anybody talking about THAT aspect of this program? We have been threatened to lose our ability to work. We keep our license, but the tools to work are taken away.
Imagine someone walking into your place of business and telling you that you will be unable to use the Internet to get your magazine out there if you didn’t buy what they’re selling. You already have what they’re selling, you don’t need what they’re selling and the thing they’re selling is inferior to the thing you already have. Don’t tell me… “It’s less than $2 a day so shut up and pay the money.” Until the next time it rolls around and now it’s $5/day, then $10. OREA doesn’t need anybody’s permission to raise that $2 to $10.
Perhaps a true conversation discussing our opposition to the mandate part, not the benefit package part. Let’s talk about setting dangerous precedents, binding self employed people in Ontario to something they neither need, nor want. Talk about the threat to our livelihood. Talk about lack of transparency.
Just stop talking like we are ungrateful, uninvolved, uneducated, rich, lazy professionals.
Tina so well said. It’s outrageous that TRREB had 8 meetings and mandatory wasn’t mentioned. So few members received any survey from TRREB and OREA. I didn’t receive any.
Andrew,
Understand your position in this especially as a publisher of real estate news. But, if you’re going to allow the likes of Brock New house to make comments, who doesn’t even come up as a registrant for our industry, you should not be moderating those of us who are agents and are being directly affected by this. I know you are neither for or against but the fact that agents comments are being censored out while non-agents are allowed to make the comments they’re making doesn’t look good and truly gives the impression that REM is on the association’s side of this.
We’re not censoring anyone. We have a system that automatically allows some comments without moderation. All the different components are around stopping spam, not comments from people whether they are hiding name or not. With rare exceptions (like someone who compared ORWP to the holocaust) we publish the vast majority of comments. Most just took longer to approve yesterday since our team was on vacation for the long weekend.
Perhaps a panel discussion in person or by zoom would be enlightening and in the spirit
of the democratic ethos?