There is a popular saying which teases that there are always three sides to any story: your side, my side and the correct side. Seemingly the present dilemma at the KHMH has become one of those situations. It is also obvious that there is no end in sight to the different angles to the issues being aired by the two conflicting factions, namely the Belize Medical and Dental Union (BMDU) and the Board of Directors at the health care institution.
We saw the dispute at the hospital escalate from being a labour grievance, to a war of accusations, then to a conflict and now it has become a national emergency which the Cabinet has had to table as an urgent matter in this week’s meeting. The government has been involved with the disagreement in all stages through the process via the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Labour (MoL). At first, MoL was facilitating the conciliation process, but now it is being called on as an arbitrator through a tri-partite body. If that fails then we might have to seek the services of Mr. Oscar Arias to come to Belize to lend us his conflict resolution skills!
Let us, from the angle of the TV screen, try to put all the charges and counters into perspective as to what is really happening. The BMDU has submitted an MOU of 13 or so articles which they claim to be non-negotiable (which automatically makes them demands). The Board on the other hand states that it is willing to negotiate but the demand for the suspension of three Board members during the investigation of corruption is not an option. Heels having been dug in, it seems that no one wants to budge from their positions. They call it a stalemate in the classy game of chess.
Now the government can promptly suspend the entire Board and get on with the business of resolving the conflict. But that would be the easy path to take; one that will only solve this particular quarrel, and for a short period at best. The people in government with the final say are probably thinking that if they submit to the Union’s present demands to fire individuals, would not this same scenario repeat itself in a few months if the Union once more finds the new Board not yielding to their every grievance?
One common concern out here is that we hope that the core of the dispute is not one of a clash of characters or a power struggle in the hospital. So far the Union has indicated that it is mainly a corruption issue, and if so, then they have a moral obligation to pursue. But as I said last week, the Prime Minister has made an open commitment to see the end to the charge of corruption. So if that issue is to be addressed adequately, what is there left to arbitrate on? Can a tribunal force one side to like the other group? I don’t think so. Check out the other requests on the list: they all can be solved without much effort on both sides, if there is a willingness to do so.
What is troubling here is that we viewers can discern no middle ground in the horizon. When such extremities appear in any dispute the end is usually messy. Extreme solutions involve a drawn out process which can result in sober consequences, to both sides. No one wants to see that happen.
In the final analysis though, while the doctors are having a field day in bringing across their point in a Teamsters-like manner, we as citizens try to watch the scenario dispassionately. It is really the patients who are being held to ransom and who are the real losers in all this. Poor people are spending much needed money in having to go to the more costly health providers. They are beginning to get annoyed when they see that a group of highly educated people in our society cannot settle their differences in a timely and responsible manner. The opinion is that the issue is dragging for too long and someone should grab the proverbial bull by its horn.
