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.

Following a decisive vote in favour of the Ontario Realtor Wellness Program (ORWP) on Tuesday, a mandatory insurance and benefits program for realtors in the province is set to be implemented on Jan. 1, 2024.

With nearly 80 per cent of votes from the province’s 34 member boards supporting the program, it will become a mandatory requirement for members. 

Increased annual dues to fund the ORWP

To fund the ORWP, annual dues will increase for Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA) members. The cost per individual is expected to be around $660 annually on top of regular fees. Based on the current membership of approximately 96,000, the ORWP would result in an additional $63.3 million in dues being collected. 

The increased dues will go towards covering the costs of insurance premiums and administering the program, OREA says.

Tania Artenosi, president of OREA, expressed her enthusiasm for the program, highlighting its affordability and the peace of mind it can provide. “Offering a benefits program that can assist members during trying times has been a long-standing aspiration at OREA, and we are thrilled to have the support of our member boards to do something about it,” she said in a press release. 

Artenosi previously said in a video addressing members that providing a “high-quality plan” at a low cost is only possible due to the collective purchasing power of members.

Varied opinions spark heated discussion

This controversial program has generated significant discussion among realtors, reflecting diverse opinions and concerns within the real estate community. Real Estate Magazine’s original article received nearly 100 comments in five days, marking it as one of the most commented-on articles in recent history.

Penny Dutkowski criticized the mandatory program, questioning the negotiation process and the potential lack of value for individual members. Dutkowski argues that a one-size-fits-all approach might not suit everyone’s needs and suggests exploring more flexible options.

Gene Kay expressed support for an optional program with more competitive rates and raised questions about the motivations behind the current proposal. Kay writes, “An easy solution would have been to provide a few options that agents or brokers can opt in to both for themselves, their families, or their administrative staff members. This brings value if it’s a choice.”

John W. Meehan highlighted potential issues related to age discrimination and the lack of transparency in the tendering process, “The time for an optional member health benefit/insurance program is, and remains long overdue,” Meehan says. “Having a mandatory program that penalizes individuals who receive diminishing benefits due to age and still have to pay the full fee appears very much like age discrimination.”

Benefits provided by ORWP

The program will include:

• Life insurance
• Critical illness insurance
• Out-of-country emergency medical travel insurance
• Accidental death and dismemberment insurance

There’s also a member and family assistance program that provides virtual mental health support, along with healthcare coverage, including prescription drugs capped at $750, paramedical services (chiropractor, massage, and several others) capped at $750, and medical supplies capped at $500.

No medical test or questionnaire will be required to determine eligibility to participate, though the concern is that for those 65 and over, some benefits will be reduced.

Stacey Evoy, co-chair of the Realtor Wellness Task Force, highlighted that for a cost of under two dollars per day, realtors in the province will gain the assurance of having a safety net. 

“And with access to up to $100,000 in life insurance and up to $25,000 of critical illness insurance coverage, plus health benefits including 70 per cent reimbursement of prescription drugs — this plan accounts for a lot of life’s medical necessities and unexpected hardships.”

The vote, involving approximately 1,400 realtors, is scheduled for Thursday.

The surveys for the Amalgamation Committee found:

• 73 per cent agreed that a strong regional or provincial board is essential to the provision and oversight of member services for New Brunswick realtors;
• 79 per cent said it will benefit organized real estate in the province;  
• 76 per cent of the respondents believe a potential merger will be good for organized real estate in their local area;
• 65 per cent believe it will benefit their business directly; and 
• 70 per cent were excited about the new opportunities resulting from a potential merger.

The five local boards that would merge to become one provincial board include the Real Estate Board of the Fredericton Area, Inc., Saint John Real Estate Board, Greater Moncton Realtors du Grand Moncton, Northern New Brunswick Real Estate Board and Valley Real Estate Board.

The benefits of amalgamation

Luke Moffett, executive officer for the Greater Moncton Realtors du Grand Moncton and executive officer of the Saint John Real Estate Board, said members have provided direction that they would like to have a vote on amalgamation. 

“It’s been a trend in Canada for the last 10 or 15 years that boards have been merging,” said Moffett. “We’re one of the last provinces to kind of have the conversation.”

The benefits of amalgamation, according to Moffett, include creating a more unified MLS experience for both members and the public. Currently, each board has its own MLS rules, bylaws, and forms, leading to inconsistencies. By streamlining these processes, the province can establish consistency and provide enhanced services and value to its members.

“Each board has things that they do really, really well, and (we’re) trying to take the benefits from each board and create a strong board, a stronger voice for realtors and a stronger organizational structure.”

A committee consisting of directors from each board was formed to guide the amalgamation process. The committee aims to assess the benefits and consequences of merging. The official website lists the following benefits:

1. Standardization of bylaws, governance, policies, and processes for members
2. One MLS, common MLS rules and regulations, and standardized processes
3. Improved strength of internal administration
4. Ability to utilize potential economies of scale
5. Bringing boards together in a single region for the good of the industry and a stronger realtor voice
6. Elimination of duplications of processes, software, and administration 
7. Better communications capabilities, methods, and platforms
8. Increase in value of the larger Association to the REALTOR®
9. Increase in the quality of programs, products, and services
10. Ability to move quickly on new opportunities and concepts
11.  Increased market data
12. Improved experience for the public

Member concerns

While the amalgamation process has garnered substantial support, Moffett acknowledged that resistance exists due to anticipated changes. He emphasized that the best aspects of each board would be incorporated into the amalgamated entity, resulting in a strong organization that addresses concerns and serves the needs of all realtors.

“The process started with the president of each board exploring what their members felt first, or what the members wanted them to do. The board of directors didn’t take any position when this process was launched. They went out to the members. They did surveys. And they got a 34 per cent participation rate in the province.”

Michael Power, chair of the Amalgamation Governance Committee, shared that legal counsel was engaged to review the bylaws of each board. A simple majority will determine the decision for each board. 

Power explained, “There are some pockets of resistance, but we got an independent survey company to put together the questions to ask about what people felt about it, what they thought we had to get right, what concerns they had, if any. There was a whole opportunity for write-ins.”

The committee acknowledges the remaining issues, such as concerns over lockboxes and fees from specific boards, and is actively working to address them. Open communication channels are being established to provide comprehensive information and clarity to realtors, ensuring that their decisions incorporate their specific concerns.

The voting process

The voting process will be conducted by an external firm, with each board holding a meeting on Jun. 22. Members will vote on amalgamation and the acceptance of consolidated bylaws. The voting will remain open for the entire day, and the results are expected to be announced on the same day.