Why Voting No Matters

We need to remind members that voting "NO" to the Tentative Agreement is just letting the employer know this deal doesn't cut it and sends a strong message to the bargaining committee: you all failed to do your elected duties, which was to represent members and not take direction and lies from Lynn Bueckert and HEU leadership. We are a long ways away from a strike, which I believe HEU leadership will make sure never takes place—or if it does, they'll make sure it never actually happens. Concerns About Leadership and Conflicts of Interest As a matter of fact, the bargaining team needs to understand they cannot trust Barb Nederpel, who is a member of the BC NDP Provincial Executive and has spent millions of member funds to elect and keep the NDP in power. Both Barb and Lynn are the beneficiaries of 4-year deals where they are making over $250,000 annually, and both serve as directors of Community Savings Credit Union where they are directing HEU funds to. These conflicts of interest are real and they matter. Benefits Governance: A Dangerous Structural Change The hidden danger in this deal is where they haven't taken away any benefits but have given themselves the ability to alter them without opening the CBA or having any member vote on it. They have added zero new dollars to the benefits, so when they restrict them it will be for their own benefit because you don't have a say. And if you believe HEU leadership or those overseeing the benefits trust have your interest at heart, think again.THE LOSS: The most insidious change in this agreement is one that many members might overlook: specific benefits language has been removed from the collective agreement itself.WHAT THIS MEANS:Before (2022-2025):

Specific benefit levels were written into the collective agreement
Changes to benefits required reopening the collective agreement and bargaining
Members had to ratify any changes to benefit levels

Now (2025-2029):

Benefits are controlled by a "trust" structure with leadership having control
Changes can be made without opening the contract
No member vote required to reduce or alter your benefits
You're locked in for 4 years with no protection

This is a fundamental power grab that strips members of their democratic rights over their own benefits. This doesn't cut it.Contract Length Is Critical with No Cola (Cost-of-Living-Adjustment)At a minimum, even if members don't gain much monetarily, the contract should not be more than a 3-year deal. Locking us into 4 years is unacceptable.Long-Term ConsequencesI believe HEU leadership is knowingly committing what will actually be called historical wrongs if this Tentative deal is approved. On top of members being locked into a four-year deal, members will be in a weak position at the next bargaining session because it will be only a few months after the next provincial election, regardless of which party forms government. This timing puts us at a massive disadvantage.The Bottom LineA No vote to the deal is not a vote to strike, but it's in the best interest of all 67,500 members and a slap in the face to HEU leadership and the bargaining committee. They need to go back and do better—this deal doesn't cut it.

Download PDF

WHY HEU MEMBERS SHOULD VOTE NO

to ratifying the Tentative Agreement

HEU leadership is asking 67,500 members to vote on a four-year contract without providing the full agreement up front. Their own news release says the complete details will not be available until “the end of the month,” leaving members less than two weeks at most to review wage tables, protections, premiums, classification changes, and long-term commitments. Expecting members to ratify a contract of this magnitude with minimal time, minimal information, and zero transparency is unacceptable. This alone is a clear and sufficient reason to vote NO.But the problems run much deeper. The loss of the Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA), the political timing of this deal, and the behaviour of HEU leadership—especially President Barb Nederpel and Secretary-Business Manager Lynn Bueckert—show a bargaining process that failed members at every level.

1. COLA Was a Major Protection — and the Bargaining Committee Gave It Away -Not one word about COLA being stripped out

Members are being told:

“COLA was not offered by the government this round… yes, it was fought for.”This is misleading.The government didn’t need to “offer” COLA — because COLA was already in the collective agreement. When something that already exists in the contract disappears, that is not a lack of offer — it is a concession. It was surrendered.

What COLA Actually Is

COLA (Cost-of-Living Adjustment) automatically increases wages when inflation rises above a set threshold.In the 2022–2025 contract, COLA delivered:

2023–24: 3.24% + 1.25% COLA = 4.49%
2024–25: 3% + 1% COLA = 4%

Over two years, COLA added 2.25% more wage increases members would not have received otherwise.That meant roughly:

$1,000+ for someone earning $25/hr
$1,350+ for someone earning $30/hr
$1,800+ for someone earning $40/hr

COLA mattered. It protected members when inflation spiked.

The New Deal Has ZERO COLA for Four Years

Instead, the deal provides 3% per year, with no inflation protection whatsoever.If inflation rises above 3%—and it will—every member will fall behind in real wages for four straight years.Giving up COLA in this economic climate is unacceptable. And celebrating this deal without even mentioning that COLA is gone is a red flag the size of BC Place.

2. Members Are Being Asked to Vote Without Transparency

The vague news release filled with buzzwords like “key enhancements,” “new supports,” “expanded OHS measures,” and “strengthened diversity initiatives” is another clear sign this deal smells bad.If leadership truly believed this was a strong agreement, they would release the full details immediately—not hide behind slogans.The voting period has been carefully narrowed so members have barely enough time to read anything, increasing the chance of a 51% rubber-stamp result instead of informed consent.

3. HEU Leadership Put BCNDP Political Interests Ahead of Members

HEU President Barb Nederpel sits on the BC NDP Provincial Executive—the same political party that governs your employer, sets your wages, and benefits tremendously from labour peace before an election.During the critical final weekend of bargaining, Barb was not at the table.
She was at the NDP convention.This four-year agreement conveniently:

pushes the next bargaining round past the next provincial election,
prevents labour disruptions during the NDP campaign, and
provides the government guaranteed stability until 2029.

This protects the NDP’s political calendar, not HEU members.Meanwhile, HEU members pay Barb over $250,000 a year plus a fully paid condo. And many believe she used her political role to maintain favour with the NDP instead of fighting for members’ COLA, wages, or bargaining leverage.Members must ask:

Who does Barb Nederpel serve — HEU members or the BC NDP?

4. The Four-Year Deal Is a Trap — and a Gift to the NDP

No responsible union agrees to a four-year contract without COLA during economic uncertainty.Shorter deals (2–3 years) give members leverage:

bargaining before an election,
pressure on the government,
the ability to respond to inflation and economic changes.

A four-year deal eliminates that leverage entirely.This agreement is perfectly timed to help the NDP avoid wage pressure during an election cycle.
Government wins. Members lose.

5. The Bargaining Committee Failed — Members Must Send Them Back

There were no:

site meetings before the TA
transparency about member demands
input sessions
wage modeling
clear comparisons to other sectors
explanations of what was exchanged or surrendered

Instead, the bargaining committee:

followed BCGEU instead of leading,
accepted political timelines,
failed to defend COLA,
agreed to a deal before consulting members,
and ultimately followed HEU leadership like sheep instead of using their own voices.

When challenged, they responded:

“Members can always vote no.”This is not leadership.
This is exhaustion, political pressure, and a failure of duty.Members must send them back to the table—or never elect any of them again.

6. The $60.5 Million “Restoration Fund” Is Insultingly Small

$60.5M ÷ 67,500 members = $896.30 per member over four years
= $224.08 per year
= $18.67 per monthLeadership is calling this “historic restoration.”
The 2004 rollback took 15% and billions in lost income from healthcare workers.Now they offer $18 a month as restitution?This isn’t restoration.
This is an insult dressed up as justice.

THE BOTTOM LINE: VOTE NO

A NO vote does not trigger a strike.A NO vote forces leadership to:

return to the table
consult members
protect COLA
negotiate wages that match inflation
break free from political influence
provide full transparency before any future vote

This tentative deal:

gives away COLA,
erodes wages,
protects the NDP more than members,
hides key details,
and was reached without proper consultation.

HEU members deserve better.
Vote NO and demand real bargaining.

Shining a Light on HEU’s Double Standards

Barb Nederpel and Lynn Bueckert gave themselves a 28% raise before HEU bargaining started, meaning they knew something. Seems like these two are excellent at bargaining—just not for the members, only for themselves.

HEU leadership exempted themselves and all 250 staff members from the Public Health Orders. So those who criticize the members for not getting vaccinated need to ask the HEU leadership: why the hypocrisy? This is not hearsay but factual.

The Public Health Orders were used by the public sector unions, especially HEU, to enrich themselves and had nothing to do with the core issue, which was safety. The flush of cash from the PHOs has allowed Barb Nederpel to take corruption to the next level and buy loyalty by handing out perks to certain members of the PE and locals, thus consolidating power.

HEU Leadership gave this to the over 250 HEU staff last year:

April 1, 2024: $1.00/hour + 6.75% (retroactive)
April 1, 2025: 4.25%
April 1, 2026: 3.00%

(Notice it’s a 3-year deal and the 1st year is stacked with the highest figure so the compounding is even greater in the remaining years. The 3rd year is actually way more than just 3% because the 3% is based on the over 10% already received.)Now Barb and Lynn want the members locked in for 4 years at 3% a year and found no reason to fight for even an extra one percent in the first year (no creative bone in their bodies to help the membership).

SOME OF THE HEU STAFF BENEFITS (FOR OVER 250 HEU STAFF AND LEADERSHIP)
• Clothing Allowance: $1,110 (as of Jan 2021, increasing with CPI)
• Dental: 100% for basic services; 70% extended (including implants)
• Extended Health: $600 vision; $3,000 hearing aids; unlimited medical coverage
• Group Life Insurance: $125,000 fully paid
• Early Retirement Fund: 1% of payroll to retire early without vacation/CTO
• Enhanced Gender Affirmation: $10,000
• Fertility Drugs: $3,000 lifetime
• Education & Career Development: full support and leave
• Plus per diems, overtime, travel, and more

Staff reps work 50% from home but get a full vehicle allowance which includes all gas and insurance (for personal and business use), $1,000 winter tires every 3 years, $55 a month for maintenance (no receipt required), and yes, the vehicle allowance is valid even when the staff reps are away on vacation, sick, or on leave.

Every HEU staff member gets $1,100 a year in clothing allowance which increases based on the consumer price index, but there is no need to provide the members with Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA).

I am showing the hypocrisy of this union leadership and staff reps, where many came from our ranks to earn the executive lifestyles of the few, yet provide very little or in many cases bad-faith representation. You would think they would be grateful where every member counts, but perhaps we need to remind them what block that Jenny came from.

Lies, Lies, and More Lies — HEU BarGAINING NEWS

Deception from Barb Nederpel and Lynn Bueckert

From the HEU Q & A:
What is happening with the 15 per cent wage rollback from 2004?
“We are working to continue the work of restoring wages rolled back in 2004 by the BC Liberals – so your pay keeps up with B.C. government workers doing similar jobs.
Under the Framework there is a roadmap for additional wage adjustments starting in the next agreement and those restored wages would be in addition to general wage increases.”
(Source: https://thisishealthcare.ca/fba-2025-qa/)

As I said before, it feels like Barb and Lynn are setting up HEU members to take a similar or a lower offer than what BCGEU members received by promising “additional wage adjustments starting in the next agreement.”

This is a straight lie and bad-faith representation because if it’s not in this agreement, it cannot be enforced in the next agreement. The next contract is a completely separate bargaining process from this contract. HEU members need to vote on the language that is actually in this contract, not on what may be offered in the next one. If you don’t get it in this contract, you cannot expect it in the next one because that is what negotiating is — and I can assure you the government will, as always, cry financial hardship when that time comes.

In my view, the scam being pushed by Barb Nederpel and Lynn Bueckert is to ram through a contract even though neither of them will be in HEU when the next contract is negotiated. Both of them will be retired with another four years of income of over $250,000, plus whatever money or benefits they receive from being directors of Community Savings Credit Union. I believe they are receiving shares and options for directing HEU and local funds to that credit union. It looks like they get around the conflict of interest by not receiving any profit right now, but those share options can be cashed in when they leave HEU.

HEU members deserve honesty, transparency, and a contract based on what is guaranteed today — not empty promises about tomorrow. Let’s vote on the real language in front of us, not on political sales pitches about the next agreement.

Corruption in HEU — Backed by the NDP

In a nutshell, this is what every member needs to see

WAGES AT THE TOP

Director: $73.74/hour
Co-Coordinator: $81.11/hour (10% above Directors)
President & Financial Secretary: $85.16/hour (5% above Coordinators)
- That’s what Barb Nederpel and Betty Valenzuela are making.
Housing: $1,850/month tax-free ($22,000/year)

PERKS ON TOP OF BASE WAGES (FOR OVER 250 HEU STAFF AND LEADERSHIP)

Clothing Allowance: $1,110 (as of Jan 2021, increasing with CPI)
Dental: 100% for basic services; 70% extended (including implants)
Extended Health: $600 vision; $3,000 hearing aids; unlimited medical coverage
Group Life Insurance: $125,000 fully paid
Early Retirement Fund: 1% of payroll to retire early without vacation/CTO
Enhanced Gender Affirmation: $10,000
Fertility Drugs: $3,000 lifetime
Education & Career Development: full support and leave
Plus per diems, overtime, travel, and more

FUTURE RAISES ALREADY LOCKED IN (250 HEU STAFF)

April 1, 2024: $1.00/hour + 6.75% (retroactive)
April 1, 2025: 4.25%
April 1, 2026: 3.00%

MEANWHILE…

Staff reps: $70.30/hour, work 50% from home, and receive a full vehicle allowance for both business and personal use.
Coordinators like Chris Dorais: $81.11/hour with only a two-year trades program.
His spouse Ruby: $70.30/hour as a staff rep after just a six-month Pharmacy Tech course.
- Together, their household earns $151.40/hour.

THE LOWEST PAID JOB OF 250 EMPLOYEES (HEU STAFF, NOT DUES-PAYING MEMBERS)

Mailroom Assistant at Head Office: $36.96/hour (~$70,000 annually).

That’s proof the system is rigged.

THE REAL PROBLEM

Let’s be clear: I am not against staff or leadership earning good wages — but only if they provide proper representation. In my case, and in the case of many others, that has not — and still does not — happen.HEU leadership represents the employer at the bargaining table against its own staff.
That is not only unethical, it’s a blatant conflict of interest.Their wages and benefits are tied to what staff receive.

In other words, they are bargaining against themselves.

You couldn’t make this stuff up.

HEU - Lending Money to Community Savings Credit Union

We Need Answers About Executive Conflict of Interest

The Provincial Executive of the Hospital Employees’ Union approved a loan to Community Savings Credit Union, where:

HEU President Barb Nederpel and
Secretary-Business Manager Lynn Bueckert

both serve as paid directors, receiving compensation for attending meetings plus other possible financial benefits.

Why This Looks Like a Conflict of Interest

How is this not a conflict of interest, considering:

Barb and Lynn make $250,000+ in salary and compensation at HEU,
while approving a loan to a credit union that pays them personally?

Here’s What We Know

HEU leadership voted to approve a loan from HEU to Community Savings Credit Union?
Barb and Lynn are paid as Community Savings directors ($395–$505 per meeting, plus possible shares and other considerations).
They’re using union money to fund an organization that pays them directly.
HEU leadership also uses and encourages locals to use Community Savings Credit Union.

Questions Every Member Should Be Asking

Did they disclose their financial interests before voting?
Did they recuse themselves from this decision?
How much of our union money is involved?
What other financial relationships exist that we don’t know about?

Why This Matters for Members

Our union dues may be funding their personal financial gain.
Executives are supposed to act solely in members’ interests, not their own.
We deserve transparency about how our money is being used.
Union resources should go toward member representation, not executive side businesses.

What We Need

Full disclosure of the loan amount and terms.
An independent investigation of this conflict.
Clear policies to prevent future conflicts of interest.
Accountability from executives who are supposed to work for us.

Final Point

When our executives profit from both sides of a transaction using union money, that’s not representation — that’s self-dealing.We pay union dues expecting our leaders to fight for us, not to use our resources for their personal benefit.I would file a complaint with the ethics commissioner. I personally filed a complaint with the BC Financial Services Authority.

Message to All HEU Members

The Hospital Employees’ Union (HEU) does not exist today to represent its members. It exists to protect itself, its leadership, and its political ties. For (most) of those at the top, it’s not about accountability — it’s about careers, perks, and “elite” incomes without the skills, education, or professional ethics to back them up.

The few who speak out are punished or ignored. The many who stay silent are compliant, waiting to reap the benefits of someone else’s fight. That silence is why the leadership keeps getting away with it. There’s no roar left, only whispers — and that’s exactly how they like it.

Who Does HEU Serve?

The truth is hard but clear: HEU leadership has aligned itself with the NDP government and the BC Labour Board to shield itself from its own members.

You cannot serve two masters. So whose interests does HEU leadership really serve — the members, or themselves and the government?

HEU Leadership is the NDP Government:

Barb Nederpel – failed NDP candidate in 2017 and sat on the BC NDP Provincial Executive in 2022 (and may still be there).
Bal Sandhu – member of the HEU Provincial Executive, married to NDP MLA Harwinder Sandhu.
Jennifer Whiteside – current Labour Minister, formerly HEU Secretary-Business Manager before being elected.
Jessie Sunner – Minister of Post-Secondary Education, formerly a lawyer in HEU’s legal department.
HEU gives 100% of its Political Action Fund — roughly $375,000 every two years — exclusively to the NDP.

How is that not a profound conflict of interest?

Are there other pro-labour candidates outside the NDP who could represent working people? And what about the Green Party — are they anti-labour?

The revolving door is undeniable. HEU leadership and the NDP are not separate — they are one and the same.

The Labour Board: A Rigged System

HEU’s protection doesn’t stop with politics. The BC Labour Relations Board (BCLRB) — the only place members can file complaints — has become a shield for unions, not a safeguard for workers.

Fewer than 3% of Section 12 complaints filed by union members succeed. This staggering failure rate exposes a system structurally biased in favour of the very unions it is meant to regulate.
Nearly every BCLRB vice-chair and adjudicator has a direct union background. Many will seek future employment from those same unions. This is a textbook conflict of interest.

The “Family Firm” in Action:

Jonathan Hanvelt, Vice-Chair – 14 years at a union-side labour law firm; frequent work for the Canadian Labour Congress, Lancaster House, and the VDLC.
René-John Nicolas, Vice-Chair – formerly lawyer for the BCGEU.
Andres Barker, Vice-Chair – articled at the BCGEU Legal Department.
Gurleen Sahota, Vice-Chair – represented the Health Sciences Association of BC.
Stephanie Ann Drake, Vice-Chair – came from Victory Square Law Office LLP, a firm notorious for union-side advocacy.
Robyn Trask, Vice-Chair – served as General Counsel to the BCTF.

With this level of entrenchment, impartiality is a farce. It’s no wonder members terminated for refusing to comply with PHO mandates received no protection — the fix was already in.

This is why unions whisper among themselves and call the Labour Board “the family firm.” They don’t fear it. In many ways, they own it.

The Bottom Line

HEU leadership is not your voice. It is not your shield. It has become a political arm of the NDP, reinforced by a compromised Labour Board that exists to protect unions from their own members.

The question every HEU member must now ask is simple: Whose interests are being protected — yours, or theirs?

A Path Forward

For HEU to reclaim its purpose as a true member-driven organization, we need:

Genuine transparency in all financial and political decisions
Democratic reform that gives members meaningful input on major decisions
Independent oversight mechanisms that aren’t compromised by political connections
Clear separation between union leadership and partisan politics

The strength of any union lies in its ability to represent its members without fear or favor. When that mission becomes secondary to political alliances or institutional self-preservation, the very purpose of collective representation is undermined.

As members who fund this organization through our dues, we deserve leadership that puts our interests first — always and without exception.

Tearing Up a CBA in 2004 Was Wrong: Fix It, Don’t Bargain It

The framework agreement proposes some kind of deal for HEU members to recover, over several years, a portion of the 15% clawback imposed by the BC Liberals in 2004.

But here’s the real question: why is the 15% clawback from 2004 even part of current or future bargaining? That cut happened outside of bargaining. If it was imposed outside of bargaining, why can’t a labour-friendly government—one our union spends over $200,000 every year to support—simply restore it outside of bargaining? Governments don’t need to negotiate historical wrongs. They can just fix them.

It’s been 21 years since the 15% rollback. The majority of members impacted have either left, retired, or will be retired by the time they see any of that 15%. So how exactly is HEU leadership planning to make the members who were actually affected whole?

And let’s not forget: the NDP government, supported by this same HEU leadership, has had a majority since 2017. Why haven’t they fixed the 15% rollback? Why wasn’t it done on Day 1?

Meanwhile, the current government is $160 billion in debt today. Yet somehow we’re expected to believe that in a few years there will magically be money to share with us. The current NDP government has no vision or plan on how to get out of this financial mess in the first place. I’m no economic expert, but I don’t recall any government that projected itself out of debt and into surplus by simply promising it.

And then there’s the leadership. Barb Nederpel, Lynn Bueckert, and the rest of the HEU leadership are nothing but snake oil salesmen.

They believe they can convince 51% of members to accept this deal so they can continue draining the HEU treasury for their own benefit.

Exempted themselves from Public HeaLth Orders

HEU’s Leadership and 244 Staff were Exempt from Dr. Henry’s PUbliC Health orders

HEU President Barb Nederpel told an unvaccinated member: “The HEU policy is to support the immunization of all healthcare workers.” Yet she and the Provincial Executive—who are themselves healthcare workers—excluded themselves and all 244 staff members from the Public Health Orders. Meanwhile, 60,000 members were forced to either get vaccinated or face termination.HEU never took a single grievance to full arbitration.

HEU never advocated for lifting the PHOs, even when every other province had already done so. BC remained under PHOs 28 months longer than the rest of Canada, with PEI being the second last to lift theirs in March 2022.During this period, HEU prioritized advocacy for foreign healthcare workers while long-term members, who built the union, were being terminated. Member funds were used for a media campaign supporting foreign workers, but not a single campaign was launched to fight the PHOs.

HEU spent $470,401 on advertising to get the NDP elected—the same government responsible for the termination of HEU members.

HEU also conspired with other public sector unions and their NDP allies to prolong the PHOs, saving tens of millions for themselves while circulating money within their political circle. If the BC Liberals used duffel bags in casinos, the NDP used the blood of workers to achieve the same ends.I am unsure about BCNU and HSA, but this information has been confirmed by both former and current members of the HEU Provincial Executive.

This is the very definition of hypocrisy.

The Not-So-HEU Ethical Commissioner’s Convenient Exit

Ritu Mahil is now appointed Vice-Chair at LRB

It seems Ritu Mahil, HEU Ethics Commissioner, left her position after only 10 months of her 2-year contract. Ritu dragged on the investigation into Barb Nederpel – President, Bill McMullan – 1st Vice-President, Talitha Dekker – 2nd Vice-President, Bonnie Hammermeister – RVP Fraser Region, and other members of the Provincial Executive.
During the October 2024 HEU Convention, these individuals used a group chat to manipulate the election in real time and secure their own positions. The attached group texts—believed to have been created by Barb Nederpel herself—prove this.
Ritu Mahil, who was hired by the same individuals she was later asked to investigate, previously worked at an NDP-dominated law firm where Rachel Notley, former Premier of Alberta, also works.

That Ritu cleared all of them of wrongdoing is beyond imagination. I had already named her the Not-So-Ethical HEU Commissioner.

At the end of the day, there weren’t enough showers she could take to wipe away the yuck—or cleanse the soul—for doing the dirty work of HEU leadership.
The evidence is clear in the attached texts:

Real-time vote manipulation: “President Barb Nederpel: Everyone must vote Jovito!” and “President Barb Nederpel: I tried to tell people to switch.” This happened during a live tie-breaker.
Coordinated voting strategy: “We need to organize our team this round. Who do we vote for? All agree Ranjit and then send texts out to the group.”
Awareness of wrongdoing: “Madame Pres is it allowed to tell somebody to vote for a certain candidate here while voting? Yesssssss.” Campaigning in the voting hall is strictly prohibited.
Identity-politics manipulation: “Okay, for people who are messaging who to vote for, please let me know ethnic diversity.” Diversity was used as a political tool, not genuine equity.
Acknowledgment of improper influence: “I’m with the other commenter about not appropriate for either Barb or Louella to interfere or influence regional elections due to their position.”

The chats also reveal racism and dangerous attitudes. Leadership used diversity as a checkbox for votes while ignoring real concerns about racism. In one exchange, Bill McMullan used foul language: “No to Maria. Ever.” Certi replied, “Maria got in already.” Bill responded, “F** me.”* Certi then added, “The racial game is up front.” Bill answered, “Of course it is.” To which Certi said, “I’m Filipino but I don’t believe in that shit.” This exchange involved Jovito Espinoza (Certi) – Disabilities DVP.
The Ethics Commissioner overseeing Vancouver City Council found that Ken Sim and his party breached ethics guidelines by using a group chat for city business. What happened at HEU was worse. Their group chat wasn’t just for back-channeling—it was used to tamper with elections while members were voting. That isn’t just unethical; it’s fraud.
Read the texts for yourself under the Election Tampering tab—don’t just take my word for it. The proof is in their own words: tampering, racism, and misconduct in the middle of voting. And yet, despite all this, Ritu Mahil signed off on a clean slate for the very people who appointed her.
HEU has not one but six equity groups, which have proven themselves to be useless when they can’t even educate the leadership.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment #1

Election of HEU President by All Members

This is the most consequential constitutional amendment coming to the next HEU Convention — one that could change everything. I honestly can’t think of a single valid reason why any delegate wouldn’t support it… oh shit, I just thought of one: the current president, Barb Nederpel, who will have completed her 9th year with an iron fist by the next convention. I would ask the members to go one step further by adding that this amendment become effective immediately, and that the election of the President be delayed by 40 days to allow for a proper electronic vote to be conducted.

I keep bringing up HEU President Barb Nederpel because, of all the union leaders in BC, she is in the top four most responsible for keeping the Public Health Orders in place for four years. She sits on the BCNDP Provincial Executive Committee and directs more money to the BCNDP than all other unions combined. But of course — somehow — that’s not considered a conflict of interest.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Submitted by: [Insert Local Name]
Article: 6
Section: A
Subject: Election of HEU President by All Members

HEU Will:Amend the Constitution to change the process of electing the President of the Hospital Employees’ Union from a delegate-based vote at Convention to a direct vote by all members in good standing through a secure, accessible voting system.

Because:The President is the most senior elected officer in the Union, with a salary and total compensation package of approximately $250,000–$300,000 annually. It is undemocratic and inequitable that this position is elected by a small number of delegates at Convention, rather than the full membership who fund the position through union dues.

This current model creates a system where only approximately 1% of the membership decides who becomes President. A direct election would ensure all members have a voice in choosing their highest representative, and it would enhance engagement, transparency, and accountability.

Additionally, the current structure significantly favours the incumbent. The sitting President benefits from two years of fully paid travel, access to staff, and opportunities to visit Locals — which, while officially part of the job, also function as indirect campaigning. Challengers are limited to campaigning during the few days of Convention, which creates a significant imbalance and discourages participation.

There is also concern that internal political considerations may influence which members are selected as Convention delegates, and who receives access to key opportunities such as BCFED representation, CUPE National delegation, education, and special events. This further concentrates political power and discourages new leadership voices.

By moving to a system where all members can vote for the President, the Union would align with democratic principles and follow the example of the other two largest health care unions in British Columbia:

The Health Sciences Association (HSA), which transitioned to a one-member, one-vote system under Article 9, Section 3 of its Constitution; and
The BC Nurses’ Union (BCNU), whose Constitution (Article 5.01) provides for a province-wide vote of all members for the office of President every three years.

These unions have recognized that broad democratic participation strengthens legitimacy, improves accountability, and increases engagement among the membership. If HSA and BCNU members can elect their Presidents directly, there is no reason HEU members — who fund the largest public sector union in BC — should be denied the same right.

The new language would read:

Article 6 – Section A (Amended):
The President of the Hospital Employees’ Union shall be elected by a majority vote of all members in good standing, through a secure, accessible voting process administered by the Union.

The Union shall ensure equal access to campaigning and communication tools for all presidential candidates. Voting shall occur at least sixty (60) days prior to the start of Convention. The election shall be overseen by an independent elections officer, and results shall be certified and published to all members.

COMMITTEE
☐ Non-Concurrence ☐ Concurrence CONVENTION
☐ Non-Concurrence ☐ Concurrence

HEU Membership Feedback

"I received a response through the website from a shop steward at a care home in Langley. She told me the members she represents have given up on HEU. Their staff rep lives in Harrison Hot Springs, is impossible to get a hold of, and insists on emails instead of phone calls. Every issue gets brushed off with the same line: “The employer has the right to manage."

Her excuse? She has too many job sites to cover."

"We have the same problem at RJH Victoria. I went to the last meeting via zoom and again they can't meet quorum Why? Because no one has Any Faith in our Union. They are Done with never getting any help. There's talk of walking away from the Union and joining another (if that's possible?) it's not good in Victoria and getting worse. "

SOLUTION:

It's time HEU stops wasting money on political action and starts using those resources to actually serve its members.

Advocating for Transparency & Accountability