本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛A Student's Perspective
janeyeee (jane)
＜本文发表于: 相约加拿大:枫下论坛 www.rolia.net/f ＞
Hello.
My name is Brian Hlady, and I am enrolled in the Advanced Level of the CGA Program of Professional Studies. I am employed as a Staff Accountant by a CA, who understands and respects the level of work we’re committed to, and makes me feel as a valued member of the team.
I am asking you to vote no, because while I have a lot at stake, as a student, I don’t have a voice or a vote.
As I understand from statements made by CGAO, they would support unification, under the right conditions. Those conditions being contractual support of legacy rights for minority members. It is my understanding that through negotiations, they have not been able to secure this, and that negotiating conditions have not materially changed since they left the table. If this is the case, then do you continue to beat your head against the wall until it feels good, or do you say, no perhaps not and find a different path to take?
Yes, CPAC has assured the protection of legacy rights in their bylaws, but the profession is regulated provincially. And any merger agreements must be made provincially. New Brunswick's agreement lists key decisions requiring high threshold (80%) for approval in section 9.1.3. Alberta's is different, but lists prohibited activities. Specifically this sections protect legacy member rights, and prevent discrimination. If these points are models for other provinces, and seem to be in line with the intent of CPAC, why is Ontario unable to get these same, contractual, commitments? I've as yet not seen the same document for ICAO/CMAO, or CGAC for that matter.
If CGAO has refused to come back to the table due to pride and hubris, then the Board should be held accountable. Now, if there is no point in returning to the table because there has been no material change in positions; one side says contract, the other side says best principles and would make a majority of the board. To me, it would seem that through the lens of distant and recent history, best principles may result in minority rights being harmed. After all, this fight really only matters to accountants. The public basically sees us as auditors or someone to do their taxes, or for those in industry, people who used to be auditors or did taxes, and are good with Excel. So, if CGA unifies and gets stepped on, there will be no public outcry. With that in mind, CGAO has a duty to its members to negotiate a contractual commitment that will protect them and if they cannot negotiate, what should they do?
To do nothing will result in the eventual extinction of the designation, and the CGAO board would not be fulfilling its duties. To attempt to go back to table, and accept whatever is offered would be the triumph of hope over the experience in this province, and would not result in the protection of existing members. Again, the Board would have failed in its duties. Perhaps binding arbitration is required, but this might require the support and pressure of all provincial and national affiliates to bring about. Certainly with the fragmentation we're now seeing, that won't be the case. As an aside, I think this underscores the major issue with the accounting profession in Canada - we're 35+ separate provincial bodies each with our own view, and nobody really in control. Even after any unification, this issue still exists but we've cut the size of the table to 10.
Still, CGAO and CGAM need to work to protect their members, and this, I think defies a simple question. The world is not black or white, and anybody who has obtained their C_A designation has to analyse a case, present options and their opinion. In fact, most people in a knowledge worker role have done the same. Perhaps the survey previously offered was poorly designed (or well designed depending on intent), and new survey should be offered. To distill it down to yes or no, and ignore the maybes or conditions would not offer a true representative answer nor would it give the board any latitude in any negotiations.
So, given a provincial history of mistrust, a recent direction of requiring contractual guarantees at the provincial level of minority rights, seemingly being unable to obtain them, and having a different view from the other 10 affiliates, what should be done?
Perhaps then what is required now is for CGAO and CGAC to go their separate ways, and pursue other alternatives which would protect their members rights as they see fit. And the practical result of this split is that the CGA designation will go extinct. CGAC will become CPAs and CGAO will become something different or be swallowed up.
And maybe including CGAs in any province in unification is ill-advised, full stop. Seeing the CAs and CMAs merge is making people afraid. After all when one see all of their peers getting together, it’s natural stop and wish to be part of that group. Or worse, that a future outside that group is cold, miserable and lonely. The danger here is undercutting the value of the CGA designation, and allowing ourselves to feel like we’re second class accountants. Perhaps that goal that is being fought for, really isn’t worthwhile. Perhaps unification isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be, and CGAs should bid the others all the success they deserve in their partnership, and continue on our own as a strong, respected designation.
CGA has a lot to offer – I came to accounting as a second career after spending time in high-tech doing non-accounting things. I chose CGA because I don’t have a degree, and taking three or four years to complete the necessary prerequisites for a university degree was not feasible. But taking 8 months to complete the Foundation Level through Algonquin College’s Professional Accounting program was – I quit my job in January of 2010, completed the necessary courses and by October 2010, I was working as Staff Accountant. I entered into the CGA program of professional studies shortly thereafter, and it has not been a cake walk. Anybody who can endure the program has no place being thought of as a second class accountant.
If I had known what I wanted to be when I grow up, maybe I would have completed a B.Comm when I was 23 years old, had no other responsibilities, and become a CA. I didn't, and have been able to change. I’m 37 now, have a mortgage to pay, kid on the way and I need to contribute to my RRSP. Because of the CGA program, I can work full-time while working towards my designation. Given the educational model under CPA, we would not have been able to make that same choice. Having options is a wonderful thing.
You have options. You have a voice. You have a vote. I ask you to vote no.
Sincerely,
Brian K. Hlady
Student enrolled in the Advanced Level of the CGA Program of Professional Studies更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
janeyeee (jane)
＜本文发表于: 相约加拿大:枫下论坛 www.rolia.net/f ＞
Hello.
My name is Brian Hlady, and I am enrolled in the Advanced Level of the CGA Program of Professional Studies. I am employed as a Staff Accountant by a CA, who understands and respects the level of work we’re committed to, and makes me feel as a valued member of the team.
I am asking you to vote no, because while I have a lot at stake, as a student, I don’t have a voice or a vote.
As I understand from statements made by CGAO, they would support unification, under the right conditions. Those conditions being contractual support of legacy rights for minority members. It is my understanding that through negotiations, they have not been able to secure this, and that negotiating conditions have not materially changed since they left the table. If this is the case, then do you continue to beat your head against the wall until it feels good, or do you say, no perhaps not and find a different path to take?
Yes, CPAC has assured the protection of legacy rights in their bylaws, but the profession is regulated provincially. And any merger agreements must be made provincially. New Brunswick's agreement lists key decisions requiring high threshold (80%) for approval in section 9.1.3. Alberta's is different, but lists prohibited activities. Specifically this sections protect legacy member rights, and prevent discrimination. If these points are models for other provinces, and seem to be in line with the intent of CPAC, why is Ontario unable to get these same, contractual, commitments? I've as yet not seen the same document for ICAO/CMAO, or CGAC for that matter.
If CGAO has refused to come back to the table due to pride and hubris, then the Board should be held accountable. Now, if there is no point in returning to the table because there has been no material change in positions; one side says contract, the other side says best principles and would make a majority of the board. To me, it would seem that through the lens of distant and recent history, best principles may result in minority rights being harmed. After all, this fight really only matters to accountants. The public basically sees us as auditors or someone to do their taxes, or for those in industry, people who used to be auditors or did taxes, and are good with Excel. So, if CGA unifies and gets stepped on, there will be no public outcry. With that in mind, CGAO has a duty to its members to negotiate a contractual commitment that will protect them and if they cannot negotiate, what should they do?
To do nothing will result in the eventual extinction of the designation, and the CGAO board would not be fulfilling its duties. To attempt to go back to table, and accept whatever is offered would be the triumph of hope over the experience in this province, and would not result in the protection of existing members. Again, the Board would have failed in its duties. Perhaps binding arbitration is required, but this might require the support and pressure of all provincial and national affiliates to bring about. Certainly with the fragmentation we're now seeing, that won't be the case. As an aside, I think this underscores the major issue with the accounting profession in Canada - we're 35+ separate provincial bodies each with our own view, and nobody really in control. Even after any unification, this issue still exists but we've cut the size of the table to 10.
Still, CGAO and CGAM need to work to protect their members, and this, I think defies a simple question. The world is not black or white, and anybody who has obtained their C_A designation has to analyse a case, present options and their opinion. In fact, most people in a knowledge worker role have done the same. Perhaps the survey previously offered was poorly designed (or well designed depending on intent), and new survey should be offered. To distill it down to yes or no, and ignore the maybes or conditions would not offer a true representative answer nor would it give the board any latitude in any negotiations.
So, given a provincial history of mistrust, a recent direction of requiring contractual guarantees at the provincial level of minority rights, seemingly being unable to obtain them, and having a different view from the other 10 affiliates, what should be done?
Perhaps then what is required now is for CGAO and CGAC to go their separate ways, and pursue other alternatives which would protect their members rights as they see fit. And the practical result of this split is that the CGA designation will go extinct. CGAC will become CPAs and CGAO will become something different or be swallowed up.
And maybe including CGAs in any province in unification is ill-advised, full stop. Seeing the CAs and CMAs merge is making people afraid. After all when one see all of their peers getting together, it’s natural stop and wish to be part of that group. Or worse, that a future outside that group is cold, miserable and lonely. The danger here is undercutting the value of the CGA designation, and allowing ourselves to feel like we’re second class accountants. Perhaps that goal that is being fought for, really isn’t worthwhile. Perhaps unification isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be, and CGAs should bid the others all the success they deserve in their partnership, and continue on our own as a strong, respected designation.
CGA has a lot to offer – I came to accounting as a second career after spending time in high-tech doing non-accounting things. I chose CGA because I don’t have a degree, and taking three or four years to complete the necessary prerequisites for a university degree was not feasible. But taking 8 months to complete the Foundation Level through Algonquin College’s Professional Accounting program was – I quit my job in January of 2010, completed the necessary courses and by October 2010, I was working as Staff Accountant. I entered into the CGA program of professional studies shortly thereafter, and it has not been a cake walk. Anybody who can endure the program has no place being thought of as a second class accountant.
If I had known what I wanted to be when I grow up, maybe I would have completed a B.Comm when I was 23 years old, had no other responsibilities, and become a CA. I didn't, and have been able to change. I’m 37 now, have a mortgage to pay, kid on the way and I need to contribute to my RRSP. Because of the CGA program, I can work full-time while working towards my designation. Given the educational model under CPA, we would not have been able to make that same choice. Having options is a wonderful thing.
You have options. You have a voice. You have a vote. I ask you to vote no.
Sincerely,
Brian K. Hlady
Student enrolled in the Advanced Level of the CGA Program of Professional Studies更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net