Laika Posted August 12, 2016 Report Share Posted August 12, 2016 Hi all, Have any Ontario medical students received encouragement, from either their school or the OMA, in the past couple of weeks, to obtain OMA membership? There has been speculation that the OMA is actively recruiting medical students to join as members to bolster YES votes for the Tentative Physician Services Agreement, and I was curious if there was any truth to these rumours. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellorie Posted August 12, 2016 Report Share Posted August 12, 2016 My understanding was that recent members of the OMA are not allowed to vote? I thought the cutoff was June 11th for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laika Posted August 12, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2016 I was told the OMA board reversed that decision a week ago, and that now recent members are allowed to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroD Posted August 13, 2016 Report Share Posted August 13, 2016 I was told the OMA board reversed that decision a week ago, and that now recent members are allowed to vote. Oh...that make sense. I was originally told I could not vote because I signed up 3 days too late, but then I received a control number and got to do it. Sneaky, if thats what's really going on. Between this, and how they've communicated about the PSA, the OMA has been getting really greasy lately. They're building up a lot of enemies to recognize and hate these tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Organomegaly Posted August 13, 2016 Report Share Posted August 13, 2016 It implies that the OMA assumes that new members are more likely to vote YES ...not sure where that assumption comes from Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lactic Folly Posted August 13, 2016 Report Share Posted August 13, 2016 OMSA endorsement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laika Posted August 13, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 13, 2016 It implies that the OMA assumes that new members are more likely to vote YES ...not sure where that assumption comes from The assumption comes from the 2012 PSA results - medical students were the most likely to endorse the deal, followed by residents. Practicing physicians were the least likely of the three groups to endorse it. If the OMA wanted to add more yes votes, encouraging med students to vote would be a very smart strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleeyPanda Posted August 13, 2016 Report Share Posted August 13, 2016 It implies that the OMA assumes that new members are more likely to vote YES ...not sure where that assumption comes from Also new members will generally have the least knowledge (including myself) and being flooded with OMA emails asking you to vote Yes is a pretty sound way to make it ingrained in your head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerroger Posted August 27, 2016 Report Share Posted August 27, 2016 The assumption comes from the 2012 PSA results - medical students were the most likely to endorse the deal, followed by residents. Practicing physicians were the least likely of the three groups to endorse it. If the OMA wanted to add more yes votes, encouraging med students to vote would be a very smart strategy. The assumption comes from the 2012 PSA results - medical students were the most likely to endorse the deal, followed by residents. Practicing physicians were the least likely of the three groups to endorse it. If the OMA wanted to add more yes votes, encouraging med students to vote would be a very smart corrupt strategy. I took the liberty to edit the above post for clarity, especially considering the revision of rules on who can vote at the last moment. I'm sure those who are more creative than I am can think of some other adjectives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.