The city forced the union's hand. Some imbeciles on city council decided next week would make a perfect time to discuss declaring the TTC an essential service while the union was in a legal strike position. How fucking stoopid do you have to be to do something as boneheaded as that.
Rob,
I have detailed in a comment on Peterborough Politics the reason for the strike. Do you think Miller telling Kinnear that he will ask Dalton to recall Parliament on Sunday had anything to do with an weekend service shutdown?
Yes. Reading between the lines I'm pretty sure this strike is about declaring the TTC an essential service thereby stripping the union and its members of their right to strike. The city forced the union's hand and now they're pushing back. If that weren't the case the union would have gone back to the bargaining table instead of calling an immediate strike.
"Their rate of post-traumatic stress is above that of Ontario police officers."
I didn't see the citation in the link, Dawg - but perhaps I just skimmed over it. It may indicate that they have more stressful jobs - or it may just indicate that the standards for stress leave are lower with the TTC than the OPP. I know which door I'd pick, Monty.
I didn't see the citation in the link, Dawg - but perhaps I just skimmed over it.
You did:
A Toronto Star investigation published this year showed that a growing number of front-line TTC workers are beaten, threatened, spit upon and verbally abused by the public, putting their rate of post-traumatic stress above that of Ontario police officers.
Rob,
The union is now back on bargaining table but it seems that the result will be fruitless. Howard Hampton will now support back to work legislation ie. agreeing to pick up on David Miller's mess. McGuinty bails out Miller while the Ontario NDP grudgingly follows suit.
Reading Progblogs today, it became abundantly clear that we have too many Torontonians on our blogroll 
I say that in an affectionately teasing way.
The conversation in the conserv-o-sphere is much like that in the progres-o-sphere Dawg.... both calling for transit to be legislated back to work.
Who would have thought the day would come when progressives would be found calling for union neutering and the conservatives would be found calling for more government interference in the work place?
My question is, do none of these people own a bicycle?
My brother-in-law was a TTC driver for twenty-five years. It's a tough job. He spent most of his career uncertain as to if he was more angry with management or the union. But the stress was phenomenal. Unfortunately, much of the stress (and danger) in later years came from matters neither management nor union would touch because of political correctness. Barbara Hall wouldn't hear of it! Although he started as a strong and proud worker, he is now a man of the bitter extreme right and feels he was shopped by his union. He isn't alone. Over to you..
Calling the TTC strike irresponsible for not giving the 48-hour notice they promised does not make me "anti-ATI". It simply reflects the sentiment of most people in Toronto.
The contract that was accepted by union leadership was fair, providing a 10% raise over 3 yrs (on top of the $20-26/hr they are currently paid -- more than many teachers!), expanded health benefits, and ensuring drivers are the top paid in the GTA (meaning they get another raise if Mississauga drivers, for example, get a raise).
Grag,
I can tell you from years of experience that it's like moving heaven and earth to get people to strike unless there's an issue or two that have people genuinely riled. I don't think I'm getting the whole story here. Two-thirds of the membership rejected what looks like a pretty decent contract. I don't think this thing is about money.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why those folks walked, against the advice of their leadership, who usually get the blame for allegedly misleading their members. I'd rather keep my ears (and mind) open, rather than condemning them for being greedy, overpaid assholes. I've seen that particular movie too many times to want to watch it again on ProgBlog, thanks. Hence my peevishness.
I'm sure the union members had a reason to vote no (even if it isn't yet clear what that reason is), but I'm in favour of legislation declaring the TTC an essential service. The legislature is the source of the right to strike and it can't allow a major city to be paralyzed causing tremendous economic hardship. What the legislature granteth the legislature may taketh away.
Not to mention that when ambulances can't get through or are delayed, people die.
MarkyMark:
Rights are not given by legislatures. They are taken away by legislatures. If people are not allowed to withdraw their labour, the only weapon they have in dealing with a more powerful employer, then they are little more than slaves. Think about it.
I, for one, would never say they were "greedy, overpaid assholes". But I do think you are wrong on your broader point that any "progressive" should necessarily support *any* union for *any* reason (in the interest of solidarity?). Some of us can look at the facts and come to the conclusion that the union in this case acted irresponsibly. Going around labeling people like me as anti-union is unfair and incorrect. That the NDP mayor of Toronto and provincial NDP leader also support immediate back-to-work legislation suggests there is widespread concern about the union's actions.
P.S. As I understand it, two things explain why the union membership rejected it: 1) the language is not strong enough to prevent the TTC from contracting out maintenance (although, as I understand it, the company who got the contract to provide the buses is also responsible for their maintenance, although I also understand they often uses TTC workers to do it) and 2) the clause that ensures workers are the highest paid in the GTA covers only drivers, not maintenance workers (the clause was included because drivers argued that driving around Toronto is stressful, more so than in Mississauga and other GTA places; however, maintenances workers working back at the shed pretty much do the same thing as they would in Mississauga, thus weren't covered by the stress argument). Since the more militant maintenance workers (those responsible for the 2006 wildcat strike) weren't happy, the drivers reject it out of solidarity.
Greg:
I'll support union action until I'm given a good dreason not to. The fact that those actions cause "widespread concern" among the elites cuts no ice with me.
If those are the issues, they should be relatively easy to fix. The first one is a no-brainer. The second could be resolved on the principle that the maintenance workers should certainly receive no less than their colleagues in Brampton and Mississauga, as they have been, and in fact they should probably get a premium for the higher costs of living close to downtown.
As I suggested, this strike isn't really about money per se, but about principle (parity+). I don't think the issues as you have stated them are impossible to resolve. That they need to be resolved, however, is no longer in doubt.
Dr. Dawg,
But for legislation passed by our legislatures (in this case the Labour Relations Act), if people didn't show up for work they could be fired. If an employer didn't want to negotiate with a union that employer could find another union to negotiate with or decide to hire only non-unionized workers. Those opptions would be within their rights.
Our entire unionized labour system is based on legislation. The policy behind the legislation may well be to give workers equality of bargaining power with more powerful employers, but that remains a policy decision.
It's one thing to diminish an employer's market rights so as to give less powerful individual employees greater power as part of a collective. It's quite another thing when a union takes action for its collective that has deleterious effects on a much greater collective, namely the one million TTC riders who ride the TTC.
"Their rate of post-traumatic stress is above that of Ontario police officers. Just think about that."
Done. Do you happen to know how the average TTC driver's salary compares to the average Ontario cop's? (I don't.)
That the NDP mayor of Toronto and provincial NDP leader also support immediate back-to-work legislation suggests there is widespread concern about the union's actions.
That the NDP mayor of Toronto and the provincial NDP leader also support immediate back-to-work legislation shows that the NDP could give a back alley salad toss about worker's liberty.
Happy fucking May Day. Enjoy your cheap champagne.
Chris:
Neither do I, to be honest.
Dawg -- I don't think it's only the "elites" who are concerned. Talk to people on the streets. I think most Torontonians are generally progressive, fair-minded people (over 75% voted from progressive-minded parties in 2006). That there is such widespread discontent among such a fair-minded population should be concerning for the union.
Greg,
If generally progressive, fair-minded people wanted the TTC to be declared essential service and the right to strike taken away from bus drivers, do you think that is morally right?
Sometimes you cannot use the "progressive voters have spoken" as justification for taken away what is a legitimate right to protest through the withdrawal of services.
I think it is a legitimate debate as to whether the TTC is an essential service. Let's have that debate. Obviously, we've decided that some services (fire, police) are essential. Is it morally right to do that? To me, the question is the whether the rights of some workers outweigh the common good. For some (essential) things, the common good should take precedence.
There is in fact a definition of "essential service" under both federal and provincial law. I really don't see that the TTC as a whole qualifies.
It seems to me from everything I've read that the main issue the union objects to is the so-called "contracting out" of maintenance work. However, the work in question is work for parts under warranty that are the responsibility of the company we bought the new buses from.
So, isn't the union essentially saying "We know the bus company is supposed to pay for work covered by warranty themselves, but we insist that they either be forced to use our labour to do it, or that you simply pay us to do work that's already covered by warranty".
And if so, isn't that, what's the word?
Insane?
LKO:
Do you have a source for that?
It seems to me the strike makes sense by the internal logic of the union, but it was dumb politically. By walking out at midnight on a Friday (without notice), thereby ensuring that several thousand drunk young people were stranded downtown, the union automatically lost the battle for public opinion. I am not sure that the TTC will be declared essential, but if it is, the union will not get very much sympathy from the public. So, was the strike justified? Probably. Was it handled with any kind of political skill? No way.
The vote gave two options, accept this offer or strike at midnight. Had the members had an option to continue bargaining without withdrawing service I am Sure it would have gone that way.
Doc,
I'll try to find a better source than this (I know I've read it elsewhere) but the place I saw the warranty issue most explicitly laid out was in this comment over on Steve Munro's blog from a commenter claiming to be a subway operator:
"The commission is buying new vehicles and like all new vehicles they have warranties. The maintenance people don’t like this as they think they will be laid off because the company manufacturing these vehicles will be doing the repairs that are covered under the warranty".
I know I've read about the warranty issues coming up elsewhere though, so I'll see if I can find a better source (it's discussed extensively at Steve's blog, for what it's worth).
Steve (who follows this all much more than most of us) also calls this a classic case of "bait and switch" (or, absolutely HORRIBLE communication by the union):
"...at no time in the past month did anyone in 113 even mention the issues of job security, contracting out or warranty work. Bringing this up after an agreement has been signed is total crap, and speaks to 113’s inability to present a consistent, defensible message to the public.
If the union now “realizes” they were stiffed by management, where was their so-called leadership? Why did they agree to the contract? Why didn’t they raise a stink a week ago saying why the contract was unacceptable?".
Well, it's mention here as well, where it's mentioned as actually NOT being an issue, though the ones saying it's not an issue are the TTC, not the union:
"The TTC maintenance workers – known to be a more militant wing of the union that is believed to have instigated the one-day illegal strike in May, 2006 – were reportedly unhappy with the tentative deal, raising concerns about contracting out repairs to buses.
But the TTC suggested in a statement Friday night that there was no issue around contracting out in the tentative agreement, saying that its bus manufacturer “is responsible” for repairs under warranty, but that in fact a “substantial amount” of that work is actually done by TTC employees and charged back to the bus company."
I wonder (just speculating) if the problem is that right now a "substantial amount" of warranty work is done by Local 113 members, and they want ALL warranty work done by Local 113 members, not the bus company.
Of course, one of the big problems here is that I'm not certain ANYONE knows why the union rejected the deal, including Bo Kinnear. Kinnear certainly thought he had reached a good deal, and the union's not really talking to the public anymore, so I guess it's fair to say we really have no idea what they want.
Which is part of peoples' frustration no doubt.
LKO:
Thanks for that. Something is just not adding up. I know how bargaining works, having attended enough sessions myself. Strikeable issues don't just get "discovered" after a tentative agreement has been reached. They haunt the whole proceeding.
In this case I can't buy the notion that the leadership simply didn't know about some issue or other that would galvanize a full two-thirds of its membership. Nor does the warranty issue sound very strikeable to me, although I haven't talked to the folks on the ground.
I await further information. As I say, none of this makes sense, especially the way it's getting reported.
PS: I wrote the above before seeing your second post, just above. It looks like I was right.
Over the last 4 months I’ve been working at the TTC’s Hillcrest yard doing an electrical power system overhaul. During that time I’ve talked to many of the maintenance workers, mechanics, security guards, janitors, and others. I talk too much my boss would say. My personal insight into the strike is to relate the charged atmosphere of anger and stress that accompanied the initial vote to strike that 98% of the members agreed on. You could actually smell a strike as you walked into the lunch room. On this Thursday April 24 the tension was at near violence levels, by Friday the lunch room was so loud that technically hearing protection was required. People seem mystified that the contract was not ratified, well of course, the media does not report the facts, they report the ideology of their paymasters. Has there even been interviews with the rank and file workers to test the waters? Well I don’t know since I gave up reading media garbage years ago when I detected the disconnect between reality and the reported.
What we are seeing at the TTC is a group manifestation of what is happening to every worker at an individual level. Every worker I talk to is in the same predicament. We are all being pushed closer and closer to the brink of destitution. For the most part average workers have been isolated and insulated from communicating with each other by a culture of greed and pride. No one is readily willing to admit that they are falling further and further behind, that they are struggling, due to pride. Nor are they willing to try to help each other, due to greed. When these two walls are lowered what we see happening is things like what is happening at the TTC, people get angry, people team up to try to overcome the barriers to a better life.
So now we watch as the government jumps as high as their corporate masters tell them to and hustle into our hollow halls of democracy to ram through a back to work law. Sounds a lot like forced labour to me, the right to strike is a chimera, the right to freeze and the right to starve are as real as the blistering heat and dusty winds of the desert. They legislate the workers back to work if he demands too much money, but we are powerless to legislate the price of gas that is free to climb as high as it likes. Laissez Faire for the capitalist at all costs, but not for the workers, what would Adam Smith have said?
ttc workers are destitute? what about the poor buggers that make a fraction of their union wages, have no dental or medical coverage, no vacations or retirement benefits and also happen to fill the seats of the damn buses? i support worker's rights to organize but holding a population that is even worse off hostage is not a great bargaining strategy. my sympathy is divided between the workers and those they serve, not the rhetorically florid descriptions of capitalist masters but the people on the street who will be left on the street by the ttc workers.
i strongly doubt that a unionized ttc mechanic or driver is falling into destitution. there are tens of thousands of people whose lives and livelihoods depend on transit. they have no other easy options. for those people ttc is an essential service.
While I'm sympathetic to what Peter Sparky recounts, I agree more with pretty shaved ape (despite the name).
The TTC clearly doesn't fit the model of a profit crazed robber baron amoral capitalist. It exists to provide a service that is essential to hundreds of thousands. The "stakeholders" (namely, the public) shouldn't be held hostage to 3,000 people when binding arbitration can replace the "right" to strike.
I think you need to have a look at Steve Munro's blog on this subject (http://stevemunro.ca/?p=819). I believe in the right of workers to collectively organize and strike, but that doesn't prevent me from criticizing how particular unions choose to exercise that right to strike. By the inconsistent and politically tone-deaf actions taken by the executive of ATU Local 113, they have given their own cause a black eye and have set back the cause of public sector unions. Yes, the union was perfectly in its rights to do as it did, but that doesn't stop this act from being a public relations disaster.
Here's some of the relevant commentary from Steve Munro's site:
> ittle information leaked out from negotiations, but what did was not exactly useful in establishing a strong position for the union. As the deadline neared, we heard about how the poor underpaid Toronto members needed to be the best in the GTA. It didn’t take long for the press to find out that the actual difference between Toronto and Mississauga was five cents. Moreover, once Toronto got even the two percent originally offered by the TTC, they would leapfrog back into top spot.
> We heard about sick pay for workers injured by assaults, and the clear indication was that the TTC addressed that one before the ink was dry on the press release. Then it turned out that Local 113 wanted full sick pay for any injured worker, but this took two weeks to come out. When challenged on this, Bob Kinnear said, in effect, “well, that TTC spokeman is wet behind the ears and didn’t know what he was talking about”. Oh? It took two weeks for the union to decide that the TTC was putting out misinformation?
> Finally, we come to today’s vote. The story is that the maintenance workers felt they had lost protection about contracting out. Hmmm. If this was such a problem, and if some of the union executive couldn’t bring themselves to sign the agreement, why did it take until today for this news to surface. The maintenance workers are less than half of the total workforce, but clearly others voted to reject in support of them.
> Worrying about the safety of its members, Local 113 pulled them out at midnight rather than waiting 48 hours.
> > “We have assessed the situation and decided that we will not expose our members to the dangers of assaults from angry and irrational members of the public,” said Bob Kinnear, ATU Local 113 President. [From the press release.]
> The only irrational people here are in Local 113. They have consistently sent garbled messages to the public, and possibly even to their own members. If contracting out really was on the table, as opposed to the suspicions of radical members of the executive, then the union should have made this clear as a deal breaker. As things stand, it is nothing more than rumour.
The way the whole strike was handled suggests to me that there was a breakdown in the leadership of ATU Local 113. In my opinion, Kinnear lost the confidence of his membership, and called the strike in an act of desperation to play catch-up.
Gotta agree with James Bow,who said..."I think you need to have a look at Steve Munro's blog on this subject (http://stevemunro.ca/?p=819). I believe in the right of workers to collectively organize and strike, but that doesn't prevent me from criticizing how particular unions choose to exercise that right to strike. By the inconsistent and politically tone-deaf actions taken by the executive of ATU Local 113, they have given their own cause a black eye and have set back the cause of public sector unions. Yes, the union was perfectly in its rights to do as it did, but that doesn't stop this act from being a public relations disaster"....
Like what did transit workers expect.Of course those people that rely on transit are going to be pissed.
Not giving notice,so affected workers etc could make alternative arrangements,was just dumb.
As workers themselves,just trying to live with a modicum of security and dignity, transit members should have understood this and acted accordingly.
Like where is their solidarity with the workers they left stranded,indeed many how can not afford to lose a day of pay?
This whole sad affair is just one more example of just how divided and disconnected workers have become.
Much of this division between union workers and non-union workers,I believe can be traced directly back to the adoption of the bureaucratic modal of Unions.
The workers should be running the unions, not a professional union bureaucracy.
If anything this situation should be a wakeup call,to Unions.More has to be done to build a sense of solidarity between Union workers and non-union workers.
Long live the IWW,down with the professional labor aristocracy,and the bureaucratic Union modal.
Dirk:
The workers should be running the unions, not a professional union bureaucracy.
Problem is, that's sort of what happened, isn't it? The PUB recommended acceptance of the tentative deal--and two-thirds of the workers basically told them to F**k off.
I understand that.
But I believe if the workers had been running the union,things would never have reached this stage.Indeed the fact that the Union leadership(basically a professional bureaucracy divorced from the every day reality of ordinary transit workers)recommended that transit workers accept or consider an offer that the majority(workers) then rejected tells me that they (the leadership) ,are disconnected or at minimum have differing priorities/ expectation than the workers they supposedly speak for.
Perhaps its time Unions learn a lesson and begin to factor in the concerns of all workers not just their own.And of course its a two way street,lets hope something is learned from this mess.
And I say it again,ditch the professionals.
In the meantime what's accomplished by attacking other progressive bloggers who disagree with the Union,based on empathy(a valid and understandable position) for those stranded.
All said one thing should be clear to all progressives,when union workers and non-union workers/general public attack each other,who wins ?....sure as hell not workers(all workers)!
So what do we do about...?
But I believe if the workers had been running the union, things would never have reached this stage.
That is one of the two big things to criticize the executive of ATU Local 113 on. How was it that the bargaining committee agreed to a deal which was perfectly acceptable to operators but, some say, essentially sold maintenance workers out?
The other thing is this: once the deal was rejected, it was the executive's choice and the executive's choice alone to walk off the job immediately, despite previously promising the public 48 hours notice of any strike action. Why the sudden change in policy? As a tactical move, it's downright stupid, as it turned a large sector of the population against them. And just because 65% of the membership voted to can the deal doesn't mean that 65% of the membership wanted a strike immediately. Indeed, you listen to a number of workers who had to handle the angry crowds that came to the subway at midnight and found the doors closed, this was definitely NOT what they wanted.
Earlier this year, GO Transit's union reached an agreement with management that was voted down by members. The union issued a 48 hour strike notice, and then returned to the bargaining table. A new deal was reached which avoided a strike, and which the membership and management subsequently ratified. Why was no attempt made for this common sense response that would have protected a fair chunk of the ATU Local 113's moral high ground?
Instead, Kinnear just reacted. The move alienated the public, and appears to have alienated a number of workers within the TTC as well. As a tactical move, it's damn stupid, and it makes it much harder for public transit activists like myself and those sympathetic to public sector unions to advocate our stance.
I think James Bow's last comment really sums things up nicely.
The union rank and file voted not to accept the contract proposed, but I don't think that should have been interpreted as a vote to strike immediately. Why not give 48 hours notice of a strike, and throw the ball back in to the TTC's court, with all the added pressure of a hard, public strike deadline? Why force workers to clear out trains, streetcars, buses and terminals in the middle of the night? Plenty of workers I heard quoted were not happy to be closing up shop at midnight, when especially when they could have waited two hours 'til the end of normal operations, and shut down then (let alone threaten to strike Monday morning and cause chaos).
Had they threatened to strike Monday morning, ALL of the pressure would have been on the TTC (and politicians) to make sure there was a deal reached that was acceptable to the rank and file, before then. And there would have been no immediate move to legislate the workers back, since they wouldn't have been on strike yet! And the goodwill of the public would have at least held out over the weekend. As it played out, the public was outraged, and all the pressure on the politicians was NOT to get a deal done, but to force the union back to work.
Through their immediate strike, the union forced the politicians into a corner, and all their influence was focused on getting the workers back to work, rather than being focused on getting the TTC to make a better deal. The union's leadership is really to blame here, it seems to me. First they ticked off their membership. Then they ticked off the public. And, finally, they forced the politicians to exert their pressure on the UNION (to end the strike) rather than on the TTC (to make a deal to avoid an imminent strike).
I think the union's leadership really dropped the ball here.
Lots of discussion regarding the causes/issues regarding the strike - but I'll add this - I can't wait for the City of Toronto and the TTC to continue encouraging/coercing the public to abandon their car and take public transit. Thanks, I think I'll hold onto my car for the time being. Now if I headed up a company looking for new digs, Peel or York Regions are looking slightly more attractive now.
Thanks for defending my comments on another blogsite. I mentioned the lack of 48 hours notice would not have made a difference in Dalton McGuinty legislating the TTC employees back to work.
I don't think that anti-union Blogging Tories would have cared about the workers if those workers were making $30, $20, $10 or minimum wage. They don't like unions, period.
I do think that the nature of public sector negotiations will change as the right to strike gets changed to binding arbitration. A new model of negotiation, mediation, and fair-arbitration will be needed to decide on fair wages and salaries.
James Laxer makes a great point in his blog that if politicians really cared about public transit being an essential service, there would be ample government funding so that people could ride transit anywhere at anytime efficiently. (I'm paraphrasing.)
Well, I dunno about the specifics of this strike. I'm a union guy, and I've seen members vote for stuff I strongly disagreed with before now (in my case, more often voting to accept a deal that IMO they shouldn't have). So, y'know, the members can be wrong. And bargaining teams can be out of touch.
(I do find it relatively unlikely, though possible, for things to be as a couple of people have tried to spin it, such that the bargaining team is out of touch *and* the membership are wrong. Yeah, nobody in a union can ever do anything right, of course)
But as to declaring them an essential service--that's wrong, and foolish. In the end, if people are denied the right to legally strike, I suspect we'll start seeing a breakdown in the whole bureaucratically managed labour relations machinery and a return to the old way of doing things--illegal unions, wildcat strikes, and violence. Mind you, I sometimes wonder if that wouldn't actually work better. Binding arbitration, incidentally, is bullshit--much like such institutions as the Workers' Compensation Board, binding arbitration is essentially a tool for giving workers what management feels like giving them, under a facade of fairness. Sometimes there's a little reality under the facade, but less and less as the whole thing becomes more institutionalized.
"Binding arbitration, incidentally, is bullshit"
Agreed. Privatize the system and contract it out.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
