[GraphicMatt]

I'm a little nervous about the details on this one. If it turns out the City gave up on all major concessions, Miller is far less likely to get my vote next year.

 

[JayBee]

Hopefully we can eventually move to privatize garbage pick-up....lets add LCBO and TTC to that list as well.

 

[Dilla]

^ How can it be legal to be on strike to support a separate union while you have an agreement? I think this has more to do with a lack of enforcement by the city ... like not seeking an injunction against the picketers for delaying each drop-off.

Well, the 416 has agreed to the deal on principle, but they haven't yet ratified it with a vote, so they're on strike until they do. I imagine they just won't call a vote until the 79 people agree to a deal. Still, it's a load of crap on so many levels. They're probably upset VIA went ahead and signed a deal without them.

 

[MetroMan]

They're acting in bad faith! They're using the garbage stink as leverage for local 79 to get a deal. The garbage workers already have a deal in place. Now get the 'EFF back to work!

 

[GraphicMatt]

Pretending like the deal is in place before the union has voted is a bad move. Remember how the last TTC strike went down: union had a deal, members rejected it.

I think 79 will come to a deal very very soon, though. Really interested to know these negotiations went down.

 

[salvius]

Hopefully we can eventually move to privatize garbage pick-up....lets add LCBO and TTC to that list as well.

Yes to garbage and LCBO, __HELL NO__ to the TTC.

 

[Whoaccio]

Parts of the TTC definitely could/should be privatized. I honestly think some people don't really understand what privatization implies. One of the weirdest disconnects is that private sector involvement is actually fairly common in Europe, Stockholm being a great example of a bona fide social democratic government attempting to optimize service delivery, and Asia but is a third rail in North America for some reason I can't figure out. Privatization likely wouldn't imply the City divesting its' shares in the TTC to the private sector, I personally doubt anybody would buy shares in the TTC anyways.

There wouldn't be anything abnormal about the TTC tendering tasks like station management or franchising bus routes though, as well as removing covenants *banning* competing with the TTC. On the capital side, private sector involvement seems almost inevitable. It really isn't 'privatizing' anything as all the ownership and authority would remain publicly held. There is no ultimate difference between the TTC realizing its' core competencies aren't in building transit vehicles (and contracting private sector firms to do so) and realizing its' core competencies aren't in maintaining an army of unionized floor sweepers.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Privitization of transit raises red flags for people because they imagine bus routes they use every day getting cut or drastically scaled down due to a lack of profitability. Not to mention the spectre of fares rising even faster than they are now.

Certainly there's more room in the TTC for contracting out, though. Automation would help too. I'd love to see them replace all the ticket takers with machines and perhaps a few InfoToGo-style student employees who can give directions to tourists in downtown stations.

 

[Jonny5]

Mayor is having a press conference starting at ...... hmm right about now actually.

 

[Dilla]

79 is going to a vote Wednesday now, too. The press conference didn't say much, Miller just thanked all parties (workers, citizens) for not killing each other, basically.

We won't get any details until after the vote Wednesday, unless there's a leak. The head of local 79 seemed to imply that she too got everything she wanted. Not good. I hope people remember this next November.

 

[TOareaFan]

They better not get their bank-able sick days

A bunch of us were talking about this issue over the weekend.

All of us started with the firm belief that bankable sick days should be eliminated and that the cost to the city/taxpayer of what is essentially a retirement bonus was too high and made no sense.

Then we thought/discussed it through and ended up not so sure......the issue became how many additional workers the city would have to hire if you eliminated the banking of sick days. Under the current situation the city needs all of its current workers but a goodly number of them are incented (by the bankable sick days) to not take days off when they get the sniffles or are otherwise sick with minor ailments.

If that incentive to drag yourself into work was gone, you could expect that all workers would us all/most of their sick days in every year....so how many new workers would you have to hire to cover those sick days?

So, in the end, we ended up thinking that the best the city should target would be a reduction in the value of the banked sick days while still leaving an incentive for the employee to not use the days.

So, we agreed the city should probably have targets (in decreasing importance) with regards to this issue:

1. as a minimum the days should be paid out at the wage they were earned at (ie. emplyoee banks a sick day in a year he earns $10 per hour should not be paid $40 an hour for that day just because that is what he earns when he retires).

2. As a second value reducer perhaps a formula wherein the bank days are worth some percentage (75%?) of the hourly wage they were earned at.

3. While grandfathering (with the above adjustments) bankable sick days for current employees...get the union to agree that future employees would not have this benefit.

 

[Dilla]

^

Or have it so they get 5 short-term no doctors note required sick days. Then if they try to take more than that, we don't have to pay them for sick days after those 5, unless they have a note. They'll come in if it's only the sniffles. Your plan just acquiesces to the whole idea that these people are going to abuse their sick days if we aren't nice to them. Eff that.

 

[GraphicMatt]

^

Or have it so they get 5 short-term no doctors note required sick days. Then if they try to take more than that, we don't have to pay them for sick days after those 5, unless they have a note. They'll come in if it's only the sniffles. Your plan just acquiesces to the whole idea that these people are going to abuse their sick days if we aren't nice to them. Eff that.

In addition, the last thing the city (or any employer) should want is to encourage people to come in when they ARE sick. It's not a matter of being tough or wimpy - it's about the potential to spread illnesses that could severely affect overall productivity.

Sick days shouldn't have anything to do with a potential retirement pay-out.

 

[Hydrogen]

City dropped all concessions, unions says.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/672298

 

[slowtyper]

If that incentive to drag yourself into work was gone, you could expect that all workers would us all/most of their sick days in every year....so how many new workers would you have to hire to cover those sick days?

Why would they need to hire new workers? Say in any given day there are 10workers calling in sick. Wouldn't those shifts just be given to someone else who either needed shifts or would be getting paid overtime?