[hawc]

It's not like if you take away the union, you can suddenly pay operators a lot less. Given the problems they've had with retaining skilled operators, there's probably very little you can do with their wages, without creating a huge, expensive, problem.

Wrong again. Take away the union and you could definitely cut labour costs by 10% (or at least 5% and find 5% somewhere else). With unions you can't touch labour costs at all.

And I think the 'skilled operators' think their job is much more 'skilled' then it actually is. A teenager could do the fare collector job (not actually suggesting that relax). You don't need a 50 year old making $70,000 a year with full benefits and a pension to watch change fall in a box.

No tin-foil hats. No paranoia. Just fact. Sorry if it doesn't advance your side of the discussion.

 

[nfitz]

And I think the 'skilled operators' think their job is much more 'skilled' then it actually is. A teenager could do the fare collector job (not actually suggesting that relax). You don't need a 50 year old making $70,000 a year with full benefits and a pension to watch change fall in a box.

Stop using the fare collectors as a straw man. Yes rates are high, but it's a drop in the bucket. There are what ... 75 fare collector spots to staff. And let's see ...1,787 buses, trains, and streetcars in operation daily (during the September board period). So some real raw math says that fare collectors are no more than 4% of the operator/fare-collector group.

So if you get collectors to work for free, you'd save about 4%. If you get a 50% cut in pay, you save 2%. But then you also lose elsewhere, as many of these positions are operators who are not medically fit to work. So you end up paying them anyway to sit around, or you end up paying their disability leave.

Just fact. Sorry if it doesn't advance your side of the discussion.

I've seen no "facts" from you. There's very little thought to your comments - just mindless tin-hat paranoia and anti-union bigotry.

And no, I've never been in a Union, never will, and don't generally support them.

 

[hawc]

There's very little thought to your comments - just mindless tin-hat paranoia and anti-union bigotry.

What exactly is anti-union bigotry you silly little weirdo.

 

[nfitz]

What exactly is anti-union bigotry

I'd think the meaning was clear from the words ... anti-union bigotry is unreasonable prejudice or intolerance against unions.

you silly little weirdo.

I really don't think name-calling is appropriate, and is rather rude. No one has called you names here.

 

[spider]

It appears that most of the reduced service (read fewer vehicles) is to be found in the "Peak Periods" defined by the TTC as 6:30-10:00 AM & 3:30-7:00 PM when the need is greatest but not during the less demanding Mid-day, Evening and late Evening slots. Is the problem a lack of vehicles, a lack of drivers or a lack of will to ask the union to help out.

We haven't heard of a vehicle shortage or impending driver layoffs that the reduced service should trigger so we are left with the tender sensitivities of the union and management to explain a few things.

It the TTC is looking to save some money they might address the myriad of vehicles roaming around on seemingly sporadic schedules often in clumps (is it mating season) that are easily prevented if anyone had the will to do so.

The empty bus that ambles past the end of my street 20 hours a day could be examined for cost effectiveness and I am sure it is not unique in this respect. I suggest that the TTC is reducing "Peak Period" service as an attention getter and it is working but in reverse.

Does anyone have personal (accurate) knowledge of how the split shift system works for drivers?

 

[kkgg7]

Stop using the fare collectors as a straw man. Yes rates are high, but it's a drop in the bucket. There are what ... 75 fare collector spots to staff. And let's see ...1,787 buses, trains, and streetcars in operation daily (during the September board period). So some real raw math says that fare collectors are no more than 4% of the operator/fare-collector group.

So if you get collectors to work for free, you'd save about 4%. If you get a 50% cut in pay, you save 2%. But then you also lose elsewhere, as many of these positions are operators who are not medically fit to work. So you end up paying them anyway to sit around, or you end up paying their disability leave.

I've seen no "facts" from you. There's very little thought to your comments - just mindless tin-hat paranoia and anti-union bigotry.

And no, I've never been in a Union, never will, and don't generally support them.

Getting rid of the union opens the door to pay whoever whatever he/she is actually worth in a completely competitive market.
I agree that wages for ticket collects are a small percentages. but aren't the drivers overpaid as well? Why do the ttc get their jobs in the first place? Did they compete in the market?

Why not do this, without the influence of any unions, let's recruit ticket collects, drivers and system operator from the open labour market. I am sure thousands will kill to do the ticket collector jobs for $30,000 a year with half the existing benefits (which I think is what their skills are worth). Bus/subway drivers would make no more than $40,000 a year. Yes, there is some skill there, but anyone with an IQ over 80 can drive those vehicles after some training program.

TTC is responsible for the taxpayers. It is supposed to recruit whoever can do the job at the lowest cost. I think it can easily cut its operating budget by more than 20%. Let's not say they have tough jobs and deserve this and that. In this world, nobody deserves anything. If there is someone out there who is willing to do the jobs at 20% the wage (assuming both can do equally well), the latter should be hired and the more expensive one should be fired, because the lowest available wage is the market wage - what their skills are really worth.

But the way, what's with the job of leaning out of the window of the subway cars and looking at both sides to make sure no passenger is stuck between doors? It seems each subway has one employee exclusively doing that job. And how much are they paid? Are there any other city in this world which actually has this kind of jobs positions?

 

[kkgg7]

I'd think the meaning was clear from the words ... anti-union bigotry is unreasonable prejudice or intolerance against unions.

there is no such thing as "anti-union bigotry" as anti-union is by definition, the right thing do.
help me understand what good unions do nowadays, except demanding higher wages for its members than they would otherwise be entitled to in fair labour competition?

 

[nfitz]

there is no such thing as "anti-union bigotry" as anti-union is by definition, the right thing do.

That's not even a sentence, let alone a definition. It certainly is something the right would do ... is that what you are trying to say?!?

 

[hawc]

Getting rid of the union opens the door to pay whoever whatever he/she is actually worth in a completely competitive market. Why not do this: without the influence of any unions, let's recruit ticket collects, drivers and system operator from the open labour market. I am sure thousands will kill to do the ticket collector jobs for $30,000 a year with half the existing benefits (which I think is what their skills are worth). Bus/subway drivers would make no more than $40,000 a year. Yes, there is some skill there, but anyone with an IQ over 80 can drive those vehicles after some training program. The TTC is responsible to the taxpayers. It is supposed to recruit whoever can do the job at the lowest cost. I think it can easily cut its operating budget by more than 20%. Let's not say they have tough jobs and deserve this and that. In this world, nobody deserves anything. If there is someone out there who is willing to do the jobs at 20% the wage (assuming both can do equally well), the latter should be hired and the more expensive one should be fired, because the lowest available wage is the market wage - what their skills are really worth.

This cannot be overstated enough (something that is continually lost on the unions) you're only WORTH what your replacement value is. If someone with the same skill level is willing to do you job for less, then I hate to break it to you... but that's the value of your job. Not some made up amount you have in your head simply because you've been there a long time.

 

[Paleo]

This cannot be overstated enough (something that is continually lost on the unions) you're only WORTH what your replacement value is. If someone with the same skill level is willing to do you job for less, then I hate to break it to you... but that's the value of your job. Not some made up amount you have in your head simply because you've been there a long time.

There's always spots available and many more that go unfilled. What does that mean?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

kkgg:

I think your home country is a very good example of why organized labour should be around.

hawc:

That's a rather idealized notion of wages being congruent and proportional to skills level. I can think of quite a few fools in the private sector who doesn't deserve minimum wage for the "good" they've done. Yes, hirings and wages should be by merit, but I am afraid the private sector is no better in this regard.

AoD

 

[hawc]

That's a rather idealized notion of wages being congruent and proportional to skills level. I can think of quite a few fools in the private sector who doesn't deserve minimum wage for the "good" they've done. Yes, hirings and wages should be by merit, but I am afraid the private sector is no better in this regard.

Wages aren't always directly congruent to skill level in either sector, but they are based on the forces of supply and demand in the private sector. You pay someone what the market thinks that job is worth. And if someone else will do it for cheaper then that's what the job is worth. Public sector unions are isolated artificially from that. Hence wages get all out of whack with the job's real economic worth.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yes, yes we have been through that. Assuming that the market and the individuals operating/participating are completely mobile, acting purely on rational self-interests, etc. Sorry, reality is messier.
And hate to tell you - "economic worth" is one important criteria, but not the only one for running a society. Government should be run efficiently (again, one can debate about the meaning of efficiency to kingdom come) - but at the end of the day, it is not the only basis of government policy either.

Personally, I am more annoyed by the lack of competence than the high wages that are being paid out.

AoD

 

[kkgg7]

Wages aren't always directly congruent to skill level in either sector, but they are based on the forces of supply and demand in the private sector. You pay someone what the market thinks that job is worth. And if someone else will do it for cheaper then that's what the job is worth. Public sector unions are isolated artificially from that. Hence wages get all out of whack with the job's real economic worth.

then why public servants can't be hired exactly the same way private sector employees are?

 

[kkgg7]

kkgg:

I think your home country is a very good example of why organized labour should be around.

AoD

Thanks for preaching.
If the market is only willing to pay $1 an hour for a low skilled worker with no benefit, then I am sorry, that's exactly what he/she is supposed to earn. You can afford to live a miserable life only because your value to the society is just that low, and you but no one else is responsible for that. If unions come to the picture, they artificially inflate salaries. Now it seems you can make $2 instead, it seems fairer, but what about those who are willing to make $1.5 an hour but can't get into the union? Is it fair to them?

You think it is fair to pay ttc drivers $50,000 a year with lifetime job security. What about those immigrant workers, who probably can drive better and willing to do the job for $35,000? Why don't give them a chance, at least a chance to compete? Please shed some light on it.