[M II A II R II K]

MPP pushes for no-strike TTC


Feb 22 2010

Robert Benzie

Read More: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/ttc/article/769313--mpp-pushes-for-no-strike-ttc

The Toronto Transit Commission would be designated an essential service, its workers prohibited from striking, under private-member's legislation being introduced Monday by a leading Liberal MPP. David Caplan (Don Valley East) says commuters are fed up with work stoppages that disrupt the city and cost the local economy about $50 million a day. "No strikes, no lockouts. And it establishes – if the parties can't bargain on their own – an arbitration process for them to resolve their collective-bargaining issues," he told the Star.

"We've had too many work stoppages over the course of recent years. Enough is enough."

Mayor David Miller and a majority of city councillors oppose Queen's Park declaring the TTC essential because they believe it would lead to unaffordable arbitrated wage settlements.

"The party line is that these kinds of arbitration processes cost more than collective bargaining. I don't buy that," said Caplan, a former senior minister in Premier Dalton McGuinty's cabinet.

"Because what happens, as we've seen the last several rounds, is we have a work stoppage, the province convenes an emergency session to send people back to work and to send it to arbitration," he said.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Ah yes, except that David Caplan isn't the one who had to deal with the increased cost from such a move. How convenient for him to say that he doesn't buy it when he had absolutely no responsiblities on the file, as a backbencher. He should run for council instead of issuing stone tablets, if he is that interested in municipal issues.

Perhaps he should focus his energies on MoH...wait, I forgot, he resigned in spite of his glowing record of achievements in the said ministry. Like eHealth.

AoD

 

[nfitz]

So first the Liberals cut all the funding in 2010 for TTC operations. And now they want to remove the TTC's ability to control the process?

 

[DavidH]

So first the Liberals cut all the funding in 2010 for TTC operations. And now they want to remove the TTC's ability to control the process?

I think using the term "they" is, at this point, greatly overstating the case.

 

[The Mad Navigator]

This won't go through.

Stupid stupid stuipd idea in the first place. It's a shame there are a lot of idiots in this city who would want this.

 

[kettal]

Hypothetically.. If there was to be an outsourcing of operations, wouldn't this be a required first step?

 

[Hank]

The only problem with this is that the arbitrated settlements that would result are for some reason always more favourable to the union than they should be. If we can put some mechanism in place to ensure that arbitrated settlements actually come to a fair result, then I have no problem with declaring the TTC an essential service - it is essential for a great many commuters.

 

[GraphicMatt]

This is such a dumb semantic issue. If it's about getting people to admit that the TTC is essential to people's lives in this city, then, yes, absolutely, it's essential. But that's not what this legislation is really about. It'd essentially be handing the union guaranteed high pay increases every three years for the foreseeable future.

The system IS completely broken, though, and provincial legislators need to deal with that. The union already knows that if they strike they'll get legislated back within a day and go to arbitration regardless.

 

[W. K. Lis]

If every time the ATU 113 goes on strike or lockout, the province forces legislation to force both the TTC and ATU 113 to go to arbitration, and making the TTC an essential service would force arbitration, what would be the difference? No strike or lockout.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Hank:

Yes, except that the Hon. David Caplan didn't suggest anything as interesting/controversial as changing the labour laws. Again, he is grandstanding and leaving others to clean up the mess he made.

AoD

 

[Hank]

I agree.

I wasn't saying that I agreed with this particular plan per se, just that I don't disagree with making the TTC an essential service, as long as it's done in the context of a larger change to the arbitration mechanism.

 

[js97]

I'd be interested in seeing ACTUAL numbers of salary negotiation results to pre-essential services vs post. There is a lot of political rhetoric about settlements costing tax payers more etc etc. It seems to me that everytime a union goes on strike, they get what they want, so how is that any different from arbitration?


If the numbers are very similiar/same, then I say make them an essential service (which I really think the numbers are)

 

[DavidH]

I'd be interested in seeing ACTUAL numbers of salary negotiation results to pre-essential services vs post. There is a lot of political rhetoric about settlements costing tax payers more etc etc. It seems to me that everytime a union goes on strike, they get what they want, so how is that any different from arbitration?

More to the point, they ARE going to arbitration now, every time they get ordered back to work. I'm not sure that sending them to arbitration without the strike would cost more - unless we have reached the point where depriving the city of transit service for a day or two every few years is considered a cost-management mechanism.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Report from CD Howe Institute

http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/ebrief_62.pdf

Note that the said org is hardly of the left.

AoD

 

[DavidH]

Report from CD Howe Institute

What jumps out immediately at me is this statement:

One caveat: while wages were higher after a service was declared essential this may be because wage negotiations have
usually involved third parties – such as arbitrators – which may lead to higher wages than an unfettered strike model
(Gunderson et al 1996, Currie and McConnell 1991).

Given the above statement, is this study even relevant to the TTC? TTC workers are *already* getting arbitrated settlements because they actually don't get to go on strike before back-to-work legislation without binding arbitration is imposed. All the proposed legislation would do is to send it to arbitration, as already occurs, without using the public as a target for two days beforehand. There would be no other effective change.