[kEiThZ]

I am curious to know why arbitration always costs more. I expect some compensation for losing the right to strike. But why does it always cost a lot more.

 

[Dilla]

From what I've been told, both parties have to agree on an arbitrator. They both make up lists, and then boil it down to someone they can both agree upon. Any arbitrator which doesn't give a union a favourable settlement is blacklisted by all the unions, and then the unions will never again put them on their lists. Arbitrators know this, and won't dare cross a union for fear of being put out of work.

Don't really know for sure, but that's what I've been told. Don't ask me why the government doesn't do the same with their list, 'cause I'd like to know, too.

 

[Platform 27]

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?

Oh boy, the fail is strong with this one.

The Liberals didn't "cut" TTC operations funding, because it wasn't there to begin with. The province hasn't been subsidizing the TTC's operations budget since at least Harris, if not one of the Rae austerity budgets. Miller had asked the province to resume provincial subsidy so as to pare down his own tax increases in Toronto, and the Liberals had said "sorry, the province is broke, maybe later."

And agree or disagree with Caplan, this is a private member's bill that runs explicitly contrary to the government line. There is no "they." Kathleen Wynne has already stated that the cabinet will be whipped to vote against if it gets to second reading, as the official government policy is no changes to TTC labour law without a prior request from Toronto council.

I suspect this was introduced in part because Caplan legitimitely felt it would be popular with his constituents, but also as a way to inject the issue into the mayoralty race. Note how both Smitherman and Rossi have come out in favour of essential service designation in the last 24 hours. This issue should rightfully be decided by the Toronto electorate in the municipal elections, and I think it will be. If when the dust settles a majority on council want essential service designation, I predict that there's be an official government bill in Queens Park to accomplish that shortly thereafter.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Province, city spar over TTC


February 24, 2010

Natalie Alcoba

Read More: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto/story.html?id=2605496

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The ongoing dance between the City of Toronto and Queen's Park over the future of the Toronto Transit Commission was on display yesterday, with Premier Dalton McGuinty weighing in on the essential service debate and Mayor David Miller countering that all the TTC needs is more money. Mr. McGuinty has had a lot to say about Toronto's transit system lately. He defended a decision not to issue an annual transit cheque, and dispelled the notion that permanent funding could be negotiated by year-end. But his foray into whether the TTC should be deemed an essential service got the Mayor's back up.

- Mr. McGuinty has had a lot to say about Toronto's transit system lately. He defended a decision not to issue an annual transit cheque, and dispelled the notion that permanent funding could be negotiated by year-end. But his foray into whether the TTC should be deemed an essential service got the Mayor's back up.

- With money, however, often comes strings -- the province will own the LRT lines that it is paying for in Toronto--and the prospect of permanent funding has observers speculating that Queen's Park may be looking for more control over the TTC. It coincides with calls for an overhaul of a commission that is currently made up of nine councillors, and critics say should include or be run by the private sector. "We all recognize no political body is going to give money without having some say in terms of what is happening to the organization," said Councillor Michael Thompson (Scarborough Centre), a former member of the Toronto Transit Commission. He is a proponent of folding the TTC into a larger, regional transit provider, such as Metrolinx, a provincial agency that is overseeing Ontario's ambitious plan to expand rapid transit in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. "I don't see how you develop successful regional and local transit without moving in that direction," Mr. Thompson said. "It can't be simply that Metrolinx does A, TTC does B and we get them to talk when we need to." In a recent interview with the National Post, Transportation Minister Kathleen Wynne said there are no plans to have Metrolinx take over the TTC. She stressed that the province is in its own financial straits.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

[DavidH]

The Liberals didn't "cut" TTC operations funding, because it wasn't there to begin with. The province hasn't been subsidizing the TTC's operations budget since at least Harris, if not one of the Rae austerity budgets.

Yes and no. The Liberals have not been formally providing a share of operations funding to TTC or any other local transit system. However, they HAVE been providing Toronto with bailout monies at budget time over the past few years, usually disguised as TTC funding in this form or that form.

 

[GraphicMatt]

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.

I don't believe every TTC contract over the last while has gone to arbitration after an illegal strike - just 2 or 3 of them. It's a disturbing trend (especially with the wildcat strike this past year), but at least the lack of essential service designation means that a negotiated settlement is possible.

I try to remain pro-union because historically it's the only sensible position, but I do think there's something wrong when private-sector unions are making all sorts of concessions and working with their employers to keep the business going while public-sector unions are getting more and more indignant.

 

[grey]

I try to remain pro-union because historically it's the only sensible position, but I do think there's something wrong when private-sector unions are making all sorts of concessions and working with their employers to keep the business going while public-sector unions are getting more and more indignant.

I would really like to see a Freakonomics-style analysis of this phenomenon.

 

[kEiThZ]

I try to remain pro-union because historically it's the only sensible position, but I do think there's something wrong when private-sector unions are making all sorts of concessions and working with their employers to keep the business going while public-sector unions are getting more and more indignant.

It's because of the double monopoly. That's something private sector unions don't have. If their business goes under, they are out of work (unless you're in the auto sector). For public sector unions, their employer faces no competition and in some cases (like the TTC) competition is actually banned. If they got rid of one of these monopolies (either on labour or service), we would quicly see the wage envelope come down and employee performance on the TTC improve dramatically.

What's interesting too is that it's municipal unions that are getting more militant. Strikes and exorbitant wage demands amongs federal civil servants are becoming more and more rare (because the feds aren't scared to outsource if their employees get too expensive), and the provincial civil service is also slowly getting there too.

 

[kEiThZ]

On principle I agree with the province. Simple logic dictates that if this city can't run without the TTC that they are an essential service. And given that negotiations always go to arbitration anyway, how much more of a financial impact would such a designation have anyway.

 

[js97]

I try to remain pro-union because historically it's the only sensible position, but I do think there's something wrong when private-sector unions are making all sorts of concessions and working with their employers to keep the business going while public-sector unions are getting more and more indignant.

I think unions have their place in the private sector. Those unions have to balance the interest of the private corporation vs the interest of the employees. Any demands or actions that would cripple the company, short term or long term, would not be in the best interest of the employees - they would eventually be out of a job.

On the other hand, public sector unions can be unreasonable (inflamatory?) because their employers have a certain level of stability that can't be found in the private sector. Governments can raise revenues through taxes that can finance those demands unlike any corporation can.
Let's also not forget the plolitical influence unions can have on a government, something that's not really seen in the private sector.

Perhaps they should make it a mandatory requirement for City employees to be residents of the City. That way, a demand that the city can't afford is a direct demand for more taxation.

in one pocket, back out the other

 

[doady]

I don't understand. Has the province gotten rid of the gas tax funding for transit?

 

[kEiThZ]

I agree with the residency requirement. If the double monopoly is going to persist then it's time for municipalities to put up residency requirements. Something has to be done so that City employees feel the results of their actions. There is something seriously wrong when you have TTC operators commuting in from Cobourg. That's not even the GTA anymore.

 

[Platform 27]

I agree with the residency requirement. If the double monopoly is going to persist then it's time for municipalities to put up residency requirements. Something has to be done so that City employees feel the results of their actions. There is something seriously wrong when you have TTC operators commuting in from Cobourg. That's not even the GTA anymore.

Residency requirements have been determined by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional.

 

[GraphicMatt]

That doesn't mean, though, that there isn't lots TTC's HR department could be doing to promote local employment. Why aren't they in schools promoting themselves as a good place to work for graduates? Why don't they work with employment services organizations to place qualified but unemployed people? Why do I get the impression that most people who work for the TTC got there because they knew someone else who worked at the TTC?

 

[leopetr]

I don't believe every TTC contract over the last while has gone to arbitration after an illegal strike - just 2 or 3 of them. It's a disturbing trend (especially with the wildcat strike this past year), but at least the lack of essential service designation means that a negotiated settlement is possible.

Last year's wasn't a wildcat strike. The contract offer was voted down by the general membership, which caused an automatic strike.

(Personally, I'd like transit to be designated an essential service. It's an equivalent to roads and sidewalks, not to garbage pickup. One can live without garbage pickup, but one can't live without a road.)