News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

If you're returning from sick leave, that means you're ready to return to your normal duties, as you'd be getting full pay no less than what you earned before going on sick leave. For example, if an experienced bus driver being paid $80K per year (or whatever they're being paid these days) returns from sick leave, I hope they're not being sent to cushy ticket collecting jobs (which, with all due respect, most anyone can do) at same pay.

And if you're "sitting around at home doing nothing," then you must still be on sick leave, so not understanding what you're saying.

I think you may be looking at things a little too black and white.

Not disputing any specific complaints with regards to the actual practice of sick leave and staffing collector booths, but consider this hypothetical with your experienced bus driver: they were in an accident and broke their leg. They have recovered enough to have some mobility, but not enough to properly operate a gas and brake pedal.

Your choice, as management, is to either have this person remain on sick leave until their leg is capable of properly operating a bus, paying whatever salary and sick benefits, plus paying to hire someone else to man the collector booth (for whatever low salary you want to pay, plus contractually mandated benefits, training and other costs).

Or, you can bring your bus driver back to work as a collector until they are capable of operating a bus.

Which option do you think would be preferred by those who complain about wasting TTC money?
 
Usually the insurance provider for the employees as part of the benefits package covers long term disability. Different of course for WISB patients which you want back on the job even alternate duties as soon as possible, but there is no excuse for having collectors in the system in the first place.

The real problem is the TTC for years saw the cost of installing card readers and sales terminals as a cost, not as a benefit. They couldn't see that putting in Metropass sales machines would save them money in overtime for collectors, while saying customer time. Same with Presto, they never see the savings of getting rid of collectors, only the cost of replacing turnstiles with modern gates, and retrofitting existing automatic entrances.
 
This, I think, is a major issue. At least 80% of all the operators at the TTC don't live in the city. When my dad was still a driver, he used to tell me that when he worked at Wilson division, out of a complement of a couple of thousand drivers and mechanics, he was one of a handful that lived in the city. I truly think the fact that a lot drivers and collectors, especially the senior ones, don't live in the city, and don't have a stake in it, is a big reason why their attitude is so bad. They don't live here, they don't care, and they don't like the kind of people that live in the city (draw your own conclusions). You can say it's because Toronto is too expensive, and that's true to an extent, but you take guys like that one who was caught sleeping, he said he had thirty years on the job? So that means that in 1980, when he started, he could have started living in the city as the city was much cheaper then. But the fact is that a lot of the boomer generation of operators that were hired around the time Sleeping Beauty was got out of the city as soon as they could, assuming they ever lived here. They also never left their sense of entitlement at home either.

Do you really think that his living arrangement is a factor? So what you are saying is that Torontonian's should not cross Steeles and work (apparently in the public sector) in York Region because they do not care about what Vaughan has to offer. Mississauga residents shouldn't work in Toronto because they don't like what the city has to offer.

Maybe he has always resided in Cobourg and didn't see the need to move to Toronto for a variety of reasons like family and the fact that he is okay with commuting on a daily basis.

I would love to work for the TTC. I grew up and lived in Toronto for 20 years but recently moved to the 905. Does that disqualify me from working for the TTC? I have vested interests in TTC's wellbeing, probably more than most Torontonians.
 
Do you really think that his living arrangement is a factor? So what you are saying is that Torontonian's should not cross Steeles and work (apparently in the public sector) in York Region because they do not care about what Vaughan has to offer. Mississauga residents shouldn't work in Toronto because they don't like what the city has to offer.

Maybe he has always resided in Cobourg and didn't see the need to move to Toronto for a variety of reasons like family and the fact that he is okay with commuting on a daily basis.

I would love to work for the TTC. I grew up and lived in Toronto for 20 years but recently moved to the 905. Does that disqualify me from working for the TTC? I have vested interests in TTC's wellbeing, probably more than most Torontonians.

See, and this is why I was reluctant to fully connect the dots. Generalizations are by definition unfair. I am sure there are some pushing-60 TTC workers who live far out-of-town and do a bang-up job but I can't help but feel customer service (and management) at the TTC would be better if there were fewer of them.

And if you want to work for the TTC you should. They're hiring: http://www3.ttc.ca/Jobs/Current_employment_opportunities/index.jsp
 
I would love to work for the TTC. I grew up and lived in Toronto for 20 years but recently moved to the 905. Does that disqualify me from working for the TTC?

Ideally? Yes, it should disqualify you. Or if not disqualify you outright, it should mean you would come in second up against someone with your exact qualifications, but who lived in the city. If I were hiring, that person would get the job, not you. I want someone with a vested interest in this city, not someone who views it as just another workplace. And it works the other way around, I don't think I would want to work for Vaughan's or Mississauga's public sector (especially if it's a nonprofessional job) if I didn't live there, and they shouldn't make it easy for me to do so. The public sector isn't a bank, or an insurance company. It's much more fundamental, and the corrosive effect of having a public workforce separated - physically and emotionally - from those whom they serve is not worth the risk of deterring given individuals from applying. Give prospective employees some incentive instead, housing bonuses or something, in order to attract them here. This goes for cops and firefighters and EMS, all of whom have rates of suburban residency as high, if not higher, than the TTC. If not, then what is Toronto, really? Just a temp agency? Do we not want people who work for the city to live here? Wouldn't you feel better that your taxes paid the salary of someone who lived here, paid taxes here, shopped in local stores, sent their kids to our schools, and who used the same transit system as you and who are as frustrated as you are at the mediocre service? You always hear complaints about lazy, apathetic public workers. Well, if they lived in the city and had to deal with the results of shoddy service themselves, don't you think that, if for no other reason than self-interest, they would do a better job than someone who gets in their car everyday and drives off to places like Coburg?

Sorry, but if you want to work for the Toronto public service, you should live here, or at least, not be hired unless and until someone as qualified who demonstrates that they live in Toronto can't be hired ahead of you. I think most public employees in this city should live here. In the case of the TTC, I have heard way too many stories over the years of operators and collectors not giving a damn about this city, collecting city salaries and city pensions, and then living in Coburg somewhere, just in and out. I can almost guarantee you that if city residency were a requirement, you would see more TTC employees use the system. This, in turn, would increase their ownership over it, they would become more closely embedded in the system they work for, more likely to see where things can be improved, and more attuned to the needs of the people using it because they too use it and don't see the riders as some "other", but people like them. Someone driving in from Coburg doesn't see these things, probably never can, and so the result is what we're seeing in terms of shoddy service. Would it solve all of the TTC's customer service problems? Of course not, but I truly think that a workforce using the system they work for will be more likely to care about its health than those who don't.
 
Last edited:
What you are suggesting violates section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sorry, but that's the end of the story.

To restrict someone for working for a company based on their address is a violation of their fundamental human rights.

Mobility of citizens

6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
Rights to move and gain livelihood

(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
Limitation

(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to
(a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and
(b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.
Affirmative action programs

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.
 
Last edited:
thanks RedRocket191,

Essentially what I am trying to say is that you cannot point all fingers at employees living outside of Toronto for the TTC's shoddy customer service skills. There are other things too. Do people understand why riders are frustrated in the first place? Is it because they are not being told about delays? lack of signage? legibility of maps and schedules? and so on and so forth. You can't blame front line employees for all of that. That's also in the hands of management. Customer service skill training is also an acquired skills and job training should be provided. These skills are transferable no matter where you are in the city/GTA. You cannot discriminate based on a few facts and putting two variables, that may not be correlated, together.
 
What you are suggesting violates section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I see nothing in Section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that would allow a city to offer employment based on residency in that city. I'd think they'd be kind of stuck trying to terminate employment if someone moved, but I don't see anything that wouldn't let them preferentially employ their own residents.

Not that I think this is the best course of action. Perhaps merely putting in things to discourage such excessive travel. For example completely eliminating any employee parking. No reason that almost all employees shouldn't be expected to take transit to get to work.
 
Last edited:
I do not think they could get away with preferentially employing their own residents either. If you favour a resident then you disfavour a non-resident. This still amounts to discrimination that violates Section 6 in my opinion - but I'm not a lawyer. The only grounds on which they could get away with this is if they did not feel the non-resident would be on-time for work every day - and if they said "yes I can get to work" then they are stuck.

I absolutely agree that we should phase out free parking for employees. Subsidized transit passes are considered a taxable benefit (while Parking spots are not), but that wouldn't be an issue for a transit agency.
 
I must admit, I too am faintly stunned by the line taken by fiendishlibrarian, who really ought to know better. The TTC should be free to hire the best employees possible. The TTC has a responsibility in cultivating excellent customer service among employees who have a passion for what they do and connect with the people they serve. They are failing that responsibility. Substituting it for a dependence on someone making their resident on the correct side of the Scarborough/Pickering border as a work-around for building an internal culture of excellence is a ridiculous approach to human resource management, particularly in the service industry.

Seriously. "They don't like the kind of people that live in the city"? Even if "Toronto is too expensive ... in 1980, when he started he could have started living in the city as the city was much cheaper then"? What on earth? I mean, what exactly are the kind of people that live in the City of Toronto, and how do they differ from those who live in other GTA municipalities, please? And what if someone wants to have a family: is it okay for them to move then? This is simply the wrong approach. The right one is cultivating an employee culture that cares about service, cares about customers -- yep, even the customers who are just visiting from the great wide world beyond the City of Toronto! -- and cares about making the city a better place to be. (Note: "city". Not "City".) Would more of the folks who would do well in such an environment hail from the correct side of the Scarborough-Pickering border? Sure, maybe. But that's a result, not a strategy.

Perhaps merely putting in things to discourage such excessive travel. For example completely eliminating any employee parking. No reason that almost all employees shouldn't be expected to take transit to get to work.

I'm not sure that this would be a successful strategy for enforcing Fortress City. If we really want to prevent commuters from coming in and holding public sector jobs -- municipal ones, I mean; presumably this does not imply opposition to locating the provincial capital at Queens Park -- the first thing we need to do is burn all the GO trains. Then add a few strategically-placed moats, and we're good to go.

I see nothing in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that would [not] allow a city to offer employment based on residency in that city. I'd think they'd be kind of stuck trying to terminate employment if someone moved, but I don't see anything that wouldn't let them preferentially employ their own residents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godbout_v._Longueuil_(City)
 
Last edited:
The TTC should be free to hire the best employees possible.
True ... but to play devil's advocate, shouldn't the TTC also be concerned about the health and safety of it's employees? Surely if an employee near the end of his shift is too tired to stay awake, then the TTC should no be allowing them to drive over an hour home at the end of their shift, and should therefore only hire employees who they can transport home.

Excellent reference! Though I should point out that it was Section 7 here that came into to play - "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." and not the mobility rights in Section 6 that were discussed previously.

Again I point out, that there's nothing in the Constitution that requires the TTC to provide free parking to their employees ...
 
Last edited:
True ... but to play devil's advocate, shouldn't the TTC also be concerned about the health and safety of it's employees? Surely if an employee near the end of his shift is too tired to stay away, then the TTC should no be allowing them to drive over an hour home at the end of their shift, and should therefore only hire employees who they can transport home.

And playing devil's advocate to your devil's advocate, I think that while the TTC should be concerned about the health and safety of their employees, it shouldn't be in the view to controlling where they live. If the employee is having difficulty staying awake and alert during work hours, then that is something to be addressed with the employee (and presumably through the union, god bless 'em).

If the extensive commute is causing repeated issues with falling asleep on the job, then that could be grounds for dismissal. That would leave the choice to the employee to decide whether it is worth it to them to keep their job and perhaps move closer, or to find employment closer to home.

As for making employees travel on the TTC, what about those who are closing or opening the subway? Sure, there is the all night buses, but being told they must take 60 minutes (or more) to travel from say, Wilson, Davisville or Greenwood by surface routes when they could drive nearly empty streets in 20 minutes or less just seems like asking for more sleep issues on the job.
 
I am at the point where I believe they need to take a time-out from expansion and get their customer service issues fixed. Put in smart cards, run the subway an hour past last call, etc. Get all that in place. It'll do more for demand than expansion ever will. And I fully agree on the rebranding. The TTC needs reminding that service should be at its core.

There's no need to increase demand, because demand already outstrips supply by a wide margin. They raise fare prices, continue sucking at PR, and it's still impossible for me to squeeze into the subway at rush hour. I say we need MORE surly staff, and fare price should go up to $5. Or, alternatively, build more capacity.
 
True ... but to play devil's advocate, shouldn't the TTC also be concerned about the health and safety of it's employees? Surely if an employee near the end of his shift is too tired to stay away, then the TTC should no be allowing them to drive over an hour home at the end of their shift, and should therefore only hire employees who they can transport home.

I don't understand. You are saying that employers should regulate where their employees live, so that they can transport them home when they are done working? That makes no sense. As Asterix says, if someone spends all their time commuting, or golfing, or reading, or whatever, and leaves their sleeping for when they are on the job, then their employer is either giving them very poor performance reports leading to dismissal, or is not on the ball.

Again I point out, that there's nothing in the Constitution that requires the TTC to provide free parking to their employees ...

Um, yeah. I don't think anyone suggested there was. That would be crazy.

There's no need to increase demand, because demand already outstrips supply by a wide margin. They raise fare prices, continue sucking at PR, and it's still impossible for me to squeeze into the subway at rush hour. I say we need MORE surly staff, and fare price should go up to $5. Or, alternatively, build more capacity.

More capacity? More crazy talk. What we need is more cars on more arterial roads, and more cul de sacs in between them. (Sorry, feeling snarky.)
 
Last edited:
I think its now obvious what we all already knew..........someone is running for Mayor. (and hey I like this package, its about 10 years late, but.....)

From The STAR:

Among the customer service improvements outlined Wednesday were:

• 50 new fare vending machines to make sure there’s alleviation from the monthly line-ups for passes across the system

• Improved customer assistance and more emergency transfers when there are major subway delays.

• Text messaging from all 800 streetcar stops by July to let riders know when the next couple of cars are expected to arrive

• Video screens at station entrances and collector booths with system status

• New microphones in the collector booths

• A 24/7 customer assistance and complaints line

• More TTC ambassadors at stations to help direct riders

• An overhaul of customer service training and performance evaluations for all 13,000 TTC employees.
 

Back
Top