[Voltz]

On the point of where employees can live. All the TTC needs to do is require residency within a certain radius for 'operational reasons' (ie. you can be called in on short notice). It's something for example that the military does to its personnel. CF members are not normally allowed to reside more than 50 km from their place of employment (be that an office tower in a canadian city, a foreign post or a military base). There is no real emergency requirement, except for very few personnel. But the military has always felt that personnel living further away impacts their quality of life which in turn can impact morale and work performance. I really don't understand how they let cops and EMS workers live further than 50km from Toronto.

For the TTC though, one easy way to limit parking for TTC employees. You only get a spot if you are on the opening or closing shift. Otherwise, require them to take the TTC to/from work.

Driving a bus and serving in the military are completely different in terms of importance, the TTC would never in a million years get away with requiring their employees to live within a certain radius, it is just not important enough of a job.

 

[kEiThZ]

Driving a bus and serving in the military are completely different in terms of importance, the TTC would never in a million years get away with requiring their employees to live within a certain radius, it is just not important enough of a job.

I understand the difference. However, as I pointed out the CF enforces the policy even for staff who work in office buildings in Ottawa. And it flat out says that the policy is there for quality of life, morale and to enhance work performance because it does not want long commutes for personnel. In fact, standby times (for high readines personnel) are usually longer than the commute allowed for most CF personnel (1 hr for search and rescue, 4 hours from work for assorted security personnel). And the CF is not alone. A lot of federal agencies express 'preferences' for 'local' recruits. If they can do that, I trust the TTC can probably get away with some kind of residency incentive scheme. I can think of a few. How about a property tax break for city employees (effectively a pay increase)? How about more points on an interview for residing in the city, decreasing by how far away you are? Or residency bonuses? Nothing says they just have to ban employment for out-of-towners. They can severely disincentivize non-residents though.

One of the main things though should be taking away parking. Very hard for a Coburg resident to work for the TTC without parking. Or at least he'll have to pay for it. That's a nice clawback to impose on a non-resident.

 

[W. K. Lis]

All these "infractions" should be filed away until the time of the ATU 113's next contract negotiations. Maybe this thread should accumulate them for later reference.

 

[nfitz]

All these "infractions" should be filed away until the time of the ATU 113's next contract negotiations. Maybe this thread should accumulate them for later reference.

It goes both ways. Union get's to sit the with the latest 3 AM incident and ask "What are we supposed to do ... there are no facilities at either end of the route, and no time in the schedue to drive away from the terminal to take a break ... we need better working conditions.

As examples of this go, it's not the best one. I've seen far worse ... ATMs for example.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

nfitz:

Like I have said, the issue isn't so much so that the driver takes a break or get coffee - it is the amount of time taken to do so (7 minutes - what of the legal liabilities if god forbid a passenger on the bus decide to do something dangerous?) and the attitude exhibited when questioned - and so ATM has worse service, I would hope that's not something for TTC to aspire to.

The driver is now suspended - and the ATU is rather muted in its' response:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/760507--ttc-driver-caught-on-break-suspended?bn=1

As powerful as citizen based reporting on TTC deficiencies is - one has to be aware of potential drawbacks - the last thing you want is a toxic work environment where even performing employees are constantly watching their back for that camera totting rider instead of focusing on their job. And that's not to mention the mob mentality that can be whipped up by others with questionable agendas.

AoD

 

[nfitz]

nfitz:

Like I have said, the issue isn't so much so that the driver takes a break or get coffee - it is the amount of time taken to do so (7 minutes - what of the legal liabilities if god forbid a passenger on the bus decide to do something dangerous?) and the attitude exhibited when questioned - and so ATM has worse service, I would hope that's not something for TTC to aspire to.

I don't disagree that the time seems excessive (I noted as much), or that the attitude is poor ... but I think there is a systemic problem here as well.

Not sure what you mean by ATM has worse service ... ATM - automated teller machine. I can't think of an a reason one should be stopping at one while working!

 

[kEiThZ]

The operators fully deserve what they are getting. For years they thought they could get away with it. Heck, until this recent brouha, nobody even knew that the breaks weren't allowed. They are getting a taste of the contempt they showed for the public. It's unfortunate that the nice ones have to also suffer, but that's how customer service works. Does anyone judge Rogers customer service by their best call centre reps? Nope. The bar for every customer service organization is the same. And that's why organizations go to great lengths to teach and help their CSRs cope with the most aggressive and problematic customers. You can yell all you want at a Bell call centre rep. You can swear at them. And you still won't get anything in return. I am not saying it's right. But that's the way it is. Bell does not want their call centre reps getting into fights with customers over the phone. Yet, the TTC tolerates rude, gruff and unprofessional behaviour from its employees who have face to face interactions with customers?

They deserve what they are getting and it's only going to get worse. On the plus side, I predict that service is going to improve dramatically in the next few months. Customers with cellphone cams are going to do what TTC management has failed to do for years (even decades). And this is just the kind of ammunition that the next mayor needs to take on the ATU as well.

 

[Dilla]

Not sure what you mean by ATM has worse service ... ATM - automated tellar machine. I can't think of an a reason one should be stopping at one while working!

I'm not sure if this is what Alvin was referring to?

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/01/29/12670961.html

This is even less excusable than the coffee (neither are at all, really), but it's getting less attention, for some reason.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I am putting all my money behind guessing that he meant STM - Montreal Transit.

 

[nfitz]

I am putting all my money behind guessing that he meant STM - Montreal Transit.

That's kind of thought where he was going ... though AMT is a provincial agency and STM (aka MTC) is a city agency.

Perhaps it's just me ... but I don't see a coffee at 3 AM as inexecusable. Given the shift work that drivers do, if he really needs a coffee, then surely there are H&S risks if he keeps driving ... can't think of an excuse for the ATM ... unless he needs cash for the coffee ...

 

[Dilla]

They get breaks for this. Also, it's not the coffee break, it's how. He could have announced to the passengers "Sorry folks, but I didn't have time to go on my last break, so I've got to pop in here and use the facilities. Sorry for the delay, I'll be as quick as possible." Who would complain then? Instead, he just walked away. I've had this happen to me, and it's not knowing what is going on that drove me crazy. Some drivers don't even seem to want to acknowledge that there are passengers who are dependent on them to get home at 3am in the cold. I can't imagine doing this to people. Then when he was confronted for doing something which is explicitly disallowed in the collective agreement (which, when it suits the ATU, becomes absolute law), he becomes indignant and dismissive. That's what really irks me.

 

[kEiThZ]

Perhaps it's just me ... but I don't see a coffee at 3 AM as inexecusable. Given the shift work that drivers do, if he really needs a coffee, then surely there are H&S risks if he keeps driving ... can't think of an excuse for the ATM ... unless he needs cash for the coffee ...

If he isn't alert enough for night shifts than he should be working night shifts or should not be a bus driver, simple as that. I am pretty sure, being sufficiently awake is a job requirement for a bus driver. He should not need performance enhnacing drugs (caffeine) to get to that level. What other employer would tolerate unscheduled breaks just because it's a graveyard shift? Especially where customers were being impacted?

Also, keep in mind that on the day that the passenger confronted him, he was already 15 mins late and still insisted on taking his break. So we can assume that he might have made the passenger 20 mins late at least. Is that acceptable at 3 AM? Or what about leaving the door open and letting passengers freeze while he goes into a nice warm coffee shop to get a nice warm coffee? He could have at least brought back Timbits for the passengers. Come on!

 

[nfitz]

If he isn't alert enough for night shifts than he should be working night shifts or should not be a bus driver, simple as that.

Did you miss all the studies in the last couple of decades about how shift work effects people, and that people don't every properly adapt?

I am pretty sure, being sufficiently awake is a job requirement for a bus driver.

You are not 100% sure?

He should not need performance enhnacing drugs (caffeine) to get to that level. What other employer would tolerate unscheduled breaks just because it's a graveyard shift?

What other employer expects an employee to work all night without a coffee or having a chance to pee?

Especially where customers were being impacted?

Are they though? I pointed out above that anytime I've taken the night bus, that they have no problems gaining on the schedule when they want to ... they have to try hard and not get too far ahead. Yes, 5-10 minutes seems a bit excessive ... but in general, I don't see the issue of a driver on a night bus stopping at a coffee place, going in to pee, grab a coffee (and heck perhaps even a doughnut) to go. Operative word here is night bus.

 

[nfitz]

They get breaks for this.

As far as I know, the breaks are at the terminal. You tell me where you get a coffee anywhere either terminal for the Bathurst night bus!

 

[Dilla]

I don't agree. They're getting it both ways here. Try and get some (not all, I know) TTC workers to do anything that their agreement doesn't specifically say they have to do. Hell, even when it is in the contract, they've gone on wildcat strikes to prevent things happening they don't like (and they ALL went on that strike). But, when something is in the agreement which they cannot do, it's not a big deal if they go ahead and do it anyway?

He should have told the passengers what was going on, and was inexcusably rude when he was called to task for something he's not allowed to do. I don't see how terrible customer service is more acceptable when the sun goes down.

If they can't get coffee, too bad. It's not a god given right to have coffee on demand at a lot of jobs.