[Darwinkgo]

You can roll back labour expenses without cutting salaries, you just cut the number of people. Since benefits are a big chunk of compensation cutting absolute numbers and not just wage rate is the way to go. Conversely, if a collector is making the Sunshine List it makes sense to hire someone to get rid of the overtime available.

The system certainly wouldn't suffer much to have more automated entrances, and single operators on the new TRs.

 

[JDH]

We all know labour costs at the TTC will never be reduced with the current bureaucracy/union leadership. It is nearly pointless to bemoan the fact of the high labour costs. Many innovative small changes can make a significant savings to TTC operating costs.

The above mentioned motor efficiency controller for escalators would save a conservative $1000 in electricity costs per escalator per year in the TTC inventory. The TTC currently operates 294 escalators. The resulting energy savings would be a minimum of $294,000 and with the inclusion of the reduced maintenance costs TTC labour costs would also be reduced.

The discussion should stay away from direct labour cost reductions and focus on efficiency measures indirectly forcing reductions in labour costs.

 

[unimaginative2]

I really don't think that it's practical or really that fair to roll back wages of existing employees. I think savings are better obtained through efficiency. The point about route supervisors is very apt. I don't think this would result in current year savings, but all/most of the vehicles are already equipped with a GPS transponder. There is no reason why all of the routes couldn't be monitored at a central "Transit Control" facility by a fraction of the number of personnel. It would also be more effective, allowing a much more global perspective of the route, and more pleasant for the workers--especially in winter!

A glance at a TTC org chart will also show that there is layer upon layer upon layer of middle management. I'm quite certain that there are at least ten layers between operating personnel and the General Manager. That's just completely unnecessary.

Finally, I'd like to see a crackdown on absenteeism and excessive overtime. The absentee rate statistics we've seen are unquestionably out of line. There is also a great deal of anecdotal evidence that supervision is a bit lax in many places. We all saw the article recently in The Star in which a former TTC janitor said that he and his colleagues would go watch a movie in the theatre routinely while working their shift. That's not just unfair to the organization--it's unfair to other staff who have to make up the missed work.

Just in response to the other comments...not that I'm advocating this at all but it really isn't as impossible or inconceivable as you might think to lay off government workers. In 1995, the federal government laid off 45,000 civil servants.

 

[kEiThZ]

So what do you do with operators who can no longer operate then? Just pay them to sit at home on disability? That won't save money.

I suspect that the reason we have so many injured personnel and the reason so many are on light duties, is because there are jobs to put them into. If all of a sudden, they don't have jobs, there would be a much stronger effort to rehabilitate them and put them back in the field.

I also would not mind seeing operators on light duties helping keep the system clean.

 

[kEiThZ]

How does a unionized, public organization like TTC go about addressing high labour costs anyway? I know it's easy to say "get tough with the union" but wouldn't lay-offs/restructuring lead to even higher costs in the short-term due to severance and possible job action?

But creating different job categories. The only reason fare collectors make so much, is because they have to be operators.

Can you imagine Air Canada paying an injured pilot his six figure salary to work at a ticket counter at Pearson?

As for job actions arising from changes, we'll just have to take it. Short-term pain for long term gain.

 

[kEiThZ]

We all know labour costs at the TTC will never be reduced with the current bureaucracy/union leadership. It is nearly pointless to bemoan the fact of the high labour costs. Many innovative small changes can make a significant savings to TTC operating costs.

The above mentioned motor efficiency controller for escalators would save a conservative $1000 in electricity costs per escalator per year in the TTC inventory. The TTC currently operates 294 escalators. The resulting energy savings would be a minimum of $294,000 and with the inclusion of the reduced maintenance costs TTC labour costs would also be reduced.

The discussion should stay away from direct labour cost reductions and focus on efficiency measures indirectly forcing reductions in labour costs.

I know you might be trying to sell these motors, but cutting 294000 from a multi billion dollar budget won't even save a penny on the fair increase. If you want to dent the fare increase, you have to after the big budget items first.

 

[nfitz]

I suspect that the reason we have so many injured personnel and the reason so many are on light duties, is because there are jobs to put them into. If all of a sudden, they don't have jobs, there would be a much stronger effort to rehabilitate them and put them back in the field.

Is there really that many positions? Looking at the latest service summary for the AM peak, there are about 1,500 buses, 180 streetcars, and 100 trains (94 subway and 6 RT). That's about 1,900 operators, before you start counting supervisors, breaks, spares, etc. How many are in the ticket booths? No more than 100 or so at once. It's not like it's 50:50 or something, closer to 95:5.

 

[kEiThZ]

Is there really that many positions? Looking at the latest service summary for the AM peak, there are about 1,500 buses, 180 streetcars, and 100 trains (94 subway and 6 RT). That's about 1,900 operators, before you start counting supervisors, breaks, spares, etc. How many are in the ticket booths? No more than 100 or so at once. It's not like it's 50:50 or something, closer to 95:5.

5% is a lot of personnel. I would argue that's a bit high for a transit organization. Consider that the Army considers a battalion short by 10% to be combat ineffective in some cases. Are we to assume that TTC operators face warzone like conditions in Toronto everyday? And that number is a bit skewed. Keep in mind that fare collectors have a consistent number all day long, even when service is cut-back during off-peak hours.

Anyway, like Northern Light pointed out, if these personnel are injured, wouldn't they be better off staying home and resting up or getting good treatment to get back to work? And why do light duties have to consist of fare collection? What about giving them a bucket and a mop? You should ask some Army privates what light duties mean when they injure themselves spraining their ankles on a tank rut in Gagetown. And they get paid half as much as a TTC operator.

 

[nfitz]

In the military they simply discharge people when they are medically unfit; problem solved. You don't see many 50-year old privates.

Are you suggesting that the TTC simply fire a 50-year old driver who is no longer medically fit to drive a bus, but could do other work?

 

[kEiThZ]

In the military they simply discharge people when they are medically unfit; problem solved. You don't see many 50-year old privates.

Not true. There's a big difference between being medically unfit and being placed on light duties for an injury. And even that policy has been modified since the beginning of Afghanistan.

Are you suggesting that the TTC simply fire a 50-year old driver who is no longer medically fit to drive a bus, but could do other work?

Not fire. Rehabilitate. If the military can take soldiers who've suffered battle injuries in war and still keep them in by retraining them, then I am sure it's not hard for the TTC. The point is they should expect to be retrained and regraded to a new payscale. The military does not let you keep your spec pay if you go to a job with lower skill requirements. It does however, give you a medical pension (from the pension fund you pay into) to make up the difference.

Why can't the TTC do that? Why can't injured operators draw from a pension fund that the TTC and the employees pitch into? And then have them re-assigned to a new job?

By reserving fare collector jobs for operators, in effect, we are degrading service. We should have trained customer service reps. And if an operator gets injured, he could be retrained and regraded as a CSR. Instead, we throw injured guys into a booth. And we don't demand much from them and they really aren't interested in being there. As a result we get the service we see today.

 

[nfitz]

You don't see many 50-year old privates.

Not true.

right ....

 

[kettal]

A glance at a TTC org chart will also show that there is layer upon layer upon layer of middle management. I'm quite certain that there are at least ten layers between operating personnel and the General Manager. That's just completely unnecessary.

Do you know where to find such a list? I find it disturbing that everybody wants to blame the guys we see on a daily basis. Just because they're visible they're the scapegoats. Especially if what you are saying is true.

 

[Chuck]

I would suggest that the TTC use GO's model, which is to sub out a large portion of non transit related job functions, such as facilities maintenance, project management, and cleaners. The TTC is MUCH larger than most people think, and I suspect that 50% or more of its employees have jobs that literally have nothing at all to do with transit.

In addition to bus drivers and fare collectors, the TTC also employs janitors, landscapers, masons, security guards, roofers, electricians, carpenters, and more. In addition to putting buses on the road, the TTC also personally maintains millions of square feet of buildings, hundreds of acres of property, and an entire power distribution system. You have to ask yourself whether the TTC itself is best suited to perform all of these tasks.

The TTC proper should be responsible for staffing its transit routes, monitoring route performance, and day to day system operation. Specialized tasks should be contracted out to the private sector.

 

[nfitz]

Now that's a thought ... though that's the kind of thing that lead to the MFP scandal. If your contracting out, you might get lower wages, and at the same time no cost savings because the owners of the company providing services will be wanting to skim 20% off the top - and that's if they are simply being good businessman.

 

[paul]

I can't find evidence that the TTC pays many times median

You're the one defending a system that sees the poorest of the poor pay with their time, money and taxes to bankroll people earning incomes many times median levels with no skills whatsoever based on no other reason than they were there first.

I'm trying to find supporting evidence that TTC operators earn "many times median levels." The evidence I've come up with doesn't support that claim at all. Is there somewhere else I should be looking? StatsCan reports that in 2007 the median hourly wage in Ontario was just under $19 [1]. Steve Munro reports that TTC operator wages top out at just under $26 [2]. That's hardly "many times median".

[1]: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/71-222-x/2008001/sectionj/j-wages-salaires-eng.htm
[2]: http://stevemunro.ca/?p=456