TTC could be declared essential by April

[canada-man]

Updated: Fri Jan. 21 2011 2:21:20 PM

Paul Bliss, ctvtoronto.ca

TTC could be declared essential service by April

CTV Toronto has learned that the TTC could be made an essential service as early as April 1, which could strip transit workers' right to legally strike.

Sources tell CTV Toronto's Queen's Park bureau that the Ontario government has taken the first step in the legislative process.

A letter has been sent from the Minister of Labour to Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, informing the mayor that the government has contacted three TTC unions to begin discussions about the declaration.

Phone calls were made Friday by provincial officials to the Amalgamated Transit Union, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, and the Canadian Union of Public Employees to invite them to a meeting about the change.

MPPs are set to return to Queen's Park on Feb. 22, meaning the legislation could be enacted before the current TTC contracts expire on March 31.

Premier Dalton McGuinty has indicated that he is willing to work with Ford on the essential declaration.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...essential-110121/20110121/?hub=TorontoNewHome

 

[spankingman]

TTC is an essential service.If you don't have a car and can't afford high priced taxi's how else do you get around TO? Yeah don't say bikes,Ive yet to see a "family size" bike for mom dad and the kids.

 

[rhuarc29]

A letter has been sent from the Minister of Labour to Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, informing the mayor that the government has contacted three TTC unions to begin discussions about the declaration.

I'm sure that would be a productive meeting...

 

[lovelatinas]

Essential service but it's not going to stop the fares from going up and it's the best thing the Prov. Gov. can do since they won't fund the TTC adequately. I get the feeling that TTC may strike or work to rule before April 1, in reaction to this new legislation. Get use to a lot of pissed off TTC drivers. Oh wait we already put up with it already.

 

[Keebler Elf]

This is a political decision. Whether it's right or wrong depends on your viewpoint.

What is certain, however, is that the union will gain more from mandatory arbitration than it would otherwise gain from striking or being locked out.

That's the price you pay for labour certainty.

 

[larry]

If the union agrees without a big fight, you know they have been given something huge under the table. people don't try to become union leaders for the fun of it.

 

[sleazure]

TTC is an essential service.If you don't have a car and can't afford high priced taxi's how else do you get around TO? Yeah don't say bikes,Ive yet to see a "family size" bike for mom dad and the kids.

Kind of ironic that on one hand they're declaring it essential, while at the same time they're underfunding it and reducing service levels.

If it's truly essential, they should run it like they're serious about doing a good job.

 

[Keebler Elf]

If the union agrees without a big fight, you know they have been given something huge under the table. people don't try to become union leaders for the fun of it.

Wrong. Paranoid, but wrong.

The union will fight it if for no other reason than optics for the members. Ultimately, however, the union knows it can't stop legislation (unless they had the ear of the government, which they don't). So they will resign themselves to becoming an essential service, all the while knowing in the back of their minds that now they can get slightly better from mandatory arbitration (where the difference gets split) than they would otherwise get from striking or being locked out... without the pain that either of those actions causes.

Depending on your viewpoint, it's a win for those who don't want disruption to the TTC, a win for the government which caters to the public, and a win for the union who gets more from collective bargaining...

OR

A loss for the public who will now have to pay even more for public transit, a loss for the government which will now have no choice but to pay more, and a loss for the union whose members may be so pissed off at some point that they would be willing to go out on strike but won't be able to...

Depends on your view...

 

[Rockslinger]

Essential or not, the TTC will continue to be a monopoly and the union will squeeze our nuts as hard as they can because that is what bully public sector monopoly unions do.

 

[Thousand]

Bad move.

To my understanding, whether TTC service is essential or not, the union will strike if they want to. They have the power, because majority of government employees (including the cops) are unionized anyway. These unions stick together and back each other up.

The Declaration of Essential Service is just a bargaining chip for the government during contract negotiation. The use of this bargaining chip right now may be a waste.

 

[Mervyn]

Essential service but it's not going to stop the fares from going up and it's the best thing the Prov. Gov. can do since they won't fund the TTC adequately. I get the feeling that TTC may strike or work to rule before April 1, in reaction to this new legislation. Get use to a lot of pissed off TTC drivers. Oh wait we already put up with it already.

Work to rule , so you mean they would follow their job description to the letter ?

So they'll stop getting on the buses to do banking, buy donuts, get coffee . . .

Let em work to rule

 

[Keebler Elf]

Bad move.

To my understanding, whether TTC service is essential or not, the union will strike if they want to.

No they won't. Or if they do they will be forced back to work within hours (or face huge fines). That's the whole point of declaring them essential.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edit...ential-service-move-quickly-on-city-s-request

 

[Thousand]

No they won't. Or if they do they will be forced back to work within hours (or face huge fines). That's the whole point of declaring them essential.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edit...ential-service-move-quickly-on-city-s-request

Well, that's the theory. If they decided to get around that by taking their vacation days or sick days, then what's going to happen?

 

[alan9080]

Keep in mind that there have been 13 days of TTC strike in the past 30 years

http://www.thestar.com/news/ttc/article/907730--ttc-board-declares-workers-essential

 

[burt-oh-my!]

The key thing is that at some point the government is going to have to show some balls and endure a long nasty strike and not give in. Until they show they are willing to do that, they/we are screwed.

 

[Keebler Elf]

Well, that's the theory. If they decided to get around that by taking their vacation days or sick days, then what's going to happen?

If a bunch of them are taking them at the same time, they will face discipline for sick leave/vacation abuse and/or (depending on the extent and if it looks like union officials condoned it) the TTC can take them to the Labour Board for staging an illegal strike.

You think this type of thing hasn't happened before? Happens all the times and the Labour Board, courts, and arbitrators have dealt with it.

I know a company that just recently successfully disciplined a bunch of employees who all took sick on the same day to protest a management decision they didn't like. And for most of them, the discipline was upheld through the grievance procedure.

An employer can also get the union to send a "cease and desist" order to its members, which it will usually do to protect itself from liability for condoning an illegal strike.

Our legal system takes a dim view of illegal strikes/work stoppages. We have a system in place (collective bargaining) and explicit timeframes for when a strike can/cannot occur. Stepping outside those rules usually gets dealt with swiftly. An employer can get an injunction from the Labour Board and/or courts within hours if need be.

 

[Rockslinger]

An employer can get an injunction from the Labour Board and/or courts within hours if need be.

Unless that employer is Mayor David Miller. It will take decades to reverse the damage that Miller caused.

 

[KBear]

Seem to remember that the government wanted TTC cleaners to be available to clean the busses at night, maybe thinking it was good to have cleaning staff available to clean the busses when the busses were available. The union threatened a strike if the government tried to make changes to the cleaners work hours, and it never happened.

With the TTC being made essential, could the government contract out cleaning and other services, and not have to worry about the threat of strike? Would save a pile of money. Would the union then bid for the work required along with other contractors?

 

[Keebler Elf]

Seem to remember that the government wanted TTC cleaners to be available to clean the busses at night, maybe thinking it was good to have cleaning staff available to clean the busses when the busses were available. The union threatened a strike if the government tried to make changes to the cleaners work hours, and it never happened.

With the TTC being made essential, could the government contract out cleaning and other services, and not have to worry about the threat of strike? Would save a pile of money. Would the union then bid for the work required along with other contractors?

The union was threatening a wildcat strike. Which is illegal. Which would be promptly shut down by the courts. Or the union could pay massive fines, but it wouldn't get that far.

The TTC (not the government, which is not the employer) can contract out whatever it wants... provided they haven't already agreed to contracting out language in their collective agreement that restricts it. And I suspect they have.

I dunno how the night cleaning played out but it sounded like the TTC wanted to move a whackload of cleaners from dayshift to nights. You know, something that joe average worker (i.e., you and me) wouldn't be too thrilled about if it were us. So the union did what unions do, they represented the collective interests of their members and I suspect (but I don't know) that they got the number of workers being moved reduced by a significant amount. Now if joe average worker with no union tried that, he'd be on nights or looking for a new job. That's what unions are there for, to amalgamate the bargaining power of individuals into a collective that has a better chance of negotiating better terms with the employer (which otherwise holds all the cards). You may not like it (and if you're a non-union worker, you probably don't), but that's the rules of the game. You're free to unionize in your workplace.

Not sure about city garbage collectors but I heard Ford's righthand man resigned to work on contracting that out. Which sounds like the garbage collectors don't have contracting out language to restrict it.

 

[KBear]

There is some law that prevents the city from contracting out to non unionized companies, something like that. Fair wage policy? Any news on when they are getting rid of that law?