Mayor Miller

[fuji]

1. It is legal for picketers to stop each person trying to cross the picket line and to explain their position.

Actually, no it's not legal. It's a civil matter, though, so the police won't do anything about it until you go and get a court injunction.

The union can ask you to stop, but you do not have to stop, and if the picketers attempt to use physical force to stop you then they commit criminal assault. I don't doubt that many of them do commit criminal assault--that is why we have so frequently called them "thugs" in this thread.

5. There is no law that says scabs can't be used, but it sure is ugly with the union members.

Again, it was done in Windsor. We're not talking about something that is theoretical here. We are talking about something that was actually done by the other city that had a garbage strike on at the same time.

Contrary to the FUD here nobody had to be arrested, no army had to be called in, all hell did not break lose. Windsor hired contractors who picked up the garbage from the temporary dump sites on every single night of the strike.

It's just a fact. Hard to argue with a fact in my view.

6. Unless I read the collective agreement for Windsor I can't simply say whatever Windsor did, we can do.

Did you miss the news? The collective agreement had expired. It wasn't binding on ANYONE. That's why they were out on strike, because they couldn't come to an agreement over the terms of the NEW collective agreement.

As for people throwing lit matches at your gas tank--that is plainly illegal, criminal behavior and it's a shame that they aren't in jail now. If your account is true there was some failure of the rule of law.

Whatever you want to debate about the rights of people to picket, by no means does anyone have the right to commit assault or attempted murder. People who do commit those crimes properly belong in prison.

 

[Mrbig1949]

I've only been on dozens of picket line with the cops present..

Could you please quote what law actually states this ? ?

They arrive, call over a picket captain and somebody from management and propose a protocal. They know the picketers are allowed to stop every car and detain it for a period of time to explain their position. The cops propose a time and locations to both sides.If everybody agrees bob is your uncle. Usually as Mia Colpa says 5-15 minutes per car depending on the traffic flow, the street etc. There is an agreement made and on it goes. Picketing and detaining is as old as strikes. I have negotiated these deals a dozen times.

I know you don't like it but that is the compromise that has been established over the years. Therefore the union cannot totally close the struck plant or facility nor is it business as usual.

Unfamiliarity with these protocols is what make endless arguements on this board moot.

 

[fuji]

They know the picketers are allowed to stop every car and detain it for a period of time to explain their position.

Again, that might be done in many cases, but it's not law. The company could get an injunction preventing the picketers from obstructing anyone. The picketers are certainly entitled to go up and try and talk to anyone they want to talk to--but nobody is required to listen. If someone wants to drive through without listening they have a right to do that.

Being on strike does not give you rights or powers that you don't ordinarily have as an everyday citizen. You can't assault people. You can't obstruct people. You can certainly wave around a sign, yell, and try and make yourself heard, though.

 

[Mrbig1949]

You are wrong about this as usual

Again, that might be done in many cases, but it's not law. The company could get an injunction preventing the picketers from obstructing anyone. The picketers are certainly entitled to go up and try and talk to anyone they want to talk to--but nobody is required to listen. If someone wants to drive through without listening they have a right to do that.

Being on strike does not give you rights or powers that you don't ordinarily have as an everyday citizen. You can't assault people. You can't obstruct people. You can certainly wave around a sign, yell, and try and make yourself heard, though.

The picketers will walk in front of the car, if the car moves ahead into the picketers the police will change the driver with dangerous driving. Of course the driver is not forced to listen but they will be retained to the full time if they don't listen, perhaps let in earlier if they co-operate. An injunction is not granted because you ask for it. The Harris government asked for an injunction in the big teachers strike. Refused. There is a heavy burden place on the management side during a legal strike for exactly that reason. Strikes are legal. Picketing is legal. In fact you can obstruct people as you put it and the case law favours the legal picketers. The first thing the judge asks is were the police there, was there a protocal established etc.

You can't just make shit up Fuji there are hundreds of strikes a year and this is NORMAL picket line procedure.

Do you remember the strike at the old Woodbine Race Track, same thing, 15 minutes every car effectively shut down track, police enforced.

 

[buckwheat1]

don't compare 200000 people to windsor to 2.5 million in Toronto, Toronto is one of the worlds worst garbage producers.

 

[Jaffo]

The Windsor politicians demonstrated intelligence, leadership, planning, competency, courage and respect for the taxpayer. Clearly our politicians were out classed in every way possible.

 

[Mia.Colpa]

Could you please quote what law actually states this ? ?

Case law, it's been accepted by the courts countless of times over many years.

 

[Mia.Colpa]

Again, that might be done in many cases, but it's not law. The company could get an injunction preventing the picketers from obstructing anyone. The picketers are certainly entitled to go up and try and talk to anyone they want to talk to--but nobody is required to listen. If someone wants to drive through without listening they have a right to do that.

Being on strike does not give you rights or powers that you don't ordinarily have as an everyday citizen. You can't assault people. You can't obstruct people. You can certainly wave around a sign, yell, and try and make yourself heard, though.

Fugi, have you ever been directly involved in a strike, either with management or the union during negotiations? You are really not familiar with protocols and processes. As I said I have been directly involved, right at the front lines, as a manager and I have first hand experience, I suspect you haven't. In all my strikes, the union pissed me off so much with their tactics I wanted to press charges but discouraged so we can finalize the strike quickly, but the bad blood has stayed with me forever. However, with that said, I know their rights and you have to deal with them accordingly.

Your views are so simplistice and idealistic, it's not reality. It's not that easy to get an injunction, I explained it above what the Toronto government was doing and they still couldn't get one. In past strikes that I was involved in, we applied several times for an injunction and couldn't get one, unless the courts can be convinced it effects the health, security or safety of people, it's really, really difficult to get an injuction if it's kept civil.

If it's so easy as you keep saying in all your posts, then why in all the years of strikes in this country have hardly any injunctions been issued, if it's a civil law matter, then why hasn't management sued the union for obstruction, if it's not legal to stop and talk to those crossing, then why didn't the provincial government legislate the union back to work???? Again, you talk ideals, but the reality is what we have to deal with in life.

 

[Mrbig1949]

I've wondered the same thing MC. Those of us who have been directly involved on either side know how these thing work in 99% of cases. Fuji is working from some self concocted theory or preconceived notions of the way he would like it to be.

 

[Mervyn]

They arrive, call over a picket captain and somebody from management and propose a protocal. They know the picketers are allowed to stop every car and detain it for a period of time to explain their position. The cops propose a time and locations to both sides.If everybody agrees bob is your uncle. Usually as Mia Colpa says 5-15 minutes per car depending on the traffic flow, the street etc. There is an agreement made and on it goes. Picketing and detaining is as old as strikes. I have negotiated these deals a dozen times.

I know you don't like it but that is the compromise that has been established over the years. Therefore the union cannot totally close the struck plant or facility nor is it business as usual.

Unfamiliarity with these protocols is what make endless arguements on this board moot.

Sadly your answer is like the one I got from my councillor and the Mayor's office (email) , which is to say you are now the 3rd person to not answer my question.

So I'll open it up to anyone who can answer, because I really want to know, if it's in the law, then fine... but WHAT LAW ? I would assume it would be provincial, but I'm no lawyer and would not know where to look that up, so if someone could actually answer my question please . . .

 

[Mia.Colpa]

I tried to call the Windsor mayor, Eddie Francis, but he was too busy to talk to me, lol, but talked to someone in the office. Here's some info to digest:

1. Cupe 82 (outside) has under 400 employees and Cupe 543 (inside) have 1400 workers for a total of 1800 workers on strike in Windsor compared to Toronto, 30,000 striking workers.

2. The two main issues on the table were wage demands and post-retirement benefits for new employees, did you read that? I'll say it louder,
post-retirement benefits for new employees

This was the key sticking point as Windsor wanted to not give new employees any benefits at all when they retire. They did not touch any benefits for existing employees. Hmm, Miller doesn't look so bad on this point after all.

3. Although the city of Windsor provided a small number of temporary dumping spots ( I think 2) for the public to bring their trash which was hauled away by private contractors, there was still a lot of illegal dumping by residents throughout the city and police constantly issued tickets. There were several private dumping sites but it cost the taxpayer on a per load basis.

4. Strike lasted 15 weeks, even with a rejection by voting by the members on an offer made by the city in the 14th week.

5. Contrary to what we think, there was a lot of trash piled up in various parts of the city as not all residents were cooperating. http://www.topix.com/business/environmental/2009/07/windsor-garbage-strike-12-weeks-old

6. People were really getting fed up with the strike as it closed in on 4 months and really started to hate the strikers as well as the city. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/648983

The point being if anyone thought Windsor was any different than Toronto, think again and do your homework. Windsor is a big union town and the residents have more sympathy and support for the union, but eventually they turned on them. We all suffered the same mess, the difference is our mess was bigger.

 

[fuji]

The point being if anyone thought Windsor was any different than Toronto, think again and do your homework.

They hired contractors to pick up trash from the temporary dump sites. That is different. Hello?

This is key because it meant there was in Windsor FAR less risk of back to work legislation from the province: Garbage pickup from the temporary dumps meant there was no public health issue.

In Toronto without the pickup it was only a matter of time before the Province would have intervened to resolve the public health issue.

Since the back to work legislation likely would have favoured the union that put Toronto in a bad bargaining position.

 

[fuji]

In all my strikes, the union pissed me off so much with their tactics I wanted to press charges but discouraged so we can finalize the strike quickly

That is the ONLY reason why unions get away with these "protocols": Management allows it. Management opts not to go get the necessary injunctions to stop it on the theory that a settlement will come sooner if they appease the union by agreeing to allow illegal activity.

It doesn't work.

When the union knows that it will get away with illegal activity it will ALWAYS engage in illegal activity.

In the long run you will resolve strikes more quickly, and have fewer strikes in the first place, if management has a reputation for being tough but fair.

That means a carrot and stick approach:

1. Make reasonable, fair offers. Of course what is reasonable and fair will be debated, but don't purposefully make unreasonable or unfair offers.

2. Play hardball when it comes to a strike. Hire replacement workers. Get injunctions to stop illegal behavior. Press charges against anyone who persists with illegal behavior.

When the city shifts from being a pussy to taking a tough line with strikers the very first strike might get kind of ugly because the union won't be used to the new way of doing things. However, they'll learn.

Next time contract negotiations come up if management is negotiating in good faith and making reasonable offers the union will think twice about striking.

You actually get fewer strikes in the long run by playing hardball, providing you are also fair.

The city has fucked up negotiations with its union in EVERY strike, under Miller, under Lastman, they've NEVER done it right.

If you do this properly you will have less experience with strikes because you will have fewer of them--management gets the union it deserves. It's always been true.

I explained it above what the Toronto government was doing and they still couldn't get one.

That's bullshit, the city never applied for an injunction. It is NOT the case they couldn't have got one; it is the case that they didn't want to antagonize the union by applying for one. Very different.

The city made mistake after mistake after mistake.

it's really, really difficult to get an injuction if it's kept civil.

All you have to do is show the court video evidence that the union applied physical force to prevent someone from crossing a picket line. That is criminal assault. You can both have the individuals who applied force charged criminally, and get an injunction to keep them at a distance.

If it's so easy as you keep saying in all your posts, then why in all the years of strikes in this country have hardly any injunctions been issued

Lots of companies get injunctions. Politicians generally don't because they are chicken shit that voters would get upset by an ugly strike. They fail to perceive that in the long run there will be fewer ugly strikes if they take a hard line.

 

[Mrbig1949]

The city council, the city negotiators, and the mayor all know the consequences of using scabs which runs the great risk of violence now and deep bitterness for years. It is very easy for employees to do about 10 % less per day and not get into any problems of insubordination or incompetence.This is the bitter legacy of bitter strikes. Take a look at our post office. This is the result of prolongued labour bitterness on both sides. There are so many grievances outstanding that people (or management) are unlikely to have them heard before they retire. You want PO labour relations everywhere then stoke confrontations. You will regret it.

 

[fuji]

The city council, the city negotiators, and the mayor all know the consequences of using scabs which runs the great risk of violence now and deep bitterness for years.

That same logic works the other way around dude. You are basically saying that because the union will go ape-shit if the city hires replacement workers, the city shouldn't do it.

Well I think just advance that one more step: If the union knows that the city will go ape-shit if they strike, the union will think twice about striking.

You are attempting to assert that this tough-line works for the union but not for the city. If being tough works, it works, and the city should beat the union to the punch.

It is very easy for employees to do about 10 % less per day and not get into any problems of insubordination or incompetence.

Good. That will make the business case for hiring contractors as a permanent solution even stronger.

Policies of appeasement simply don't work. If you want the union to have some fucking respect for the city, you have to be tough, and that means now and then accepting that now and then you'll have to do something that pisses somebody off.

- - -

Equallizing this:

If both management AND the city know that the strike will be a hard-ball, brutal affair, both sides will be strongly incented to reach a deal without a strike. In such a world, characterized by MUTUAL respect, both sides will keep on negotiating long after the strike deadline, without a strike.

The problem right now is that the union is taking a tough line during strikes but the city is following a policy of appeasement.

This is bad for the city. Ultimately, it's bad for the union too--they'd be better served long-run by having fewer strikes.

I agree that the FIRST time the city starts acting responsibly, by taking a tough line, that particular strike will likely be bitter. But in the long-run, it will be better for everyone that way.

 

[Mrbig1949]

As Mia Colpa says you are living in world of theory and lack of practical experience and an ahistorical perspective as if all you propose had not been tried at various times in similar circumstances. The older and more experienced I get I learn that things are the way they are only because almost every alternative has been tried already and failed.

Toronto has very low relative taxes. The answer is to raise taxes faster. You will simply never convince unions that they need to go into bargaining to give stuff up and take lower % gains than the bosses give themselves and other unions in their employ.

All your solutions have been tried before and failed. The Reagan legacy with labour is a legacy of failure.

 

[fuji]

As Mia Colpa says you are living in world of theory and lack of practical experience

How do you know?

Sorry you're going to have to argue this on the merits. On an anonymous message board I am not going to accept ANYONE's claims that they are an authority or have more experience.

You do not know what experience I have or don't have.

If it would help I'll claim to be the president of CAW but it's more useful if we argue this on the merits.

If you develop a reputation for being fair but tough people will treat you with respect. This concept has been tried EVERYWHERE and it has always been true in every arena of negotiation of any kind.

Yes, being tough on unions works, yes it's been tried. Not by the city maybe but that's probably why public employees are paid around 40% more than they should be on average.

Toronto has very low relative taxes. The answer is to raise taxes faster.

Irrelevant in the first case, wrong in the second.

When you raise taxes you are transferring resources from the private sector to the public sector. That reduces the amount of work done in the private sector. There MUST be a corresponding increase in the amount of work done in the public sector as a result.

You can't raise taxes simply to raise wages. The tax payer has to actually get MORE services from the government in exchange for a tax rise, otherwise it's a total loss to the economy and a rip-off ot the taxpayer.

You will simply never convince unions that they need to go into bargaining to give stuff up and take lower % gains than the bosses give themselves and other unions in their employ.

Public sector employees are overpaid about 40% in my opinion and a 40% pay cut would be well within reason. However pay cuts tend to be unpopular so a more reasonable solution is a complete freeze on increases until that wage gap is inflated away. Cutting back benefits is also a reasonable approach.

Plainly the union won't like this, but the only reason the union managed to win a 40% overpayment in the past was because the city negotiated poorly, from a weak position.

All your solutions have been tried before and failed. The Reagan legacy with labour is a legacy of failure.

You are wrong. Some of what Reagan did failed. Some of what Reagan did worked pretty well. I agree that banks ought not to have been deregulated, and posted on that elsehwere. On the other hand I think Reagan was effective in dealing with unions.

 

[Mrbig1949]

Scabs are legal in most jurisdictions. Manitoba and Quebec have anti-scab legislation. Bob Rae was under pressure to bring it in but didn't get around to it. It is always on the agenda of enlightened jurisdictions.

 

[james t kirk]

Scabs are legal in most jurisdictions. Manitoba and Quebec have anti-scab legislation. Bob Rae was under pressure to bring it in but didn't get around to it. It is always on the agenda of enlightened jurisdictions.

Wrong, Rae did bring it in, Harris repealed it within weeks of taking office.

If you want to strike, knock yourself out, but I believe that companies should have the right to hire replacement workers.

 

[Mia.Colpa]

That means a carrot and stick approach:

1. Make reasonable, fair offers. Of course what is reasonable and fair will be debated, but don't purposefully make unreasonable or unfair offers.

2. Play hardball when it comes to a strike. Hire replacement workers. Get injunctions to stop illegal behavior. Press charges against anyone who persists with illegal behavior.

When the city shifts from being a pussy to taking a tough line with strikers the very first strike might get kind of ugly because the union won't be used to the new way of doing things. However, they'll learn.


The city has fucked up negotiations with its union in EVERY strike, under Miller, under Lastman, they've NEVER done it right.

Fugi, you live in fairy land, it's obvious from many of your postings you have no experience in large unions negotiations and it's futile to keep debating with you, end.

That's bullshit, the city never applied for an injunction. It is NOT the case they couldn't have got one; it is the case that they didn't want to antagonize the union by applying for one. Very different.

I know more than you think, the city spent thousands paying camera men and security personnel at each picket location and were so desparate to catch strikers that any little push was to be used as evidence for an injunction. They were about to go to the courts with names of those picketers claiming they were obstructing but shelved it as soon as talks got serious in the last week. I'm not saying any more, I know too much.

All you have to do is show the court video evidence that the union applied physical force to prevent someone from crossing a picket line. That is criminal assault. You can both have the individuals who applied force charged criminally, and get an injunction to keep them at a distance.

LMAO, ok sure that's the ticket.

Have a nice night.