A Story of Coincidence and Chance

I see that attitude a lot, and I don't find it rational, especially when it's said by a middle-class person who makes less than the TTC operators do but more than your average burger-flipper. And who has a warm place to sleep at night.

I do believe that unions should be a stopgap, not a permanent solution, and that government needs to continue working towards making working conditions better for everyone.

The problem in this particular case is that it's not just an unethical employer who's suffering from the strike action -- a lot of people who have no alternate means of transportation won't get to work and therefore won't get paid. Union employees should be asking themselves whether the extra benefits and pay that they want are worth hurting someone else for. I think that's where the "I've got mine so screw you" is coming from.

From:

Why is it the union's responsibility to think about people with no transportation alternatives and not management's responsibility?

If the TTC is so essential to so many people, why is it one of the worst-funded (in terms of provincial funding) transit systems in Canada?

It seems like the union is being asked to be far more aware of the public's interest than TTC management or Queen's Park. That doesn't strike me as right.

From:

That definitely needs to change. I'm sure a lot of the people complaining the loudest are also the ones who wouldn't vote for stronger workers' rights legislation. I'd like to see people working and making noise for legislation as hard as people within unions work for their own cause. I'm not sure who has the power to do that other than voters, and clearly that isn't working.

From:

It seems like the union is being asked to be far more aware of the public's interest than TTC management or Queen's Park. That doesn't strike me as right.

To me there are two different issues there -- one is the government that isn't doing right by its people, and the other is people deciding to do something that they have the right to do but that hurts other people. Whenever people make a decision like that for their own benefit, they should be taking the effect on other people into account.

We get on industry's case for abusing and underpaying workers even when they're within the letter of the law. We ask companies to be more ethical, because that's easier than making the law change to force them to be ethical.

From:

Also, I think that without being able to think about how our actions affect other people, and without being able to care about how other people live, we never will get the legislation we need because nobody will vote for something that helps people they don't care about.

From:

I sort-of agree with your point, but I interpret it differently. I think that, as average citizens, we have a responsibility to hold our governments accountable for things like underfunding of the TTC. I think that we, as average citizens, have fallen down on that responsibility.

That failure has had consequences. For years.

City infrastructure wasn't even a sound-bite in the last provincial election, for example.

For some reason, we don't seem to have the ability to care about the TTC, so long as the difficulties of its operation are out of our sight. How do you think that's going to get better?

From:

Why is it the union's responsibility to think about people with no transportation alternatives and not management's responsibility?

The union knew darn well that having a wildcat strike would strand and inconvenience hundreds of people. Hell, that's putting it mildly. It probably also placed a lot of people in unsafe situations - i.e. women and older workers getting off the late shift in the middle of the night with no way home. If their job is in a rough area and/or an isolated location, it's even more dangerous. Yet it's somehow OK for the union to knowingly place people in these situations?

Yes, the union does have a responsibility, but they seem to be very comfortable ignoring it.

From:

I don't dispute that the union has some responsibility. I think that TTC management also has responsibility, but nobody is arguing vehemently about this.

The sudden, no warning service interruption falls into the category of stuff I wish had gone down differently. Having said that, I think this quotation is important:

Kinnear defended the short notice, saying that "the reports from our members of increases in threats and abuse from passengers last weekend, after we gave our original 48-hours' notice, has left us no choice but to withdraw our services immediately. We have a legal responsibility to protect the safety of our members and so does the TTC."

Again, I've not really seen any discussion about random people who have been hurling abuse at TTC workers: about the few who seem to have spoiled things for the many. I have seen lengthy diatribes on places like

toronto against the union, but no discussion about the role of riders threatening drivers in response to the 48-hours notice thing.

Again, I wish it had gone down differently. But the amount of "blaming the union" seems disproportionate to the responsibility, in my opinion. I wish people would have cared more about lack of TTC funding in the last provincial election, for example.

From:

I think that was an irresponsible thing when it comes to protecting the operators, actually. It's a miracle if no violence was done when the drivers dumped everyone out onto the street.

I really do think the city needs to take care of its workers, and they should have the right to demand better if they need it... but they go too far when they hurt others in the process. If we have the responsibility to be good citizens and look out for each other, so do they, and they betrayed that.

From:

I agree with this comment.

From:

What was *supposed* to happen in this case?

This is what it looks like to me: when a strike seemed like a possibility, the union said, "we don't want to inconvenience people more than necessary, so we'll give 48 hours notice of any strike action." A bunch of people respond to the possibility of a strike by hurling abuse at TTC workers and threatening them.

Faced with an actual strike, I can understand their worry. So if you think "the city needs to take care of its workers", what does that look like? What actions should have taken place?

(I have heard of some really novel ideas about better courses of action the union could have taken, but I'm curious to know how you think this could possibly have played out. It doesn't seem fair to me to blame the TTC workers for being put in an intractable situation and failing to find the perfect solution. I mean, it's a lot easier to blame people for their failures than it is to be part of the solution).

From:

I have trouble believing that the wildcat strike was a reaction to the threats and abuse from the public. Yeah, that was the claim, but it seems flimsy, mainly because it puts more people in danger (both operators and passengers).

From what I've been reading, it sounds like the contract was made to meet the operators' demands, but the vote against it was largely influenced by maintenance workers whose demands were different even though they're under the same union.

It doesn't seem fair to me to blame the TTC workers for being put in an intractable situation...

Again, I have to ask whether this action was immediately necessary from the operators' standpoint; were union members in a position where it was imperative that they get more money immediately, because they weren't making enough to support themselves or pay for medications/eyeglasses/dental care? If not, strike action should not have been considered in the first place.

I thought the original complaint by the operators was that their jobs were unsafe because of the amount of crime and abuse they're subject to on a daily basis. Until we have more on-the-job protection for them (security cameras in the driver's booth, maybe impact-resistant glass separating them from passengers, or more special constables around), they can keep making as many demands for more money as they want, and it won't help solve the actual problem.

From:

First up, I dispute that it's a wildcat strike. It's merely a strike.

The strike has been a possibility for a week; very few people thought that it was likely, and it took a lot of people by surprise (including the union leaders). The short notice is a consequence of the threats and abuse from the public (which, again, nobody seems interested in talking about. People get to be abusive of the TTC without consequence, but heaven forbid the TTC inconvenience anyone).

Now, the key points regarding the labour negotiations were, as I understand it, job security and safety, not money. Part of the negotiation for safety involved compensation in the event of on-the-job injuries. The people who were least likely to get injured on the job (management) got the best benefits for on-the-job injuries (100% WSIB top-up). That was one of the key negotiating points and one that the TTC eventually conceded.

It appears that the maintenance workers are much more concerned about job safety, which the deal wasn't really helping to ameliorate.

You seem to be suggesting that because people weren't in dire financial straights, the union should have sat on its hands and not inconvenienced anyone. How was anything going to change? Again, I point out that the general public doesn't seem to pay attention to the underfunding of the TTC. They just don't care. But the TTC union is supposed to put their concerns aside for the benefit of the general public? That logic doesn't make sense to me.

From:

If job safety and compensation for injury were the main things they were after, I support that. I think the only thing we really disagree on is whether a strike actually does any good in achieving the goal, and whether the threats from the public really were the reason they went back on their 48-hour promise.

From:

And no, I don't begrudge them those things just because not everyone with a dangerous job gets them.

There definitely are precedents for increasing even low-income wage slaves' on-the-job safety; witness the smoking ban in restaurants and bars. Restaurant workers had a lot of clout in that one. The more classes of people get that kind of help, the better, but it should definitely be law rather than something employees have to take drastic action in order to get.

So the union goes on strike, their employer doesn't feel it and can't do much about it anyways without funding, a lot of passengers and operators suffer, and the government (who should be making a law to ensure that workers are safe on the job and don't have to strike) plays the hero by stepping in to legislate them back to work. How do we get government to do something a little less slacktivist?

From:

I meant to add that the people who won't get paid because they miss work tend to be the ones who don't get paid much to begin with, such as the temps and burger-flippers. A lot of them are the ones who will be hurt the most severely and immediately by missing a day's pay.

From:

"I don't have a secure, well-paid job, so why should the TTC workers?"

Since when do TTC workers not have secure well-paid jobs?

From The Star:

"It's unclear if it will give the workers the same provisions that were negotiated earlier, including a 3 per cent increase in each year of a three-year contract, a 20-cent premium for skilled trades, improvements in dental, insurance and injury benefits and a GTA clause that guarantees TTC drivers are the highest paid in the region."

Highest paid drivers in the GTA? That doesn't sound like they're not being well paid. A story in the National Post revealed that a TTC collector makes $54K a year. That $10K more than I make and my job requires a lot more skill and education than sitting in a booth and taking tickets. Sorry, I have no sympathy.

What people are objecting to, and rightfully so, is being held hostage by TTC's union because their workers want even more perks and raises, even though they're already making very good money.

The TTC has garnered themselves an enormous amount of ill will this past weekend. The TTC doesn't care that people on fixed incomes with jobs to get to had to spend their day's earnings on cab fare this past weekend, for example. I'm all in favour of everyone sending their cab receipts to the union for reimbursement. I'm also all in favour of having the TTC declared an essential service so that they are not allowed to strike again.

From:

I think that this is exactly the argument I find peculiar. You seem to be saying, "they're making more than me, and rather than be annoyed at my employer for not paying me enough, I'm annoyed at the TTC for fighting for a reasonable wage."

In the last few years, in Toronto, wages have not been keeping up with the costs. Housing prices have skyrocketed, food is becoming very expensive and gas is very expensive.

And despite that, the middle class is becoming poorer, personal debt is skyrocketing and even though big companies are making record profits, wages really aren't increasing.

I think the middle class needs to really start making a stink about wages. But we don't. Instead, we settle for what we can get, and avoid blaming our employers for shafting us. And if anyone starts asking for reasonable wages, we resent them because they might succeed in getting something we're not.

I agree that the TTC has garnered ill will. I even agree that some of that ill will is deserved. But I think that we'd be better off if more sides of the story were discussed. Right now, all I hear are people venting their annoyance at the union and I'd like to hear more parts of the story.

From:

I just wonder if this kind of action is even useful. I doubt if the amount of money the TTC's management lost over a weekend and maybe a workday of a strike matters to them very much. Everyone on that end will get over it.

Strikes are useful when workers can really make an impact on their employers' profits, but that's not happening here. The people who need to get the message are not going to feel anything, while the people being hurt are the ones whose support the union needs most (i.e. the voting public).

My bottom line is: do TTC workers make enough money that they can afford food, housing, and other necessities? Do they get vacation days and sick days? Do they have money to put away for emergencies and luxuries? If they do, it shouldn't matter how their wages 'compare' to other transit workers in the city or the country. They can make ends meet, and their action means that people who are barely scraping by might not be able to feed themselves.

This is much more basic than politics, for me; it's about people being decent to each other, and not stepping on people who are already below them in order to get higher.

From:

Again, the union tried to take a "we'll be decent to other people" approach (with their promise of 48 hours notice) and got abused for it.

From:

boywhocantsayno.livejournal.com

You seem to be under the impression that the abuse was because of the 48-hours-notice promise; it wasn't. It was because people are frustrated at seeing the union demanding more money (ie. the 3% raises for three years and the assurance of being the highest-paid transit workers) when they're already considered highly paid for what they do.

For Ghu's sake, there was a ticket collector on the recent "sunshine list" of city employees who make more than $100K per year! Are you telling me that someone making six figures for sitting in a booth and watching people put their fares in a box, and occasionally dispensing tickets and Metropasses (both of which can be gotten elsewhere) needs a guaranteed 9% raise over three years, plus topups if another transit company starts paying their people more?

That's why people were abusive - because the union was perceived as being greedy. Say what you like about job security and Workers' Compensation benefits, the first agreement that the union reached with management was all about salary.

And what of all the Wheel-Trans customers who were stranded because their rides were cancelled? Do you think it's reasonable that someone in a wheelchair who doesn't live within a convenient distance of a supermarket should be forced to go without food for a weekend? Those who don't live within convenient distance of their doctor to go without medical appointments? Even if the TTC isn't deemed an essential service, Wheel-Trans certainly should be.

From:

And what of all the Wheel-Trans customers who were stranded because their rides were cancelled? Do you think it's reasonable that someone in a wheelchair who doesn't live within a convenient distance of a supermarket should be forced to go without food for a weekend? Those who don't live within convenient distance of their doctor to go without medical appointments? Even if the TTC isn't deemed an essential service, Wheel-Trans certainly should be.

First up, there was limited Wheel-Trans service available; I'm sure that people were affected, but Wheel Trans was one of the parts of the system that was still running.

Second up, yes, I believe that the TTC is vitally important to the city of Toronto. So vitally important that I think it should have its funding restored by the province. But, for whatever reason, nobody criticizes legislature for underfunding. They criticize the TTC.

The TTC worked very well when it was well-funded. More people used it, people were happier taking the TTC and it could expand service as needed. Now they're in the mode of constantly trying to find ways to stretch their budgets. To me, it's pretty clear where the problem is.

From:

the-siobhan.livejournal.com

For Ghu's sake, there was a ticket collector on the recent "sunshine list" of city employees who make more than $100K per year!

I found it really interesting how everybody brings up this example of how the TTC is wasting money and their staff are overpaid.

The guy who made over $100K put in hundreds of hours of overtime to make that money - it's not his base salary, he had to put in regular 16-hour days.

The TTC needs people to be there or the work just won't get done. They could hire more staff, but they're already broke. So they go the cheap route - they pay overtime to existing employees. And yet for some reason everybody is pointing to the practice as an example of waste on the TTC's part.

From:

I think that this is exactly the argument I find peculiar. You seem to be saying, "they're making more than me, and rather than be annoyed at my employer for not paying me enough, I'm annoyed at the TTC for fighting for a reasonable wage."

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm content with my salary and I am not annoyed at my employer. I simply disagree that TTC workers are not getting a reasonable wage. In my opinion, they are. In my opinion, their wage is more than reasonable and yet they're not happy with it.

54K a year is not a poverty wage.

From:

The contract negotiations haven't been about money, though. They've been about job security and safety. The latter is especially understandable, given the rise in abuse toward operators.

One of the glaring bones of contention has been that TTC management (who are least likely to suffer on-the-job injuries) get the best compensation in the event of on-the-job injury.

From:

Then maybe our fundamental disagreement is that I don't believe they should be allowed to hurt others who are already worse off than they are in order to get what they need.

Actually, if it's only partly management's fault, and partly a lack of funding, why is the union taking it out on us? Why aren't they attacking government on it? They have the power to be heard, surely.

From:

The more I think about this, the more I want to know.

Anytime you tell people "it's not X's fault, it's government's", it's likely to go in one ear and out the other. Government is perceived as difficult to influence. People at a lower rung of the responsibility ladder are seen as more easily swayed.

Just as the passengers want to blame the union, the union wants to put all the blame on management -- even if the problem is underfunding, and even if management taking cuts in places it can afford would not be enough to put what the union wants into action. No matter how much the management claims that they need more funding, the union will simply not believe them.

In other words, the union has fallen for the same psychology that the passengers have -- but the difference is that they have a legal way to create disruption and fight, which is a strike. In terms of making a difference where it really matters, at the government funding level, they're as powerless as we are, so they take whatever action they're allowed and claim that it's making a difference for their workers.

From:

Who is the government answerable to? Answer: the government is answerable to the citizens.

Now, I recognize that a number of parties have gone to great lengths to make people feel like they have no power to change the government (Linda McQuaig's book, The Cult of Impotence has a great deal to say about this), but it's not true. People can have an affect on the government. But citizens are easily distracted (American Idol!) Most people I know have never even written a letter to their MPPs. Heck, most people don't even know who their MPP is. You can perceive that government is hard to change, but it's not like many people try. At all.

Now, I agree that, from the point of view of engaging the public and getting them to care about the issues that the union is raising, I think this strike has done much more harm than good. I attribute that to a lot of things. I put some blame on the union itself, for failing to understand how the public will turn on them. I also put blame on the usual cast of characters: corporations and the media, who have been pushing an anti-union position for a long time.

As a consequence, unions don't really have the power they once had. (Someone made the remark to me a few months ago that there was a time when you couldn't persuade people that the unions were bad or that the cops were on your side, but now that's reversed).

What's more, because of the nature of class issues in North America, working class folk, like TTC employees aren't really well-respected. They're perceived of as a bunch of guys who don't deserve anything because they didn't go to university, and therefore we shouldn't listen to anything they have to say, anyway.

As I've said several times, I don't think that the strike was ideally handled. But I'd rather spend my time thinking about the issues from a number of angles, rather than chime in with another round of, "gee, the TTC sucks!"

From:

marahsk.livejournal.com

So they should only be allowed to strike if there is no one out there who is worse off than they are?

From:

It took me ages to figure out where I think the flaw is in this argument.

It assumes that there are only two choices: (a) just accept that things will never get better, or (b) strike. Are there no other options that would get to the real cause of the problem faster without hurting as many people?

From:

marahsk.livejournal.com

The union rejected the agreement and struck. Could they have resumed negotiations instead of striking? I have no idea whether that would have worked, or if they had a good reason for not doing so.

But I wasn't making that argument, I was responding to the opinion that they shouldn't strike if it would hurt people who are worse off, which is a completely separate discussion from whether or not they should strike at all.

I can see how hard it is for people making minimum wage to have to miss work, but there are always going to be people who are worse off, so that's not a reasonable standard.

From:

Same here. I'm ridiculously privileged in this situation. I can walk to get groceries, I'm moving in with my boyfriend who has a car, and as soon as I heard about the strike I was able to shell out for a bicycle. I live close enough to where I work that commuting by bike is not a major expedition (in fact, it might even be good for me -- I'm spending that hour active instead of sitting or hanging onto a pole).

I'm thinking about the people who can't pay for food, or who can pay for food but aren't physically able to walk to the grocery store, not to mention the women who were dumped out onto the sidewalk who knows how far from home on a Friday night full of angry drunks.

From:

Absolutely. The TTC touts their "Request Stop" program as proof that they care about women's safety, but they had no problem kicking women off buses and streetcars in the middle of the night. Did they assume everyone had enough money for a cab? What about women who got stranded in residential areas where cabs and/or ATM's are not plentiful? The bus I take to work goes through a couple of rough areas, and I sure as hell would not have wanted to find myself stranded there at midnight.

A friend of mine who is disabled and living on a fixed income was out visiting friends on Friday night. She was thoroughly shafted by the strike.

From:

shara.livejournal.com

54K a year is not a poverty wage.

Contract negotiations, raises and benefits shouldn't only be okay for people making a "poverty" wage. If I were expected to work a dangerous, often thankless job which requires me to live in or near the second-most expensive place in the country (average price for a resale home in Toronto: now $451k) I would bloody well expect and fight for regular salary increases, appropriate safety measures, job security and pension. I don't feel it's my moral imperative to struggle, nor do I think other people deserve to just because I don't respect the level of skills and education they have.

Even with their raises, benefits and compensation demands, the wage they'd get is still reasonable. They are asking for nothing untoward.

From:

If I were expected to work a dangerous, often thankless job

Expected to work? Silly me. I had assumed that people who work for the TTC had agreed to do so of their own free will.

The pay raises and pension that TTC workers and other unionized employees get is often much better what private sector workers get, and before you argue with me about that, yes I do know that for a fact because I used to work as a pension plan and benefits administrator for unionized companies.

I don't feel it's my moral imperative to struggle, nor do I think other people deserve to just because I don't respect the level of skills and education they have.

My goodness, what interesting assumptions you've made. If you could avoid putting words in my mouth, I'd really appreciate it.

From:

shara.livejournal.com

Expected to work? Silly me. I had assumed that people who work for the TTC had agreed to do so of their own free will.

I don't think the recourse for every worker should be to quit. It doesn't make sense for me to walk away from every job I'd like to renegotiate a contract on. It makes more sense to work with my employer for a contract that does work. Otherwise, we accept that some jobs are just bad, allow them to be bad, and leave them to the lowest man on the totem pole. Employment becomes a gradient of tolerated duress where the poorest get the worst deals.

My goodness, what interesting assumptions you've made. If you could avoid putting words in my mouth, I'd really appreciate it.

Those were words from my mouth. I don't feel there's a level of pay I "deserve". I see nothing wrong with wanting and fighting for a different contract, no matter what I'm doing and what they pay me to do it. I don't think I should feel badly or outside my rights for undertaking that negotiation.

From:

baratron.livejournal.com

What do your TTC workers earn? Here, train drivers can earn £40,000 a year as their basic wage, with a 35 hour working week. Richard claims they also get 9 weeks of paid holiday, but I haven't got round to checking that. (Seven, I could believe. Nine seems crazy.) Overtime can raise that to £60,000 easily. Station staff start on around £18,000.

When you consider that newly-qualified teachers in schools or universities earn ~£20,000 a year, and extremely qualified school heads rarely exceed £45,000, you can understand why Londoners get pissed off with the train company strikes.

From: