Another Work Stoppage in Toronto.

[Boges]

http://www.thestar.com/news/cityhallpolitics/article/1114625--city-wants-deadlock-declared-in-contract-talks-strike-or-lockout-looms

The City of Toronto is asking a provincial mediator to declare a deadlock in its contract talks with unionized staff — a step closer to a winter lockout or strike.

Councillor Doug Holyday confirmed the move in an interview Thursday.

“I guess we weren’t getting any co-operation” in ongoing talks, Holyday said shortly before Mayor Rob Ford held a news conference to discuss the move in his City Hall office.

“I guess it’s just another step in the process. Hopefully it will get the two sides together.”

Contracts for about 32,000 City of Toronto workers in four unions expired New Year’s Day.

A city-requested provincial mediator started meeting with negotiators for the city and CUPE Local 416, representing 6,000 outside workers, on Monday. Earlier talks had broken down in mid-December.

The Ford administration is adamant the union give up safeguards ensuring any permanent employee made redundant by contracting out, or technological innovation, be found another job in the civil service.

CUPE 416 president Mark Ferguson is equally adamant workers won’t give up the hard-won job protection or other concessions being sought by the city, fuelling fears of a winter lockout or strike.

I've said earlier that the "jobs for life" provision is kind of silly and if that's the sticking point I doubt the public will be very sympathetic to the union.

From what I remember from that last strike, This Mark Ferguson guy made an ultimatum and his Blondness caved regarding being able to bank unused sick days. I don't see Rob Ford doing a similar thing.

The reason it'll end up being a lockout and not a Strike is because of the time of year. Garbage doesn't stink as bed when it's cold out. So it looks like the union will have to hold out 2 or 3 months before people will care about the lack of garbage disposal.

Isn't this 3 out of 4 contracts that have resulted in a work stoppage? That's pretty BS, unless you're 100% pro-union how can you side with CUPE 416?

Edited January 12, 2012 by Boges

[charter.rights]

http://www.thestar.com/news/cityhallpolitics/article/1114625--city-wants-deadlock-declared-in-contract-talks-strike-or-lockout-looms

I've said earlier that the "jobs for life" provision is kind of silly and if that's the sticking point I doubt the public will be very sympathetic to the union.

From what I remember from that last strike, This Mark Ferguson guy made an ultimatum and his Blondness caved regarding being able to bank unused sick days. I don't see Rob Ford doing a similar thing.

The reason it'll end up being a lockout and not a Strike is because of the time of year. Garbage doesn't stink as bed when it's cold out. So it looks like the union will have to hold out 2 or 3 months before people will care about the lack of garbage disposal.

Isn't this 3 out of 4 contracts that have resulted in a work stoppage? That's pretty BS, unless you're 100% pro-union how can you side with CUPE 416?

The outside workers are also responsible for sewer, water and roads. Imagine snow covered roads remaining unplowed, or a water main break that doesn't get fixed. Outside workers are important to the business of running a city.

[Boges]

The outside workers are also responsible for sewer, water and roads. Imagine snow covered roads remaining unplowed, or a water main break that doesn't get fixed. Outside workers are important to the business of running a city.

There's got to be a provision about snow removal like there is with paramedics. You can't just stop doing things that relate to public safety because of a labour dispute, you would think.

The main beef with the last strike was the garbage piling up in the parks.

[Michael Hardner]

I've said earlier that the "jobs for life" provision is kind of silly and if that's the sticking point I doubt the public will be very sympathetic to the union.

Who has jobs for life ? Didn't they just lay off people ?

Isn't this 3 out of 4 contracts that have resulted in a work stoppage? That's pretty BS, unless you're 100% pro-union how can you side with CUPE 416?

Without any context 3/4 means as much as 3/3 or 3/10000000.

[Michael Hardner]

There's got to be a provision about snow removal like there is with paramedics. You can't just stop doing things that relate to public safety because of a labour dispute, you would think.

If you make that provision, then you have to pay more for it. You're basically buying their right to strike.

[Boges]

Who has jobs for life ? Didn't they just lay off people ?

As I gather it. If you lose your job through no fault of your own AKA as being laid off. The City of Toronto has to find another job for you if there is someone with less tenure. Now there has to be limitations. A garbage man with tenure over a paramedic can't just bump the other person, at least I would hope not.

But if you have tenure over someone at the City of Toronto, even if they don't have the same job description as you, you can bump them.

I suppose at some point they'll run out of people to bump.

Without any context 3/4 means as much as 3/3 or 3/10000000.

I believe in 2001 there was a Strike, in 2009 there was a Strike and it appears in 2012 there will be a lock out.

That's 3 in 11 years.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Boges

[Boges]

If you make that provision, then you have to pay more for it. You're basically buying their right to strike.

There in lies the problem I have with unionized public servants. They have a job that people are forced to subsidize through taxes yet they have a monopoly over the service.

It's not like if GM goes on strike, people don't need to depend on GM to make cars.

If civil servants go on strike and you can't bring in "scabs" they're holding the public hostage.

[cybercoma]

I've said earlier that the "jobs for life" provision is kind of silly and if that's the sticking point I doubt the public will be very sympathetic to the union.

We've discussed in the past, yet you still show complete disregard for what the actual clause states.

It's not "Jobs for Life". The clause states that they cannot fire a unionized employee and rehire someone that is not unionized for the exact same position. The clause prevents assholes like the Fords from attacking unions. Employees can be fired for job performance issues and whatnot.

[Shakeyhands]

and his Blondness

Why do you continue to break the forum rules?

[Michael Hardner]

As I gather it. If you lose your job through no fault of your own AKA as being laid off. The City of Toronto has to find another job for you if there is someone with less tenure. Now there has to be limitations. A garbage man with tenure over a paramedic can't just bump the other person, at least I would hope not.

But if you have tenure over someone at the City of Toronto, even if they don't have the same job description as you, you can bump them.

Ok. You can also be fired for poor performance or misconduct, so... job-for-life is pretty clearly a misnomer here.

I believe in 2001 there was a Strike, in 2009 there was a Strike and it appears in 2012 there will be a lock out.

That's 3 in 11 years.

You achieved a successful count already in this thread. Why is it one side's fault if two sides don't have an agreement ?

There in lies the problem I have with unionized public servants. They have a job that people are forced to subsidize through taxes yet they have a monopoly over the service.

It's not like if GM goes on strike, people don't need to depend on GM to make cars.

If civil servants go on strike and you can't bring in "scabs" they're holding the public hostage.

I'm not sure if we still have a 'scab' law in Ontario. But GM has the right to strike, at least, and essential workers don't.

Do you think unions should be outlawed ?

[charter.rights]

There's got to be a provision about snow removal like there is with paramedics. You can't just stop doing things that relate to public safety because of a labour dispute, you would think.

The main beef with the last strike was the garbage piling up in the parks.

No provision. The right to strike includes no snow plowing in the city. However, in the past Unions have agreed to keep plowing the essential main arteries in order to provide emergency services. However, municipal parking lots, side streets and laneways won't be plowed this winter if the outside workers go on strike or....more likely...there is a lockout by the city....

[Boges]

Ok. You can also be fired for poor performance or misconduct, so... job-for-life is pretty clearly a misnomer here.

That's sort of the MSM buzzword for it. Ford wants to outsource garbage collection. Most, if not all, municipalities in the region have private garbage collection. Toronto is way behind on this actually. But the clause says that anyone who loses their job to this is entitled another job in the city doing whatever.

This is what Rob Ford wants to change.

You achieved a successful count already in this thread. Why is it one side's fault if two sides don't have an agreement ?

Well it's public perception. Assuming there's a work stoppage here they will have happened under 3 different administrations. Lastman, Miller and now Ford. All three mayors having vastly different political views.

It's widely believed that Miller's handling of the last strike is why he didn't run again because it would appear he caved to the Union and his popularity plummeted.

Do you think unions should be outlawed ?

In regards to public services, yes I do.

I doubt this will ever happen but they have a monopoly on the service they provide and their defacto customers (the taxpayer) have to pay regardless of their performance or if they strike or not. I suppose during a garbage strike you can pay for private garbage services but how is that fair when you're already paying taxes?

I've heard it be said that many of the outside workers don't even live in Toronto. So it's not like they're in this for some greater good of "city building". All they want is their money, the City be damned.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Boges

[dre]

There in lies the problem I have with unionized public servants. They have a job that people are forced to subsidize through taxes yet they have a monopoly over the service.

It's not like if GM goes on strike, people don't need to depend on GM to make cars.

If civil servants go on strike and you can't bring in "scabs" they're holding the public hostage.

Yeah but you could use essential services legislation to strip these workers for pretty much ALL of their bargaining and labor rights. Youre giving a shitload of power over these workers to the government if you do that, but if you have a lot of trust in government then I guess that makes sense.

[Boges]

Yeah but you could use essential services legislation to strip these workers for pretty much ALL of their bargaining and labor rights. Youre giving a shitload of power over these workers to the government if you do that, but if you have a lot of trust in government then I guess that makes sense.

So there are only two options: essential or non-essential workers? Well 3 when you consider many civil servant strikes end with back-to-work legislation and an arbitrators decision.

The problem is that the arbitrator might not consider the administration's mandate or what the public(who are essentially the shareholders) thinks.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I've said earlier that the "jobs for life" provision is kind of silly and if that's the sticking point I doubt the public will be very sympathetic to the union.

Not many are going to be sympathetic to the union or any union coming up.

Who else do we have bargaining this year? Teachers and Nurses? I know quite a few teachers. No one will shed a tear for them. 94k/year top salary? 86k/year for nursing? Guaranteed jobs for life?

The higher than average wage + the pretty much lifetime guarantee is what seals it.

From what I remember from that last strike, This Mark Ferguson guy made an ultimatum and his Blondness caved regarding being able to bank unused sick days. I don't see Rob Ford doing a similar thing.

Banking unused sick days can be good, if a replacement MUST be called in when an employee is sick. It actually saves money. But only if a supply/temp has to cover and be paid in addition the worker's salary(IE, Paying out sick day and coverage). Encourages people to take fewer days.

Edited January 14, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Who has jobs for life ? Didn't they just lay off people ?

People at the bottom (young people) who did not have time to benefit the pyramid scheme of a system created by the baby boomer's

Once you are in for a certain number of years, you pretty much have to steal money or touch someone inappropriately to lose your job.

[cybercoma]

This makes no sense. Why are people sympathetic with employers, but not sympathetic with workers? These are contract negotiations. Everyone has a right to negotiate their contract of employment. Being against unions is like being against individuals negotiating with an employer.

Edited January 14, 2012 by cybercoma

[dre]

This makes no sense. Why are people sympathetic with employers, but not sympathetic with workers? These are contract negotiations. Everyone has a right to negotiate their contract of employment. Being against unions is like being against individuals negotiating with an employer.

Todays generation doesnt remember what it was like to be an employee before collective bargaining. Its a real anti labor environment out there, and a lot of people wont be happy until your average Canadian worker lives like the workers at the FoxConn suicide factory. This is the same attitude that has resulted in the dismantling of the middle class.

Edited January 14, 2012 by dre

[MiddleClassCentrist]

This makes no sense. Why are people sympathetic with employers, but not sympathetic with workers? These are contract negotiations.

Simple.

It's hard to feel bad for someone who already makes more than you.

That and everyone thinks that everyone else's job is easier, thus worth less pay, than it actually is.

[charter.rights]

Todays generation doesnt remember what it was like to be an employee before collective bargaining. Its a real anti labor environment out there, and a lot of people wont be happy until your average Canadian worker lives like the workers at the FoxConn suicide factory. This is the same attitude that has resulted in the dismantling of the middle class.

Most Cons think that unions get in the way of personal achievement and wealth. In fact the opposite is true. Unions guarantee a minimum level of wealth, health and safety. In the public sector, many of the middle managers are also former union workers so unions do not stifle achievement either.....

[cybercoma]

Simple.

It's hard to feel bad for someone who already makes more than you.

That and everyone thinks that everyone else's job is easier, thus worth less pay, than it actually is.

So in a nutshell, people are assholes?

[MiddleClassCentrist]

So in a nutshell, people are assholes?

Pretty much.

Can appreciate the irony that arises from these disputes. On a radio talk show, a guy was criticizing manufacturing jobs for their high pay, low skill field. Turns out he was a business teacher, anyone would rebutt by saying he gets paid too much because he gets summers off and because he supposedly only works during school hours. The teacher could turn around and call a project manager over paid because they have an entire week to create a single presentation, while the teacher has to run several presentations a day and control 20-30 kids. Everyone's job, that the person making the observation is not currently employed doing, is obviously just too easy.

Public sector wages are too high because they don't have as high of a risk of losing their job. They should be paid well but, take a cut for their low risk situation.

The average private sector wage should be slightly lower than the average public sector wage because there is a lot more potential reward in the private sector than there is in the public sector (end wages in private sector are higher).

Everyone makes too much! Let's lower everyone's pay(Except mine, of course).

[Michael Hardner]

Everyone's job, that the person making the observation is not currently employed doing, is obviously just too easy.

...

Public sector wages are too high because they don't have as high of a risk of losing their job. They should be paid well but, take a cut for their low risk situation.

It's strange that you acknowledge this phenomenon of "the grass is greener" when it comes to jobs, then indulge in it yourself shortly after.

The average private sector wage should be slightly lower than the average public sector wage because there is a lot more potential reward in the private sector than there is in the public sector (end wages in private sector are higher).

Everyone makes too much! Let's lower everyone's pay(Except mine, of course).

I think with economics, there is no "should"... it's what works that works. A balanced market seems to have done well for us in the past.

[cybercoma]

I'm not sure that "what works is what works." Well... yes, that's not really disputable since it's a tautology. What I think has been "working" throughout the 19th and 20th centuries is employers concentrating as much wealth as possible, until people fight back... usually violently. After that they put something in place to placate the masses, only to turn around and begin concentrating the wealth again in an increasingly complex and obfuscated way. Eventually people get pissed and fight back again and the cycle continues.

In any case, fighting against unions is the exact same thing as saying people should be told what they will make on the job. It's like saying there is no such thing as a contract negotiation. I can't for the life of me get my head around this ridiculous "take it or leave it" mentality about negotiations. Could you imagine this kind of thinking extended to other negotiations? Imagine trying to buy a house this way.

Edited January 14, 2012 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

I'm not sure that "what works is what works." Well... yes, that's not really disputable since it's a tautology. What I think has been "working" throughout the 19th and 20th centuries is employers concentrating as much wealth as possible, until people fight back... usually violently.

Yes, that is generally true but there are counter examples.

After that they put something in place to placate the masses, only to turn around and begin concentrating the wealth again in an increasingly complex and obfuscated way. Eventually people get pissed and fight back again and the cycle continues.

You describe a constant state of tension, which I think is accurate ... but in your scenario "they" seem to have all the power which isn't really the case or they wouldn't have put something in place to begin with.

In any case, fighting against unions is the exact same thing as saying people should be told what they will make on the job. It's like saying there is no such thing as a contract negotiation. I can't for the life of me get my head around this ridiculous "take it or leave it" mentality about negotiations. Could you imagine this kind of thinking extended to other negotiations? Imagine trying to buy a house this way.

Well, you might lose the negotiation or you might win depending on the circumstances. It's a process and going through it in good faith at least validates that we have an agreed-upon approach whether or not all parties are happy with the outcome. Actually, the best outcome is that neither side is happy. That is compromise.