Another Work Stoppage in Toronto.

[cybercoma]

I believe history has shown that "they" have all the power and it's only in exceptional and violent circumstances that true change has ever really happened. That the wealth continues to be concentrated at the top, I believe, proves that they do have all the power and that the change is not as substantial as it could be.

And since this is more or less of topic, I'll just leave it at that.

[Michael Hardner]

And since this is more or less of topic, I'll just leave it at that.

I probably agree with you, with the caveat you added above...

[MiddleClassCentrist]

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.

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.

My whole post was meant to be tongue in cheek. Sorry it did not translate over in text.

[Guest Peeves]

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.

As an apparent expert on ass holes I might defer to you.

However, Ford was elected by vote, is doing what he said he'd do and that should be to eviscerate the unsustainable union gravy that the socialist regimes dumped on the tax payers for years.

The civic unions in Toronto have killed their golden egg supply by overplaying their hand. I have NO tears for them.

Any bleeding hearts that don't understand fiscal responsibility should donate to the union cause and walk the picket line with them.

As for me,the union(s) have blackmailed the city all too long.

[charter.rights]

As an apparent expert on ass holes I might defer to you.

However, Ford was elected by vote, is doing what he said he'd do and that should be to eviscerate the unsustainable union gravy that the socialist regimes dumped on the tax payers for years.

The civic unions in Toronto have killed their golden egg supply by overplaying their hand. I have NO tears for them.

Any bleeding hearts that don't understand fiscal responsibility should donate to the union cause and walk the picket line with them.

As for me,the union(s) have blackmailed the city all too long.

What most people miss is that Unions are not necessarily to blame for the increased wage4s and benefits.Public non-union managers - the ones who negotiate with the unions at contract time, have their wages and benefits tied to the union rates. There is no reason they would ask the union to take a cut, that will eventually mean that the non-union / management workers will have to take the same cuts.

[Mr.Canada]

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.

Yes, they're important but does that mean that the public should be held hostage every few years and that the Toronto Council should give them whatever they want? That is insane. Toronto or any government cannot continue to run like this forever there is a limit. Tax dollars are not endless.

Btw Mr. Ferguson isn't saving Toronto anything at all. By agreeing to a wage freeze he isn't saving the city any money. In order to save one has to spend less then they are currently. Saying that we won't spend anymore but instead spend the same isn't the same as saving money and reducing the budget. I hope people here aren't fooled by this ploy by the union.

[Boges]

What most people miss is that Unions are not necessarily to blame for the increased wage4s and benefits.Public non-union managers - the ones who negotiate with the unions at contract time, have their wages and benefits tied to the union rates. There is no reason they would ask the union to take a cut, that will eventually mean that the non-union / management workers will have to take the same cuts.

Non-Union Toronto staff got a pay freeze under Miller administration.

In good times administration trade labour peace for lucrative bennies. When money is tighter things have to be reined back a bit.

[Guest Peeves]

What most people miss is that Unions are not necessarily to blame for the increased wage4s and benefits.Public non-union managers - the ones who negotiate with the unions at contract time, have their wages and benefits tied to the union rates. There is no reason they would ask the union to take a cut, that will eventually mean that the non-union / management workers will have to take the same cuts.

Some people might miss that but I don't. I was a union rep. I was in management, I was a self employed worker.

I don't blame the union workers I blame the cretins that negotiated the contracts giving everything and anything unsustainable or not with costs simply passed on to taxpayers.

It made the likes of socialist like Miller look good to workers, avoided any conflict on the socialists watch and an uncaring public simply got hammered with taxes and deficits. The chickens have come home to roost. Unfortunately those that look out for taxpayers are seen as against unions. What the fiscally responsible ARE against is feather bedding and unrealistic benefits.

Understand this. It's easy to settle any negotiations if you are willing to accommodate all with concessions that you can pass on to the taxpayers.

In private companies there's a bottom line, make a profit or close. That drives negotiations with the workers. REASONABLE contracts that don't kill the entrepreneur or employer.

Civic workers have crossed the line and are going to have to expect a reckoning. No I don't blame a worker for taking what they can get. I blame their elected officials on both sides for shafting the tax payer.

Edited January 16, 2012 by Peeves

[Guest Peeves]

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.

I could tell you of soooo many examples where inappropriate behavior resulted in just a hand slap where in private enterprise the 'worker' would have been terminated.

It might be also pointed out that only a fraction of workers in the country are unionized.

[Boges]

So the province gave the go-ahead to lockout 416 in 17 days.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1118145--toronto-city-workers-lockout-possible-in-17-days-after-no-board-report?bn=1

The provincial labour minister has authorized Mayor Rob Ford to lock out Toronto’s unionized outdoor workers in 17 days.

The minister’s “no board” report also allows the outdoor workers to strike. A winter lockout, however, appears more likely.

A city lockout or Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 416 strike will become legal at 12:01 a.m. on Sunday, Feb. 5, the city said in a statement.

Garbage collection would be most significantly impacted by a lockout of or strike by the 6,000 outdoor workers. Ambulance service could be reduced by as much as 15 per cent. Snow plowing may also be affected, though most of the city’s plowing has been outsourced to private companies.

416 is reportedly dropping half a mil on TV ads.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Boges

[CPCFTW]

Sweet more cost savings. Lets just make garbage collection once every two weeks and fire half of them.

[guyser]

Sweet more cost savings. Lets just make garbage collection once every two weeks and fire half of them.

Won't save a dime !

We already have garbage collection every two weeks.

Now what?

[CPCFTW]

Won't save a dime !

We already have garbage collection every two weeks.

Now what?

3 wks?

[Jack Weber]

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

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

I'm union and I've been laid off before...

"Jobs for Life"= another Con/free market anti union canard...

[Boges]

3 wks?

Which would be hilarious because in the burbs I get Recycling/Compost every week and the rest every other week. Our services are contracted out though.

[Boges]

I'm union and I've been laid off before...

"Jobs for Life"= another Con/free market anti union canard...

Mark Ferguson calls the provision re-distribution.

It just basically means if you have tenure over anyone that person gets bumped regardless of what they do. Or at least that's what I'm told.

I've heard Doug Holiday say on the radio that this provision makes it almost impossible for the city to make any decisions about staff levels, hours etc without having to fight the union at every turn.

[charter.rights]

Mark Ferguson calls the provision re-distribution.

It just basically means if you have tenure over anyone that person gets bumped regardless of what they do. Or at least that's what I'm told.

Not true.

The rule of seniority is that you are offered the next job available that you meet the qualifications for. Layoffs are to occur in the lowest ranked position in the department and lower paying positions are bumped by those up the wage category in the same department or where the one with the highest seniority is qualified in another department. Thus a labourer with seniority in the public works department can bump a laabourer with less seniority in another department ONLY IF they are qualified for the position.

A clerk does not become a supervisor because of the seniority rule.

The practical side of this is that the City invests considerable amount of time in its employees in training and experience. Losing a qualified worker to layoffs is a travesty to that investment. Since most positions go from through the wage levels in 18 or 24 months, there is no cost benefit to layoff older workers over newer ones.

[Bryan]

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.

It's not the workers that anyone has a problem with, it's the unions. More specifically, the current union laws that hold business owners and taxpayers hostage.

Negotiation is good, but the employer also has to have the right at some point to just dictate the terms of employment. The employee is free to leave if they don't like it. A strike action absolutely must be legitimate grounds for termination. You can go ahead and take the chance that they won't fire everyone, but you should have no recourse if they do.

[cybercoma]

So no one should have any job security whatsoever? The right to negotiate your contract, whether individually or through a union, can be trumped at any time by an employer dictating something different, then the employee is free to quit their job. That's very nice on paper, but the alternative to being bent over the bargaining table may be worse. What you're talking about is highly unethical.

[Boges]

That's very nice on paper, but the alternative to being bent over the bargaining table may be worse. What you're talking about is highly unethical.

That's the reality for a vast majority of Canadians. It's only in the Public Sector where workers and unions can hold their defacto shareholder's hostage.

[Bryan]

So no one should have any job security whatsoever? The right to negotiate your contract, whether individually or through a union, can be trumped at any time by an employer dictating something different, then the employee is free to quit their job. That's very nice on paper, but the alternative to being bent over the bargaining table may be worse. What you're talking about is highly unethical.

No, unethical is forcing a business owner or the taxpayers to pay beyond what they can afford without the right to just decide that you're too expensive for them. Unethical is forcing the owner of the business or the taxpayer to sign a contract at all. If you want the right to have job security, then the employer should have the right to labour and cost security. He can't fire you? Then you shouldn't be allowed to quit either.

[cybercoma]

Who's saying employers shouldn't have the right to fire you?

[Boges]

Who's saying employers shouldn't have the right to fire you?

I can cite many instances where Unionized public servants didn't end up losing their jobs even though they did something really bad because the Union protected them.

http://jimfairthorne.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/sleeping-ttc.jpg

That guy never got fired.

He did die recently though.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Boges

[Boges]

Not in Toronto but this one is Classic.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1092378--hamilton-city-worker-who-crashed-car-while-drunk-gets-to-keep-his-job

A City of Hamilton employee who was fired for crashing his work vehicle while driving drunk the wrong way on a highway is getting his job back.

John Fougere, a 22-year employee of the city, was fired in May 2010 after he caused $9,000 worth of damage to a city-owned car driving impaired while off-duty. He drove onto the wrong ramp on Hwy. 403 and was attempting to exit when he slammed into the back of a tractor-trailer.

A provincial arbitrator ruled on Nov. 7 that the city must rehire Fougere. He’s now able to return to his job as a water distribution operator as soon as tests prove he is alcohol and drug free. He will be subject to random drug and alcohol testing for the next five years but will maintain his seniority, pension and benefits.

City staff say they stand by their decision to fire Fougere, but there’s little more they can do in this situation.

[Bryan]

Who's saying employers shouldn't have the right to fire you?

So I can fire you for going on strike then? Or for organizing a union in the first place?