City Workers Strike 2009

[Prometheus The Supremo]

with the rat infestations, insects, pest spraying & traps, poor image of the city to tourists, rampant littering, illegal dumping, canceled events and resulting economic losses, etc., was it really worth it to not give into the union and cause a strike as consequence? will the strike end up costing us more or will the savings (labor,fuel, etc.) outweigh the consequences of the strike?

and if they aren't allowed to bank their sick days, can't they just call in sick for 18 days a year and get paid for nothing anyway? in this sense, it seems pointless to not let them bank those days.


also, will people get refunds for their garbage bins for times not picked up?

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

I think it's kind of interesting that as many of us have seen our wages either remain relatively stagnant or increased by cost of living in recent years (that is, if we haven't lost our job due to the recession or downsizing) we seem to resent those who make a decent wage, receive good benefits, have safe working conditions and have a union to negotiate fair contracts and represent the worker. I'm not being PC here nor am I anti/pro union - I'm really in the middle however I do see and try to understand both sides of these issues. I also don't buy the "I have no job security, why should they" argument either. However when I read that a private garbage collector gets $17/hr. that's about $38K/yr., not a whole lot of money to live on in this city. If your single forget getting a mortgage on one of those tiny shoebox condos we talk so much about on this board much less a house, it ain't gonna happen. Earning $38K a year is only barely a comfortable existence in 2009.

 

[Maggie]

^ Good points DT, you should be a mod or at least run for Mayor (please, Pretty Please). I would just like to add that I think the unions have done a very poor job getting their message out, not that I agree with what their doing because I don't. Miller spends half his time in Media training giving him an edge over his opponents.

 

[afransen]

I think it's kind of interesting that as many of us have seen our wages either remain relatively stagnant or increased by cost of living in recent years (that is, if we haven't lost our job due to the recession or downsizing) we seem to resent those who make a decent wage, receive good benefits, have safe working conditions and have a union to negotiate fair contracts and represent the worker. I'm not being PC here nor am I anti/pro union - I'm really in the middle however I do see and try to understand both sides of these issues. I also don't buy the "I have no job security, why should they" argument either. However when I read that a private garbage collector gets $17/hr. that's about $38K/yr., not a whole lot of money to live on in this city. If your single forget getting a mortgage on one of those tiny shoebox condos we talk so much about on this board much less a house, it ain't gonna happen. Earning $38K a year is only barely a comfortable existence in 2009.

They don't have to take the job. If it doesn't pay well enough, they can find another. Point being that many people earn less than $17/hr. Why the hell should the government selectively overpay people? That isn't 'fair'.

 

[lordmandeep]

the cities job is not provide their works with a great life.

Its to provide services to the people in Toronto without bankrupting itself...

Why should the city care if its employees have enough money to buy a house and keep a mortgage. That is individuals responsibility. If he wants such a life, he should strive for a better job.


There are two options left
1) Keep paying these clowns and finally bankrupt ourselves.

2) privatize it already and got better work done as well.

Unions are not bad its the public sector unions.

You are either ignorant or an blind fool to really think public sector unions have the people in mind.

Plus The politicians at city hall are cowards. Why don't they respond with No, get back to work, your demands are ridiculous or else where privatizing Garbage collection.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Having delivered my green bin waste to Moss Park last week by TTC I realize how little the strike is inconveniencing me. Cardboard and newsprint are easy enough to warehouse, in the basement, until this thing's over - as are glass and plastic containers - and the amount of actual garbage produced is negligible. Surprisingly, the main inconvenience comes from not being able to weed the garden and dead-head the flowers - I've so come to rely on those bi-weekly garden waste pick-ups in the summer. It's impossible to store large paper bags full of dead plants, no matter how dry they are, for more than ten days without the bases rotting through - even in a cool, unfinished basement.

 

[Whoaccio]

I think it's kind of interesting that as many of us have seen our wages either remain relatively stagnant or increased by cost of living in recent years (that is, if we haven't lost our job due to the recession or downsizing) we seem to resent those who make a decent wage, receive good benefits, have safe working conditions and have a union to negotiate fair contracts and represent the worker. I'm not being PC here nor am I anti/pro union - I'm really in the middle however I do see and try to understand both sides of these issues. I also don't buy the "I have no job security, why should they" argument either. However when I read that a private garbage collector gets $17/hr. that's about $38K/yr., not a whole lot of money to live on in this city. If your single forget getting a mortgage on one of those tiny shoebox condos we talk so much about on this board much less a house, it ain't gonna happen. Earning $38K a year is only barely a comfortable existence in 2009.

What people resent isn't that CUPE members earn what they do, its how they earn what they earn. Whereas most people have to deal with basic economic realities, like investing in their education to earn above average wages, CUPE members simply exploit their monopolistic hold on what are deemed essential public services to raise their wages. The kicker is that the resulting wages are higher than the wages of the people who pay them.

Its only a bit of an exaggeration to compare CUPE to feudal landlords. Yea, peasants would 'resent' that the landlords would earn more than them. More honestly though they would resent that the landlord's wages are actually just their wages extorted away by threat of being excluded from several essential services. In principal at least it is the same idea.

That's what - around $34,000 a year or so? Frankly, $17/hour with no real benefits for trash collection appears pretty damn low for the crappy job that it is.

Thirty four grand a year is pretty high for unskilled manual labor. Fifty grand for a job that requires, literally, no skills whatsoever is exorbitant.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

They don't have to take the job. If it doesn't pay well enough, they can find another. Point being that many people earn less than $17/hr. Why the hell should the government selectively overpay people? That isn't 'fair'.

Many do make less than $17/hr. and they get by, often by working two and three jobs to make ends meet. The City is an employer like any else. They are employing people (human beings) to perform a function in a full time capacity and should be paid a decent wage for what they do. I don't think a garbage collector (for example) making $25/hr (a decent working wage) is overpaying someone who does a fairly laborious job, starts very early in the morning or works evenings. That said, I don't support the banking of sick days for payout at retirement, I believe that must come off the table.

the cities job is not provide their works with a great life.

I was commenting on the private collector's wage, not the City garbage collectors but yes, someone making that kind of money can seek out a job which pays better. No employer has any obligation (nor should they) to provide a job for life however if a company (including the City) has a reliable, hard working, honest, committed employee with a good work ethic why wouldn't a company want to keep him/her for life and reward them with annual pay increases in good times, and if the employer can afford it, cost of living increases through difficult times.

Its to provide services to the people in Toronto without bankrupting itself...

Yes, and yes. The problem with the City's fiscal issues run much deeper than paying City employees a livable wage.

Why should the city care if its employees have enough money to buy a house and keep a mortgage. That is individuals responsibility. If he wants such a life, he should strive for a better job.

They shouldn't, however if the general public support is against paying City employees a decent wage I worry for the future.

There are two options left
1) Keep paying these clowns and finally bankrupt ourselves.

2) privatize it already and got better work done as well.

Unions are not bad its the public sector unions.

You are either ignorant or an blind fool to really think public sector unions have the people in mind.

Plus The politicians at city hall are cowards. Why don't they respond with No, get back to work, your demands are ridiculous or else where privatizing Garbage collection.

Referring to City employees as clowns is unfair.
Privatizing and busting the union is an option, sure. Think for a moment if your company decides to outsource or hire an outside company to do the job that you do for less. Some jobs are immune from this, many others are not. That is my fear, how far and for how long do we continue down this road by finding other companies to to do the job by younger, cheaper and less experienced workers, and continuing to eliminate decent living wages in this country.

 

[kEiThZ]

$17 an hour may be too little for the type of work they do. But without a doubt $25 an hour and bankable sick days is exorbitant. What makes it galling is that they want more. And what does not seem to strike them and their supporters is the opportunity costs involved. A close friend of mine works for an organization that helps immigrant youth. It's funded by the city. Her program and many other could be in jeapordy if the city has to cut costs elsewhere to pay this wage tab. Is that fair? Or what about my father, the small business owner, who works way more than 40 hrs a week and probably nets way less than 50k a year, keeps students employed, who could well face a higher tax bill if more union shenanigans like this are permitted.

I categorically reject this whole 'fairness' argument. If we are going to define a 'fair' wage as one which provides a 'decent' standard of living, why don't we just raise the minimum wage to $20/hr? I am sure everybody who buys this 'fairness' tripe can swallow the inflation and mass unemployment that follows. A fair wage is one that adequately compensates you for the services you provide. Ideally, that'd be a market wage. There is and has never been a guarantee that a fair wage would mean a decent quality of life. After all, if we are going to talk about 25 bucks an hour for trash collectors, what about somebody who wants a decent quality of life delivering newspapers or pizzas? What about wait staff in restaurants? That's how capitalism works (or at least should work). You get paid according to the real value of the service you render. Anything more means somebody, somewhere is losing out. Why should students, immigrants, low income residents, taxpayers etc. all suffer so that these guys can get a 'decent' standard of living. What about the standard of living of the taxpayer who is often making much less than 25 dollars an hour (which is the majority of residents in this city)? I am willing to bet that most of the residents in this city don't even make $17 an hour. Yet, they are being called on to contribute even more towards somebody making $25 an hour with exorbitant benefits….all in the name of fairness.

I'd love for one of these trash collectors to go to a co-op and explain their concept of fairness to a single mother on welfare, or perhaps they can explain why they need to get paid more to the immigrant working at a fast food joint or the students whose hours my father will have to cut (usually after he cuts his own take) if taxes keep heading the way they do.

 

[Dilla]

They shouldn't, however if the general public support is against paying City employees a decent wage I worry for the future.

As Keithz has pointed out there is a cost in doing this, though. Can you not see that? The city doesn't just print money. Moreover, what is a "decent" wage for unskilled labour?

That is my fear, how far and for how long do we continue down this road by finding other companies to to do the job by younger, cheaper and less experienced workers, and continuing to eliminate decent living wages in this country.

This does need to change, but overpaying a handful of city workers isn't going to do it. The best and easiest way to redistribute wealth is through taxes, not wages, which requires too much politics and micromanaging.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

I don't advocate raising the minimum wage to $20, I just do not support that. Jobs such as food service, retail and the like offer opportunities to teenagers and students entering the job market on a part time basis to "learn" how to work and to begin developing true working skills in the real world. Some people work these jobs to put themselves through school, seniors looking to stay active and make a few bucks to supplement their pensions, yet others make careers out of these types of jobs which is a choice that they choose to make and that's fine too.
In a somewhat perfect capitalistic society one would be paid based on the the importance of the job that they perform and the perceived value of the job that they do, the amount of education & experience needed to perform the job or based on the physical labour involved. We're nowhere near that ideal model and it's simply not going to change anytime soon.

 

[Tewder]

I categorically reject this whole 'fairness' argument.

Great post Keithz! I agree with you that the whole notion of 'fairness' is specious. Unions have ruined many an industry in North America and they are bankrupting this city with their warped sense of what is fair. The issue here to put it simply is not one of fairness but 'entitlement' and abuse of collective power. Unions were once very important, historically speaking, before labour laws and standards etc. but their day has come and gone. This latest strike at a time of recession when many companies are going under and many Canadians are losing work just seems to drive the point home.

 

[Whoaccio]

There is no such thing as a 'living wage.' Think about it, what does that even mean? It's really just one of these terms, like social justice, that can be molded to mean anything. It doesn't literally mean a wage equal to the cost of living. That's self evident. The LICO for a single person family in Toronto is about 18k. If we just take this as a measure of the cost of living, which it most definitely isn't, then even the private garbage contractors in Etobicoke earn a healthy premium to 'living wages' while the CUPE collectors earn almost twice the 'living wage.' Working from a basic needs basis, as opposed to LICO, the private contractors earn approximately 3x the cost of living and the CUPE members earn 5x the 'living wage' (defined as the cost of housing, food, clothes and other necessities).

There are really two different issues to be dealt with from a social welfare perspective. First is economic efficiency. The best way to describe this would be an society with an optimal Pareto efficiency, meaning that given all the billions of alternate economic choices a society could make no permutation would have a better balance of benefits and costs. In the case of CUPE, while it's true that CUPE members extract benefits from higher wages, this situation is likely not optimal due to the increased tax burden on society and the lost opportunity cost. The second issue is distribution of efficiencies. Normally these go by social welfare functions, but that is a bit above my head. To grossly simplify, which situation is better: two people earning a 'living wage' of 5$ each, or a situation where one person earns 8$ and the other 4$ with the richer person redistributing 13% of his income to the other?

 

[Eug]

$17 an hour may be too little for the type of work they do. But without a doubt $25 an hour and bankable sick days is exorbitant.

Agreed. It's debatable if $17 an hour is sufficient, because it's hard work and generally unpleasant. However, it may be borderline sufficient, even if I wouldn't necessarily argue with $20/hr for this job either.

However, $25 plus perks is more than a 25% over even $20/hr.

 

[gabe]

Great post Keithz!Unions were once very important, historically speaking, before labour laws and standards etc. but their day has come and gone. This latest strike at a time of recession when many companies are going under and many Canadians are losing work just seems to drive the point home.

Not all unions are the same. From my experience stagehand unions in entertainment industry are still very much needed.