City Workers Strike 2009

[Dilla]

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

Indeed. Many industries (particularly ones with a lot of first generation immigrant workers, who often aren't aware of their legal right as citizens) could probably benefit from some unionization. It's not happening as much as it should, as few unions are interested in trying to organize workers who will probably never make more than $14/hr.

 

[kEiThZ]

If big labour really cared about workers they'd be pushing for a much higher minimum wage, not just increases for their members. But I am sure the economists on their payrolls have told them that in a global economy it’s really a zero-sum game. If everybody were to get higher wages, the inflation alone would probably erode their relative quality of life. And at the end of the day, that's what this is really about: relative quality of life. Traditionally, unions have whittled away a corporation's earning power to improve their members' quality of life. In essence, they ate up the owners' quality of life so that their members could be better off. However, this model does not work for the public sector, since the public sector is not creating wealth per se. As such, any quality of life benefits that accrue to the members of a public sector union, are essentially being paid for by taxpayers. So the joe on the street who has a lower quality of life is being asked to give up even more to the public sector union member who already has a higher standard of living. Somebody please explain to me how this is fair.

And as I have pointed out before, I am not anti-union. I certainly appreciate their value in the private sector, where I'd like to see more unionization actually. But when it comes to the public sector a lot their behaviour is indefensible.

 

[kEiThZ]

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

Not just the entertainment industry. The whole service sector could really do with more unionization. But guess where big labour set its sights….government and the heavy industrial sector. It's not about workers. It's about which sector is easy to unionize and extract concessions from.

 

[Disparishun]

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

Public sector unions are certainly in a different position than unions that represent workers against private employers!

 

[afransen]

If big labour really cared about workers they'd be pushing for a much higher minimum wage, not just increases for their members.

I have to disagree. High minimum wages hurt the poor more than help. A better idea is a basic annual income/negative income tax where we supplement the incomes of the working poor. High minimum wages just mean that everyone who isn't worth that wage doesn't get a job.

 

[afransen]

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.

So you don't think that job is worth taking at $17 an hour, but I bet there are plenty of people out there who'd disagree. Let's let them decide what a fair wage is. Again--how is it fair to tax the general population, including the working poor, to overpay (that is, pay more than necessary) a select few employees. It is not fair. Period. If you give middle-class people a bigger slice of the pie than strictly necessary, you're probably taking that food out of the mouth of the genuinely poor. It's okay that we have a crisis of child poverty, so long as our garbage workers make a 'fair' wage of $50,000/yr +40% fringe benefits. Many people with university degrees don't make that much.

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.

In order to justify an increase in after-inflation wages, workers need to increase the after-inflation value of their work. That means they have to improve their efficiency to justify a raise. Does that sound like our garbage collection system, that demonstrably uses twice the manpower necessary to collect waste?

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

I don't think you can solve the city's fiscal problem without addressing the issue of above-market rate wages for unionized employees. It is not the only problem, but it is probably the largest. Don't wages account for more than 60% of the city's budget?

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.

Most non-unionized jobs in the private sector are pretty safe from outsourcing. I'm making a market wage right now, and I highly doubt my job could be outsourced for less than what I make now. If it could, my employer should be all means do so, and I will happily go find someone else to work for.

Deliberately forcing our economy to be less efficient than it could be makes us all collectively poorer by inhibiting productivity growth. If we want 'decent living wages' we have to foster conditions that will support productivity growth. Without productivity growth, one person's overpaid 'living wage' means another person is poorer, and quite probably that will come off the table of someone even poorer.

 

[kEiThZ]

I have to disagree. High minimum wages hurt the poor more than help. A better idea is a basic annual income/negative income tax where we supplement the incomes of the working poor. High minimum wages just mean that everyone who isn't worth that wage doesn't get a job.

You didn't read what I wrote after....I said that inflation and higher unemployment would result. What I was trying to get at is that big labour only cares about a select few, not about the working class in general. If they did care about the working class, they'd be trying to sincerely improve the lot of those at the bottom. We might disagree with how they would do that (a union would push for higher wages obviously) but at least their motive would be clear. As it stands, they seem to care very little about workers in general.

 

[Seymour]

City Hall should do what Reagan did and fire everyone of these idiotic union workers and hire an entirely new staff. We shouldn't be getting bullied by the selfish idiots running the services around here.

In case you hadn't noticed, Regan was American. In the states it all super individualistic and the idea of paying into a pool from which others could withdraw from is basically against their constitution. That's why they've had a HELL of a time instituting universal medicare. It may very well never happen. The closest Canada got to that in recent memory was the number Mike Harris did on Ontario during the 1990's. Which Toronto is still trying to regroup from!!

Unions were formed back in the day to prevent exploitation of workers. Maybe this union has gotten too big for its britches in that they don't see the overall picture that the City currently finds itself in (attributed to the downloading of services imposed by Mike Harris) and so this stalemate.

The City can't back down, they've got no wiggle room and until the union backs down, expect a long strike. In fact we should just kiss the summer good bye.

 

[kEiThZ]

If this keeps up, I don't doubt that in a few years Torontonians will elect a Mike Harris type of mayor. Most of the suburban residents in this city earn less than the unionized staff. There's not a lot of sympathy there for 'fair' wages. I bet if someone ran on a union busting platform they could get elected.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I think this strike might resolve badly for the union as it is. The strike does suck, but the city is holding firm and the contingency plans are working well. (Dropping a bag of trash off at Moss Park yesterday was an incredibly pleasant experience - the attendant carried my bag from my trunk and everything.)

It doesn't feel like the union is getting any real leverage from this and the city seems willing to hold their ground. And it's coming out today that the city might actually be saving millions of dollars due to the strike? Makes things interesting.

 

[Hipster Duck]

If this keeps up, I don't doubt that in a few years Torontonians will elect a Mike Harris type of mayor. Most of the suburban residents in this city earn less than the unionized staff. There's not a lot of sympathy there for 'fair' wages. I bet if someone ran on a union busting platform they could get elected.

Forgive me for bringing up race politics, but voting municipally in Toronto really is a 'white thing'. While we are far from the days when old boys with Orange order roots ruled this city, we still don't have a city government accurately represents the interests of this majority-minority city.

Foreign-born Torontonians and first generation Canadians that I talk to in this city are boiling over at the greediness of unions. Many of them spill their anger out using the context of education; union workers are perceived as high school dropouts that got on easy street, while their degrees from Indian and Pakistani universities condemn them or their parents to a life of driving cabs. That garbage collectors usually occupy the lowest rung of the social ladder in their home countries adds insult to injury. If there's hope for an anti-union movement, it's here. Unfortunately, they don't put their money where their mouths are; they don't go to the polls, at least muncipally. As a result, the critical mass of people that could elect a union buster will probably not materialize.

I'm not sure if this is a chicken or egg phenomenon, but since municipal politics either turns off, or is turned off by, immigrant and first generation voters, city issues are largely determined by upper middle class voters (either left-leaning, white affluent voters in neighbourhoods like Riverdale, the Annex or High Park, or right-leaning, white affluent voters in neighbourhoods like The Kingsway, Forest Hill, etc.), right-of-centre mayoral contenders tend to pander to the interests of voters in those neighbourhoods: lower taxes, NIMBY and issues concerning the maintenance of private property rights, and relatively meaningless symbolic gestures like decrying councilor pay.

Before city hall can adopt an anti-union agenda, there needs to be a credible mayoral candidate from a minority group, or at least someone that understands how to appeal to minority interests.

 

[Eug]

I think this strike might resolve badly for the union as it is. The strike does suck, but the city is holding firm and the contingency plans are working well. (Dropping a bag of trash off at Moss Park yesterday was an incredibly pleasant experience - the attendant carried my bag from my trunk and everything.)

It doesn't feel like the union is getting any real leverage from this and the city seems willing to hold their ground. And it's coming out today that the city might actually be saving millions of dollars due to the strike? Makes things interesting.

In fact, it seems they've changed tactics. I was worried because my local temp dump started getting picketers. However, the picketers are not actually picketing per se. They're wearing the signs, but are going to the cars and politely picking up the garbage from the trunk and carrying it to the dump.

I suspect the union now finally realizes just how little sympathy they're getting from the general public.

 

[cdr108]

Not to add fire to the $17/hr vs. $25/hr debate; but when the City of Etobicoke contracted out the services, they city saved more money beyond just the average salary. The contracted services uses 1/2 the number of workers too !


Here's an article from 2007 about what happened when the City of Toronto decided to bring back garbage collection in-house for York.

http://www.owma.org/db/db2file.asp?fileid=523

 

[cdr108]

Not to add fire to the $17/hr vs. $25/hr debate; but when the City of Etobicoke contracted out the services, they city saved more money beyond just the average salary. The contracted services uses 1/2 the number of workers too !


Here's an article from 2007 about what happened when the City of Toronto decided to bring back garbage collection in-house for York.

http://www.owma.org/db/db2file.asp?fileid=523


edit:

Toronto STar article says contracted workers get about $18/hour and does a comparison of benefits, etc.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/655607

TURTLE ISLAND WASTE COLLECTORS


Pay: Varies depending on the kind of truck you drive and bonuses, workers say. One worker makes $23 an hour, while another said his base wage was $18 an hour, but that he typically makes around $21 with bi-weekly bonuses. Bonuses are based on how much weight he lugs and whether he gets to work on time.

Hours: Four-day week. One worker says he usually works 12-hour days.

Benefits: Include health care, dental and eye care.

Sick days: Unpaid. There are no bankable sick days.

Overtime: According to one worker, overtime pay does not begin until after 50 hours.



CITY OF TORONTO WASTE COLLECTORS


Pay: $25.11 an hour for drivers or loaders of solid waste, up 2.75 to 3.25 per cent annually since 2005.

Hours: Four 10-hour days a week.

Benefits: Extended health includes dental care, life insurance, eye care and physiotherapy.

Sick days: 18 sick days each year; unused days can be banked and cashed in on retirement, subject to certain limits.

Overtime: Time-and-a-half

 

[cdr108]

Not to add fire to the $17/hr vs. $25/hr debate; but when the City of Etobicoke contracted out the services, they city saved more money beyond just the average salary. The contracted services uses 1/2 the number of workers too !


Here's an article from 2007 about what happened when the City of Toronto decided to bring back garbage collection in-house for York.

http://www.owma.org/db/db2file.asp?fileid=523


edit:

Toronto STar article says contracted workers get about $18/hour and does a comparison of benefits, etc.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/655607

TURTLE ISLAND WASTE COLLECTORS


Pay: Varies depending on the kind of truck you drive and bonuses, workers say. One worker makes $23 an hour, while another said his base wage was $18 an hour, but that he typically makes around $21 with bi-weekly bonuses. Bonuses are based on how much weight he lugs and whether he gets to work on time.

Hours: Four-day week. One worker says he usually works 12-hour days.

Benefits: Include health care, dental and eye care.

Sick days: Unpaid. There are no bankable sick days.

Overtime: According to one worker, overtime pay does not begin until after 50 hours.



CITY OF TORONTO WASTE COLLECTORS


Pay: $25.11 an hour for drivers or loaders of solid waste, up 2.75 to 3.25 per cent annually since 2005.

Hours: Four 10-hour days a week.

Benefits: Extended health includes dental care, life insurance, eye care and physiotherapy.

Sick days: 18 sick days each year; unused days can be banked and cashed in on retirement, subject to certain limits.

Overtime: Time-and-a-half