City Workers Strike 2009

[LAz]

The problem is that the neoliberal urban system, that has become more and more widespread and strong since the 1990s, does not give a damn about the people and is focused on only profits and de-regulation, along with promoting the well-being of the richest of the rich.

It is under this system that our jobs have left the city, that we are more and more dependent upon low labor service jobs...


Most importantly, the city's revenue is increasingly based solely on tax revenue. Therefore the city is the whore of those who have power/are rich. And the ones with power/richness are always going to screw the working class.
Lets remember when outsourcing of jobs happened in the US. Er, notw hen it happened but when it took off. It took off when companies were making the most profits, not struggling. It is always a pursuit of profits, and nothing shall stand in their way, most definitely not some workers.

What we have here is Gramsci's hegemony stuff. Gramsci, while in the italian prison, asked himself, why did the workers not rise up. He came to the conclusion that the elites brainwash the masses to make the masses think that what is good for the elites is also good for them. This is what we have here. It's some sort of manufacturing of consent to be supportive of the corporate-whore governing establishment. It's not just Toronto. It's most major cities.

 

[afransen]

We can chase companies out of town, but I don't see what that would accomplish other than unemployment and poverty.

 

[kEiThZ]

The problem is that the neoliberal urban system, that has become more and more widespread and strong since the 1990s, does not give a damn about the people and is focused on only profits and de-regulation, along with promoting the well-being of the richest of the rich.

1. Can you propose a solution that would not result in companies leaving en masse?

2. Why should the problems in the private sector be linked to wage issues in the public sector? The former has low rates of unionization. The latter is almost completely unionized. Hardly a case of union busting. So why should they be linked?

3. Can you propose a solution that would not dramatically raise property taxes driving businesses and residents from the city?

4. Since you seem so sympathetic to the cause, wanna tell us how much you and your family contribute to the city's tax base? Maybe you're a 905er who can afford the sympathy for these strikers?

 

[LAz]

1. Can you propose a solution that would not result in companies leaving en masse?

Absolutely. The German model. That is where the workers and unions are on the executive board of the companies. They get 50% of the voice of the company itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination
I have read some article... Eh, let me dig up the name of it... 1 moment...
...
...The Invention of Regional Culture by Gertler.

The author notes how the anglo world is more into turning a quick buck. That's what business is like. Just make the god damn thing work, and who gives a shit about the standards. In germany there is much more investment, commitment and sophistication behind the product. The result is simply better, not just in terms of a product that breaks down less, but in terms of the social cost behind this, as the employee is much more committed and connected with the work itself.

So why should they be linked?

Unions were much stronger in the past, but anti-union activity has been going on for many decades.






I'll leave your other two points behind. I am talking about things if we do not take into consideration moving out. There are always hypothetical radical ideas, like charging them to leave, or raising taxes outside of the city, or swallowing up the suburbs, or other things.

As for tax base, I contribute absolutely nothing. But when my school was on strike, I was behind those strikers and against the corrupt administration of the school. It's the same in most things. It's usually good to be on the side of the strikers as they are usually victims of the rich who are trying to stamp out their benefits. I can not say how many times I hear people say "oh but strikers want higher wages by 3% each year oMFG" - but those idiots do not even take into account that inflation is a minimum of 3% a year... that is just the common rhetoric that the anti-union movement has put into the minds of people.
I want to see higher levels of unionization. Way higher. Along with that I would reduce services, like the go train, and various assistance for those who are bent on sprawling/leaving 416.

We can chase companies out of town, but I don't see what that would accomplish other than unemployment and poverty.

Of course, I am not saying lets chase them out of town. I am saying lets restructure them. But it must not be just us, it must be all of Canada doing this. Other wise it is a completely futile/worthless objective.

 

[cdr108]

one of the things that puzzle me when i hear support for the striking workers is the analogy of pvt companies outsourcing to third world countries for cheap labour, etc.

if the city's services were to be contracted out, everything would stay within Canada and more likely within the GTA. it's not likely we're going to have El Salvadorians come pick up our garbage, Indians working the offices, Chinese cutting the lawns, etc.

if garbage pick up services in Etobicoke was representative of the type of inefficiency using unionized labour, the City could save at least 50% of costs just using half the staff, and that doesn't even touch the 40% premium City employees receive vs. contract labourers.

 

[LAz]

Attack on organized labor, be it garbage picking or manufacturing, is still an attack on organized labor. At its core is the goal to increase profits and to screw workers.

Some things can be outsourced. Sure, not everything can, but we are working towards everything. Radiologist jobs have been outsourced. Imagine that, from the medical sector.

Basically I think that this is a moral issue of weather or not we are going to allow our lives and masses of society fall down to a system that is basically run on "the race to the bottom" in terms of wages. I feel that we need worker protection. I do not want to have unions, but there seems to be nothing else that will guarantee protection. It's not like in Japan where there are (or were?) lifetime employment policies. I do not want to work worrying that some nitwit will undercut my labor cost. That just sucks.

This struggle is a struggle against this system... this ideology of neoliberalism that became so prominent in the 1980s with Reagan, Thatcher, the IMF, World Bank, and other mofos along that line...
It has come at the expense of our living standard. The average people live worse off today than we did in the past. But the rich are a whole lot richer! Is that justification for this all? The enrichment of a fraction of a percent at the top at the expense of the rest? NO THANKS! Support for unions all the way!



edit: But of course, there are limits to everything. I am not saying that unions can not get greedy, but most of the time it is not them being greedy, but the employers who are greedy.

 

[lordmandeep]

No jobs left the city because...

1. Land is to expensive.

2. The city of Toronto does not have wide tracts of land to build gigantic warehouses and such anymore.

3. High business taxes.

 

[kEiThZ]

lol a lot of immigrants simply despise city based or public sector unions. My father thinks most are idiots who barley passed high school, lack any sort of sophistication and knowledge of anything.

My father is simply shocked why Garbage collectors get paid more then the usual office worker. He believes such jobs could easily done cheaply and better by the private sector or by people at low wages.

I think most immigrants think that way. My parents certainly think that way. They see the municipal unions as old boys clubs that exist solely to protect their members from putting in an honest day's work. Given that my mother has a university degree, and my father has an engineering diploma, and neither of them earns more than the trash collector, they have a hard time feeling solidarity for the strikers. And that's truly a tragedy because many immigrants like my parents come from countries where unions have strong traditions and are quite respected. In my own family, my grandmother was a company union leader at a British firm during the colonial period in India. If the unions here can't get sympathy from a family like mine, they are really doing something wrong!

 

[kEiThZ]

Absolutely. The German model. That is where the workers and unions are on the executive board of the companies. They get 50% of the voice of the company itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination

I have no problems with the German model. I think it's a great system. However, you should notice a few things about that system. The unions there are actually do co-operate with the company to ensure the company is profitable and they understand the concept of shareholder value. They also agree to layoffs when necessary to preserve the company. One can only hope that our unions reach that level of maturity here that they could work to preserve their companies instead of making demands that bankrupt their employers. Look at the difference between auto workers in North America and Germany.

Unions were much stronger in the past, but anti-union activity has been going on for many decades.

Again, why should problems in the private sector be linked to issues in the public sector. The latter is nearly 100% unionized. How can you suggest that it is being impacted by anti-union activity given the high rates of unionization? Shouldn't big labour's guns be aimed in the right direction (at the private sector)?

I'll leave your other two points behind. I am talking about things if we do not take into consideration moving out. There are always hypothetical radical ideas, like charging them to leave, or raising taxes outside of the city, or swallowing up the suburbs, or other things.

Unfortunately the strike is not hypothetical, nor is its impact on the finances of the city. And the solutions you propose are even more imaginary.... The province would never allow the city to swallow up the suburbs (especially as a solution to poor fiscal management practices). And if you did raise taxes outside the city, then business would not just flee the city, it would flee the region. This has already started with some corporate offices relocating not just out of the GTA but out of the province. I'd rather not encourage that trend.

As for tax base, I contribute absolutely nothing.

And that's why its easy for you to support the strikers. Why don't you talk with my parents who struggle with less money than these strikers make? Who's going to pay them more if their taxes go up? Why don't you ask the students my father hires how they would feel if he cut back their hours if taxes go up and he can't afford their services? It's nice to be ideological. But there are real world consequences to this strike and the strikers demands. Their demands will leave others poorer in the city. But hey, what do you care? You contribute nothing, and that's about how much you care about the residents of the city.

I want to see higher levels of unionization.

In a sector that's nearly 100% unionized?

Along with that I would reduce services, like the go train, and various assistance for those who are bent on sprawlng/leaving 416.

Well, you know before we had GO tons of people would drive in and out of the city. A good example of what would happen would be a GO train strike. But let's say you are right. Why stop there? After you cut GO, there'll be thousands of extra cars on the roads every day. I propose that we further discourage driving by bulldozing every highway link in and out of the city (in the long term we'll need a moat...though imagine the cost of the cab fare to the airport then!). But what happens when the next strike comes around and the money from cutting GO is not available? Perhaps then we'll cut TTC services to pay transit operators more. I am all for the booth monkeys making six figure salaries to do a job that literally a trained monkey could do. Or maybe we should cut welfare services to pay the social services staff.

Of course, I am not saying lets chase them out of town. I am saying lets restructure them. But it must not be just us, it must be all of Canada doing this. Other wise it is a completely futile/worthless objective.

Unfortunately, the mayor only has power over the city of Toronto. He can't restructure Canada, despite how much he would love to do so. Maybe some day he'll be the Prime Minister with a majority government and will be able to restructure Canada (though there's that little thing called the constitution...so he'd need a supportive majority in every provincial legislature). Until that day arrives, he's got local issues to deal with (this garbage strike is not going to solve itself nor is that supposed 350 million dollar deficit for 2009-2010).

Other than that I am fairly sure that any CEO who hears that the government wishes to 'restructure' his company will probably pull up stakes and leave Canada...not just the town. How do you propose to overcome that problem?

 

[kEiThZ]

Attack on organized labor, be it garbage picking or manufacturing, is still an attack on organized labor. At its core is the goal to increase profits and to screw workers.

In some cases perhaps. But in this case, it is about productivity. And if you read your economics textbook, you'll know that increases in productivity increase wealth for all. That's why the Europeans are better off than us....they are more productive countries. In this case, when a contractor can use one employee to do the job of two unionized trash collectors there is something seriously wrong. At a certain point, all we are doing as taxpayers is aiding and abetting laziness.

Some things can be outsourced. Sure, not everything can, but we are working towards everything.

There are many unions which compete for their work (often at the municipal level). If these unions supposedly provide such great service, then why are they afraid to compete?

Basically I think that this is a moral issue of weather or not we are going to allow our lives and masses of society fall down to a system that is basically run on "the race to the bottom" in terms of wages.

This isn't a race to the bottom. This is an attempt at ending an abusive practice. You don't find any moral quandry with banking sick days and then cashing out at retirement? The City has offered them a disability program that would provide more time off than those sick days. The only reason the strikers want their sick days is because of money.

I feel that we need worker protection. I do not want to have unions, but there seems to be nothing else that will guarantee protection. It's not like in Japan where there are (or were?) lifetime employment policies.

What about worker responsiblity with that protection? And particularly the responsibility to work hard. The reason the Japanese have lifetime employment policies is because they have a strong work ethic in their culture. The productivity of the Japanese worker is what ensures his employer's loyalty not some touchy-feely emotion. I have no problems with giving the unionized trash collectors employment for life if they can be as productive as the non-unionized contracted staff. Forget the wage differential, let them at least close the gap where a contractor does 100% more work.

I do not want to work worrying that some nitwit will undercut my labor cost. That just sucks.

If you and your colleagues were productive then there would be no reason to outsource your job. If your slacking off and your employer is losing money as a result of low productivity, do you expect him to keep you employed as he gets driven into the ground by his competitors?

This struggle is a struggle against this system... this ideology of neoliberalism that became so prominent in the 1980s with Reagan, Thatcher, the IMF, World Bank, and other mofos along that line...
It has come at the expense of our living standard. The average people live worse off today than we did in the past.

Actually, people live better today than they did in 1980 but let's not allow facts to get in the way of a good discussion. And let's not forget that Thatcher and Reagan, etc. were elected, in no small part because the public felt that the unions were taking advantage of them.

But the rich are a whole lot richer! Is that justification for this all? The enrichment of a fraction of a percent at the top at the expense of the rest? NO THANKS! Support for unions all the way!

Why do we need unions to fix the wealth distribution disparity? Better taxation policies could achieve the same thing. In case you haven't noticed, that's actually how the Europeans do it. Their unions don't have much to do with wealth distribution. It's the government that does that.

edit: But of course, there are limits to everything. I am not saying that unions can not get greedy, but most of the time it is not them being greedy, but the employers who are greedy.

When it comes to private sector unions, I can tolerate that argument simply because an over-reach of their greed will result in the company failing and them losing their jobs. Basically an equilibrium is formed between the union's demands and a fair amount of profitability for their company. When it comes to public sector unions though, it's quite clear that they are out to fleece us all. How else can you defend a trash collector who does half the work of his private sector counterpart, or a token collector getting 50-60k a year for a job that a 5000 dollar machine could do, or the fact that the union forced the TTC to have an operator on a system designed to run automatically (Scarborough RT)? I can't tolerate getting less services for more taxes. If they want more pay and benefits, let them start working harder...or in many of these cases, actually as hard as the rest of us work.

 

[Hank]

I do not want to work worrying that some nitwit will undercut my labor cost. That just sucks.

So someone that can do the same work you can for cheaper than you can is a 'nitwit'? Maybe you should try to increase your skills and efficiency so you can actually compete with this 'nitwit', instead of relying on union seniority rules to keep a job you clearly don't deserve. This is exactly the mindset that unions foster and exactly the reason we don't need them (in the public sector, at least).

 

[Therion]

Absolutely. The German model. That is where the workers and unions are on the executive board of the companies. They get 50% of the voice of the company itself.

I come from a country where this was implemented, but with the unions having the upper hand (the former Yugoslavia). It was basically a form of syndicalism. It failed miserably. Your average machinist has no idea how to run a company. The best model for worker-management co-operation is Toyota, where the workers have input into how to improve the production process (something they know much about), but not high-level corporate decisions.

Unions were much stronger in the past, but anti-union activity has been going on for many decades.

There is a reason for this. They have outlived their usefulness. They have gotten the workers out of the horrible living conditions they were subjected to during the industrial revolution, but the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, especially with regards to public unions.

As for tax base, I contribute absolutely nothing.

I suspect your tune will change once you will start paying taxes, my friend. I know mine did.

But when my school was on strike, I was behind those strikers and against the corrupt administration of the school. It's the same in most things. It's usually good to be on the side of the strikers as they are usually victims of the rich who are trying to stamp out their benefits. I can not say how many times I hear people say "oh but strikers want higher wages by 3% each year oMFG" - but those idiots do not even take into account that inflation is a minimum of 3% a year... that is just the common rhetoric that the anti-union movement has put into the minds of people.

This year inflation is practically 0. So how does the union justify the 3% increase? By referring to their previous agreement, which was not created during the worst economic crisis of the last 70 years. Unreasonable.

I want to see higher levels of unionization. Way higher. Along with that I would reduce services, like the go train, and various assistance for those who are bent on sprawling/leaving 416.

And this would solve what? What do you think would happen to your rent levels if another 500,000 people suddenly decided to move to the 416? Dude, you gotta get past the outdated leftist propaganda and get real.

 

[LAz]

I come from a country where this was implemented, but with the unions having the upper hand (the former Yugoslavia).

Ma nemoj. Koga ti tu zajebavas? Hehe. I ja sam iz jugoslavije.
The system in yugoslavia was totally different than in germany. We had it so that unions controlled everything 100%. That is a big difference. And to be honest, it was not too bad. The system started to break up in the 1980s because of the overwhelming debt that the dictator jerk Tito amassed in the 1960s and 1970s.

There is a reason for this. They have outlived their usefulness. They have gotten the workers out of the horrible living conditions they were subjected to during the industrial revolution, but the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, especially with regards to public unions.

Then explain how many places in Europe have FAR higher unionization rates of well over 50%. Yet they have better living standards than we do. Interesting, no?

I suspect your tune will change once you will start paying taxes, my friend. I know mine did.

As long as I am not in Toronto, like I am not right now, I will continue to contribute nothing to Toronto's taxes.

This year inflation is practically 0. So how does the union justify the 3% increase? By referring to their previous agreement, which was not created during the worst economic crisis of the last 70 years. Unreasonable.

I disagree that inflation is zero. Prices do keep going up. Now there is even more pressure on our wages to go down, which is scary.

And this would solve what? What do you think would happen to your rent levels if another 500,000 people suddenly decided to move to the 416? Dude, you gotta get past the outdated leftist propaganda and get real.

Nothing happens overnight, keep that in mind. That big scale of moving back would take years and years. You forget the time frame involved. The city would adjust, and be better with people coming back into it than going out of it. More pressure to build subway lines too.

So someone that can do the same work you can for cheaper than you can is a 'nitwit'? Maybe you should try to increase your skills and efficiency so you can actually compete with this 'nitwit', instead of relying on union seniority rules to keep a job you clearly don't deserve. This is exactly the mindset that unions foster and exactly the reason we don't need them (in the public sector, at least).

Oh, I am sure that there are many people willing to do other people's work for a bit less. However, I think that society is better off if people can sleep well not being worried if someone is going to undercut them. Of course, it depends by how much someone undercuts them. Wages should not be prohibitively excessive.
But for me to compete with labor costs that are bellow the minimum wage like millions of people have to do with labor in china - no way in hell would I want that. I would tell the corporate scumbags to GTFO. Not like they would care though.

Why do we need unions to fix the wealth distribution disparity? Better taxation policies could achieve the same thing. In case you haven't noticed, that's actually how the Europeans do it. Their unions don't have much to do with wealth distribution. It's the government that does that.

Well, unionization is higher all over europe, and I think that that puts pressure on the governments, and also the companies.

Actually, people live better today than they did in 1980 but let's not allow facts to get in the way of a good discussion. And let's not forget that Thatcher and Reagan, etc. were elected, in no small part because the public felt that the unions were taking advantage of them.

In 1970 er so the average CEO in the US made 50 times that of the average worker. Nowadays its 500 times more. Just one example of income inequality.
People do live worse off today. Now hey, perhaps it might depend on exactly what year, but there is much documentation that neoliberliasm, aka thatcherism or reaganomics have worsened most of the people.

If you and your colleagues were productive then there would be no reason to outsource your job. If your slacking off and your employer is losing money as a result of low productivity, do you expect him to keep you employed as he gets driven into the ground by his competitors?

Productivity is a empty bag when the other dude in china works for 50 cents an hour, for what we would make dozens an hour. It's a no brainer. We always lose. No thanks.

What about worker responsiblity with that protection? And particularly the responsibility to work hard. The reason the Japanese have lifetime employment policies is because they have a strong work ethic in their culture. The productivity of the Japanese worker is what ensures his employer's loyalty not some touchy-feely emotion. I have no problems with giving the unionized trash collectors employment for life if they can be as productive as the non-unionized contracted staff. Forget the wage differential, let them at least close the gap where a contractor does 100% more work.

Fair then, we agree.

In some cases perhaps. But in this case, it is about productivity. And if you read your economics textbook, you'll know that increases in productivity increase wealth for all. That's why the Europeans are better off than us....they are more productive countries. In this case, when a contractor can use one employee to do the job of two unionized trash collectors there is something seriously wrong. At a certain point, all we are doing as taxpayers is aiding and abetting laziness.

But Europe has higher unionization rates. Yet they are more productive. Explain that then.

 

[Eug]

BTW, I drove past one of the temp dumps today and there was someone there spraying the pile. I believe it was pest control. Hopefully that's just preventative, and not a response to vermin already showing up.

Oh, they're already there.

Yes, those little critters are indeed there...

Christie Pits sprayed with pesticide after injunction granted

On Thursday, health officials ordered the city to regularly inspect all of the temporary dumpsites for infestations after swarms of maggots were found crawling through the growing piles of garbage, most of which have been steadily increasing since the city workers strike began 13 days ago.

Though inspectors have not had problems performing these tasks at any of the city's other temporary sites, both residents and picketing strikers had prevented the workers from inspecting the Christie Pits site on five separate occasions since Friday, city spokesperson Patricia Trott told the Star Sunday morning.

In response, the city sought and obtained a temporary Ontario Superior Court injunction yesterday, which prevents both groups of demonstrators from blockading the pesticide workers until at least Wednesday.

 

[kEiThZ]

Given the 'fair wage' policy instituted by the mayor I dunno why contracting out would be so bad. It might even improve the pay and benefits of the contracred staff. If those reports are true that contractors get twice as much done, then I say contract it out and offer to double the contractor's wages (at 34 per hour they'll still be cheaper than two union guys making 25 each). The unions can, of course, bid for work if they can achieve the same productivity as contractors like Turtle Island. Those are the folks I truly feel sorry for...17 an hour, no sick days (let alone having them be bankable) ...and they work harder. Why are these unions guys making more than these guys? Hows is that fair?