City Workers Strike 2009

[AGTO]

"You can't treat members like this and expect things to ever be the same,"

You can't treat the taxpayer like this and expect things to ever be the same.

 

[Asterix]

From the Toronto Star:


Three sources confirmed that yesterday's wee-hours breakthrough gives workers an option: take the immediate cash, or freeze what's now in the bank and collect the payout upon retirement.

No further sick days can be accumulated, as the city moves to a short-term disability plan that provides benefits only to those who are ill or injured.

The compromise lets the city say it ended the sick-bank system, because no further days will accumulate and many workers will want the instant cash.

But it also allows the leaders of the two striking Canadian Union of Public Employees locals to say they protected the banked time of members who want to hold on to it until retirement

Wow. I honestly hadn't read that when I made my previous post.

 

[kEiThZ]

PUBLICATION: National Post
DATE: 2009.07.28
EDITION: National
SECTION: Editorial
PAGE: A14
ILLUSTRATION: Color Photo: /;
SOURCE: National Post
WORD COUNT: 763

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Militant labour's death rattle

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thankfully, Via Rail and its locomotive engineers' union saw sense and ended their strike after just two days. Both sides admitted over the weekend to being worried that a prolonged work stoppage would drive passengers away permanently. So they agreed to binding arbitration to end the walkout that had halted Via's passenger trains since Friday.

So how come Via and its workers can get together like grown-ups while the City of Toronto and its workers stumbled into the sixth week of a work stoppage before reaching tentative settlements on Monday?

The short answer, of course, is competition. Although it is wholly government-owned, Via must compete with lots of private travel alternatives. Via carries only about 10,000 passengers a day as it is --12,500 during the peak tourist season -- and rail passengers can easily switch to bus or plane. So neither the Crown corporation nor its union could afford a significant permanent falloff in ridership.

Indeed, outside the Windsor-Quebec City corridor -- where Via has relatively convenient and reliable schedules -- travelling by passenger train is regarded more as a quaint vacation adventure than a practical transportation option. Even inside the corridor, air travel has become inexpensive enough that the time saved by flying often justifies the slightly higher fare. So both the union and VIA management gave their heads a shake, and realized that lower revenues would not only hurt the Crown corporation but would lead to fewer jobs for union members, too.

Another factor was at play: Much of the ruling Tories' prairie base were once Reformers, and it was official Reform policy to end Via's annual operating subsidy of about $200-million. The railway was seen as a luxury Ottawa paid for to placate central Canadian voters, since almost no westerners ride the train anymore. Via and the union both claim there was no political pressure to end the strike, but both had to be leery of the current government becoming exasperated with a long walkout and deciding to dismantle the carrier altogether.

That's why both sides were reluctant to trigger a strike (the Via engineers had gone two-and-a-half years without a contract, just so they could avoid a work stoppage) and why both quickly consented to let an independent third party settle their differences over the weekend.

Meanwhile, for most ordinary middle-class Torontonians, there is no practicable private alternative to Toronto's municipal garbage collection. There could be: Lots of cities have privatized their sanitation departments. But Toronto's left-wing Mayor, David Miller, and the city's left-dominated council would never dream of contracting out garbage pickup--even though such an option would permit the city to take advantage of cheaper private labour. City politicians are more afraid of the garbage collectors than the collectors are of them, which in turn meant the strikers felt little pressure to return to their jobs.

Torontonians should agitate for private pickup. Not only would it end the threat of periodic garbage strikes piling the city high with refuse, it could result in Torontonians getting better service. They might, for instance, no longer have to wait two weeks in between pick-up of regular refuse; ditto for recycling.

Torontonians -- and Canadians in general -- can only hope that CUPE's 2009 Toronto Tantrum is part of the last, dying gasp of militant labour unionism in this country. And there may be reason for optimism on this score. Earlier this month, National Post columnist Rudyard Griffiths provided the following analysis in these pages: "Two relentless trends -- surging numbers of retirees and stagnant population growth -- will shrink our already unhealthy ratio of four workers for every retiree today to three workers per each retiree by 2025 ... For employers, especially in the public sector, the pressure to increase workforce efficiency will soon be overwhelming ... There will be little, if any, financial leeway to fund cushy union benefits -- like the 18 sick days per year that Toronto currently offers its workers. In short, we are fast moving into an era where the various kinds of organized underemployment that riddles union agreements today will be a financial impossibility."

We agree. And for residents of Toronto -- whose city will take weeks to de-stinkify, even if Monday's tentative agreement holds -- the demise of public union power can't come fast enough.
---------------------------------

This editorial is bang on. The City Workers have nothing to fear which means they have no incentive to be co-operative at all.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Q for EUG

Would you still say Miller caved, given the further clarification from the Star article, as opposed to the G&M?

Interested in whether it cements your view of Miller and the city managers or not.

 

[Eug]

Actually, with that clarification, I would not say the city completely caved. That's good to hear.

That will go a long way to help Miller's PR.

 

[Whoaccio]

David Miller, master negotiator

Robert Silver

Two weeks ago, I compared David Miller to Rob Babcock in this space. Babcock's wiki entry starts with the following line: "Rob Babcock (born ca. 1953) is an assistant general manager with the Minnesota Timberwolves of the NBA and is regarded as one of the worst GM's in NBA history."

I made the comparison between Miller and Babcock in mid-July right after Miller released the city's offer of a 7.2 per cent pay increase over four years and a partial payout of the sick-day policy. My quippy point being Miller wasn't being tough with the unions (as he claimed at the time), rather he was already giving away the farm and was a terrible negotiator.

That was then.

Presuming the report in today's Globe is correct, Miller gave the unions 6 per cent over three-years. At a time of zero-inflation. At a time when the city has no money. On top of the richest public sector union deals in the country. If every one percent pay increase represents roughly $30-million in cost, compounding annually, this is hundreds of millions of dollars in additional cost over the next three years. Again, for a city that can't afford it.

But there's more. The way labour negotiations work at the city is council delegates their authority with clear parameters to the city's labour relations committee. The labour committee (which is chaired by some guy named David Miller) then gives the city's negotiators marching orders.

So what were the parameters council gave David Miller? A 1 per cent pay increase in year one, 1 per cent in year two, 2 per cent in year three and 3 per cent in year four. That adds up to 7 per cent over four years, with the biggest increase happening in the out-year (which is important from a costing perspective). That wasn't a goal. That wasn't a "see what you can do." That was the maximum he was allowed to spend.

In other words, if the numbers in the Globe today are correct, David Miller had no authority to make this offer.

More importantly to those of you who don't care about the "rule of law" or council process, how does David Miller intend to pay for this deal?

This isn't an empty rhetorical or populist question; the city is broke. It was broke before this deal, it's more broke now. Hundreds of millions of dollars more broke.

So to summarize:

1. David Miller didn't get any concessions from the union during this strike. It was a completely wasted opportunity. If we were going to have the pain of the strike, at the very least we should have gotten some benefit from it in terms of fiscal sustainability for our city;

2. David Miller didn't have the authority to settle at the price that has been reported in today's Globe; and

3. David Miller will either have to raise taxes, cut services or go beg another level of government for money to pay for his rich deal.

I think I owe Rob Babcock an appology.

It's worth pointing out that the author of this was Gerrard Kennedy's policy director during his campaign for Liberal leadership, not some kind of troglodyte bent on destroying Toronto.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I wonder if it will - the damage has already been done in terms of messaging. People won't remember the details of the settlement, but rather the media pushed the "Miller caved" message for a solid 24 hours before any details were known.

That said, if the details about the salary increases are true, I think the City probably should have held out longer. I can't see this as any kind of win at this point.

 

[Eug]

Yes, the deal is still quite expensive, and I would still have preferred calling for bids from both the public and private sectors, but it's still an improvement over what the union was demanding. The city did still partially cave, but nowhere near as bad as some of the media was suggesting.

This will help him in the next election, although if there is a credible centre or centre-right candidate at that time, he'll still have a hard time winning.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Other than delivering a few small bags of household food leftovers to Moss Park now and then, and thinking about setting up a compost rather than relying on the City to collect my garden waste, the strike had little effect on my way of life. The dry garbage, cans, and plastic containers stored neatly at the back of the house will be put out for the next collection.

I suppose I should celebrate now that these workers can phone in with imaginary illnesses whenever they want - like lazy people in non-unionised jobs - rather than being prudent, staying healthy, and benefiting by their sound work ethic when they retire ... but I really can't.

 

[Eug]

I suppose I should celebrate now that these workers can phone in with imaginary illnesses whenever they want - like lazy people in non-unionised jobs - rather than being prudent, staying healthy, and benefiting by their sound work ethic when they retire ... but I really can't.

Heh. Classic. I was wonder how long it would take before somebody would phone in this misdirect.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Silver's a prick

David Miller, master negotiator



It's worth pointing out that the author of this was Gerrard Kennedy's policy director during his campaign for Liberal leadership, not some kind of troglodyte bent on destroying Toronto.

His writing style on that blog is so combative I can't even read it. And that's saying something.

I'd say, overall, Miller got a few concessions and gave a little too much, as you would expect from a left-of-centre politico. But the overblown rhetoric about this strike from all sides has been wild. The inside worker union rep lady needs to get a grip. Sue-Ann Grimes (who seems insane a lot of the time) trying to score points rather than ask questions during the media conference was weird at best. The right-wing councillors trying to score points off both Miller and the union at the same time. I'm glad it's over, just so we can get back to complaining about the weather.

 

[Whoaccio]

That isn't that combative. It is a blog post, which are generally more pugnacious than editorials or op-eds and more focused on zingers, but given the subject (rapidly increasing fiscal deficits), the overall tone is fairly reasonable though. I would go the other way, why is no one ever more concerned the City is managed abysmally? What kind of idiot signs on to tens, if not hundreds, of millions in additional operating costs when the status quo results in a structural operating deficit of 6-8% of the total budget. It is unbelievable.

EDIT: And you just know that in 2 years, the ATU will use this as a benchmark, then the TPA, then god knows who else. It is just a slippery slope. If we couldn't get concessions during 'the worst recession in 30 years', then there is no hope for any other CBA.

 

[gabe]

If the city caving is the case, then everyone who objects needs to contact their city councillor and demand they not pass it on Friday. Public pressure to not accept that deal would kill Miller and the Union at the same time! Toronto's doing fine without the garbage workers, so keep 'em out for another couple of months say I.

Toronto is doing fine without garage workers?? open your eyes the parks and streets are a disgusting mess! Get these buggers back to work ASP and get everything cleaned up so we don't lose any more tourists

 

[gei]

What in the world are people complaining about? No matter how you try to spin this, the bankable sick days are GONE. City employees can no longer bank sick days, period.

How exactly did the city cave? By letting people keep their existing sick bank? To be honest even as a taxpayer I think it would have been entirely unfair to just take away sick days that employees have ALREADY banked, so paying them out now is also fair.

Overall I think the agreement is fair, and I think most people are just whining for the sake of it.

 

[Bubba]

I agree with allowing the workers to cash out the sick days. I think that bankable sick days is unheard of to begin with, however, given that the workers were committed this years passed, it wouldn't be fair to take it away at this point.

What I don't agree with is the pay raise of 2% per year. Every person that I know has either received no pay raise this year, and in some cases, have/are receiving pay cuts.

Why can the city workers get a guaranteed 2% per year when inflation is negative? My personal earnings have not increased, so why should I pay increased taxes to fund their pay increase?

I personally cannot stand David Miller. I do not know who actually votes for him.... He is a mix of only the negative qualities of the following past leaders: Stephen Dion, Brian Mulroney, Mike Harris, Dalton Mc-Guinty (I won't elaborate to describe what qualities he takes from each of these people, it should be obvious).

I am so sick of being taxed more money (additional Toronto land transfer tax, Toronto driver sticker renewal tax, etc.) and receiving no benefits!

The city should focus on cleaning up the inefficiencies so taxes could actually be reduced.