GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[Richard White]

U of T - except, perhaps, the Scarborough Campus - is probably the least affected by this. York, Ontario Tech/Durham College, Sheridan-Oakville, McMaster, Guelph, and UW/WLU are much more affected.

There is VERY LITTLE if any GO service into U of T Scarborough. The 90 and 92 run via the 401 from STC to Port Union.

UTM is far more affected than the Toronto campuses.

 

[ShonTron]

There is VERY LITTLE if any GO service into U of T Scarborough. The 90 and 92 run via the 401 from STC to Port Union.

UTM is far more affected than the Toronto campuses.

UTM? Only Miway and a Brampton Transit special serve UTM.

There is a GO Bus 41 that directly serves UTSC.

 

[Richard White]

UTM? Only Miway and a Brampton Transit special serve UTM.

My apologies. Given how prevalent GO is in the 905 I figured it would have serviced it.

 

[cplchanb]

Ive been hearing all about the govt always negotiating in bad faith. Can someone explain what does that mean? Does no for an answer to the unions demands equal to bad faith?
last minute changes to the terms? offering something that the union doesnt like? How about the unions? why are they always the ones being seen as the lamb to the slaughter?
I find it ironic that every strike cycle they say the deal that they voted favourably on last time is the worst deal in the world and theyve been treated so badly... blah blah blah... why cant they just renew the deal that
they said was good and just maybe adjust for inflation or some other small terms? why do they always have to start from square one from 10 miles apart?

 

[crs1026]

Ive been hearing all about the govt always negotiating in bad faith. Can someone explain what does that mean? Does no for an answer to the unions demands equal to bad faith?
last minute changes to the terms? offering something that the union doesnt like? How about the unions? why are they always the ones being seen as the lamb to the slaughter?
I find it ironic that every strike cycle they say the deal that they voted favourably on last time is the worst deal in the world and theyve been treated so badly... blah blah blah... why cant they just renew the deal that
they said was good and just maybe adjust for inflation or some other small terms? why do they always have to start from square one from 10 miles apart?

One decent explanation here.

Collective bargaining inevitably involves a great deal of posturing on both sides, especially so in the public sector where unions attempt to leverage public opinion.

It’s usually impossible for bystanders to discern what’s really going on, and positions change the moment something is agreed to, so what waas said yesterday needs to be forgotten today.

Unions are political animals - they very much resemble municipal government in the sense that everything has to be explained to voters.. While the power in a business organization flows downhill from the top, in a union the power resides with the rank and file and the executive has only as much power as the members give them. That’s why unions beat the drums so hard going into negotiations - to get the membership into a mood where they will hang tough - to extract every last give from the employer. If the membership isn’t willing to strike, their negotiators have little clout at the bargaining table. But, once the deal is reached, and the union executive figures that the employer isn’t willing to sweeten the deal further, they then have to convince the members that the deal is a good one - otherwise the membership won’t vote to ratify it.

Meanwhile, the government (as employer) has to convince the voters that it isn’t giving away tax dollars unwisely, while also trying to not sound meanspirited towards its workers. So spin is everything.

- Paul

 

[Coolibop]

I believe the reference to bad faith as far as the ed workers strike action was because the government had prepared legislation well before negotiations were started... implying they were never there to bargain seriously.

Not sure if there were bad faith claims between Go workers and ML.

 

[cplchanb]

I believe the reference to bad faith as far as the ed workers strike action was because the government had prepared legislation well before negotiations were started... implying they were never there to bargain seriously.

Not sure if there were bad faith claims between Go workers and ML.

There was... on the Sunday press conference the atu said it clearly on TV. It's a catch phrase that every union uses to garner more public support. That is part in parcel why I despise these unions and their greed

 

[nfitz]

That is part in parcel why I despise these unions and their greed

Yeah - all those greedy educations workers making $35,000 a year ...

Or those greedy nurses, who are have been underpaid for years, and are now disappearing.

 

[Northern Light]

Do we have any updates for the park lawn go station? 2025? 2030?

It will have its own thread in a short while (I'm creating it); SPA has been filed.

Link to new thread, here:

Park Lawn GO Station (Metrolinx, ?s, Hatch)

Site Plan Approval for the new station has been filed with the City of Toronto: A Masterpiece she is not; but not a bad looking station over all; though, the signage needs some work ;) http://app.toronto.ca/AIC/index.do?folderRsn=KA1i7VSde%2BLyMd%2F9LxUjLg%3D%3D What's the name of...

urbantoronto.ca

 

[T3G]

That is part in parcel why I despise these unions and their greed

I assume you have been fortunate in your life and have never been overworked, underpaid, or otherwise abused by your employer, nor has your employer allowed your clients to be abusive to you. If you had, I suspect your stance on having a mechanism to protect you against such things would differ.

This is symptomatic of a very prevalent issue across North America, and that is that workers are expected to be subserviant and to the grovel at the feet of the employer, and to be grateful to even have a job, or the client (see also: all customer service jobs). This is utter bunk. Any employee who hasn't drank the corporate kool-aid is going to put themselves first, because they know that if they don't, nobody else will, either.

 

[cplchanb]

I assume you have been fortunate in your life and have never been overworked, underpaid, or otherwise abused by your employer, nor has your employer allowed your clients to be abusive to you. If you had, I suspect your stance on having a mechanism to protect you against such things would differ.

This is symptomatic of a very prevalent issue across North America, and that is that workers are expected to be subserviant and to the grovel at the feet of the employer, and to be grateful to even have a job, or the client (see also: all customer service jobs). This is utter bunk. Any employee who hasn't drank the corporate kool-aid is going to put themselves first, because they know that if they don't, nobody else will, either.

Actually in my current job, I am overworked and not quite paid enough for the work I do. I am salaried but have no ot, but am expected to work the ot if it's required to get the work done during crunch time. I only have 7 sick days per year and raises are not guaranteed.

I have nothing against the individual, but the union as an institution is run by cronies who fight to line their own pockets. Why else would they say at the end of the strike they negotiated a good deal only to lament at the beginning of their next strike they were always treated poorly and underpaid, abused etc....

It's all theater and posturing to get more money and garner public support. The employers too.

 

[crs1026]

That is part in parcel why I despise these unions and their greed

I’m always surprised at how people demonise unions and collective bargaining - as someone who worked (on the management side, at that) in a union environment all my career, the reality of unions is nothing like the rhetoric, for good or bad.

Unions are simply a way of assembling and leveraging bargaining power so that each worker has something balancing out the employer’s considerable power. That’s no different than having grocery chains negotiate bulk deals on Coke or Pepsi and pass the (uniform) lower price onto their customers. If we as consumers each had to negotiate our own price with Pepsi, imagine the angst and inequities and inconsistencies. (Anyone trying to get the best deal for a cellphone contract with Bell or Rogers understands the dynamic)

If union demands or public positions seem extreme, one must recognise, as I said above, that these are political positions made a) to give the members confidence that their union is fighting hard for them and b) as a starting point in negotiating to the best achievable position…..which will involve haggling and compromise….the initial demand reflects what the union leadership believes the members aspire to, it should not be read at face value as what they will accept in the end.

The worst thing that can happen in a major negotiation is buyer’s remorse. If a union, or an employer, leaves the table believing that they left money behind, the resulting behaviour is toxic. So there is a certain amount of drama (and drudgery) needed to ensure that both parties have dug as deep as they can, and prioritised their asks very carefully. If a deal happens too easily, it will generally misfire.

If to the outsider the whole thing looks silly or greedy, well, you’ve never bought a car or a house. Would you agree to pay MSRP for a vehicle? I hope not. (In car buying, if you have not stood up to leave at least once, you have not gotten to the dealer’s lowest price). In saner real estate markets, asking prices are high and bidding prices are low. If the dealmaking process isn’t excruciating, the underlying gut level confidence in the deal isn’t established. Logic and rationality only gets you so far.

- Paul

 

[T3G]

Actually in my current job, I am overworked and not quite paid enough for the work I do. I am salaried but have no ot, but am expected to work the ot if it's required to get the work done during crunch time. I only have 7 sick days per year and raises are not guaranteed.

And you don't believe that having a collective union that would be able to negotiate new terms of employment would be beneficial to you?

I have nothing against the individual, but the union as an institution is run by cronies who fight to line their own pockets. Why else would they say at the end of the strike they negotiated a good deal only to lament at the beginning of their next strike they were always treated poorly and underpaid, abused etc....

It's all theater and posturing to get more money and garner public support. The employers too.

These two statements don't seem related. Which is it, that they are trying to line their own pockets or that they're trying to get public support? How much of your tax dollars do you believe the union has misappropriated?

 

[cplchanb]

And you don't believe that having a collective union that would be able to negotiate new terms of employment would be beneficial to you?

These two statements don't seem related. Which is it, that they are trying to line their own pockets or that they're trying to get public support? How much of your tax dollars do you believe the union has misappropriated?

Once upon a time they did. Perhaps I was painting with a broad brush but union's used to fight for workers rights, but now the fight for the best deal is essentially drop an insane number on the table and strike the moment the govt says wtf is that...

 

[cplchanb]

I’m always surprised at how people demonise unions and collective bargaining - as someone who worked (on the management side, at that) in a union environment all my career, the reality of unions is nothing like the rhetoric, for good or bad.

Unions are simply a way of assembling and leveraging bargaining power so that each worker has something balancing out the employer’s considerable power. That’s no different than having grocery chains negotiate bulk deals on Coke or Pepsi and pass the (uniform) lower price onto their customers. If we as consumers each had to negotiate our own price with Pepsi, imagine the angst and inequities and inconsistencies. (Anyone trying to get the best deal for a cellphone contract with Bell or Rogers understands the dynamic)

If union demands or public positions seem extreme, one must recognise, as I said above, that these are political positions made a) to give the members confidence that their union is fighting hard for them and b) as a starting point in negotiating to the best achievable position…..which will involve haggling and compromise….the initial demand reflects what the union leadership believes the members aspire to, it should not be read at face value as what they will accept.

The worst thing that can happen in a major negotiation is buyer’s remorse. If a union, or an employer, leaves the table believing that they left money behind, the resulting behaviour is toxic. So there is a certain amount of drama needed to ensure that both parties have dug as deep as they can, and prioritised their asks very carefully. If a deal happens too easily, it will generally misfire.

If to the outsider the whole thing looks silly or greedy, well, you’ve never bought a car or a house. Would you agree to pay MSRP for a vehicle? I hope not. In saner real estate markets, asking prices are high and bidding prices are low. If the dealmaking process isn’t excruciating, the underlying gut level confidence in the deal isn’t established. Logic and rationality only gets you so far.

- Paul

Admittedly I am generalizing towards these mainstream unions and govt workers unions but how can they say every time they're the worst paid people and the mist mistreated and can o ly scrape a living off rocks when they're one of the most well paid and packaged, not to mention almost air tight job security? How about restaurant workers, McDonald's workers, car mechanics, and other blue /white collard jobs who find a way to make ends meet without union support? I get that these people need their wages increased but to then demand 33% over 3 years or we strike during a period of record inflation is absolutely just proof of how spoilt the union heads are, and they expect somehow they can use that to meet in the middle with 6%...

Don't forget, it's we who are going to pay them and just wait until you start complaining that Ontario is pulling funds on the metrolinx projects due to lack of funds.