News   Feb 07, 2023
 594     1 
News   Feb 07, 2023
 641     0 
News   Feb 07, 2023
 501     0 

GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

T3G

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 10, 2022
Messages
452
Reaction score
1,059
Location
Toronto
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...
What is the insane figure you are referring to?

The education worker's strike referred to an ~11% wage increase per year, which figures to about a $3.75 wage increase an hour. Have you seen the cost of living in this province? The union's request seems paltry in comparison. And I don't buy this as being some sort of exercise in financial prudence, either: let's not forget that the gov't is no stranger to wasting large amounts of money, such as in the construction of the SSE or burying the Eglinton LRT west extension. It is most curious that there is money to be found for megalomaniacal vanity projects, but not for paying workers a livable wage. Curious indeed...

The GO strike meanwhile is chiefly about job security and not contracting out services. It would cost Metrolinx near nothing to promise not to do that, and they can't even do that.
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
8,640
Reaction score
15,786
The GO strike meanwhile is chiefly about job security and not contracting out services. It would cost Metrolinx near nothing to promise not to do that, and they can't even do that.

Except…. that gets to the heart of the issue. Contracting out transit is very much a gleam in Ontario’s eye. This negotiation is even more critical than the ed workers… at least the ed workers will keep their jobs, one way or the other. The transit workers could lose theirs…. or be bumped financially to a much lower level. Big $ cost to ML if they concede, at least relative to their plans.

- Paul
 

turbanplanner

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 17, 2020
Messages
324
Reaction score
205
Except…. that gets to the heart of the issue. Contracting out transit is very much a gleam in Ontario’s eye. This negotiation is even more critical than the ed workers… at least the ed workers will keep their jobs, one way or the other. The transit workers could lose theirs…. or be bumped financially to a much lower level. Big $ cost to ML if they concede, at least relative to their plans.

- Paul
Not a huge union fan but the go drivers have objectively shit conditions too. Imagine working a split shift from 5:30am to 8:30pm and the government threatening to contract out
 

T3G

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 10, 2022
Messages
452
Reaction score
1,059
Location
Toronto
Big $ cost to ML if they concede, at least relative to their plans.
I should have clarified: it would cost them nothing extra to their current budget. In the long term you are of course correct, but in the short term it would cost them nothing and perhaps even give them an opportunity to reflect on a less destructive way of producing such 'savings' (I know, why bother wishing for the impossible?)
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
8,640
Reaction score
15,786
I should have clarified: it would cost them nothing extra to their current budget. In the long term you are of course correct, but in the short term it would cost them nothing and perhaps even give them an opportunity to reflect on a less destructive way of producing such 'savings' (I know, why bother wishing for the impossible?)

My personal take is very much in agreement, ie contracting out is not a pressing priority for GO……… but don’t underestimate the direction that Verster et al might have been given (or has proposed internally) and the expectations that exist in high places.

If ML has to go back to government and report “we made no progress on contracting out, and you will have to wait another contract term before we can change that”….. heads might well roll, or at least get kicked in the rear.

- Paul
 

ShonTron

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
11,752
Reaction score
7,250
Location
Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
Metrolinx has had less and less autonomy in recent years, with almost everything being dictated out of the Minister’s Office. They’ve always had problems with transparency and accountability, but some of the things coming out of it are new.

They weren’t the ones who named the Hurontario LRT after Doug Ford’s crony. They aren’t the ones who got Oshawa GO Station renamed (with more to come). They aren’t the ones pushing to contract out feeder bus routes and some station operations. This is the first bus strike in GO’s history.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,302
Reaction score
59,247
Location
Toronto/EY
The two biggest motivators for contracting out public services are a reduced public service payroll and reduced pension obligations.

I would actually prefer to see the end of private-savings tax incentives for retirement (RRSP etc.); (acknowledgment here, I do have one of these) and instead see an enrichment of OAS/GIS in its place.

I would also like see retirement age bumped to 70 for CPP/OAS/GIS (as it is increasingly throughout much of the developed world) and reinvest the savings in a higher benefit (the delay works out to a 40% increase).

I'll tie that back to the discussion in a moment, but to lay out the modelling, it looks something like this.

Right now CPP provides the typical person w/33% income replacement up to the limit; OAS adds another ~13% for a total of 46% income replacement with the rest assumed to come from private savings or pensions.

GIS tops you up to a certain point if you have no other income, and generally maxes out at ~$1700 in monthly income, which isn't very high.

My model before reinvesting the tax credit savings, would achieve CPP - 46% income replacement and OAS ~18.5% income replacement for a total of 64.5%.

The max income with GIS would bump up to $2,400 per month. Much healthier.

By pushing the RRSP money over to an enriched plan..........

One could reasonably achieve 46% CPP, 26% OAS for a total income replacement rate of 72%; with a further top up for single seniors; and you raise GIS to something like 3k per month max.

****

To tie that back to public sector pensions, in my reorganized scheme, you only leave in place the portion of the pension that would net civil servants an income greater than the above.

This would lower costs for both workers and the government substantially, and also lead to the wind down of the lower performing plans.
 

turbanplanner

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 17, 2020
Messages
324
Reaction score
205
I would actually prefer to see the end of private-savings tax incentives for retirement (RRSP etc.); (acknowledgment here, I do have one of these) and instead see an enrichment of OAS/GIS in its place.

I would also like see retirement age bumped to 70 for CPP/OAS/GIS (as it is increasingly throughout much of the developed world) and reinvest the savings in a higher benefit (the delay works out to a 40% increase).

I'll tie that back to the discussion in a moment, but to lay out the modelling, it looks something like this.

Right now CPP provides the typical person w/33% income replacement up to the limit; OAS adds another ~13% for a total of 46% income replacement with the rest assumed to come from private savings or pensions.

GIS tops you up to a certain point if you have no other income, and generally maxes out at ~$1700 in monthly income, which isn't very high.

My model before reinvesting the tax credit savings, would achieve CPP - 46% income replacement and OAS ~18.5% income replacement for a total of 64.5%.

The max income with GIS would bump up to $2,400 per month. Much healthier.

By pushing the RRSP money over to an enriched plan..........

One could reasonably achieve 46% CPP, 26% OAS for a total income replacement rate of 72%; with a further top up for single seniors; and you raise GIS to something like 3k per month max.

****

To tie that back to public sector pensions, in my reorganized scheme, you only leave in place the portion of the pension that would net civil servants an income greater than the above.

This would lower costs for both workers and the government substantially, and also lead to the wind down of the lower performing plans.
This is a transit forum so my post will probably get moderated but with how inflation has been going, I'd rather have control over my money and the ability to pull it out or move it.
Canada, at least the GTA is a place of many immigrants and a lot of people I know are considering moving out come retirement time due to the cost of living
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,302
Reaction score
59,247
Location
Toronto/EY
This is a transit forum so my post will probably get moderated but with how inflation has been going, I'd rather have control over my money and the ability to pull it out or move it.
Canada, at least the GTA is a place of many immigrants and a lot of people I know are considering moving out come retirement time due to the cost of living

Fair enough, and I think your post will be fine w/the understanding that this is a side tangent that has run its course in this thread. I may start some broader public policy threads in an appropriate section in due course.
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
8,640
Reaction score
15,786
^ I would be interested to see how RRSP is working for government in terms of taxation revenue on cashout.

With so many people contributing to public sector pensions earning in excess of 100K and assuming the full 35 years of pension credit x 2%, the earned pension ie public sector pension plus CPP approaches the point at which OAS is clawed back.

Less of a problem if you can pension split with a spouse, but if the spouse also has good pension or retirement income…… every dollar withdrawn from an RRSP/RRIF first is taxed at a high marginal rate and then triggers a dollar for dollar OaS clawback.

Hard to feel sorry for higher wage earners, I agree…OAS is meant to only be paid to lower earning seniors….. but my point is that RRSP may be proving to have been a godsend to government taxwise and it would be hard to convince government to undo it.

- Paul
 
Last edited:

turbanplanner

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 17, 2020
Messages
324
Reaction score
205
^ I would be interested to see how RRSP is working for government in terms of taxation revenue on cashout.

With so many people contributing to public sector pensions earning in excess of 100K and assuming the full 35 years of pension credit x 2%, the earned pension ie public sector pension plus CPP approaches the point at which OAS is clawed back.

Less of a problem if you can pension split with a spouse, but if the spouse also has good pension or retirement income…… every dollar withdrawn from an RRSP/RRIF first is taxed at a high marginal rate and then triggers a dollar for dollar OaS clawback.

Hard to feel sorry for higher wage earners, I agree… but my point is that RRSP may be proving to have been a godsend to government taxwise and it would be hard to convince government to undo it.

- Paul
Remember a lot of the pensions are based on highest 5 years of earnings. If stay entry level my whole life and put in 10% of my income, but get a management position the last 5 years I'd never get a multi million dollar retirement unlike the public sector.
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
8,640
Reaction score
15,786
Remember a lot of the pensions are based on highest 5 years of earnings. If stay entry level my whole life and put in 10% of my income, but get a management position the last 5 years I'd never get a multi million dollar retirement unlike the public sector.

(realising how far off topic this is getting)

I am not really a fan of public sector defined benefit plans (full disclosure - I have db pension income) because, while they can be kept solvent, the inequity with private sector plans which have long settled at defined contribution is so huge. Having said that, the corrective action needs to be to improve retirement security for the less fortunate, not reduce it for the most fortunate. ( we may need to meet in the middle somehow).

Getting back to GO, this is a huge factor in contracting out transit jobs.If the contractor’s pension offering is not equal to what is offered by Ml…….then you can see why workers would fight contracting out. One benefit of aging is you appreciate your retirement benefits so much more than when you were 30 - or even 40.

- Paul
 

Bordercollie

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 20, 2020
Messages
1,627
Reaction score
1,121
Funny thing you mention the lack of London Transit connection at the station at 5:30 - because that’s one of the questions/factors that came up in the survey. So it was through, at least.

As you know, I’m very much aware of the lack of bus service to St. Thomas/Elgin County, even though every other town near London has a bus connection - London/St. Marys, Exeter, Strathroy, Dorchester, even Tillsonburg a few days a week.
There should be an on-demand service to take you to the morning GO train and drop you off in the evening. They could even have a $5 cab fare which is subsidised by Metronlinx.
 

north-of-anything

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
603
Reaction score
1,074
Location
Barrie
There should be an on-demand service to take you to the morning GO train and drop you off in the evening. They could even have a $5 cab fare which is subsidised by Metronlinx.
Bradford has a system like this - taxi rides to meet peak-hour GO trains were only 25 cents a ride pre-pandemic. I'm not sure how this has changed with the BWG Transit subsidy though. A system like that from St. Thomas to London could be useful, but I question if it would tamper momentum for a proper bus connection between the two.
 

Top