GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[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.

 

[T3G]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[lenaitch]

The two biggest motivators for contracting out public services are a reduced public service payroll and reduced pension obligations.

 

[Northern Light]

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]

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]

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]

^ 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