I don't mean to defend bad behaviour, but I think it is too easy to blame the person in the uniform. Everyone has a story about being ticked off at the TTC at some point. That is almost inevitable on a system that moves 1.5 million people per day. But keep in mind that, while you see that particular grumpy driver once and even though you may have been quite nice to them, they are seeing thousands of customers per day, and odds are that they have seen and been the direct target of more bad behaviour than you have. And many of the people who ride the TTC are not all the "gems" of society. Yes, the drivers are being paid to do a customer service job; yes, they should be nice to everyone; yes, they should shut up and take it on the chin; yes, they should keep their problems to themselves and not take it out on others; yes...yes...yes. But no one is a machine, no matter how well paid they are. And I've had plenty of poor experiences in private retail establishments that I can guarantee didn't serve anywhere near the number of customers per day that the TTC does. And if I do bother to complain to the manager, they are just as likely to take the side of their employee and tell me it was my fault. So, while the TTC should undoubtedly do better, I don't think you can put it all at the feet of unions, or the public sector.
I don't know who was mostly to blame in the particular incident at Bathurst Station, but I do know that it took more than one guy to escalate it and to keep it going. In my travels, I have observed that tolerance and forebearance appear to be less prevalent character traits today, particularly when people are dealing with those that they see as being paid to serve them. As for unions protecting too many, I'm sure that is true in some cases. But I also think it would be just as bad to fire someone because of one bad day or one incident of poor customer service. If there is a body of evidence, i.e. several incidences, that indicates a problem employee , then fine, let the progressive discipline process work to its final conclusion, which is dismissal. Contrary to the right-leaning propaganda these days, the lack of public humiliation of the employee does not mean that there is no discipline, nor does it mean that no one ever loses their job. But, having heard a second-hand account of the story, the accepted knee-jerk reaction anymore is the equivalent of "off with his head!" and this is a trend I find disturbing and uncivilised. I'm not saying that we shouldn't hold people to account, but there is always more to the story than you know, and IMHO, many of the knee-jerk reactions and resulting stereotyping of employees belong more in the sweatshops of 19th century industrialised England than 21st century North America.