allengeorge
Senior Member
It’s unclear to me what the city ‘won’ here. I guess the lower wage increase? Seems like they agreed to every other demand.
|
|
|
TTC: Other Items (catch all)
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
turbanplanner
Senior Member
The no miway clause is stupid! A great example of a union not being with the times and hurting passengers
Amare
Senior Member
Oh FFS, the ATU is being moronic about making the TTC unable to allow MiWay buses serving riders in Toronto (i'm purposeful omitting YRT from the discussion as their service is abysmal trash anyways). This part of the deal really pisses me off.
No one would lose their jobs if other agencies took over some routes for the TTC, especially since the TTC seems to be disinterested in providing adequate service along many of those candidate routes anyways. I'm all for bashing the TTC where it is appropriate, but in this particular case the ATU is content with screwing riders in favor of "not contracting out jobs".
No one would lose their jobs if other agencies took over some routes for the TTC, especially since the TTC seems to be disinterested in providing adequate service along many of those candidate routes anyways. I'm all for bashing the TTC where it is appropriate, but in this particular case the ATU is content with screwing riders in favor of "not contracting out jobs".
Bojaxs
Senior Member
Both MiWay and TTC are part of the same union. Just different locals. Why can't they get together and hammer out a route sharing agreement?
Coolibop
Active Member
Do we know how far we got into the Cross boundary service integration pilot project? I assume this kills it?
I'm familiar with DRT that has a closed door policy (allowing pickup on the way to Durham, and drop off on the way out)... I presume this is not impacted by the recent agreement.
From the pilot project:
I don't think we made it to phase 3 of the pilot as I've never seen the open door policy on DRT routes?
smallspy
Senior Member
Other than the vehicle cleaners, I think that there are two, separate concerns that were raised by the union regarding contracting out within maintenance. One aspect has been the sending out of complex components like engines and transmissions and electrical components to third parties for rebuild or exchange. The union has been fighting to bring this back in-house for a long time, and I wonder if this was one of the points that they were sticking on. I've also been told that the union was apparently upset about the contractors working in the divisions performing warranty repairs to the various new vehicles - it sounds like one of the wins was that TTC's own staff will now be performing this work, with the warranty techs looking on.
The red vests used at the various subway closures/detours are all contracted. To be honest, I'm not sure that they could get enough staff without hiring more to handle their jobs. They'd also been trying to get some of the station cleaning jobs contracted out, but I don't believe that they were successful on that.
Dan
tmustudent9
New Member
The General Manager of DRT mentioned there were talks into having an open-door policy along Ellesmere Road. The new agreement probably kills any chance of that for the short-term.
turbanplanner
Senior Member
Realized I never added a photo of the presto handling of the transfer. Every time I tap on the go, the TTC is extended to 3 hours after that, regardless of when the 2nd tap occurs. So this is great when I have a trip using the GO but want to take the TTC back.
81-717
Active Member
drum118
Superstar
I guess its time for Ford to do some Union busting to have Cross boundary service by eliminating transit systems or put them under Metrolinx control that was proposed back in 2007
The Union thinks jobs will be lost over these Cross boundary routes, they are sadly wrong. Any route that is cut from TTC that are part of a chopping list for a few decades will move to another route or division as they will be needed to fill retiring drivers positions or routes that need to be beef up.
The quality of service for TTC route 49 and 50 is less today than it was 10 years ago which already seen a bus removed from those routes. There is not much on the books for new development along those routes other than 2 on each route today with 49 seeing one for it under construction now that was proposed in 2016..
The Union thinks jobs will be lost over these Cross boundary routes, they are sadly wrong. Any route that is cut from TTC that are part of a chopping list for a few decades will move to another route or division as they will be needed to fill retiring drivers positions or routes that need to be beef up.
The quality of service for TTC route 49 and 50 is less today than it was 10 years ago which already seen a bus removed from those routes. There is not much on the books for new development along those routes other than 2 on each route today with 49 seeing one for it under construction now that was proposed in 2016..
picard102
Senior Member
Yeah that seems like the kind of terrible thing Ford would be into. But he might be shy after losing to unions on bill 124, or realize he should just not do something so heinous.
nfitz
Superstar
Seems a pretty minor government change in the great scheme of things. It could surely be done at a stroke of a cabinet pen.
And in the bigger picture, it would still be union workers driving the buses.
crs1026
Superstar
Ford has enough sense to not provoke the blue collar unions, he needs their support to disincent them from backing teachers and nurses who the government has a more direct win-lose positioning with.
I am surprised that the cross-border pickup issue is so important to the unions in a context where transit is expanding and facing labour shortages and any workers displaced will almost certainly just shift to some other route.
"Job security" in publicly funded transit should not lead to made-up jobs.
- Paul
I am surprised that the cross-border pickup issue is so important to the unions in a context where transit is expanding and facing labour shortages and any workers displaced will almost certainly just shift to some other route.
"Job security" in publicly funded transit should not lead to made-up jobs.
- Paul
Northern Light
Superstar
Or he just pull a 'beer in corner stores' move and pay thew workers off to amend the agreement.
allengeorge
Senior Member
Yeah - this definitely isn’t about service levels (that’s the line I’ve seen used to help justify this).
If that were the case you could state (I think?) that any cross-border pickups should not reduce service levels? Or that service levels can’t be dropped from the time the agreement is ratified? This seems all about preserving jobs in specific areas as opposed to the flexibility and heath of the system as a whole, or utility to users.
If that were the case you could state (I think?) that any cross-border pickups should not reduce service levels? Or that service levels can’t be dropped from the time the agreement is ratified? This seems all about preserving jobs in specific areas as opposed to the flexibility and heath of the system as a whole, or utility to users.