Maybe we'll have buses in time for Easter - or not

(19 Jan 2009, CBC News) Amalgamated Transit Union Local 279, which represents around 2,300 striking transit drivers, dispatchers and maintenance staff for OC Transpo, proposed Friday that its members could be back on the job Monday if the city agreed to set aside the controversial issue of worker scheduling for later and send the rest of the contract to binding arbitration. The union also agreed to the city's proposal to hire an independent fact finder to look into the issues surrounding scheduling.

Over the weekend, city council unanimously voted to reject the offer and issue a counter-offer to send the entire collective agreement to binding arbitration, with the conditions that the resulting contract does not cost more than the city's last offer and "respects national safety and work-rest standards" for commercial vehicle operators.

On Saturday, ATU 279 president Andre Cornellier issued a statement saying the union itself was disappointed in the city's response.

Cornellier said the arbitration process "would not be neutral under their conditions." (full article)

The City's 3 conditions for arbitration are spelled out in more detail here, where they are described as follows:

• The final agreement respects national safety and work-rest standards for commercial vehicle operators
• It does not cost more than the City’s last offer, and
• The union agrees the labour disruption is ended if the Union accepts this offer.

Cornellier is right about one thing. Saying, "okay I'll submit to binding arbitration, as long as they incorporate points A, B, and C as part of their decision" is meaningless. Either you agree to arbitration and stick to the decisions made, or you don't! But the ATU is just as guilty in this regard. More on this in a minute.

Binding arbitration requires a certain amount of faith in the chosen neutral party. While I understand the City's desire to have the above conditions met, one can only assume that a reasonable arbitrator would, after thorough review of circumstances, come to conclusions #1 and #3 on its own. After all, federal labour standards are in place for a reason, and the obvious point of getting this whole thing resolved is to get the buses back on the road (duh). In addition, any arbitrator worth their salt is going to look at transit deals in other Canadian cities as a guideline for solutions here. If the two sides are actually being reasonable in their requests and not grandstanding, neither of them should mind this because agreements elsewhere should bear out their points. As for condition #2, given the hundreds of millions of dollars all of this is already costing our local economy and our citizens, isn't this a rather moot and exceedingly stupid point?

In my mind, this is yet another example of the City's role in turning this into a pissing match instead of trying to resolve the problem. We could have had buses today had the City had simply allowed this sticking point of scheduling to go to arbitration. And the City's counteroffer contains a poison pill that's dragging this on needlessly.

The ATU is far from blameless in this, and the interview with a worker from the garage in the excerpted article above bears that out. However, the City is playing no small role in this unnecessary showdown where the public pays the price.

As for the ATU... no specific issue was mentioned with the City's 3 conditions for arbitration. I can see why they might have an issue with #2 of the City's 3 conditions for arbitration (the limit on cost), if for no other reason than the fact that placing a predetermined monetary limit on an arbitrator's decision is counter to the spirit of arbitration itself. But what is the issue with #1 and #3? They don't want to be subject to national standards for safety and work-rest? They don't want to end the labour disruption? I find both of those hard to believe. Again, no specific issue was mentioned by Cornellier, just a reference to "those conditions," plural, which implies that at least one of conditions #1 and #3 was also objectionable. Something here doesn't add up.

At the same time, we have the ATU demanding binding arbitration on the outstanding issues of wages, contracting out, and sick days, and putting the main issue of scheduling, route assignment and working conditions into non-binding mediation. Again, either you submit to binding arbitration or you don't! Cherry-picking issues to be arbitrated is meaningless - you said it yourself, Mr. Cornellier!

Now for just one more example of just how selfish the ATU is being... this document from the ATU website. An excerpt:

Cornellier noted that the City has a binding contact with ATU Local 279 that mandates that all Para Transpo drivers belong to the Union.

“We have indicated to the Employer that our Para Transpo members will provide any increased service needed to transport the elderly and disabled members of this community in accordance with the terms of our contract with the City.”

The Union has given the City until Monday to back away from its plans to hire replacement workers or else face the prospect that the Para Transpo service could be picketed by Union members. (emphasis mine)

Yes, I understand that the City is playing games with them by hiring non-unionized temporary workers to expand Para Transpo service for the elderly and disabled, thus violating the terms of their contract while daring them to protest something so universally supported by the public as extra transportation for the disabled, elderly, and vulnerable. It's a filthy game; I get it. And no, I'm not thrilled about it. But at some point you also have to make some damn concessions because the disabled, elderly and vulnerable are needier than you and nobody cares if the help they get is unionized or not because those people need whatever help they can get. If you interfere with this by picketing, you will be yet again displaying the selfishness I first described here... and you will get the public disapproval you so richly deserve.

It takes two to tango, and so far neither side cares enough to put a stop to this insanity. That much has become obvious.

From the CBC article cited above:

Meanwhile, the City of Ottawa announced over the weekend that after the strike ends, it could take up to 14 weeks for full service to resume. However, 70 per cent of transit service could be back within three weeks.

Translation: don't even think about having proper transit this winter. And don't go getting your hopes up for Easter, either.