Strike cost city $13.4M - so far
Hope it was worth it to save $3M or so on scheduling inefficiencies!
Mayor O'Brien is an arrogant, pigheaded moron. Alain Mercier is similarly muleheaded and couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag. The city councillors, by and large, stood by with their thumbs up their butts. And the ATU needs to get a grip - this is a recession; world economies are tanking; tens of thousands of jobs are being lost in this country; maybe just maybe instead of wreaking hardship on those less fortunate than themselves, they could have just been thankful to have a damn job and helped out their fellow citizens in a jam. And talk about shooting yourself in the foot - they had to know this would result in transit cutbacks and therefore potential layoffs in the future. Certainly having no job results in even more family time than the scheduling they're fighting for.
The city councillors are promising never to "let this happen again." That's not good enough. It never should have happened a first time. They don't deserve another chance. I hope those who voted for them and for this Conservative union-busting mayor are appropriately disgusted with themselves.
I, for one, will not forget this at voting time.
And if we do not continue to push for CIRB to change their definition of what constitutes a threat to public safety, push for public transportation to be declared an essential service, and push for alternate modes of transportation such as a driverless light rail and more cycling lanes, we will still not be assured that a set of fresh political faces will not thrust us back into this same exact situation each and every time an ATU contract expires. We cannot afford to let anyone off the hook. The well-being of our poorest and most disadvantaged citizens, our businesses, our economy, and our environment depend on it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
And what exactly is this supposed to mean.
"And the ATU needs to get a grip - this is a recession; world economies are tanking; tens of thousands of jobs are being lost in this country; maybe just maybe instead of wreaking hardship on those less fortunate than themselves, they could have just been thankful to have a damn job and helped out their fellow citizens in a jam."
Yes this is no time for unions to make excessive demands. But this was not about that. It was about rollbacks of previously agreed to contract provisions, provisions proposed by management at that. The employer put forward a final unacceptable offer including contract roll-backs. The union had two choices, accept it or go on strike. The city chose the timing of the strike (by putting forth a FINAL offer) not the union.
So, in hard times, should workers be happy to accept whatever they are offered. Isn't that why we have unions to protect us, particularly during hard times.
I'm quite aware of what this strike was about, thank you. Note that I also chastised the City harshly for its deplorable handling of this situation, which contributed to the crisis in no small way.
You admit yourself that this is no time for unions to make excessive demands. I hold that "excessive demands" include imposing hardship on our most vulnerable citizens, and exacerbating our economic problems during a recession, unless some gross violation of workers' rights is occurring (which, I'm sorry, is not the case here). I never said they should accept "whatever they are offered," no matter what - only that they cannot continue to operate as though they are in a recession-free bubble.
This is where you and I disagree. I believe that unions are for protection of workers' rights, but that hard times are not the time to be demanding non-essentials. In hard times, *everyone* has to make sacrifices and pull together. Yes, even union workers. When the interests of union workers usurp the needs of the needs of the public in such a gross manner, that is abuse. People endured terrible hardships during this strike. They lost their jobs, their businesses, their family time, and their medical care over this, amongst other things. Who is protecting THEM?
This strike was breathtakingly selfish, and the ATU didn't even pretend to care until its deliberate efforts to antagonize the public (e.g. blocking the streets during rush hour) became such a PR nightmare that it was apparent something had to be done.
By the end of this fiasco, both sides were insisting on mediation but under their preferred preconditions. Neither side would budge, and neither would agree to send it all to binding arbitration without preconditions until the government forced their hand. Given the terrible hardships imposed on the citizens of our city, this could have been done long ago. Where was the urgency?
The City was at fault too, but if you are looking for me to hold the ATU blameless in this, it's not going to happen. I used to be consistently pro-union, but this fiasco has opened my eyes.
You're missing a few pretty obvious points here. First, it's only unionized workers being asked to make sacrifices here. Not, say, city council. Or the people of Ottawa, for that matter. Walking in the snow for three months is really all that bad? Incidentally, until there's data on how much "damage" was actually done by the strike, it's all easily-dismissed anecdote and hyperbole. I don't know if anyone's collecting data, but it needs to be done before making any claims about what "damage" has or has not occurred.
Second, "the economy is bad" is just an excuse used to break unions. The easiest way to prove it is to note that no one is proposing a bifurcated collective agreement: if the economy remains bad, then one set of conditions applies; when it becomes good, another set of conditions applies. And the reason is that the point of contract rollbacks is that they won't be restored when the economy picks up again. Rollbacks will set the bar lower for the next round of negotiations, regardless of what the economy is doing. Everyone who's been on either side of a collective bargaining situation knows this.
> First, it's only unionized workers being asked to make sacrifices here.
It may be that they are the only ones being expressly *asked* to make sacrifices in this particular instance, but are you seriously implying that no one else is making sacrifices in this recession? What about all the people who lost their homes, or their jobs? Or who took 2nd or 3rd jobs, or jobs for which they are grossly overqualified, just to get by? What about the lineups at the food banks? Everyone who is not independently wealthy is cutting back. No one is *asking* them to, they simply *have* to.
> Walking in the snow for three months is really all that bad?
Gee, you must be a car owner with sufficient extra money to spare on parking fees you didn't budget for, and extra time to spend sitting in traffic instead of with your family. Either that, or you must be able-bodied, with no chronic illnesses, under 60, and live no more than a few blocks from school or your job so you didn't have to spend hours walking every day instead of being with your family. Either way, you obviously have no capacity to sympathize with those less fortunate than yourself, or you would not be nearly so blasé about others' sacrifices.
> Incidentally, until there's data on how much "damage" was actually done by the strike, it's all easily-dismissed anecdote and hyperbole.
Given the lack of empathy you have displayed here thus far, it's easy to see why you would consider it "easily-dismissed." Easily dismissed by *you*, perhaps. Are you seriously implying that all these people are just faking their hardships?
Mind you, this kind of lack of empathy has been displayed before. You will note if you read my other posts on this subject that I am normally pro-union, but the selfishness and contempt for the public displayed by ATU 279 has been a real eye-opener. One of my first impressions of this strike was when ATU picketers were blocking off intersections, exacerbating the traffic caused by having no buses. A news reporter pulled one picketer aside and asked him about this practice, and he thought it was hilarious. He just couldn't wipe the huge smile off his face. They did not care whatsoever that they were keeping innocent citizens away from their families, doctor appointments, and who knows what else. It was all about making it difficult for the public, and all this was apparently quite funny.
I didn't need to read online anecdotes and hypothesize about people who might have suffered during this strike. I saw them out my window, and noticed them around town. I saw people at least in their 70's or 80's struggling through long walks to the grocery store in -30C, bringing back only what would fit in the basket of their walkers. I saw people's notes posted on bulletin boards all over town, begging for carpool partners so they could get to work and not lose their jobs. I saw many forms of suffering, firsthand.
You have to be pretty self-absorbed not to notice these things and realize that many people are far worse off than the bus drivers.
> The easiest way to prove it is to note that no one is proposing a bifurcated collective agreement: if the economy remains bad, then one set of conditions applies;
There was nothing preventing the ATU from proposing this, as a gesture of goodwill given the economic state of our city.
> Rollbacks will set the bar lower for the next round of negotiations, regardless of what the economy is doing.
Bus drivers apparently expect to live in a recession-proof bubble. If cutbacks need to occur in order to balance the budget, then everyone sacrifices. We do without services we had before, and safety nets that used to be in place. We look to cut costs anywhere possible. Look, I'm not implying that O'Brien isn't an incompetent jerk, and didn't turn this into an idiotic and unnecessary referendum on union-busting instead of solving a problem. (See my other posts on this subject for proof.) I merely said that some concessions could have been made by the ATU with consideration to the economy and with consideration to the kind of hardship a complete stoppage of service in winter would cause to the citizens. These concessions could come with the express stipulation that it is a temporary arrangement related to the economy. When the economy stabilizes, the arrangement expires.
Post a Comment