I wasn’t going to comment on Marilyn Churley’s paper claiming that each TTC employee contributes $1-million to the local economy, but a remark buried in a long post at Blogto caught my eye. Specifically:
It can be a very useful source of information for pro-transit activists, and helps underscore transit’s importance (which makes sense given Steve Munro and Franz Hartmann were involved in it).
Since I seem to have been “outed” here, and am also thanked for input on page 3 of the report, I need to explain the context.
I cannot speak for Franz Hartmann (of the Toronto Environmental Alliance), but I was approached to review the document when it was in draft form. At that point, it needed a lot of work because of poorly thought out arguments. Some of my input found its way into the final version, some didn’t. I didn’t know the video existed until it appeared online. Finally, I don’t agree with all of the claimed economic benefits of the transit system’s existence — ie things that would simply disappear if there were no transit service.
That said, the problem lies more with the premise, rather than with the calculation. Personally, the TTC saves me a bundle because I can live without a car and my total transportation expense for 2007 was $1098 worth of passes (on subscription), the odd cab fare, and dinner/drinks for friends who provided chauffeur/cartage services.
Many families could not exist without one car given the problems of getting to work in transit-starved suburbia. However, a good transit system can reduce the need for every family to have two or more cars. Alas it won’t reduce road space because the highway system is so overcommitted by demand that any transit gains will only allow backfilling on the roads.
Scale up that sort of benefit across the city, and that’s money in every transit rider’s pocket.
Many of the comments on blogto are extremely one-sided being so directed at the union and the operators. Lousy service is a function of years of underinvestment in transit (new vehicles, more rapid transit) by politicians of every stripe. Lousy service is also caused by mismanagement of what’s there. Yes, some operators take advantage of this by playing games with their schedules, but they are far from the majority of the staff. Political decisions not to buy more buses, to downsize the fleet by 300 vehicles, had nothing to do with the ATU.
For decades, the TTC has claimed that it is powerless to provide better service due to traffic congestion. As reviews of their own vehicle monitoring data have shown here, congestion is only one factor, and the TTC’s solutions, aimed primarily at the core during peak periods, will not solve this problem. Huge gaps in service to the outer ends of lines are caused by bad operating practices in line management.
I agree that Local 113 has overstated its case with Churley’s report, but they don’t deserve the virtiolic remarks aimed at them by many writers. I open this post to comments with trepidation and will tell everyone in advance that I will ruthlessly expunge remarks that don’t address the larger issue of making transit better.
Steve Munro 
Thanks Steve for the insightful post. I’m glad that’s there’s still a few places left where I can find actual analysis of what’s going on as opposed to the vitriol and hyperbole thrown out at blogto and torontoist.
I don’t even bother reading the comments since I already know what they’re going to say.
Keep up the good work!!
LikeLike
There is one strong reason that the TTC should side with the union, despite the additional costs vs. the TTC management proposal, other than simply averting a strike: it will make it easier to attract drivers. Right now, the TTC has a shortage of bus and streetcar drivers and increasing wages will help attract more of them. Today, in the Toronto Star, I saw an ad for Calgary Transit trying to lure new bus drivers from Toronto. This indicates the kind of competition we are up against. The TTC is competing with other transit agencies, and with wages rising below inflation it won’t be able to hire enough new drivers.
LikeLike
Steve,
I agree with the comment that ATU113 is overstating its case. I am not surprised by the hateful comments that are being posted about members of ATU113. Those of us who work for the TTC have grown used to the fact that by wearing a TTC uniform seems to give the public the right to treat us with disdain. I will admit that there are some TTC employees who seem to go out of their way to aggravate the public, but they are in a small minority. The vast majority of TTC employees are doing the best that we can do to serve the public. It is not the fault of the operators that the buses (and streetcars) are overcrowded and stuck in traffic. Operators do not determine short turns – the is the exclusive preserve of the CIS route supervisors as they (mis)manage their routes. In my division alone, we seem to have about 4 to 9 runs (on various routes) cancelled every AM rush hour due to lack of equipment. You can well imagine how much fun it is to be the operator of the gap bus that is following the cancelled run!
There is much more to the current contract talks than has been reported in the media. The concessions asked for in the initial offer were extreme and seem (to me at least) to be drawn up to force a strike mandate. Like most ATU113 people that I have talked with, I don’t want to strike (I have bills to pay like everyone else), but the management of the TTC has to come back with a serious offer that properly addresses the concerns of the general membership of local 113.
I would like to thank you for your support for the front line workers of the TTC in the past and hopefully the next two weeks will bring about a fair and equitable resolution to the contract negotiations for both sides. As an employee of the TTC, I obviously want the best deal possible; but I am also a taxpayer in this city.
It is clear to me that the upper levels of government (Federal and Provincial) have to step up and start funding transit in Toronto and elsewhere in the province and country. Keep up your great advocacy work in this regard.
Your statement : “Many of the comments on blogto are extremely one-sided being so directed at the union and the operators. Lousy service is a function of years of underinvestment in transit (new vehicles, more rapid transit) by politicians of every stripe. Lousy service is also caused by mismanagement of what’s there. Yes, some operators take advantage of this by playing games with their schedules, but they are far from the majority of the staff. Political decisions not to buy more buses, to downsize the fleet by 300 vehicles, had nothing to do with the ATU.” seems to say it all.
LikeLike
Hello Steve:
Are you going to “ruthlessly expunge remarks that don’t address the larger issue of making transit better” ,
or simply expunge opinions you don’t agree with?
Steve: I will expunge comments of “all union members are lazy bums and should be fired immediately”, or at least I will mount a vigourous counterargument.
I realize it’s your blog and you can allow whatever you like (and I certainly respect your right to omit / edit), but I am one of the many who want to make “transit better” but our ideas keep getting pushed aside as the city simply does not have the guts to take on the transit union. There, I said the “U” word.
A quick background…I take the TTC every single day, I have worked in both unionized and non- unionized enviroments, and I have lived near TTC operations…the Roncesvalles yard in particular.
The majority of TTC drivers I see every are nice, friendly, and personable, so I’m not blaming them, and I’m also no fan on management of large entities as they usually are clueless to a lot of the “front line issues”.
But…I have seen and heard (first hand) so many examples of lazy and inefficient behaviour, it boggles the mind. I have overheard them joking how they can sleep for 3 hours, or how they’re getting paid overtime to go drinking, and I’ve seen the stereotypical “8 guys watching, 1 guy working” scenario too many times to count.
And that illegal strike last year showed that the union’s true colours and proved it has absolutely no credibility at all.
I’ve also looked at the collective agreement, and find it absurd that people get a day off for their birthday, and the fact that ticket clerks make more that some IT professionals I know.
Steve: The Birthday Holiday is a floater statutory vacation day. It is granted each year on the employee’s birthday to spread the demand for replacement staff around the calendar rather than having them all fall on one day. I am not sure if historically it is a remnant of the time when Rememberance Day was a statutory holiday.
Steve…you said in a previous post, and correct me if I am wrong, that trying to get more productivity out of workers wasn’t the answer.
Then what is ?
Steve: I didn’t say I objected to getting more productivity out of workers, but that implies that they are properly managed. If someone can in fact take a three hour break and get no work done, this means that nobody is supervising them. If this situation persists, it becomes an “accepted practice” and in labour relations land, this makes it hard to call someone to account. If the TTC has allowed this to happen pervasively, this is a failure of management.
Paying them more and getting them to work even less ? That’s basically all unions are needed for now.
Partial privitization would lead to more accountability, and should be looked at immediately.
The TTC spends far too much of it’s budget on wages, and needs to be run like a business, as simple as that.
One of your other arguments also was that we don’t need the labour chaos a fight with the unions would cause…but that way of thinking will lead to an even more powerful union, a weaker Toronto Council, and a “lose lose” for the TTC traveller.
Making transit better means cleaning up the waste and inefficiencies, making people more productive and hiring people who want to do a good job, not people who just want to work for the TTC as they know they can pretty much do whatever they want, get a paycheque and not get fired.
Cheers,
Dave
Steve: Back at the start you say that the majority of drivers you encounter are nice folk, but then proceed to slag off the entire union staff on the basis that they sit around on their duffs. You can’t have it both ways.
It is well documented that people do not apply to the TTC to get a job where they cannot be fired. The TTC has trouble getting staff as it is.
As for the private sector, since they are doing such a great job running GO Transit’s train service, maybe they should explain the tricks of their trade to the TTC. Where, honestly, do you expect to find a workforce both management and line staff who can take over the TTC’s operation? What do you expect to be the impact of widespread wage and benefit cuts?
Wage cuts are a “quick fix” for “productivity” if you measure that as work performed per dollar paid. However, it does not matter how much or little you pay someone if you don’t manage their work properly. You just waste money at a greater or lesser rate.
LikeLike
At a million dollars each, I think we should just cash in all our ATU chips and use that money to buy something else.
Steve: Many people feel that those chips are worth a lot less than a million, so be careful before you plan on your dream chalet in the countryside. Also, that million dollar value applies to all TTC staff, not just the union ones.
LikeLike
I have a son who works in north-west Mississauga. He normally has to use his car to get from his home at Jane & Bloor out there. However, because one day his car was in the shop, I had to drop him off and pick him up by car. The Mississauga trip planner shows it would have taken him 1 hour 20 minutes. It was winter and snow falling.
If he was working in downtown Toronto, he would have used the subway. As it was, he elected to call on me to help him out. If I wasn’t around, he would not have gone in.
The problem is that transit is currently oriented to go to downtown Toronto. A new sub-division or office complex seems to ignore public transit, and assumes people will drive. They put in asphalt deserts before putting in grass and trees or transit stops. However with oil prices going up, the new sub-divisions will be becoming less desirable if they don’t think public transit before the car.
LikeLike
Steve, two comments:
Firstly, speaking to the report, I thought your comment was interesting:
“a good transit system can reduce the need for every family to have two or more cars.”
That’s not a clear gain, since there are several car production facilities in the GTA.. If, for example, a family were able to forego an Oakville-built minivan in favor of goods manufactured outside of the region (or even the country), you could count that as a net loss.
I’m largely playing devil’s advocate here as I don’t own a car myself (and would be quite happy if nobody else did either), but I’m wondering if some of these complex interactions were taken into account when coming up with the “$1 million” number. If not, I can see how that number would lose a lot of credibility.
Secondly, what relationship is there (if any) between improved line management on the streetcar lines and the union contract? For instance, the union membership might view as a takeaway any effort to remove the long layovers inherent in the current management practice, and try to bargain for equivalent compensation in exchange. (I imagine this is hypothetical as I haven’t heard that such a thing is on the table.)
Steve: So it’s my job to keep the auto industry employed? That industry has fed off the desperate need people have for travel, not to mention the planned obsolescence of model changes, for decades. Fewer cars on the road may hurt the industries that produce them, but the last time I looked that’s what we are trying to achieve.
The long layovers only exist in a handful of places, and the sooner the TTC gets rid of them the better before they become an epidemic across the system. If you look at the schedules, you will see that they exist as much to make the blended Humber and Long Branch “routes” work properly as they do to provide layovers when they are needed. The length of the layovers varies immensely and with no pattern relative to time of day or day of week.
LikeLike
Steve, how does one get a position in line management? You’ve definitely demonstrated that the TTC’s streetcar line management is lacking, which feels to me like a chain of managers (and managers of managers) not caring. Speaking as a student embarking on a career in transportation, I would love to have the opportunity to address many of the concerns you and others have raised.
Of course, transit problems in the Greater Golden Horseshoe are bigger than just Toronto’s streetcars, but I think that better streetcar service will build public confidence in transit. This is one of many challenges transit advocates will have to overcome if we are to see any progress.
Steve: Route supervisors are generally operators who have been talked into moving up the ranks. They do not necessarily understand how routes work as a whole (as opposed to the view from one bus or streetcar), and have to learn this on the job. Meanwhile people even further up the line don’t necessarily understand the complexity of the factors involved.
This is changing slowly, but it’s very frustrating.
LikeLike
Steve, you hit the nail on the head. Up until 2005, my wife and I each had our own vehicle. Our annual transportation expenses were quite high, because even though we sometimes travelled together in one car and occasionally used the TTC, we still had to register, insure and maintain the second vehicle.
With trepidation, we got rid of the second car, thereby commiting at least one of us (usually me) to the TTC. I use it to get to and from work, and the car stays at home for my wife to use as needed. I won’t lie here: taking the TTC to work has increased my travel time by 50 minutes (round-trip) every day, but I’m saving over $2000 per year by not having a second car. It’s a big incentive to continue using the TTC, despite its well-documented drawbacks.
So yes, the TTC is worth quite a lot. It saves you money and is the ‘right’ thing to do in terms of the environment. That’s what the focus of this ad should have been. Placing a dollar value on transit employees was amateurish, and will not endear most transit riders to the union.
LikeLike
Most of the comments that appear on your site are well intentioned and contain an honest assessment of problems and contribute to solutions. This may be a result of the fact that the site is monitotred and inappropriate vitriol is suppressed. This doesn’t mean that I agree with every opinion, but in most cases the point of view of commentators deserves respectful debate.
Alas, other sites, such as BlogTO and CBC.ca do not actively monitor comments (or have very lax standards). It is really tiresome to read resentful and vitriolic comments on these and other sites.
Now I have my biases as well. I believe that a successful society is one where there are are well paying middle class jobs and where a solid and secure middle class makes up a solid portion of the population. The fact that some people work at minimum wage and would love to have a secure middle class job reflects a problem with the structure of our society and with the nature of those jobs. Resenting and depriving people with good jobs does not address the underlying problem. I am not a union member. This is just what I believe is “right”.
There is an example of a transit service where well paying jobs were replaced by non-union employees who earned half as much. There used to be an “Airport Express” service operated by the TTC through Gray Coach Lines. I was on one of the last TTC run buses and chatted with the driver. He had been offered “his” job by Pacific Western who had successfully bid on offering this service. Unfortunately, if he accepted “his” job, it would only pay half as much. This operator planned on returning to the TTC local service.
When the TTC ran the Airport Express it ran from Islington Station, York Mills, Yorkdale and Downtown. It cost $6.00 (one way) as I recall when the TTC last ran the service. Now Pacific Western serves only Downtown Hotels and costs $16.25. (I am not forgetting that there has been inflation since the TTC ran this bus. However, I don’t think $6.00 then has grown to $16.25 today because of inflation).
You get what you pay for. The Airport Express is no longer the service it once was. It certainly does not support the argument that a non-union, private sector workforce would be superior.
TTC employees are hard working and the vast majority are extremely polite and helpful in their interactions with the public. Now maybe my attitude is affected by the fact that I smile and say Thank You when I get on a bus or streetcar. Perhaps things look different to people drowning in a sea of vitriol and resentment.
LikeLike
Steve
It is curious to me that you regularly and promptly update us on your submissions to the Commission, but were “outed” in your contribution to the ATU’s paper and not because you hadn’t got around it. I was going to add to that but I’ll just leave it there.
Steve: I was explicitly asked to keep my involvement in that project confidential only to find myself named in the online report. At that point, any claim to confidentiality vanished. Meanwhile, as you can see, just because I reviewed the draft doesn’t mean I agree with it. I was not paid.
LikeLike
Steve, thanks for the response. I’m not asking you to support auto production in the GTA or anything else, I’m just wondering how the $1 million number was obtained. Did the report examine only the economic gains of having a transit system, or did it also take into account the losses? I was giving a reduced auto market as an example of a loss. I’m sure other and better examples exist.
The point I’m getting at is this: are these numbers intended for serious economic consumption, or are they intended only for PR value? It is incontestable that a transit system is, per se, valuable, and I am sure that the gains would hugely overwhelm the losses, but by how much exactly? I am just wondering how seriously one should take the number arrived at in this report.
Steve: The report did not consider that without transit, some other sectors might flourish. All the same, I think that many of the numbers are subject to interpretation about what, exactly would happen and the overriding concern that the transit system is not going to disappear. I’m not sure I want to get into a rehash of the report myself. You can read it at the worthamillion site.
LikeLike
I think there’s a widespread perception that there are “bad apples” within the TTC ranks and that the union ties management’s hands from dealing with them. Before you hit the delete button, I’ll qualify this two ways: I don’t think the bad apple rate is nearly as high as people assume, and the “hands tied” thing could be as much of an all-purpose excuse as “traffic congestion”.
I’ve seen a few operators talking on cell phones while driving, and back before automated announcements it really bugged me that a bunch of operators never announced any stops (while their colleagues often got 95% of them). As Gord says, there does seem to be a small minority of front-line staff who enjoy stirring the pot. The perception — rightly or wrongly — is that the ATU rushes to the defence of those employees, even though their actions are a drag on the overall perception of TTC staff.
None of that excuses the riders who feel they can treat TTC staff like dirt. I’d want to be paid more too if my job involved being yelled at by a guy who missed his stop because he was on his cell phone, and the operator shields are a sad necessity given the absurdly high rate of kicking, punching, and spitting incidents.
It’s become very polarized, and I can’t help thinking that the closer we get to a strike the further we are from the TTC and ATU working together to make the system, and the general perception of it, much better.
Oh, and I hope you weren’t involved in the idea to take total value generated and divide by number of employees. That assumes vehicles, fuel, and outsourced work provide no value at all. (Or, perhaps, it assumes the outsourced consultants cancel out all other non-employee value…)
Steve: Hit the delete button? Why? I happen to agree with you. And, no, I had nothing to do with the calculation.
LikeLike
I’m not going to get into the union/anti-union debate but I will say three points:
Firstly, it seems to be a relentless cycle between TTC and its patrons. Consider this: a few bad apples (I will admit that much) try to make the service bad for some of its riders. Riders complain. Riders bitch and scream at operators. Some Operators bitch back. Contract negotiations come up. Operators bitch that they are being abused, etc. Either the Union goes on strike or Union gets a contract which significantly increases wages and/or benefits. Public gets spitting mad that they have to go through either a strike or increased fares as a result. Some operators become bad apples and don’t work as hard because of the public reaction, plus they know they are being paid more. And the cycle continues. While I will honestly say that this is becoming to be an endless cycle for the TTC, it is rather difficult to pin a root cause to any one party, be it the operators or the travelling public. And I certainly do not think that giving TTC operators everything they want in Contract negotiations will not solve this cycle.
Secondly, I will reiterate that Transit workers should be deemed an essential service and the negotiations subject to binding arbitration. While I am aware of your point of view that such arbitration usually favours the union, it at least removes any threat of a strike so that the city continues to operate. And my fiancee not having to say “Here We Go Again!” every time this threat is raised.
Thirdly (although I expect this comment to be snipped), the union needs to grow up when it comes to disciplining its members. Hearing stories about the Union going to bat for really delinquent employees tarnishes the image of all TTC operators (one reason I say that Unions appear to be the source of most of the problems at the TTC, goes with your argument that TTC management needs to step up, properly, and not heavy-handed). If it was easier to weed out the bad apples, we would not be stuck with “Mr. I’m-Deliberately-So-Slow-That-They-Short-Turn-Me-Every-Time-And-They-Have-To-Wait-Until-I-Retire” forever. For all riders’ sake. Because any expansion of transit plans can be permanently kinked by one of these employees and the perception of transit operators by the travelling public will only get worse. Imagine if one of these drivers was on one of the Transit City Lines.
LikeLike
I know what a million dollars buys you! A Tim Horton’s franchise! Lets put them at the ends of the streetcar lines, maybe that would be motivation for no more short turns!
In a serious note though, there is only one instance where I had a conflict with a TTC operator. 2001 when the 67 Pharmacy bus ran north of the 401 there was an old french bus driver called “pissy Pierre” because he hated people, and when you knew it was him through the windshield as he pulled up to your stop, you knew the trip would be a pain. He would jar the breaks suddenly jerk the wheel around and he would literally smirk as he did it. So yes a real piece of work who had to be close to retirement. One day I transfered to the 67 from the 39, and guess who pulled up.
My buddy who tried to be pleasent to “Pierre” said a simple hello and asked him how his day was…..well you could have just spat in his face he said better then how we were. He kicked us off the bus! I played it cool because I wasn’t going to start a conflict yet. Six people wanted to board that bus and not one was going to board. I called customer service on my cell and all six of us gave the TTC our information and story. We thought we did some good we didn’t see Pierre for three weeks on the 4:30 bus southbound. But sure enough after three weeks he was back and he was very moody as always. I will cut this story short because this actually discourages me from the TTC.
The point is everyone remembers poor service and that in turn puts cars on the road. But no one remembers good service like the 305-302 run I make to get home from a freind’s house at Port Union Rd. to Danforth/Birchmount that’s a speedy run and the connections have been improved so I can get home in 20 mins. that’s good service. For the record the group of eight that I was freinds with in those days, we all own cars but only I take transit. Pierre did his part.
Give the ATU a better raise! More workers means more service! And not everyone is a bad apple!
LikeLike
First and foremost, it is NOT our responsibility to sustain the automotive industry. In fact, that’s not what we do. 80% of Canada’s (southcentral Ontario’s) automotive output is sent to the U.S.A., where there rarely is a threat of better public transit. Regarding the airport, wasn’t it the TTC who single-handedly destroyed the airport express market with the Airport Rocket? Before the advent of route 192, Pacific Western served all of the mentioned destinations, and GO Transit will take you to Yorkdale for a reasonable, sub-$5 fare.
My only issue with TTC drivers is their behaviour towards students. While I am not addressing the staff collectively, there are some drivers on Eglinton E., who seem to be accustomed to the empty-ish buses on their sleepy routes (51,56). One such driver decided that 42 students was simply too many, and refused to stop at Mount Pleasant (Northern Secondary) ever after. (He actually skipped that stop for the rest of the week). While students are obnoxious, we also deserve the same courteous service provided to everyone else.
LikeLike
I understand what the union is trying to say, but the whole premise of the report is ludricrous. I’m sure you could poll a dozen practitioners of the social sciences and get a dozen variations on the possible effects of losing the TTC and it might be a nice thought exercise but it’d likely be meaningless and aside from a possible insight into the minds of social scientists you probably wouldn’t have learned too much. Maybe local 113 could have spent all that money on some good ideas to improve productivity and brought them to the table to barter for more money or better uniforms. Maybe they could have rolled it back into benefits for the members.
Why management and the union can’t just just get on with ironing out a respectful and mutually beneficial agreement boggles my mind. And after all, what’s the value of a thousand striking TTC workers? Would the union care to put a value on the hardship that would cause hundreds of thousands of people? I’m no fan of either side, but the way they play this game has got to stop.
LikeLike
Steve,
First I would just like to say sorry for outing you. Had I known the manner in which your input was used, I might have reconsidered my phrasing. But that mis-use is just indicative of what I think is one of the biggest problems, which is how this whole thing has turned into one big mudslinging match. The union is on one side, the TTC on the other, and Joe Public is in the middle – which for the most part has no idea what the two other sides really wants/needs/needs to do better at. With such an uninformed public, pressure is applied at the wrong places and or on the wrong people, if at all. In the end, no huge strides are made and the pissing match continues – something that might not be so if the public were properly engaged and informed.
Steve: Not to worry. I hadn’t read Marilyn Churley’s acknowledgement letter to see that I was named there, so you were only reporting something that was already public. Obviously she changed her mind about recognizing my input.
LikeLike
Steve wrote, “Route supervisors are generally operators who have been talked into moving up the ranks.”
I am told by a TTC operator in my family that these days it tends to be younger employees that accept these promotions, as these are desk jobs unlike former days when route supervisors were out on the street.
What is significant about this is that older employees tend to “know the route” better and this results in a route supervisor with no route knowledge giving orders by looking on a Google map. Orders such as a route detour that does not take advantage of traffic lights for left turns are the result of not having such knowledge. Heaven help the operator who dares to correct the route supervisor giving inefficient instructions.
LikeLike
Is it just me, or do others get the impression that the whole “strike threat” news story is overblown? Not to blame the messenger, but it almost seems to be a media creation. I am tempted to suggest that perhaps TTC management threw a bone to the media to help create a story that would set the public up to be against the union.
I should point out the significance of me having a somewhat pro-union opinion as I am one who believes that any government-funded service is an essential service, otherwise the government should get its hands and money out of it. I understand the irony here, as binding arbitration tends to favour the union side, but opinions suggesting the removal of the right to strike tend to be classified as anti-union.
A first-pass contract offer is generally supposed to be rejected. Reporting that it was so overwhelmingly rejected is akin to reporting that the sun rose this morning. Somehow the story grew to sound like the sun rose on the western horizon. It just seems to me like someone wants to get the public all riled up about a strike from now like it is a fait accompli.
LikeLike
“Give the ATU a better raise! More workers means more service! And not everyone is a bad apple!”
Tell that to the millions of riders who rely on the TTC every day. These are the guys who are posting the “vitriolic” remarks that are seen at other sites. I don’t believe by throwing gobs of money at the ATU this will help solve the problem. In fact, I only think that gobs of money would only allow these problems to multiply. More lazy drivers, more pissed off riders.
What I think the TTC needs to do is to force the worst drivers of the bunch to take a 1-week civics course. Failure of this course as well as a mandatory 3-week probation period would lead to termination of employment (I may be harsh, but I’m drawing a line against “pissy Pierre” and his cohorts). Of course, this won’t pass the scrutiny of Mr. Kinnear (president of ATU 113, probably one of the most hated people in the city right now) who would probably be hopping mad, and will always falsely maintain that “the operators are the best of the business (no matter how bad some of them can be), and it’s always the riders’ fault.”
Steve: Kinnear does his members no good with his refusal to acknowledge that there are problems among his membership, but this is the lot of the head of an organization. Just as Adam Giambrone cannot openly criticize his management without finding that they do as little work as possible lest they open themselves to scapegoating, the officials of Local 113 are not going to start bad-mouthing their members.
The problem lies with the relationship between the parties and how aggressively, but reasonably, management forces the issue of proper expectations and discipline.
The TTC has a bad habit of telling staff that the colour of the day is “blue” only to reverse their position when one irate customer buttonholes a Commissioner and claims they were frightened by Smurfs as a child.
The TTC likes its staff to “use their initiative” except when it results in customer complaints, justified or otherwise.
LikeLike
Bad management is endemic in Toronto. I was a union steward long ago (not at the TTC). One of the chief problems the union had where I worked was that management had no clue of what management rights were (these were, of course, clearly described in the collective agreement). They would fail to exercise rights they had. I can’t go into detail, but they caused considerable problems for union members (and created considerable resentment) by acting as if they were afraid of a grievance when the union had no right to file a grievance and indeed hadn’t filed one. They also tried to exercise rights they did not have; in particular they tried to interfere in internal union matters.
If things at the TTC are as people claim, I suspect that TTC has a similarly clueless management. Collective agreements exist to establish procedures as well as rights. However, I seriously believe that hatred of unions is so widespread among management that they refuse to learn what the collective agreement allows them to do. They see the union as evil, so any course of action (or inaction) is justified.
As to quality of service, I have been riding the TTC daily since 1970. In that time I can remember only two rude operators. I am a big scary guy, but I can’t remember operators being rude to less scary people, either. I’ve run across plenty of crappy service, but that clearly has been the fault of management. If the schedule for a route is never accurate, management is responsible for fixing that, and it has plenty of power it can use to fix it. As I was taught in psychology class, if your rat don’t press the bar, it ain’t his fault. TTC staff aren’t rats, of course, but if they don’t get their vehicle to your stop on time management should be aware of that and should do something about it. Drivers like Pierre are a pain in the ass, but if they are allowed to keep working, it’s either because management isn’t using the disciplinary powers it has in the agreement or because no one is complaining.
And why is management so bad? I suspect that it’s the Toronto tendency to hire one’s buddies rather than people who know how to do a job. Then again, this is a city that worships a hockey team that hasn’t accomplished anything since the league had only six teams.
On a professional note, I assess measures as part of my work and I have to support the others here who question the validity of the million-dollar estimate. For one thing, I don’t know how you would establish its validity. For another, as the telling example of the auto industry shows, a buck is not necessarily a good thing. Nevertheless, if the estimate gets people debating the value of transit we can probably come up with better measures of the benefits of public transit.
LikeLike
This is going to sound a bit simplistic, and maybe even a bit dumb, but making the streetcar system work in mixed traffic is really really hard!
I consider myself an ideas man. I’ve thrown enough ideas at you (and your readers) to make heads spin, and every one I’ve shot off to deal with mixed-traffic streetcars has been shot down for good reason. Unlike the TTC that does not mean I’ll give up. I’ve abandon my idea for a queen street LRT subway.
Fixing up the bus and subway routes are easier. Subways because they operate in a right-of-way (nuttin but subways down there) and Buses because they are more agile (they can use the curb lane, the left lane, and any other lane they can squeeze into) The subways are run pretty well, but some bus routes can be problematic. I’ve been down the Davisville to complain (and I should note I DO go down there to compliment as well. It’s about 50-50 for me) about the 63 Ossington route. Especially at Eglinton West. The driver will pull the bus in, then go into the station for his break. Come out, pull the bus up, open the doors, load whoever is standing outside, then take off before anyone who was waiting inside (to get out of the rain or snow) has a chance to get out of their seats. I once literally chased the bus around the entire platform waving like a madman to try and catch it.
In general I’m pro-driver. Most TTC operators do a good job. What frustrates me a little is that in many cases doing a great job is so easy, and yet the effort is not made. One TTC driver doing a 512 shuttle, yelled out “Hold on, there is a pothole here on the right” before we hit a large bump. That’s easy to do, yet to someone who’s balancing precariously looking for something in her purse, it can be invaluable information.
LikeLike
Nicest operator I have ever run into… I was getting off of the subway, and realized I had left something on the car. The guard actually noticed me running towards the train and opened the doors long enough for me to get in and out. I always thank the driver when I leave the vehicle (even the subways), but the truly nice drivers will say something back- maybe even wish you a nice day.
LikeLike
It looks like this discussion shifted from the value of a transit system to the union, but I think that calculating the value shouldn’t just look at the prices of cars and of building roads. Transit creates an urban space, and cities that are urban attract the infamous creative class of people. Highways and parking lots are the reason why there’s no This Ain’t the Rosedale Library in Mississauga, and that’s a bigger blow to the city’s prosperity than appears on the surface. Talent stays away from places like that.
I think people who are vitriolic about transit workers are the same people who say “cats are hateful and violent” – you’d have to take the initiative to abuse a cat for it to treat you like that. All you do is pay your fare and move to the back. But I’m painfully young, so maybe I’ll see what everyone means after enough years.
LikeLike
“It looks like this discussion shifted from the value of a transit system to the union”
Don’t get me wrong, I think the TTC provides an invaluable service and savings to the economy of Toronto. I also agree that the value of the TTC is grossly understated, witness the countless numbers of suburbanites still clamouring for a new downtown expressway connection and not more public transit infrastructure. I also agree with Steve’s remarks that years of underfunding have reduced the TTC from the glorious entity it once was years ago to the pithy squabbling catfights that occupies it on a daily basis, which detracts of the real quest of making transit better.
And guess what, the union workers are the front lines in this particular quest. Sometimes our day can be dictated by the driver who greets us in the morning. If we get a very nice and helpful driver than it could help in making every one of his passengers in a better mood in the dreary morning. Likewise, if we get an absolute jerk, we may spend the day cursing about how this operator ruined the day before it even started. Human nature is that we remember only the bad and never the good. Which is why when there is talk of a strike, we take it out on the legitimately good people who work for the TTC, and never the bad ones. Which is also why the TTC also needs a badly overdue civics lesson. Because if the operators can treat the riders with a bit more respect, their days would be a lot better too.
The union has an integral part in the value of a transit system. Let’s hope they don’t ruin their position with constant squabbles with the TTC management.
LikeLike
I would like to thank Stephen Cheung for his post of March 18. Stephen, while I have not always agreed with (nor appreciated) some of your posts in past topics, as you are farther to the right than I am (I am right of centre by the way – a red Tory). As a front line bus operator, I try to treat my passengers in a civil manner – with a good morning/afternoon and a thank-you when they show me their pass or transfer. If I am not in that frame of mood, I tend to be neutral – just a nod in acknowledgement. I spent most of my working career prior to joing the TTC in various customer service related positions.
Your last statement: “The union has an integral part in the value of a transit system. Let’s hope they don’t ruin their position with constant squabbles with the TTC management.” is, unfortunately slightly inaccurate. Most of the “constant squabbles” are initiated by the TTC management because they continue to have a 1930/40/50’s management mentality. The work rules, policies, and operating procedures harken back decades and really need to be updated to reflect the realities of the current time and age.
While I don’t always agree with everything that the union does, it is neccessary in the current management environment. Prior to joining the TTC, I was not a pro-union person based on the experiences of various family members. However, my employment with the TTC has shown me that the union is necessary at the TTC.
LikeLike
I appreciate your comments Gord, but my statement that “the Union has an integral part in the value of a transit system” was basically a concession on my part. I am further right than you think in the sense that I believe that unions have far outlived their usefulness in this day and age and would prefer to see them either reduced significantly in power or scrapped altogether.
The concession here is that despite all my negative feelings towards unions (the ATU 113 and the Outside Workers Union being two of my least favourites), unfortunately the Union is not going to go away and will be at the TTC table for some time to come, whether I like it or not. However, while I may agree with your statement that “The work rules, policies, and operating procedures harken back decades and really need to be updated to reflect the realities of the current time and age,” my agreement only stretches so far. Modern work rules have clearly tilted the playing field in the employee’s favour and while this benefits the “good workers” out there, the “bad apples” exploit every avenue available to them and continue to do less work for more money. This is evidenced at my workplace where two (non-unionized) workers pretty much do nothing at the office however we are unable to get rid of them due to “modern rules of due process”. It could take at least a year before the thought of firing these people can take place. Just imagine if these two were covered by a union.
I don’t have any clue as to how the management operates at the TTC, but from what I hear in previous posts, it appears that the Management seems to lack a spine to do what is necessary to weed out the rotten apples and cherish the good ones. And the ATU 113 is partially responsible for that, only aggressively protecting the rotten apples out there while leaving the good ones out as mulch.
Steve: “Modern rules of due process” usually translates to two things — management refuses to start the process and so termination is always a year away, and people claim that moving them out of their area of responsibility is constructive dismissal. Often managers don’t want to admit that they hired the bad apples, or left them in the wrong place for so long.
Management needs to recognize that, one way or another, they are going to be stuck paying severance to get rid of the bad apples or carrying them on salary. Meanwhile the employee who shouldn’t be there drags down morale and holds a position that might otherwise be offered to someone competent. Fire them, pay the severance, and get on with it.
I hate to say this again, but it’s a management issue, and this sounds like “traffic congestion” as applied to staffing. Bad employees get away with what they are allowed to do (or not do).
LikeLike
The ideas of “Modern rules of due process” mean that we simply cannot fire them simply for doing a bad job. Years ago, this could be possible, but before we can do so, there has to be some other alternative. Either through retraining, redistribution or a probationary period is applied and that takes time to go through. If still an employee does not show any significant progress during that period then the process of termination can occur. Of course, this is always a year away. One of the two employees has skirted around this issue by applying for and getting medical leave from our insurance provider. This does not do well for “Morale” here in our office.
Steve: Insurance providers tend to be rather hard nosed about whether someone is actually ill. If they are off on such leave, there is a reasonable chance that there is something genuinely wrong. Whether they can actually handle their job is another, separate, issue.
How does this apply to the TTC? As I understand it, job security rules in the collective barganing agreement mean that it is that much more difficult to terminate an employee. Then there is the issue of the Union. They will step up for the “rights” of someone who is doing a disservice not only to the Union, but for the TTC and the travelling public as well. This is the reason why it appears to be so difficult for TTC management to terminate an employee.
There was an ad campaign a few years back taken up by ATU 113 in which it “defended” the rights of certain employees who were terminated and reinstated via a tribunal. The ad campaign finishes by stating that with all the monies the TTC spent to uphold the termination, it could have used to increase service and tells the TTC to get its priorities straight. Words like that may hold sway as to why the TTC is reluctant to clamp down on delinquent workers.
Steve: This was a case where the TTC unilaterally changed the working conditions of long-term employees from weekday days to night shifts and gave the staff the option of taking the new hours or leaving. This is “constructive dismissal” and that’s why they lost at the arbitration hearing. The workers were not delinquent, merely objecting to a significant change in work hours without the proper process being used for this which is defined in their collective agreement. The TTC was wrong, and moreover they caused needless grief in attempting this. It was the reason behind the wildcat shutdown of the system.
While I agree that this is a management issue, I would like to amend your statement to say that the Union has an equal value in this problematic equation. Delinquent workers can hide underneath the union and continue to do what they continue to do to tarnish the services of the TTC.
I’d like to finish off with two things on my wishlist with regards to the issues surrounding the TTC and its union.
Firstly, the Union needs to get rid of Mr. Kinnear. He is doing an injustice to the good workers of the TTC and the wildcat strike has basically ensured that in the eyes of ordinary commuters, he cannot be trusted. ATU needs a leader who can not only properly represent his workers but can look after the interests of its riders as well. Kinnear fails on both accounts, and I’m sure that the TTC operators on this site can attest as such.
Steve: I might suggest that this country needs to get rid of Mr. Harper because he does an injustice to Canada and to my trust for what our government is doing nominally on my behalf. Unfortunately, in both the ATU and Ottawa’s case, people who actually vote keep certain people in power. If the ATU membership wants to dump Kinnear, they need to show up at election time, not kvetch about him. The same goes for people like me who want rid of Harper — show up and vote, or don’t complain.
Secondly, the Province must declare transit an essential service and demand the union and the TTC submit to binding arbitration (despite statements that this usually favours the union). We do not need to have the headache of a strike looming over this city as it is now. Such action will only damage the TTC even more and force more commuters into their cars. If we can be assured of transit service 365 days a year without interruption, then maybe we could be “convinced” to look the other way with regards to whatever gains that the union obtains in bargaining proceedings.
LikeLike
“Steve: Insurance providers tend to be rather hard nosed about whether someone is actually ill. If they are off on such leave, there is a reasonable chance that there is something genuinely wrong. Whether they can actually handle their job is another, separate, issue.”
All you need is a willing doctor to sign off that you are “sick” and that’s it. These days, doctors seem to be willing to write up anything as an illness. The general consensus around our office is that this person is “playing with the system”. But that is for us to determine.
Steve: Without going into details, I have dealt with this sort of situation in my professional position. For simple absence from work, it’s hard to challenge a Doctor’s note, and they can churn them out like sausages. However, once you go on insurance for a long-term absence, the insurance companies (rapacious private sector organizations after all) are less generous in accepting a threadbare claim. If someone is really off on insurance (not just burning up sick time and vacation), then they are really sick.
“Steve: This was a case where the TTC unilaterally changed the working conditions of long-term employees from weekday days to night shifts and gave the staff the option of taking the new hours or leaving. This is “constructive dismissal” and that’s why they lost at the arbitration hearing. The workers were not delinquent, merely objecting to a significant change in work hours without the proper process being used for this which is defined in their collective agreement. The TTC was wrong, and moreover they caused needless grief in attempting this. It was the reason behind the wildcat shutdown of the system.”
No, this had nothing to do with the Wildcat strike as this ad originated 4-5 years ago. The ad talked about three different workers (one was a Subway Driver I believe) dismissed for a variety of different reasons, not because of the shift change. I have no comments of the wildcat strike other than to say that it destroyed any credibility of the ATU 113. They could have gotten whatever ruling they needed without inconveniencing hundreds of thousands of commuters that day.
“Steve: I might suggest that this country needs to get rid of Mr. Harper because he does an injustice to Canada and to my trust for what our government is doing nominally on my behalf. Unfortunately, in both the ATU and Ottawa’s case, people who actually vote keep certain people in power. If the ATU membership wants to dump Kinnear, they need to show up at election time, not kvetch about him. The same goes for people like me who want rid of Harper — show up and vote, or don’t complain.”
I didn’t vote for Harper, nor did I vote in the last federal election. None of the parties presented any coherent platform that I was able to support. This still is the case right now, although I am tempted to vote for the Green Party as a vote of “protest” in the next election should it come.
I should also add that this is not about Kinnear, it is also about his cadre of loyalists who help keep him in power. Dumping Kinnear does not mean that we start off with a new slate, we need someone who has ideas about how to speak with management, not engage in confrontation. Any one of Kinnear’s loyalists could take up the mantle, and we would still be in the same problem as before.
Steve: If memory serves, Kinnear came to power when an old executive who were seen as management toadies were ousted from power. Just like Harper was ousted because people were fed up with the Liberals. In both cases, you may think that the results are a disaster, but we are stuck with them. It’s called democracy.
Yes, in the case of ATU 113 this leaves us vulnerable to an aggressive union. The challenge for the TTC is to bargain in good faith and to take a position that they can win both in the court of public opinion and at arbitration. They have managed to screw that up on past occasions.
LikeLike
Hey – the ATU members pay dues to be in a union with the goal of getting the best financial deal for the least amount of work they can. When I’m bargaining with my employer – I would like the same thing: as much as a raise as I can get and as many vacation days. So I don’t qubble with the ATU they want to bargain hard – and go on strike.
The question is whether the current rules/bargaining dynamic are in the public interest. The ATU members make a very good living for the qualifications needed for the job. Based on the average hourly compensation ($38.39 in 2006), the average hourly employee is well above the national/provincial/city average FAMILY income (which includes many dual income families.)
The ATU have considerable leverage by being able to strike and cripple the city. This has given them above average economic gains:
In 1997, the average compensation was $28.99 / hour
In 2006, it was $39.39
This is an increase of 32.4%
The CPI increase from Dec 1997 to Dec 2006 was only 21.0%
In 2006, the wages paid by the TTC were $784 million. If the wages had increased by inflation only since 1997, this would have been $716 million. This is costing the TTC (the riders and the taxpayers who subsidize it) $68 million A YEAR! (Over a decade that would pay for one of your LRT lines. Over 10 decades – 10 LRT lines.)
If I’m an ATU member, great – for the other stakeholders, it’s the opposite. Money that could be going to new buses and more service is going to higher and higher wages.
My beef is with the commission members who won’t go hard to the carpet for the riders and taxpayers. When the commissioner says he’s “100% pro union” that’s where I have a issue.
Steve: Where do you get the hourly figure of $39.39? This likely includes benefits and overtime which is paid at a higher rate. The actual wage rate in the contract is $26.58 today.
One important point you didn’t mention is that in the interval from 1997 to 2006, changes in Provincial labour legislation made it more difficult for the TTC (and other employers) to schedule widely split shifts. One effect of this was that it required more operators to cover the same amount of service. In turn, this means that more operators would be paid benefits (generally a fixed cost per employee) relative to the total work performed driving up the fully burdened cost of one hour’s work. This change was implemented in the name of public safety, not as a result of ATU bargaining.
LikeLike
What a wonderful site. Finally a site where intelligent responses are being posted, instead of the other blog that I thankfully help get shut down. Where it was a Union bashing site, for the sake of bashing.
We in the Union acknowledge there are “bad apples” in the group, however we HAVE to represent ALL our member with due process under the law.
We in the Union do not want a strike, however we still have to make the best deal for our members. Just a heads up TTC drivers are paid on par with most large city drivers. In fact Mississauga drivers currently are ahead of TTC drivers, Brampton not to far behind. In Vancouver they are paid a lot more.
So if Torontonions think that our Union is going to sit back and let this disparity to increase you are sadly mistaken. Does anyone realize the disparity between drivers and supervisors and the pay increase management get?
Keep up the good work in here and let’s keep it professional.
LikeLike
Rocco – “instead of the other blog that I thankfully help get shut down. ”
Not sure I like the sound of that. Perhaps some additional details could be offered?
Dave R in the Beach – I don’t think we should be fixated on the inflation rate as a hard guideline. Also, I’d be interested to know if that CPI number is a national rate or reflective of the CPI in Toronto.
A wage should be a compromise between employer and employee as to what a position is worth, rather than locking in a base rate forever more. Artificially fixing wage rates could lead to bus drivers (many of whom live in 905) defecting to other transit companies in that area code and while some idiots would say “good riddance – plenty of people will fill their seats” that’s not necessarily true, especially at a time of expansion, and the cost of training them would be substantial in both money and driver service availability.
On the other hand there are some positions such as collectors whose role is likely to change especially if the TTC adopts all-smartcard fares with automatic dispensers and online refills or refills in convenience stores. We should not permit those personnel to merely warm seats in booths waiting for the odd tourist to ask questions when s/he is being paid a rate commensurate the task with hundreds of ticket/pass/token sales per hour, indexed every year.
If the union has the city’s interest at heart, it will work with the TTC to ensure the best use of personnel rather than impeding retraining and redeploying of personnel into new roles like station managers.
What I think is more crucial is that any benefit practices that remain at TTC such as the payment of the Health Tax be dealt with in this collective agreement so that the publicly quoted wage rate is more reflective of what their fellow citizens receive in take home pay. If that means an extra point or two on their basic that’s fine but TTCers should not have their taxes paid when their patrons don’t have the same deal.
Also – the $100,000 list should be indexed. While the Sun complains annually at the increase in the number of people on the list, $100k now is not 100k when the list was started. Perhaps a better solution would be to publish a full list listing the top 5% of earnings and the remainder shown within bands (e.g. x% between 80k-100k, y% 60k-80k etc.)
Steve: Last year, I had the distinction of coming onto the sunshine list thanks almost entirely to inflation in my pay at a rate that was generally slightly below the cost of living. A large number of fellow management staff at my workplace (a very large public sector agency) have drifted onto the list in exactly the same way. Where once only the truly senior executives (or the grossly overpaid) were on the list, now everyone from middle management up as well as some union staff (thanks to overtime) show up.
I wouldn’t mind if the Sun indexed the cutoff level up from the original $100K, but although a tidy sum, it does not represent the pigs-at-the-trough symbol it once did. The first year for which salaries were disclosed was 1996. In December 1996, the Consumer Price Index was 89.7. In December of 2007, it was 112.0, a ratio of almost 1.25. Therefore, relative to the CPI, the cutoff value should now be $125,000.
Something that is always missing from the sunshine list, by the way, are the truly outrageous payments to consultants, especially in IT. This has shown up as an item on audit reports at both the City and Provincial level (among others) with a strong recommendation that IT functions be brought in house to reduce expenses and improve controls. Many who work as staff in public agencies resent the money spent on consultants at a time when our own budgets and headcounts are frozen or cut.
As for the payment of the Health Tax, that was a matter the Union won on arbitration, not because the Commission, who fought them all the way, caved in as a bunch of pro-union patsies.
LikeLike
Steve: I have clipped a long comment here that was a duplicate of a previous submission that was promoted to view moments ago. Patience is a virtue when waiting for me to get around to commenting on some arguments. The balance of Stephen Chung’s comment follows:
For Dave R’s comments, allow me to quote several items:
“When I’m bargaining with my employer – I would like the same thing: as much as a raise as I can get and as many vacation days. So I don’t qubble with the ATU they want to bargain hard – and go on strike.”
I’d like your job please Dave R. I also do not mind the ATU wanting to “bargain hard”, I just wish they did not hold the entire city hostage while doing so. This is why I’m in favour of Binding arbitration, why should ordinary people suffer because the transit workers can’t “get what they want”? Where’s my raise? I’m still stuck at $52K/year working as a programmer for the last 4 years.
“The ATU have considerable leverage by being able to strike and cripple the city. This has given them above average economic gains:”
If what Steve says is true, then it is possible to get those same gains without a strike and through binding [arbitration]. Sure, I’d like the process to strip the union’s claws a bit, but if it removes the threat of a strike, I’m all for it.
“The CPI increase from Dec 1997 to Dec 2006 was only 21.0%”
Can you clarify CPI?
Steve jumps in: From the Bank of Canada website:
The December 2006 Consumer Price Index was 109.4, and the December 1997 CPI was 90.4. The ratio of these two numbers is 1.210 or a 21% increase.
“If I’m an ATU member, great – for the other stakeholders, it’s the opposite. Money that could be going to new buses and more service is going to higher and higher wages.
My beef is with the commission members who won’t go hard to the carpet for the riders and taxpayers. When the commissioner says he’s “100% pro union” that’s where I have a issue.”
I too have an issue as it means what you stated in your first sentence: the money could have been spent on infrastructure. Taxpayers are the stakeholders in contract talks. You can be sure that a good portion of the public will be upset if the union obtains significant gains through these contract negotiations. More so if a Strike is initiated.
Rocco: I don’t mean to demean your union but after hearing stories about legitimately harrased TTC employees getting no representation from the union while the union fight tooth and nail for “bad apples”, it makes me wonder if the union really believes in equal representation with due process.
As for the so-called “pay increase” for management, I’m not believing it. I’ve heard of stories at other unions in which the union members make more than management (my fiancee’s best friend is one of the unfortunate members of this “management”). Unless you are willing to provide us actual proof of that.
I understand that you want to fight for the best working conditions for your workers but I would prefer you do this in a fashion that does not enrage the real people who are paying your wages, that’s right, your commuters and other taxpayers. I look forward to the day the province makes Transit workers as Essential Personnel. Believe me, it is better for you guys if that happens. No one wants to face a member of the pissed off taxpaying public.
LikeLike
(The $39.39 should be $38.39 – I typed it correctly in the 1st occurrence. The calculations used the $38.39.)
These are from the TTC Annual Report 2006 – which is on the TTC main report ‘Documents and Reports’ page.
From the same report – I can see that the staffing per km has gone up – likely in part due to the provincial labour ruling you mention.
1997 – KM served = 173.5 million ; Staff = 9,133
2006 – KM served = 199.3 million ; Staff = 10905
This works out to a 4% increase in staff per KM – or about another $31 million.
This is ON TOP OF the increase in costs due to the fully costed labour rate per hour.
This is interesting – with the over inflation wage increase ($68 million) and the decreased productivity ($31 million) – this is $99 million in increased cost to deliver the same service (on a pro rata basis.)
I can understand Rocco and his friends wanting to keep up with the Joneses. Might I ask if he knows whether Brampton and Vancouver have the same high absenteesm rate as the TTC?
Steve: The ratio between 1997 and 2006 wages is about 1.324. When we divide out the CPI change of 1.21 (leaving aside any debate about whether people should get at least that as an increase), we are down to 1.094. Take out another 4% for presumed effects of changes in labour laws and we get to 1.052. We also know that the Health Tax is around 1% of total income, and so we are down to about 4.5% as the unexplained difference between 1997 and 2006 TTC wages and benefits. That’s about half a per cent a year over the period.
If anyone has other factors to contribute to this calculation, please chime in as I think it is worthwhile to know the components of the change.
LikeLike
Well, I’ve kept my opinions to myself in this whole ATU verus TTC debacle….
First a Hello to Gord and Rocco..
I right from the start will say that Yes, I DO support the union in this. I’ve lived in Toronto now 16 months and have only had 2 nasty episodes with TTC people.
I have made many friends here in Toronto, I have also learned a lot from those friends, and have become close friends with 4 people, I’ve seen some seriously weird and scary crap happen on various bus routes and once on the subway.
I grew up in Hamilton, where unfortuntely the union is not nearly as powerful, nor as unified as ATU 113.
I’ve lived through 2 strikes, one in 1996 for a week and the second was the worst, it was nearly 3 months and the morale of the drivers after that one, was severely affected, it was hard, not only on the drivers themselves but their families also. That strike also was VERY hard on the disabled and senior population in Hamilton, I personally had to give up school and my training as a sous chef, on top of that I was rapidly losing my remaining eyesight, I was already legally blind at that time, but I tried riding my bike and got into a couple of accidents, I also helped out at the picket line for both strikes, doing what I could to support my friends.
I am totally dependent on the TTC and it is a major reason that I moved to Toronto, to increase my independence and get a job. My dream is to work for the TTC in some way.
I proudly wear my union pin, one of my close friends got me one the first day they were available.
LikeLike
Steve – if I may – I must respectfully point out that your mathematics are incorrect. The labour law (or ruling on the existing labour law) caused the TTC to need more total hours of labour (to cover the more stringent scheduling requirements) to deliver equivalent service before the scheduling requirements had to be met.
(This no doubt explains part of the increase in per/KM staffing levels between 1997 and 2006. )
However, the difference I pointed out in my first post the total hourly remuneration. This is independent of the productivity issue. It’s not correct to add or subtract the 4% to the 9.4% as percentages because they have different bases. The 9.4% is on the wage rate and the 4% is the extra hours needed for the labour law and other productivity issues.
In is only correct to say that both cost the TTC more to operate the same service. In approximate terms it is more correct to multiply the rate:
Proportional increase (over CPI) of labour per hour : 1.094
MULTIPLY BY
Increase in number of # labour hour to deliver a KM : 1.04
EQUALS
1.138 = or a 13.8% increase
Steve: My apology — you are correct up to a point, although the true number is probably somewhere in between. One effect of the labour law changes is to reduce the number of hours worked per employee. This has the effect of increasing the contribution of benefits (which are mostly not affected by time worked) to the effective hourly rate.
LikeLike
Steve: Note that this comment has been edited to tidy up the layout and to replace the odd missing word. Where this is done, my amendments are shown [in square brackets].
Great comments.
What I meant about the other blog is that it was there strictly to bash ALL unions. It was not moderated like this one, it got to the point that someone used my name as a poster and posted my full name and where I work. So I began to fill the site with posts, eventually the blogger shut it down.
As far as the point that Mr. Cheung [makes], I don’t know where your friend works but recently the supervisors received a job evaluation increasing their salary over and above what an operator makes. The disparity not that long ago was a few dollars an hour now it’s over ten dollars an hour.
Steve: Without commenting on the validity of the salary increase, many organizations (the one I work for included) have big problems with the disparity between staff who are paid for overtime and management who are not. It has reached the point where senior positions don’t attract qualified applicants because they would take an effective pay cut to move up, and probably put in more hours.
Looking at the other side of the coin, just because a job evaluation shows that a position is worth more, this doesn’t mean that everyone already doing the job is actually fit for the position they are in, but a rising tide lifts all boats. This is an endemic problem with job evaluation schemes.
As far as not representing all our members, tell these people to call me personally. A lot of times we have some “disgruntled” union members who feel they can do whatever they like and when the union doesn’t get them off something serious they take it out on the union.
Your opinion in this matter is very simplistic. Unless I know the facts of each case individually I cannot tell you what happened.
Steve: I would not post such information here because it would violate privacy. This is a site to discuss transit policy, not to rehash individual histories.
We’ve had members caught red handed stealing and then when the union can’t get their job back they take us to the labour board. If the union doesn’t take a member through the process it is done by vote at a general membership meeting. I’ve been involved directly with the union for over 10 years and I can count on one hand how many times the union hasn’t used all its resources to try and get a member a settlement.
What we don’t like about the $100K list for our members is that ALL of our members who achieve that lofty salary is through hours and hours of overtime. These members practically live at the divisions.
What the Sun fails to identify these members actually save the Commission thousands of dollars in benefits. The Commission would have has to pay another member to cover the hours for the member doing overtime.
Steve: As the discussion here about the contracted hourly rate and the effective rate including benefits shows, even though overtime is paid at 1.5 times the base rate, the benefits don’t go up (for the most part) and so there is little difference in the cost per operator hour of the overtime.
The other thing that bothers us is the way [we are] portrayed as always being on strike. Our Union has been [on] strike around 9 days in 25 years. Now some may say that’s too much anyway but I disagree.
The bottom line is that in a democratic society sometimes you have to break some eggs to make a cake.
Steve: Thanks for this very frank presentation.
LikeLike
“As far as not representing all our members, tell these people to call me personally. A lot of times we have some “disgruntled” union members who feel they can do whatever they like and when the union doesn’t get them off something serious they take it out on the union.
Your opinion in this matter is very simplistic.”
Simplistic in the sense of the following: if you do not do a good job in your work one should not be working here. And if you do a good job, you should be rewarded. I believe in meritocracy, this is the mantra of most non-unionized workplaces and would be nice if it were applied here. The union should learn to tell these “disgruntled workers” to take a hike. One less bad apple for the public to deal with.
“We’ve had members caught red handed stealing and then when the union can’t get their job back they take us to the labour board…… I’ve been involved directly with the union for over 10 years and I can count on one hand how many times the union hasn’t used all its resources to try and get a member a settlement.”
Can someone tell me why this statement bothers me so much? Is the ATU truly interested in protecting members “caught red handed stealing”? And why should such members get a settlement? In any non-unionized workforce, stunts like this means that you are finished at the job, no settlement, no nothing, and plus a possible trip to the police station. I find it troublesome that any union would go to bat for such an employee when it is clear doing so tarnishes their reputation in the eyes of the public. Pardon me, but if the commuting public sees that this is the case, their opinion of the ATU is going to drop even lower.
“What we don’t like about the $100K list for our members is that ALL of our members who achieve that lofty salary is through hours and hours of overtime. These members practically live at the divisions.
What the Sun fails to identify these members actually save the Commission thousands of dollars in benefits. The Commission would have has to pay another member to cover the hours for the member doing overtime.”
The mantra of the Sun is to prevent “pigs at the trough”. Now I won’t say anything about my opinions about this as I do understand what is happening, but negative perceptions do exist, and if the ATU wants to justify this, they had better talk to the Sun why this is happening (which I don’t think they do). Otherwise the Sun is free to call it as they see fit.
“The other thing that bothers us is the way [we are] portrayed as always being on strike. Our Union has been [on] strike around 9 days in 25 years. Now some may say that’s too much anyway but I disagree.”
In a city that is considered an economic engine of this country, and a shutdown of the Transit System will bring the city to its knees, 9 days in 25 years is too much. Again, why should the travelling public suffer as pawns in your contract dispute? Did they do anything to deserve this? It’s also bad that you guys let us know that you are going on strike, but the illegal walkout performed by your members really crossed the line. Did the travelling public deserve to suffer through that sudden strike?
With regards to this discussion, I am not here to discuss the wages your members make. I am more worried that the daily lives of millions of people in the GTA can be disrupted because of the TTC going on strike. I say it is high time that transit be declared an essential service. Steve says that by doing do, binding arbitration tends to favour the union. What about the ATU? It’s not that hard to see that you could still possibly get what you want while giving up the right to strike. And It’s also not that hard to see that this would result in a more positive perception of the ATU by the members of the commuting public who don’t have to worry about their daily lives being, or fear of being, needlessly disrupted (no strike stress = better opinion of ATU). You’re dealing with two birds with one stone here.
Steve: At the risk of sounding like I am just trying to drain more money from the public trough for the ATU’s members, I think it only fair to point out that that this “economic engine of the country” has been consistently underfunded both for operating and capital funds for a long time by governments of every political stripe. This has had a far worse impact on the viability and attractiveness of transit than labour disruptions. These issues are linked because the image of slothful, overpaid workers is a convenient one to trot out whenever transit systems ask for more funding.
LikeLike
Sorry Steve but I don’t want to turn this site as a battleground, but Steve makes some open ended arguements, in one post he accuses us that he knows of some ATU members who claim that we didn’t represent them. While in the next post he states we shouldn’t represent thieves.
Steve: I believe you are refering to comments made by others as I never made such statements here.
Perplexing, now let me make this clear one more time. My point in my posts was that we represent everyone by law, that even if someone steals which we in the Union find distasteful it is our legal obligation to represent them. My whole point was that regardless what you heard we represent everyone fairly and equally.
By the way just because someone is accused of stealing doesn’t mean they’re not enititled to their day in court, even Bernardo had a fair trial. That’s what living in a democracy means.
By the way where in the media have we declared a strike? Last I knew of we are in a “strike position” on April 1st, no different than the TTC can lock us out on April 1st. That’s what’s called collective bargaining.
I disagree completely about the amount of time we’ve been on strike, let me explain something to you Steve, when a strike occurs both sides are guilty of causing a strike. Both sides have failed to come to an agreement, the Union’s side only recourse is to call some sort of slow down or strike, management has the option to settle.
This again is what’s allowed in a democratic society. Tell me what kind of country would we live in if there were no political will to let workers work for rights, many of the rights all workers have is because of the struggle of Unions.
Isn’t sad Steve Munro when these right wingers think that owners of these large corporations would just hand over rights and benefits if it weren’t for Unions.
These right wingers would still have homes built with asbestos in their insulation if workers didn’t fight for rights.
LikeLike