A flurry of media activity heralded the news that Queen’s Park introduced a bill making the TTC an “Essential Service” and thereby blocking strikes by its unionized groups.
I get a lot of questions on this subject and, wearing two hats, my position as an advocate for better public transit has, at times, a rather robust discussion with my support for labour rights. Which takes precedence, and are they mutually exclusive concepts?
The political context for the Province’s move is quite simple. Labour unrest and poor customer relations, real and perceived, in transit and in other municipal services led to demands that unions be restricted from interfering with city life. The media did their bit by playing up what they thought were the bad apples, although the most prominent of their stories backfired (the “sleeping” collector who actually did have a health condition and has since died). The antagonism on transit that followed was compounded with resentment from the garbage strike and the overall economic malaise.
We’ve come a few steps back from the brink thanks to some improvements in attitude on both sides, but there is still much to do. The TTC as an organization hasn’t changed much, and the coming years’ transit cutbacks will only accentuate the problems in service reliability, vehicle crowding, failing equipment and contentious rider-operator relations.
The bad apples, be they union or management, get the publicity because it’s the fights people remember, that they post on Facebook, that they vent to call-in shows. (Please don’t use this thread for your latest horror stories — the real issue is the larger context of how often, or not, such things may happen and what, if anything the TTC does about it.)
The Globe and Mail’s Kelly Grant has a profile of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113’s President, Bob Kinnear, in the February 26 issue. Grant talks of the changes in Kinnear’s style from his early combative days, the period every new union leader goes through trying to prove himself, to a more balanced, less confrontational style trying to do the best for his members within a union-unfriendly political context.
So where do I stand?
Job actions on the TTC inevitably bring legislation and arbitration, and one can’t help wondering why we don’t just cut to the chase and prevent strikes in the first place. That’s a simple answer, but it begs the question of how “essential” a service must be to warrant this intervention. Will we have a general debate about who should have the right to withdraw services? Why only the TTC? What of the broader public sector? In this coming age of privatization, should the private sector face the same sort of constraints and penalties? Where is the line between actual danger to society at large and inconvenience?
An important factor with the TTC is that a simple “no overtime” decision by union staff would seriously affect service. The TTC plans a great deal of rush hour service, and some off-peak operations, on the assumption that there will be operators willing to work overtime. The premise is that the effective cost is lower, even at overtime rates, because the fixed cost of an operator (mainly training and benefits) are already paid. For their troubles, union members are pilloried when they show up on the provincial “sunshine list”.
In a fiscal environment where “head count avoidance” takes precedence over common sense, overtime is way to minimize the total staff count and benefits while getting more work per employee. In some circles, this is called “productivity”. Of course, this bumps headlong into demands that overtime be reduced because it is seen as a waste by those who don’t understand the implications of what they ask.
If service on the road is erratic and overcrowded, if an operator spends their time arguing with riders, that’s not good transit service. Poor morale can become ingrained, and transit continues its spiral into a last rather than a first choice for riders who have an option. A no-overtime action guarantees that working conditions will worsen, and that’s really not in the front line staff’s interest. The riders are hurt, but the politicians for whom transit is for “other people” may exploit the situation to press for a no-union and/or privatized arrangement. The worse public sector services look, the better any alternative may appear.
Behind this debate is the question of labour-management relationships including the political context. If prominent politicians rail against fat unions and lazy workers, this does not encourage productive bargaining. Oddly enough, when unions complain about simplistic, blowhard politicians, such comments are portrayed as self-serving.
That term, “self-serving”, is at the heart of the relationship. The public will either support the unions, or at least recognize problems of poor management and inadequate funding, or they will seize any opportunity to “put the unions in their place”. Much of this depends on the day-to-day interactions between front line staff and riders, and it doesn’t take many horror stories to give the impression that TTC staff and “customer service” don’t belong in the same sentence.
From my own experience (and I know others who comment here will differ), the overwhelming majority of TTC staff are not grouchy, lazy curmudgeons. Do they greet every passenger with a smile and a cheery “thanks for riding the TTC”? No, and that would be rather difficult when you’re driving an already full King car that has left at least a carload of would-be riders at stops. That’s a management, political and funding problem. Management underplays the inadequacy of service, and many politicians don’t want to hear about the need for more money and better transit priority on streets. They are too busy looking for that elusive gravy, or cooking up schemes to get those pesky transit vehicles off out of their way.
Will the Essential Service legislation work? Well, it will save us the bother of having to recall the House if there’s a threat to transit service, but it won’t guarantee friendly relationships at the bargaining table or in day-to-day dealings between management, the unions and riders.
Should management exercise their rights to manage? Definitely. The fastest way to encourage bad actors is to do nothing, and failure to manage, to call employees on the carpet when it’s deserved, is a fast way to losing control of an organization. This is one of the first thing any manager learns (or should learn). But that management must be fair and consistent, and should not to seek to blame staff for the shortcomings of the organization.
I have written here before about “TTC culture” and its deep roots in the premise that the TTC is always right. That showed up in the “customer service” panel’s report last year, and it’s a day-to-day feature where the concept of “harassment” is a catch-all response to the public, a response condoned and at times encouraged by management. That sort of attitude must change at the corporate and political levels.
No legislation will transform the TTC top-to-bottom. Essential Service status will, for a time, satisfy the blood lust in some political circles, but it is the active co-operation and good will of labour, management and politicians that will keep good service on the streets.
Steve Munro 
So I guess when it’s all said and done and Essential Service legislation has passed we can look forward to another fare increase this year in addition to reduction of service. I remember several years back (1989 I think) when there was a slowdown of service. Operators came to work in blue-jeans and ball caps, inspected every transfer, followed every rule to the company book. It was terrible and nothing ran to schedule. Is this the kind of work-to-rule campaigns I can now look forward to?
Steve: Much depends on how TTC management and the politicians address the issues, and whether the union tries to stay reasonable and leave any unresolved issues to arbitration, not job action. If there is a lot of union bashing, the challenge is for the front line workers to differentiate between the passengers and the pols. Moreover, if passengers are egged on by the typical coverage of the gutter press, this won’t help either.
LikeLike
Talk about a difficult call! I myself would be very seriously inconvenienced by a strike. I’m too old to walk a few miles to the supermarket and back, especially in bad weather and that would be only one of the problems of my being stranded.
At the same time I am a firm believer in the rights and dignity of the working man or woman. As regards the TTC, I normally take the first step in greeting the drivers and the results are great. Some of them have even become my friends. This should not be an issue right now. With the exception of that wildcat effort by the then wet behind the ears Rob Kinnear a few years back we have had labour peace with the TTC. If the proposed legislation leads to problems down the line I blame Rob Ford.
LikeLike
This is your first article since the election of Ford that I agree with 100%.
Steve: I try to please my readers at least some of the time.
LikeLike
I’m pretty much of the opinion that it’s not going to make any real difference.
The province has shown that if a strike occurs, they will end it with back to work legislation. Different governments have had different tolerances over the years, but in most cases it was 2-4 days before the legislation is passed. In the last case, 2008, the bill was passed unanimously and in record time – no-one was prepared to even delay the passage of the bill.
All that making the TTC an essential service would do is transform a de facto situation into it’s de jure equivalent.
LikeLike
I read Kelly Grant’s profile of Bob Kinnear. Calling the mayor a coward is hardly “mature” or “diplomatic”. Had Ford called him a coward there would be great indignation and demands for Ford’s resignation. Did Ford respond to that name calling? I did not see any response. Shows you who is the better man.
Steve: Ford does not respond to anything. That’s part of the say nothing and I won’t sound stupid plan, one that came unglued at Council when Ford rambled for five minutes without asking a simple question put to him, and without, sadly, the Speaker calling him to account for it. Why did Kinnear call Ford a coward? For not trusting that the bargaining process would produce an agreement. That’s valid political comment.
LikeLike
I must agree that in the past I have felt that since back to work legislation is “automatic”, essential service designation would make little difference. I have even spoken in favour of such a designation based on that argument. I also appreciate that the generosity of the arbitrator can often (usually) lead to advantages for the union employees. In latter years, however, I have been firmly against such legislation, though to be totally honest with myself and others, my antipathy for those who are “fer” may be part of the reason why I am so “agin”. I hate to cede a moral victory to simplistic blowhards and what you have so accurately described as the “gutter press”.
However, I think there is an additional consideration that has not been previously evident. In the Globe profile from this morning, Bob Kinnear is portrayed as fighting for a right that previous union members fought to achieve for many years. While he understands that many of the membership may be happy to accept the arbitrator’s “gravy” he wants to fight for principle and not give up a hard won right. This might be an “academic” argument if not for the very scary situation in the US where right wing governors are crushing public sector unions and rolling back workers rights by decades. If today is “essential service” is the plan for tomorrow tomorrow “Wisconsin”. If the proposed change at the TTC is to be accepted, or at least tolerated, it must be with the caveat that vigilance is required to make sure that it is not the first step in a spiral of decline in workers rights.
It is often argued that (extreme) right wing governments implement their agenda by stealth, creating a situation where their desired goals become “inevitable”. By denying governments of necessary revenue, they are able to justify underfunding public services and then argue that it is “essential” to curb expenses by cutting salaries and/or eroding workers rights. With Toronto facing a deficit of $774 million in 2012, are the recent property tax freeze and the forgone TTC fare increases just the simplistic actions of a buffoon or do they represent step one of a long term conspiracy?
LikeLike
Personally I think making them an essential service is the worst of both worlds.
I lived in Montreal where Transit is an essential service. The “strikes” there were far worse than anything I’ve ever encountered in Toronto.
And this is going to cost us money, according to all the experts. If there is no money in the budget for salary increases, then the entire contract settlement will have to be paid for with service cuts and fare increases.
LikeLike
[The author’s name has been blocked out, even assuming it was real, because of their position within the TTC.]
Mr Munro’s post above is bang-on correct. However may I add that the TTC faces more problems than what is heard on the media. The management/labour relationship is very toxic and department-via-department communication is very rare. Its not uncommon for management or departments to blame an employee or other departments just for “going-the-extra-mile” and blaming them no matter how malicious the complaint is (i.e. my bus was 1 minute late). Also may I add the amount of political interference that goes on here. We have politicians (with little to no transit exposure/experience) imposing “pet” projects that backfire later. Case in point would be the SRT, Orion 03.501, YUS extension to Vaughan etc…….
LikeLike
So now it’s an essential service, where’s the essential funding? 🙂
LikeLike
I’m curious as to why ‘essential service’ is only being aimed at the TTC, and not the other transit authorities in Ontario. A transit strike in Mississauga or York Region would be very disruptive. And what about GO Transit?
IANAL, but I’m wondering if the ‘TTC Essential Service’ bill may be constitutionally challenged. Since it puts restrictions only on a specific organization, I wonder if it could be considered a Bill of attainder?
LikeLike
That Toronto is a city in which transit is a requirement for many non car owning citizens to participate; that official plans integreate transit and make no provision for its non operation; and that withdrawl of transit services involves considerable hardship for so many, surely dictates it is ‘essential’.
How essential? As essential as the water supply, I would suggest.
LikeLike
“Why did Kinnear call Ford a coward? For not trusting that the bargaining process would produce an agreement. That’s valid political comment.”
Saying that someone is a “coward” for opting to solve a problem in a way you don’t like — especially when the way involves confrontation — isn’t so much an insult as a non sequitur. If it made Kinnear feel better, I suppose.
Steve: Not to defend Kinnear, but if Ford had said anything, it would probably have been an incoherent rant about gravy.
LikeLike
Overtime requirements can be ended by simply removing the current ban on part-time workers.
Many similar organizations have part-time workers without significant problems. The union would probably object, but we’re going to an arbitrated contract now. Generally speaking (yes, there are exceptions) arbitrators will defer to management’s insisting that rule changes are necessary. The only issue is what compensation will be paid to workers for the rule changes.
Ending overtime will save a lot of money. Sharing some of those gains with the existing workers does not seem unreasonable.
Steve: You seem to have missed one of my previous comments. When the TTC pays operators at overtime rates, much of the “overhead” cost of an operator does not scale up — the benefits — and therefore the effective hourly rate is not 1.5 times the base rate.
LikeLike
There is no essential service legislation pending in the suburbs because transit there is far less of an essential service. Maybe the TTC is in fact more essential to the suburbs than their own systems, in terms of a large number of people working downtown. The bottom line is that if YRT went on strike, you wouldn’t exactly see the kind of crippling gridlock that can grind a city to a halt like what could happen in Toronto.
LikeLike
Reducing the overtime does serve a political purpose as reducing the amount of TTC staff on the sunshine list reduces an irritant that sticks in the craw of many a voter. Nobody has come out and asked Karen Stintz if TTC are overpaid, and I’m sure she wouldn’t answer the question. But, it is hard to defend a system’s economics when so many people are getting paid an amount which is quite large compared to what most of us here in Toronto are surviving on. There may be a very valid reason for each of those sunshine list cases; and operators and others are simply maximizing what they are allowed to do. However, the optics are very very bad for the system.
It would be nice if straight financial logic would be used in discussing the overtime, but it isn’t going to be. Society does not value an operator job at 100K a year. (Nor a police constable).
LikeLike
nfitz said, “And this is going to cost us money, according to all the experts.”
Cost us compared to what? Essential Service designation will be more costly than that theoretical situation where a union with the right to strike uses that as a threat to push for a negotiated contract.
What we have had for several decades is strike action that ends up in binding arbitration. If binding arbitration is so costly, we are already paying that cost ALONG with the costs of a transit shutdown (some say as much as $50 million per day). The way I see it, this can only save us money in the long run.
That said, there really ought to be legislation that sets out guidelines for the arbitration process, perhaps including the establishment of a labour court.
LikeLike
Steve – Typically, part-time workers are not paid benefits or are paid benefits at a lesser rate.
Although I have not seen an accounting of TTC benefits costs, I presume that retirement (pension) benefits are the #1 benefit cost, followed by health benefits.
There are several examples of similar companies that allow retired workers to continue working part-time. Pension benefits are not an issue (they are already drawing a pension) and health benefits are usually also included in their retirement package.
This also gives workers a chance to “ramp down” to retirement. This is instead of the present “all or nothing” approach which has people working full-time and then going abruptly to zero.
I might add that my father-in-law, a unionised hospital employee, is currently doing just that. He officially retired, but works one or two shifts a week on a casual basis. He does not get any more benefits that he would receive anyway as a retired employee, but certainly helps to balance the hospital schedule. It also gets him out of the house as he adjusts to retirement.
Steve: That is a good example, although it presumes that operators at penionable age would want to work longer in a high-stress job. However, when people say “part time workers”, this usually implies someone making much less than the hourly rate of regular staff, and working few enough hours that they don’t qualify for benefits. This does not make for a very attractive job.
It’s also worth noting the difference between a system like the TTC which has a very large proportion of its work off-peak (including weekends and evenings). Where part time transit workers are more commonly seen is on systems with a very high peak:base ratio of service, and little or no evening/weekend operation. In that sort of situation, the economics work out differently. On a system that has a very large demand for full time staff because of its service quality, the situation is not the same as one where buses are seen infrequently, if at all, outside the peaks.
LikeLike
Excellent article. Too bad those that should heed it most are the least likely to read it.
Admittedly the pubic sector unions have done a wonderful job of bringing the wrath of the public who generally don’t enjoy same level of the wages and benefits and making the TTC an essential service seems to be motivated in part because of that resentment. I can’t see that declaring the TTC essential will do anything to improve service as it does nothing to change how the TTC is run or funded. If anything, such a declaration might make changes that would improve service more difficult. Or is the ultimate end game (at least through the mayor) to privatise some or all of the TTC?
Phil
Steve: The Mayor would love to privatise anything that he can get his hands on, although his grasp of economics (see Sheppard Subway) leave a lot to be desired. Schemes such as uploading rapid transit to Queen’s Park and trying to ditch the streetcars would leave a residual bus system that would be easier to contract out, and I suspect that is, if not Ford’s own scheme, certainly contemplated by some in his circle.
LikeLike
It takes two sides to have a strike, the Union is only one side of the issue here. The TTC and the city on the other side of the table at contract talks. The city sets limits or guideline for the TTC negotiators. The TTC negotiators try to get a contract based on the limits set for them.
The real problem in Toronto Labour issues is the City council. There have been a number times over the last ten to twenty years where the negotiators have asked for concessions from all Unions, pushed hard for small pay increases. The Unions have agreed to some of them. Then after votes have taken place, city councilors have come out said we had X more millions of dollars set aside to settle this contract. Or city council itself has voted for a pay raise after holding hard against the Unions. As a result there is now a real mistrust between Union members and the city. Look back to June 2009 a 40 day garbage strike and council voted itself a pay raise.
Yes this council did vote a pay freeze in, but they get paid a lot more than any Union member who is not living on the job doing overtime. With this present council hate for Unions it’s going to make for a bad round of negotiations. It should be noted NO member wants a strike, because that means no pay at all. You can’t live on strike pay. They just want a fair settlement and like everyone else their costs are going up too. They are feeding families, sending kids to college or University, paying mortgages, they are people just like all of you.
LikeLike
Recognizing that the author is conflicted about the various issues involved in this matter, I think this is one of Mr. Munro’s less coherent pieces on this blog.
The starting point for this discussion should be a recognition that TTC union employees don’t really have a right to strike. When the province (with the support of all 3 parties) repeatedly legislates you back to work within hours of you striking, you have a right to strike in name only. Most ATU members recognize this — even though their union publicly states concern about losing the right to strike. Most ATU members also recognize that even though they will be promptly legislated back to work within hours of striking, they (the front-line workers) will be made to pay for the service disruption (however brief) with increasingly hostile attitudes from the public.
I am very pro-union (and would add that it is an absolute must in an organization such as the TTC where front-line workers are often hung out to dry for management’s inability to deal with issues in an effective and credible manner). But there is no use fighting for rights that you don’t really have. If many of those arguing against the TTC being declared an essential service had been equally vociferous back in 2008 when TTC employees were tout suite legislated back to work, their position might make more sense. But I remember there were few if any outcries from ANY politicians (Municipal and Provincial), the public and various media/transit commentators.
It’s time to end the charade and recognize that in Toronto at least, transit is an essential service. At the same time, rather than fighting the essential service designation, the union executive should be working to insure that it happens in a way that is fair to their employees. This is actually the position that most TTC employees I know are hoping there union will take. I can tell you that they are more than a little miffed at how Kinnear has conducted himself in public — damaging his credibility and the credibility of his members. And many are very angry that the union executive, with no authorization from the membership, could state publicly that ATU 113 would promise not to strike in the upcoming round of negotiations. Anybody who knows anything about how unions are run should know that without feedback/polling his members, he was in no position to promise “No strike in 2011”. It’s more than a little surprising that nobody in the media seems to have questioned whether he really had the authority to make such a claim.
Steve: It was a difficult piece to write, and I wanted readers to have a sense that I don’t see this as a black-or-white issue. Unfortunately, it’s always discussed in that context, so much the worse for real understanding. If the article is not “coherent”, this is simply because I could argue cogently for either side. In principle, I have a problem with the creeping definition of “essential” and the fact we are not having the larger conversation about what other employee groups should be included. In practice, I know that any strike, were one to happen, would result in a legislated back-to-work order. Either way, the poisonous relationships across the bargaining table are the real problem, and no legislation will fix that.
Legislation has not always been “prompt” because the House was not in session in all cases, or a pro-labour government may have wanted to “give bargaining a chance” before acting.
The 2008 action certainly prompted remarks from this “transit commentator” when I wrote Is Local 113 Out of Its Mind? wherein you can read my scathing remarks on the situation. I’m not sure whether you were taking a shot at me or some other “commentator”, or simply failed to do your research.
The 2008 action is often cited by those who rail against the ATU, and it was the beginning of the end for union credibility, a path that followed directly through the civic workers strike (best known for the garbage mess, but the cause of many less visible problems) to an anti-union sentiment that brought Rob Ford to power.
LikeLike
Regarding the comment above regarding hiring “part-time” staff so as to reduce overtime, the cost to train and retrain (for re-certification) operators would likely be a very strong disincentive to this approach. Currently, new recruits are told that training an operator comes in at about $1,000 a day — and the initial training period varies from 4-6 weeks depending on the mode of transportation. In order to recoup those costs as quickly as possible, it would be better to have somebody working full-time, rather than part-time.
It should also be pointed out that there is a very significant failure rate among those who are put through the initial training. I’ve heard anywhere from 30-40% — and that’s not counting those who don’t make it through the probation period.
For years, the TTC has allowed operators to work overtime, in order to fill in missing crews. Yes, some workers did so much overtime that they managed to get on the sunshine lists. But this was actually a very cost-effective way to solve this problem since you were able to reduce your staffing levels (and hence fewer people who need benefits) to achieve the same level of service (hence, better productivity as the author points out).
That said, during the last few years of the Miller administration, the TTC seems to have consciously made a decision to try cut down on the amount of overtime that any employee can do. Previously, about 6% of operators would be what would be termed “spareboard” — these were positions that filled in for those who reported sick or had some emergency or whatever. If there weren’t enough spareboard people to cover all the vacancies, there would be operators volunteering to do overtime.
In the past 2-3 years, the number of people on spareboards has increased substantially. About 15-17% of the operators now seem to be on spareboard… if they are needed they go out, but if not they go home after 5 hours with a full day’s pay. (From what I’ve heard, spareboard operators typically only end up actually filling a vacancy for 2 of the 5 days of their work week.) And the average seems to be that spareboard operators are filling a vacancy 2 times a week — but because of timing issues, you still have instances where operators are asked to come in to do overtime because a vacancy has occurred after all the spareboard are either filling a vacancy or gone for the day after their 5 hours of being on call.
While the strategy certainly will likely reduce the number of operators who end up on the sunshine list (at least in the short-term), it’s actually a financially ruinous approach to filling vacancies — since you now need to cover the salaries, benefits, training/retraining and administration for about 10 % more operators.
Steve: This is a good example of how the way you measure “success” affects the behaviour of any organization. If the idea is to reduce the number of $100k operators, then we hire more, but use them less efficiently.
I should explain here the reason for the 5-hour rule. The longer a spareboard operator has been waiting to get a work assignment, the less time is available in a “day’s work” to actually drive a vehicle. This is particularly tricky for night bus and streetcar crews which don’t even start until after 9pm. (I have simplified this somewhat, but hope the basic concept is clear.)
Conversely, given the utilization rate you claim, one must ask whether the spareboard slots are appropriately scheduled versus the time periods when “spare” operators are actually required, or if the high level of “spares” tends to get used only on days when absenteeism is higher than average.
LikeLike
Steve, appreciate your comments… but will point out that an “essential” service designation does not necessarily imply an anti-union approach, providing that protections are in place to ensure that the process is fair to the workers.
Steve: I agree. However, the context in which the current legislation is proposed has a decidely anti-union tone to it.
Regarding your piece in 2008, I agree with the bulk of what you said there. The union executive acted in a way that was irrational, self-destructive and damaging to its members. Many operators felt that the union executive’s decision (calling a strike on a late Friday night with virtually no advance notice) had put the front-line employees working that night in harm’s way — since they were they ones who were left with the job of dealing with an angered public. That said, however stupid the actions of ATU 113, the union membership was entitled to reject the offer thereby forcing a strike, and the executive was within their rights to announce the strike as they did (even if it damaged their credibility probably for good with many people) — and most of the comments at that time seemed to be about the Union’s irrationality, rather than whether it was within its rights to strike in the manner they did.
LikeLike
The statements above regarding spare board are incorrect. I am currently on spare board and I have gone out every day since the beginning of the board period. I have also been called three times now just at the fifth hour to go out and cover an entire crew piece, BUT I do not get the crew pay Plus the five hours of sitting and waiting. I only get 2.5 hours of the sit time.
The contract states they can keep me for 12.5 hours but only pay me for the crew plus 2.5. So they (the TTC), and the tax payers are getting their pound of flesh in the way of me working for nothing for 2 and a half hours. I assure you they make sure I do not get any overtime pay. The clerks work the board to make sure that doesn’t happen. I have been on spare board 6 times in the past two years for six week board periods. In all that time I was only sent home 3 times on the fifth hour and got 8 hours pay. So believe me I have given more than I have been paid for.
I actually end up getting paid LESS on spare board then if I picked a crew but work more hours, if that makes any sense.
The percentage of spare board drivers is correct for our division at 15% for THIS board period, but it in no way remains that way all year round. Plus 28 of those spare board drivers are moved over to Vacation Board as we are allowed vacation and it must be covered by someone.
Do I think we are essential? No, not in the current context of the definition of “essential” under the Employment Standards Act. We are a convenience, not a right, not essential to life and safety. It is inconvenient to car pool, ask a co worker or family member, walk, bike, roller blade, drive or call a taxi. For those with mobility issues there are others that can help at the same cost as a ride on the TTC. Orgs like Services for Seniors, medical taxis and many other volunteer organizations out there. It is just more convenient to jump on a bus.
Do I care one way or the other if this goes through, no I don’t. In the end I still have a job. I don’t currently and never wanted to strike. How I vote is no ones business, but we are a collective and when we strike, do you think I have a choice in the matter? Does it matter to anyone how I voted? Nope, seems not to, as I still got spit on and assaulted after the last one, even though my vote was “nay”.
Steve: Thanks for clarifying how the pay and hours work for the spare board.
LikeLike
Steve,
Since you brought up the “TTC Sleeper” perhaps you can help me with a couple of questions that were never asked but in my opinion should have been. First why was this individual at work? By this I mean clearly he had serious health issues that on at least one well publicized occasion prevented him from carrying out his job function and were potentially life threatening based on Mr. Kinnear’s initial response that the public should have contacted EMS in response to the sleeping photo. When did Mr Kinnear become aware of this health issue? Is he aware of any others? Any operators? Is this evidence of the long rumored idea that the cashier position at the TTC is a sort of on the job short term disability / stress leave?
Thanks,
Adam
Steve: The Collector’s group includes many employees who are either temporarily or permanently no longer able to drive a vehicle for a variety of reasons. This provides employees who would otherwise have to be off on disability with jobs and provides a service the TTC needs. Being able to work rather than sit at home also can aid in recovery by giving workers something to do, even if it’s not their regular job. This arrangement has been around for as long as I can remember.
I cannot speak to the condition of the individual in question or whether he should have been at work. However, there are medical conditions where someone who is fit enough to work under normal circumstances can be thrown off by timing of meds or what they eat, as examples. A serious problem with some less-enlightened employers is a lack of awareness and accommodation of people with “invisible” disabilities who, most of the time, behave perfectly normally.
LikeLike
@ Dee Cline,
You brought up additional information about the spareboard but that doesn’t make what I said incorrect. Also, based on the people I know in the TTC (and I know several who are on spareboard), they seem to suggest that spareboard positions tend to go out less than half the time… though there are the rare weeks where someone may end up going out every day.
Regarding spareboard being 15% in your division THIS board period but not always, the fact is that over the past 2 years the percentage of spareboard positions have increased substantially. About 3 weeks ago, there was a story in the Star outlining the new hires that were being put on hold in order for the TTC to make its budget for the coming year. The article stated that among the new positions that the TTC would forego hiring were some supervisor positions and a number of operators for the spareboard which the article stated were to allow the TTC to fill vacancies while reducing overtime to about 4 hrs per week on average.
While I agree that you need SOME spareboard positions, the point I was making above was that significantly increasing the spareboard as has happened in recent years has significant financial implications… and this approach probably needs to be looked at more closely.
LikeLike
samg wrote about Dee Cline’s details about spareboarding, “You brought up additional information about the spareboard but that doesn’t make what I said incorrect.”
It doesn’t make what was ‘said’ incorrect, but there was an implication that increases in spareboarding is adding costs to the TTC.
I have been under the impression that spareboarding is a substantial cost savings for the TTC and that people who see the occasional operator who ‘sits around for five hours and goes home with eight hours of pay’ as some sort of major waste without the understanding of what the big picture really was.
I was beginning to wonder if overuse of spareboarding might be defeating its purpose, but I would like to thank Dee Cline for posting what the realities of implementing spareboarding actually involves. Even so, samg does raise a concern that management at the TTC could easily begin to abuse this to the point that its savings could be eroded away.
LikeLike
Steve, I’ve found, especially with my situation, good management brings little or no union representation on the other side. And to the opposite, heavy handed management brings in militant unions which brings in more heavier handed management which brings in even more militant unions. A circle which is extremely hard to break. It doesn’t matter if union or management is first on the downside. It’s just very hard to change attitudes. And who wins?
LikeLike
Re: Calvin’s comment on “spareboarding” and being under the impression it is a “cost-saver”…. I am not saying you don’t need a spareboard… You do because otherwise you would likely have too many vacancies to fill. But once you factor in the costs of benefits, vacation, training and administration costs for each employee, I don’t think an argument can be made for spareboarding as a “cost-saver”. It’s only a cost-saver to those who aren’t factoring in the real costs of each employee on the payroll. (And yes, I recognize that operators are paid at 1.5x for overtime volunteered.) Yes, a spareboard is certainly needed… but I’d like to know that rationale as to why it has increased so substantially (at LEAST doubled) in the past few years.
Steve: Actually, a related question is what proportion of spareboard operators take out a full crew. It’s harder to find volunteers for full crews, and you need a certain basic number of available operators to handle the low turnout of volunteers when the weather is bad.
LikeLike
The information about spareboard as well as the cost of training and certification is quite an interesting challenge. Certainly what we see and read about in the news barely scratches the surface of how complicated labour relations and management-labour relationships are … and that’s without politics, political extremism, and militancy.
I found myself quite surprised to read that the efforts to reduce the number of workers on the ‘sunshine list’ could actually be more costly for the TTC (and passengers) in the long term, since more workers are hired but working less efficiently. Not to mention, I have to wonder how much of these political issues would be resolved if we simply increased the 100,000 cut-off for the list according to inflation (I think it would be close to 120,000 by now). At the same time, one has to wonder how much overtime an operator should reasonably be permitted to do.
I’m going to finish by asking what other opportunities for “part time workers” can be found within the TTC organization.
Regards, Moaz Yusuf Ahmad
Steve: The TTC hires students during the summer to provide vacation coverage for some positions such as cleaners. Otherwise, for any job requiring significant amounts of skill, training and experience, part-timers really don’t make sense.
LikeLike
samg wrote, “But once you factor in the costs of benefits, vacation, training and administration costs for each employee, I don’t think an argument can be made for spareboarding as a “cost-saver”. It’s only a cost-saver to those who aren’t factoring in the real costs of each employee on the payroll.”
I disagree. Let us assume that the overtime rate is 1.5 — someone can confirm if that is the case at the TTC for the case of someone being called in at the last minute. I suspect that getting someone already in for a scheduled shift to stay longer is only that rate, but is that the case for someone being called in? Even if someone being called in is still paid 1.5, there are minimum hours requirements that can push this effectively higher. Regardless, let us assume it is.
Simple math says that someone being paid for an eight hour shift at straight time only has to work for five hours and twenty minutes to break even with paying someone overtime. On any given day, there will be a certain number of people who cannot come into work for whatever reason. No one can predict this with perfect accuracy, but experience can suggest a ballpark figure on what is reasonable to suspect. Careful use of spareboarding can certainly be a cost savings.
That said, spareboarding can easily be abused by lazy management, and it doesn’t take much to make it actually more costly. The concern that its use has doubled in the past few years tells me that either management has become lazy in their planning, or that perhaps there has been a substantial increase in operator absenteeism. If it is the latter, the need to look into what is causing this should be investigated.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t say Spareboard is a cost saver. It’s a tool that gives the TTC a flexible workforce to fill work. Let’s say there are 30 Spareboard position each day, the TTC knows they 30 workers available to fill any open work at straight time. Now if there is 30 pieces of open work all Spareboard are working. But if there is only 19 open pieces of work, then 11 Spareboard operators are going on to reports (which means they are given a start time but not a finish. The finish could be 5 hours after start or 12.5 hours.) If there are 35 open pieces of work there 5 latest pieces go to volunteers at time and half.
Now let’s say there is no Spareboard and use only volunteer to cover any open work. Let’s say it’s the final game of the Stanley Cup (we can dream with the Leafs playing), or the Gold Medal game in Hockey or it’s super bowl Sunday or it’s snowing. You may have only a couple of operators who will be willing to work their off day. That would mean only 2 crews get filled and any others get cancelled.
The other thing with Spareboard — it’s detailed work in time order finish, so e.g. number 1 spare gets the earliest finishing crew, number 2 the next crew and so on. The whole Spareboard being getting finished by 6:00pm everyday we’ll say. The top 10 position by 3:00pm everyday. Then something weird happens and it does, there are no open regulars or early crews. Just for an example the first open crew finishes at 8:00pm that is what the number 1 Spareboard is doing.
Spareboard isn’t worker friendly since you can’t plan things in your home life in advance, because there is no set finish time. You could finish at around 2:00pm for a month and then be working to 10:00pm on the Spareboard position. Before Spareboard it was all signed reports, a different ball game all together.
LikeLike
The funny thing with this essential service is so many people are happy about this being done and it fixes nothing at the TTC except for a possible strike every three years. There have been I think 8 in 60 years.
For the most part no one is talking about the real issues for the TTC and transit in general. Like day to day funding, equipment shortage, traffic congestion, scheduling, expansion of transit, Transit City, transit priority over the private auto. These are the real issues that people on here, at City hall, Queen’s Park, Parliament Hill and the media should be talking about.
But the mayor of Toronto has thrown smoke and mirrors out with essential service. He’s off the hook on all the real stuff. So my message is try to get people talking about the real issues again.
LikeLike
If the TTC is designated an essential service, do riders whose routes get cut have a right to sue the city for removing this now-designated essential service?
LikeLike
This gets into a broader policy question of how far away is a transit stop from someone’s door for service to be considered “provided,” and during what hours is it applicable (does the Blue Night system have a different criteria?). There’s also the issue of how these distances to access service are calculated and “coverage” established, which I’m highly critical of, because from what I’ve seen, it doesn’t account for the fact that people can’t fly.
LikeLike
Calvin, anyone who does the real math (as opposed to the “simple math”), factoring in ALL the costs, knows that spareboarding is NOT a cost saver. This is true even if each employee on the spareboard is actually filling in for a vacant employee each and every day that they are on the spareboard … and this most certainly is not the case. Spareboarding is a flexibility tool to help ensure vacant shifts are covered — as is the use of overtime. I’m not saying the use of spareboarding is not justified, but I am saying that in the past few years, TTC has used to significantly greater use of the spareboard which has had an impact on staffing costs. I’m not trying to pick a fight, but your calculations are not factoring in all the costs related to keeping somebody on the spareboard.
LikeLike
samg writes: “Calvin, anyone who does the real math (as opposed to the “simple math”), factoring in ALL the costs, knows that spareboarding is NOT a cost saver. This is true even if each employee on the spareboard is actually filling in for a vacant employee each and every day that they are on the spareboard”
I’m not sure what context you’re talking about when you say “cost saver”. You say that the spareboard doesn’t save costs even if every spareboard employee is doing a full shift every day.
Of course it would be cheaper for the TTC to not have spareboard employees, and consequently not operate the runs that don’t have regular employees. But that’s stupid-cheap.
If you don’t want to randomly drop runs when the operators don’t make it in, then you need a spareboard. There might be some excess absenteeism that ought to be dealt with, but that will never take away unanticipated absences, never mind regularly-scheduled vacations. I don’t particularly want an operator who has the flu and is sneezing every 30 seconds driving my bus!
LikeLike
samg said, “I’m not saying the use of spareboarding is not justified, but I am saying that in the past few years, TTC has used to significantly greater use of the spareboard which has had an impact on staffing costs.”
In my past comments, I concurred with this statement. My point was, as samg stated, both spareboarding and overtime are tools to help fill vacancies, but that spareboarding can be more cost effective, if used carefully. I agree that the recent overuse of it may be actually increasing costs.
LikeLike
@Ed,
Nobody is saying that a spareboard isn’t needed. Yes, dropping runs is stupid-cheap. But the point brought up for consideration was that there has been a big increase in the spareboard to cover vacancies (illnesses, emergencies) — until recently, there was a smaller spareboard and a greater use of volunteers. Yes, dropping runs is stupid cheap, but having too large a spareboard (when many volunteers are readily available and would provide the service coverage more cost-effectively) might be called “foolish waste”.
@Calvin, we agree that a spareboard is needed… and agree that excessive use of it will have financial implications. But from what I know of costs for each employee besides the hourly wage (benefits, entitlements, vacation, training, uniform, admin, etc.), I don’t see ANY point when use of the spareboard will be more cost effective. I see a spareboard (or some variation thereof) as necessary — but not on “cost-effective” grounds. Short of either of us (or someone else) doing an audit, we should probably just agree to disagree.
Steve: I think we have more or less beaten this issue to death.
LikeLike
I have avoided comment in this thread, but I have to concur with Frank’s comment of March 5:
“For the most part no one is talking about the real issues for the TTC and transit in general. Like day to day funding, equipment shortage, traffic congestion, scheduling, expansion of transit, Transit City, transit priority over the private auto. These are the real issues that people on here, at City hall, Queen’s Park, Parliament Hill and the media should be talking about.
But the mayor of Toronto has thrown smoke and mirrors out with essential service. He’s off the hook on all the real stuff. So my message is try to get people talking about the real issues again.”
The issue that is being hidden here is that although strikes/lockouts are avoided (and I don’t feel that “wildcats” would be used), “work to rule” and other slowdowns would be used with long-term (and in my opinion devestating) consequences. There are many ways to cripple the TTC with slowdowns that don’t involve “hassling” the passengers (such as checking transfers, passes, photo id for seniors/students, etc.). Some of these tactics are already being used by operators and collectors during the current “crackdown” such as refusing to do street changeovers to get back on time (insisting on the need to use the facilities at the subway station) which causes the CIS Supervisor to short turn instead. Collectors are opening stations right at the “tick of the clock” instead of early. I know that most operators are starting to follow TTC Policy on many items (as one Supervisor explained it: “You cannot be disciplined for following “correct” procedure”). This I interpret to mean things such as waiting for the bus to be at a “full” stop prior to engaging the doors, waiting for passengers to be “stable” prior to pulling away from the stop, slowing down when approaching a “stale” green light preparing to stop when the light turns amber, running to schedule (killing lights if ahead of schedule). All of these are little things, but applied system wide would serve to make a point without actually working to rule – just follow procedure and policy!
As for the comments about spareboard (scareboard as I call it) – I never sign it because I hate the fact that the slipclerk has control of my life. I would sign vacation board before I would sign spareboard (and only if I could sign vacation coverage for the whole board period). I also do not do “volunteer” work on my off days but will sometimes do a small amount at the end of a shift (although right now a lot of operators are not because of the crackdown).
LikeLike
Moving the issue beyond the TTC, this legislation is an attack on democracy. Strikes are a tool for unions to be heard. What they ask for is the minimum that any other union, trade or employee should be able to ask for. Calling them essential workers just like nurses or police is just ridiculous. Sure, any entity can be called “self-serving”, but the size of the entity and its power is important too. This bill is not only a crack down on democracy but a sign of more privatization (neo-liberalization) of services and standards.
LikeLike