The TTC and its various union groups have ratified a four-year contract that will carry through to March 31, 2018. This mediated settlement avoids the need for arbitration which would occur given that the TTC has “essential service” designation, along with the danger for each party that an imposed settlement might not be to their favour.
Coming during both a municipal and provincial election campaigns, this is sure to spark comment, if not outright hostility, in some quarters given that the bulk of the employees in ATU Local 113 will receive 8.25% over the four-year span of the contract. The new agreement provides improved job security and limitations to contracting out, but the details were not included in the TTC’s announcement. According to the ATU’s website, the ban on contracting out is 100%.
The TTC projects that the cost of this agreement will be about $196-million over the four-year term.
The big challenge now for the TTC is to improve the quality of service it provides on the street. This will touch on policy issues at the top of the TTC and at City Council, as well as on planning and management, including a much more open and honest discussion about how service actually runs today and what can be done to improve it.
Note: I am leaving this post open to comments, but will delete any abusive material or polemics.
Steve Munro 
Steve, I will just add a couple of comments here for clarification. As a front line bus Operator and (obviously) ATU113 member, I have studied the agreement very carefully prior to voting on it. The key phrase on contracting out is as follows:
I feel that this IS 100% job security (for the life of the CBA) and that this is a victory for ATU113.
When you look at the details on the TTC website announcement, you will see that the approximately 6000 OPERATORS (including Wheel Trans) get the 8.25% over 4 years, which is comparable to the other GTHA transit agencies. The balance of ATU members, as well as the other Unions, get less.
The key item in this CBA was job security, and halting contracting out. This is a very contentious CBA within ATU113 and the lead up to the ratification vote was filled with dissent.
I will sit back and observe the comments that follow your post. I will refrain from comment, but I am prepared, with some limitations, to try to answer any reasonable questions or comments that are directed to me. I will ask for understanding, as there will be some answers that I am not prepared to provide.
LikeLike
It is good that a settlement was negotiated not legislated. It is to be expected the result would likely be costly but possibly even more so if arbitrated.
What is unfortunate is how this was kept out of the news during negotiations over such a long period of time. It would have been nice to have some idea of the negotiations over things like contracting out and cost saving proposals to contain costs. Things like using spareboard workers at straight time rather than time and half for regular workers. It should not be a right to be paid overtime. This denies others getting a job.
There might well be other things in the Collective Agreement that could be costly.
At the least both sides positions should have been made public at the start. That way public input could be possible. The way it is there is no proof the TTC tried to keep costs down. 8.25% is in itself a good increase. Many others have had zero for years including the Toronto ratepayers and TTC riders who pay their wages.
Steve: Negotiating in the press does not work for reasons that should be obvious in your reply. Everyone piles on about out “the bums don’t deserve any increase”, and no other issues are aired. As for your specific point about spare board vs overtime, this has been addressed several times in the past. You can pay a spare board operator 8 hours, and they might actually work half of that because of what work is available, or you can pay an existing operator time and a half for what they actually work. The balancing act is always on the basis of total costs (including the fact that the 1.5 times rate does not inflate many of the benefits which would have to be paid for more spareboard operators).
LikeLike
Well there goes any meaningful service increases. There’s no way the TTC and/or City Council can justify adding service with this settlement combined with a new subway extension opening. Also every other City union will be knocking at the door looking for their own increase.
Steve: This is actually in the same ballpark as what other city unions are getting already. There is no subway extension opening until early 2017, and the problem there is that the extension won’t make money. Time for York Region and Queen’s Park to pay up rather than freeloading on Toronto taxpayers.
LikeLike
4 year deal. So next negotiation is 2018, the year when ATO operates. Coincidence? I think not.
Steve: Actually, ATO is 2019. Four years is an unusually long contract, but it is also one term of Council.
LikeLike
I agree that York Region and Queen’s Park should be paying their fair share, but good luck getting them to do that.
Also, where is this $196 million going to come from? It will either be tax hikes or a wage hike if nobody else ponies up.
Also, what will happen in Hudak gets elected and strips the TTC of its subways? Would the TTC union still be the operators, or would a new contract have to be negotiated?
Steve: I am working on an article about just how much it costs to own and operate a subway. That network may “make money” on paper and strictly on day-to-day operating costs, but there are hundreds of millions in capital repairs needed EVERY YEAR. I don’t think that Hudak (or his advisors) understand transit economics well enough to know that on an “all in” basis, the subway is not profitable. It’s rather like owning a house with a paid off mortage, but discovering that it needs a new roof, a furnace, foundation repairs, repointing of the brickwork, updated plumbing, new electrics, etc., etc.
Then there is the small matter of fare revenue. It’s easy to make the subway self-sustaining if it charges a premium fare like GO, separate from the TTC.
LikeLike
2019. That’s when all streetcar routes will have new vehicles. Not a coincidence at all.
Steve: What the hell does that have to do with ATO?
LikeLike
I don’t think that this means anything if Hudak gets elected. He will almost certainly impose contracts (like Bill 115) and contract out services, so a provincially run TTC and GO Transit would contract out bus drivers like YRT does. There isn’t much the union can do to stop Bill 115-like legislation other than protesting. This is the person who promised “right to work” legislation after all.
LikeLike
This makes sense for a few hours of O T but I am talking about entire shifts at O T because there are no spare operators allowed. (Unless this prohibition has changed in recent years). No one should be entitled to O T when more people could have jobs working at straight time.
Also, under what conditions is time and one half paid for regular operator work?
Steve: An operator gets 1.5 times their rate once they have worked more than 8 hours in a day, if they are working a volunteer shift when they would otherwise be off, or for time worked on a two-piece crew that spans more than a maximum interval (10.5 hours in the 2008 contract). They are paid double time under some circumstances, notably if they are more than 10 minutes late being relieved at the end of their shift. This is a strong incentive to keeping operators on time. Sunday work is paid at 1.25 times the base rate, and there are also special provisions for holidays which pay both for the time worked and 8 hours in lieu of an operator actually getting the holiday off.
You can read all about the gory details in the 2008 contract which is online (linked above) and is more or less current for these subjects. The part you want starts at page 96.
LikeLike
BTW Steve, I never said negotiations should take place in public. I do believe both sides’ positions should be made public to allow assessment of the matter.
LikeLike
Regarding Tim Hudak’s proposal to take the subway system away from the TTC,
I’m wondering why centre-left politicians (Toronto & Ontario) have not picked up on the suggestion of a big fare increase for those who need both surface and subway routes to complete a trip. It seems that 2-zone fares might be coming back – one for surface and another for subway.
Steve: I want to be in the room when some politician (Karen Stintz, maybe) tells a crowd of unhappy suburban commuters that they will have to pay a higher fare for the privilege of riding the separated surface and subway networks. This is a complete non-starter.
And, of course, the folks from Scarborough would really have cause to complain about being shafted.
The fundamental issue here is that Toronto’s system was designed so that there is no penalty for using a surface route and the subway because they are one network. Splitting them apart would be a disaster, but also precisely the sort of thing I would expect from people whose only thought is how to gouge riders for even more money in the name of “protecting taxpayers”.
LikeLike
Hi Steve,
Here is a copy of the 2014-2018 Collective Agreement that was ratified last Friday.
Steve: For the benefit of readers, the linked document contains pay rate change provisions and a large number of modifications to the existing agreement. The full agreement is not included, and readers will require some familiarity with TTC operations to understand what is going on in many cases.
LikeLike
Ouch. Assuming they’re not on top of cost-of-living, those are pretty weak wage increases.
The operators get the best deal out of it, but that’s still only:
2014: 2%
2015: 2%
2016: 2%
2017: 2.25%
(8.25% at the end of four years)
For comparison, over the last four years CPI for Toronto was as follows:
2010: 2.6%
2011: 3.0%
2012: 1.5%
2013: 1.2%
(8.55% over four years)
And that’s ignoring the issues with how CPI treats housing (i.e. we’re in a very hot real-estate market and CPI historically underestimates increases in housing costs). If inflation over the contract years matches the last four years, the workers doing best out of this deal will still be making less in real terms than they do today.
LikeLike
There was a story in the news today about a bus driver who yesterday left his bus and passengers alone because his shift was over and the replacement driver had not arrived.
Ignoring the fact that there was massive congestion yesterday with the 401 WB Express Lanes being closed from Allen to Bayview … and the fact that the driver is required to stay with the bus not leave it running … and the fact that there was some clear miscommunication … wouldn’t the driver be able to claim overtime (or at least receive accolades) for staying beyond the end of his shift?
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: Yes, he would be able to claim overtime for a late relief by the next crew.
LikeLike
It sounds very much like this was an appropriate contract. Not contracting out work normally done by employees is very much a standard clause, and none of the rest of it seems unusual.
I would agree Steve that you cannot negotiate in the press, in fact it is normal practice for labour negotiations to be done strictly at the table and not in front of either the members or a board of directors in the private sector. There is far too much back and forth and proposals made to see where the other guy stands and what the priorities are to be able to do this even in front of the membership. To me when a government body starts to negotiate, or even make offers clear in public, there is another agenda present other than reaching a bargain in good faith.
LikeLike
Steve, I see that this thread has gone quiet. I have been following the comments that have been made, and feel that a couple of comments need to be addressed.
Raymond Kennedy made a comment about Spare Board Operators being paid time and a half. This is completely false! Operators sign Spare Board just the same as they would sign a Crew (or the Vacation Board). They are paid Crew a Value for the Crew that is detailed to them. If they are not detailed, they become Report Persons and can be detailed work that becomes open at the last minute. If they are detailed a Crew, they are paid Crew Value for that Crew plus HALF time for the time they were waiting. If they are not detailed a crew by the conclusion of 5 hours waiting time, they are released for the day and paid 8 hours straight time (due to Spread Limits).
If there are additional open Crews after all Spare Board Operators are detailed, the Clerks will bring in “Volunteer” Operators who have submitted forms indicating that they are available to work on their off days. These volunteers are paid time and a half for their Platform time only (actual time spent driving).
As for negotiating in the press – this is a ridiculous concept. It is not done in either the private or public sector. I have never seen “both sides positions made public for assessment”! In the case of the TTC, residents of Toronto vote for a Mayor and Councillors. A group of these Councillors form the Commission, along with the civilian members. The Commissioners work with the management if the TTC and establish the bargaining guidelines. The Union members elect their Executive Board; a number of the Board’s members form the bargaining committee and establish their bargaining guidelines from the input of the membership. The membership is not given details of the negotiations (the back and forth, give and take) until there is a tentative offer agreed upon. This is common in all bargaining in both the private and public sector. Both sided impose a blackout on the details of the negotiations. If you recall the negotiations between the City and CUPE 416, there were some details leaked by both sides – and all hell broke loose over it!
John Duncan – those are the increases – we do not have any cost of living clauses.
LikeLike
Am I missing something, or does this mean that someone who is released after five hours of waiting is paid more than someone who waits for four hours and works for four hours?
No censure intended, just curious about what appears to be a curious policy.
Steve: You have missed a subtle but important point. Gord said “if they are detailed a crew” which typically would be at least 8 hours of work. A four hour piece is not a crew. And so you have two situations related to crews:
First, if the crew is assigned the day before because it is already known to be open, then the operator is paid whatever the crew is worth, but no waiting time as they know in advance when to show up. Second, if a crew comes open on the day (say due to an operator reporting sick), then there will be waiting time involved because the spare board operator’s report time would have been dictated by the time they signed up for.
The basic point is that no matter what happens, an operator gets a minimum of 8 hours pay for one day.
LikeLike
Steve,
Just to add a few comments here. I too am a ATU113 member and a coach technician which is a Wage Group 12. As of October 1, 2014 Brampton Transit & Mississauga Transit coach technicians will earn more per hour that TTC coach technicians. GO Transit coach technicians will either make more or similar this year as TTC coach technicians once their collective agreement is ratified. Over the course of TTC & GO Transit collective agreements, it’s not hard to assume that GO Transit coach technicians will be making more per hour than TTC coach technicians. This contract penalized coach technicians and has split the union.
Remember only TTC coach technicians have been made essential service and has lost the right to strike yet will be 4th highest paid in the GTA. TTC Operators have a GTA clause which says TTC Operators will earn 5 cents per hour more than any other GTA Transit Operator. It’s hard not to see how operators have failed to be told that the GTA clause only applies to them and has left TTC coach technicians behind versus most other GTA transit coach technicians.
LikeLike
This is incorrect. Arbitrator Kevin Burkett removed this clause when he rendered his decision on June 4, 2013 for the CBA for April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2014. The GTA clause no longer exists and actually has not existed since April 1, 2011.
LikeLike
Gord, it would be nice if ATU113 & TTC would actually publish a Collective Agreement book as our members have not had one published since April 2008. Even without the GTA clause, how does TTC & ATU113 members (operators) justify 8.25% raise over 4 years for operators when coach technicians only get 5.5% raise over 4 years especially when TTC coach technicians are already ranked 4th highest paid in GTA? The collective agreement was accepted by 60% of the members that voted on the agreement. The ratio of operators to maintenance personnel is 60% – 40% in favour of operators. Seems eerily similar how the collective agreement was passed by only 60%. TTC operators are the highest paid operators in the GTA. As I said, this collective agreement has accomplished what TTC set out to do in dividing the union. Operators were to blind to see that. Ask any TTC coach technician what they think of this agreement. I think you will get an eye opening!
LikeLike