Simon South

This morning, transit riders attempting to commute using the 40% of the system still operating in York Region were again frustrated by union members picketing the bus yard in Vaughan. Buses were being held for five minutes each, which presumably resulted in the same hour-long delays riders experienced two weeks ago.

The union is promising to make this a regular occurrence. From the CBC:

Local union president Ray Doyle urged frustrated commuters to help them get the transit service back up and running by pressuring politicians to agree to meet them at the bargaining table.

One union organizer promised the disruptions were far from over.

We’re not just going to picket once in a blue moon. We’re going to be out there. There will be more disruption, it will escalate, he said.

The union’s strategy in all this is gradually becoming apparent to me, and it’s a strategy I understand has been used for some time by unions in the public sector. It’s also one the public-private transit model used in York Region has so far largely foiled, which is undoubtedly one of the main reasons the union is calling for that model to be abandoned.

Key to this strategy is the ability to influence labour policy through electioneering. Jeff Jacoby, a conservative op-ed columnist, has written a number of articles critical of public-sector unions. In What Public-Sector Unions have Wrought, he writes about the differences between collective bargaining in the private and public sectors. The most significant difference, he claims, is that unions in the public sector have the ability to reward and punish politicians—their own employers—through the use of political force. Quoting Roger Lowenstein in his book, While America Aged:

This is because public unions can organize politically and influence elections, which is to say, they can vote their bosses out of office. This gives them direct clout over the people who determine their benefits. By contrast, the [United Auto Workers], for all its muscle, cannot vote the CEO of General Motors out of a job.

Politicians thus face huge temptations to increase benefits. Even though this is costly in the long run, in the short run officeholders are rewarded at the ballot box.

The reason this has not worked well for the union in York Region—witness the comparatively low wages drivers are paid here—is the same reason it does not work for the UAW: Although union members and other York Region residents elect their councillors, none of us elected Veolia, Miller or First Transit, the private companies who operate the transit lines. Neither can we simply vote these companies out of office.

And this, I believe, is why it’s so important to union leaders that the Region join them at the bargaining table: Once the politicians are involved the union will be able to wield the force of public opinion against them to get what it wants, threatening any refusal to meet its demands with failure in the next election. So long as the union is forced to negotiate directly with the contractors, it is largely without this power.

But not completely. Already many people are blaming either regional Council or the provincial government for the strike having lasted this long. A letter to the editor recently published on YorkRegion.com is representative:

If YRT general manager Richard Leary cannot act to restore the service he’s paid to oversee, perhaps the region would do well to replace him… I have little doubt the taxpayers will be happy to replace many councillors come election time if the region doesn’t take action.

The Conservative MPPs who introduced back-to-work legislation last week clearly recognized an opportunity to wield this power for their party’s own ends. They’ve been very careful to pin the blame for the bill’s failure on the Liberal government. From a press release issued by MPP Peter Shurman, who introduced the bill in parliament:

As far as I am concerned the McGuinty Government’s vote against my Private Member’s Bill to end the York Region Transit strike says that they are not concerned about the personal and economic hardship that our residents are experiencing as a result of the labour disruption, said Shurman. I am disappointed that the Liberal government has treated York Region as a second class citizen and refused to give our residents the same protection against transit strikes that those living and working in the City of Toronto enjoy.

The strategy is working; I am already seeing comments on Twitter from people saying they won’t be voting Liberal again.

The irony in all this is that it is the politicians these people are protesting who have so far been responsible for keeping the union’s power contained.

Now consider again this line from the CBC article quoted above:

Local union president Ray Doyle urged frustrated commuters to help them get the transit service back up and running by pressuring politicians to agree to meet them at the bargaining table.

Of course he did. This is a key part of the union’s strategy. Once it has politicians cowed with the threat of the loss of their seat the union will find it much easier to demand, and probably get, whatever it wants.

If this is not what you want, please stop calling for politicians to intervene in the strike. So far Council and the provincial government have successfully frustrated the union’s political aspirations by doing nothing. And if you are concerned about what the transit system might look like and what it might cost us once the union is in charge, please join me in allowing politicians to continue doing just that.

Yesterday saw the debate in the Ontario Legislature of the back-to-work bill introduced Wednesday by MPP Peter Shurman. It was defeated by vote, 37 to 67. All the Conservative MPPs in York Region voted for the bill; all the Liberal MPPs in the Region voted against it.

If you have the time and inclination, I recommend reading through the transcript of the debate in the hansard. Alternatively, David Fleischer has written a good summary for YorkRegion.com.

This time my predictions were correct: Not only did the bill die in second reading but—to nobody’s surprise, really—the Conservatives did indeed take the opportunity to politick against the Liberals. And not just them but regional Council, too. MPP Frank Klees:

I stand here with my colleagues and I say to the regional government of York region: You have failed the people who elected you. I stand here and I say that whether it is the union, who at least is saying, “Bring in an arbitrator so that we can resolve this”—we now have a Liberal government here, probably all four members who are representing people in York region, who are saying, along with the regional government, “We will wash our hands as well.” Shame on the people who are hearing on a day-to-day basis from the people who are suffering.

The Liberals’ position is that negotiations between the contractors and the union are still the best way towards a resolution, and that it would be inappropriate for the provincial government to intervene when Council has not yet requested it do so. MPP Helena Jaczek:

But we have been able to explain to our constituents exactly the process that is being undergone here. We on this side of the House—in this party—clearly believe in collective bargaining and negotiations in good faith as being the best way of settling this type of situation…

I not only respect my constituents, but I respect the duly elected members of regional council. They have not requested that our government move forward. They have not made the type of deputations that the city of Toronto did in the disruption of services from the TTC.

For their part, the NDP seemed to be generally in support of the bill, except for the part designating transit an essential service. MPP Gilles Bisson:

I’ll agree with the member who just spoke [Peter Shurman]. But I think what the member should have done is brought in a bill that deals with arbitration and back-to-work. I think if the member had done that, we probably would be in a position to be able to support that bill.

Not surprisingly, considering the NDP’s union backing, Mr. Bisson took the opportunity to repeat the ATU locals’ call for arbitration:

So there is an option that is open, and that option, I think the fair one, would have been to say that we need to have binding arbitration of some type in order to be able to get the parties to go before an arbitrator in order to settle this at the arbitration table. Will the union be totally happy with what an arbitrator has to say? No. Will the employer be completely happy with what the arbitrator has to say? No. But that’s what arbitration is all about. It’s about saying, What’s your position? What’s your position? and the arbitrator going away and saying, Okay, I’m going to look at this from both perspectives, and I’m going to find a saw-off somewhere in the middle. That’s what arbitration is all about.

Actually, there’s reason to expect the outcome of arbitration will be not quite as equitable as Mr. Bisson would have us believe.

Who Won?

I’m having a hard time figuring out who got what they wanted in this. Clearly not the riders who were hoping to see a legislated end to the strike, although perhaps that could still happen. I suppose the contractors are relieved not to have arbitration forced upon them, as they have the most to lose from that process. The rest is unclear to me.

Did the Conservative MPPs backing the bill get what they wanted? I’m struggling to reconcile the bill’s contents with what I know about conservative ideology. Like I said yesterday, it’s tempting to think it was never the MPPs’ intention to get the bill passed, but only to earn goodwill from their constituents and gain political ammunition against the Liberals (ahead of a non-confidence vote, perhaps?). If that’s not the case, I’m not sure what the MPPs’ motivation could have been.

Did the union get what it wanted? I don’t know if it wanted the bill passed or not. It would have forced the contractors to arbitration, which we know is something it does want. But it would also have made transit in York Region an essential service, and I’m not sure whether the union considers that good or bad. On the whole I think the bill’s defeat is most likely a disappointment for the union, as it is another opportunity missed to have arbitration imposed and the union remains stuck not wanting to resume negotiations but without a clear alternative.

Did the taxpayers benefit? Those who are following my blog know I’m against arbitration being imposed. My concerns are, first of all, that transit costs need to be managed carefully; and secondly, that a clear victory for the union in this strike might only encourage more of the same behaviour from it down the road. Whether you as a taxpayer consider the bill’s defeat a loss or not probably depends on what you feel it is worth paying to see the strike end at this point.

What’s Next?

I’m not sure what the next steps are here—I’m learning about this myself as I go along. Presumably the bill, as it existed, is now dead. My guess is it is still possible we may see a new bill introduced, perhaps one without the essential-services language other members objected to. We won’t know until next Monday at the earliest as the legislature is adjourned until then.

Mr. Shurman did note the legislature is only in session until December 8th, after which the MPPs are away on winter recess. That means if back-to-work legislation isn’t passed in the next two weeks we may not see any further debate on it until the legislature returns, late in February. Unless the union budges in that time it could be a very cold winter for transit riders.

As of today it has been a full month since the buses stopped running in York Region. Little progress has been made toward a resolution in this time. However, there have been two important events in the last day.

The ATU Pickets the Riders, Again

This morning (as I write this, in fact) union members are staging a huge picket line at Finch Station in Toronto, a busy terminal that serves as a transfer point for riders commuting to or from the Region. I imagine it is pure chaos down there.

The union claims the action is motivated in part by comments from York Region MPP Frank Klees regarding a lack of picketing. Ray Doyle, president of ATU Local 1587, is upfront about the union’s intention and the impact the picketing will have on riders:

We have generally avoided inconveniencing the travelling public with picket lines but that strategy seems to annoy Mr. Klees. No problem. We will correct that.

This sounds very petty to me. Also, the union’s last picket disrupted riders’ morning commute as well, causing delays of up to an hour or more. That is (by my reckoning) two of four such actions by the union that’s wound up punishing riders, making me question Mr. Doyle’s assertion it has generally avoided that type of behaviour.

Supposedly the picketing today is also meant to protest the refusal of the private bus contractors to end the strike immediately by agreeing to binding arbitration—the oft-repeated and disingenuous claim I wrote about on Monday. Naturally the union is silent on how it, too, has so far refused to end the strike. I particularly like this quote from Bob Kinnear, president of ATU Local 113:

It’s mysterious why not a single York Region politician is in favour of voluntary arbitration, which would end the strike, says Kinnear.

Readers of my blog might not find this quite so mysterious.

If you saw the picket line at Finch Station today, please post a comment below and tell us what the scene was like.

Meanwhile, in the Provincial Legislature

Many riders got their wish yesterday when back-to-work legislation was introduced in parliament by MPP Peter Shurman, one of the three Conservative York Region MPPs who promised this legislation some time ago. A transcript of the bill’s introduction is in the hansard.

Debate on the bill is scheduled for this afternoon, sometime after 1:00. You’ll be able to watch the proceedings live on the Web.

People have speculated on the likelihood of this bill passing and what purpose it might actually serve. The Liberal Labour Minister has said she will not support the bill, and while the Liberals have only a minority government the Conservatives do not have enough seats to pass the bill on their own. To do this they’d need cooperation from the NDP, and back-to-work legislation is not something I would normally expect that party to support.

The bill seems so unlikely to pass it’s tempting to view the whole thing as a public-relations stunt on the Conservatives’ part. Back-to-work legislation normally results in just the kind of binding arbitration the union wants and from which it is likely to benefit. This seems like an odd thing for Conservative politicians to support, but perhaps they are doing so precisely because they are confident the bill has no hope of passing. By simply introducing it, they will have won goodwill from their constituents and possibly dulled the roar of riders accusing politicians of doing nothing.

We’ll see what happens this afternoon but I expect the bill will die a quick death, followed by Conservatives capitalizing on the opportunity to lash out at the Liberals over their apparent failure to take action for Region residents.

From the start of the transit strike (which turns a month old tomorrow), the union has said the central issue in the dispute is the wage disparity between transit drivers in York Region and those working in other parts of the GTA. From the original announcement on ATU Local 113′s website:

The strike is mainly about the huge wage gap ($7/hour) between York Region Transit workers and those doing essentially the same jobs in surrounding communities: Brampton, Mississauga, Toronto and Durham Region.

From a later announcement by the same local of the rally held outside York Region headquarters on October 28th:

The main issue in the strike is the huge differential in wages and benefits between York Region Transit workers and all other transit workers in the GTA, a wage difference of over seven dollars an hour.

This message was considered official enough to be picked up and repeated by the media. From a CBC News article announcing the start of the strike:

The main issues for York Region Transit workers are wages and benefits. The YRT system contracts out its operations to private companies that pay $7 an hour less than drivers get in neighbouring communities, according to the Amalgamated Transit Union.

Frankly, all of it’s enough to make a person think the strike is about wages and benefits.

Every time I make this assumption in a blog post, though, I get a response or two sent to me privately insisting it’s not true. Actually, the messages are rarely that polite: The standard format is to first question my intelligence, then demand I get the facts before daring to comment. When I press, though, it invariably comes to light these people have no new facts to present themselves.

That makes it hard to take their comments seriously. But if they’re to be believed, it really isn’t wages or benefits the drivers intended to be striking over. Rather, it’s supposedly working conditions the drivers are actually concerned about. Wages, and possibly benefits too, are secondary.

Lately I’ve been more inclined to believe this could be true, even though it would seem to contradict nearly all the public dialogue about the strike. Consider the comments of the drivers quoted in a Toronto Star article last week:

There’s nothing Viva driver Lesia Horton Milnes says she wants more than to be back at the wheel. Despite the financial hardship of a strike, she says the drivers need to stand up, not for money but for better working conditions.

It’s nothing to work 9½ hours and maybe get five minutes (for a break). It’s just insane. Last summer was the worst for me. I had several days that were four-trippers—that’s a 9½- to 10-hour shift. That is a killer. If you don’t have any breaks you’re crawling out of the seat at the end of the night, said Milnes.

It’s the split shifts that Sherry John finds difficult. Sometimes her work day spans 11 hours. She drives three hours in the morning and then waits in an employee lounge for hours before getting back on the bus.

I get to work at maybe 6:30. When I’m going to work it’s dark, when I come back home it’s dark, and I’ve been here five years and I’m still coming and going in the dark, John said.

Are Ms. Milnes and Ms. John representative of the striking drivers? If so, there seems to be a disconnect between what the union is saying and how its members really feel. But perhaps I don’t need to speculate about this.

To the angry commenters—who I can only assume are YRT drivers themselves—who have written in, here’s your chance to set me straight. What is it you really want out of the strike? If it’s not wages or benefits but better working conditions, why is the public hearing a different story?

Today is day 29 of the transit strike in York Region, the start of the fifth week. This Thursday will mark a full month since 60% of the transit system stopped running.

A Brief Recap

Even now, a full four weeks in, little has changed since the strike began. Negotiations between the union and the contractors remain at a standstill; to my knowledge the two sides have met only once, on November 9th, and without making any progress. At this point, the union is standing by its call for binding arbitration; the contractors have so far refused this and are (together with the regional government) insisting the union return to the bargaining table.

Many have called for the provincial government to intervene, either by introducing back-to-work legislation or by declaring transit in York Region an essential service (as has been done for Toronto), but the Labour Minister has said this is not being considered. Even so, the Ontario legislature is back in session starting today and it is possible we will see a bill introduced this week.

One Small Request

There’s one particularly disingenuous notion the union has managed to popularize with the public in this time, and that is that by refusing the union’s call for arbitration, the contractors are needlessly prolonging the strike.

Arbitration is not a step towards resolution, as I’ve seen some people describe it. Rather it is an endgame in the dispute, and one that represents a win for the union. Submitting to binding arbitration is likely to benefit it more than it does the contractors, which of course is precisely why the union wants it so badly.

The contractors have not agreed to arbitration because they know it will work against them. And the government supports the contractors in this, no doubt because they are concerned about the long-term political effects of giving in to the union without a fight.

But by refusing to end the strike this way, the contractors are not exercising any power the union doesn’t also have. The union could end the strike immediately, too, if it would simply give up and sign the latest offer from each contractor. But the union won’t do this. Why not? Because it believes it is not in its best interest to do so. Which is, of course, the same reason the contractors are not agreeing to arbitration.

So here’s my request: If you are going to continue to say the contractors are prolonging the strike by not giving up, show some intellectual honesty and also mention the union is doing the same thing. Of course, saying a dispute would be over if one side would stop fighting isn’t saying much at all. So perhaps you could simply stop saying this altogether.

Following updates to this blog? Subscribe to the RSS feed so you know right away when I post something new. Oh, and don’t forget to follow me on Twitter.

Here we are on day 26 of the transit strike in York Region, soon to reach the end of the fourth week and after that the strike’s one-month anniversary. There’s been a number of important events in the last few days:

• On Wednesday morning members of ATU Local 113 picketed in Vaughan outside one of the bus yards. According to the Region, strikers were delaying each bus by five minutes, extending riders’ commute by up to an hour or more.
• Also on Wednesday York Region CEO Bill Fisch sent a letter to the union locals and the contractors urging them to act in good faith and work towards a resolution to the strike. In addition, the Region released a letter from Miller Transit (PDF link) containing what it claims are some of Local 1587‘s demands, among them a 16% raise this year.
• On Thursday morning union members rallied outside York Region headquarters where a scheduled Council meeting was held. John Cartwright, president of the Toronto and York Region Labour Council, addressed the regional council. Larry Hanley, president of Amalgamated Transit Union International, was also in attendance, in addition to the president of each of the striking locals.

Despite all of this, in practical terms little has changed since the start of the week.

Did I get it right?

On Monday I made a couple of predictions about what we’d see this week. Unfortunately, I think we can safely say I was wrong on both counts.

The government did not continue to wait for the union to come around as I’d thought. Instead, it took action by sending Bill Fisch’s letter and, perhaps more importantly, by releasing the letter from Miller Transit. If the contents of Miller’s letter are true, it is hard to for me to see the union’s demands as reasonable.

But at the same time, the union seems just as far away from settling as it ever was. It did not reveal any new strategy (of which I’m aware) this week, instead continuing its call for contractors to agree to binding arbitration. I haven’t noticed the anti-privatization cry getting any louder either.

Next week

Next week marks the beginning of the fifth week of the strike and, on Thursday, its one-month anniversary. Starting Monday I’ll be back to my usual posting schedule and will have more to say about this week’s events.

Have feedback for me about my blog? Send me an email or post a comment below. (If you’d prefer I not publish your comment, just say so.)

I have time only for a short post today. The biggest news is clearly the picket lines set up by the union this morning, which have caused significant delays for riders—up to an hour or more, according to the Region. I haven’t seen any details reported yet in the media but I’m sure they’ll become available.

I’m disgusted by the thought that the union feels riders haven’t suffered enough from the strike and are now attempting to make even the 40% of the system still running unusable. What they are really doing is giving us a taste of the fully-public transit model they are championing, in which there will be no division of the network among contractors and a strike will bring the entire system to a halt. If the picketing today was meant to promote the union’s anti-privatization agenda (as I speculated on Monday we might see), I think its leaders have miscalculated. I can’t fathom who could gain sympathy for the drivers after having been forced by them to spend an extra hour standing on a crowded 99 bus.

I’ve seen a couple of comments floating around the Internet that make me think my post yesterday might have been misinterpreted.

I wasn’t intending to criticize the government for what I perceive to be its strategy of inaction in dealing with the YRT strike, or to suggest politicians are smugly sitting idle, safe in the knowledge that elections are far away. I really think nothing is the best thing for the regional and provincial governments to be doing right now. And I’m pleased it’s turned out politicians are somewhat sheltered from public outcry at the moment, as it will give them the leeway to do what they consider best for the Region in the long term even if it causes some additional pain here and now.

Everything I can think of that the government might do strikes me as counterproductive, handing power over to the union, or politically impossible to begin with. Here are my responses to some of the demands I’ve seen from others.

The government should pass back-to-work legislation to end the strike.

This has already been called for by three Conservative MPPs representing parts of York Region, and the response from the Labour Minister was that it is not being considered. I’ve heard rumblings that suggest at least one of the MPPs involved, Frank Klees, is still working on making this happen, so perhaps we will yet see a bill introduced. The Liberals have a minority government at the moment which makes me think it’s possible the Conservatives could get it passed.

If this is what you want, bear in mind the Ontario legislature is not in session until November 21st. It will not end the strike this week.

If your thinking is that back-to-work legislation will punish the drivers, I want to point out that this legislation appears to be what the union wants. What back-to-work legislation normally does is mandate both parties submit to binding arbitration, which is precisely what the union called for itself last week. The benefit to the union is that arbitration is likely to grant it concessions beyond what it is able to negotiate with the contractors directly. (And to be clear, it is the taxpayers and the riders—you and I—who will be forced to pay for those concessions.) It might also help validate to the public the notion that the government is whom the union should be dealing with during a strike, which is something the union would like us to believe as part of its attack on privatization.

The government should fire the drivers and replace them with people who want to work.

Firing striking workers is forbidden by Canadian law, as is hiring workers to replace them. If the government forced the contractors to do either of these things it would be viewed as an impingement on workers’ rights and the outrage and protests would span the country. The political cost would be enormous. This is not going to happen.

The contractors have failed to provide the service they promised. The Region should cancel their contracts.

I’m always surprised by this line of reasoning because it is not the contractors who have gone on strike. Rather, it is the drivers who are failing to provide service at the moment. And we cannot simply cancel their contract (see above).

Though I don’t believe we have access to the agreements between the Region and the contractors, I would be very surprised if they didn’t specify procedures for both sides during labour disputes. So it is not necessarily true the contractors have broken any promises, even as the strike continues. (Incidentally, according to the Region contractors are not being paid during the strike, so it is also not as though they are profiting while riders suffer.)

Frankly, I’m amazed by the hostility I’ve seen directed at the contractors. The contractors appear to have been acting in good faith this whole time and still want to continue negotiations, which is the normal process for resolving a strike. It is the union who is trying to do an end-run around the whole thing, breaking off talks with vague explanations and constantly calling for the government to enter the dispute. Cancelling the contracts would be punishing the side that is actually playing by the rules, not the side that is demanding the rules be changed to their liking.

The government should make public transit in York Region an essential service, like it is in Toronto.

This has been called for by the same MPPs calling for back-to-work legislation. Essential-service designation can only come from the provincial government, so again there is no hope of seeing it before next week.

It seems reasonable transit should be an essential service and this will probably get a lot of discussion once the strike ends. But here again, I’ve seen comments that suggest essential-service designation is something the union is hoping for. I’m not sure yet why this would be the case, except perhaps that losing the right to strike grants them additional power in some other area. So ending the strike this way might be granting a victory to the union, which could have long-term repercussions for the Region. I’ll elaborate on that in a later post.

What else do you think the government should be doing to end the strike? Post a comment below and let me know.

We are now on day 22 of the YRT strike, which marks the beginning of the fourth week since the buses stopped. There is still no end in sight.

Despite the events of last week, everything is essentially the same as it was seven days ago. The York Region MPPs’ call for back-to-work legislation was denied, and I think we can assume the union’s call for binding arbitration has been or will be denied as well. What progress can we hope to see this week?

The Government is Actively Doing Nothing

During the past three weeks we’ve heard very little from either Region councillors or MPPs about the strike. Many people are accusing the government of doing nothing or ignoring the people, but I suspect neither of these things is true. I think it’s just as likely the government is pursuing a strategy of actively waiting out the strike, knowing the union’s position will naturally weaken as time goes by. As a commenter on Facebook pointed out yesterday, no Conservative or Liberal politician would want to be seen as interfering with private business anyway.

Despite the damage the strike is causing to residents, the government has little incentive to budge or to bow to the union’s demands. We’ve just had a provincial election, so MPPs (who control back-to-work legislation) are safe in their seat for the next four years. Similarly, Council has three years left in its term. If politicians believe letting the strike drag on is in the Region’s long-term interests, I think they have little to fear from the public in doing so. The public will have forgotten all about the strike in three years’ time.

As a result, I predict we will see… nothing at all from the government this week. It will maintain its position of waiting for the union to resume talks with the contractors. If the government does take action, it will be in response to a new proposal from the union as it tries to avoid coming back to the table. And the action will be to deny this, of course.

The Union’s Next Move

I honestly do not know what options the union has at this point. It clearly does not want to continue negotiating with the contractors; it claims it has not made much progress there and I doubt it will. But its hope of winning greater concessions through arbitration has faded and as time goes by, its position weakens. At least two of the contractors (First Transit and Veolia) claim they made generous new offers before the strike started. If the union waits too long to sign, it may discover even that generosity has vanished.

Perhaps the union already has in mind another way to avoid returning to the table and will propose it this week. At the same time, its leaders must be considering the possibility it’s time to settle. Their larger goal has been to get the public questioning the private sector’s involvement in transit. If they accomplish that, they may very well consider the strike a success even if they make only very small gains in workers’ compensation. So I predict we will see an even stronger effort by the union to get its anti-privatization message out, especially over the next few days.

What options do you think the union has at this point? Post a comment below and let me know.

We are now on day 19 and there is still no clear indication of when the YRT strike will be over.

Yesterday three York Region MPPs, Frank Klees, Peter Shurman and Julia Munro, held a media conference at Queen’s Park where they called for back-to-work legislation to bring an end to the strike. (These are the same MPPs who issued an earlier statement.) They also called for the essential-service designation granted to Toronto’s transit system to be extended to all transit systems in the GTA.

The same day, Labour Minister Linda Jeffrey announced the provincial government is not considering or discussing back-to-work legislation for the striking drivers. So for the time being, at least, that avenue has closed.

Many people will be upset by this news. However, I think it is a wise move by the government (and, happily enough, is what I’d wanted them to do). I believe the union has been hoping for back-to-work legislation for some time. Regardless, we know they are now hoping for arbitration. And as counterintuitive as it seems, I have reason to think the union may be hoping for essential-service designation as well. Why should the government give the union what it wants?

Here’s the thing: I no longer believe this strike was ever about wages. I believe it has been a staged protest of the public-private model for transit used in the region and an expression of the union’s desire to negotiate with government instead of business. This explains why the union has been so shy about resuming talks with the contractors, it explains why the only rally was held outside Region headquarters and not the buildings of the companies it is allegedly protesting, and it explains why the union is now so earnestly calling for arbitration—anything, anything at all to establish the idea that the Region is whom the union should be negotiating with instead of its actual employers.

Clearly the MPPs get this. Union President Bob Kinnear showed up at the media conference yesterday to push his request for arbitration. But the politicians weren’t buying it:

And there’s no end game here involving getting Fisch to the table at all? Shurman said. C’mon Bob, you can’t suck and blow.

If what I believe is true, we’ve been lied to and manipulated by the union, who called a strike under false pretense (the wage gap) and have held both drivers and riders hostage for nearly three weeks while it pursued its own political ambitions. Are you angry yet? Let the government box the union in. Force the union to do the one thing it seems to least want to do—negotiate with the contractors directly on the wages issue—and let it be content with whatever it can accomplish on its own.

Perhaps it will not be so eager to shut down the transit system next time.

Looking for updates about the strike? You should follow me on Twitter.