Legislating an End to the YRT Strike

(Update: Back-to-work legislation has since been called for by three York Region MPPs, and the Labour Minister has responded saying it is not being considered. Be sure to read my most recent post or follow me on Twitter to get the latest information.)

Today marks the start of the third week of the transit strike in York Region. To the best of my knowledge the union has had nothing to say to the contractors since before the strike began. In other words, it appears not a single bit of progress has been made towards restoring transit service.

But this is not for lack of trying on the contractors’ part. A YorkRegion.com article indicates two of the three contractors against whom the union is striking, Veolia and First Transit, have both made new offers in the interim that have been ignored:

The ball is in their court, said First Transit spokesperson Maureen Richmond.

The company has made a fair, equitable offer to the union and is willing to keep negotiations going, but the union has been unresponsive since rejecting a deal last week, she said.

Veolia spokesperson Valerie Michael said her company offered Viva workers what they wanted following the rejection of an earlier offer last week, but never heard back from the union, ATU 113.

We really can’t move forward, because, as far as we know, we gave them what they asked for, she said, adding no new talks were scheduled.

I speculated in my last post that the wages-and-benefits issue is really just a smokescreen for the union’s longer-term strategy, which is overturning the privatization of transit in the region and replacing it with a completely public model. If this is true—and if it isn’t, why is the union picketing Region headquarters while ignoring requests from contractors to meet?—there is no hope for talks between the two sides to continue, because the union is demanding something the contractors can’t offer.

Consequently I’ve lost faith that the union and the contractors can resolve this dispute on their own. Like many of the riders who are busy tearing up the Region’s Facebook page, I’m now thinking political intervention is the way forward.

Legislate ‘em Back to Work

A political solution to the strike would normally take the form of back-to-work legislation, which would mandate that the bus drivers return to work and specify penalties if they fail to do so.

For those who (like me) are just learning about all this, the CBC website has a great FAQ on the subject. I was mistaken earlier in assuming any such legislation would require the drivers to return to the job at their existing wages. Instead, it is likely the government would require the union and the contractors to submit new offers to an outside arbitrator, who would prepare a new contract to which both would be bound. Presumably, this contract would force concessions from both sides.

Regardless, once the legislation is passed and the arbitration process completed, we could expect the strike to be over and transit service to be resumed.

How do we Make it Happen?

Public transit is considered a provincial concern, so any back-to-work legislation would need to come from Queen’s Park.

Posters on Facebook have told me for this legislation to be introduced it must first be requested by York Region council. Assuming this is true (I haven’t yet found a source), if you believe it’s time for politicians to intervene, your first step should be to contact the councillors for your municipality to explain how the transit strike is affecting you and to express doubt in the negotiations. It probably wouldn’t hurt to contact your MPP at the same time, asking him or her to support the introduction of back-to-work legislation.

Scott Burlovich has created an automated form that will do this on your behalf.

If you do contact your councillor or MPP, be polite. Regardless of how you feel about the strike or the government, remember that politicians are people and that a confrontational attitude is not going to motivate anyone to seek a solution on your behalf.

The Downside

Before you rush off to do this, if it’s the union you’re angry at, there’s reason to think a legislative solution can wait.

Frankly, I can’t escape the thought that back-to-work legislation might be just what the union is hoping for. It seems to me it has been negotiating in bad faith, framing the issue as being about wages but ignoring concessions on that front so it can pursue a much different goal. While relying on a legislative solution is a risky strategy (no one knows ahead of time what terms will be imposed) it’s likely any arbitrated contract will include concessions to the union, ones that may go beyond what it feels it can negotiate from the contractors directly.

In a CTV News article published during last summer’s postal-workers’ strike, labour lawyer Howard Levitt is quoted warning that back-to-work legislation can actually work in a union’s favour:

Levitt said that the public has little sympathy for both the Air Canada and Canada Post unions, and Canadians would likely allow the strikes to go on indefinitely. In such long-term disruptions, management gains the upper hand, said Levitt.

This provides both employers an unprecedented opportunity to permanently weaken the union and impose contracts on their terms, he said.

Instead, they are seeking return-to-work legislation, which will result in the normally union-friendly terms imposed by most arbitrators

In short, Levitt said that governments in Canada appear incapable of playing hardball, however opportune the circumstances.

If you believe the union is at fault for the strike, this should give you pause. As painful as it is to contemplate, continuing to wait things out might place the contractors or the Region in a better position to make long-term gains against the union. And regardless of your position, reducing the likelihood of future strikes can only increase the viability of transit as an alternative to driving.

Do you think it’s time for politicians to force the bus drivers back to work? Post a comment and let me know.

  1. Joseph Sulkowski says:

    Thanks for your excellent explanation and letter to MPP’s and Councillors.
    As soon as I found your website I e-mailed that letter, with some changes.
    In my opinion your letter covers the whole strike matter, therefore is much too long and unfocused. The content must be short and focused consisting of three short paragraphs: 1) the facts of strike
    2) description of population’s hardships
    3) the intervention options to end the strike.
    The length of the letter: 1/3 of yours. With kind regards Joseph Sulkowski

  2. Simon says:

    @Joseph: Thanks. I wasn’t involved in preparing the letter you’re referring to, though.

  1. [...] For those who are blaming the contractors for the strike, I’d like to emphasize that Veolia has been waiting for the union to return to the table for at least two weeks now. The company claims (and I haven’t seen this refuted anywhere) they were willing to meet the union’s demands before the strike even started. Why, then, will it have taken more than two weeks for the union to respond to their offer? Did the union hold the transit system hostage for two weeks just to make a point? Or is it possible the strike was never about wages at all? [...]

  2. [...] what I wrote on Monday? Frankly, I can’t escape the thought that back-to-work legislation might be just what the [...]

  3. [...] 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 [...]