On the Fifth Week of the YRT Strike
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.
Week 5 and it’s getting chilly outside;
It was (you’ll have to excuse my expression) pleasant to walk in October, but for those whoa ren’t used to walking, the winter will prove much more difficult.
I never mentioned this prior, but you referenced an article earlier from Jeff Jacoby about the arbitration process. While I agree with the points he makes regarding the public sector and the slippery slope with unioninzed public workers, I have to point out the dissimilarity with regards to private sector contracts.
Unlike the public sector, who’s contarcts are more likely to build year after year upon the previous year’s demands, the private sector has no obligation to rehire their previous workers; Essentially every time a new bid is put out, the can put out a work offer that varies from years previous; it is up to the workers to agree to working for those terms, or rejecting it. This means that if their workers worked for too high a wage last contract, they may put out a lower one next year, to increase their profits. True city workers are on salary; once their wages are increased, it is in essence a permanent increase.
In the York Region case, should Veolia conceed to increase wages, they are not setting any real precendents; all they are doing is cutting into their bottom line. The amount of subsidy the government pays into the system will remain unchanged, but their net profits will be affected.
In this sense, they, as much as the unions, are holding off for the bottom line. It is only natural to look out for one’s best intrests.
What I am curious about is if this work disruption will impact any future bids Veolia et all will put forward in the future.
What effects do strikes have on contractors? Does a labour dispute bar them from bidding next round?
@Alyssa: I think I understand the distinction you’re drawing between public-sector and private-sector contracts, but I’m not sure I agree that it applies to the situation here.
A private business having the ability to make a higher offer to workers one year and a lower one the next depends on there being an open market for labour. But there isn’t such a market for transit labour; there is only the ATU, with whom contractors like Veolia are required to deal with year after year.
Based on this, I think it’s likely any concessions to the union in this strike will, in fact, be permanent. I think you’re right that the contractors will have to absorb the cost of any wage increases in the short term (my assumption here being their compensation from the Region is fixed once the contract is signed—perhaps someone will correct me) and that this will be paid out of their profits. But we will undoubtedly see this higher cost reflected in the next round of bidding, both from the contractors involved in this strike and from any others who choose to bid as they will undoubtedly be aware of the strike’s outcome. If the cost of labour goes up, so does the cost of running the whole system.
This is why I say any additional labour costs will ultimately be passed on to the taxpayers. And that is why I think we should all be careful to evaluate the union’s demands.
I don’t have answers to your other questions. Perhaps another reader does?