Simon South

Let me start by correcting something I said on Twitter this morning:

This is not quite true. The union (ATU Local 113) has not called for back-to-work legislation. What they have asked is that the contractors agree to submit to arbitration overseen by the Regional government. However, this kind of arbitration is the typical outcome of back-to-work legislation, so although what I said was technically wrong, I may have correctly captured the spirit of the request.

There’s a lot to say about the last twenty-four hours. Let’s back up a bit.

The Negotiations with Veolia

Yesterday’s meeting between Veolia and Local 113 did not go well. Veolia came to the table with a revised version of the final offer they’d made to the union before the strike, and (at long last) the union turned them down. So much for my hope we’d be seeing Viva buses running next week.

There are two things to point out about the media’s reporting of the meeting. First of all, Veolia has decided to made public some of the details of the rejected offer (perhaps as if to say, It’s not us, guys!). You can read about it on YorkRegion.com. I don’t really know enough to evaluate whether this is a good offer or not, but I will say it does not sound to me as though Veolia is trying to make its drivers suffer. On the contrary, what’s being offered is more than many people can hope for right now, include anyone who has lost their job as a result of the strike and (I would think) the vast majority of the students who are trying to get to classes using the fragments of the transit system still running.

Secondly, we haven’t been told what, specifically, the union found objectionable about the offer. Surprisingly, even Veolia says they’re not sure why the offer was rejected. From an article in the Toronto Star:

However, Valerie Michael, director of corporate communications for VIVA, said it’s the unions who are being obstinate.

In the meeting Wednesday, she said the union was pushing for better benefits, but that their proposals were vague.

They say it’s not acceptable and then walk away, she said. It’s very difficult to move forward from there.

There are two easy explanations I can think of here. First, it could be Ms. Michael is misrepresenting what happened during the negotiations.

Alternatively, it could be the union is still waiting for an offer that brings wages up to what drivers are earning in other parts of the GTA. If so and Veolia has not bought into the union’s argument for this (and I think they should not), it could explain why the offer was quickly rejected.

But it stands out to me that Ms. Michael describes the union’s proposals as vague. If we assume she is telling the truth, surely there would be no confusion if the union were simply insisting on a higher base wage. Is it possible the union is being deliberately coy about what sort of offer it will sign? I am again wondering if perhaps the union has been purposefully trying to avoid reaching an agreement with the contractors at all.

The Call for Arbitration

Remember what I wrote on Monday?

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.

And now, after walking away from the bargaining table again for vague reasons,

The union has written to York Regional Chairman Bill Fisch saying that they will agree to arbitration and end the strike immediately if the companies also agree in writing to submit the dispute to neutral arbitrators.

Here’s my theory: Arbitration has been the union’s goal all along. It probably never expected the strike to go past the two-week mark—the pattern in Toronto was for back-to-work legislation to be introduced within a matter of days. But with enough time having passed for public sympathy to wane and with no such legislation on the horizon, the union is having to take matters into its own hands.

I suspect yesterday’s meeting with Veolia was largely an act to make the union appear to be negotiating in good faith, when in fact it would have rejected almost anything the company presented. With that out of the way, the union now feels free to throw its hands up and ask for what it really wanted in the first place: Government-overseen arbitration, the neutral process that tends to favour unions.

(Incidentally, don’t pay any attention to the poll results published by the union; everyone knows those are so easily manufactured as to make polling completely useless. It is simply a rhetorical device to make the union appear to be acting in the public interest rather than unilaterally.)

We’ll see what the government’s next move is. Despite what I wrote on Monday, I am kind of hoping the strike is allowed to continue even longer. The union told us they wanted better wages and took our transit system hostage to get them. Why should we not hold them to their word and insist they pursue a legitimate agreement on that issue, instead of allowing them an easy and rewarding way out?

Am I off-base about all this? Post a comment below and help me understand better.

We are now on the 17th day of the transit strike. It’s expected talks will be resuming between Veolia and the union (ATU Local 113) today, which could represent progress towards the restoration of service on the Viva lines. I’ll be posting any news about the outcome as soon as it becomes available.

In the comments to yesterday’s post I speculated the union had pulled a sort of bait-and-switch on the public, claiming to be striking over wages while actually pursuing an anti-privatization agenda. In fact, the union has been up-front about this from the start. From the strike announcement posted 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…

The problem is privatization, says Local 113 President Bob Kinnear. York Region passengers pay the highest fares in the GTA and taxpayers pay the highest subsidies but the workers have the lowest wages. The difference is the huge profits that are being shipped out of the country by these transnational corporations.

The big question is why Local 113 went on strike at all when the employer, Veolia, claims it already gave them what they asked for to begin with—but I’ve written enough about that. My point is that it’s actually no secret the union wants to use the strike to get people questioning the privatization model used for transit in the region.

(Update: As I was writing this blog post Torontoist published an article, More Confusion Than Commuters, that provides a great deal more information about the negotiations between the contractors and the union. Significantly, it contains a refutation from Kinnear of Veolia’s characterization of its offer.)

I’m just beginning my research into the public-versus-private debate and I’ll have more to say about it soon. From what I’ve learned so far, I’m less convinced than I was that transitioning to a purely public model would be a bad thing for taxpayers. But before we run off and start pestering Council, there are a few things I’d like people to keep in mind.

The fact that our transit system is so heavily subsidized by taxpayers and has such high fares means only one thing: Our transit system is currently very expensive to operate. This could mean taxpayers are getting a bad deal from the contractors, yes, but there are other factors to consider as well. York Region is very large geographically with a fairly sparse population, and York Region Transit has the challenge of providing adequate service to such a large area despite a comparatively small ridership. Fares in the region are likely to stay high for the foreseeable future, as the buses have a lot of ground to cover and there simply are not that many people paying fares to begin with. This is one reason why comparisons to the TTC and other systems are often specious: Those systems are operating under a much different set of constraints.

I’d also like to point out that unless savings are found elsewhere, raising driver’s wages will only increase the cost of operating the transit system. And this in turn means an even higher taxpayer subsidy, even higher fares, or both. This is not an argument against paying drivers reasonable wages, but it is something to keep in mind, especially as we read comments from the union itself about what the transit system is costing us.

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

A post on the Region’s Facebook page claims Veolia Transport, the company currently contracted to operate the Viva lines, is scheduled to meet with the union (ATU local 113) tomorrow. The source is apparently a representative at Veolia.

If this is true, it’ll be the first bit of genuine progress we’ll have seen in a transit strike that has now lasted over two weeks and inconvenienced countless people.

My hope is the two sides will be meeting to review Veolia’s last offer, which they made before the strike began and in which the company claims they gave them [the union] what they asked for. If so, this could mean a new agreement between the two parties is not far away. And as another person noted on Facebook, that could prove a tipping point in the strike, as many people (myself included) would be able to get around adequately if only the Viva lines were running.

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?

I see lots of people claiming the contractors are unresponsive or that they don’t care about people. If this is how you feel, please post a comment and let us know what you think Veolia should have done differently in this case.

Are you on Twitter? Follow me for updates and discussion about the 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.

We’re now nearing the end of the second week of the transit strike in York Region and it appears no progress has been made. I’m becoming just as frustrated as the many others who are without an easy or affordable way to get around the area.

There’s been much outcry from riders, on Twitter and particularly on the Region’s Facebook page, about the strike, and many are loudly demanding various actions be taken to end it. Here are my thoughts on the three parties involved and what can be done.

The Region

The government of York Region has consistently said they are not involved and will not become involved in the labour negotiations, as they do not employ bus drivers directly. Rather, they contract out the operation of the transit system to private companies, and it is these contractors who are responsible for negotiating with their workers.

Nonetheless, many have called for the Region to get involved in some way, with demands ranging from councillors forcing the two sides back to the table to the Region itself taking over operation of the transit system. So far no politician seems very interested in entering the dispute. Perhaps that will change if the strike drags on, although I wonder what can be gained when neither side seems willing to make concessions.

(Update: The same day I wrote this, three York Region MPPs, Frank Klees, Peter Shurman and Julia Munro, issued a statement calling for the strike to end. Thanks to councillor Maddie Di Muccio for pointing this out.)

On the subject of the Region dismissing the contractors and taking on a greater role in transit operations, there are a couple of things I want to point out. First, the fact this is not the situation presently is the only reason there are any buses operating at all right now. If there were a single employer (York Region) and a single union, a strike would bring the entire transit system to a halt.

Second, I cannot imagine the Region would be able to run the transit system as cost-effectively as the private operators do currently, and I commend it for admitting as much on the YRT strike-information page:

Generally, publicly-owned transit operations are more expensive to run than their private counterparts. Public ownership in York Region would mean an increased burden on taxpayers and riders. It would not make financial sense to take on a model that would actually cost more—for everyone.

People who argue this point seem to forget it is competition between contractors during the bidding process, and the possibility of earning a profit afterwards, that is keeping transit costs down. Remove these factors and there would be less incentive, not more, to constrain transit spending—which is perhaps why the union seems so interested in pursuing this outcome.

The Contractors

Speaking of which, one of the things that stands out in my mind is how little noise the union seems to be making in the contractors’ direction. If the workers believe the contractors are treating them unfairly, why have we not seen any picketing outside those buildings?

More and more I’m inclined to think wages are only a secondary concern for the union, with its primary complaint being the privatization of transit operations. As evidence, I note the one rally we’ve seen so far was staged outside York Region headquarters, home of the only party (aside from the riders) not actually involved in the negotiations. Here the interest in pressuring the Region to take over transit operations seems clear. An article on YorkRegion.com about the rally quotes John Cartwright, president of the Toronto and York Region Labour Council:

York Region should say, Yes, we have to have a properly run system, run by the public, for the public. That’s what a mature government does. But we’ve still got a disconnect which is that the leadership of York Region is addicted to privatization.

The same article quotes a spokesperson for Veolia, the contractor responsible for operating the Viva lines, saying their organization has told the union it will meet its demands but has not heard a response. If this is true (and I’ve yet to see a denial from the union), why was a new contract not immediately signed? Again, it suggests higher wages are not actually what the union is agitating for.

Despite any of this, it is still possible the remaining contractors are paying their workers too little. I’ll get to that in a moment. For now I’ll note that if I were negotiating on the contractors’ behalf and it started to appear the issue wasn’t compensation at all but rather the employers’ very presence in the region, I’d be tempted to think the union was acting in bad faith. I’m not surprised the contractors aren’t rushing back to the table.

The Union

Let me preface this section by stating that I do feel sympathy for the drivers. I was in a similar situation myself once, when I discovered a co-worker of mine was being paid a significantly higher salary to deliver work no better than my own. So believe me, I understand the anger and the pain these people are feeling.

Having said that, I’m a long way from being convinced that agreeing to the union’s demands is the correct response. If we assume higher wages are indeed what the union is after (and not the end of privatization), we first need to make sure higher wages are warranted. To do that we need to ask, What should a bus driver in York Region be paid?

As things stand right now, this question is difficult to answer. The union has said drivers in York Region should be paid as much as drivers in the surrounding regions. But this argument rests on nothing more than the union’s say-so. Without any further information, we could use the same argument to conclude that drivers in other regions are being paid too much. After all, until recently YRT drivers were willing to work for $22 an hour. If we believe the union that transit jobs across the GTA have equal value, why should a TTC driver have been earning more?

I’m no free-market extremist, but it seems to me this is just the sort of question for which market forces can produce a good answer. Suppose people were free to be hired as bus drivers and to move between jobs at will. If not enough people were willing to drive a bus in York Region for $22 an hour, contractors would have little option but offer a higher wage until they found enough drivers to provide the service they’ve promised. Alternatively, if there were a surplus of willing applicants, contractors would have an incentive to lower the wage. Either way, I expect we’d soon have our answer, as wages settled at an amount balancing the contractors’ need to supply service with the drivers’ need for income and their desire for the work.

But this seems to be just the situation the union wants to prevent. Remember, its goal is to secure the greatest value for its members, independent of any outside considerations. If it is so obvious to union leaders that drivers in York Region are underpaid, why don’t they step aside and let market forces reveal the true value of the work? If YRT drivers can get a better deal working for the TTC, or for Brampton Transit, or for GO Transit, why don’t they quit and go do so?

What have I missed? Post a comment below to let me know. And to my fellow riders, I wish you luck in arranging transportation over the weekend.

(Update: I now regularly post updates about the strike myself, both on Twitter and on my blog. You can subscribe to the RSS feed to be notified right away when I post something new.)

One of the things I find most frustrating about the ongoing transit strike here in York Region is the almost complete lack of information being provided to riders. Here’s a quick rundown of the ways I’ve found so far to keep in touch about what’s going on.

On Twitter

@YRTVivaStrike and @YRTVivaStrk2011 are both tweeting updates and retweeting posts from riders affected by the strike.

The Region itself tweets as @YorkRegionGovt. York Region Transit doesn’t appear to have its own Twitter account, although it’s possible they might communicate through @vivaNext.

Riders are using the hashtags #YRT, #YRTStrike and #YRTVivaStrike on tweets about the strike.

On Facebook

York Region’s Facebook page has become a de facto outlet for riders expressing their frustration.

On the Web

Responding to the outcry from riders, the Region has announced they’ll be posting daily updates on YRT’s strike-information page. The value of this remains to be seen, as they maintain they have no involvement in the labour negotiations.

An unnamed individual has set up an automated form that will send an email to the Region, the contractors, councillors and your MPP on your behalf expressing concern over the strike.  (Thanks, Tracy Smith.)

Amazingly, none of the union, the contractors or the media have had much to say online. YorkRegion.com has posted a couple of articles but doesn’t even consider the strike a hot topic. You might try checking Google News periodically.

More

If you know of any other resources, or you’re also blogging about the strike, please post a comment below and I’ll add your information.