Who’s to Blame in the York Region Transit Strike?
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.
GO, TTC and Brampton are not hiring right now. And another point to make is that YRT contractors have the highest driver turn over rate.
Glad to see people writing thoughtfully about the strike. Seems to me our Region has put us in a terrible situation:
* There is so much sprawl in York Region that many/most bus routes will always be money losers.
* Private companies like Veolia and First Transit will always prefer to serve the busiest, most profitable routes (much the way private healthcare prefers to provide the most profitable services, leaving costly cases to the public purse).
* I don’t think we have access to the nitty gritty details of York Region’s deals with Veolia and First Transit. I for one, would love to know exactly how much these companies are paid. I would also like to know the true costs of the fairly large transit enforcement staff we now pay for. Until we have all the numbers, how can we know if the private sector is serving us better.
* I’ve seen a lot of negative comments about drivers, but they have my sympathy also. When behind the wheel, our lives are in their hands. I’ve seen VIVA drivers deal professionally with emergency medical situations. Hard to say what is fair, but in general, I’d like to see everyone’s wages go up. Decently paid bus drivers will also pay more in tax and spend more money in the community. But it’s complicated, I know.
Let’s hope it is resolved soon!
How naïve can you get. You have bought into every lie that York Region has squeezed out. It’s no coincidence that they have used the threat of higher costs at least four times in their release, none of which can be proven or substianted.
Contractors know exactly what to quote for labour otherwise why are all York Region contracts within pennies of each other at $22 per hour. You seem to think that this was an open competitive bidding process. Why then wouldn’t a contract have been awarded at labour rates of $15 per hour as some think is a fare rate for bus drivers. No, it’s because that’s what York Region thinks they can get away with and have all but told the bidders so.
They belie public ownership of transit as being an increased burden on taxpayers. Nonsense they have wastefully duplicated the same management that would be required to run this operation themselves, fleet managers, safety managers with assistants, route supervisors, layer upon layer. Have you ever noticed how many supervisor types hang around Finch at rush hour during normal operations? Aside from three or four enforcement officers, some trying to sell Presto cards, there are at least two watching the VIVA operation from Veolia and one from the Region watching them, separate supervisors from First Canada and Miller and another from the Region watching them.
York Region wants to be thought of as a progressive, first class operation. They take on Veolia, an international transit bulwark. They hire a general manager from Boston with the idea that his guidance will take them forward. They then proceed to tell them exactly how to act and what to say.
Since VIVA’s inception 5 years ago ridership in York Region has more than doubled. They proudly pronounce that they have only had one other strike during that time. Well not exactly. Here is the history of labour unrest that has lead to the sorry situation we have today;
March 2006, Viva unveiled
May 29, 2006, TTC strike one day
April 26, 2008, TTC strike two days
Sept 2008, Viva strike lasting 13 days
March 2011, TTC threat of strike stopped by province declaring TTC an essential service
Feb 2011, YRT south-east division strike averted at the last minute
Oct 2011, GO strike averted
Oct 2011, YRT strike affecting Viva, YRT north, and YRT south-west
I personally think that transit in York Region has outgrown the capabilities of those making the decisions. It’s time to step up to their responsibilities or step down.
To comment above. Just to correct you.
Feb 2011, YRT south-WEST (not east) division strike averted at the last minute
Oct 2011, YRT strike affecting Viva, YRT North and YRT south-EAST (not west)
Also.. to “yolkregion”. The contractors do not “pick their routes” per say. YRT is separated into different divisions and routes allocated by the region (mostly separated by yonge street for east/west and bloomington road for north (give or take). Mostly combined from pre-amalgamated transit (Vaughan, Markham, Richmond Hill, Aurora, NewMarket). So the bidders bid on those areas that are up for bid. Those areas then would be South-East division, South-West division, North division and Viva. They make no profit from a routes “busy-ness”. Any profit from a route that is “profitable” goes direct to the region. The contractors operating each division only earn based on the contract they signed (for example Miller contract for 5 years just signed this year is for I believe it was $163million). Doesn’t matter if the buses run empty or full, it will still cost the region $163 million for Miller to operate the south-east division.
Every detail you want can be found on york.ca. Including all the contract amounts etc. And fyi the average YRT/Viva enforcement officer earns around $34-$36/hour (again it’s all on the york.ca website).
@Me: Are you suggesting that perhaps YRT drivers _cannot_ get a better deal right now?
This is the sort of thing I struggle with when I read about labour disputes. If I want to work at a particular company because it pays well, but it’s not presently hiring, my options are to either find a creative way of insinuating myself within that organization (becoming friends with a department head, for instance) or to accept that I’m not going to get a job there and look elsewhere. I certainly do not get the privilege of bringing my industry to a halt while demanding the government top up my salary because, hey, that other company pays better and although I’m not working there, their office is only a few blocks down the road.
I don’t think you were really trying to make this point, but if you can explain to me where I’m falling short in my reasoning, I’d be grateful. If YRT drivers can’t actually find a better-paying job right now, should they be complaining about the one they’ve got?
@yolkregion: Wow, it’s great to have someone from your site posting here. I’ve enjoyed the articles you guys have published parodying the transit strike. Thanks for the nice comment.
You raise a good point that it’s difficult to claim a priori that either a privately- or publicly-run transit system would be best for the region. We can try to use the history of other systems as a guide, although there’s still the question of how well experience elsewhere carries over given the unique challenges here in the region, like its sheer geographical size and the sprawl you mention. Obviously we can’t very well run both kinds of systems in parallel and compare them, and were we to switch to a public model to “try it out” we may find switching back to be politically impossible.
My fear with moving to a public model is that it would eliminate altogether whatever effect market forces, competition and the opportunity for profit have currently on keeping transit costs low. I worry there would be a constant temptation both to create new expenditures and to dip into taxpayers’ pockets to cover them, with few safeguards to keep this from happening. Sadly, taxpayers do not seem to have the influence over government spending that shareholders do over corporate spending. None of this means transit costs would necessarily go up, but if we eliminate the controls that are keeping them down, it seems pretty obvious to me in which direction they are going to trend.
There’s also the fact the union seems to want the public model very badly, which makes me think it knows it has something to gain from switching to it. I have to assume this means it believes it could more easily negotiate higher wages and benefits for its members, which kind of supports my theory about looser controls on spending. Directing more money to the workers isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and will be in some cases the correct thing to do, but realistically that money will only come from higher taxes, higher fares or both. As someone who both lives in the region and relies on transit (and thus pays both ways), I’m naturally wary of giving the union too much power over labour costs.
@Withheld: I’m happy you came back to post again. Keep your comments civil and I’ll continue to allow them.
I haven’t “bought into” anything from the Region; my goal here is to collect information and apply my own reasoning to try to decide for myself what needs to be done about the strike. I’m convinced you have some sort of direct involvement with the union and for that reason I especially want to hear your input, but as I am a taxpayer, transit rider and small-business owner, it shouldn’t come as a surprise when I disagree with you. Besides, we all understand each side has its own agenda to promote.
Having said that, I’ll acknowledge that I am inclined to believe the union (and yourself) that the Region is itself unfairly trying to manipulate labour costs. I’ve been involved in writing proposals for contracts in the software industry and if the process in the public sector is anything similar, then I’m sure it too is easily gamed and mostly involves writing what the purchaser wants to hear. If contractors “know” the Region won’t approve a contract specifying wages above a certain amount, then no contractor will specify wages that high. This effect could be occurring even if the Region hasn’t actually said anything about it to the contractors directly.
So when I theorize about an open market for labour, I should point out that the Region could be standing in the way of it as much as the union is. Why should contractors even be required to specify ahead of time the wages they’ll pay? Surely this should be part of their own research and simply folded into their bid. Can anyone explain this?
Regarding the public vs. private debate: Further to my comment to yolkregion, above, I’d like to ask if you’d be willing to present your case for the public model. What, precisely, are the responsibilities the current leaders are failing to “step up” to? How would the riders and the taxpayers benefit from the switch? Most important, what is the (so far unstated) benefit to the union? To my mind, the claim that a public model will be cheaper is disingenuous. But a more expensive transit system could still be the one we want, if it is objectively better than the one we have now. If we suppose more transit money were to become available, what would the union do to provide us better service?
I’m not sure how to respond to your comment about the strike history. Is your point that the TTC strikes should have been considered strikes in York Region, because the TTC operates lines here just like the contractors who are striking now?
@Don’tWanna (sheesh, can’t you guys be a bit more creative?): Thanks for posting those details. I was thinking it had to be the case that the Region assigned routes, as otherwise there are a few I’m sure the contractors would have dropped long ago.
I’m going to do a bit of research on york.ca this weekend and see what I can come up with.
Let me first say that I have enjoyed contributing to your articles and hope that my demeanor has not offended you or other readers. Like you, I too am a taxpayer and use public transit where it is available. I have no direct contact with the union but have had a close association with the other side, which may explain my somewhat biased outlook and wish to remain anonymous.
York Region is acknowledged as one of the top 75 companies to work for in the GTA. It offers its employees such things as; an employee paid health plan, defined-benefit pension plan, generous leave, competitive salaries, free transit, along with many other perks. Somewhere along the way, unlike other municipalities, it decided that its bus drivers did not deserve the same treatment. Why? The only reason is cost. In York Region’s case it has nothing to do with the quality of the outsource contractor as the region dictates every move. It is not taking advantage of the value added services that a company like Veolia purports to provide to its customers. It is just using Veolia’s name to gain credibility for its move to outsourcing. Why then are transit fares in York Region higher than anywhere else in the GTA. It’s complicated but in part, how else to support its own generous undertakings.
York Region bus drivers are expected to be the ambassadors for the region. They are expected to act in a certain way towards the public in their face-to-face interactions. They are expected to provide first response in the case of an emergency, not just provide safe and timely passage. They wear a uniform that says, “ I am your York Region representative”. And yet, it seams that all of this can be outsourced for $22 an hour with no benefits. We all get a chuckle out of companies that outsource their customer service departments to other countries, but what’s next? When I go to the McDonalds counter am I going to place my order with a computer screen linked to a smiling face in Mumbai?
You ask, what are the benefits of the public model and how would riders and taxpayers benefit? Given our current circumstances the answer is straightforward. At least the union would know whom to deal with and the public would know who to complain to, instead of this ridiculous revolving door, passing-the-buck environment that does nothing to resolve this labour dispute.
Those people who say bus drivers are making too much money as it is and should not get a raise. Just curious as to your say on the fact that YRT Customer service reps earn $23.97 / Hour – $26.04 / Hour just for answering the phone and/or responding to emails. Is it correct/fair for a person answer the phone is making more the person driving the bus and have hundreds of peoples lives in their hands everyday?
@Greg: I don’t believe anyone here has said either that YRT drivers are making too much money or that they definitely shouldn’t get a raise. But I’ll assume you’re addressing me.
Your question is clearly rhetorical, so let me respond with one of my own: If it is so obviously the case that answering support requests for $24 an hour is a better deal than driving a bus for $22 an hour, why should a bus driver not quit and take the call-centre job?
Nicely done. My only comment is regarding near the end when you say of the union “its goal is to secure the greatest value for its members”. This is *a* goal, but the primary goal of a union is always to ensure its own survival and ideally increase in power, be it bargaining power or other forms. That’s not a slight on unions – certainly many organizations do the same thing. I think you acknowledge this primary goal yourself when you speculate on the push to end privatization: what union wouldn’t prefer to negotiate with the people’s elected representatives?
@Mike: Thanks. You’re absolutely right in your comments about the union’s primary goal. (And to be fair, the same could be said about the Region and the contractors.)
Would you like to elaborate on your thoughts on why the union prefers a public model? I’m sincerely trying to understand this better. Presumably the advantage of negotiating with elected representatives is the possibility of the union getting the public on its side and threatening to vote them out, yes? What other advantages might there be?