On the Thirteenth Week of the York Region Transit Strike
Today is day 87 of the transit strike here in York Region. We’re now in the middle of week 13, which has already seen two important events.
ATU Local 113 Rejects Veolia’s Offer
Although this was so widely expected it hardly qualifies as news, Local 113 members voted yesterday to reject Veolia’s latest offer. This is the vote Veolia requested through the Ontario Labour Relations Board, as they had the right to do, and the counterpart of sorts to the vote by Local 1587 members on the sixth.
The real news came earlier in the week.
The Region Fires First Canada
On Monday the Region announced it has terminated its contract with First Canada, which previously operated bus routes in the northern division (routes north of Bernard Avenue). It also announced it will be hiring a new contractor to take First Canada’s place and plans to restore service on route 98 on February 5th, with other routes to follow. (For people not familiar with our transit system, the 98 is another critical route that operates on Yonge Street and connects the southern part of Richmond Hill to its north and to other municipalities in the region, including Aurora and Newmarket.)
So now I have the answer to my question about whether the Region would threaten the contractors with termination of their contracts. I was surprised to hear the news as I figured this was what the Region was least likely to do. Now we know it means business.
The government clearly intends this as a warning to the other two contractors as well, both of whom it has asked to deliver a detailed plan by this Friday of how they might restore transit service elsewhere while the strike continues.
It appears the Region already has a replacement in mind for First Canada, considering it is announcing the resumption of service even though Council has yet to approve a new contract. Whom could it be? David Fleischer suggests Tokmakjian/Can-Ar as a possibility. Internet provocateur Forrest Grump thinks it could be Miller, despite their ongoing dispute with Local 1587, due to their experience and presence in the Region. We’ll have to wait until the 26th to know for sure.
So What Does It Mean?
Judging from the comments on news stories quite a few people are assuming this means the strike is over for the Local 1587 members previously employed by First Canada, since those jobs simply don’t exist anymore. Some are also assuming the Region can now start fresh with a different contractor for the north division, one that won’t be obligated to hire back the former drivers or deal with the union at all.
It looks like this is, at most, only partially true. Under Canadian law, when one contractor is replaced with another the union’s bargaining rights normally carry over. So I don’t think it’s true that whichever contractor the Region has in mind to take over the north division is automatically free and clear of the union.
However, it also appears the new contractor won’t be obligated to hire back the former drivers. From the previous link (emphasis in the original):
Although the new employer assumes responsibility for the collective agreements associated with the undertaking being sold or transferred, the number of employees receiving job offers is outside the scope of successor rights and is strictly a matter for negotiation between the two employers. Traditionally, Public Service transfers involving succession have resulted in job offers to most affected employees.
If the loss of ridership expected after nearly three months of striking means fewer runs are made, not every former employee could receive an offer. Quoted in the Toronto Star, Local 113 President Bob Kinnear acknowledges drivers are worried:
We’re cautiously optimistic that (Region Chair) Bill Fisch will begin to address the workers’ concerns and get a collective agreement,said Kinnear, although he admitted that his members couldn’t help but be shaken by the termination of York’s contract with First Canada.
The morale here has been overwhelming, but how could it not have an impact?he said.
Thank you, Simon…I was wondering when you’d address the First Canada firing. Don’t disagree with,the assessment either, but I can’t help but question the legality- it sure soinds like it is,anattempt to circumvent Ontario’s replacement worker law.
@Daniel: This is one of those “grey areas” in the legislation. See http://www.yorku.ca/ddoorey/lawblog/?p=4550
We already know, the unions “challanged” the YR decision. Not sure what “challanged” means (only a public protest, or formally filed with the OLRB, or perhaps with the Supreme Court?) but, whatever the union goons will claim, it clearly shows they didn’t like the YR move at all.
If they choose this path, YR should now move quickly and fire the other contractors ASAP, within the contracts provisions. By now, it should be obvious for everybody that this strike has nothing to do with salaries and benefits; it’s a political strike against the YR (and possible the future Toronto) business model.
I’m still waiting for someone to explain how three months of lost income for the drivers can be covered, even if they would get 100% of their claims. I recall one of the union leaders claiming that 10.4% salary increase, offered by one of the contractors, over four years, was “fair”. Fighting three months for 25% of benefits cost, pee breaks and sick days doesn’t make any economic sense to me…
You beat me to posting that link here, OP. What’s been reported is that the union plans to file a complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations Board, but only on the theory the Region was attempting to influence Tuesday’s vote on the Veolia offer by cancelling First Canada’s contract when it did. It’s still to be seen whether the Region and the new contractor (rumoured to actually be Can-Ar, by the way) will show any obligation towards the union and the former employees.
@OP It’s not just fighting for current drivers. This is also looking further down the road fighting for all future drivers as well. This will be one of the biggest chances the unions get to fight the strongest. So while yes drivers may not recover all their losses over the next few years, it would still be considered a win for them to have changed the future too.
@Some1 …which supports the theory the union is pursuing its own long-term goals, not necessarily those of the workers it represents.
I dont disagree with you there Simon.. just exactly what those “long-term goals” are would be interesting to know…and not just the hearsay goals. i mean what the union exactly has in mind.
Obviously the union is not going to announce what its actual goals are, any more than the Region would.
@Some1: I wonder if the union members are fully aware they are “fighting for all future drivers” and if they explicitely agreed to sacrifice their present and near future (income, jobs, etc…). Or are they misled by the unions leaders and propaganda machines?
As far as I am aware of, the unions never mentioned this “fight for all future drivers” among their official objectives. Anyway, I am myself having troubles following such Guevarist visions in the year of 2012, and even more troubles understanding how the union leaders believe they can sell such visions to the public (that is, the YRT patrons) and hope for their support.
@OP: Thanks for the link, though the guy doesn’t really answer a lot of questions…he’s pretty long-winded.
Anyhow, I can see how the issue is murky. I know on one hand the new company would need the right to select its own workers but on the other the union members do have a right to take action against their employers should they feel the need to take such action; and without intimidation. I know these unions haven’t been the most accomodating, but we can’t take away a union’s basic right to strike because of one bad apple. Would you like it if your company took away your right to strike in such a subversive manner? I know I wouldn’t.
It’s why I think the legal definition needs to be clarified. The simplest solution would bar the ability to sell a company when it is in the process of a labour dispute, though I grant that a company losing money ought to be able to shed its faulty investment. Therefore, you could allow the new company the right to terminate the workers it inherits, but with the caveat of a hefty severance package. That way, you ensure that the new company is only firing the workers for legitimate reasons, not because they are on strike.
This is also why any employee that works for the public- garbage collectors, the police, the fire department, transit workers, driving instructors, etc.- should be barred from striking, because as we’ve seen the toll of what happens when they do is devastating. Toronto shouldn’t be the only place that gets to benefit from continuous transit service- all places that need it should have that benefit.
@Daniel: Nice try in your plead for declaring transit an essential service. What about grocery stores? Or gas stations?
You are implicitely assuming the Marxist thesis about the unavoidable conflict between employers and employees, so the employees need a collective body to defend their rights. In fact, there is no such conflict; as much as the employer is free to choose his employees, the employees are free to choose their employer. Unions are bringing an imbalance in the work relationships based of free markets, and that’s harmful for both the employer and the employees. You’ll see that soon enough after the YRT strike is over; decreasing ridership will lead to dropping services and eliminating positions at all levels, including drivers.
Otherwise, I disagree with almost everything you are saying. I don’t see any reason why transit, garbage collection, etc… would not be following the free market rules, excluding any “collective rights” that the unions are so dearly promoting. From a customer perspective, unions have absolutely no positive role. It is true that unions are indirectly supporting non-performance and laziness (it’s human nature! if feeling safe, why would anybody attempt to perform, in particular above and beyond?). They also kill the flexibility of the service and the free initiative of both the employer (like being able to retain and compensate the top performers, while getting rid of the non performers) and the employees (like understanding the benefits of competing in the workforce and the workplace).
I’m of course not pleading for privatizing the police, or firefighters, or other services at the very foundation of our social infrastructure, such are indeed essential. Anyways, and precisely because they are declared essential, I don’t see the need for unions there as well.
Loving the new format of the site Simon, so much more compatible with IE (which I have to use at work).
More news posted regarding ongoing negotiations; It looks like we might be getting somewhere by February.
In fact OP, the region WILL be “adjusting” services in the near future with their most recent “service plan”. And it’s going to be sad because people are going to automatically assume it was because of the strike, but this is something they were looking at doing for at least a year now. Check out the upcoming changes here:
http://www.york.ca/Regional+Government/Agendas+Minutes+and+Reports/_2012/TSC+1-1+atts.htm
And just to point out, the thing with transit being essential, it’s somewhat of a monopoly. There are hundreds of places to get groceries, there is more than one gas station, but there is only one YRT.
@Some1: Lookie, lookie, YRT is *not* a monopoly, and that’s precisely why the unions are miserably failing in their attempt to blackmail the YR.
In despite of their coordination efforts, the unions were unable to shut down more than 60% of the YRT. And this is also why they are currently looking after a three years contract (not two or four, as offfered by the employers), to be able to coordinate next time with Southwest and successfully shut down more or less the entire YRT. Flash news: not gonna happen, and in despite of the current situation, the YRT business model proved to be successful and should be followed by all transit systems looking to keep spiralling costs under control, in particular the TTC.
So out of pretty much all of Canada (the main cities/municipalities at least), only York Region has it right?? Really? Highest fares, worst service (frequency and hours of operation), most days on strike and that’s successful?
@Some1: Oh, give it up. Bending over and giving the union everything it wants will not magically solve the challenges of running a suburban transit system efficiently. Until the whole car culture collapses transit will always be expensive up here, there will always be a difficult choice between lowering fares and extending service hours, and everyone here knows it’s the union itself deciding how often a strike is called.
Some1: This is the union rhetoric I’m hearing since October. Blaming the region geographic and demographic specifics for the transit system performance is misleading and essentially a unionized red herring.
I’m not saying give the union everything it wants. I’m simply saying that there is no clear cut case to say the way the region has chosen to operate its transit service is the best way. York Region with contracting out it’s services has proven to be one of the most unreliable services in Canada.
@Some1: Do you have any evidence at all for that claim? On what basis are you making your comparison?
@Daniel: Such is the nature of law professors, I imagine.
Are you a union member yourself? Personally, I’m pretty comfortable with the idea of unions losing the ability to strike in “a subversive manner.” How does that benefit society? I share OP’s basic position: People need to be free to pursue their own ambition and to have the opportunity to be rewarded for doing so. Belonging to a union is just not a good substitute for learning how to take control of your life, manage risk, defend yourself and work towards the things you want. Really, and as I think this strike has demonstrated, when people join a union they are just trading one feudal lord for another.
I agree with you, though, that something needs to happen to prevent transit strikes from occurring. (And no, Some1, that shouldn’t mean just giving in to the union every time it wants more.) We are simply not going to be driving our cars forever, so the time to build a usable transit system is now.
@Alyssa: Thanks, glad to hear the new theme is working better for you. And yes, the early positive signs from today’s meeting are encouraging.
The only “evidence” I have is by looking at fares/schedules/service/wages/ridership from locations across canada and comparing with York Region. And please understand that I clearly said I don’t think unions should get what they want. But the region should not also think that they have this high and almighty best service transit model either.
Oh.. and regarding the positive signs.. interest from citynews site:
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/182080–york-region-extends-bus-service-plan-deadline
Little snippet from the article: “York Region has extended the Friday deadline for two of its contractors after Miller Transit and Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1587 agreed to head back to the bargaining table.
Miller Transit now has until Wednesday to prepare a new bus service plan for the region as it negotiates with Local 1587.
“”
http://www.680news.com/news/local/article/321981–veolia-set-to-resume-talks-with-atu-local-113-on-monday
I think it’s the end of this mess, most likely YRT will resume starting Feb. 5. Is it a coincidence that Feb. 5 is also the deadline for the Toronto outside and inside workers to be in a striking position?
First of all, I don’t know how I can be considered “Marxist” for espousing an anti-union idea- the essential service designation. I also have never said anything close to being “pro-union” in regards to this strike.
I support the basic idea of a union- that it is there to ensure that workers are protected against abusive employers and can get a decent wage, good working conditions and a voice in case workers get mistreated. That there are abusive unions that protect the lazy, unproductive workers and guarantee them wages above and beyond what they are deserved is immaterial- the basic idea of a union is inherently good and shouldn’t be lost because there are some bad unions abusing their power.
This is why I don’t really like the Region’s move. The workers are being punished simply because they’re on strike and that doesn’t sit well with me. Yes, they’re on strike for the wrong reasons and the union has been incredibly abusive with its power, but I don’t think the regular bus drivers ought to be losing their jobs over this. Imagine if they were on strike for a legitimate reason- say, the contractors wanted to reduce their wages by 50% or cut the workforce by three quarters. I don’t think we’d like this subversive measure quite so much then, would we?
Look, I hate this strike as much as everyone else. I think the unions and the contractors have been so stupid from the very beginning that something *had* to be done. I strongly dislike the fact that both sides have contemptuously disregarded the plight of their own customers (yes, I believe both the unions and the contractors have actual contempt for the transit users they are screwing over, they just might not actually admit it). Blame and punish the contractors and the union leaders for their pigheaded, stubborn moves all you want- they definitely deserve it.
…but please, don’t throw the regular bus driver under the proverbial bus because of the dimwitted actions of their superiors. I’m sure there are drivers who hear this news and wonder why they have to be punished for actions they had no control over. We can’t say that “it’s okay” because we don’t like the dispute they’re carrying on with their employers- firing workers who are simply having a dispute is not right.
There are other solutions- you can force negotiations, force mediation (why haven’t we seen mediators like the ones which were present during the York University strike?) and then force a deal (that can be constructed in the contractors’ favour if the union continues to be unreasonable, or just simply have a deal that factors wage increases with inflation). You can then fire the contractors because they have been horrible in this ordeal; and maybe- if it is possible- have a different union represent the drivers.
I also don’t understand why transit isn’t essential. People need the ability to get around and do their daily chores, such as going to work. There are well meaning people who cannot drive- the blind, the narcoleptic, the working poor, the elderly, etc.- that need transit, *everywhere*, that *cannot* go through the pains of a labour dispute, especially one as terribly disruptive as this one. Some1 pointed out that there is only one YRT, whereas there are multiple grocery stores, gas stations, car dealerships, etc. that one can go to. Yes, the YRT model means the whole system cannot be shut down in the event of a strike but it does not go far enough- you do not have multiple companies operating the same route (it just wouldn’t make sense), and if the contractors are dumb, the unions can still manipulate the process so that the whole system can be shut down. Don’t say that because it hasn’t happenned yet it means that it won’t- the possibility still remains. The service must be declared essential. Maybe there is something to be said about not having a union if a service is essential- after all, they can go to the government with their disputes, and the government has to listen or else it gets voted out of power.
I’m happy the Region is taking some action and that service looks like it could get restored soon. I’m just not sure about the greater implications of this move down the road.