The Region Takes Action
Yesterday the Region announced it would start using the large, articulated Viva buses to service route 99 along Yonge Street, a sight that may have surprised commuters this morning. Unfortunately, despite appearances this does not mean Viva Blue service has been restored: The Viva buses will be making the same stops as the regular 99 buses, which also means they won’t be travelling north of Bernard Terminal. However, their larger size should help alleviate the overcrowding that’s plagued the 99 since the start of the strike. Also, as others have pointed out, this should make the union’s occupation
antics less effective, more expensive or both.
This seemed like such a positive development I knew right away there would be lots of complaining about it—and I wasn’t disappointed. The Region’s post announcing it on Facebook was immediately pounced on by angry commenters saying it was a weak
plan, that it would accomplish nothing and that it was all a cynical ploy by the government to make more money
(though how, exactly, it would achieve this wasn’t spelled out). That comment thread has now grown to over 300 posts, the largest we’ve seen on that page for a while.
Wilson Lo, one of just a few other people blogging about the strike, was particularly outraged by the Region’s attempt to improve the situation for commuters. From his post this morning, Bill Fisch and York Region are an absolute joke
:
With this transit strike raging into its 82nd day, the public does not need another joke from a bad excuse for a regional government and its $203,000-a-year chairperson who might as well just be a chair. At least a chair is more useful in function.
Surprisingly, though he clearly pins the blame for this recent misadventure on the York Region CEO, he is silent on what he thinks Mr. Fisch should have done differently and on what the possible consequences of a more aggressive plan might have been. Perhaps he’ll address these things in a future post.
One thing I’ve been startled to see is the amount of criticism aimed at the drivers who are commandeering the Viva buses. Again, Mr. Lo:
The drivers who are still working have had little training on these articulated VanHool buses… Did I also mention the weather forecast is calling for snow tomorrow? Now not only do these drivers have to manage driving a totally new bus, but also manage it in poor driving conditions. I can only imagine how much trouble the uphill southbound Yonge south of Clark is going to be.
Even their brothers and sisters
in the union seem to have little faith in their ability. Consider this comment on Facebook yesterday from Kathy Breen, one of the drivers on strike:
I certainly wouldn’t board any of these buses.With 2 hours training for these YRT drivers,when VIVA drivers are properly trained in them for weeks…need I say more! Safety obviously isn’t in the public’s best interest. Maybe a quick solution but NOT a safe one in my opinion.
A surprising position considering union members have often cited their allegedly high level of skill to defend the wage increases they’re demanding. (For anyone actually concerned about a possible safety issue, CityNews.ca informs us the drivers are being accompanied by driving instructors today.)
Most interesting to me, though, is the political shift hinted at by the Region’s announcement.
A Division in the Ranks?
Generally, the Region has maintained a very hands-off
attitude throughout the strike, insisting the dispute is solely between the contractors and the union and that it will not intervene.
With yesterday’s announcement, however, it seems this might be changing. The wording of the announcement clearly suggests the Region is losing faith in the bargaining process—or perhaps in the contractors themselves—and that it intends to start becoming more involved, perhaps to finally fend off criticism that it is doing nothing
while transit users suffer. From the announcement:
The unions and contractors have had ample time to negotiate a fair agreement,said Chairman Fisch.We are taking measures to restore as much service as possible, placing our riders at the forefront by putting larger buses in service, getting our commuters out of the cold and where they need to go.
Of particular note is the three-point list of actions the Region is taking to provide as much service
as possible. In addition to placing Viva buses on route 99, it seems the Region plans to place additional pressure on the contractors to find ways of restoring service without running afoul of Canada’s labour laws. But the third point really stands out to me:
Further examine the terms and conditions of our contracts with York BRT Services, Miller Transit and First Canada, with a specific focus on additional remedies to improve transit service
It’s hard not to interpret this as a veiled threat directed at the contractors: Find a way to move forward in the dispute, or we’ll find a way to… well, do what, exactly? Is it possible the Region is considering how it might sever the contracts, as the union is demanding? Perhaps it is simply threatening to find other ways it can lean on the contractors, punishing them through the legal system if they’re not able to get productive negotiations going. But considering how well-entrenched both sides are now, I can’t think what the contractors might do that wouldn’t involve acceding to the union’s demands. And while many people believe that’s the right thing to do anyway, I can’t see it as being in the region’s long-term interest.
While the union has often accused the Region of colluding with the contractors, the Region now seems prepared to drive a wedge in that relationship and establish a position of its own in the dispute. This is arguably a good thing, but I have to wonder what is motivating it. I’d hate to believe councillors are starting to give in to the pressure the union is placing on them, in the media and through its picketing efforts. We know where that leads.
In the meantime, if you experienced the commute this morning on the 99 route, I hope you’ll post a comment below and tell us what the experience was like. Do you think this was a good move by the Region?
I’ve always thought YRT ought to fire it’s contractors anyway and find new ones. I don’t know how they could be so incompetent as to arrange their contracts so they expire simultaneously.
As for Bill Fisch, the criticism is unwarranted. I’m with you Simon in that there was little he could do.
Finding new contractors is easier said than done (if possible at all unless the region lowers their requirements). I’m not just saying that legally. I’m saying even the last round of tenders garnered almost no acceptable bids (and even the non-acceptable ones there were only like 2 of them). And the ones that were acceptable were the 4 already involved (First, Veolia, Can-Ar, Miller).
In addition to my previous post.. here’s the link…and my mistake there was only ONE other bidder that did not make the “list”.. Coach Canada. The others that bid on it aside from Coach Canada are/were already involved as I stated…So once again…. this whole talk of fire the contractors and hire someone new might not be an option (or at least not an easy one):
http://www.york.ca/Regional+Government/Agendas+Minutes+and+Reports/_2010/pdf+TSC+3-2.htm
^^^ Page 9 for the list
If YRT owns the busses, and drivers are available (at least on a temp basis), why can’t they open *new* bus routes e.g. from Bernard to Davis, or along Hwy. 7, on slightly different routes to avoid a 98 and 1 overlaps and possible legal troubles? Call them e.g. 198 and 101…
BTW, look what’s coming in Toronto, with 32,000 outside and inside workers preparing for another fight! http://www.labour-reporter.com/articleview/12133-toronto-outside-workers-offer-wage-freeze We may soon be happy with our own little YRT problem, at least we’ll have garbage collection and snow plows on the streets.
@Daniel, that was a union tactic, and most likely the contractors got the bait. Why do you think the unions are now fiercely fighting for a three years contract (not two or four years, as proposed by the contractors)? Exactly because the Southwest and GO contracts are due.
@Daniel, @OP: In addition, my understanding is that the contracts didn’t actually expire at the same time last year; they were months apart, but the union was able to manipulate the process in order to have both locals go on strike at once. Remember Miller’s letter? Local 1587 dragged out negotiations for as long as they needed to, then dropped their wage-demand bomb to force the workers on strike along with Local 113 (and GO, if those members had co-operated).
In other words, this was not just a mistake on the part of the Region or the contractors. This is a part of the union’s strategy, as OP says.
@Some1: Interesting. Why do you suppose the union doesn’t put in a bid in themselves? They clearly understand the region, they no doubt have the capital and for them, labour negotiations would be a non-issue. They don’t even have to buy the buses. If their goal is to co-opt the whole system, don’t you think that would be a more productive way to do it?
@OP: Forgot to mention, I like your idea about adding new routes. Perhaps this is just the sort of thing the Region has in mind as it reviews the contracts—my guess it’d be the contractors who’d take issue with this, as it’d basically be the Region choosing to compete with them.
Even if it is hard, it does not mean it can’t be done, and I still believe you do it. Even if the process is covert. The contractors got played by the unions so hard it’s not even funny.
First of all, the contractors needed to be aware of the union tactic and try to subvert it. Why did it not lock out its drivers, make offer after offer, seek mediation and then an arbitrator after a few weeks? Where was the strategizing on the contractors’ part?
Second of all, for all the beatings the unions get, where are the offers from the contractors? They sure don’t look willing to negotiate themselves.
Thirdly, and lastly, where are the mediators? Maybe instead of playing chicken with its own customers- the public- we can get some urgency and use whatever means necessary. Including mediation. I know it may not work but at least they look like they’re trying.
Which brings me to binding arbitration, where this will head I’m sure. I’m sure you can subvert the process by lowballing- why don’t the contractors try that?
Yes, it may be true that lots of aspects of this strike are out of the contractors’ hands…but they still made a mess of things. Eventually they’ll have to pay the price for it.
@Daniel: If you ever managed a business and engaged in a fixed price contract you would certainly understand the negotiation margins of the contractors, in particular in today’s throat-cutting business environment. Arguably, the contractors should though have considered in advance the potential unions impact on their business, and prepare emergency plans and countermeasures. Apparently, they were not at all prepared for a tough labour conflict.
The Toronto labour conflict is apparently escalating:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/01/12/toronto-lockout-strike-union-holyday.html That could have some interesting implications in their YR “brothers” strike.
@OP – I believe the profit margins of the contractors are not that high… It was raised on the YR FB before, the net income in 2010 for Veolia was $736 M USD (€581.1 M) and has 287,040 employees (data taken from Wikipedia, but as least it has references – which I have not verified myself). So that’s $2564 of profit per employee.
Now, the YRT drivers are demanding 20% increase in salary, sick days, full benefit, washroom breaks – all those would require extra money. The average salary disclosed by the contractors was around $50K. So 20% is 10K (the contractor needs to add put in overhead items like CPP & EI for the 20% – mostly for the part-time drivers who are not making the average salary of $50K).
In order to maintain the same QoS (Quality of Service) to meet the Service Level Agreement, the contractors needs to hire more standby drivers to handle drivers that are sick (we all have workers that are “sick” whenever it snows – a lot of times they don’t want to go to work and thus call in sick).
So, if the average profit Veolia makes per headcount is only $2564, then giving the drivers a 20% increase, and giving them sick days, then Veolia would be losing money. Veolia would rather let the contract expire (after 6 months of not providing service?) than losing money in this contract – at least not making money is better than losing money!
@Rayson Ho:
First off.. What you said:
“”Now, the YRT drivers are demanding 20% increase in salary, sick days, full benefit, washroom breaks – all those would require extra money.”"
that is absolutely DISGUSTING that you put salary increase, sick days, benefits and WASHROOM BREAKS into the same sentence. Really now?? Take out the washroom breaks part and your argument will hold a bit more weight.
Secondly…. Using one example, Miller makes around 1.8million dollars profit per year from the transit contract with the region. That profit does not even include the “bonuses” all contractors get for meeting or exceeding each part of operating the service (eg: vehicle cleanliness, driver training, on-time performance etc.) You can in fact see all these exact numbers on the YRT website. Most of the items all the contractors in fact exceeded if not MET on.
Thirdly…. Less than 5% (probably even less than that) of the employees with all the contractors are working part-time. Aside from a small handful, ALL drivers and mechanics are there full-time and pay into those CPP and EI benefits themselves from their earnings.
And btw, there is no “6 month” no service clause.. I have no idea where this came from. So it would be costing quite a bit of time and money to “break” the contract with the region.
@Some1: I’m prepared to take your numbers as entirely correct. If I’m reading correctly the news, there are at least 200 drivers working for Miller, so if we divide the 1.8M by 200 we got $9,000 per year and per driver. Otherwise said, only the salary increase requested by the union will, more or less, eat up the entire yearly profit of Miller. Therefore, the rest of the demands (like sick days, requiring to hire extra drivers to cover up, pension plan, medical benefits, etc…) will have to come from the Miller pockets.
Even if Miller would be a charity it won’t be able to make it without extra YR dollars, which is exactly what you are after. The unionized thugs are actually slobbering while looking at the YR tax payers pockets, rather than being some sort of Robin Hoods hunting the greedy CEOs.
Breaking the contracts would have zero cost, at any time, if both parties would agree to. I see no reason why those companies would stick to a contract that brings zero profits and a mountain of troubles.
Simon, I’m curious about what you think of York firing First Canada. I see it both ways- it’s good that the Region is taking action but at the same time it seems heavy handed, and I question the legality- it’s illegal to hire “replacement workers”. Thoughts?
Well, it’s not really hiring replacement workers. As far as I know, the union and First Canada has a deal that First Canada cannot hire replacements while the union members are on strike. The region did not make an offer/contract with the union at all. Furthermore, since it is within the contract that YR can terminate the contract with First, I don’t really see any any illegal proceedings happening here.
As long as the contract termination is legally grounded, YR is now free to find another contractor (which they are doing). The whole legal mess (if any) is between First and the union – but unions have no word regarding potential termination of employees for (e.g. lost, or restructuring) business reasons. It’s the new contractor option to hire some of the First drivers, which they probably will, if they’ll take offers similar to the current. That would be the logical course, I’m pretty sure the new contractor will hold no grudge for what happened – business always comes always first.
I certainly doubt the YR-First contract termination was hostile. I’m pretty confident First and YR discussed and both parties agreed that without re-negotiating the contractual financial terms (which, of course, was not an option) there’s no way out of the deadlock. Hence, they (more or less) mutually agreed to terminate the contract, before the expiration.
@Daniel: I, too, thought it seemed a bit heavy-handed at first. At the same time, there’s a certain satisfaction in seeing the Region swing into action like this.
At this point I have mostly just questions about what it all means. I’ll summarize my thoughts in tomorrow’s blog post.