City Workers Strike 2009

[GenerationW]

And when it comes to the sick days issue, all he has done is limit the liability, and even then not by much. He's banking on turnover in the next decade or two to eliminate the liability.

No one's leaving a job with those wages and benefits unless they retire or expire.

 

[Filip]

Speaking about Councillors, after weeks of not replying to my email about the strike, my dufus councillor sent this:

I personally can't stand him either, and yes he's my councillor as well.

 

[adma]

He's the most Todd Palin-ish character on council, that's for sure...

 

[Dilla]

Good old Grimey...

 

[boomix]

Equifax has released newest delinquency rates across Canada. Look at where Toronto is on that star studded list.

By The Canadian Press
ADVERTISEMENT

TORONTO - As the recession causes the financial squeeze to get tighter, a credit monitoring company says Canadians are falling behind on their credit payments at "an ever-increasing rate."

Equifax Canada says the average national delinquency rate at the end of June rose to 1.56 per cent - a jump of 24 per cent over the same time last year.

Equifax defines a delinquent bill as one that's at least 90 days overdue.

The company says the province with the highest delinquency rate is Nova Scotia at 2.09 per cent, while Saskatchewan has the lowest rate at 1.24 per cent.

It says rates of overdue bills are increasing fastest in Alberta and British Columbia at 32 per cent and 30 per cent respectively.

Equifax says among major Canadian cities, Toronto has the highest delinquency rate of 2.03 per cent.

 

[GenerationW]

Have they gone back on strike? Friday is my collection day and my green bin is still sitting full at my curb as I write this.

 

[simuls]

I got this response from Adam Vaughan yesterday (in addition to a boiler plate I received last week when I emailed him).

Dear Ward 20 residents and friends,

I want to start by thanking all of you who have taken the time to write and call my office with your views and concerns about the City's labour negotiations. As you know, the City has negotiated agreements for four collective agreements with CUPE 79 and also with TCEU 416.

I think it is important to let you know why I support the contracts as proposed to Council. Through the stress of living under strike conditions and the media frenzy, it has been difficult to get a clear perspective on the facts - so here is my take on the offer.

City of Toronto staff negotiators started this year with a glaring problem. Collective agreements settled beyond our control through arbitration awarded 9% over three years to Police and Transit workers. Arbitrators did not acknowledge that recessions leave cities with high demands for social services and shrinking tax bases to pay for them. While it is true that public sector unions saw little or no increases during the recessions of the nineties, ever since the Provincial Public Service (OPSEU) achieved a 3% a year deal shortly into the new millennium, contracts have been settled in the same range, often through arbitration. In fact, no contract ever signed by the amalgamated City has ever been for less than 3% a year. This is the first contract that gets a handle on the City's labour costs.

All along the City was clear with CUPE leadership that with the global financial crisis there must be an end to 3% increases. To reinforce this position, I personally (as did other Councillors) returned my salary raise to the City. This Council also showed leadership when we broke with the tradition of settling with non-union employees after new CUPE contracts have been signed. Instead we adopted a 0% increase for non-union and management employees without waiting for union negotiations to finish. As the summer approached CUPE was still digging in their heals.

Even after all of these clear indications, CUPE Locals 416 and 79 voted to go on strike and came to the table asking for a 12% increase equal to arbitrated agreements settled before the financial crisis had hit Toronto. Today we know the striking employees have not received half of what they asked for.

City staff negotiators have succeeded in negotiating wage increases totalling only 5.6% over three years and a zero increase in benefit costs. This is less than half the amount that 30,000 workers hit the pavement expecting to win.

All that remains now is to clarify the Sick Leave Plan vs. Short Term Disability war of words.

Whether we like it or think it is fair or reasonable, the reality is that for 60 years all unionized City workers have had the contractual right to bank 18 sick days a year. Over the years, as our City, the complexity of our services and the size of our workforce has grown, this benefit has become much more difficult to afford. The same scenario has played out with most public sector organizations, which is why the Public Sector Accounting Board guidelines recommend abolition of this type of benefit. The contracts adopted by CUPE and the City this week, eliminated this benefit on a go forward basis. In the same way other cites (such as Mississauga and Etobicoke) eliminated this type of benefit, the plan does allow certain staff to maintain the days they have already banked.

Another reality to consider is that the City of Toronto has an aging work force, with thousands of CUPE employees set to retire in the next 10 years. This number doubles when we include staff with 15 years left on the job. As they leave, the most any one employee can claim is 120 days, as a form of severance. Each of these positions will be replaced with new staff who will not be allowed to bank sick days, ever again. The plan is eliminated on a go forward basis. Our retirement turnover forecast means that the unfunded liability caused by the Sick Leave Bank will be decreasing rapidly as soon as the deal is struck.

I know you care about the future of our City, and you care about providing services while carefully managing the threat of increasing tax burdens, which is why I think you will appreciate that this is the most affordable contract negotiation deal that has been struck since amalgamation, one with far reaching favourable financial impacts.

The most amazing thing produced by the strike was the civic pride evident in parks groups caring for neighbourhood green spaces, street cleaning done by local businesses and the way in which neighbours helped each other.

With City services returning to regular operations I look forward to working with you to build on the connections and partnerships to improve our neighbourhoods and parks that this unfortunate situation has kindled and strengthened...................

Sincerely,

 

[kEiThZ]

Equifax has released newest delinquency rates across Canada. Look at where Toronto is on that star studded list.

This is not relevant to the strike. Personal delinquency may say something about the regional economy but it does not say anything about city finances, city management, etc.

 

[Whoaccio]

It’s time to shed the dead weight of the bureaucracy

Toronto’s municipal strike is over. Some 30,000 garbage and other workers are back on the job. That’s at least 15,000 too many.

If the strike has taught Torontonians anything, it’s that the city does precious little for its residents. Now that the garbage is finally being picked up, Torontonians want to clean up the mess at City Hall. Most hold the Mayor in low regard, most hold the councillors in low regard, most hold the strikers in low regard, and most want to privatize garbage collection.

But why stop with outsourcing garbage services? Private firms can and should take over the many other functions that city workers have grabbed from private-sector firms who would treat city customers with more respect, and at lower cost. Striking 15,000 to 20,000 workers from the city payroll will not only improve the quality of city services, doing so will also lower taxes and create jobs throughout the wider city economy.

In the case of garbage collection, private-sector workers, who tend to be fitter and better managed, collect two and a half to three times as much garbage per person per hour as city workers. With garbage collection in private hands, not only would strikes disappear but streets will be cleared of garbage more quickly and traffic will be less disrupted. Exit 6,000 workers. Bonus: Toronto will also pocket a small fortune by selling its trucks and other garbage infrastructure.

The case for privatizing Toronto’s bloated water and sewage operations is also a slam dunk — other cities that have done so saw savings as high as 50%. CUPE has not only opposed water privatization in the past, it even objected to the city applying its Works Best Practices Program to its water and sewage operations. Little wonder — this program found that the city’s sewage system would run better without 400 of its 907 workers. By placing the city’s water and sewage works under the management of the most efficient operators, Toronto taxpayers not only stand to save $100-million, according to an estimate from United Water in 2001, but the unjustifiable hikes that we’ve seen in water rates would be staunched, along with many of the 1,500 water-main breaks the city suffers each year. Exit 1,500 workers.

Next, privatize the hugely inefficient Toronto Parking Authority. Although it is the largest in the continent, with 20 parking garages and 140 surface parking lots, it provides a pittance in revenue to the city, partly because it subsidizes parking for neighbourhoods that are politically well connected at the expense of neighbourhoods that aren’t. And partly because of its featherbedding and its wage levels — more than one-third of the monies that Torontonians pay in parking tickets or feed into parking machines feeds the parking authority’s payroll. Privatizing the parking authority would also help public transit compete against the car, because the parking authority subsidizes lots near subway stations. Exit 400 workers. Another bonus: The city would pocket hundreds of millions of dollar through the sale of the parking authority’s real estate and other assets.

The list of city-run enterprises that have no business being in municipal hands — and whose privatization has been urged by urban advocates such as Toronto’s own Jane Jacobs — goes on and on. They include the inefficient city-owned power company that gouges city customers with unjustifiably high fees, the city-owned transit company that has failed to provide the citizenry with affordable service, the city-owned houses and apartment blocks that so often become centres of despair, and the city-owned district heating operation that for decades has failed to use energy efficiently.

Privatizing these operations would lead to a more humane city, a more prosperous city, and a more environmentally friendly city. But why stop there?

The city’s own Prosperity Agenda and the Blueprint for Fiscal Stability and Economic Prosperity laments its under-utilized real estate holdings, which it conservatively values at $18-billion. It knows these holdings must be properly employed, in order to create employment and “regenerate Toronto.†Sell these off, too, and use the proceeds to cut taxes and provide the services that more suit cities, such as providing libraries, parks, policing and fire protection.

During Toronto’s 39-day strike, and garbage services aside, many remarked on how surprisingly well the city seemed to run, given that it lost so much of its vast workforce. The city didn’t much need its Mayor and councillors either — and Torontonians didn’t get many services from these “leaders†— because of these politicians’ reluctance to cross picket lines to attend municipal meetings. The city, in truth, is its citizenry. And the citizenry generally does best when it doesn’t need to carry the dead weight of the bureaucracy.

 

[avatarreb]

The question of privatizing these services is an interesting one. I do have an anecdotal experience to share...

The company I work for has an annual event where all the employees go out to the community and volunteer in some way. This year, many chose to spend time cleaning up Toronto parks. On the day we were planned to do this, the strike started, and so we weren’t permitted to work in the Toronto parks (i.e. crossing the lines).

Not wanting to waste the opportunity, we ended up making last minute arrangements to do a cleanup in parks surround Toronto in the 905. The funny thing was that there wasn’t much of anything to clean when we got there… the park maintenance has been privatized and they were in excellent shape.

 

[ShonTron]

Not surprised by the sinking ship's blog. "Everything must go!" Despite their best efforts, they can't even afford to publish the paper today.

There are very few municipalities that have contracted out water and wastewater services. The best-managed municipalities in Canada have kept them in-house.

 

[kEiThZ]

Not surprised by the sinking ship's blog. "Everything must go!" Despite their best efforts, they can't even afford to publish the paper today.

There are very few municipalities that have contracted out water and wastewater services. The best-managed municipalities in Canada have kept them in-house.

That's not to say that the writer does not have some valid points. Why is there a costume technician on the city's payroll? When it comes to water and waste-water, sure not many are privatized but sometimes they are arms length municipally owned corporations. Why can't Toronto undertake that model? I envision an arms length wholly city owned corporation with a mandate for infrastructure renewal, public safety and efficient delivery of services. Is that too much to hope for compared to the union infested shop that's just one of many city owned services?

 

[Whoaccio]

Oddly enough, privatized water management is fairly common in France, Spain and the UK. Once again, part of the problem stems from people misinterpreting what "privatization" implies as some kind of 19th century dickensian oligopoly. (thanks, Maude Barlow) Most of the time it just involves governments tendering the management and construction of whatever infrastructure to a private company.

 

[kEiThZ]

The author does raise a good point though. Not many people noticed the strike. The average citizen lost out on garbage collection only. Welfare recipients were hit hard and so were parents. But did anyone really notice that many backoffice staff being on strike? If a city can run with 'management' providing essential services, to me that means they either have too many employees or too many managers or both! Can you imagine GM or Boeing keeping production going during a strike with its managers working on the shop floor?

 

[salvius]

The author does raise a good point though. Not many people noticed the strike. The average citizen lost out on garbage collection only. Welfare recipients were hit hard and so were parents. But did anyone really notice that many backoffice staff being on strike? If a city can run with 'management' providing essential services, to me that means they either have too many employees or too many managers or both!

The key word here is essential services. We don't need urban planners, lawyers, public health inspectors, policy analysts, accountants, etc. etc. for a 6 week period. Construction and development permits can be stopped, non-essential litigation and research adjourned, restaurants know they cannot 'slide' in the long-term, policy documents are usually not 100% time critical, and city budgets and accounting can be halted for the time being. I'm sure many of the staff are still working overtime as a result, or alternatively there is a backlog in provision of services.

Now, it is not a terrible surprise that managers could keep the essential services running because they were relocated from managing those jobs into doing something entirely different that had to be done. Furthermore, much of the non-union staff was similarly relocated into essential service delivery, as did many returning union workers (my friend, an policy analyst working for the city wanted to return, but was told they couldn't guarantee that he'd be doing his usual job).