Who are the bureaucrats more afraid of? Illegalsigns.ca or the sign companies?

dad,

here is an article that was published in this Staurdays national post paper. Yah! he likes our new building.

Nadeau only attempts to criticise “neo-classical” economics, based on comparisons to 19th century physics. On that basis, of course it sucks!

Why not look at how economists have developed the subject over the last hundred years, and the efforts they have made to incorporate environmental issues?

I don’t understand this post. The trip was likely planned long before they knew the negotiations would go on 2 weeks past the scheduled deadline. If i didn’t know better, this reads like a sue ann levy Toronto Sun all over the place rant.

And the TTC stuff really clouds whatever you’re trying to say about human rights.

Good point, Mark—politicians at all the relevant levels are talking out of both sides of their mouths. Pity none of them seems interested in playing the hero and helping broker a deal.

As for the health (and environmental) costs of not having a public transit system, you’ll hear no disagreement from me. But if Torontonians really believe in declaring the TTC an essential service for these reasons, then why are they raised only when a strike is imminent, and why is it not a no-brainer to settle with the ATU to ensure that we can all continue to enjoy these benefits?

Amy

Blame Marilyn Churley. She told us via the ATU ads that no TTC = impact on Torontonian health. Can’t compare that, however smartassedly you try, to coffee.

McGuinty is trying to posture both ways here – to the right as being ready to impose essentiality but to the left as having been asked to do so by the municipality so he can pin the political downside on Miller – not that I have any sympathy for a mayor cosying up to a despicable regime and absenting himself from “his” 20-minute cleanup day while a critical service is under notice of strike.

If I apply your logic about essential workers, it would seem that downtown coffee shops should also be declared “essential services”, given that so many Torontonians seem utterly unable to perform their jobs without steady injections of caffeine. Pity so few baristas are unionized.

As for replacement workers, as far as I know there’s currently no legal prohibition against it in Ontario. So sure, head over to the local TTC yard and offer your services as a scab—if you can stomach transgressing all the moral terrain you’ll have to cross to get there. But hey, it’s just a matter of personal conscience.

At the same time I’d have to admire your guts, and despite my disagreement I’d still give you far more credit than I do those who object to a TTC strike on the grounds that it “inconveniences” them. Of course it does. But strikes—which are calculated inconveniences—are a perfect reminder to us all to appreciate the services—hot coffee, mail delivery, vacuumed carpets, and regular bus service—that we take so easily for granted.

That’s terrific information and very good to know—thanks—but mostly tangential to my objection. Maybe my objection was too radical?

Either TTC work is too special for non-TTC workers ever to perform. In which case it ought get declared an essential service.

Or, TTC work isn’t that special. In which case, when TTC workers stop working, non-TTC replacement workers should be able to receive training and get hired to perform TTC work.

Yes, it is a fundamental right to stop working. But what gives anyone the right to stop others from working? Why should those that need and seek work when there’s a strike ever get physically threatened and denigrated as “scabs?” What’s wrong with crossing picket lines?

I have always wanted to drive buses. Been a fantasy of mine since I was 3. If TTC workers stop working—isn’t that the best time for me to apply?

As for replacement workers, it is my understanding that the Ontario Labour Relations Act does not currently prohibit replacement workers. However, given the specialized training of most TTC employees, particularly front-line bus drivers and subway operators, it’s unlikely the TTC would be able to dredge up enough trained workers even from within management ranks to run the system.

And this doesn’t even address the unlikelihood that the TTC would even be able to get its buses and trains out of the yards, which will be principal picketing sites.

It seems to me that in the event of a strike the fastest way to get the buses and subways running again will be for the ATU and the TTC to reach a negotiated settlement.

Good point, Peter—if exercising your right to work is genuinely dependent on TTC employees ferrying you to your job, and if their failure to do so results in catastrophic harm not only to to you but to the public interest. In short, you’re making an argument that TTC employees should be declared essential workers. Fair enough.

I disagree, mainly because I don’t believe Torontonians’ access to employment is so immediately dependent on the TTC that its members should be denied their legal right to strike. Should a strike go on interminably and surpass some threshold of public endurance, the Province has the ability to adopt back-to-work legislation—an action which, if taken reasonably and not precipitously, protects both the public interest and the ATU’s right to strike, while putting additional pressure on the TTC Commission and the ATU to reach the settlement that has evaded them to date.

The Ontario Labour Relations Act has evolved over decades to incorporate numerous checks and balances between the rights of unions, employers and the public. The right to strike receives legal protection because this right, too, is in the public interest.

A strike is a legal pressure tactic. A strike puts pressure on employers to meet unions’ bargaining demands. It also puts pressure on unions to settle before striking members run out of endurance. And it puts pressure on the public as well—want to apply some of your own? Contact the TTC Commission, the City and the ATU urging them to reach a negotiated settlement as quickly as possible.