Skinny Dipper I think you meant to refer to Maslow who postulated the heirarchy of needs, I can understand the confusion though when thinking about Ford supporters and Pavlov with his dogs salivating on the sound of the bell.
How Ford won the campaign on the ground, and not in the media
Fri, 2010-10-29 23:06
#52
Sat, 2010-10-30 09:51
#53
I'm just wondering how long it's going to take Ford to pull the city's funding away from Pride.
In today's Star there is a survey of city councillors on where they line up on various Ford proposals. Only TWO city councillors out of 44 support eliminating funding for Pride - Rob Ford's brother Doug and perenial clown Giorgio Mammoliti. Ain't gonna happen.
Sat, 2010-10-30 10:13
#54
At the heart of Ford's election promises is the supposed dedication to fiscal responsibility. If Ford wants to pull the city's funding for Pride, when you consider the MILLIONS of dollars Pride brings into the city, Ford would be betraying his base.
Sat, 2010-10-30 12:21
#55
Cueball
I'm just wondering how long it's going to take Ford to pull the city's funding away from Pride.
In today's Star there is a survey of city councillors on where they line up on various Ford proposals. Only TWO city councillors out of 44 support eliminating funding for Pride - Rob Ford's brother Doug and perenial clown Giorgio Mammoliti. Ain't gonna happen.
Thank god for that! As long as Cairibbana and Gay Pride are safe all is good. We don't need to worry about subcontracting out garbage collection and employees in the newly privatized workplace being paid 30% less than the present CUPE members, or forcing them into no-strike contracts.
Sat, 2010-10-30 12:52
#56
Last night I was out with some friends, two of them small business owners here in Parkdale. Now that the initial shock of having Rob Ford as mayor is fading, there seems to be more of a "well, at least we didn't get Smitherman" feeling; a sense that we dodged a bullet in terms of the potential damage to this city that has been avoided by electing a fool rather than a crook.
Sat, 2010-10-30 12:58
#57
Cueball
It was interesting reading the Star report on the positions of the various councilor. Number one and two on the list were privatizing what remains of public service curbside garbage collection, and turning the TTC into an essential service. With all the Ford v Smitherman v Pantalone strategic voting hubib, I am sure many people forgot the actual issues at stake. I can't remember many articles on these two leading issue in the last couple of weeks of the campaign at all.
In anycase, that is what people voted for, regardless if they voted for Smitherman or Ford, so there is the story. My councillor, Vaughan, a "hip downtown leftist: is undecided on the issue.
Sat, 2010-10-30 13:57
#58
I'm just wondering how long it's going to take Ford to pull the city's funding away from Pride.
In today's Star there is a survey of city councillors on where they line up on various Ford proposals. Only TWO city councillors out of 44 support eliminating funding for Pride - Rob Ford's brother Doug and perenial clown Giorgio Mammoliti. Ain't gonna happen.
Thank god for that! As long as Cairibbana and Gay Pride are safe all is good. We don't need to worry about subcontracting out garbage collection and employees in the newly privatized workplace being paid 30% less than the present CUPE members, or forcing them into no-strike contracts.
Give it a rest already. Someone asked a specific question and I gve a specific answer. As for whether garbage collection will get contracted out - nothing can happen for at least a year and a half when current contracts expire. There is clearly a swing segment of councillors who are open to being convinced one way or another on this issue. I suggest that if you want to prevent garbage collection from being contracted out - you start crafting some common sense, pragmatic, non-ideological arguments for why its a bad idea and try to win over those critical votes.
Sat, 2010-10-30 16:02
#59
I crunched the numbers by former municipality (that is, in wards that are in multiple boroughs, I sorted it out by poll):
Toronto: Smitherman 51.5%, Ford 28.2%, Pantalone 16.5%
East York: Ford 43.1%, Smitherman 36.1%, Pantalone 14.5%
York: Ford 47.1%, Smitherman 30.2%, Pantalone 14.8%
North York: Ford 52.5%, Smitherman 30%, Pantalone 10.4%
Scarborough: Ford 57%, Smitherman 27.7%, Pantalone 8%
Etobicoke: Ford 65.2%, Smitherman 24.2%, Pantalone 7.7%
Sat, 2010-10-30 18:51
#60
And the explanation for that outcome, again, having taken all of the variables into account, is.........?
Sat, 2010-10-30 19:05
#61
The working class will likely vote for the Conservatives. Unionists will vote for the Conservatives. Unionists who are also moose hunters will vote for the Conservatives.
No kidding.
Well, when I finally bag that big beast, I'll need some dippy skinner to help me make it presentable.
Sat, 2010-10-30 19:39
#62
I'm just wondering how long it's going to take Ford to pull the city's funding away from Pride. The argument that the city shouldn't be helping to support Pride is an odd one, given that the event and associated activities have been a boon for many local businesses, and money spent by the city on the event reaps many more times the amount put in (not to mention the additional taxes). Would Ford really want to be opposing local businesses?
I don't think all funding will be pulled, that would just be too much and too ugly of a fight. I do think it's quite likely that some chunk of the funding will be pulled as part of the larger drive to save money (that is - all other such city-funded events are for the chop too). That still places Pride Toronto in a difficult position because they're carrying a large loss from this year's festivities.
Sat, 2010-10-30 19:49
#63
If Pride funding is pulled Pride will be so corporatized we will barely recognize it.
Anyways, people have said the media did not help Ford. I think it most certainly did help Ford. Talk radio was huge in the Ford factor, as were both the Sun and the National Post.
Sat, 2010-10-30 20:13
#64
Talk radio was huge in the Ford factor, as were both the Sun and the National Post.
I agree. Ford got millions in free advertising from them. I remember one day that Ford boycotted on of the public debates. That become newsworthy. The result? Rob Ford gets some private time on 1010 to explain why he didn't attend the debate.
Sat, 2010-10-30 21:17
#65
I'm talking about what strategy will be effective. There is not now, nor has there ever been anywhere near a majority of Toronto City Council that was NDP/pro-labour (or whatever you want to call it). If you want to LOSE the vote, go to centrist councillors with backgrounds in the Liberals or Conservative parties and start bellowing "workers of the world unite" and see how far it gets you.
According to the Star survey - there is almost no support for getting rid of the 117-year old fair wages policy - so that's a non-starter anyways. But there will be a fight over contracting out. You better have some solid arguments against it or you will LOSE. I suggest finding evidence that it will be inefficient or will cost the city more money in the long run etc....
Sat, 2010-10-30 21:19
#66
Heh. I am getting a little tired of this routine where people talk and act as if the labour movement, and the left, and people like Pantalone who represent that movement are discussed as if they had absolutely nothing to do with the defense of gay rights in this city and this country.
Remind of who ever saiud that in the first place or are you just making up bullshit because you feel like it?
Sat, 2010-10-30 21:30
#67
Cueball
I'm just wondering how long it's going to take Ford to pull the city's funding away from Pride.
In today's Star there is a survey of city councillors on where they line up on various Ford proposals. Only TWO city councillors out of 44 support eliminating funding for Pride - Rob Ford's brother Doug and perenial clown Giorgio Mammoliti. Ain't gonna happen.
Thank god for that! As long as Cairibbana and Gay Pride are safe all is good. We don't need to worry about subcontracting out garbage collection and employees in the newly privatized workplace being paid 30% less than the present CUPE members, or forcing them into no-strike contracts.
Give it a rest already. Someone asked a specific question and I gve a specific answer. As for whether garbage collection will get contracted out - nothing can happen for at least a year and a half when current contracts expire. There is clearly a swing segment of councillors who are open to being convinced one way or another on this issue. I suggest that if you want to prevent garbage collection from being contracted out - you start crafting some common sense, pragmatic, non-ideological arguments for why its a bad idea and try to win over those critical votes.
Heh. I am getting a little tired of this routine where people talk and act as if the labour movement, and the left, and people like Pantalone who represent that movement are discussed as if they had absolutely nothing to do with the defense of gay rights in this city and this country. That is why the City of Toronto recognized same sex spousal benefits before same sex marriage was guaranteed in law. It is true that Gay people themselve were the primary motivators of the recognition of their right, but outside of that community it was the left and the labour movement who frist recognized the legitimacy of their movement, and supported it and made allinaces with it, on principle.
The ability of the left and the labour movement, and people like Joe Pantalone to be effective as supporters of that movement was embedded in the power that had been won by the labour movement over many generations of activism. It is foolish beyond belief to believe that diminishing the rights and power of unionized labour is not going to have an negative impact on the ability of the left defend gay rights from the forces of reaction. Same with pay equity for women.
Wong Tam made a similar point when reacting to the suggestion that the "fair wage" policy be abolished: "what next pay equity?"
I am sorry if you think defending the rights of people to be allowed to have free collective bargaining and the right to withhold their labour in order to ensure they are paid a fare wage for doing a shitty job like sorting through your slimey waste products is merely "ideological", and is contrary to common ssense pragmatism. Maybe people shouldn't be "ideological" about same sex marriage, either? Can you think of any non-ideological common sense and pragmatic common sense arguments for having an enforced minimum wage, or a "Labour Code", I mean other than common decency?
Sat, 2010-10-30 21:36
#68
Cueball
Well gee Stockholm can you think of any non-ideological reasons for supporting same sex marriage rights? I don't recall anyone suggesting that we should have to find any reasons to support those rights on the basis that they would be economically efficient, or some such.
Sat, 2010-10-30 21:39
#69
Yes, many:
Court rulings mean that trying to fight it will cost more than just going along with it
It will save the government money since someone on welfare with a same sex spouse who works will no longer be able to collect
It is actually socially conservative to encourage gays to marry - so that they stop being so promiscuous (sic.)
Its libertarian to let people make their own choices about who to marry.
...there are many arguments in favour of SSM that have little or nothing to do with "gay liberation" theory.
Sat, 2010-10-30 21:53
#70
Cueball
Wouldn't it be so much cheaper just to stop allowing the courts to make the law, and end the practice of having all these frivolous "human rights" cases by abolishing the charter, and at the same time cease funding any welfare programs?
Sat, 2010-10-30 22:36
#71
Cueball, for a while there I was wondering what happened. You were actually making sense, I see things are getting back to normal now.
Sat, 2010-10-30 22:57
#72
Every immigrant I've met were not social conservatives.. I don't know what immigrants you're talking about because they're mostly progressives. Ford won because his message was clear, cut taxes.. What's Joe message? "I'm David Miller lite." Political suicide!!
Sun, 2010-10-31 04:22
#73
Cueball
Cueball, for a while there I was wondering what happened. You were actually making sense, I see things are getting back to normal now.
Did you read the new Babble policy statement yet? I noticed that the new version still prohibits trolling and personal attacks. A few personal attacks once and a while is understandable, but at least you could do people the courtesy of attaching them to some vaguely intelligent on-topic commentary.
Mon, 2010-11-01 09:09
#74
Sky Captain
Give it a rest already. Someone asked a specific question and I gve a specific answer. As for whether garbage collection will get contracted out - nothing can happen for at least a year and a half when current contracts expire. There is clearly a swing segment of councillors who are open to being convinced one way or another on this issue. I suggest that if you want to prevent garbage collection from being contracted out - you start crafting some common sense, pragmatic, non-ideological arguments for why its a bad idea and try to win over those critical votes.
^This.
Also something for most of the other commenters on Babble to think about in other contexts as well (media issues, the enviroment, etc.)
Mon, 2010-11-01 10:41
#75
Cueball
Bollocks. Rights do not need to be justified in pragmatic terms. Rights are part of entirely different discourse about the shape of the society we want to inhabit.
I can make arguments that show definitely that labour unions, free collective bargaining (which is a natural right the stems from the right of free association mind you) and the right to withhold ones labour, have greatly improved the overall standard of living beyond the sector of unionized workers by setting standards upon which the entire economy runs.
Even the basic fact that unionized labour spends most of their disposable income directly in the economy, whereas corporations often remove their profits from the local economy, speaks to the fact that fare wages for workers benefits the economy far more than corporate tax cuts, and reduced social service. Real stimulus for the real economy is far better served by expansion of the unionized workforce, and better pay for ordinary working people. Furthermore, good wages and good jobs are a natural deterrent against crime.
These are all practical considerations that support the argument against sub-contracting out labour.
Fact: Subcontracted curb side garbage collection in the city of Toronto is paid $18 an hour (wage and benefits), city workers doing the same job make $24 an hour (wage and benefits).
The above is what we are really talking about.
But that is really neither here nor there in a discussion of "rights" per se. The idea that rights need to be justified in micro-economic terms is an attack upon the fundamental principles of rights and democracy.
Mon, 2010-11-01 11:34
#76
I think that pay scale assumes they are following the rules and is probably for employees of the companies. When I did it a few years ago as day labour it was more like $9.50 an hour.
Mon, 2010-11-01 11:38
#77
Bollocks. Rights do not need to be justified in pragmatic terms. Rights are part of entirely different discourse about the shape of the society we want to inhabit.
That's all very well, but we are not talking about how to win an Oxford Union debate in front of an audience of academics and students - we are talking about how to sway middle of the road members of Toronto city council to vote a certain way on an issue.
Tue, 2010-11-02 22:49
#78
Bollocks. Rights do not need to be justified in pragmatic terms. Rights are part of entirely different discourse about the shape of the society we want to inhabit.That's all very well, but we are not talking about how to win an Oxford Union debate in front of an audience of academics and students - we are talking about how to sway middle of the road members of Toronto city council to vote a certain way on an issue.
Simply going up to them and saying, "if you vote for contracting out, we will spare no effort to see you defeated in 2014" should do the trick.
Wed, 2010-11-03 00:19
#79
The threat needs to be credible. How many councillors are vulnerable? Which ones?
Wed, 2010-11-03 01:41
#80
The trouble is that contracting out of garbage collection would probably be quite popular with the general public - especially after that IDIOTIC strike last summer to protect being able to get paid extra for not getting sick. The councillors who are at all vulnerable to a "threat" from CUPE are almost all people who are already pro-labour who you don't have to worry about.
Wed, 2010-11-03 02:31
#81
The trouble is that contracting out of garbage collection would probably be quite popular with the general public - especially after that IDIOTIC strike last summer to protect being able to get paid extra for not getting sick. The councillors who are at all vulnerable to a "threat" from CUPE are almost all people who are already pro-labour who you don't have to worry about.
I really have to question your motives. It's one thing if you provide reasons why the public may not be on-side with a particular strike action by a public sector union. What you are doing here is accepting the media spin on the garbage strike without question. Surely if you are involved in the progressive community you would have at least heard the perspectives of CUPE?
By the way, why is it just CUPE that was idiotic? There are always 2 sides to every story. Miller had the option to negotiate. He didn't. He chose instead to be confrontational and sealed his own fate. That CUPE should just accept what the city offered without question is something I'd expect from a Conservative or Chamber of Commerce type, not a progressive.
Wed, 2010-11-03 04:30
#82
Cueball
CUPE was right. Miller was wrong. Miller easily could have averted the strike and no one would have noticed. However, som quick thinking Liberals, probably those in the NDP convinced him it was time to look like he was not soft on "big labour".
The issue has been explained to Stockholm numerous times. And he knows that CUPE didn't like the clause in the contract that was because it punished workers who were sick because they wouldn't receive as large a pension as those who could bank all their sick days. The union was willing to get rid of the clause in the contract as long as workers under contract were fairly compensated for change in the pensions plan, as per their existing contract.
However, Stockholm routinely and continuously reverts to Toronto Sun talking points for some unknown reason. Perhaps he is one of the Liberal, or conservative guys who has infliltrated the NDP. Who knows? He has had more than enough time to understand the union perspective on the issue, but he continues to use the same line as Rob Ford would use.
So much guff about some guys getting paid enough to support a family and live without begging for handouts. A lot of the intelligenzia resent it when the people who get their hands dirty have the audacity to demand entry into the world of financial respectability.
Wed, 2010-11-03 12:44
#83
I don't want to rehash all the issues in the strike last summer - but suffice it to say that since any communications or information from the CUPE locals in Toronto about their justifications for the strike were virtually non-existent - its hard not to accept the narrative from the city. BTW: Joe Pantalone was 100% supportive of the city's position in the municipal workers strike last summer - I can't imagine that he - being so pro-labour - would been so unswervingly supportive of the city's position in the strike unless the union was being really intransigent and inflexible.
Getting back to the issue of what happens if there is a vote on council to contract out garbage collection. To stop it, you would need 23 votes - mind you there must be a reason why Lastman never tried to do it when he was mayor given that he would have had just as many votes for it as Ford would have now. There may be some good pragmatic arguments for why its a bad idea that might win over councillors who are not particularly leftwingt - but who can be reasoned with. By my count there are about a dozen rock-solid votes on council against contractiing out - those would be people who have NDP affiliations or were labour council endorsed. Getting another 10 councillors onside will mean having to lobby people like Josh Matlow or 3M from the Beaches or Ana Bailao and some new people elected in Scarborough. Better yet, let a year go by until Ford gets unpopular and then get people on council into a "Ford says black, we say white" mood.
Wed, 2010-11-03 13:09
#84
Snert
Simply going up to them and saying, "if you vote for contracting out, we will spare no effort to see you defeated in 2014" should do the trick.
The way we spared no effort to keep Rob Ford from winning??
Wed, 2010-11-03 15:00
#85
Cueball
I don't want to rehash all the issues in the strike last summer - but suffice it to say that since any communications or information from the CUPE locals in Toronto about their justifications for the strike were virtually non-existent - its hard not to accept the narrative from the city. BTW: Joe Pantalone was 100% supportive of the city's position in the municipal workers strike last summer - I can't imagine that he - being so pro-labour - would been so unswervingly supportive of the city's position in the strike unless the union was being really intransigent and inflexible.
Being deputy mayor does not allow one the latitude to go against the mayor. It would have been a serious break were Pantalone to undermine the chief player on the executive. Surely with all your years of observing politics you must understand this. Pantalone, free from such restrictions during the election was subtly critical of Miller's handling of the strike, saying that he would have "intervened" in the process earlier.
I believe that.
Wed, 2010-11-03 15:59
#86
"Being deputy mayor does not allow one the latitude to go against the mayor."
Well, then if you are a person of principle - you resign and join the picket line.
Thu, 2010-11-04 12:18
#87
However, Stockholm routinely and continuously reverts to Toronto Sun talking points for some unknown reason. Perhaps he is one of the Liberal, or conservative guys who has infliltrated the NDP. Who knows? He has had more than enough time to understand the union perspective on the issue, but he continues to use the same line as Rob Ford would use.
Now that made me laugh out loud. Stockholm a Liberal or Conservative who infililtrated the NDP. What makes you think any libs or cons would want to infililtrate!
Thu, 2010-11-04 12:56
#88
Cueball
"Being deputy mayor does not allow one the latitude to go against the mayor."
Well, then if you are a person of principle - you resign and join the picket line.
However, Stockholm routinely and continuously reverts to Toronto Sun talking points for some unknown reason. Perhaps he is one of the Liberal, or conservative guys who has infliltrated the NDP. Who knows? He certainly doesn't sound like someone who supports the NDP.
Thu, 2010-11-04 13:30
#89
huh? I think you are the one who is a closet Liberal since you are such an apologist for Pantaloine refsuing to stand up for the municipal workers during the strike last summer - just because he might have lost a few perks associated with being deputy mayor!
Thu, 2010-11-04 13:36
#90
Cueball
I checked out the new Rabble user policy. I don't see the place where the section on trolling was removed. Do you? Maybe... uhhh... get a life as they say?
Thu, 2010-11-04 14:02
#91
Call it what you want - I have yet to hear an explanation for how Pantalone can be such a great "champion of the workers" when he never took the opportunity to express any support for the municipal workers during the strike last summer and instead was 100% unswervingly supportive of the city's position.
Obviously, anytime you have clearly lost an argument you go crying to the "authorities" to complain. Your definition of "trolling" is someone having better arguments than you. Why don't you just admit you're wrong (I guess there's a first time for everything) and then we can move to more fruitful discussions.
Thu, 2010-11-04 15:45
#92
Cueball
Wrong about what? That Pantalone said he would have intervened in the process earlier? That you can't seem to remember the content of the CUPE argument against giving in to mangagment, even though it has been explained to you over and over and over again numerous times, and that rather than taking into account the unions position you see fit to repeat Toronto SUN and Royson James talking points over and over again like an idiot?
Either you are an idiot or you are trolling. Hard to decide which, frankly. Even idiots can eventually learn to regurgitate simple talking points, if they read them enough times. CUPE went on strike "so that workers could get paid for not being sick". Hit the button Koko here is a banana for you!
Thu, 2010-11-04 15:54
#93
Pantalone had a choice - he could have said NO to the city's position on the strike and marched with the strikers. Instead he fully supported the city's position on all issues. What exactly does he mean by "intervening earlier"? That could mean intervening by hiring replacement workers to break the strike, it could be intervening by asking the province to bring in back to work legislation...what he meant is a mystery. What we do know is that he never expressed any support for the union's position and given his position asa deputy mayor - if he had done so - it would have been powerful.
Fri, 2010-11-05 10:47
#94
remind
Upon further reflection, I think Ford got in because he looks like Mike Holmes, albeit larger, but still people equate that look with trusting that said person with that look, will do what is best for them.
Fri, 2010-11-05 13:00
#95
Cueball
Pantalone had a choice - he could have said NO to the city's position on the strike and marched with the strikers. Instead he fully supported the city's position on all issues. What exactly does he mean by "intervening earlier"? That could mean intervening by hiring replacement workers to break the strike, it could be intervening by asking the province to bring in back to work legislation...what he meant is a mystery. What we do know is that he never expressed any support for the union's position and given his position asa deputy mayor - if he had done so - it would have been powerful.
It could mean all kinds of things. And it is pretty much irrelevant to anyone but you and Barry Wieslader. But stupidity makes strange bed fellows.
Fri, 2010-11-05 13:22
#96
So, we are still left with no answer to the question of why Pantalone went along with the city's anti-union position during the strike last summer. So far the only explanation anyone has given is that he didn't want to give up the perks associated with the being deputy mayor.
Fri, 2010-11-05 13:26
#97
Cueball
Pantalone had a choice - he could have said NO to the city's position on the strike and marched with the strikers. Instead he fully supported the city's position on all issues. What exactly does he mean by "intervening earlier"? That could mean intervening by hiring replacement workers to break the strike, it could be intervening by asking the province to bring in back to work legislation...what he meant is a mystery. What we do know is that he never expressed any support for the union's position and given his position asa deputy mayor - if he had done so - it would have been powerful.
It could mean all kinds of things. For example, he might have put a motion in council to have the Metro Police drag the leadership of CUPE out into the streets and order to have them shot. And it is pretty much irrelevant to anyone but you and Barry Wieslader. But stupidity makes strange bed fellows.
Fri, 2010-11-05 13:29
#98
Cueball
Yes we do. The deputy mayor does not set the policy of the adminstration.
Fri, 2010-11-05 13:36
#99
If the Deputy Mayor disagrees with the policy of the administration on such a fundamental issue - he has a choice - he can resign and denounce the administration and join the picket line.
I suspect that the real reason is that Pantalone was 100% supportive of Miller's strategy during the strike. They are very close confidantes and Pantalone being very much a pragmatic centrist in the NDP who has always been willing to be the token "lefty" in rightwing administrations on Metro Council becasue he gets along with everyone and never pushes for anything that the establishment doesn't like.
Fri, 2010-11-05 13:50
#100
He was just the more skillful politician - he divided the City up - Us versus Them. Never really defining who us were, just the outraged citizenry who wanted City Hall to pay for not fighting back against them. Also, nobody had the vision to articulate a different way. Also, let's face it, while many of us were out there - how many of us are there?
Social movements, political parties, unions, all stayed relatively silent at the beginning of the election campaign. Never moving beyond endorsements. We don't see people out on the streets in Canada. This is the real shame.
So Rob Ford was able to mobilize each one of us - because we might have a individual grievence against one of: "Them". Again, it comes back to a politics of hate that I wrote back earlier.
Fri, 2010-11-05 14:01
#101
Cueball
If the Deputy Mayor disagrees with the policy of the administration on such a fundamental issue - he has a choice - he can resign and denounce the administration and join the picket line.
I suspect that the real reason is that Pantalone was 100% supportive of Miller's strategy during the strike. They are very close confidantes and Pantalone being very much a pragmatic centrist in the NDP who has always been willing to be the token "lefty" in rightwing administrations on Metro Council becasue he gets along with everyone and never pushes for anything that the establishment doesn't like.
Which is precisely why I highly doubt that what Pantalone means that he would have agressively acted to bust the strike when he says he would have intervened earlier. It is entirely his style to proactively involve himself in a negotiation between all the parties, as opposed to brinksmanship which is what Miller was not doing. The Miller adminstration management handed the union a fait accompli as opposed to negotiating. Negotiation and mediation is a hallmark of Pantalone, which is why he "gets along with everyone".
There was a big debate about Miller not intervening between city management and CUPE, and once Miller intervened and serious negotiations were begun, after a three week strike, the issues were actually quite easy to resolve. That is the context of what Pantalone means by "intervene". Miller refused to, until the strike was going into its third week.
So no. Pantalone saying that he would have "intevened" earlier is not saying that he was lock step in line with Miller's strategy for dealing with the negotiation.