TTC union chief blasts bosses, media and public

104 posts / 0 new
Last post
Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
In this case, I'm sure that if the ticket-taker had allowed the woman to use the ticket with the extra payment, she'd have gotten in trouble for not enforcing the rules. 

 

Rules? The TTC has rules?

 

I ask sarcastically because in my experience, rules can be made up on the spot, or not. I ride the streetcar every day. Some days, when the streetcar is full, the driver will invite people to stand on the steps. The next day it's a different driver, who won't move forward until every atom of every passenger is behind the white line. Some drivers will suggest (others will order) passengers with passes or transfers to use the back doors to board. The next day, someone uses the back door to board and the driver will act like a terrorist just snuck on board through a window. And so on. My guess is that some ticket takers probably accept the temporary tickets at face value, some expect an extra quarter, and some won't accept them at all.

 

Quote:
I place this at the feet of management.

 

Agreed. The TTC could really use a customer service department. Have you ever made a complaint to the TTC? I have. They have (or had) a web form that you could use to send them feedback. I assume it's then promptly routed to /dev/null, because I certainly didn't hear anything back from them. It would be very helpful for drivers and collectors if they could say "Phone this number to speak to someone who might actually be able to help you with this".

 

Michelle

Well, this is just it.  I put that down to poor management, poor public education, poor training, and a severly overcrowded system due to underfunding.

TTC drivers are in a tough spot.  Many of them like to be able to see out their side windows, so they make people stand behind the white line, which, by the way, they are well within their rights to do - it's called safety.  Others know that passengers are irate at the third streetcar passing them in a row, so they bend the rules a bit and let them crowd in front of the white line so that they can get going, even though it's not strictly safe to do so.

They're caught between a rock and a hard place: bend the rules, compromise safety, and risk discipline from their supervisor by letting people crowd their vision; or demand a clear sight path, enrage passengers (some of whom assault them), and fall behind schedule because passengers refuse to get off the steps of the streetcar and wait for the next one.

They can't win.

 

Doug

Really, there's no need for collectors at all. Most other systems of similar size don't have them anymore.

KeyStone

A couple of guys having a snooze, and one guy taking an unauthorized coffee break aren't really that important, despite the media's frenzied coverage of them.

However, they have made a huge impact on the public. Here is what this is all really about.

There is a movement to replace TTC token takers with machines. Stories about token collectors making $100,000 upset the public. The idea that a worker making change, and occasionally giving directions is making more than teachers, policeman, fireman etc, seems like a disproportionate amount of compensation. Keep in mind, this is not like CAW, this is government taxpayer money which is an important distinction.

So, the justification for the wages and lack of automation is the excellent customer service that these employees provide.
These little photos and videos undermine that image of great customer service, which gets the public frothing again.

While I don't see an issue as to a couple of lapses, I have to say that the wage does seem disproportionate at times, and I am a bit curious as to why 95% of token collectors are male (and usually white). It seems to be an old boys club where they put TTC workers that are no longer able to drive the buses etc.

I would much prefer a system such as London, where that process is automated, and the employees are down at the platform level helping people find their way and giving directions. I don't see why we can't transition people from token collector to tourist guide and info center.

Michelle

Yeah, I think that's a neat idea too, Keystone - and that way they don't have to deal with nasty fare disputes all the time either.

In fact, I would be even more radical.  I'd say get rid of fares altogether and charge everyone in the city a few hundred bucks more per year in taxes.  User fees suck, and transit is a necessity.

BTW, I very highly doubt that TTC collectors make a hundred grand a year.  Here's an interesting blog posting with feedback from a driver about the top end of the range for operators, which peaks out at about $55,000 a year.  I strongly doubt that collectors make twice what drivers do.

Snert Snert's picture

Would we then have to also charge Torontonians for the GO train?  I don't know how keen I'd be to be expected to finance another public transit system solely so that people can have a huge yard in Mississauga, AND a nice big Toronto salary.  Why shouldn't the Mississaugians who benefit be the ones to pay?

Michelle

We already charge Torontonians and Mississaugans for the GO train.  What's the difference?  I use both systems regularly since my son goes back and forth between my place and his dad's in Mississauga.

But I am all for equality - let's make the GO train free, too! :)  I don't know about anyone else, but I use the GO all the time.  I use it to visit friends in Whitby, to take my son to Missisauga, and as someone without a car, when visiting my parents in Picton or Trenton, it helps for them to be able to pick me up or drop me off part-way in Whitby or Oshawa instead of them driving me into Toronto, or me paying an astronomical price for a VIA ticket.

p-sto

Try to convince the average car owner to pay extra taxes to fund the ttc and see what happens.  Also I could see zero fare method possibly resulting in a loss of jobs or at least a reduction of hours.  Would be a hard sell to quite a few people.

j.m.

Snert wrote:

Would we then have to also charge Torontonians for the GO train?  I don't know how keen I'd be to be expected to finance another public transit system solely so that people can have a huge yard in Mississauga, AND a nice big Toronto salary.  Why shouldn't the Mississaugians who benefit be the ones to pay?

A fair point; how do you draw tax boundaries around people connected to different sites? And is the right to public transit without condition or is it limited to intra-city/regional travel? I doubt someone getting intermittent service from, say, Mississauga to Cambridge, would want to pay the same in taxes as someone getting top service from Mississauga to Toronto.

 

But who knows if anyone from Mississauga/Burlington/Oakville/Brampton would even want to pay taxes on transit given that they already enjoy huge subsidies for their auto use (which has been planned into their cities and now very difficult to reverse). I think we need to address the perverted overfunding of highways for car drivers first, which means taxing private automobility in places where damn good public transit networks exist.

Michelle

The TTC needs to widely expand its service.  I doubt that doing away with fares would reduce jobs.  There would still be a need for customer service.

As for taxes, a huge number of Torontonians take the TTC regularly.  I'd rather my property taxes (which both buyers and renters pay) go up a few hundred bucks and save 1200 bucks a year on metropasses, and I'm sure that lots of people who use the TTC, car owners included, would agree, if it's presented right.

j.m.

p-sto wrote:

Try to convince the average car owner to pay extra taxes to fund the ttc and see what happens.  Also I could see zero fare method possibly resulting in a loss of jobs or at least a reduction of hours.  Would be a hard sell to quite a few people.

An easier method is to propose that car owners pay the actual costs of maintaining highway and road infrastructure. They'd be livid. Then offer them the TTC and regional transit tax option.

Unionist

KeyStone wrote:

 Stories about token collectors making $100,000 upset the public.

That would be members of the public under, say, 3 years of age, who might believe such fairy tales if told to them by a caregiver with a sincere tone of voice?

Obviously you're not one of those who believes such fairy tales. So why not go back to whomever you heard them from and explain how pitchfork-style lynch mentality operates.

j.m.

Unionist wrote:

KeyStone wrote:

 Stories about token collectors making $100,000 upset the public.

That would be members of the public under, say, 3 years of age, who might believe such fairy tales if told to them by a caregiver with a sincere tone of voice?

Obviously you're not one of those who believes such fairy tales. So why not go back to whomever you heard them from and explain how pitchfork-style lynch mentality operates.

Mildly Relevant Triple Pun

 

 

 

 

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

That would be members of the public under, say, 3 years of age, who might believe such fairy tales if told to them by a caregiver with a sincere tone of voice?

 

Or people who can read the Sunshine List.

p-sto

Quote:
The TTC needs to widely expand its service.  I doubt that doing away with fares would reduce jobs.  There would still be a need for customer service.

There are during higher traffic hours 2 to 3 collecters per entrance. This number could be reduced to 1. There are stations with multiple entrances that have certain entrances staffed only during peak hours, these entrances could go completely unstaffed. Certain stations may be reduced to only security staff during off peak hours. As well, I've also seen additional staff assigned to the rear of street cars on certain routes so that customers with passes and transfers can board more quickly. I'm not saying that removing fares would definitely mean a loss in jobs but collecting fares does create extra work for ttc staff so it is a possibility.

 

 

Quote:
As for taxes, a huge number of Torontonians take the TTC regularly.  I'd rather my property taxes (which both buyers and renters pay) go up a few hundred bucks and save 1200 bucks a year on metropasses, and I'm sure that lots of people who use the TTC, car owners included, would agree, if it's presented right.

$1200 worth of service for $300 worth of tax. Whomever is paying the extra would surely object.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
We already charge Torontonians and Mississaugans for the GO train.  What's the difference?

 

I know that, like the TTC, GO is partially subsidized ("GO" = Government of Ontario) but if we were to make it free of charge, like you propose for the TTC, I'd be paying a lot more in property tax so that someone can enjoy the suburbs without sacrificing their higher Toronto salary. I don't see how that makes sense. The GO riders are the primary beneficiaries of the GO service. Why should the cost be spread to the public? To me that makes no more sense than expecting everyone to help me with my food bill.

Sky Captain Sky Captain's picture

Snert wrote:

Quote:
Just like you don't have customers/clients timing/filming your bathroom breaks, nor should TTC employees.

 

At the risk of being ejected from this forum, could we at least be honest about this? TTC drivers ARE permitted to take washroom breaks. The driver who was recently videotaped was not simply taking a washroom break, he was taking a leisurely coffee break while passengers sat on his streetcar and waited, and that's not permitted, for obvious reasons.

 

It's really hard to discuss something like this if we can't discuss it honestly.

 

I wouldn't throw you off of the board if I was a mod, but sorry Snert, they do have a right to do what they do without brainwashed anti-union assholes taking pictures of them having a sleep, snack or bathroom break. If the whiners and complainers don't like it, let them live somewhere else.

p-sto

Also the idea of zero fare transit was raised in this thread http://rabble.ca/babble/out-and-about/ttc-taking-us-all-ride
Apparently if Toronto were to do it we would be the first city of its scale to do so. While it would be nice for Toronto to be on the cutting edge of something, the fact that no one else is doing it suggests that there are real barriers to implementing such a system that aren't being taken seriously in this discussion.

NorthReport

In the Vancouver Sky Train system we use the honour system, no ticket collectors, no turnstyles, just a few in house detectives who do random checking of people's tickets. It's working so well that the right is screaming for turnstyles. Imagine, trusting the public like that. Go figure. 

PS our mayor Gregor Robertson did get caught paying for one zone instead of two once just before he was elected, and was refusing to pay the fine, until smarter heads than his prevailed.

Star Spangled C...

Back when I lived in Toronto, I seem to recall an honour system in place for streetcars where if you had a pass or transfer, you could go through the back door and not have to hand your change or ticket over to the driver. But too many people were just hopping on and teh TTC calculated how much money it was costing them and stopped the practice.

NorthReport

So Westerners are more honest. I thought so. Wink

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Gates, Cards to replace Skytrain Honour System

Quote:
There will be no more free rides for fare evaders on Metro Vancouver's SkyTrain system.

TransLink says it will be adding access gates at each station starting next year.

Transit users will have to swipe valid transit tickets in order to get into the station, or use a 'Smart Card' with a declining balance that works similar to a debit card. That card can be loaded up with money to pay fares.

The B.C. and federal governments, in conjunction with TransLink, will spend $100 million to install the gates and introduce the new cards.

Premier Gordon Campbell says the project will improve security on the transit system as well as cut down on fare evasions.

It's a mistake, of course. But consonant with the direction Vancouver has decided to take.

NorthReport

The Translink Board reports to Metro Vancouver Board, neirther of which are directly elected by the citizens. Good ole democratic Canada. Wink! Wink!

Michelle

p-sto wrote:

$1200 worth of service for $300 worth of tax. Whomever is paying the extra would surely object.

Nobody would be paying more than that.  Everyone gets $300 more of property tax to pay for the TTC and everyone has the right to use the TTC, instead of as it is currently now, where those who use the TTC pay $1200 a year, and everyone who doesn't use it gets subsidized free space on the road for their cars.  Those who don't want to use the TTC even when it's free and their taxes are paying for it can consider the extra tax the price of driving, and the price of having millions of people's cars off the roads they drive on.

torontoprofessor

A very small point: some of us never use the TTC, not because we drive, but rather because we cycle everywhere. I use the TTC about four times a month, and haven't owned a car in years.

j.m.

torontoprofessor wrote:

A very small point: some of us never use the TTC, not because we drive, but rather because we cycle everywhere. I use the TTC about four times a month, and haven't owned a car in years.

All the more reason to advocate for more ridership in order to get hard, heavy and fast machines off the road for the sake our squishy, peddling and walking selves.

torontoprofessor

Oh, I'm not arguing against advocating for ridership, or even having a free TTC. I was just reacting to the rhetoric that suggested that non-TTC types are drivers. (Of course, non-TTC types probably are largely drivers, but there are cyclists and pedestrians too.) There is the tricky question of whose taxes should fund a free, or drastically cheaper, TTC: I think that such funding as exists is now shared between the city and the province, so you'd have to get two governments on board.

torontoprofessor

Michelle wrote:
BTW, I very highly doubt that TTC collectors make a hundred grand a year.  Here's an interesting blog posting with feedback from a driver about the top end of the range for operators, which peaks out at about $55,000 a year.  I strongly doubt that collectors make twice what drivers do.

In fact, according to the 2008 Public Salary Disclosure for Municipalities and Services, 62 operators and 20 station collectors earned more than $100,000 in salary (I am not including benefits here) in 2008. The highest paid operator earned $122,953.16 in salary and $950.00 in taxable benefits. The highest paid station collector earned $125,247.19 in salary and $2,089.33 in taxable benefits. The blog post you cite recognizes that some operators earn much more thant $55K, noting that in order to do so, you have to work a lot of overtime. Assuming the base rate of $26.58 per hour (as indicate in the blog posting you cite), and assuming overtime of 1.5 times the base rate, an operator would have to work 21 hours of overtime per week in order to earn $100K. The operator who earned $123K must have worked about 72 hours per week! I don't begrudge someone who works those hours that money.

Sky Captain Sky Captain's picture

 

Here's another 'poor me' story about how the TTC pays it's workers too much money, from Steve Munroe's blog:

Quote:
Let’s just say that I am appalled at the salary figures for TTC employees.

I have been with my company for over 4 years. I work as a software developer, and I get paid 52K a year. It galls me that civic servants, due to the bombastic nature of their unions can make more than me while doing less. There are times in which I have to work late in order to get the next release out on time. I accrue no overtime at all. If I'm lucky, I may get an annual performance bonus of about $2000. And this is the compensation standard of other employees in my capacity. We’ve spent gobloads of money to get an education so we can all get decent jobs with large requirements. To find out that we did all this for a job that pays less than bus drivers and garbagemen (don't get me started on these guys), both with a lower educational standard, is offensive to the hard working taxpayers of Ontario.

The TTC is hobbled by one critical flaw: that the transit workers are not deemed essential personnel and therefore still have the right to strike. May I remind the TTC and the Province of Ontario (who refused to confer this “essential personnel” designation to transit workers but wanted to confer this to teachers during the Harris days, which makes no sense) that the TTC is the backbone of this city. If the TTC goes out of service for just one day, you can be sure that there is a lot of economic harm for Torontonians. I know how that feels, as I was forced to take a day off during the recent wildcat strike.

Because the TTC workers have a right to strike, this is basically their point weapon in making outrageous demands against TTC management, demands the management know is expensive. I believe TTC management and commissioner Giambrone when they say that they don't have money to run all the services needed for all Torontonians.

Fine, I am anti-union, but I believe that the reason why the TTC and by extension, the city, is in this financial mess is because of the financial straitjacket imposed by the unions. Increasing labor costs means less financial freedom, which means the city is now painted into a corner. We cut service and increase fares to make up for the shortfall. And don't get me started on when the city caved into extravagant union demands days before Pope John Paul II was to arrive in Toronto for World Youth day. Garbagemen making $56K a year (more than I make)? You can thank Unions for that.

[url=http://stevemunro.ca/?p=456]What Driving For The TTC Pays: Steven Chung[/url]

Oh, poor baby! Let me get out my violin and play a sad tune for you...

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

I wouldn't throw you off of the board if I was a mod, but sorry Snert, they do have a right to do what they do without brainwashed anti-union assholes taking pictures of them having a sleep, snack or bathroom break. If the whiners and complainers don't like it, let them live somewhere else.

 

They have RIGHT to a little sleep, do they?

 

See, I wasn't aware of that. Huh. A RIGHT to sleep on the job?

 

Or do you mean just a right to not have anyone know about it?

 

 

p-sto

Michelle wrote:

p-sto wrote:

$1200 worth of service for $300 worth of tax. Whomever is paying the extra would surely object.

Nobody would be paying more than that.  Everyone gets $300 more of property tax to pay for the TTC and everyone has the right to use the TTC, instead of as it is currently now, where those who use the TTC pay $1200 a year, and everyone who doesn't use it gets subsidized free space on the road for their cars.  Those who don't want to use the TTC even when it's free and their taxes are paying for it can consider the extra tax the price of driving, and the price of having millions of people's cars off the roads they drive on.

Okay, some how when I made that calculation I managed to forget that taxes would be collected from everyone but only some ride the ttc.  Odd since it seemed to be pretty central to the other half of my agrument.  I'm still sticking to my other point though.  No other city of Toronto's scale has free transit.  When Toronto has one of the least publicly funded transit systems there is, are we suddenly expecting the city to turn around and be a leader in this.  It's a nice dream but I wonder how we get from here to there.

j.m.

Snert wrote:

They have RIGHT to a little sleep, do they?

See, I wasn't aware of that. Huh. A RIGHT to sleep on the job?

Or do you mean just a right to not have anyone know about it?

 

This is why being at the bottom end of production is fucked. You have to be on *all the time* or else someone will come after you about productivity. Unfortunately, we can't all be bosses/business owners/entrepreneurs and not have to explain ourselves.

Yeah, we should make these people apologize for being human-beings and not drones. Shame on them for not performing optimally all hours of their shifts! Sleep when your dead and all that, right?

 

Sky Captain Sky Captain's picture

j.m. wrote:

Snert wrote:

They have RIGHT to a little sleep, do they?

See, I wasn't aware of that. Huh. A RIGHT to sleep on the job?

Or do you mean just a right to not have anyone know about it?

 

This is why being at the bottom end of production is fucked. You have to be on *all the time* or else someone will come after you about productivity. Unfortunately, we can't all be bosses/business owners/entrepreneurs and not have to explain ourselves.

Yeah, we should make these people apologize for being human-beings and not drones. Shame on them for not performing optimally all hours of their shifts! Sleep when your dead and all that, right?

 

j.m. FTW!Laughing

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Yeah, we should make these people apologize for being human-beings and not drones. Shame on them for not performing optimally all hours of their shifts! Sleep when your dead and all that, right?

Or, y'know, sleep when you're at home.  That's what most non-drone human beings seem to manage to do.

But I can only imagine how exhausting it must be to sit on a chair, take transfers from people, and occasionally make change.

Not to "out" you, but does "j.m." stand for "Bob Kinnear"?

j.m.

Snert wrote:

Quote:
Yeah, we should make these people apologize for being human-beings and not drones. Shame on them for not performing optimally all hours of their shifts! Sleep when your dead and all that, right?

Or, y'know, sleep when you're at home.  That's what most non-drone human beings seem to manage to do.

But I can only imagine how exhausting it must be to sit on a chair, take transfers from people, and occasionally make change.

Not to "out" you, but does "j.m." stand for "Bob Kinnear"?

Are you anti-labour, anti-human and presumptious? Ever do something at work you weren't supposed to? Take too many piss breaks ever? Or do you fit in the list of occupational exclusions where doing what you want is non-judgeable?

Sineed

psto wrote:
No other city of Toronto's scale has free transit.  When Toronto has one of the least publicly funded transit systems there is, are we suddenly expecting the city to turn around and be a leader in this.  It's a nice dream but I wonder how we get from here to there.

That's a good point, but also consider this: people might support free public transit because it's a counterpoint to all the public funding for private cars, but public transit is not devoid of environmental costs.  I'd support a small charge for public transit, because paying something encourages people to walk or bike.

A streetcar is vastly more eco-friendly than all those people driving cars, but it doesn't have zero carbon footprint.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Are you anti-labour, anti-human and presumptious?

 

Because I suggested that workers, myself included, should be able to get sufficient sleep at home?

 

MAN, I must be evil!

j.m.

Snert wrote:

Quote:
Are you anti-labour, anti-human and presumptious?

 

Because I suggested that workers, myself included, should be able to get sufficient sleep at home?

 

MAN, I must be evil!

I never suggested you were evil. I think you are an unforgiving hypocrite that judges the wrong people.

oldgoat

I was about to give j.m. the mildest of admonishments for what seems a personal attack, but then I looked upthread.

 

Quote:

Or, y'know, sleep when you're at home.  That's what most non-drone human beings seem to manage to do.

But I can only imagine how exhausting it must be to sit on a chair, take transfers from people, and occasionally make change.

Not to "out" you, but does "j.m." stand for "Bob Kinnear"?

.

This is the labour and consumption forum snert, and you have a hard time with some of the basic principles. People are stuck sitting in little enclosed spaces for a shift dealing with very busy periods interspaced by periods when nothing happens, with a leaven of stress due to the fact that you never know when someone's going to abuse you. Yeah, I can see the body drifting off during some of those quiet times. Snert this is a pro labour forum on a pro labour board. Try to get your head around what that means.

 

Le T Le T's picture

Quote:
I'd support a small charge for public transit, because paying something encourages people to walk or bike.

 

User fees are discriminatory. The only purpose that they serve on transit systems is to reduce the cost of driving cars and to have reason to toss poor people off TTC (or whatever transit company) property.

Do you think that encouraging transit users to walk or bike is as useful as getting people to stop using their fossil fuel powered lazy boys? If you really wanted to encourage people to ride bikes the best thing to do would be to eliminate cars on city streets so that riding a bike is not a lethal activity.

Joey Ramone

Snert wrote:

Because I suggested that workers, myself included, should be able to get sufficient sleep at home?

MAN, I must be evil!

I was raised in a class conscious working class home, so for me this is easy.  The alleged bad behaviour of a few individuals is currently being used by anti-labour politicians to attack TTC workers as a class.  Joining in the attacks in a public forum which is supposed to be "progressive" is appalling.  Which side are you on boys, which side are you on?

p-sto

Quote:
people might support free public transit because it's a counterpoint to all the public funding for private cars, but public transit is not devoid of environmental costs.  I'd support a small charge for public transit, because paying something encourages people to walk or bike.

I would also support taxes being used to either decrease or possibly eliminate transit fares. Is there sufficient support for this idea in Toronto for it to be politically feasible to pursue it? I don't think so. If there were then why is the ttc among the lowest publicly funded public transit systems in the world. Is the proper path to changing this engaging the government or engaging the population, or some combination of both? If the solution involves engaging the population what is an effective way to do so?

Doug

Le T wrote:

User fees are discriminatory. The only purpose that they serve on transit systems is to reduce the cost of driving cars and to have reason to toss poor people off TTC (or whatever transit company) property.

 

Sadly a necessary thing. Transit facilities aren't places to live. Also, whether that's a fair assessment or not, having homeless people hang around transit stations makes them seem unsafe to many and a transit system that's perceived as unsafe won't get used.

 

j.m.

Doug wrote:

Sadly a necessary thing. Transit facilities aren't places to live. Also, whether that's a fair assessment or not, having homeless people hang around transit stations makes them seem unsafe to many and a transit system that's perceived as unsafe won't get used.

Actually, nothing stops any place from being a liveable space, except for people who try to realize their own norms through prescribing how places should be.  Advocating for homeless people to be away from transit facilities is part of their criminalization through annhialating places in the city for these people to perform necessary actions - like panhandling or keeping warm. Under this logic only "legitimate citizens" can have access to these facilities for their "legitimate uses" - the others will be effectively removed and disciplined.

While I am a fan of expanding public transit, I am not a fan of pandering to bourgeois sensibility. You should at least acknowledge when you are advocating authoritarian and punitive measures with statements like this.

KeyStone

"That would be members of the public under, say, 3 years of age, who might believe such fairy tales if told to them by a caregiver with a sincere tone of voice?

Obviously you're not one of those who believes such fairy tales. So why not go back to whomever you heard them from and explain how pitchfork-style lynch mentality operates."

While it certainly looks fun to dismiss everything you don't agree with, with smarmy comments, there are some inconvenient facts which would seem to heighten this claim beyond the story of the panhandler with the 3-car garage.

"http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/publications/salarydisclosure/2009/munic09.html"

If you peruse, the long list of TTC staff making over $100,000, you will see the job title "station collector"
I counted at least 10, and was only about a third of the way down the list.

Now, while that isn't the base wage, that is what they are getting paid with considerable overtime.
My best guess is that like many unions, the overtime rules work such that the person with the most seniority has to be offered the overtime first, which means that the city has to pay time and a half or double time to an employee making $40/hr instead of an employee with less seniority making $18/hour.

Perhaps Unionist would like to dismiss this claim as well by suggesting they need to pay that overtime because it is too hard to fill the role of TTC collector, because there simply aren't enough qualified people willing to do the job?

The TTC is great, and for the most part the employees are adequately compensated, but as many members of the public feel, including myself, three year olds, fairy-tale believers, and pitchfork wielders, $100,000 is a disproportionate wage for station collectors, particlarly when Toronto faces massive budget shortages.

 

 

 

 

kropotkin1951

I would advocate that the union call for a ban on all overtime to address this problem except they would be hauled in front of a Labour Board and told they can't do that because it is an illegal strike. The union does not schedule overtime and can't refuse it as a group so it is obviously not their fault.

Management manages not the union.  If there are many people getting excessive overtime that is clearly just bad, bad management.  But then that appears to be the main problem at TTC.  Maybe they should fire some of their management team that get paid in excess of $100,000 and hire some real workers for regular shifts and then all that overtime wouldn't be required.  

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
The union does not schedule overtime and can't refuse it as a group so it is obviously not their fault.

 

They could make overtime available to all members equally, if they wanted. This might prevent a very few collectors and drivers from, evidently, working as many as 60+ hours a week for a full year, and would eliminate virtually all "Sunshine List" inclusions for staff. Not to mention a more equitable arrangement for workers.

kropotkin1951

Snert wrote:

Quote:
The union does not schedule overtime and can't refuse it as a group so it is obviously not their fault.

 

They could make overtime available to all members equally, if they wanted. This might prevent a very few collectors and drivers from, evidently, working as many as 60+ hours a week for a full year, and would eliminate virtually all "Sunshine List" inclusions for staff. Not to mention a more equitable arrangement for workers.

I suspect you don't even know what the overtime call out system is and that any opportunity to union bash is an opportunity you can't resist.  

The union is not a "they" that can change the workers collective agreement without the consent of its members so you are saying that the "union" should become autocratic and abandon their democratic principles.  How very "progressive" of you.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
The union is not a "they" that can change the workers collective agreement without the consent of its members

I thought it was a "they" that consists of their members.  What's autocratic about that?

kropotkin1951

The TCC is fully to blame for the OT and its allocation but you blame the workers and their union for the mismanagement.  Your time would be better spent asking why these managers still have jobs with that level of incompetence.  I see nothing in the collective agreement that requires seniority call out for OT.  If the workers had the authority to run the TCC it would likely be running far better than with the MBA's in charge.

Quote:

 26 

Section 8. Management and Discipline 

 

Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the management, 

supervision and control of the Commission’s operations and the 

direction of the working force remains an exclusive Management 

function. This right of Management shall, without limiting the 

generality of the foregoing, include the right to plan, schedule and 

direct and control operations; to study or introduce new or improved 

methods, equipment or facilities; to maintain or establish new or 

improved rules and regulations covering the operation of the system; 

to hire, rehire, promote, demote, assign and lay off and transfer 

employees; and to discharge, suspend or otherwise discipline 

employees for just cause, provided that employees who have not 

completed their probationary period may be dismissed by the 

Commission for any reason satisfactory to the Commission, and the 

right of a probationary employee to grieve or otherwise challenge 

such dismissal shall be only as contained in Article 1, Section 22 of 

this Agreement, and no further. In no case shall the exercise of the 

above responsibilities of Management be contrary to any of the terms 

and conditions of this Agreement. 

 

The Management shall acquaint the Union in advance of any 

important contemplated action which affects employees covered by 

this Agreement. 

 

Quote:

 

Pages

Topic locked