Moving the part 2 discussion to labour and consumption.
Municipal workers strike in Toronto: Part 2
Mon, 2009-06-22 17:14
#1
Maysie
Municipal workers strike in Toronto: Part 2
Mon, 2009-06-22 17:20
#2
Oh God, you mean we can't post now about how greedy unionized workers should take less because others are suffering too?
Can we move this thread to "Bosses, Stakeholders, and Taxpayers" please?
Mon, 2009-06-22 17:22
#3
Maysie
Ah U, you see, you still have your sense of humour. That has to count for something yes? 
Joke: "I've used up all my sick days so I'm calling in dead"
Mon, 2009-06-22 18:25
#4
remind
repeating mspector's last post in the now closed thread, here because it is "dead" on the money! ;)
Mspector said:
The current agreement provides that if it's more than 3 consecutive working days, you need a doctor's certificate.
----------
It's always improper to cherrypick one provision from a collective agreement and consider its "reasonableness" in the abstract and in isolation from context. That context includes not only what's in the rest of the agreement, but also what is common practice elsewhere, what tradeoffs may have been made in previous negotiations to obtain the provision in question, and whether the provision may have been obtained as the result of an independent arbitrator's decision (for example, where an end to a strike is legislated, with binding arbitration to settle the outstanding issues).
I don't know the context to the extent necessary to form the kind of instantaneous opinions that armchair babblers like to indulge in. But consider this: perhaps the union would be prepared to scrap the sick-leave banking system in exchange for a real short-term disability plan. Perhaps they had to settle for this in a previous negotiation, where the employer may have refused to provide such a plan.
Perhaps a real STD plan, involving premiums paid to an insurance company, would cost the City significantly more than the sick-leave banking plan. Would we then hear Stockholm, the outraged taxpayer, bleating about how his hard-earned money was being given to insurance companies to pay for an STD plan, when simply banking sick-leave credits would be a lot cheaper?
After all, to our taxpayer (and to the City), the only thing that matters is the total cost of the compensation package for the City employees. How they divide up that amount - as between salary, vacation benefits, health benefits, sick leave, dental plans, maternity leave, and dozens of other bargaining items - is really none of the taxpayer's concern. It may be that the CUPE negotiators had to give up something in wages and other things (like an STD plan) in order to get the "ridiculous" sick-leave banking plan. For all the taxpayer knows, the City's negotiators in a previous contract round may have actually made a good bargain for the taxpayer by including the current sick-leave plan in the contract, while getting concessions on more costly items.
And if the union gave up something in return for the sick-leave plan, wouldn't it make sense that they would now refuse to give it up without something valuable in exchange from the City? And yet, the City is not offering any quid pro quo - they are demanding a unilateral concession on this from the Union as a precondition to negotiation on other substantive issues.
It's the City that is making this strike about the sick-leave plan, not the union.
Of course there are always people who prefer to blame the unions and side with the bosses, even when they don't know all the facts (the "context"). They think it's "unfair" that unionized workers should receive benefits that non-unionized workers don't receive. They like to throw in the faces of the union members the fact that the economy is in a slump and thousands, if not millions, of workers are hurting. They want everyone to hurt, even the ones who have formed unions to bargain collectively by using the power of their numbers and the threat of withdrawal of their labour.
Never mind that the same "taxpayers" are giving hundreds of billions of dollars to corporate welfare bums to keep their wealthy creditors and shareholders happy. God forbid taxpayers should have to fork over twenty grand to a retiring garbage collector who showed up for work every day for 15 years.
*applause*
But it would not be 20 grand, it would only be a little over 10, as said garbage collector would be paying close to 50% of it in taxes.
Mon, 2009-06-22 18:43
#5
He can just put it all in an RRSP and not pay any tax on it at all!
Mon, 2009-06-22 18:52
#6
remind
LMAO, all that does is DEFER taxation. Plus it is over the yearly allowable amount.
Mon, 2009-06-22 19:41
#7
how do you know its over the yearly allowable amount?
Besides the point of an RRSP is you defer to a year after you retire when you have a lower income and pay much lower taxes.
Mon, 2009-06-22 20:26
#8
Maysie
Okay if you peeps aren't going to talk about the strike I'm going to change the title.
Oh, and the more we talk about sick days the more the terrorists win.
Mon, 2009-06-22 20:55
#9
And if the union gave up something in return for the sick-leave plan, wouldn't it make sense that they would now refuse to give it up without something valuable in exchange from the City? And yet, the City is not offering any quid pro quo - they are demanding a unilateral concession on this from the Union as a precondition to negotiation on other substantive issues.
That's dumb and unfair of the city's management then, thinking they can somehow negotiate an issue like this in isolation from the rest of the collective agreement. They could stand a wrist-slapping as well.
Of course there are always people who prefer to blame the unions and side with the bosses, even when they don't know all the facts (the "context"). They think it's "unfair" that unionized workers should receive benefits that non-unionized workers don't receive. They like to throw in the faces of the union members the fact that the economy is in a slump and thousands, if not millions, of workers are hurting. They want everyone to hurt, even the ones who have formed unions to bargain collectively by using the power of their numbers and the threat of withdrawal of their labour.
Generous improvements for city staff in a time of recession squeezes property taxpayers further (and in a regressive way since property taxation on renters is higher!) or compromises the ability of the city to expand public services - that's the plain mathematics of it. So there's good reasons for city council to not give away the store at the bargaining table.
Never mind that the same "taxpayers" are giving hundreds of billions of dollars to corporate welfare bums to keep their wealthy creditors and shareholders happy. God forbid taxpayers should have to fork over twenty grand to a retiring garbage collector who showed up for work every day for 15 years.
And I'm sure the higher levels of government that did that will be quite happy to send some more of those billions down to municipalities. Oh wait - they aren't, as John Baird so colourfully indicated. Meanwhile, city budgets everywhere are in trouble. They can't borrow to pay operating expenses but face sharply increased costs for social services due to the recession. Council and city management could easily put together a case for a far uglier bargaining position than they did.
But it would not be 20 grand, it would only be a little over 10, as said garbage collector would be paying close to 50% of it back in taxes.
Not to the same government, he wouldn't. So the cost to the city government is still $20,000. That's money that can't be used to open a subsidized daycare space or provide a rent subsidy to a homeless person. Being generous to city workers is nice but it does compete with other needs in the city's budget. Council has a responsibility to try to economize where it can. The union has a responsibility to its members to resist that when it affects wages, benefits and working conditions. So they should. They're accountable to their members. City council is accountable to all citizens and is therefore going to have somewhat different priorities.
Mon, 2009-06-22 21:39
#10
radiorahim
Was listening to the "saturation" coverage of the Toronto municipal workers strike this morning on the CBC Radio morning show.
What really burns my ass was how it was being treated as some big massive national "crisis"...when the strike wasn't even a day old!
The coverage wasn't necessarily "anti-union" as such...but it felt like things were being "setup" for a massive anti-union propaganda barrage in the coming days. It was enough that I found that I couldn't listen to it any more.
It was an echo of sorts of the recent very brief Toronto transit strike...it took place on a Friiday night and ran over the course of a weekend before back to work legislation was introduced. The media treated it like it was some big crisis...which it wasn't...as I'm old enough to have experienced transit strikes that went on for weeks.
There could very well be a strike at the LCBO soon. What kind of propaganda barrage is the media going to feed us over this "national crisis". Mind you (thread drift) I've learned how the LCBO not only screws its increasingly casual part-time labour force...but also the small "mom and pop" wineries.
Mon, 2009-06-22 23:44
#11
It IS a crisis. Its a crisis for the workers who go without pay every day they are on strike and its a crisis of people who suddenly have no child care and its also a crisis for everyone as garbe starts to pile up and let's face it CUPE WANTS it to be a crisis so that there is even more pressure on the city. If people don't feel its a crisis the strike wll go on and on and on until the union runs out of strike pay to pay its members and it has to surrender. If you support the union on this strike you should be screaming from the rafters THIS IS A CRISIS. In fact if you even follow the press conferences etc... you will note that the CUPE spokespeople tend to use the most inflammatory language possible and seem to want to raise the temperature, while the spokespeople for the city seem to be trying to be as low key as possible.
This tells me that CUPE sees it as being in their interest to create the impression that this is a crisis while the city wants to low ball the situation. Look at how they are setting up baracades to stop peoplei from taking their garbage to transfer stations etc... its all part of a strategy to up the ante as much as possible and create as much pressure as possible on the city.
Mon, 2009-06-22 23:58
#12
Question: would it be scabbing to take my own garbage down to one of the seven transfer stations or other drop-off locations?
Tue, 2009-06-23 00:01
#13
radiorahim
Hey Stockholm...relax...have a beer, smoke a joint or whatever it takes to mellow you out.
My sense is that it's the senior city bureaucrats who are at the table and they probably don't have a mandate from their political masters to pick their noses let alone move on anything. It happens all the time in public sector negotiations.
Sooner or later...hopefully sooner...the politicos will move in and there'll be a settlement.
Tue, 2009-06-23 00:03
#14
NO. YOu're not being paid to do work that the strikers would otherwise do. How is it any different from babysitting your kids if you can't take them to day care or walking to work during a TTC strike? There is nothing wrong with people adapting during a strike and in fact the union should be encouraging people to do this and making it clear that they don't want to inconvenience the public - they want inconvenience City Hall!
Tue, 2009-06-23 00:05
#15
radiorahim
Question: would it be scabbing to take my own garbage down to one of the seven transfer stations or other drop-off locations?
It really depends on how the union sees it. If the union is picketing transfer stations then it probably is in their view scabbing.
If the union is just "delaying" traffic to the transfer stations then maybe not...key thing is if you find yourself in that situation to be respectful of the folks on the line.
Tue, 2009-06-23 00:13
#16
"Sooner or later...hopefully sooner...the politicos will move in and there'll be a settlement."
Negotiations have been going on for seven months. Do you seriously think that the "politicos" are only as of today going to say "Wow, there is a strike, I guess we better move in and settle it". A strike like this creates an enormous amount of bad blood for everyone and makes everyone look bad - you have to believe that if it was that simple, the "politicos" would never have allowed the strike to happen in the first place. Its in no one's - least of all Mayor Miller's - interest for this strike to happen.
What saddens me in this case and as someone who is probably more pro-labour than about 99% of the population is how it seems like the union makes no effort whatsoever to win over public opinion and instead is almost willfully trying to be seen as the villain of the piece. The conflict is with City Hall and it seems like they are gratuitously trying to make life as miserable as possible for the average person by doing things like n ot letting people take their own garbage to transfer stations (something that everyone did during the last garbage strike in 2002). The only explanation I can think of is that its all part of a very calculated strategy to make life as difficult and intolerbale as possible for as many people as possible to increase pressure on the city to cry uncle. I guess if it works then good for them!
Tue, 2009-06-23 08:54
#17
Refuge
But it would not be 20 grand, it would only be a little over 10, as said garbage collector would be paying close to 50% of it in taxes.
Yup, that is what my my mom's bonues would have worked out to - about 10 grand. She wanted to pay down some on the mortgage before she retired. She chose a lower pension to have that bonus at the beginning. Instead Harris took away that option (and she could only switch to the other option of the original pension if she paid a huge penelty just a few years before her retirement) so now she has a lower pension and didn't get to pay off a bit more of her mortgage which means higher mortgage payments and lower pension.
Tue, 2009-06-23 09:46
#18
remind
it seems like they are gratuitously trying to make life as miserable as possible for the average person by doing things like n ot letting people take their own garbage to transfer stations (something that everyone did during the last garbage strike in 2002).
Oh my goodness....what a steaming pile.
Picketing a transfer station, or any where else that is not the primary job site, though one could say a transfer station is a primary job site, does not mean they are disallowing people from dumping their own garbage off.
For example, when UFCW was on strike at an Extra Foods store, they picketed the Superstore in the same city, as both of course are owned by Weston Foods. So people knew they were on strike, at the sister store, and could choose whether they wanted to cross a picket line, or not.
As a union sister, I chose not to cross the picket line.
Now having stated all of that, upon thinking about all the hate against CUPE and basically unions, here, all I can say is, it is such a wonderful deflection away from all the corporate golden gifts being given out by the feds and thrusting the burden of the recession onto union employees.
Cities and municipalirties, do not just get monies from property taxation and service levies, they get money from provincial and federal transfers. That funding has been cut, at both levels, when it should not have been.
When are the working people of the world going to start standing n solidarity together instead of buying into divide and conquer indoctrination buy those who want their continued exploitation?
Tue, 2009-06-23 10:01
#19
Snert
When are the working people of the world going to start standing n solidarity together instead of buying into divide and conquer indoctrination buy those who want their continued exploitation?
Probably around the same time that all workers get paid for the sick days they don't need, or none of them do. It's nice to imagine that all workers in Toronto would rise up and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with workers who are considerably better off than they are, but I imagine that to the average worker, complaints about not being able to get paid money for sick days you didn't take sounds like the middle class complaining that they don't get a tax break on their golf membership anymore.
Tue, 2009-06-23 10:10
#20
Question: would it be scabbing to take my own garbage down to one of the seven transfer stations or other drop-off locations?
No, I don't think it would be scabbing, but the proper course (as in all such situations) would be to contact the union and ask how they view that activity. They might want to issue some public statement on this and similar questions.
But if you hired someone to take it for you, or if you volunteered to take your neighbour's garbage as well (whether paid or unpaid), then I think we might be approaching "scab" territory.
ETA: Whoops, just noticed that radiorahim answered your question earlier - I actually like his answer better.
Tue, 2009-06-23 10:28
#21
Snert
And can we assume the same is true of looking after your own child, or a neighbour's?
Should we phone the union to ask them their opinion, or just assume it would be scabbing and leave our kids to fend for themselves at home?
Tue, 2009-06-23 10:35
#22
Question: would it be scabbing to take my own garbage down to one of the seven transfer stations or other drop-off locations?
No, I don't think it would be scabbing, but the proper course (as in all such situations) would be to contact the union and ask how they view that activity. They might want to issue some public statement on this and similar questions.
But if you hired someone to take it for you, or if you volunteered to take your neighbour's garbage as well (whether paid or unpaid), then I think we might be approaching "scab" territory.
ETA: Whoops, just noticed that radiorahim answered your question earlier - I actually like his answer better.
I disagree with you about taking a neighbour's garbage to the station unpaid. What if they have mobility issues, etc. and are unable to do this on their own? If it is unpaid, it should not be considered "scabbing" in that context.
Tue, 2009-06-23 13:10
#23
I disagree with you about taking a neighbour's garbage to the station unpaid. What if they have mobility issues, etc. and are unable to do this on their own? If it is unpaid, it should not be considered "scabbing" in that context.
1. They should phone the city and complain. People pay taxes and elect councillors - they should [b]DEMAND[/b] that their needs be served. The city should be on the spot here. They might also demand that the city stop playing games with people's lives and settle in good faith with their workers.
2. If I'm on lawful strike and someone comes in to my plant to do my job, I don't care if they're paid or not. They will be treated with the utter contempt they richly deserve, as a scab. So paid or not is not the line of demarcation.
Tue, 2009-06-23 13:13
#24
And can we assume the same is true of looking after your own child, or a neighbour's?
Should we phone the union to ask them their opinion, or just assume it would be scabbing and leave our kids to fend for themselves at home?
Excellent question. I would strongly recommend that you (Snert) head down to the nearest picket line, preferably with large-looking strikers, and ask them whether looking after your own kids would be considered scabbing? Keep asking different variations of that question until you get an answer. Be patient and repeat yourself as much as possible, in a loud voice in case they are hearing-impaired. All things come to those who wait.
Tue, 2009-06-23 13:15
#25
OK - but your line of demarcation was more along the lines of whether one is doing it for themselves or for someone else. What if someone cannot do it for themself?
Tue, 2009-06-23 13:29
#26
And can we assume the same is true of looking after your own child, or a neighbour's?
Should we phone the union to ask them their opinion, or just assume it would be scabbing and leave our kids to fend for themselves at home?
Excellent question. I would strongly recommend that you (Snert) head down to the nearest picket line, preferably with large-looking strikers, and ask them whether looking after your own kids would be considered scabbing? Keep asking different variations of that question until you get an answer. Be patient and repeat yourself as much as possible, in a loud voice in case they are hearing-impaired. All things come to those who wait.
Tue, 2009-06-23 13:36
#27
Ha, Unionist. :D :D
I don't think taking your own garbage to a transfer station is scabbing, any more than walking or biking to work instead of taking the TTC, or looking after your own kids during the day. I highly doubt that striking workers would have a problem with people adjusting by having to do themselves the services that they would have had provided to them by workers - that's the point of a strike, to show everyone how important the work is, and what it would be like if the workers weren't there to do their jobs.
There's nothing that would make me understand the importance of sanitation workers like hauling my garbage off to some suburban transfer station on the TTC! :)
Tue, 2009-06-23 13:37
#28
N.Beltov
Nice to see some fightback in the Canadian working class.
Tue, 2009-06-23 13:47
#29
remind
When are the working people of the world going to start standing n solidarity together instead of buying into divide and conquer indoctrination buy those who want their continued exploitation?Probably around the same time that all workers get paid for the sick days they don't need, or none of them do. It's nice to imagine that all workers in Toronto would rise up and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with workers who are considerably better off than they are, but I imagine that to the average worker, complaints about not being able to get paid money for sick days you didn't take sounds like the middle class complaining that they don't get a tax break on their golf membership anymore.
I would say non-union workers need to stand up and demand their rights too!
Tue, 2009-06-23 13:50
#30
Snert
Excellent question. I would strongly recommend that you (Snert) head down to the nearest picket line, preferably with large-looking strikers
So reading between your lines, are you suggesting I might get assaulted? I'm glad that's funny, but I'm not sure I get it.
Tue, 2009-06-23 14:02
#31
Ask a silly question and you get a . . . .
Tue, 2009-06-23 14:06
#32
Cueball
Well, in my experience, people who are consistently rude and ask deliberately obtuse and insulting disingenuous questions are more likely on average to get assaulted than those that don't. I have also noticed that many people who are bystanders to such exchanges also tend to be more like to say things such as "they had what was coming to them" and so on. They are indeed less sympathetic to the agreived, than with normal people.
My advice is that you call in advance and test the water. Let us know how it works out.
Tue, 2009-06-23 14:21
#33
Snert
I think I'll just start with the assumption that taking care of my own personal needs isn't an affront to the organized labour movement in Canada. I think that's common sense and it would have been my assumption all along, were it not for comments like this:
It really depends on how the union sees it. If the union is picketing transfer stations then it probably is in their view scabbing.
.. and this:
if you volunteered to take your neighbour's garbage as well (whether paid or unpaid), then I think we might be approaching "scab" territory.
... called that into question, so I thought it reasonable to ask whether looking after a neighbour's child would also be considered scabbing. At the very least, I would think that those who could answer the first could answer the second, and hopefully without the thinly veiled threat of assault for asking.
Tue, 2009-06-23 14:29
#34
Cueball
... called that into question, so I thought it reasonable to ask whether looking after a neighbour's child would also be considered scabbing.
But the assertion that this question is reasonable, isn't.
Tue, 2009-06-23 14:30
#35
remind
"threat of assault" you have got to be fucking kidding. Moreover, that you reframe funny commentary reposnses, to that of threat making is offensive.
Tue, 2009-06-23 14:32
#36
Snert
What do you suppose Unionist's comment of "head down to the nearest picket line, preferably with large-looking strikers" was meant to imply? I'll be interested to hear your answer.
Tue, 2009-06-23 14:42
#37
remind
It implied nothing, it was a funny response to your innane red herrings and bashing of unions.
Tue, 2009-06-23 14:45
#38
Cueball
What do you suppose Unionist's comment of "head down to the nearest picket line, preferably with large-looking strikers" was meant to imply? I'll be interested to hear your answer.
Oh. Heh. I see what you mean. No. Its just that usually they try and stick the large guys on the picket line so they are noticable, and don't get run over. Picket duty is very boring, and no doubt Unionist was hoping you would go down to the line to engage them in one of your patented fascinating speculative intellectual debates.
Tue, 2009-06-23 14:47
#39
Snert
I say again that if torontoprofessor's question
Question: would it be scabbing to take my own garbage down to one of the seven transfer stations or other drop-off locations?
... is reasonable (and I assume it was, as it got a simple answer) then asking whether the same would apply to child care is also reasonable.
But I suppose the optics of answering similarly ("ask the union" or "it could be") are pretty shitty, so I understand if nobody really wanted to have to say so.
Tue, 2009-06-23 14:53
#40
Cueball
Well actually its a fucking very stupid and unreasonable question, because a child care worker is someone who acts a temporary replacement for a parent, when the parents are not available, or do not want to take care of their children, and so if the parent is available then there is no need for a child care worker to act within their job description.
Tue, 2009-06-23 15:09
#41
Snert
Uh, ya, and garbage collectors take my garbage to the landfill when I don't want to. You understand that citizens are always free to take their waste to a transfer station themself, if they wish, right? Well, except right now, but usually.
Tue, 2009-06-23 15:15
#42
OK - but your line of demarcation was more along the lines of whether one is doing it for themselves or for someone else. What if someone cannot do it for themself?
They should call the city and demand help. The city is responsible for sanitation. If that doesn't work, they should call the province, which is responsible for the city and for public health.
People should demand that their elected governments provide the services for which they are elected. And people should condemn them if they do so by using scabs. Quite a dilemma for our politicians, eh? It means they have to actually sit down and find solutions.
Tue, 2009-06-23 15:18
#43
What do you suppose Unionist's comment of "head down to the nearest picket line, preferably with large-looking strikers" was meant to imply? I'll be interested to hear your answer.
Omigod, thanks for pointing out my typo, Snert. Of course, I meant "broad-minded strikers". Sorry about that.
Tue, 2009-06-23 15:19
#44
[double post]
Tue, 2009-06-23 15:48
#45
radiorahim
Should we phone the union to ask them their opinion.
Nah...we should just post on babble, ask you what you think...and most of the time...do the opposite ;)
Tue, 2009-06-23 15:51
#46
Cueball
Uh, ya, and garbage collectors take my garbage to the landfill when I don't want to. You understand that citizens are always free to take their waste to a transfer station themself, if they wish, right? Well, except right now, but usually.
Nope. Because they don't do that. Common practice, reasonable expectation and so on are all bankable legal principles within the law. Whereas, parents quite commonly remove their children from child care, on day when they choose to.
Tue, 2009-06-23 15:52
#47
Snert
Omigod, thanks for pointing out my typo, Snert. Of course, I meant "broad-minded strikers". Sorry about that.
Hehe. Can't always trust that spell-check.
Tue, 2009-06-23 15:57
#48
What do you suppose Unionist's comment of "head down to the nearest picket line, preferably with large-looking strikers" was meant to imply? I'll be interested to hear your answer.
Oh. Heh. I see what you mean. No. Its just that usually they try and stick the large guys on the picket line so they are noticable, and don't get run over. Picket duty is very boring, and no doubt Unionist was hoping you would go down to the line to engage them in one of your patented fascinating speculative intellectual debates.
Exactly! Thank you, Cueball. There's also the fact that garbage collectors are used to the smell.
Tue, 2009-06-23 16:11
#49
For what it's worth, I wrote the union the following email: "Dear CUPE 416, I was wondering what your view is on the following three questions: (1) Would it be scabbing to take my own garbage to one of the seven transfer stations or other drop-off locations? (2) Would it be scabbing to take my neighbours' garbage (and for them to occasionally take mine) to one of the transfer stations or drop-off locations? (3) Would it be scabbing to hire someone to take it for me? It might be useful if you issued a public statement on these and similar questions. Good luck, [signature]"
I'm sure that they're busy, so I'm not expecting an immediate reply.
Tue, 2009-06-23 16:13
#50
radiorahim
"Sooner or later...hopefully sooner...the politicos will move in and there'll be a settlement."
Negotiations have been going on for seven months. Do you seriously think that the "politicos" are only as of today going to say "Wow, there is a strike, I guess we better move in and settle it".
In a word, yes!
Seven months of negotiations, particularly in the public sector is nothing. I've been in situations where negotiations have dragged on for as long as eighteen months..hell even two years....with the contract being settled five minutes to midnight of the strike deadline. That usually happens when someone with some genuine authority to make decisions enters the bargaining on the management side...usually...the politicos. Sometimes it takes a hotshot mediator.
Right now...we're on "day two"...not "day 30"... and outside my window, I can see that the sun is still shining and I still see happy smiling faces on the city streets.
Your claims to be "pro labour" remind me very much of that old Phil Ochs song "Love Me I'm a Liberal".
You can find the lyrics (and guitar chords for the musicians out there in babble land) here:
http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/liberal.html
Tue, 2009-06-23 16:15
#51
For what it's worth, I wrote the union the following email: "Dear CUPE 416, I was wondering what your view is on the following three questions: (1) Would it be scabbing to take my own garbage to one of the seven transfer stations or other drop-off locations? (2) Would it be scabbing to take my neighbours' garbage (and for them to occasionally take mine) to one of the transfer stations or drop-off locations? (3) Would it be scabbing to hire someone to take it for me? It might be useful if you issued a public statement on these and similar questions. Good luck, [signature]"
I'm sure that they're busy, so I'm not expecting an immediate reply.
Well done, TP. I do hope they reply. Unions do tend to get wrapped up in their own preoccupations and forget that without broad support, every cause will ultimately be lost.