Part 3 Municipal workers on strike in Toronto

Is that material still on the site, TM? I visited the other day and found some sections "under construction" (like I think the one called "Local 416 speaks out").

Excellent cartoon, Unionist ...

munroe wrote:

Excellent cartoon, Unionist ...

Merci, munroe - I just edited in a more readable version. It's by Fred Wright:

Quote:

Fred Wright was an American labor cartoonist and activist.  From 1939 until his death in 1984, Wright created thousands of cartoons reflecting the politics and labor issues of the day, which were featured in newspapers, union publications, and overseas union activism.

He was employed by the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America (UE) for nearly thirty-five years and was the only cartoonist at that time to be employed by a specific union.  As the UE staff cartoonist, Wright illustrated their newspaper, the UE News, as well as various other union publications.

And here's a [url=http://images.library.pitt.edu/f/fredwright/][color=red]website dedicated to his work[/color][/url].

Now back to the garbage.

garbage is recyclable.  some it makes great compost.

thanks wrote:

what's with the distinction between workers and taxpayers?

I partly agree with you. Let me explain.

Things of worth (like money) come from work and from resources provided by nature.

When someone (like some babblers I won't name) says, [size=20]But I'm a taxpayer!!![/size], they forget to explain where the taxes they pay came from. Did they work to earn that money? Did someone else work for them (like the dude in the cartoon)? did they steal it? Those are important questions. And that's why it's important not to define yourself as a "taxpayer", but rather to explain what you do to earn those taxes.

Same kind of thing happens when people are described as "consumers". It's a term often used to denigrate workers and to confuse the issue of how society's wealth is created. Just imagine billionaire business owners being described as "producers" and the people who work for them as "consumers". It's like calling the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan "liberation".

Of course workers pay taxes. But far more importantly, the work which they do increases society's wealth, even if they never paid a dollar in taxes. Of course, the results of the work (goods and services) are not owned by the workers (unless they're self-employed), they only get a small portion back (see the cartoon), and they certainly get no credit for the work they do.

That brings us back to the Toronto city workers. I'll let you fill in the blanks. And any time anyone says, "I'm a taxpayer", or "I'm a stakeholder", you can decode the rest appropriately.

The problem  with the cartoon is that it has nothing to do with this situation where the "boss" consists of the City of Toronto which is a non-profit organization that provides public services and whose council is dominated by left of centre people with roots in the labour movement.

""I'm a stakeholder"

That's right. A stakeholder is some who has a stake in what is going on and is affected. Everyone in Toronto is a stakeholder or do you have a better word to describe the general public? I suppose given that all municipal workers indirectly work for all the citizens (which means they also work for themselves) i guess that means that all the strikers are also employers!

Thanks TM, in respect to PR CUPE needs to also put out a press release about their cost savings proposals, and people in TO, should be demanding that the City look at them for possible implimenting, instead of trashing the workers, as concerned "tax payers".

triciamarie wrote:

 

Last time I was on the CUPE site a few weeks ago, the union came to the table with hundreds of ideas from their members for cost savings for the city. The employer was not even interested in discussing this; instead, they arrived with 32 pages of concessions, and predictably, that's still the focus now. Don't forget that a municipality saves big money short-term when staff is not being paid; of course, they still end up paying for it and more in many different ways when infrastructure is not maintained.

I thought I'd dip back to this comment by Triciamarie because it relates so well to Remind's thought.  Rather then worrying about the relationship between workers and those who pay taxes, it would seem more productive to discuss how to get the Paties back to the bargaining table.  Public pressure to remove concession demands and to consider any Union cost-saving measures would do that.  Workers rarely strike unless there is a damned good reason.  Further, once a strike occurs there is usually only one way to end it - negotiations.

Stock, another skewed opinion post obliquely bashing workers.

The fact is the City won't bargain until they give a concession in this regard, so there is NOTHING else to talk about in respect to the strike, as they have been without a contract for 6 months.

Ugh, as a public sector worker, I have to say that Stock's comments on these three threads have been completely disgusting and I completely agree with pretty much everything Unionist and and others wrote.

From what I gather, Stock is saying that anti-worker crap is okay in the public sector because the employer is the state.  In other words, it's okay to target me as a public sector worker.  Or that anti-worker crap is okay as long as it's being done by "progressives".  I guess being anti-worker is okay as long as you have a Party card.  Well damn, I live in an NDP province.

Right on, genstrike. And let's respond to Stockholm's bullshit thesis that the city of Toronto is "nonprofit". That means, nonprofit for the people, huge profits for the corporations that it gives contracts to.

As for "non-profit" organizations, some of them are the worst employers around (and yes, I include trade unions in that sorry lot), because they hire workers and expect them to feel some "dedication" to the "cause". If a non-profit organization can't treat its employees decently, then the holier-than-thou volunteers should clean up after themselves.

Stockholm wrote:

"The fact is the City won't bargain until they give a concession in this regard"

Actually its the other way around, from I read the union is refusing to bargain on any other issues unless the sick day cash back is taken off the table.  Then again, given that negotiations are apparently still happening obviously they must be talking about something.

No it is not. The City refused to table any bargaining points until the workers concede!

Here in Guelph, our Mayor just saved us a shitload of money by investing in training of city staff. We were overdue for another wastewater treatment facility, which would have cost about $12 million (for a city of just over 100,000). Instead, waterworks staff have been educated so that everyone there understands every part of the water treatment process. Now, city workers are able to put the existing equipment to better use, which has not only eliminated the need to build another facility in the forseeable future, but also conserves water and energy.

Now that's what I call saving money.

Last time I was on the CUPE site a few weeks ago, the union came to the table with hundreds of ideas from their members for cost savings for the city. The employer was not even interested in discussing this; instead, they arrived with 32 pages of concessions, and predictably, that's still the focus now. Don't forget that a municipality saves big money short-term when staff is not being paid; of course, they still end up paying for it and more in many different ways when infrastructure is not maintained during a strike.

That cartoon stops before it gets to the interesting part.

How did the heavily parodied "Boss man" buy the machines in the first place, if he needed workers using them in order to make the money to buy the machines?  It also doesn't really explain why the worker, apparently creating 100% of the worth in this equation, didn't just buy his own machines with that worth.  Maybe the worker has low self esteem or some other thing.

What if the Toronto Sun (or some such rag) publishes a list of home addresses of City of Toronto outside workers and people start dumping garbage on their front porches. I'm not sure if we want to start getting into a competition as to who gets the most trash thrown at them.

I never said they were equivalent - I'm just saying that if people want to choose where the toss their garbage to make a statement - they can choose targets that attack either side in the dispute and given where public opinion is at - I suspect that if the strike degenerated into a contest over where the most trash gets tossed - you might see a bigger pile in front of the local CUPE headquarters than in front of City Hall. I don't think we want to get into that sort of quasi-vigilanteism.

According to the Toronto Star

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/655644

76%
of GTA residents in new poll oppose the strike

81%
want province to pass back-to-work legislation

53%
blame the unions, while just 21% fault the city

10%
believe the strike will last less than a week

Huh.  Interesting.  I live in a house where my landlord takes care of the garbage (I just take mine out to the back and put it in the bins, he puts it out on garbage day).  I hope he won't be using this service!  I'll have to find out.

As for me, I'm trying to generate as little garbage as possible (which will be a good habit for after the strike too), and I'm back to not buying any meat and little dairy beyond eggs.  Veggie scraps won't be that bad.

Also, my mother freezes her green bin stuff until garbage day, so that could be a solution too - just get an airtight container, stick it in the freezer, and dump kitchen scraps in it until the strike is over.

One things for sure - when this strike is resolved they should have the next contract expire in winter so that if there is another strike we can all put food waste outside to freeze and we don't miss going to the island - on the other hand, I suppose if tis were a winter strike it might mean no snow clearance!

Stock, I am pretty sure snow clearance is deemed an essential service.

How do you define bargaining in "good faith" as opposed to "bad faith"? Is it "good faith" when the other side acquieceses to all your demands and "bad faith" when they drive a hard bargain or is there more to it than that?

Another thing I don't understand. Usually when a labour dispute revolves around an employer wanting concessions compared to the existing contract (and that is what we are told this dispute is all about) - it results in a "lock out" as opposed to a strike - since in the absence of a new contract the provisions of the old one stand. So why is CUPE on strike when I would have thought that the city would be locking them out?

Bad faith is when you say you are going to do something and then you don't do it. Or when you make an agreement and have no intention of living by it.

Uncle John wrote:

According to the Toronto Star

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/655644

76%
of GTA residents in new poll oppose the strike

81%
want province to pass back-to-work legislation

So 5% don't oppose the strike but they want legislation anyway. That sounds like some of the anti-worker posters here. It also fits their logical faculties.

Stock, because the City is demanding concessions before they will table anything. You are being just as deliberately obtuse here, as you are being anti-worker.