TTC union chief blasts bosses, media and public

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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?

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"?

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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]