Public Transit - Essential Service?

[drlove 37204]

With the news of an impending transit strike in my area, I thought I'd through out the question as to whether or not public transit services should be deemed essential. Certainly for those with limited or fixed incomes, or those who rely solely on the transit system to get around, a strike would cause undue hardship. Furthermore, since their tax dollars go toward its funding, it adds insult to injury as a service which they indirectly pay for is taken away by circumstances beyond their control. As such, a strike by virtue of a labour dispute is akin to holding a city hostage.

 

Now, while unions will always strive to secure the best possible deal for its members, I feel that most unionized workers have it fairly good, all things considered. In an age of financial restraint and poor economic growth, I feel they are hardly in a position to make demands. Perhaps they should be satisfied with the status quo for once, like many of their fellow workers who are not so privileged to have a union representing their interests. Just my two cents.

[mrrnice2 157005]

The whole question of unions, essential services, and the fact that the service is government subsidized presents a moral dilemma.

 

As a strong union supporter, I tend always to lean towards that side of most discussions. In todays business climate it can be a difficult position to argue. I do believe that business and big business in general are manufacturing issues and putting away large and often obscene profits at the expense of the employee and the general public. Whether this applies in this specific situation I am unaware.

 

In the Maritimes at the moment our one and only interprovincial ground service transportation service has been off for almost two months - Acadian Bus Lines. The effect of that is that there is no way to travel between communities in PEI or unless one chooses to fly, to travel out of province by public transit. Within New Brunswick there is no public transit between Moncton, Saint John or Fredericton other than by air. VIA Rail does not provide service at all between those cities or to PEI. In this circumstance, the employer locked out the employees after several years of operating without a contract.

 

This has presented great difficulties to the travelling public here as would of course a transit strike in your area. I would love to see government intervene with conciliators and eventually arbitrators and not impose back to work legislation, but government is not acting at all in our situation.

 

May reason prevail and both sides arrive at a mutually agreed and fair contract in both your situation and ours.

 

A difficult question indeed.

[Andee 220524]

Yes. As a "victim" of the last bus strike in Ottawa that lasted a few months, I lost a substantial amount of income not being able to get to and from my temporary office job some days (because "my ride" was able to work at home some of the time).

 

I know some people who actually lost their jobs and students who had to drop out of school.

 

Enough said.

[fortunateone 156618]

The employer is not inconvenienced by a bus strike, only the ones who cannot get to work, school, doctor appts, etc etc by the lack of public transit in the case of strikes. And having been affected in the past by a strike, I am completely for making it essential service. Having grown up in a union family as well, experienced many times thru long strikes before the times when union members could get paid well for showing up with signs. The families never recover, even if the wages are increased and perks improved. Altho I appreciate the efforts made in the past by unions for improved working conditions, most of the time these days I see the union reps trying to justify their own existence more than helping members.

[roamingguy 300292]

Altho I appreciate the efforts made in the past by unions for improved working conditions, most of the time these days I see the union reps trying to justify their own existence more than helping members.

 

I couldn't agree more. I'm in a union, a union that backstabs it's own members to benefit other members (yes I have a non fatal stab wound in my back LOL by my "brothers and sisters" in the union) And the union has it's own favourites that they fight for, at the expense of other members.

And they fight for favourite members even when it flies in the face of the collective agreement provision, the provision the union fought for.

And members of the executive at the local in large part joined because they wanted to get out of doing their jobs, and at the Regional and National level, they are full time, but when they were working they were f*ck ups and in a couple cases close to being fired (justifiably fired btw)

A union is just an organization that does what it does for money and profit

nothing more, and is as trustworthy as the management they say we should fear

RG

[antlerman 17064]

The employer is not inconvenienced by a bus strike, only the ones who cannot get to work, school, doctor appts, etc etc by the lack of public transit in the case of strikes. And having been affected in the past by a strike, I am completely for making it essential service. Having grown up in a union family as well, experienced many times thru long strikes before the times when union members could get paid well for showing up with signs. The families never recover, even if the wages are increased and perks improved. Altho I appreciate the efforts made in the past by unions for improved working conditions, most of the time these days I see the union reps trying to justify their own existence more than helping members.

 

Love that.....

 

and my comments......

 

public transit is for the public...paid for by the public and our taxes...the public taxes.

 

buses are used for people of all incomes to get to and from work...to and from the hospital....to and from loved ones.....

 

holding the public at ransom so people can get a wage increase when most of us have not even had the COL increase in 3 years........give me a break.

 

if hydro decided to go on strike and not produce power...wow...how many does that affect....???

What about the public employees that run the water treatment facilities.....no water...then what.....??

 

but if Ikea goes on strike....well....wait it out....

if Shell goes on strike...go to next station....

 

but a bus goes out.....no other option.....

 

essential service....YUP!

[MightyPen 67414]

All institutions are corrupt and, no matter how benevolently they start out, ultimately will evolve to serve only their own interests. C'mon, haven't we all watched all five seasons of The Wire? ;)

 

Unions will, eventually, do as little as possible for the workers they represent while enriching themselves at their members' expense. They'll do just enough to make themselves seem worthwhile.

 

Employers will give workers as little as they can possibly get away with, and work them as hard as the law allows, just as they will give their customers as little as they can get away with and charge them as much as possible while doing so.

 

Nevertheless, you can't just take away unions or strike rights, and leave disorganized workers individually subject to the greedy, grasping divide-and-conquer whims of an organized corporate employer. You need to make sure that rights-shackled workers aren't then subject to the conditions that legitimately warrant a strike. If you take away the workers' right to strike, then the employer has to lose something comparable.

 

So... I agree that public transportation is an essential service. I agree we should forbid striking for the sake of everyone who depend on the service.

 

But also put contract negotiations in the hands of an independent arbiter with full access to the transit company's accounts, and enforceable rules for contracts and corporate management. Make sure the employer is tightly bound to live up to its terms. Bind the two sides together in mutual interest. Let neither enrich themselves at the other's expense.

[roamingguy 300292]

Striking, that's got to be another joke. Union goes out on strike, and after a few weeks or months on the picket line, they may get part of the raise they demanded...maybe even the entire raise they want. But it cost them, for the time on strike they got no salary, short of the minimal money provided by the union, which union members paid for to begin with through union dues.

Any raise won is offset by the money lost while striking, meanwhile management, they don't pay anything to the workers while they are on strike

RG

[AndyofHalifax 15339]

It seems to me that when people have a bad experience with a union, their perspective becomes that all organized labour is the corrupt/antiquated, etc. Why then do people not feel the same way about corporations? I'm sure we've all had dozens of terrible experiences with different companies, both as consumers and employees, but I don't hear many people say that the time of the corporation has passed and we should embrace communism.

 

If the right to strike is taken away, or if the government forces workers back to work, then the employer has no incentive to bargain in good faith. Arbitrators can be very useful when negotiations have truly stalled, but it can be very hard for a arbitrator to truly understand what is most important to either side, as they cannot fully understand the complexities of the organization while being outside of it. The parties should have a chance to work through the issues by themselves and work stoppages are a necessary part of that system.

 

In the case of the Halifax Transit workers, you may be interested to know that the issues on the table are not in regards to wages at all. The issues are about preventing the employer from contracting out their jobs, and keeping all of their employees at full time hours. In my opinion, those are fairly noble causes and are certainly worth the strike for the members who would lose their jobs or have their hours cut otherwise.

 

I also use public transit regularly and would be severely impacted by this work stoppage, however I support their right to do so. Just because I use a service does not mean I am entitled to it. If the Halifax Transit Workers had no union, and the city did contract out their services, there would be no guarantee of services either. The company who receives the contract could go out of business or stop running less profitable routes, etc.

 

As for striking being a joke, it is only considered after holding a vote of all the members and using the majority decision, much like any democracy. So how is that unfair to the workers? As in any democracy, some people are going to be upset, but when you are acting on behalf of the majority, you are acting in the interests of the group as a whole.

[roamingguy 300292]

It seems to me that when people have a bad experience with a union, their perspective becomes that all organized labour is the corrupt/antiquated, etc. Why then do people not feel the same way about corporations? I'm sure we've all had dozens of terrible experiences with different companies, both as consumers and employees, but I don't hear many people say that the time of the corporation has passed and we should embrace communism.

 

If the right to strike is taken away, or if the government forces workers back to work, then the employer has no incentive to bargain in good faith. Arbitrators can be very useful when negotiations have truly stalled, but it can be very hard for a arbitrator to truly understand what is most important to either side, as they cannot fully understand the complexities of the organization while being outside of it. The parties should have a chance to work through the issues by themselves and work stoppages are a necessary part of that system.

 

In the case of the Halifax Transit workers, you may be interested to know that the issues on the table are not in regards to wages at all. The issues are about preventing the employer from contracting out their jobs, and keeping all of their employees at full time hours. In my opinion, those are fairly noble causes and are certainly worth the strike for the members who would lose their jobs or have their hours cut otherwise.

 

I also use public transit regularly and would be severely impacted by this work stoppage, however I support their right to do so. Just because I use a service does not mean I am entitled to it. If the Halifax Transit Workers had no union, and the city did contract out their services, there would be no guarantee of services either. The company who receives the contract could go out of business or stop running less profitable routes, etc.

 

As for striking being a joke, it is only considered after holding a vote of all the members and using the majority decision, much like any democracy. So how is that unfair to the workers? As in any democracy, some people are going to be upset, but when you are acting on behalf of the majority, you are acting in the interests of the group as a whole.

 

I don't disagree with you. My take on unions is based on my experience in being a member of two unions, and I consider unions equally trustworthy as management (I work in the Federal Public Service)

As for striking, yes, it is after a majority vote by the membership, but every time a vote for strike takes place, the way the vote takes place is

a) take no action

b) take all action up to and including a strike

And to boot, when I was in the first union, our group was designated, meaning we couldn't strike ourselves, but we were represented by the same union representing clerks, drivers, secretary's etc, who weren't designated. They were the minority in our government department, they voted not to go on stike, but the majority of designated people voted to stike knowing full well they themselves wouldn't have to walk a picket line, their vote was done on the backs of others so to speak

And for every strike and picket line, even being designated didn't mean delays getting to work. So you got docked pay for being late, but you were told by both management and the union don't cross the picket line till you are allowed through...in a three week period back in the 90's lost close to a $1000.00, and no gains whatsoever

But my point about a strike being a joke is that whatever money in a new contract made by stiking, you in fact lost, and maybe then some, through lost income while on the picket line

RG

[Guest jake_cdn]

The employer is not inconvenienced by a bus strike, only the ones who cannot get to work, school, doctor appts, etc etc by the lack of public transit in the case of strikes.

 

Have to agree with fortunateone. I still can't believe that there are unions that could in all consciousness impact the operation of the city by impacting the very people that they were hired to serve.

 

I have a tough time with a bus driver who makes between $50 - $100K and believes that they deserve more.

 

My solution for the last bus strike (and I am sure that it will be the same this time) is let them all go. There are people in this city who were part of the high tech down turn who still cannot find employment. I am sure that they could be trained with minimal effort and time while the union promotes and prolongs this strike.

 

I keep hearing (from OC Transpo) that we have one of the best transit systems in the world. *** BULLSH*T ***! Anyone who has had the opportunity to be a passenger on the Montréal or Toronto transit system would believe this to be untrue.

 

An essential service ... YES but only to the people who use and rely on it NOT to the people who operate it.

 

Time for the city officials to take a preemptive strike against this lunacy.