Toronto Strike Continues- Edition 3 - " MAYOR and cities reputation goes down"

[torontosubway 11]

July/18/2009---(UPDATED)


A group of concerned Torontonians led by Ontario deputy premier George Smitherman are out in city parks cleaning up garbage strewn on the streets because of the civic workers strike.

 

Members of "One Toronto" say they are targeting "hot spots" that need garbage clean-up the most. They cleaned up everywhere from Broadview Avenue and Danforth Avenue Wellesley Street and Yonge Street, Queen Street West and Spadina Avenue, and Finch Avenue and Yonge Street.

 

They're encouraging residents to step in and pick up the trash. The move has upset some striking CUPE workers but Smitherman insists he's not wading into the labour dispute. He says he's simply trying to show the pride he feels as a Toronto resident.

 

Meanwhile, the city strike is close to the one month mark, and Toronto Mayor David Miller is vowing to 'pursue every legal remedy' to allow residents to cross picket lines without harassment.

As for talks with CUPE Locals 79 and 416 the mayor is continuing to express impatience. He says negotiations will continue through the weekend but admits they're moving at a snail's pace.

The strike is now in its 27th day and garbage is starting to pile up in some parts of downtown. Tourists visiting the city are taking notice.

Next week, striking workers will lose their second paycheque since the dispute started. Officials say the 23 temporary dumping sites open across the city are almost half full.

If the strike lingers, more will open later in the week.

JULY/17/2009---


Just a week after Mayor David Miller took to the airwaves to defend Toronto over a U.S. newspaper report about its garbage strike, Canada's own Maclean's magazine features a cover declaring "Toronto Stinks."

It depicts Miller in a trash can with a banana peel on his head, and a pair of raccoons beside a mound of garbage.

The mayor responded Friday by telling a news conference Toronto is "a remarkable place" and that "the resilience of Torontonians in the face of a four-week strike demonstrates that."

Miller went on CNN last week to urge American tourists to visit the city after an article in the San Francisco Chronicle made Toronto seem like a hazardous vacation destination.

In the newspaper's World Travel Watch section, Canada heads a list of notable countries, ahead of troubled regions like Honduras, Mexico, North Africa and Thailand.

The strike by about 24,000 inside and outside workers has halted garbage pickup and a host of other city services.

JULY/13/2009---
Toronto Mayor David Miller says the city has received a "serious" counter-offer from the unions representing about 24,000 striking civic workers. But there's still more negotiating to be done before the 22-day-old strike comes to an end, he adds.

"For the first time, from my perspective, they've made a counter-offer that was serious," Miller says.

But CUPE's (the workers union) latest proposal still isn't in the city's range, Miller says.

 

"I think that's a little possibility of a hint of good news. I wouldn't go past that."

 

The mayor also says he doesn't think the city has seen a "proper response" on either wages, monetary issues or the sick bank since they've started negotiating in January until they presented a counter-offer.

 

"But now we're at least talking," he says.

The city presented its latest offer to the union late last week, prior to the unions' counter-offer. No details of the union offer have been released.

Meanwhile, the absence of city services means garbage, recycling and compost pickup remains cancelled. City residents are allowed to take their trash to one of five transfer stations or 19 temporary drop-off sites.

Pickets at some locations are making residents wait for a time before dumping, while others are letting people come and go without incident.

[reedalson 0]

The city won't stop because the mayor is in England for the rest of the summer. Riots have now been sparked in the city.

[Zelgadis 638]

Uh... The mayor is not in England for the rest of the summer and there are no riots... Are you sure you're talking about the right city here. Looking out my window, all seems pretty normal.

ISF

[Duke87 1,070]

Why is it even legal for these guys to go on strike in the first place?

That's one thing New York got right ages ago.

[Aro0w 1]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Why is it even legal for these guys to go on strike in the first place?

quote>

Why isn't it?

If they feel that they are under-paid, they should have better benefits...

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Aro0w

Originally posted by: Duke87

Why is it even legal for these guys to go on strike in the first place?

quote>

Why isn't it?

If they feel that they are under-paid, they should have better benefits...quote>

People who perform public services are in a position where if they strike, it can adversely affect millions of other people who have absolutely nothing to do with the issue, nor any say in it, and that is hardly fair to them.  No one forces the workers to work where they do, but the residents of the city have a right to expect that services they are paying for continue to operate. If a city's 911 operators decided to strike, it would endanger the lives of everyone under their service.

[Aro0w 1]

oh, I did not read the word "civic" my bad.

well now my opinion is totally changed, I don't think that's even legal in the US?

[spa 970]

McGinty should legislate them back to work already and order the union and city into binding arbitration. Arbitration is how public sector strikes should be handled. Having essential services walk out like this benefits no one. All that said, the city is partially to blame for this mess. How can you give big raises to all those other city workers and then tell the garbage and daycare workers that the cupboards bare? If I were in the union I would be mad too.

[Zelgadis 638]

The trouble with binding arbitration is that the unions tend to get the better deal out of it. Given that, I say let them strike and let them not get paid for as long as they strike. And let them cave in and give up on their ridiculously outlandish demands.

ISF

[JolsonLim 1]

The strike has lasted quite a bit. I think longer than the last one. 1 good thing is that theres not garbage pilled up on the streets. But, shame on the union and shame on the city for letting this stike go on.

[N106 10]

I honestly think that the union has a right to strike. If the city is being hurt from the strike, there is nothing that says that they just can't hire some scabs who will work.

Just because a group of people work in civic services doesn't take away their right to want better pay, insurance, or improved working conditions.

While one can get mad at the city for letting the strike continue, people shouldn't be mad at the union for striking. Just because someone wants better conditions doesn't make them jerks, even if they're working for the city.

[Godzillaman 21]

To the people complaining-sure it smells, but it could always be worse. Take Naples for example; not a city you would like to be in during a garbage strike...

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Godzillaman

To the people complaining-sure it smells, but it could always be worse. Take Naples for example; not a city you would like to be in during a garbage strike...quote>

Or Texas, garbage steaming in the 100 degree sun.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Originally posted by: Aro0w

Originally posted by: Duke87

Why is it even legal for these guys to go on strike in the first place?

quote>

quote>

Why not! Everybody has the right to withdraw labour. Or to fight for better pay or conditions. Binding arbitration might be good but who's going to pick the arbitrators and the Elected government would have to be beholden to unelected arbitrators.

If you followed through your idea, then you would end up with a rich private sector and a poor public sector.

I thought the American constitution treated everybody equally, does it not say these things shall be true and self-evident of ALL men. (my capitals)

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

Why not! Everybody has the right to withdraw labour. Or to fight for better pay or conditions. Binding arbitration might be good but who's going to pick the arbitrators and the Elected government would have to be beholden to unelected arbitrators.quote>

When people are required to pay for a service, they have the right to expect that that service continues uninterrupted.  When a city employs people to provide essential public services, the city should have the ability to tell them that striking is not an option.  When a strike happens at a private company, generally the only people affected are those with some tie to the company.  When public workers strike, they can actually be jeoparadizing the welfare of everyone around them.  Public workers may have the right to demand better working conditions, but they do not have the right to risk endangerment of innocent individuals, thus they should not have the right to strike.

I thought the American constitution treated everybody equally, does it not say these things shall be true and self-evident of ALL men. (my capitals)quote>

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..." is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[spa 970]

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

Why not! Everybody has the right to withdraw labour. Or to fight for better pay or conditions. Binding arbitration might be good but who's going to pick the arbitrators and the Elected government would have to be beholden to unelected arbitrators.quote>

When people are required to pay for a service, they have the right to expect that that service continues uninterrupted.  When a city employs people to provide essential public services, the city should have the ability to tell them that striking is not an option.  When a strike happens at a private company, generally the only people affected are those with some tie to the company.  When public workers strike, they can actually be jeoparadizing the welfare of everyone around them.  Public workers may have the right to demand better working conditions, but they do not have the right to risk endangerment of innocent individuals, thus they should not have the right to strike.

I thought the American constitution treated everybody equally, does it not say these things shall be true and self-evident of ALL men. (my capitals)quote>

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..." is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

quote>

Two points. Public workers shouldn't be allowed to strike when they jeopardize the welfare is an easy statement. When it comes to emergency services it's a no brainer, but is not having the garbage picked up jeopardizing anyone's welfare or is it a big inconvenience and economic problem? I think garbage pickup is an essential service and binding arbitration should be the way to go, but let's not get carried away and put all public services in the same league as police, hospitals and fire.

As for the American constiution question, it doesn't have much to do with Toronto's garbage strike since Toronto is in Canada In fact Canada's Supreme Court recently ruled that there is a right to collective bargaining under the our Charter of Rights and Freedoms (see B.C. Health Services case). The result is that Ontario government could intervene and order the garbage collector's back to work, but only if they also sent it to arbitration. Government can no longer impose settlements in this country.... well practically anyway. They could order them back to work and impose a settlement, but the legislation would have to use sec 33 of our Charter, the so-called not withstanding clause. Sec 33 allows government to override some select constitutional rights for a period of 5 years. At the end of 5 years, they have to renew the clause in the legislature and it's only valid for another 5 years before they'll have to revisit it again. Outside of Quebec in English Canada, it has been politically impossible to use the notwithstanding clause. Hard to make a case to suspend people's constitutional rights without creating a firestorm of outrage! So Ontario's options are to go for arbitration or let them continue striking. The City's options are to let them continue striking or settle. So far, both governments are going with let them strike and let the garbage pile up.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: spa

Two points. Public workers shouldn't be allowed to strike when they jeopardize the welfare is an easy statement. When it comes to emergency services it's a no brainer, but is not having the garbage picked up jeopardizing anyone's welfare...quote>

Depends on who is being asked the question.  An everyday citizen might not consider it much of a risk.  However, a public health director might have something entirely different to say about the subject of suspending public trash disposal.

[blade2k5 1,523]

but the residents of the city have a right to expect that services they are paying for continue to operate.quote>

There's a solution to that, people can take their own garbage to the dump.  Yeah I know, that'll never happen.  People have more important things to do than be bothered with taking care of their own garbage....

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: blade2k5

but the residents of the city have a right to expect that services they are paying for continue to operate.quote>

There's a solution to that, people can take their own garbage to the dump.  Yeah I know, that'll never happen.  People have more important things to do than be bothered with taking care of their own garbage....

quote>

If you're paying for the city to dispose of your trash, having to take it to the dump yourself is not a solution as you're still paying for something you're not receiving.  (That's also ignoring the fact that most landfills wouldn't let you anywhere near the dumping point.)

[blade2k5 1,523]

Do you have an option not to pay, or the does Gov't ram that down your throats too? So what else do they charge you for that you could do yourself? I mean, that's pretty screwed up if you can't take your own garbage to the dump instead of paying the city a fee to do it for you. I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, I just find it lacking any common sense that you're not allowed to take care of your own garbage. What's next, you'll have to pay the city a fee to cut your lawn for you? Maybe pay a fee to have the city water it too? And no, I'm not being sarcastic, just asking honest questions as I know little of how Canada operates.

[Zelgadis 638]

Originally posted by: blade2k5

Do you have an option not to pay, or the does Gov't ram that down your throats too? So what else do they charge you for that you could do yourself? I mean, that's pretty screwed up if you can't take your own garbage to the dump instead of paying the city a fee to do it for you. quote>

For the record, Toronto's garbage dump is Michigan.  Yup, it's exported! 

As for how much you pay, you're basically charged based on the size of the garbage can you use.  Garbage cans are ordered from the city.  Get a small one and you pay less.  Need a biggie and you pay more.  Recycling, as far as I know, is free.

ISF

[spa 970]

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: spa

Two points. Public workers shouldn't be allowed to strike when they jeopardize the welfare is an easy statement. When it comes to emergency services it's a no brainer, but is not having the garbage picked up jeopardizing anyone's welfare...quote>

Depends on who is being asked the question.  An everyday citizen might not consider it much of a risk.  However, a public health director might have something entirely different to say about the subject of suspending public trash disposal.

quote>

Well there is risk in everything in life and the longer the strike goes on the more relevant this argument will become. But for now, a few weeks worth of regular waste (assuming the owner hasn't dumped it in one of the temporary dumps) isn't going to hurt anyone. You just can't equate it to dialing 911 and no one answering.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[blade2k5 1,523]

Originally posted by: Zelgadis

Originally posted by: blade2k5

Do you have an option not to pay, or the does Gov't ram that down your throats too? So what else do they charge you for that you could do yourself? I mean, that's pretty screwed up if you can't take your own garbage to the dump instead of paying the city a fee to do it for you. quote>

For the record, Toronto's garbage dump is Michigan.  Yup, it's exported! 

As for how much you pay, you're basically charged based on the size of the garbage can you use.  Garbage cans are ordered from the city.  Get a small one and you pay less.  Need a biggie and you pay more.  Recycling, as far as I know, is free.

ISF

quote>

No wonder why Michigan looks like a dump.  J/K.  That's interesting.  Canada has all that space and they use our landfills.

[saltandsauce 0]

umm, although i don't live in Canada i shall point out a few things,

of civic workers these are the British details on striking

firefighters, YES they can, the army can do the firefighting during the strike

doctors nurses, NO they can't or only a tiny amount are allowed to strike

transport workers, YES since people can still go to work although it's more likley to be longer or exhausting

sanitation workers, YES since garbage pickup isn't a life or death thing

teachers, YES but people relise how valuable they are at keeping everyone's brats off the streets duing the day

police, NO it's actually ILLEGAL for them to even be part of a union

[blue sinjid 7]

Remember guys, that it is not just a garbage strike, over 18 000 city workers are on strike, from the ferry boat services, to summer camps, to swimming pools, and of course the garbage disposal!

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: Aro0w well now my opinion is totally changed, I don't think that's even legal in the US?quote>

Of course it is legal.  There is a BART strike possible here in the Bay Area that would lead to enormous traffic problems if enacted (BART is our largest mass transit system).  There have been numerous waste disposal strikes in the past.quote>

That's California. New York state law fines workers two days' pay for every day they go on strike. It was passed after the NYC transit strike of 1966, which lasted two weeks.

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

Why not! Everybody has the right to withdraw labour. Or to fight for better pay or conditions. Binding arbitration might be good but who's going to pick the arbitrators and the Elected government would have to be beholden to unelected arbitrators.quote>

Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

If you have an issue with the way your employer is treating you, you have the right to, within reason, do things which financially hurt your employer to try and get your way. You do not have the right to do things which hurt everyone, involved or not.

Especially when you consider the potential consequences. If transit workers go on strike it throws the city into a chaos of gridlock. if saniation workers go on strike, garbage piles up and it becomes a health issue (smell aside). If the police go on strike, anarchy ensues because nobody's around to arrest criminals. If the firefighters go on strike, buildings will burn down and people may die because nobody will come to put out the fire. Etc, etc.

If you followed through your idea, then you would end up with a rich private sector and a poor public sector.quote>

In what way?

And even if so, is that necessarily a bad thing? That's how capitalism works. Private companies make money.

[sneakeypete 16]

Originally posted by: blade2k5

. I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, I just find it lacking any common sense that you're not allowed to take care of your own garbage. What's next, you'll have to pay the city a fee to cut your lawn for you? quote>

You cut your lawn with your own lawnmower. You don't dump your garbarge at your own garbage dump.