Canadian LRT/RT projects U/C

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by casper

Obviously there are dispatchers. The same dispatcher positions also exist for railways with drivers.

And what would happen if they went on strike?

[Nouvellecosse]

I think the question would be whether or not the dispatchers were considered part of management. If they were management which would be basically the same category as driver supervisors, then they're not likely to be unionized, or at least part of the same union as workers. But every organization will be structured differently.

That being said, there's more that's required to keep trains running than the dispatchers. There will be people who clean the trains and do repairs and maintenance on the trains and track as well. These different people may not be part of the same union but if they're unionized, they're not likely to cross picket lines which would be necessary for them to perform these functions. So I don't think protection from strikes is really a benefit of automation in this case.

[casper]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

And what would happen if they went on strike?

Obviously management would step in to provide some form of essential service until the union is ordered back to work.

We should have a low tolerance for any one who tries to cripple our essential services for monetary gain.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I think the question would be whether or not the dispatchers were considered part of management. If they were management which would be basically the same category as driver supervisors, then they're not likely to be unionized, or at least part of the same union as workers. But every organization will be structured differently.

That being said, there's more that's required to keep trains running than the dispatchers. There will be people who clean the trains and do repairs and maintenance on the trains and track as well. These different people may not be part of the same union but if they're unionized, they're not likely to cross picket lines which would be necessary for them to perform these functions. So I don't think protection from strikes is really a benefit of automation in this case.

So, this has not solved the strike issue.

Originally Posted by casper

Obviously management would step in to provide some form of essential service until the union is ordered back to work.

We should have a low tolerance for any one who tries to cripple our essential services for monetary gain.

Yet we keep voting for more of the same. Much of public service strikes can be traced back to bad decisions that politicians make, and yet people want o blame a worker.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I don't think protection from strikes is really a benefit of automation in this case.

It is and I'll tell you why: when drivers go on strike we feel impact immediately.

DB drivers love to throw pissy little half-day strikes. Like, they just won't show up in the morning. It fucks everything up.

In a society heavily organized around trains, these guys have incredible leverage. And they know it. So they throw their weight around whenever they feel like they need something. Recently they wanted a 600 Euro Covid bonus. Collectively show up late for work once and they get it, which is 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 because they work for a public company. That bonus is coming out of our pockets, as riders and tax payers. It's not like they're juicing some fat private company. I'd be 100% behind Amazon workers going on strike, for example.

Worse, reasons I don't understand or care to understand, the multiple DB unions are locked into some kind of eternal 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 match. When one union gets something, the other has to get the same. Driver strikes usually, therefore, come in pairs.

This is a completely different scenario from maintenance workers going on strike. A transit system can limp along for a long time with reduced service if maintenance workers strike--it could take months for them to make their point.

Dispatchers I'd expect to be part of a managers union, or a broader public workers union. How many dispatchers does Translink even need, like four? They definitely don't have their own union. Any strike action they take would be part of a broader action. They couldn't unilaterally decide to 🞵🞵🞵🞵 up the whole system.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Nite

Are the trains back in service in Ottawa since the derailment, did they ever find a cause?

Reduced service started up again November 12th. Back to full pandemic servics by December 1. The Line achieved 99.1% reliability over the first month back in service.

Cause of the derailment was a gear box that fell out because of bolts that were not torqued.

OC Transpo is offering free transit for December as an apology.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by biguc

This is a completely different scenario from maintenance workers going on strike. A transit system can limp along for a long time with reduced service if maintenance workers strike--it could take months for them to make their point.

Dispatchers I'd expect to be part of a managers union, or a broader public workers union. How many dispatchers does Translink even need, like four? They definitely don't have their own union. Any strike action they take would be part of a broader action. They couldn't unilaterally decide to 🞵🞵🞵🞵 up the whole system.

Maintenance workers and dispatchers are not part of management. So, if the dispatchers all went on strike today, you would see immediate effects on the lines. These days, in most fields, mangers do not know how to do the work;they know how to manage the people. There are also a lot less managers to cover the dispatchers. That means that they will have less trains out.

[casper]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Maintenance workers and dispatchers are not part of management. So, if the dispatchers all went on strike today, you would see immediate effects on the lines. These days, in most fields, mangers do not know how to do the work;they know how to manage the people. There are also a lot less managers to cover the dispatchers. That means that they will have less trains out.

Translink is a holding company with the Buses, Seabus, HandyDART, WestCoast Express Skytrain and the transit police being divided among several separate subsidiaries. The different subsidiaries all have different unions. Translink (through its subsidiary) only operates the Expo and Millennium line. If it can't reliably operate it should contract it out to AAECOM, SNC, or somebody else.

The Canada line is operates under a 3P by SNC Lavalin. I would take a hard line with them. I don't know if they have a union or not. Regardless if they have a union Translink should take a hard line on this. If they are down for a few days (due to strike or anything else), terminate the contract and hire another firm to operate the system.

WestCoast Express was operated by Bombardier with Via Rail doing the maintenance. I believe that business was also sold when Bombardier got out of rail.

When a union and management disagreement causes an impact for the end customer they are sending a pretty clear message and showing a great deal of disrespect to the customer of the service. The customer at that point should walk away and find a different service provider and never look back.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by casper

Translink is a holding company with the Buses, Seabus, HandyDART, WestCoast Express Skytrain and the transit police being divided among several separate subsidiaries. The different subsidiaries all have different unions. Translink (through its subsidiary) only operates the Expo and Millennium line. If it can't reliably operate it should contract it out to AAECOM, SNC, or somebody else.

The Canada line is operates under a 3P by SNC Lavalin. I would take a hard line with them. I don't know if they have a union or not. Regardless if they have a union Translink should take a hard line on this. If they are down for a few days (due to strike or anything else), terminate the contract and hire another firm to operate the system.

WestCoast Express was operated by Bombardier with Via Rail doing the maintenance. I believe that business was also sold when Bombardier got out of rail.

When a union and management disagreement causes an impact for the end customer they are sending a pretty clear message and showing a great deal of disrespect to the customer of the service. The customer at that point should walk away and find a different service provider and never look back.

Ah, yes, blame the worker.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Maintenance workers and dispatchers are not part of management. So, if the dispatchers all went on strike today, you would see immediate effects on the lines. These days, in most fields, mangers do not know how to do the work;they know how to manage the people. There are also a lot less managers to cover the dispatchers. That means that they will have less trains out.

Not my point and immaterial. Dispatchers don't have their own union. Therefore, they can't "single" handedly bring a system down at their whim. Drivers' unions can and do.

I'm not as hard as casper on this. Like I said, I support private-sector strike action. But public transit workers aren't struggling for a fair share of a fat production surplus. It's not them or billionaires--it's them or all of us. They do useful work; I want them paid well. And by and large they already are.

Anyway, I don't even demand automated trains or anything. It's just a definite advantage of automated trains that they won't go on strike like their drivers do.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by biguc

Not my point and immaterial. Dispatchers don't have their own union. Therefore, they can't "single" handedly bring a system down at their whim. Drivers' unions can and do.

I'm not as hard as casper on this. Like I said, I support private-sector strike action. But public transit workers aren't struggling for a fair share of a fat production surplus. It's not them or billionaires--it's them or all of us. They do useful work; I want them paid well. And by and large they already are.

Anyway, I don't even demand automated trains or anything. It's just a definite advantage of automated trains that they won't go on strike like their drivers do.

Bu the dispatchers can, and if that happens, the trains will be affected.

[casper]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Ah, yes, blame the worker.

Not blaming the workers at all. If anything it is management, they set the tone and are responsible for creating alignment and focus on servicing the customer.

There are plenty of well managed companies some with unions some without. You never see them go on strike. It just does not happen.

If the organization is dysfunctional the union and management are at war with each other they are focused on there internal battles and delivering great customer service and safety for that matter takes a second seat. At that point they deserver to fail and to lose their contract.

I have worked in both. There are organizations where the union never files a grievance because management deals with issues before they become an issue. Others where the reason the customer can't be service is about avoiding offending one union or another.

We should demand out transit systems are focused on creating great experiences, are safe and reliable.

[casper]

Originally Posted by biguc

Not my point and immaterial. Dispatchers don't have their own union. Therefore, they can't "single" handedly bring a system down at their whim. Drivers' unions can and do.

I'm not as hard as casper on this. Like I said, I support private-sector strike action. But public transit workers aren't struggling for a fair share of a fat production surplus. It's not them or billionaires--it's them or all of us. They do useful work; I want them paid well. And by and large they already are.

Anyway, I don't even demand automated trains or anything. It's just a definite advantage of automated trains that they won't go on strike like their drivers do.

Realistically for essential services (like transit) if they are ordered back to work, there is usually a mediation process that is put in place where a third party tries to sort out the differences. At the end of the day they end up being forced into a compensation package that is aligned with comparable positions in other organizations. Unreasonable demands get tossed out and its done.

The union and management know this going in. Give or take a little bit they know what the mediator is going to force on them. The reason there is a strike is they can't sit in the same room and sort this out or they are playing games and trying to get something unreasonable.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by casper

Not blaming the workers at all. If anything it is management, they set the tone and are responsible for creating alignment and focus on servicing the customer.

There are plenty of well managed companies some with unions some without. You never see them go on strike. It just does not happen.

If the organization is dysfunctional the union and management are at war with each other they are focused on there internal battles and delivering great customer service and safety for that matter takes a second seat. At that point they deserver to fail and to lose their contract.

I have worked in both. There are organizations where the union never files a grievance because management deals with issues before they become an issue. Others where the reason the customer can't be service is about avoiding offending one union or another.

We should demand out transit systems are focused on creating great experiences, are safe and reliable.

Ever heard of a spare board? It is a very unsafe practice that exists and was created by management.

[casper]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Ever heard of a spare board? It is a very unsafe practice that exists and was created by management.

Management is reasonable for creating an Enterprise Risk Management System where it identifies all risks to the organizations establishes likelihood and frequency and allocates funds to programs to mitigate risk.

Out of that process there should be a preventative maintenance management program created that includes identifying what spares should exist and a program to ensure they are on-hand.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by casper

Management is reasonable for creating an Enterprise Risk Management System where it identifies all risks to the organizations establishes likelihood and frequency and allocates funds to programs to mitigate risk.

Out of that process there should be a preventative maintenance management program created that includes identifying what spares should exist and a program to ensure they are on-hand.

Spare boards do not refer to equipment.

[casper]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Spare boards do not refer to equipment.

Are you referring to those ancient process of having call up boards for employees to work shifts.

Much better to have an app that lets people rank the shifts they want and make they don't available for someone else to grab.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by casper

Are you referring to those ancient process of having call up boards for employees to work shifts.

Much better to have an app that lets people rank the shifts they want and make they don't available for someone else to grab.

Unless you have enough seniority, a spare board is where you go. And as archaic as it may be, you don't get to pick when you go on, you go on the next one, not the one you want.The spare board is a horrible thing that management likes because it keeps them in control and avoids them having to properly schedule things.

[casper]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Unless you have enough seniority, a spare board is where you go. And as archaic as it may be, you don't get to pick when you go on, you go on the next one, not the one you want.The spare board is a horrible thing that management likes because it keeps them in control and avoids them having to properly schedule things.

Having to cover shifts shows up in many industries. Airlines, railways, retail, hospitals, first responders, etc. More progressive organizations have shifted to using software that allows people to identify (bid) the shifts they want; allocates is the based on a combination of seniority and preference and the people at the bottom of the list end up standby to cover people that show up. The key thing with using software is it lets people identify shifts they are willing to swap and the system handles the swaps.

If an organization is still doing this manually or does not have an app then perhaps that because management and the union can't sit down in the same room and sort out how to modernize their systems.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by casper

Having to cover shifts shows up in many industries. Airlines, railways, retail, hospitals, first responders, etc. More progressive organizations have shifted to using software that allows people to identify (bid) the shifts they want; allocates is the based on a combination of seniority and preference and the people at the bottom of the list end up standby to cover people that show up. The key thing with using software is it lets people identify shifts they are willing to swap and the system handles the swaps.

If an organization is still doing this manually or does not have an app then perhaps that because management and the union can't sit down in the same room and sort out how to modernize their systems.

Most new hires will go directly to the spare board. That train operator, bus driver or even pilot may not have known they were working today and are not well rested due to the company.

You cannot swap off the shifts. When you are up, you go to work.