HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2009, 5:18 AM
Admiral Nelson Admiral Nelson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 492
Transit union rejects automatic arbitration

God damn, just when I thought we'd never see another transit strike in Ottawa.

Quote:
Transit union rejects bid to put end to strikes, lockouts

Secretary-treasurer chalks up results to a fear of arbitration

A bid to end crippling strikes or lockouts at OC Transpo was voted down on Friday by the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 279.

The vote was 62.8 per cent in favour of maintaining the strike/lockout model instead of arbitration.

Jim Haddad, Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 279 secretary-treasurer, said he was very disappointed.

"They're afraid of what the arbitrator will decide. It's the unknown," he said.

"Hopefully, the next time the two sides are at the table they will negotiate and get a contract."

Last May, city council and the union executive reached a deal that if normal contract negotiations fail, outstanding matters would automatically go to binding arbitration.

The move came after a 53-day strike last December and January that left riders stranded, damaged businesses and social agencies, and saw labour relations between the city and the 2,300-strong ATU Local 279 deteriorate.

"We remain committed to the principles of collective bargaining and will continue to work together to find solutions that are in the best interests of management, ATU members, transit riders and the taxpayers of the City of Ottawa," said Mayor Larry O'Brien in a press release.

"We have successfully negotiated many agreements without resorting to strike or lockout and I am confident that we can resolve our future differences at the negotiating table."

Shortly after the strike, council voted to support arbitration as an alternative to strike/lockout, upon ratification of ATU 279's collective agreement.

The most recent contract negotiations, which resulted in the strike, will be resolved through binding arbitration.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2009, 12:22 PM
Norman Bates Norman Bates is offline
Living With My Mother
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 985
I must say that I think that the membership has made a mistake with this decision.

Police and Fire have binding arbitration and consistently secure enviable contracts.

So who would trade the option of full employment via binding arbitration with 53 days of walking the picket line and no pay? OC Transpo operators!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2009, 4:03 PM
Sens1992 Sens1992 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norman Bates View Post
I must say that I think that the membership has made a mistake with this decision.

Police and Fire have binding arbitration and consistently secure enviable contracts.

So who would trade the option of full employment via binding arbitration with 53 days of walking the picket line and no pay? OC Transpo operators!
Well, I have to say that it proves one thing. There is no trust between OC Transpo operators / mechanics and the city of Ottawa. Furthermore, OC staff is at the bottom of the respect scale for the city of Ottawa management (I know what I am talking about). They probably think it is their only voice against the city. Don't make it sound like they are stupid... Behind closed doors, there are a lot of things that these guys know and the public has no clue of that whatsoever.

So your pont of "full employment" via binding arbitration sounds good but at what price? Full employment with improper work conditions sounds just as bad as 53 days of walking the picket line with no pay. They beleive it is the only leverage they have and they choose to keep it.

They must know their business more than we do.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2009, 4:36 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
They should play hardball there. Declare them an essential service and make it impossible by legislation for them to strike. Otherwise, pull a Ronald Reagan and fire them all the next time they strike, replace them by new workers willing to work and get service back immediately.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2009, 5:17 PM
m0nkyman m0nkyman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,031
Why is it that the only people who complain about 'improper work conditions' are people who make a really good union wage and have amazing benefits?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2009, 12:02 AM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternallyme View Post
They should play hardball there. Declare them an essential service and make it impossible by legislation for them to strike. Otherwise, pull a Ronald Reagan and fire them all the next time they strike, replace them by new workers willing to work and get service back immediately.
You don't really get it, do you? There aren't all that many people around who can quickly replace them. OC Transpo also suffers from high turnover and burnout of new employees, so one can imagine that in a strike situation it would be even worse.

In that last episode OC management tried to force the drivers to eat an increase in the work day spread from the national norm of 12 hours to an unprecedented 13.5 hours. When a strike is only over wages and benefits, unions usually crack before long but when you threaten working conditions, especially things that will affect the effective length of the work day, they will bring you to your knees if they have to, and that's just what they did. As others have written, the union membership knows a lot more about our transit system than does management or us. Our crazy BRT system requires such large numbers of operators to work crazy hours that OC Transpo management is under pressure to force more out of workers; the union couldn't let them start down that path because it just becomes a death spiral - worsening conditions lead to higher turnover and fewer available drivers which in turn leads to worsening conditions for those who remain.

OC Transpo should be looking to reducing its turnover and general morale problems. Until they do, I can't blame the union membership for keeping the strike option.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2009, 12:33 AM
Sens1992 Sens1992 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58
Wow, what can I say Dado... You sum it up. There is a lot more to it than what the people know and the details you are pointing to (like spread times and morale) are things most people are unaware of. I just think that there is a huge prejudice in Ottawa in regards to the job of bus operator and that it started long before the strike. You can feel it when reading comments that are targeting OC Transpo drivers that the issues come behind what people think of them (or of the job). They have no just cause just because they are bus operators... Sad.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 4:35 AM
william91 william91 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 11
I had no doubt in my mind that this would never go through.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 1:16 PM
YOWetal YOWetal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
You don't really get it, do you? There aren't all that many people around who can quickly replace them. OC Transpo also suffers from high turnover and burnout of new employees, so one can imagine that in a strike situation it would be even worse.

In that last episode OC management tried to force the drivers to eat an increase in the work day spread from the national norm of 12 hours to an unprecedented 13.5 hours. When a strike is only over wages and benefits, unions usually crack before long but when you threaten working conditions, especially things that will affect the effective length of the work day, they will bring you to your knees if they have to, and that's just what they did. As others have written, the union membership knows a lot more about our transit system than does management or us. Our crazy BRT system requires such large numbers of operators to work crazy hours that OC Transpo management is under pressure to force more out of workers; the union couldn't let them start down that path because it just becomes a death spiral - worsening conditions lead to higher turnover and fewer available drivers which in turn leads to worsening conditions for those who remain.

OC Transpo should be looking to reducing its turnover and general morale problems. Until they do, I can't blame the union membership for keeping the strike option.
This is not at all an accurate narrative of what the bus strike was about. It was about overtime. OCTranspo employee were able to choose to work overtime thus increasing their wages substantially. Many had gotten used to this and asking them to agree to end it was like asking to take a massive pay cut. The city (rightly in my opinion) thought they were gaming the system and was tired of having so little control over their costs. It was not about safety for either side.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 2:33 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,872
Although the overtime issue was a contributor to the strike, I think overall scheduling was going to impact a lot more drivers. It was going to impact the quality of life for a lot of drivers, extending split shifts to 13.5 hours. Can you imagine your job operating that way? Starting at 6 am, work til 9:30 am, then start at 3:30pm and work 7:30pm, everyday. What kind of home life would you have with such a splintered day? Travelling home twice instead of once each day, like the rest of us.

I agree we should have more sympathy for drivers. There jobs have been getting more difficult over time. Larger more crowded buses, tighter schedules, more traffic congestion. Now we want them to announce every stop on top of trying to drive safely. Announcing stops is not easy with inadequate speaker systems and when you might be changing routes between each run. We seem to trivialize a drivers job, that most of us don't want, despite the union wages and benefits.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 4:37 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by YOWetal View Post
This is not at all an accurate narrative of what the bus strike was about. It was about overtime. OCTranspo employee were able to choose to work overtime thus increasing their wages substantially. Many had gotten used to this and asking them to agree to end it was like asking to take a massive pay cut. The city (rightly in my opinion) thought they were gaming the system and was tired of having so little control over their costs. It was not about safety for either side.
What's the very first thing on this page, set up by the Union themselves?
http://www.ottawatransitstrike.com/m...mments_01.html

Quote:
13.5 spread time and min 7 hrs booked time
- There is no reason why such a long spread is necessary. Same goals can be achieved with 12 hour spread.
- Drivers (on their day of work) will not see their family in the morning or evening. If they are lucky they will kiss little Tommy on the forehead at 8 - then reheat supper that was missed. This will only last so long, as most wives, partners will give up on this routine eventually and no-longer prepare that plate. Worse they may leave and create another dilemma. No one to help with homework, supper, chores etc... Always at work when needed at home.
- As if the above isn't bad enough - doing that still will not allow the drivers to book enough hours on that day thus forcing him/her to work 1 or 2 weekend days to make up the necessary minimum hrs booked work. Again more time unavailable to home, family etc.
- Why would the City not be willing to concede a little on these numbers? Because they have every intention of piecing together daily work of 3.5hrs at each extreme of 13.5hrs and forcing drivers to work 1 or 2 weekend days to accumulate 80hrs of work. If they conceded to 7.8hrs - at least then operators would have the option/ability to book 5 day work weeks.
- Within the language - there is nothing to prevent the City from creating a day of 6 x 1.5 hr pieces over a 13.5 hr day - paying 9hrs. You would be gone all day and traveling all over the city on any different run throughout.
- The city wants the pieces as small as possible ( originally tried 6hrs) and as far apart as possible to create part time - combo jobs. ( I experienced this at UPS)
As far as the Union members were concerned - and they're the ones who were striking, after all - overtime wasn't entering into it.

The City's concern - paying out lots of overtime - and the Union's - being forced to accept a longer daily spread without being compensated for it - are two sides of the same problem. The problem is you're just focusing on the City's side of it, yet it is the City that has the power to fix it.

There was a lot of overtime going on, true... but you know why that was? Because of our messed-up BRT system that requires it. It was very difficult for OC Transpo to schedule workers' days to start early enough to get in early morning express runs from the back-of-beyond (the drivers first have to get to the garage, then drive out to the suburbs since we don't have any garages in the suburbs ) and then to end them early enough in the evening while still delivering evening peak period runs so that a spread of 12 hours wasn't breached. The more sprawlly the city gets, the worse the problem gets - further to go out, further to come back, and, ironically, high suburban ridership also makes the problem worse. Both require more drivers to be working at the extremes of the spread, with nothing to do for the rest of the day - which is why the city was also trying to reduce the hours worked to 6 hours all the while it was trying to increase the daily spread. We basically have way too many drivers doing line-haul work. Once an express bus driver has toured the neighbourhood and heads onto the Transitway, that bus is losing money and the longer it has to drive to get downtown the more money it loses. Other cities avoid this because they have hub-and-spoke. Where we have a driver doing all of two runs in the morning, requiring several drivers to cover each suburb, other cities have one or two drivers covering each suburb and one train operator collecting passengers from several feeder buses. It's far easier to schedule staggered hours within the 12 hour spread if you're just doing feeder service.

For example, one driver's workday can start at 5:00 in the morning, work for 4 hours until 9:00, resume work at 13:00 and end at 17:00. Another could start work at 7:00 in the morning, stay on until 11:00, resume work at 15:00 and end at 19:00. Others could start at 5:00, work until 13:00 and go home, with someone else coming on at 11:00 and working until 19:00. The peak hours get covered, and everyone stays within 12 hours. A similar situation will exist on the trains. But try that with expresses and it won't work - the guy who starts at 5:00 in the morning is also needed past 17:00 in the evening as there is no one around to replace him. You also need more than one operator to start work early in the day, because with the first guy now inbound to the city centre, no one is in the suburb doing collector service. BRT requires a disproportionate number of hours to be worked in the peak periods, making staying within the 12 hour spread very difficult, so difficult, in fact, that it led to a lot of overtime. And low morale problems. And high turnover.


OC Transpo management can't really fix it in and of themselves, but their historic lack of support for system conversion to LRT also shows they weren't interested in fixing it, either. They designed the Transitway system and they're the architects of this problem, though the chief architects have gone on to promote this dubious system elsewhere in the world. Every year we waste dicking around with the current intensive BRT system is another year that high financial and social costs are incurred. Basically, we should have a transit system where not one bus crosses the Greenbelt unless it's going in for an overhaul. Decentralize the bus garages and extend LRT across the Greenbelt. We'll likely need fewer operators, but with turnover and retirements that won't be hard.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 6:01 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,872
Dado's comments are interesting and as usual informative, but I don't buy the arguments entirely. I agree that scheduling problems do relate to the success of our transit system in the suburbs but to blame it on the Transitways is not very fair. After all, without the Transitways, our transit system would be less successful and even less efficient at moving passengers in from the suburbs. We cannot lament past decisions that didn't get LRT built earlier.

It does illustrate the folly of planning our city on an east-west axis with new development moving further and further away from downtown. Transit costs will go up faster and scheduling problems will get worse as we try to move people longer distances than if we built our city in a more balanced way, including intensification in more central neighbourhoods. This problem doesn't only apply to buses but also LRT. Clearly as we build in Stittsville at even beyond, we are going to have more and more problems being able to fund LRT to reach that far.

I also don't entirely buy placing bus garages in the suburbs because that is where passengers are picked up and let off. Remember, peak period transit runs are only one direction, and buses have to go to and from both the starting and ending points. A bus starts in the suburbs in the morning but ends downtown and then still has to return to a garage. A better method is to spread the location of garages around the city so on average they have a shorter distance to travel to and from a garage.

The benefits of LRT are correct in as far as you require fewer operators to move the same number of passengers, but I am not sure how this would truly affect scheduling other than because you now have both rail yards and bus garages, vehicles will on average move into and out of service a shorter distance. At least, you would hope so. There is one inefficiency of LRT, in that all trains will have to return to the suburbs in revenue service, to make another run. Trains cannot normally pass each other so they might as well be in service. This will often be slower than a bus returning to the suburbs out of service which can take the fastest and most direct route. Of course, since fewer trains are needed than buses, the benefit is obvious.

I do want to point out something that is obvious. From the bus driver's perspective, a job with a less than ideal schedule is better than being put out of a job by LRT. Let's be honest about this. Scheduling may end up a bit better, but many will lose their jobs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 8:18 PM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 1,952
Just a quick question which only slightly relates to this thread:

Does anyone know if the new LRT will REQUIRE operators, according to the contract?

That is, since the O-Train requires an operator, that person must belong to the union, but will an automated train, which does not require an operator, be required to have a union member on board? I expect that this is already in the contract. Does anyone know for sure?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2009, 8:49 PM
matty14 matty14 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 139
Arbitrator's Ruling

The arbitrator today has ruled "in favour" of the city, so to speak:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/busines...749/story.html

Sweet, sweet justice.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2009, 9:31 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521


Not so fast...

While the City 'won' on the right to schedule as it sees fit and on wage increases (in line with other City employees), it didn't 'win' on everything:

On the daily workday spread, the arbitrator ruled, as I predicted months ago, in favour of the union: it will remain as the 12 hour norm rather than the 13.5 hours the City wanted.

And on guaranteed paid hours of work per day, the City wanted only 6 hours, the union wanted 8 and they got 7.5.

In other words, the arbitrator dropped the unreasonable demands of each side. What it also means is that the City's attempt to control its runaway BRT costs on the backs of its operators has failed - they're not going to be able to make employees work over a wider range of hours for fewer hours paid like they had hoped.


The Ruling
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:18 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.