Transit: An essential service?

Posted on August 26, 2008 at 9:09 am by Ian Milligan

As those of us who rely on the TTC as our primary means of transportation know all too well, the legal strike of late April 2008 hit the city by surprise. Surprise quickly turned to anger, and the blogosphere and media erupted with calls for the union to not only be legislated back to work, but to permanently forfeit their right to strike. Quickly legislated back to work in a historic Sunday sitting of the Ontario legislature, the two sides have been negotiating behind a press blackout while people continue to call for the TTC to be declared an essential service.

On Friday, to much fanfare across the blogosphere and the newspapers, both the TTC and the Amalgmated Transit Union (ATU) local 113 spoke out against being declared an essential service.

Yet what I find fascinating is the quickness by which progressive transit activists turn against the right of organized labour to carry out a labour disruption. In this post, I’d like to quickly run down the historical roots of this antagonism, and then argue that in a liberal society – one in which many rights have been conceded by modern trade unions – we have to be willing to tolerate disruptions in the interests of both human rights and liberal democracy. This all speaks to a central question: Should the TTC be declared an essential service?

The antagonism between the citizenry and the transit unions has long roots, as discussed in Christoper Armstrong and H.V. Nelles’ excellent book Monopoly’s Moment. When street railways around the turn of the century were privatized, the citizenry generally supported industrial action by employees. They didn’t especially like the street railways, which were perceived to be gouging customers. It’s interesting that when these services went on strike, local elites, politicians, and even newspapers often sided with striking workers – far from normal in the charged environment of the time. Yet as street railways began to be heavily regulated or publicly owned, any wage gains for the employees would simply be passed onto the travelling public. Since the TTC isn’t raking in the profits (far from it), any wage increase for the workers is passed onto us. So instead of say, impacting profits of private corporations, labour gains are simply impacting the pocketbooks of Joe Commuter. Indeed, the threat to utilities was one of the main impetuses behind the early state regulation of labour.

Now this is an important point – unions are already heavily regulated. Remember the 2006 Wildcat Strike that paralyzed the city for a day. After the Second World War, unions surrendered many of their rights in return for the right to be recognized – they lost the right to a sympathy strikes, for example, and were charged with the responsibility to police their own workers. Hence ATU 113 had to order its own workers back to work during that strike, or face draconian penalties. So we already have highly regulated unions – with very little rights remaining except the right to strike after the expiration of a legal contract. It’s called a ‘legal strike position’ for a reason, and it’s not something to be trifled with lightly. Some services have been rightfully designated as essential services (ambulance, police) and forfeited their right to strike, in return for healthy wage premiums from arbitrators.

It seems to be the politically popular opinion right now, as judged by influential Scarborough Councillor Michael Thompson’s comments:

“It’s too important of a service that the unions can simply strike at a whim,” Mr. [Scarborough Councillor Michael] Thompson said. “Transit is such an essential part of everyone’s daily life and we’re trying to promote it and push it. I think there should be a certainty maintained by all Torontonians that they can get it when they want it … and they shouldn’t have to worry about the threat of wildcat strikes or a strike.” [National Post]

Even Mayor David Miller, who has spoken out against the idea, seems to be moderating his stance somewhat. His rationale against having the TTC declared an essential service lays solely in the realm of economics and wage settlements, as opposed to any fundamental rights for labour:

At first, Mayor David Miller rejected any talk of essential service designation, arguing it leads to more expensive deals. He then said given what happened in April, the idea should be studied. [The Star]

Or even on several blogs, such as the aforementioned Torontoist.com. Spacing held a poll in May 2008 over whether the TTC should be an essential service, and the ‘Yes’ side carried 195-91. The comments there are also illustrative. During the strike, and after it, the explosions over on BlogTO are also illustrative of the vitriol held against the TTC. Finally, the Toronto Star’s reader comments also seems to skew heavily against the right of the Union to strike.

Yet let’s think about it. There is an inconvenience – severe, for many – when the TTC goes on strike. People can’t get to their jobs, especially lower-income people, pollution increases with added congestion, the city labours under the stress of having the third-busiest public transportation commission in North America being shut down. Yet is this simply a small price to pay for living in a free and open society? We accept the ‘inconvenience,’ if we can call it that, of having guilty people go free on technicalities, rather than risk the rule of law. This might speak to broader issues than transit, but the right to legally strike is one of the few rights remaining to labour unions. Suspending that in the name of an essential service may be a necessary evil in some cases, but suspending rights should never be taken lightly – especially for a service that has lost less than 3 whole days to strike action this decade – indeed, only 13 days in the last 20 years! This is a fairly small inconvenience, and a very small price to pay to ensure a fundamental social right.

As an aside, it’s also hard to sustain the claim that TTC workers are overpaid. While their wages may seem high, there’s a continual shortage of personnel willing (or able to pass the demanding training) to operate a bus, streetcar, or train. Free market economics should actually dictate that their wages rise so as to increase the supply. With this personnel shortage, they’re dependent on overtime – thus the small handful of employees ending up on the provincial ‘sunshine’ list of $100,000+ earners. Yet without their necessary overtime, the system crumbles – as riders of Winnipeg Transit recently found out. Overtime is necessary for maintaining rush-hour service, even if many operators are on split-shift regimes.

To conclude – I simply feel that 13 lost days to labour unrest over the last 20 years is simply insufficient to suspend a relatively basic (and already curtailed) right. Provacatively, I’d also like to claim that TTC workers aren’t as overpaid as often claimed, and may actually be in need of a raise to attract a larger labour pool. What do you think?

Ian Milligan is a PhD Student in Canadian History at York University, with interests in labour history and politics. He’s also strongly interested in municipal politics, transportation issues, and the future of transit in Toronto.

Photo Source: Dave aka Canon Fodder XT

Tags: ATU, Essential Service, experience, labour, Politics, Strike, Toronto, Transit, TTC, unions

18 Comments

Ian, a thoughtful and well reasoned post. The knee-jerk reaction (and my initial reaction) was the same, “make it essential, gosh darn it,” but I think the frequency of the strikes really shows that it hasn’t been abused.

A random comment I came across summed it up, “Not going into work isn’t going to kill you.” That said, if you rely on transit for a doctors visit, it might…

Comment by Ben — August 26, 2008 @ 11:50 am
The TTC is a regulated monopoly. Noone is allowed to operate a public transit service in Toronto except the TTC.

These things go together. Either give the TTC a monopoly, and declare it a public service. Or do not declare it a public service — in which case, do not legally protect it as a monopoly.

What doesn’t go together is the observation that unions are heavily regulated (although the nature of that regulation is badly mischaracterized), and the suggestion that free market economics should regulate union members’ wages. Pick one.

Comment by Serge — August 26, 2008 @ 11:58 am
Serge, it could be argued the TTC is a natural monopoly. As New York experienced early in their transit development, having a multitude of private transit services operating was both confusing and costly.

Comment by Ben — August 26, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
I brought up the subject of TTC employee wages because there’s the common misconception out there that TTC employees are paid far beyond a ‘fair’ wage for their work because of their union. I simply don’t think that’s true. Of course, push comes to shove, their wages should (and are) determined by the collective bargaining process.

Public services are allowed to be unionized, and outside of exceptional circumstances, are allowed to strike. I don’t think being a public service should ever be seen as some sort of barrier to exercising the rights of labour.

Comment by Ian Milligan — August 26, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
Sorry to bring up comics and movies into this, but the Spider-Man mantra holds true to this debate.

“With great power, comes great responsibility.”

I have a very strong opinion on the abuses of great power and the negligence of great responsibility on the part of the ATU 113 leadership, Bob Kinnear.

Bob Kinnear joined the TTC janitorial crew fresh out of high school, and years later somehow becomes the union head. I don’t know him personally, but whatever his social skills, he has been able to dupe the ATU 113 members to vote him in as their leader twice, and he does ATU 113 an enormous disservice. Bob Kinnear is very far from qualified to be leading anything, especially a union thousands strong in membership, and as is obvious from the latest contract negotiations debacle, he is a total failure as a negotiator and communicator.

Bob Kinnear is single-handedly responsible for causing great damage to the TTC’s public relations and public image, endangering the safety of his union members through his rash and reckless actions, and could also end up being single-handedly responsible for losing their right to strike altogether, because he has twice abused his power with both arrogance and carelessness, and so far, shockingly, has gotten away with it without turning his union on him. A legal right to strike is not a moral entitlement to hold a city hostage at random, that’s irresponsible and in this case grossly dishonest: he lied to us! Furthermore, his actions are telling of his clear lack of understanding in what the impacts and scale of said impacts his decisions can result in.

I would bet a fair deal of money that if the ATU 113 re-elects Bob Kinnear as their leader in, and I believe they vote next year, that the union and TTC’s public relations will worsen further. Bob Kinnear is Toronto’s commuting public enemy #1. Even S.O.S.’s Ms.Smith isn’t hated as much as Bob Kinnear.

Let me be very clear: the problem with the ATU 113 is not the union members (except the maintenance division, which I’ve heard was instrumental in provoking the last strike). I respect the operators for the work that they do, and generally find them to be polite, many seem to like their job.

However, I have so little respect for Bob Kinnear that it would have to be a negative number. ATU 113 would be better off with a crushed pop can than Bob Kinnear as leader, because it is better to make no decisions than bad decision, and Bob Kinnear makes bad and even dangerous decisions.

He has first broken the law with the wildcat strike in 2006, and someone has lied about the aftermath since there are conflicting stories between him and the TTC on who paid for the losses.

Then in 2008 he promoses 2 days’ notice before a strike, and without warning then breaks his promise, while simultaneously trying to blame the public for his reckless abuses of power. That is not tolerable and absolutely will not be accepted, his leadership will not be respected by the general public. His refusal to resign and, on top of that, his stated intent to try and stay on as leader in the next vote adds insult to injury. Arrogance is not a leadership quality.

The fundamental problem is that the ATU 113 has lost sight of the fact that if they are going to be in any position of strength, they need the general public on their side. Bob Kinnear has gone to great efforts to make the public hate ATU 113, and has gone so far as to endanger their safety with less than an hour’s notice of going on strike last April. Bob Kinnear has succeeded at his task, the public hates ATU 113.

ATU 113 can regain some of the public’s confidence if they oust Bob Kinnear (hopefully the media makes a big deal of it, it is a big victory for everybody and a great day when Bob Kinnear’s no longer in charge of ATU 113), and I think the city should make the ultimatum that if the ATU 113 wants to avoid essential service status, that they force Bob Kinnear from the union leadership, as he is guilty of abusing his power and breaking his word, forfeiting any entitlement he has to responsibility and power.

The problem is not that the TTC isn’t an essential service. The problem is the worst union leadership the ATU 113 has ever had. The problem is Bob Kinnear. However, if the ATU 113 is going to stand behind such an atrocious leader, they should not be allowed to strike, as they cannot elect responsible leaders.

With great power, comes great responsibility, and it is ATU 113′s responsibility to select responsible leadership, or they lose their great power to strike.

Comment by Karl Junkin — August 26, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
I don’t know much about labor issues, so I may be way off-base here, but is there some way of making it possible to operate limited service while on strike?

I think a good compromise would be allowing workers to strike, but having a skeleton crew run things (like a subway train every 20mins instead of 3mins?) just to make sure the city doesn’t shut down.

That could be totally impractical and possibly illegal, I don’t know — just throwing a thought out there.

Comment by Sameer Vasta — August 26, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
Sameer: I’m not sure that one subway every 20 minutes would be practical, as stations and trains would likely be overwhelmed. It might actually be worse to encourage riders to ‘give it a shot’ and try to rely on a skeleton service that can only handle a tiny fraction of normal riders than to shut down completely and force people to make alternate plans.

Comment by Greg Smith — August 26, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
Good point. Didn’t really think it through, I just thought I’d throw it out there…

Comment by Sameer Vasta — August 26, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
Serge, it could be argued the TTC is a natural monopoly. As New York experienced early in their transit development, having a multitude of private transit services operating was both confusing and costly.

Ben, if you mean that the TTC is a natural monopoly such that monopoly need not be legislated then, sure — remove the law granting it a monopoly, and don’t declare it a essential service.

If you mean that the TTC needs to be protected as a monopoly to prevent market entry which is ultimately welfare-reducing, then, sure — if that’s true then let’s keep on protecting it and declare it an essential service.

Mind you, few economists see very many places where the natural-monopoly theory applies any more. Certainly in Toronto, there are many, many public transit routes and services for which competition would be fierce indeed.

That’s why the usual approach to former theoretical natural monopolies is to unbundle the network, create a regulator, have it oversee competition in the segments where there can be some, and have it take bid tenders — the Chilean reverse auction model is popular — for the segments where there can’t.

Public services are allowed to be unionized, and outside of exceptional circumstances, are allowed to strike.

Right. But when the public services are provided on a monopoly basis, then the labour market is completely wack and a strike means withdrawal of that public service. (Unless you get creative and call in an extraordinary labour pool like, say, I dunno, the army? One of Mel’s few cleverer moves.)

Now, the TTC isn’t a total monopoly. We have taxis, and maybe they will one day come together to form a contingency plan where, in case of a transit strike, they band together to take passengers and stand in for the TTC system.

But I’m not holding the breath. (But I am wishing we had a good jitney system.)

Comment by Serge — August 26, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
As a quick aside to the theory of running subway trains on limited service, they do run rush-hour only service during strikes in Montreal. However, it arguably insulates the more influential members of society from the impact of a transit strike. That’s because those that work 9 – 5 are still able to get to their work in a relatively regular fashion (although there may be small disruptions), whereas those who work shifts outside of the regular hours end up stranded. It also potentially prolongs the strike because there isn’t the massive public pressure that comes from a total removal of transit service.

Comment by Ian Milligan — August 26, 2008 @ 9:11 pm
One of the big arguments against making the TTC an essential service is the cost, but this is such a red herring. While binding arbitration tends to favour labour, the suggestion that this will drive up the cost of operating the TTC is bull for two reasons. First, it assumes that each and every contract negotiation is pre-destined to be solved either by a strike (under current status) or by binding arbitration (under essential service declaration). Second, and far more important, we are ALREADY paying the costs of binding arbitration when the TTC is legislated back to work. The most recent example was so lightning fast, it could only be faster if the legislature was already sitting when the walk-out began.

Why are we paying the price of binding arbitration, but not receiving the benefit of no service disruption?

There is another point in the article that needs addressing: “only 13 days in the last 20 years” Only 13 days of actual loss of service, but what is the total number of days of stress and upset to the people of Toronto? More importantly, how many extra tons of greenhouse gases were generated by people who made other arrangements in anticipation of a strike over those years, whether or not there was an actual strike?

I also find it interesting that ATU local 113 is against essential service designation. I have found through discussions with rank-in-file union members that they are overwhelmingly in favour of this. So much for the so-called “democratic” union.

I must commend Mr. Milligan on pointing out that TTC workers are not overpaid. If the job were really overpaid, the TTC would have huge line-ups of applicants for their lucrative positions, and they would manage to find enough people out of the hoard who qualified and could get through the training that they wouldn’t have to depend so much on overtime.

The whole “sunshine list” started as a good idea, but it has become a farce because it is not indexed to inflation. Naturally, the number who make the list each year keeps increasing, but that figure is meaningless unless the threshold goes up with the inflation rate.

As for the TTC employee that was featured by the Toronto Sun for making $100,016 last year, he did so by putting in 421 shifts! Think about the equivalent: would you work a shift each and every single day of the year, then work an extra shift on 55 of those days. I know that I certainly would not do so if my employer only offered $100,016 to do it.

Comment by Calvin Henry-Cotnam — August 26, 2008 @ 10:36 pm
Transit is not considered an essential service in any Canadian province, though Quebec does have legislation for some public transit during a strike. Montreal transit has two large unions to deal with. One for maintenance and one for the drivers. The transit users get a double whammy. The government’s solution to a strike in Montreal has been to force the workers to provide a service during the am and pm rush hours. This was not done to benefit commuters, but to avoid traffic jams that might prevent emergency vehicles from answering calls.

The only cities in Canada that transit workers could win a strike, would be ones that have a subway system. That would be Montreal and Toronto. Most cities, can manage without transit during a work stoppage.

This was evident in 2006 when Durham Region Transit employees went on strike. The strike lasted 24 days and there was no suggestion of intervention by the Ontario government. The Region, was prepared to let it last much longer if it had to.

Vancouver transit workers were legislated back to work in 2001. This was after the strike was into it’s fourth month. This was not done because they were considered essential. It was done because the government had decided that the bargaining process was not working.

Toronto’s City Council is already beginning to balk at the suggestion of making the TTC employees an essential service. After a one day wildcat strike by TTC workers in May 2006 the city has had a committee studying the matter. The committee is in no hurry to proceed.

The Ontario government are the only ones that would be able to pass any laws, that would force workers in Ontario to binding arbitration. This is just not going to happen on a permanent bases. So what can we expect? Outside of Toronto when negotiations fail, you can expect full fledged transit strikes. Inside Toronto you can expect lite strikes. They will be on strike for a few hours or days and then forced back to work. Don’t expect any changes.

Comment by Andy — August 27, 2008 @ 6:44 am
There is another point in the article that needs addressing: “only 13 days in the last 20 years” Only 13 days of actual loss of service, but what is the total number of days of stress and upset to the people of Toronto? More importantly, how many extra tons of greenhouse gases were generated by people who made other arrangements in anticipation of a strike over those years, whether or not there was an actual strike?

That’s very true, Calvin. Thanks to labour regulation and the media, I’d say there’s probably only been a few extra days when the union was in a legal strike position and liable to pull the plug at any minute. It would certainly increase that 13 day figure, and probably fairly dramatically. I’d still come down on the side of letting transit workers have the right to strike, but that’s simply my opinion on the amount of inconvenience we should be willing to tolerate.

I also find it interesting that ATU local 113 is against essential service designation. I have found through discussions with rank-in-file union members that they are overwhelmingly in favour of this. So much for the so-called “democratic” union.

This, funnily enough, comes at least partly from the post-Second World War regulation of labour that I just briefly touched on in the post. Since the Rand Formula in 1946, worker have automatically been part of unions – the automatic fees check-off. This eliminated the problem of non-union members free-riding in union workplaces, but a lot of literature on the subject has really convincingly shown a resulting gap between the union leadership and the rank-and-file. It’s not like Kinnear or one of his stewards has to personally go down to the bus division with a pot for his union dues – they’re automatically checked off each paycheque by payroll.

ATU 113 has a lot of problems, and I agree with parts of Karl’s comment. Pulling that last minute surprise strike on a Friday night was a big mistake, and destroyed any public goodwill the union had with the riding public – at least any that they still had after the almost-as-sudden 2006 wildcat strike. ATU 113 has run a disastrous public-relations campaign and played into the hands of politicians who wanted to declare them an essential service.

Then again, the 2008 strike was a result of the rank-and-file rejecting management’s offer. Kinnear had actually been happy with the settlement, but it failed at the ratification vote. This was not good for Kinnear, but also not good for the operators who would have to strike on passengers after the strike had apparently been averted in the media. There had been a ton of rumours floating around ATU 113, many unfounded (especially concerning the contracting out of bus repairs under warranty), but that was an expression of a democratic direct vote – and it was a vote to strike, despite the executives (fairly divided) decision.

Comment by Ian Milligan — August 27, 2008 @ 8:12 am
Serge,

I can’t speak to economic models, etc. with any authority, but the Chilean concept is intriguing, I’ll have to look into it.

And F.Y.I. Admin Guys, any chance of getting a “quote” button?

Comment by Ben — August 27, 2008 @ 8:54 am
Ian Milligan wrote, “Kinnear had actually been happy with the settlement, but it failed at the ratification vote.”

It should be noted in the case of this recent strike, many of the rank-and-file operators expect to lose a few of the points in the contract that was rejected when the arbitration is over.

Comment by Calvin Henry-Cotnam — August 27, 2008 @ 10:06 am
Something to remember about breaking up the transit system by allowing competition is that we must somehow deal with the fare structure.

In a truly competitive environment, each company charges its own fares and there are no transfers. Riders will think the Steeles Avenue boundary a quaint memory of the system is balkanized like that — imagine the subway as a separate fare zone, for example.

If we come up with some sort of mechanism for revenue sharing, already we have the beginnings of a unified system and an undermining of “competition”. If the private operator is guaranteed “X” dollars and can skimp on their service, well you can see where that leads.

In the UK, attempts to break up systems into separate companies quickly evolved into a private monopoly when the biggest company, Stagecoach, bought out all of its rivals.

Comment by Steve Munro — August 28, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
The idea of private systems is great only if it starts out as a private system. The TTC did start as a private system, but over the decades of its government controlled existence since about the mid-60s when the government started subsidizing the outer ends of the Bloor-Danforth line, we’ve seen the government ignore good practice and build the Spadina Subway, the SRT, the Sheppard Subway, a lack of capacity in the core, and the construction of the highway network (which isn’t the TTC’s domain, but still directly impacts the competitiveness of the TTC and the highways were built by governments). As a result, the system cannot sustain itself as a private system like it used to until 1970 (the last year it could pay for its own operations costs without subsidies). Any attempt to privatize the TTC would result in a failure in some form – either service would drop dramatically, or costs would rise dramatically, with ridership suffering in either case.

Comment by Karl Junkin — August 28, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
This is a great discussion about a really contentious issue and I appreciate everyone’s contributions.

I want to point commenters to a new post if you haven’t already seen it – How to be a good Metronaut.

I would ask that commenters follow these three key principles: 1) Be Real, 2) Respect each other and 3) Find solutions for the future.

I encourage all commenters to use their full real names and get a profile photo on Gravatar.com. Being real is an important part of being a respected member of the community both online and at events.

I don’t think anyone has stepped over the line in this discussion, but I want to remind readers that abusive or libelous comments will be deleted.

Finally, what is the way forward for solutions? How can the TTC’s labour relations woes be improved in the long-term?

A tip: the comments accept emoticons:
, so please use them if you’re using humour or irony or sarcasm, which may not always come through in text alone.

Also, while we haven’t yet implemented wysiwyg buttons for blockquotes, links, bold, italics etcetera. If you know a little HTML you can use the tags: blockquote, a href, b, i, etcetera inside <>.

Thanks again for the discussion!

Mark Kuznicki, Editor
info@metronauts.ca

Comment by Mark Kuznicki — August 29, 2008 @ 4:20 pm