Toronto soon to be world's smellest city (Garbage Strike)

[Solauren]

Picket signs up as Toronto civic workers walk from daycares, garbage collection

By Tamsyn Burgmann And Tamara King, The Canadian Press

TORONTO - The city known for its cleanliness may be in for stinky start to summer as thousands of Toronto municipal workers went on strike Monday morning after contract talks failed.

The two unions representing about 24,000 indoor and outdoor workers together announced just after midnight they were at a deadlock with the city and had no choice but to walk off the job.

The impasse means residents will be scrambling to get care for their children as scores of daycares, recreation centres and summer camps are shuttered.

Mark Ferguson, president of CUPE Local 416, said while the city had tabled a proposal as late as 9:30 p.m., the bargaining team felt those offerings were "garbage."

"It was an attack, a vicious attack on our membership," he told reporters.

"Unfortunately, our bargaining committee has had to take a decision to take a strike to ensure that the collection agreement that has been negotiated over decades remains intact."

A forecasted heatwave this week combined with the halt of garbage and recycling collection will make the situation more foul.

And as tourism season gets swinging losses may quickly mount as golf courses shut, the island ferry stops running and other services, such as permits for wedding photos, are out of commission.

Calling the situation "unfortunate," Ann Dembinski, president of CUPE Local 79, said the city had simply left its workers with "no choice."

"This strike should not have happened," she said.

"It is clear, however, that we can not achieve a fair collective agreement without resorting to a strike."

Mayor David Miller in a statement said he was disappointed the city was unable to reach an agreement with the two union locals.

"I am asking residents and businesses to be as patient as possible while a resolution to the strike is pursued. The cooperation of everyone will be needed," he said.

Issues of contention include job security, seniority and scheduling, along with proposed changes to employees' sick plan that would scrap their ability to bank days and cash them out at retirement.

Miller named the city's financial circumstances, the recession, an increasing demand for city services and its limited revenues as prominent principles behind the tabled proposals.

"The city is facing enormous budget challenges in 2009, 2010 and beyond," he said. "The cost of providing services must be in balance with the revenues the city has available to pay the bills."

Police, fire and TTC services remain unaffected by the strike.

Three-year contracts for the two unions expired Dec. 31.

Ferguson said while workers were set to begin picketing, the unions would remain around the table overnight.

Some 24,000 city workers caused a major disruption when they last went on strike for two weeks in the summer of 2002.

Mounds of rotting garbage quickly piled up throughout the city's neighbourhoods and parks.

The strike only ended after Ontario's three political parties unanimously passed back-to-work legislation during an special one-day sitting.

Bolded Highlights are mine.

So in summary; The City of Toronto's workers are on strike. No trash pick up, no Daycare, and they are pulling this at the start of Tourist season and rather hot weather.

Oh, and Canada Day, the biggest civil celebration day in Canada, is only 9 days away.

Quite frankly, this stinks (if you pardon the pun) of a deliberate, viciously timed tactic by the unions.

This is going to seriously hurt Toronto's tourism this year, and therefore make things worse economically for the city.

Maybe the provincal government will step in and deal with this in a hurry. I hope so.

[Ma Deuce]

And all because they want more than the 18 paid sick days per year they already get, AND they want to be able to accumulate those sick days. I wonder how many of them treat those sick days like vacation?

It also seems that the strikers are blocking people from delivering their trash to the city's designated drop off zones. The only solution I see to that is to drop the trash right in front of their picket lines. It's like they're trying to make the public angry at them, or at lease don't give a shit that they're not on their side. These fuckers need a good dose of public ire.

P.S. how feasible would it be for the city to contract garbage pickup to private collectors? We already do that in Durham Region, and I'm pretty sure part of the city (Etobicoke) does as well. While normally I'm against privatizing government services, I'm not really seeing any huge inherent disadvantage of contracted garbage collection that outweighs the drawbacks of being held hostage by CUPE and letting trash pile up in the streets every few years.

[Uraniun235]

Didn't you guys just have trouble with your transit union a little while ago? And then I remember aerius mentioning a couple months ago about how his airport union wanted to strike as well. Does Toronto actually have more problems with strikes (or threats thereof)?

[Aaron]

Didn't you guys just have trouble with your transit union a little while ago? And then I remember aerius mentioning a couple months ago about how his airport union wanted to strike as well. Does Toronto actually have more problems with strikes (or threats thereof)?

That was Ottawa, just before xmas the transit union went on strike. Bunch of folks lost their jobs thanks to that.

[Ma Deuce]

That was Ottawa, just before xmas the transit union went on strike. Bunch of folks lost their jobs thanks to that.

Toronto's transit union did go on strike in spring last year, but were legislated back to work within 2 days. However the reasons for that strike were even stupider: It apparently happened due to internal Union politics rather than actual disagreement with the contract proposal, with a certain group of members trying to force a strike to embarrass the Union boss and make him resign (unsuccessfully, as it turned out).

[TrailerParkJawa]

Reading other sites is seems the garbage workers get 18 sick days a year and want to be able to bank them. Assuming a modest 10 days of vacation and 10 holidays and a 5 day work week then that means they get 18 sick days to cover 240 working days. Thats a lot, thats very generous. It allows for the occasional long bout of bronchitis, sick children, etc. But on top of that they want to BANK it?

Note to union: Wake up and smell the coffee! Nobody deserves to bank sick days, since you were paid already because you were never sick. Sick days are not vacation days. Fight too hard for benifits that are pure fluff and you might not like the backlash.

[Aaron]

Let them bank them but make them actually go to the doctor and come back with a note, like we had to do in the Army or the company my father works for. Let's see what they think of that counter offer.

[Aaron]

Let them bank them but make them actually go to the doctor and come back with a note, like we had to do in the Army or the company my father works for. Let's see what they think of that counter offer.

Toronto's transit union did go on strike in spring last year, but were legislated back to work within 2 days. However the reasons for that strike were even stupider: It apparently happened due to internal Union politics rather than actual disagreement with the contract proposal, with a certain group of members trying to force a strike to embarrass the Union boss and make him resign (unsuccessfully, as it turned out).

Thanks, must have missed that bit of news.

Edit: Opps, sorry about that. Hit quote instead of edit.

[weemadando]

Reading other sites is seems the garbage workers get 18 sick days a year and want to be able to bank them. Assuming a modest 10 days of vacation and 10 holidays and a 5 day work week then that means they get 18 sick days to cover 240 working days. Thats a lot, thats very generous. It allows for the occasional long bout of bronchitis, sick children, etc. But on top of that they want to BANK it?

Note to union: Wake up and smell the coffee! Nobody deserves to bank sick days, since you were paid already because you were never sick. Sick days are not vacation days. Fight too hard for benifits that are pure fluff and you might not like the backlash.

I think you may be approaching this from an American "we have no worker's rights" point of view. In Australia (based off the British system mostly as I'm assuming Canada is), most places have around 15-25 "Personal Leave" (sick, kids are sick etc) days a year. In every case that I'm aware of, these roll over year to year so if you've been working a few years with minimal days off then you can have a few months off when you do finally get something bad. 10 vacation days? Again - 20 in Australia seems to be the average, but these typically don't roll over (though some places let you hold on to one years for the next year, but no longer than that).

But really - what they're asking for is nothing special from my P.O.V. If anything it would still just be the start of bringing them into line with other jobs [in Australia].

[Solauren]

While I don't have a problem with next year roll-over of stuff like vacation days (sometimes, you get big projects and can't go on vacation) or sick days (especailly if you have kids), I have a problem with the entire "I want to bank my sick days!"

Banking, to me, implies storing them for later use, as in years down the line.

We had a MASSIVE problem with that at work until about 2 - 3 union contracts ago. Apparently, it was no uncommon for someone to not take vacation or sick days for a few years, and then use them up before retirement.

As in 'okay, I'm due to retire Dec 31. But I have 120 banked vaction (work) days, and a whole mess of sick days.'
With the near retiree saying this around March.

Because replacements couldn't be hired or promoted up until 2 - 3 months (depending on the complexity of the position) and often had to do training while 'job shadowing' the person they were taking over for, you can imagine the hell this caused with HR and training in general. They'd have to find someone already familiar with the position to fill it temporarily, and have the temp job shadowed.

As a result, some positioned where vacant (with co-workers taking up the slack) for months at a time.

Fortunately, a quick change in the next contract changed that; you can role stuff over a maximum of 1 year, 2 years with management approval due to unusual circumstance, and there are regulations in place regarding vacation and sick days during your last year. (I'm decades from retirement, so I haven't bothered looking into those. They'll probably change between now and then).

But yeah, banking sick days? That's just insane.

[aerius]

I wonder how many of them treat those sick days like vacation?

If they're anything like the slacking assholes here at Customs, at least 1/3 to 1/2 of them abuse their sick days to go play golf or some other bullshit. And you can't fire them for this since they're unionized assholes.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I think you may be approaching this from an American "we have no worker's rights" point of view.

No, I simply disagree with the notion of 'banking' sick days and cashing them out at retirement. Banking sick days is by no means a right its a cushy perk.

In Australia (based off the British system mostly as I'm assuming Canada is), most places have around 15-25 "Personal Leave" (sick, kids are sick etc) days a year. In every case that I'm aware of, these roll over year to year so if you've been working a few years with minimal days off then you can have a few months off when you do finally get something bad.

I have no problem with this system.

10 vacation days? Again - 20 in Australia seems to be the average, but these typically don't roll over (though some places let you hold on to one years for the next year, but no longer than that).

I used the number 10 as a modest example to show how many sick days they have compared to actually # of day's worked. I'm assuming in reality they have far more than 10 days as they are both union and its Canada.

American's get the short end of the stick when it comes to taking 'holiday'. We get less time, we are scared to be gone too long, and are often expected to stay connected. I think America needs more vacation not less, but my beef in this instance is over the sick pay not vacation.

But really - what they're asking for is nothing special from my P.O.V. If anything it would still just be the start of bringing them into line with other jobs [in Australia].

I don't mind so much the accumulation of sick pay but I don't see any reason you should be able to cash it out after 20 years. Why should the city fork over money for days that were never worked? Essentially the employee is getting paid twice.

Just to highlight my companies policy I get some 182 hours of whats called P.T.O (personal time off). It acts as both sick pay and vacation. If I don't get sick during the year then I can use all of it for vacation. I can accumulate a maximum of 260 hours. Its not perfect but for more generous than most American employers.

But since im salaried, if I come in for a few hours and then go home cause I feel sick I get paid and don't deduct from PTO. I actually liked my last employeer, they didnt even have sick days. If you were sick you just got paid. If you were out for than 5 days you needed a doctors note. It wasn't abused as far as I could tell.

Here is what I would offer the union: you can keep your 18 days but you dont get to cash them out ever. See what they say.

[Mr Bean]

Banking sick days? You have to be kidding me. Sick days are SICK DAYS, days when out of the blue you can't come into work unexpectedly. Vacation days are for when you want to have a three day weekend or whatever. Not sick days. Sick days are there to keep you from infecting other people with whatever you have by making you stay home. No I say here's my counter offer.

You keep your eighteen days, but now you earn them one sick day a month with you month you were hired you get get seven days instead of one. The other eleven months earn you a sick day and every day has a one year time-out built into it. Little more complicated yes but banking sick days? I can understand complaints about how you might get sick right after getting your eighteen(EIGHTEEN days?) and then be down on them for an entire year waiting to earn more you might not use. But banking them? Come on.

Here's my counter offer, come back to work tomorrow with no changes or our new bargaining position will be you all come back to work with only ten sick days, still non-banking able, and a 2% pay cut on all employee's as well as a one year raise freeze for pulling this on us during the middle of tourist season. You'll get them back to work or replaced with scabs in oh three weeks or you give into their demands today. For once I'd like to see one of these Union strikes play into management's natural strength. If the firm/company/services goes belly up they made much more than the workers can ever dream of. So sit on that money you made, you can find work more easily then they can and you double the hell down.

[SCRawl]

10 vacation days? Again - 20 in Australia seems to be the average, but these typically don't roll over (though some places let you hold on to one years for the next year, but no longer than that).

I used the number 10 as a modest example to show how many sick days they have compared to actually # of day's worked. I'm assuming in reality they have far more than 10 days as they are both union and its Canada.

10 vacation days isn't abnormal, even in Canada. It's the minimum, and lots of people have just the minimum, though given the fact that this is a union (and government) environment I'd be shocked if these workers had only the 10 days. In general, I don't think that Canadians get any more vacation time than our American counterparts.

[Simon_Jester]

Devil's advocacy:

What happens if someone who's been on the job for a few years suffers a truly serious injury, such as a compound fracture? Or a bout of clinical depression? They may very well be too "sick" to work for several weeks.

You can, of course, make the argument that a worker has no right to expect an income if something bad enough to knock them out for a month happens. But you should recognize that you're doing it.

[SCRawl]

Devil's advocacy:

What happens if someone who's been on the job for a few years suffers a truly serious injury, such as a compound fracture? Or a bout of clinical depression? They may very well be too "sick" to work for several weeks.

You can, of course, make the argument that a worker has no right to expect an income if something bad enough to knock them out for a month happens. But you should recognize that you're doing it.

It's called "long-term disability", and I'd bet dollars to donuts that a government-sponsored employee health and insurance plan includes it. If the accident happens on the job, it's covered under workers' compensation. Even if these remedies didn't exist, can you think of a private-sector non-union job that would allow banking of sick days in this manner?

I recognize that you're just arguing the other side, but really, I know you can pick your spots better than this.

[aerius]

It's called "long-term disability", and I'd bet dollars to donuts that a government-sponsored employee health and insurance plan includes it. If the accident happens on the job, it's covered under workers' compensation. Even if these remedies didn't exist, can you think of a private-sector non-union job that would allow banking of sick days in this manner?

Yup, long-term disability is in every government union contract I'm aware of. It generally covers 75-80% of your full pay for the duration of the disability, though some may use a stepped system where you get full pay for the first 1-2 months followed by 75-80% for the next 6 months. This is counted separately from the regular sick days, so you break your leg and need 2 months off, you still get all your regular sick days for the rest of the year. My government union contract gives me 6 weeks at full pay, then 6 months at 75%. My wife gets 6 weeks & 8 months on hers. My dad, just before he left OPG had 6 weeks at full pay, then 9 months at 80% pay.

I've said it a million times already and I'll say it again, government union workers are a bunch of spoiled whiners.

[Broomstick]

Devil's advocacy:

What happens if someone who's been on the job for a few years suffers a truly serious injury, such as a compound fracture? Or a bout of clinical depression? They may very well be too "sick" to work for several weeks.

You can, of course, make the argument that a worker has no right to expect an income if something bad enough to knock them out for a month happens. But you should recognize that you're doing it.

It's called "long-term disability", and I'd bet dollars to donuts that a government-sponsored employee health and insurance plan includes it. If the accident happens on the job, it's covered under workers' compensation. Even if these remedies didn't exist, can you think of a private-sector non-union job that would allow banking of sick days in this manner?

At least in the US, that would be "short term disability", long term being (usually) at least 90 days and sometimes defined as a longer time period.

Back in January 2007 I was off work a month due to norovirus. The company required me to use 5 regular PTO days then put me on short term disability, which completely replaced my salary for those 30 days. That's in the low benefits USA in a private corportion. I would expect unionized Canadians to do at least as well.

(Please note - American corporations are not required to provide short-term disability. I enjoyed very generous benefits at my former employer. 28 days a year of PTO, which could be taken as either vacation or sick days if needed, short term disability, long term disability, a real pension, life insurance.... truly extraordinary for the US)

[Ekiqa]

I've said it a million times already and I'll say it again, government union workers are a bunch of spoiled whiners.

Then why don't you switch to the private sector, if you're so annoyed with your co-workers and your benefits. Otherwise, stop complaining.

Regarding the strike, the unions already have bankable sick days, and the city wants to change that to non-bankable. The argument by the city is that when an employee leaves, they get paid for all the sick days left. They should just change it so that they can be rolled forward and stocked up, but can only be used in medical situations, no massive payouts.

Also, regarding wages. Union wants wage increases, city wants cuts. Why they don't just index the wages to cost of living, but the real cost of living adjustments, with gas and food costs factored, in. The major reason for strikes would disappear.

As to the timing, the unions have been working since January 1st with no contract. Negotiations have NOT been going since then, but only the last few weeks/days. If the city had started negotiating earler, there would not be this problem in the summer. It is even worse with the federal government. They sign 3 year contracts which expire within months of signing, because the feds wait years before they start negotiating.

[PeZook]

You know, the whole ideas of a limited number of "sick days" per year is kind of weird to me. After all, there's no telling when and for how long you'll be sick during the year. Why not just require that an employee provide a doctor's note to justify his sick leave?

In here, we have four days per year of "on-demand leave", which means you can just call the employer the day before and tell him/her you're not coming to work tomorrow for whatever reason, and 20 days of paid leave per year (26 for those who worked for 10 years already). On the other hand, if you call in sick, you should go to a doctor and get an official note confirming you were sick - the employer can also demand you go to a doctor he choses to confirm this.

Having "sick leave" that can be used via a simple call seems awfully prone to abuse...

[Glocksman]

My Dad is a unionized bus driver here in Evansville, and under his contract sick days are 'bankable' towards early retirement.
My Mother was a non union RN who had the same benefit, but with one major difference.

Her 'bankable' days were capped at 90.
After that, it was use them or lose them.

His bankable days are uncapped.
After 30 years on the job, he's accumulated over six months of paid sick time.
He could have retired six months early, but he chose to keep on working past retirement and is still working and 'banking' sick days.

[Solauren]

I've said it a million times already and I'll say it again, government union workers are a bunch of spoiled whiners.

Then why don't you switch to the private sector, if you're so annoyed with your co-workers and your benefits. Otherwise, stop complaining.

You know that some jobs can only be done (and should only be done) via the government, and not the private sector right?

Aerius is obviously doing a job he enjoys, minus the lazy assholes that go government just for the cushy union protection. So why don't you shut your mouth and stop trying to give people career advice.

[SCRawl]

I've said it a million times already and I'll say it again, government union workers are a bunch of spoiled whiners.

Then why don't you switch to the private sector, if you're so annoyed with your co-workers and your benefits. Otherwise, stop complaining.

You know that some jobs can only be done (and should only be done) via the government, and not the private sector right?

Aerius is obviously doing a job he enjoys, minus the lazy assholes that go government just for the cushy union protection. So why don't you shut your mouth and stop trying to give people career advice.

I think Aerius is doing a job that he tolerates, and it's the paycheque he enjoys, but he can confirm that better than I can.

And anyways, it isn't inconsistent for someone to bemoan the (often silly) benefits achieved by one's union on his behalf. Would your average person choose to go on strike to get some sort of ridiculous concession out of his employer? I suggest that your average unionized employee would be happy with the status quo, along with a modest annual increase, rather than fight tooth and nail for just a little more. (There are more militant pro-union types who believe that it is their job to extract as much as possible from the company, but I think that they're in the minority.)

The whole "banking sick days" nonsense is a concession the union must have extracted from the city in the past, perhaps when times were better. Well, times ain't so good now. It was a nice perk while it lasted, but it's too expensive, and it was pretty dumb to begin with.

[Glocksman]

'Banking' sick days actually makes sense as a union benefit in the US, where we don't have any mandated paid sick leave (and didn't even have mandated unpaid leave until FMLA during the early 1990's).
In Canada, not so much.

[Glocksman]

In my union shop, we get six paid sick days per year along with 18 unpaid 'no fault' days off before being fired.
The 'sick days' are unofficially considered by both the company and union as being 'unannounced paid vacation days' instead of being something to be used only when ill.

We have a saying that 'sick days are much too important to waste on being sick'.
The counterpoint to that is that the company paid short term disability is less than half (about 30% if you're top tier pay scale) of your normal salary, so if you're really ill and off work for an extended period, you're fucked.