So what should be considered an essential service, at least for the purpose of legally prohibiting strikes? Should any?

Lots of people would agree fire and ambulance should not be allowed to strike. I believe that ambulance dispatchers BTW can legally strike, but have not done so knowing they'd be legislated back in about 5 minutes.

Early in the first TTC strike thread, some babblers were noting a lot of unsafe or potentially dangerous situations arising from the withdrawl of services. I've heard some argue that they should not be allowed to strike due to economic disruption. I trust that at least no regular babblers would agree with that argument. That's precicely the purpose of a strike. There is however a real possibility of loss of life due to a transit strike, and the traffic chaos it causes. Amulance and fire service response time is routinely a tad under four minutes in the city, but with traffic gridlock, it could be many times that.

The TTC does not qualify.

In 1919 in Winnipeg the police joined the metal workers on strike. Following this, vigilante and similar organizations were formed, despite the fact that the city was, in fact, very orderly and law abiding. Nothing has changed since then, except that unions are legal ... mostly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
At least one characteristic of an Essential Service is that it should be "free" to everyone (entirely government supported and not subject to user fees).

---

Here is an article about the proposed Saskatchewan legislation.

[ 28 April 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
At least one characteristic of an Essential Service is that it should be "free" to everyone (entirely government supported and not subject to user fees).

The TTC does not qualify.

Read the fatuous rhetoric of Dalton McGuinty as he spoke in support of forcing the TTC back to work. Then compare it with his comments when it comes time to deciding how much the province is going to underfund the transit system.

---

this is an excellent point m. spector, and one i've been pointing out to people in conversations about the potential of a strike.

if the Province is prepared to declare the TTC "essential", then why does it continue to shirk it's funding responsibilities? to me there is a tacit admission that it should be fully funded if you're going to make it "essential".

And is the Province and everyone else for that matter prepared to shut up about overpaid unskilled ttc workers if they are declared as such and an arbitrator determines the contracts, even though both Miller and Giambrone have pointed out that often arbitrated settlements are more "generous"?

and isn't it a tacit admission as well that if an arbitrator historically determines higher wages than would be able to be negotiated in the normal bargaining process, that the normal bargaining process isn't fair to begin with? after all, the arbitrator goes by the facts, not personal interest, and would likely do a comparative study of wage rates for that particular industry and come up with a median rate, wouldn't they?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
If we're going to bring underfunding into this debate, then we should also bring in mismanagement.

---

quote:

---

Why? What has mismanagement got to do with whether it's an essential service? Hospitals are mismanaged - does that mean they aren't essential?

---

What does underfunding have to do with whether it's an essential service ? That's why I said 'IF'.

I do not believe government funding or organizational mismanagement should determine what is an essential service, or is not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
An essential service is anything governments call an essential service. There's no real sense to it at all.

---

Totally. When I was chair of our bargaining committee back in the day, who got deemed essential depended to a large extent on how much time and bargaining capital we were willing to use up duking it out with the employer on that single issue; about seven months, in our case.

For that reason exactly the big Ontario Public Service contract is being bargained backwards this time around. The Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act says that essential services have to be negotiated before the union can enter a legal strike position (thank you Mike Harris), but they're waiting to the end to do it this year, if necessary (and it will be). Should be interesting.

quote:

---

87.4 (1) During a strike or lockout not prohibited by this Part, the employer, the trade union and the employees in the bargaining unit must continue the supply of services, operation of facilities or production of goods to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public.

---

I agree generally with that characterization.

Since I'm still angry, let me vent.

Could the TTC ever go on strike for three weeks ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
Could the TTC ever go on strike for three weeks ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
I believe transit should be an Essential Service for a multitude of reasons. Traffic congestion, smog generation, and GHG emissions being only three.

Having said that, if it's an essential service, then the funding bodies have to be required by law to step up and fund their development and op costs with no nit picking or niggling over employee pay.

---

1. Public service officials who exercise authority on behalf of the state - but not others:

quote:

---

Thus, while the right to strike of officials in the employ of ministries and other comparable government bodies, as well as that of their assistants and of officials working in the administration of justice and of staff in the judiciary, may be subject to major restrictions or even prohibitions (ibid., paras. 537 and 538), the same does not apply, for instance, to persons employed by state enterprises. To date, in response to complaints submitted to it, the Committee on Freedom of Association has stated that certain categories of public servant do not exercise authority in the name of the State, such as public servants in state-owned commercial or industrial enterprises (ibid., para. 532), in oil, banking and metropolitan transport undertakings or those employed in the education sector and, more generally, those who work in state companies and enterprises (ILO, 1984a, 233rd Report, para. 668; ILO, 1983b, 226th Report, para. 343; and ILO, 1996d, note to para. 492).

---

2. Those workers who perform "essential services in the strict sense of the term":

quote:

---

In 1983, the Committee of Experts defined such services as those “the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population ” (ILO, 1983b, para. 214). This definition was adopted by the Committee on Freedom of Association shortly afterwards.

---

The strikebreaking scumbags McGuinty, Tory and Hampton - and their obedient followers of all stripes - should take heed of this international standard. It is sickening to think someone could call themselves "progressive" and support forced labour for TTC transit workers. I'll put it down to temporary psychosis induced by toxic partisanship.

ETA: You can read the whole pamphlet here:

ILO Principles Concerning the Right to Strike

[ 28 April 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
The strikebreaking scumbags McGuinty, Tory and Hampton - and their obedient followers of all stripes

---

Speak for McGuinty and Tory if you like, but Hampton doesn't support declaring TTC an esential service. If they are legislated back to work by an essential services wording, then it will be McGuinty's doing not Hampton's. Remember now that it's McGuilty, the Liberal buffoon calling all the shots in Toronto and who will ultimately decide on a back to work order using essential services wording.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
If they are legislated back to work by an essential services wording, then it will be McGuinty's doing not Hampton's.

---

Excellent - so Hampton voted "NO" to the strikebreaking legislation. See, we have trouble getting accurate news about Toronto from way over here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
So where were you on several other threads when I was blowing the whistle on the Liberal dictatorship's attack on unionized jobs across Ontario?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I don't care about job loss in Ontario. Doesn't bother me one bit.

---

How very laissez-faire of you to say so. Laissez-fakery didn't work in the 1930's, and it's not working now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Thanks for your no-show on solidarity with unionized workers in Ontario. With friends like unionist, who needs enemies?

---

I told you, I don't care. I can't control my emotions. Less jobs for you, more jobs for me. That's solidarity à la Hampton. The Coward says, make the workers work so the poor unemployed workers can ride the subway! What a Working Class Hero!

May the memory of these traitors live on in in the annals of shame. And may the progressive people who make sick excuses for them buy themselves new clean mirrors to examine where they are and how they got that way.

You've been pledging solidarnosc with a union busting piece of shit Liberal despot in Toronto by virtue of your refusal to speak even a stern word against him and his overpaid Liberal backbenchers asleep at the switch.

But that's okay. Because now I understand your affection for our invisible man in Toronto. Our invisible Liberal leader stood by and did nothing while Ontario lost another 25, 000 jobs last month. It's exactly like when our speechless invisible man and all his overpaid do-nada Liberal MPPs said and did absolutely nothing about child poverty and 1.2 million workers in Ontario who needed a living wage years ago, in about 2003 when the Liberals promised to do something about child poverty. And we know that was a lie now, too.

[ 28 April 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
You'll say anything sooner than criticize our union busting Liberal bufoon in Toronto.

---

McGuinty is my hero. He fully supports the courageous strike of the TTC workers. It is Hampton, alone, who sent the troops against the strikers. Hail McGuinty! Long live John Tory, who called for the union leaders to be horsewhipped! Down with Coward Hampton!

Ok, Fidel, there ya go, no need to speculate any more, the truth is out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

And I think it's you who needs to reassess your union vows after giving the bird to tens of thousands of formerly unionized workers in Ontario above in your most shameful post to date. You should throw yourself out of the union for those remarks.

---

Because like yourself, our McGutless Liberal wonder refuses to support: unionized workers - record numbers of homeless people - or the largest numbers of the most vulnerable Canadian citizens living well below the poverty line of any province.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Anyone who says that transit workers should be forced to work in situations where safety or health of people are not in jeopardy, should go and f*** themselves. If they wish to be slaves, let them offer themselves up for purchase on eBay. But leave workers alone, or suffer the consequences, sooner or later.

---

[ 28 April 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

They care about the people so much that they'll run the province into the ground to save them.

I was just part of a small theatre production put together by working class actors. I was shocked at how much they were anti-union when the TTC strike came up. The only person who stood up for organized labour was a much older person who had a protected job in a university.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
Fidel and Unionist are doing a great job of showing why the union movement is doing so overwhelmingly well in Ontario.

---

Why is that, Michael? Because I pointed out that the TTC strike was stupid? Or because I pointed out the internationally accepted norms on which services are important enough to deprive workers of their freedom? Or because I explained that any politician who promotes forced labour for transit workers is a bastard?

Please be more specific. Unless it's just the heat of the debate which is offending your fragile sensibilities.

quote:

---

Why is that, Michael? Because I pointed out that the TTC strike was stupid? Or because I pointed out the internationally accepted norms on which services are important enough to deprive workers of their freedom? Or because I explained that any politician who promotes forced labour for transit workers is a bastard?

---

You might want to look at the way you're writing this to start. Do you think that when you say 'Forced Labour' the average person thinks of a TTC worker ?

Hardline stances don't tend to win people over.

quote:

---

Please be more specific. Unless it's just the heat of the debate which is offending your fragile sensibilities.

---

My sensibilities are doing quite well, but I thought it might be helpful to point out that normal people don't share your viewpoint on these things, and that that is exactly the problem.

quote:

---

Oh, and please let your anti-union "working class actors" know how they can PM me for assistance the next time they get fucked by some benevolent boss and find themselves all alone and confused.

---

They usually have to take another job and start all over. That's what young people have to do these days, especially when they can't get a decent paying job.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
They care about the people so much that they'll run the province into the ground to save them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
Do you think that when you say 'Forced Labour' the average person thinks of a TTC worker?

---

How many "average persons" do you know who risk fines of $2,000 per day (besides the threat of dismissal) if they choose not to work? Or perhaps you were ignorant of this legislation?

quote:

---

They usually have to take another job and start all over. That's what young people have to do these days, especially when they can't get a decent paying job.

---

And they hate unions because then they might be able to stay and fight and win instead of quitting? And you like this mobile work force looking for decent pay? So do all the bosses I deal with.

quote:

---

You have lots of empathy for The Workers, but apparently not much for the "average joe".

---

Sorry, you're the armchair guy here. I deal with real workers every day. Do I sympathize with workers who feel no sympathy when other workers are legislated back to work? Sure I do. I feel sorry for them. You appear to agree with them. You're not supposed to agree with people when they reach for the wrong medicine bottle, Michael. You're supposed to help them see the error of their ways.

quote:

---

quote riginally posted by Michael Hardner:
Do you think that when you say 'Forced Labour' the average person thinks of a TTC worker?

How many "average persons" do you know who risk fines of $2,000 per day (besides the threat of dismissal) if they choose not to work? Or perhaps you were ignorant of this legislation?

---

Actually, most "average persons" expect to be terminated if they don't go to work.

quote:

---

And they hate unions because then they might be able to stay and fight and win instead of quitting? And you like this mobile work force looking for decent pay? So do all the bosses I deal with.

---

The TTC doesn't make 'decent pay', they make 'good pay'.

quote:

---

Sorry, you're the armchair guy here. I deal with real workers every day. Do I sympathize with workers who feel no sympathy when other workers are legislated back to work? Sure I do.

I feel sorry for them. You appear to agree with them. You're not supposed to agree with people when they reach for the wrong medicine bottle, Michael. You're supposed to help them see the error of their ways.

Antics like those of Bob Kinnear do a tremendous disservice to the union movement, which is why they should be condemned. Likewise, strikebreaking under any pretext must be condemned. Most Canadians agree that unions are a necessary part of our way of life. If you don't, good luck trying to get rid of them. I can lend you some books about others who have tried.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
You can blame the system if you like, but the fact is that organized labour has not succeeded in being popular with the populace.

---

Again, what we have across Canada are over 175 repressive pieces of labour legislation enacted since 1982. If unions weren't popular in 1980, then our two old line parties have done there best to ensure they are not by now.

The problem with people like Hardner is that they just don't believe in free labour markets. And if our two old line parties don't believe in free markets, Canada will likely never make the top ten most competitive economies list.

1. Canada needs transparency at both levels of government
   
2. We need free labour markets
   
3. And we need electoral reform to achieve 1 & 2

quote:

---

Michael, if you feel resentful of unionized workers, and if that doesn't just stem from ignorance, then I have nothing further to discuss with you.

You might however review the thread topic and see if you anything relevant to say on that subject.

---

I guess I don't. Feel resentful, I mean.

[ 29 April 2008: Message edited by: Michael Hardner ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:

You can blame the system if you like, but the fact is that organized labour has not succeeded in being popular with the populace.

---

What does the "but" in that sentence mean? And what is supposed to be the significance of the sentence as a whole?

If "the system", which is fundamentally hostile to unions and comprehensively structures our lives, has managed to make many workers hostile to unions, are we to ignore the operations of the system because those operations have (in part) succeeded? Does the reason for the hostility that exists not matter, given that the hostility exists?

And what, then, should we conclude from this hostility? What should we do?

[ 29 April 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

posted 29 April 2008 12:16 PM Profile for RosaL Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote

quote riginally posted by Michael Hardner:

You can blame the system if you like, but the fact is that organized labour has not succeeded in being popular with the populace.

What does the "but" in that sentence mean? And what is supposed to be the significance of the sentence as a whole?

If "the system", which is fundamentally hostile to unions and comprehensively structures our lives, has managed to make many workers hostile to unions, are we to ignore the operations of the system because those operations have (in part) succeeded? Does the reason for the hostility that exists not matter, given that the hostility exists?

And what, then, should we conclude from this hostility? What should we do?

---

I don't know if you should ignore the operations of the system. Certainly that wasn't done in the past.

no transcript, but here's the streaming link:

The cost of making transit an essential service

it's worth a listen, and his approach reflects the experience i had back as a 20 year old new steward sitting at our binding arbitration hearing at the Labour Board in Winnipeg years ago. The judge had no time whatsoever for our boss' intransigence and awarded us exactly what we'd been asking for.

[ 29 April 2008: Message edited by: farnival ]

Maybe people of colour should try a new approach and just quit complaining about discrimination?

Or the Indigenous people - so "in your face" - time for a new approach that the "average working Joe" can grasp and sympathize with?

Oh, sorry, I can't use those analogies, because unionized workers are not victims, they're not exploited, they're not oppressed, are they, they're just a bunch of spoiled lazy wealthy elitists who love to pull the plug and make Michael Hardner and the rest of the real average Joes suffer from time to time.

I think the appropriate "new approach" is to tell you to get a life. Unions negotiated same-sex benefits long before governments legislated them. We fought for limits on overwork, mandatory overtime pay, vacations for all - not just unionized workers. We achieved the right to refuse unsafe work which then made its way into legislation. We convinced labour arbitrators to ban discriminatory promotion or discipline or rules based on race, colour, religion, nationality etc. long before human rights legislation existed. We exemplify international solidarity, we fight against apartheid and warmongering and aggression.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
All I've really said, Fidel, is that such discussions show that organized labour is a closed circle that doesn't reach out beyond itself.

---

It's simple. Our two oldest political parties have been pushing the balance of power in favour of employers at the expense of labour. The very first tendency for conservative and fascist politicians alike is to attack labour rights. And this is one of the largest contributing factors undermining free markets. Our two oldest bought-off political parties believe in hands-on laissez-foolery when it suits the special interest groups they represent.

It is possible to force governments to be more accountable and transparent. But we need a more competitive electoral system before that can happen. Right now our two old line party autocrats are accountable to a minority of Canadian voters only. They aren't being chosen by a majority of voters on the basis of having done great things while monopolizing power. It's no wonder Europeans and other nationals think Canadian voters are docile and wouldn't say shit if we had a mouthful. The truth is, Canadian voters don't have a lot of choice in the matter.

[ 29 April 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:

I don't know if you should ignore the operations of the system. Certainly that wasn't done in the past.

What should we do ? Admit that it's a problem, maybe. Look for a new approach would be a good idea, I think.

---

What is "it"? Hostility to unions? I don't know anyone who doesn't see this as a problem.

A new approach to what? To hostility to unions? To something else?

quote:

---

Perhaps women should "look for a new approach" to prove to men and to capitalism that they deserve equality?

---

Not sure where that terrible and false analogy came from...

quote:

---

Maybe people of colour should try a new approach and just quit complaining about discrimination?

Or the Indigenous people - so "in your face" - time for a new approach that the "average working Joe" can grasp and sympathize with?

Oh, sorry, I can't use those analogies, because unionized workers are not victims, they're not exploited, they're not oppressed, are they, they're just a bunch of spoiled lazy wealthy elitists who love to pull the plug and make Michael Hardner and the rest of the real average Joes suffer from time to time.

---

Ok.

I feel that if you had real arguments then you wouldn't have to stuff fake ones in my mouth.

quote:

---

I think the appropriate "new approach" is to tell you to get a life. Unions negotiated same-sex benefits long before governments legislated them. We fought for limits on overwork, mandatory overtime pay, vacations for all - not just unionized workers. We achieved the right to refuse unsafe work which then made its way into legislation. We convinced labour arbitrators to ban discriminatory promotion or discipline or rules based on race, colour, religion, nationality etc. long before human rights legislation existed. We exemplify international solidarity, we fight against apartheid and warmongering and aggression.

---

And at any point did the public rise up and say this is a bad thing ?

quote:

---

We do things in real life that you, Michael Hardner, can only dream about in a very futile way, because what you don't understand (and that's a rather vast realm), you scorn. Tough for you.

---

And what have you done lately ?

quote:

---

What is "it"? Hostility to unions? I don't know anyone who doesn't see this as a problem.

A new approach to what? To hostility to unions? To something else?

---

Yes, I think so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
Not sure where that terrible and false analogy came from...

---

Workers are oppressed and exploited in this society. Liberals don't recognize that. They grudgingly recognize gender inequality, homophobia, racism... But they can never, ever recognize that those who work (whether unionized or not, whether poor or not so poor) suffer the same discrimination and marginalization and degradation. Because if they did, their own privilege would come crashing down. And we can't have that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:

I wouldn't be surprised if I found out that a majority of Torontonians are in favour of making the TTC an essential service.

---

What a great "democrat" you are. What if you found out that a majority of Torontonians didn't want bisexuals teaching their children?

quote:

---

Workers are oppressed and exploited in this society. Liberals don't recognize that. They grudgingly recognize gender inequality, homophobia, racism... But they can never, ever recognize that those who work (whether unionized or not, whether poor or not so poor) suffer the same discrimination and marginalization and degradation. Because if they did, their own privilege would come crashing down. And we can't have that.

So, Michael, what I was doing was to satirize your anti-union posts, in as stark and rude a fashion as I could. The fact that you don't even begin to get it doesn't surprise me in the least. You are what you are, and every one of your posts exudes that.

---

I'm not anti-union.

Your post reflects old attitudes. All of the younger right wingers I know aren't homophobic at all.

quote:

---

What a great "democrat" you are. What if you found out that a majority of Torontonians didn't want bisexuals teaching their children?

---

I would say "wow, I guess we have some work to do in educating Torontonians"

What are you saying ?

quote:

---

Whoops, I'm not supposed to put those terrible thoughts in your mouth. After all, you were only attacking workers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:

Your post reflects old attitudes. All of the younger right wingers I know aren't homophobic at all.

---

And they don't believe in free markets either. They want to inherit the old boys system of patronage, kick-back and graft. The old ways lead to stagnation, gross inequalities, and poverty.

quote:

---

And they don't believe in free markets either. They want to inherit the old boys system of patronage, kick-back and graft. The old ways lead to stagnation, gross inequalities, and poverty.

---

They want to make as much money as possible. That is their stated goal.

If Free Markets help that goal, then they're for it. They will also be against Free Markets if it helps them.

This is proof that they don't care about women's rights, gay rights either way. Just money and power.

quote:

---

It's high time we cleaned the decay and rot from Ottawa and Queen's Parks. For the sake of democracy, Michael.

---

quote:

---

posted by RosaL:
What is "it"? Hostility to unions? I don't know anyone who doesn't see this as a problem.
A new approach to what? To hostility to unions? To something else?

---

quote:

---

posted by Michael Hardner:

Yes, I think so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
They want to make as much money as possible. That is their stated goal.

If Free Markets help that goal, then they're for it. They will also be against Free Markets if it helps them.

---

Free markets, as defined by market socialists in the early part of the last century, will not help members of the old boys' system, nor those would-be profiteers who are "grandfathered in", to maximize profits. And that's the problem.

Market socialists stated long ago that governments must make full accounting of social costs and costs to the environment. Without a proper accounting, the books don't balance. And if the books don't balance, the result is what we see today with concentration of wealth at the top, a narrow band of docile and decidedly middle class Canadians living decently anywhere from 88th to 94th percentiles wrt the income distribution picture.