By Paul Kellogg

The Ontario legislature convened at 1:30 pm, April 27 – the first time in history that the august body had met on a Sunday. In 35 minutes, the politicians had time to have prayers, make a few speeches and, oh yes, give three readings to a bill called the “Toronto Public Transit Service Resumption Act.” By 2:05 pm it was finished, with the support of the NDP and its leader Howard Hampton, his “reservations” notwithstanding.[1] Workers in Ontario will be living with the repercussions of these actions for some time.

Unionized workers at the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) had been on legal strike since midnight, Friday April 25, and the strike had caught most by surprise. The Toronto Star of April 24 carried a short article headlined “TTC contract expected to pass vote.”[2] Tense negotiations had resulted in a tentative agreement between the Toronto Transit Commission and the 8,900 strong Amalgamated Transit Union (Local 113) that most saw as a victory for the union. TTC drivers won a wage increase of 3 per cent a year in each year of a three-year deal. On top of that, in what became known as the “GTA clause” drivers received the right to remain the highest paid transit drivers in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area). What it means is that if, at the end of 2009, city of Toronto transit drivers are earning less than transit drivers in Mississauga or any other municipality in the GTA, they would “get an increase of 5 cents an hour above the other drivers’ wage.” The Mississauga example is key, because “TTC drivers have been earning 5 cents an hour less than those in Mississauga.”[3]

...

But if the right-wing was dissatisfied, so was the rank and file – but for completely different reasons.

First – one of the key areas of disagreement, the treatment of workers injured on the job, had not been fully addressed. Under the old contract, workers injured on the job received 85% of their pay while they were away from work. The union wanted that raised to 100%, and while they made some headway, “obviously, we didn’t get everything we wanted,” said local president Bob Kinnear.[6] The importance of the issue was graphically demonstrated April 20, when two TTC workers were injured, one seriously, after two subway cars collided in a maintenance yard.[7]

There were other issues. While drivers were awarded the “GTA clause,” no such agreement existed for other sections of the local, including maintenance workers who represent about 1/3 of the locals’ membership. Skilled trades workers were also dissatisfied. They had wanted a 10-cent an hour premium raised to 50 cents, but were offered only 25 cents. Tensions around these issues were so high, that seven members of the local’s 16-member executive refused to sign the tentative agreement.[8] In this context of a division at the top, and a feeling that drivers were being treated differently than non-drivers, rumours began to swirl through the membership – most starkly, that there were plans afoot to contract out much of its maintenance work.

...

The rejection of the transit deal was announced late afternoon, Friday April 25. By midnight, the transit system was shut down, the local leadership having called its members out on legal strike. But it was a strike of a special kind. There were no picket assignments, no picket signs, no picket lines, no activity of any sort. At midnight, the doors were locked, the union’s members were sent home and the “strike” was on. The rank and file had spoken, decisively, and the union leadership responded by showing absolutely no leadership.

The workers had been put in an incredibly vulnerable position. Their leadership had announced up and down throughout the long negotiations that any strike would happen after 48 hours’ notice. Instead there was none, maximizing the possibility of a backlash against the union. And with no picket lines, the striking workers were expected to take on their boss, the city and the anti-union media by staying at home – a recipe for failure and demoralization. Perhaps Kinnear and the rest of the ATU leadership were too divided to come up with a plan. Perhaps they were so surprised at the rejection of the deal that they were paralyzed. Perhaps Kinnear was himself “on strike” against the rank and file – pulling them out after the vote, but refusing to do anything to give shape and structure to the strike. In any case, the effect was total confusion.

It did not take long for anti-union forces to enter into the vacuum created by the local leadership’s inaction. Shamefully, it was mayor Miller, flanked by TTC head Adam Giambrone (former head of the federal NDP) who led the charge, calling the strike “unacceptable and unnecessary.”[10] This set the stage for the provincial NDP to help out the Liberals and the Tories in making the strike illegal. So as quickly as it was over, the strike was done.

...

The rank and file showed surprising militancy, rejecting a deal that most saw as a victory – saying that they deserved more. The union leadership showed itself incapable of providing a lead to this new sentiment of militancy. And social democratic politicians showed again, that – when forced to choose between working class militancy and being good corporate managers – it is their management hat that often carries the day.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Read Howard Hampton's mealy-mouthed "reservations" here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
HH failed to take a stand.

---

The other people who were paying attention were the membership of ATU, and the other public service unions, and the teachers unions. You can be sure that collectively they represent a substantially number of votes, and are now aware that an NDP principle is not bankable on election day, and will make their choices based on other considerations, the colour of a tie, the press of a suit, the charchter of a candidate, etc. Rather, Howie has tripped an fallen on his sword and cut his own wrists.

[ 05 May 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Hardly, the only people who even pay the slightest attention to the NDP are those who are bemused that it pretends to some place in the world of left-wing politics. Had HH said anything more deliberate or oppositional the general public would have given a collective shrug.

The other people who were paying attention were the membership of ATU, and the other public service unions, and the teachers unions. You can be sure that collectively they represent a substantially number of votes, and are now aware that an NDP principle is not bankable on election day, and will make their choices based on other considerations, the colour of a tie, the press of a suit, the charchter of a candidate, etc. Rather, Howie has tripped an fallen on his sword and cut his own wrists.

[ 05 May 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:

So your argument is that the NDP is so low in support that it doesn't matter what it says?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:
I think the correct phrase for what you were expecting would be "HH failed to fall on his sword".

---

It is a violation of international accords to force non-essential workers to work - and "non-essential" is clearly defined as not including transit employees.

Howard Hampton could have done some courageous things:

- He could have publicly blasted the union for not giving 48 hours' notice.

- He could have publicly challenged the workers to return to work and give their negotiators time to "fix" the problems in the rejected tentative agreement.

- He could have offered his personal services (or others) as a go-between to help solve the impasse.

- He could have, at the same time, expressed that as a principle, the NDP could not support legislation that violated recognized international principles and infringed on workers' rights.

- In announcing and explaining a "no" vote, he could have explained that unless workers returned voluntarily and gave the legally required notice (or better yet stayed at work until a new deal was reached), he would not "filibuster" to delay the legislation.

He had lots of options open to him. He chose to become McGuinty/Tory's partner in attacking the workers out of cowardly fear of how people would react.

And I am NOT saying that small-minded Liberals are a bunch of feuding vendetta specialists when it comes to waging a war of words, and with mean-spirited provincial funding shortfalls, against Toronto's NDP mayor. No I am not! Because NDP'ers are above petty bickering and finger pointing.

[ 05 May 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Betrayal makes good people incoherent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
No you voted for their lackeys.

---

At least I voted on the one day of protest that counts. And because I voted, I can lay credible claim to having protested the Liberals' anti-worker, union-busting agenda.

3% Shame!

[ 05 May 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Go suck Liberal dick for another three years for all your protest matters now. And try not to squeel when the hot salty stuff stings your tonsils.

---

Bullshit homophobic, sexist, anti-sex crap.

Ah, how they show their colours in a pinch.

[ 05 May 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Is it true love or just a fling, that is the question?

[ 05 May 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 05 May 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Not to mention your seemingly inexhaustible play book peppered with other numbing autobot responses.

But I'd like to thank you for bringing it to our attention now.

[ 05 May 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Incorrigible! I think he's obssessed with phallic symbols in general.

[ 05 May 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

You yourself seem inordinantly concerned about the swelling in the region of the pockets of members of ATU.

3%! Marginally in line with the rate of inflation, with perhaps a little catching up included for the 10% CPI of the 80's.

[ 05 May 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

And I speak as someone who was forced to give a blow job at the age of eight! Yes! I understand that others have been free to enjoy it as a great thing! And I fiercely defend that liberty!

[ 05 May 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
I was kind of waiting to see what "cocksucker" would turn up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
I don't hear you. Go suck Liberal dick for another three years for all your protest matters now. And try not to squeel when the hot salty stuff stings your tonsils.

---

Jesus. I didn't even see this thread.

Fidel, you clearly need some time to cool off. Not just for the offensive metaphor but because I'm so tired of hearing you throwing around false accusations against other babblers of them being "Liberal shills".

A week should do it.

How about we ALL think twice before using "cocksucking" as a derogatory slur? I know, I've done it myself in the past on babble, but I think we've come to a point where we've discussed the sexist/homophobic aspect of the insult enough when it's come up in the past to maybe make a community standard around it. Shall we?

[ 05 May 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Back to the subject:

What Emergency?
An Assessment of Toronto’s 2008 Transit Strike

Ian MacDonald

Last weekend’s two-day transit strike in Toronto raises anew and in starker terms two issues of longstanding concern to the labour movement in this city and throughout the province. First, the unprecedented rapidity with which the city sought back-to-work legislation, and the similarly expeditious and unanimous passage of this legislation by all parties of the provincial legislature, represents a monolithic rejection by governing elites of transit workers’ right to strike. Second, and equally worrisome, the strike has revealed the inadequacy of organized labour’s political capacities in a city where vicious anti-union sentiment lies just beneath a superficially civil discourse, and the municipal privatization agenda remains essentially unchecked.

...

Questions for Howard Hampton
“If these workers are so bloody essential, why don’t you pay the best possible wages?” Ontario NDP leader Stephen Lewis speaking in the provincial legislature before voting against back-to-work legislation ending a 23 day transit strike in 1974 (Hansard, August 31, 1974).

The city requested back-to-work legislation within hours of the strike. The provincial government convened an emergency session for that purpose within a day and a half. In fact, the legislation had already been drafted the previous week, when the parties were still negotiating. The Legislature opened at 1:30 Sunday afternoon and by 2:00 pm the bill had passed three readings.

ATU members were forced back to work before their strike began to have its real economic impact, which is to shut-down the weekday commute. The ability to disrupt the commute is what gives transit workers the leverage to bargain a better contract. The weekend strike made traveling in the city, including some work trips, more difficult – not impossible, or dangerous. The increase in traffic was hardly noticeable, no shipments were delayed on that account, and no workplaces were closed. And yet the strike was treated as if it were a major urban crisis. When the Eves government ordered sanitation workers back to work in 2002 with the support of both Howard Hampton and Dalton McGuinty, the government at least went through the motions of arguing that the strike posed a significant threat to public safety. What is so dangerous about a transit strike that 8,900 workers had to be stripped of their rights to strike and freedom of association before they could properly exercise them?

In presenting the bill, Labour Minister Brad Duguid spoke of the TTC as the “backbone, the lifeblood” of Toronto, itself the “engine of the economy of both Ontario and Canada” (Hansard, April 27, 2008). The increased traffic caused by a strike would not only inconvenience drivers, it “will also translate into higher pollution levels, with the related health effects and impact on our environment.” Bob Runciman, leader of the opposition Tories, noted that, before the strike, he “wasn’t aware of how significant it [the TTC] was in terms of environmental impact” (Hansard, April 27, 2008). McGuinty and Tory MP Peter Shurman spoke of the effect of the strike on workers and the most vulnerable residents of the city. Every speaker expressed their faith in collective bargaining.

...

Why does it take a strike for the government and official opposition to recognize the importance of mass transit to the provincial economy, the lives of working people, and the environment? If mass transit plays such a significant role in reducing pollution, why hasn’t the Liberal government restored operating subsidies to what they were before the Tory cuts? And if mass transit is an essential condition of the competitiveness of the Toronto regional economy, why is the level of government subsidy on a per-ride basis 2 times higher in New York City and 5 times higher in Chicago – our supposed urban competitors – than it is in Toronto? The TTC is the worst-funded public transit system in North America. Police, emergency medical and firefighting services are deemed essential because they are necessary to the preservation of public safety. And because they are considered essential, they are provided free of charge to the recipient. If mass transit is an essential service, why should riders pay three quarters of the operating costs at the point of delivery through ever-increasing fares?

From the perspective of the state, the emergency resides in the economic disruption that a transit strike causes in a city like Toronto. The point of a strike, of course, is to cause economic disruption. If the state is going to ban strikes which cause economic disruption – rather than appealing to the higher standard of a threat to public safety – where will it draw the line?

In speaking to the back-to-work legislation, Howard Hampton made his reservation known on language in the preamble which suggested that the TTC is an essential service. This was a dodge, not a defence. The city of Toronto already has ‘essential’ transit workers – on the cheap. Runciman spoke truthfully when he noted that the consent of all parties to the emergency Sunday session proved that transit workers’ right to strike was “illusory” (Hansard, April 27, 2008). In joining with the other parties to legislate ATU members back to work, the Ontario NDP believed that it was making an electoral calculation (one could say the same of the NDP-linked Mayor David Miller and many of the NDP city councilors). But in so doing the NDP has made itself indistinguishable from the governing Liberals on a matter of vital importance to the labour movement. Trade unionists are working in a province where the government can strip us of our right to strike without any parliamentary expression of dissent from a labour-backed party. That is our emergency.

Full article.

Edited for a bit of concision.

[ 06 May 2008: Message edited by: blake 3:17 ]