This article sums up the public unions’ arguments against the City of Toronto in the current strike. Basically, it argues that people are blaming unions for the economic woes of the world instead of the greedy capitalists that have brought us all to our knees. Instead, the writer suggests, we should be thanking unions for fighting the good fight.
This article explains why most of the city’s residents are not on their side. When people are losing their jobs and tax money is flowing out like water over Niagara Falls, it’s hard to side with people fighting to keep perks that are unimaginable in private-sector jobs and are being fought for using the public’s services as a bartering chip.
But of course, things are never so simple. This isn’t about the lack of appreciation for unions or an opportunistic ploy by the City to drive down public sector wages and benefits. It’s about dealing with a new era of economic realities. Whether bankable sick days are fair or not is not the question; the question is whether we, as a City, can afford such perks. The City of Toronto has been poor for a very long time and services, investments and the quality of life have been in decline. That’s not to say there haven’t been some positives, but they’ve been inadequate in the face of the City’s growing challenges.
Debates between unions, whether it’s public sector or private, and employers are rarely approached the way they should. Too often it’s a negotiation between the union vying for all it can (whether it’s saving what they’ve won previously or pushing for more) and the employer pushing the opposite. These approaches are understandable but not very effective for everyone involved. First and foremost employers and unions must view themselves for what they are: parts of a larger whole, of which the success of the whole is the vehicle for achieving what both sides want.
It seems rather obvious to me that a successful company depends on happy and productive employees, so there’s not much incentive to take advantage of them. Maybe that was the case a hundred years ago but we’ve come a long way since then, and mostly because of unions. Unions helped establish a balance that was sorely needed and was much to the benefit of the economy as a whole. It’s balance that’s the essential ingredient, and when the company or City starts to struggle, the two sides should work together to form a plan that works for both – it’s still negotiation, but with an eye on a mutual prize which is an easier goal.
When unions complain that they didn’t cause the recession and shouldn’t have to pay for the mistakes of greedy capitalists and authors of massive fraud, they’re completely missing the point. It may not seem fair but, for the workers of Chrysler or GM, for example, it doesn’t mean much when the enterprise goes down the tube. For the public unions of Toronto, the causes of the economic problems may have been someone else’s fault, but the fact is the City’s revenues are down and we, as a City, cannot afford to pay out the same level of perks. I would argue that a healthier balance has been needed for some time regardless of the economic conditions that surround the current impasse, but whatever reasons have gotten us here a new economic relationship is needed for the health of our governance.
The public sector is a tricky game, since any benefits to workers are paid with taxpayer money. It should stand to reason that if the public is satisfied with the services they’re getting for their money, then there’s peace in the land. While Conservatives do all they can to undermine the role of government, Canadians in general are willing to pay their fair share of taxes to ensure drivable roads, tidy parks, a helpful selection of public services and dependable safety nets, and a decent livelihood for those who work to deliver those things. When public opinion reaches a five to one opposition against the union (as the article supporting unions acknowledges), then clearly things are not in a balanced position.
As mentioned here, the union is not likely to meet a more favourable mayor, so if they’re ever going to strike a deal that helps the City balance its budget and keeps as much of the workers’ perks as possible, this is likely the time. But as usual the view is not on the whole, it’s only the benefit of their part, and for now they’re mostly on their own.
This article explains why most of the city’s residents are not on their side. When people are losing their jobs and tax money is flowing out like water over Niagara Falls, it’s hard to side with people fighting to keep perks that are unimaginable in private-sector jobs and are being fought for using the public’s services as a bartering chip.
But of course, things are never so simple. This isn’t about the lack of appreciation for unions or an opportunistic ploy by the City to drive down public sector wages and benefits. It’s about dealing with a new era of economic realities. Whether bankable sick days are fair or not is not the question; the question is whether we, as a City, can afford such perks. The City of Toronto has been poor for a very long time and services, investments and the quality of life have been in decline. That’s not to say there haven’t been some positives, but they’ve been inadequate in the face of the City’s growing challenges.
Debates between unions, whether it’s public sector or private, and employers are rarely approached the way they should. Too often it’s a negotiation between the union vying for all it can (whether it’s saving what they’ve won previously or pushing for more) and the employer pushing the opposite. These approaches are understandable but not very effective for everyone involved. First and foremost employers and unions must view themselves for what they are: parts of a larger whole, of which the success of the whole is the vehicle for achieving what both sides want.
It seems rather obvious to me that a successful company depends on happy and productive employees, so there’s not much incentive to take advantage of them. Maybe that was the case a hundred years ago but we’ve come a long way since then, and mostly because of unions. Unions helped establish a balance that was sorely needed and was much to the benefit of the economy as a whole. It’s balance that’s the essential ingredient, and when the company or City starts to struggle, the two sides should work together to form a plan that works for both – it’s still negotiation, but with an eye on a mutual prize which is an easier goal.
When unions complain that they didn’t cause the recession and shouldn’t have to pay for the mistakes of greedy capitalists and authors of massive fraud, they’re completely missing the point. It may not seem fair but, for the workers of Chrysler or GM, for example, it doesn’t mean much when the enterprise goes down the tube. For the public unions of Toronto, the causes of the economic problems may have been someone else’s fault, but the fact is the City’s revenues are down and we, as a City, cannot afford to pay out the same level of perks. I would argue that a healthier balance has been needed for some time regardless of the economic conditions that surround the current impasse, but whatever reasons have gotten us here a new economic relationship is needed for the health of our governance.
The public sector is a tricky game, since any benefits to workers are paid with taxpayer money. It should stand to reason that if the public is satisfied with the services they’re getting for their money, then there’s peace in the land. While Conservatives do all they can to undermine the role of government, Canadians in general are willing to pay their fair share of taxes to ensure drivable roads, tidy parks, a helpful selection of public services and dependable safety nets, and a decent livelihood for those who work to deliver those things. When public opinion reaches a five to one opposition against the union (as the article supporting unions acknowledges), then clearly things are not in a balanced position.
As mentioned here, the union is not likely to meet a more favourable mayor, so if they’re ever going to strike a deal that helps the City balance its budget and keeps as much of the workers’ perks as possible, this is likely the time. But as usual the view is not on the whole, it’s only the benefit of their part, and for now they’re mostly on their own.
3 comments:
You're missing two major parts of the argument.
First, other city unions -- and council, for that matter -- were not asked to take concessions during their negotiations. If it's true that the city can't afford the benefits and compensation packages for two unions, then it seems bizarre to suggest that the city can afford the benefits and compensation packages for many other groups of workers (again, including councillors). That's the root of the "don't punish us" argument: it's clearly not fair for one group to have to bear the brunt of the city's ongoing failures to adequately manage its budget. If we're really all in this together, then we have to actually all be in this together.
Second, the union and the city are trying to strike a deal. They're still negotiating. Neither side has stopped bargaining, as far as I can tell; the strike is a tactic being used to raise the stakes so the city will move in its position (much as Mayor Miller's press conferences are a tactic used to raise the stakes so the union will move in its position). Furthermore, the fact that a strike is occurring is not proof that the bargaining process is no longer working; a strike is part of the bargaining process (the same, for that matter, would apply to a lockout).
Given that the union will very likely get a better deal from an arbitrator than anything the city's currently got on the table, a strike is actually a very good bargaining tactic. It makes the city move towards a deal for fear of having one imposed that they can't actually deal with.
The article explains nothing,, People in relatively prosperous Western states fail to sympathize with workers struggles for the simple reason that they have now forgotten that every right they have including maximum hours of work, minimum wage, workplace safety regulations, vacation rights, all of it was won by years of sacrifice and struggle by union activists. But people have forgotten this and now foolishly believe that these rights are somehow a simple result of some kind of abstract and natural 'progress' toward a more civilized society. But now as the generations become more distant from this fact, rights and privileges are being eroded once again but because of the success of neo-con ideology most people simply don't understand the need for solidarity. But go to the 'third-world' where unions have been allowed to function to the degree that they have in the West and you will see the real story... Trickle-down economics is a lie and it is always the front line workers and activists who have pushed average people into the reach of prosperity. Simple as that. And the tragedy is that even at the height of the union movement in many Western countries when workers were fighting for the most basic rights many people who benefited from these struggles as non-unionized workers failed to sympathize with those doing the struggling. Today is no different.
I tend to agree with ADHR, at least with his point that it's unfair to ask one group of workers to take a hit while others aren't expected to do the same (including non-unionized workers). And in the case of at least one of the unions involved, we're talking about staff who are not exactly the highest-paid ... I think it's a rather nice and not unreasonable perk for them to get up to 6 months of pay upon retirement in exchange for not taking sick days. When you look at the golden parachutes some more highly paid civil servants walk away from their jobs with, what the unions are asking for here doesn't seem outrageous to me.
That said, in an era where there isn't enough revenue, there are some tough choices to be made. Maybe rather than cutting benefits for workers, the city should look at alternative ways of providing services, or dropping services entirely. For example, I think that rather than have garbage pickup funded out of property taxes, residents should pay a separate fee based on the amount they toss out; and maybe those fees could be used to pay for contracted, rather than city-provided services.
Post a Comment