TTC Strike

[sabotabby]

So, if a strike doesn't cause economic chaos and inconvenience people, what power does it have? What power do any workers have? What power do you have?

Also, Miller and the NDP are sell-outs, not that I'm surprised.

Comments

[glamaph0ne.livejournal.com]

Meh, here the teachers have been striking -- a while ago there was a HUGE ASS STRIKE with teachers -- but it doesn't seem to be helping. It inconveniences, but our government just ignores it blatantly.

[sabotabby]

In general, with the exception of something like public transit, it's hard for the public sector to hold an effective strike. There are other means of collective action that would work better, but trade unions are usually too backwards to consider them.

[glamaph0ne.livejournal.com]

Yes, I suppose this is true. Generally the government just ignores them if it wants to. Teachers are also a very delicate sector, since for instance if they decided to go on a long, massive strike it wouldn't help the students at all.

And what means? The teachers labour unions seem to suck a bit, granted.

(and random fact -- but this one teacher went on TV for a debate with the minister for education, and criticized her. When he went home, the police was waiting for him. Free speech ftw).

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

I agree with that.

Over here there was a High school teacher's strike that lasted two months and a senior faculty strike that lasted an entire semester.
I was supportive (and helped blockade my Uni gate in solidarity) of the demands of my proffs, but the whole handling of the strike here was so wrong because there was no solidarity between the senior faculty (which didn't really get what they wanted) and the junior faculty which has declared a work grievance, which I find irritating. Things would have been worked out much better if everyone worked together against the ministry of education at the time.

Sorry to hijack, but Strikes really are the most effective weapon against the Powers That Corrupt, and I really hate seeing that power being wasted and used to its fullest.

[eyelidlessness.livejournal.com]

But chaos and inconvenience is offputting, and that's... that's... bad. Always bad. There's no need to analyze this!

[wlach.livejournal.com]

But should such an essential service be allowed to shut down with no warning to the people who depend on it? I'm sorry, but I think Miller and the NDP did the right thing. The public has rights too.

[wlach.livejournal.com]

Which isn't, of course, to say that the TTC union should have no rights-- just that they acted inappropriately in this instance-- and that their rights have to be measured against the public interest (just like corporations and the private sector).

[marrythebed.livejournal.com]

The public has the right to join in, show support, attend picket lines, defend any fellow worker's right to strike, and orchestrate sympathy strikes - hey, you can't get to work anyway.

Inconveniencing people who are trying to get to work, by the way, is a way to distrupt the economy, which is what the capitalists are so desperate to protect when they shut down strikes. They are also desperate to perpetuate the idea that the transit strikers are greedy and selfish and have no right to inconvience us all. Along with, most importantly, protecting the feeling of total helplessness we all have towards our oppression, and discouraging the frightening-to-them notion that we actually CAN disrupt the system to our own benefit.

Congrats - you're swallowing it all hook, line and sinker.

[wlach.livejournal.com]

I should probably know better than to get involved in an argument here but...

Where did I say the transit workers shouldn't be able to go on strike? I'm all for people being able to negotiate a fair deal, and I understand that strikes (or arbitration) are a part of that. My only claim is that such a right has to be balanced against the public interest-- do you really think that it's ok to strand women and the elderly people at transit stops throughout the city, without any prior notice? Should there be no consequence for doing so?

[flintultrasparc.livejournal.com]

One alternative to a strike on transportation, is a fare strike... that is the various mass transit folks let it be known to patrons that they will not be collecting fares. This actually works better on buses.

I'm not really sure why women are regarded as a group that have a harder time during a transit strike the men. I do understand why the situation for the elderly is different. At the same time... generally a transit strike doesn't take out all forms of transit (like taxis).

Often times, a transit strike isn't without warnings. The expiration of the contract is known... often years in advance. Media tends to cover the negotiations going on. There are rallies.

The ability to collectively withdraw their labor is the best bargaining chip that workers have. Sometimes, they have to use it to show that they still have it.

Also, there are always consequences for strikes. First of all, the workers aren't getting paid while not at work. The difference is, transit is so important to everyone that it has such a profound impact--THEN MAYBE THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T MESS WITH TRANSIT WORKERS AND SHOULD NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH!

Really, there was like one transit strike in 25 years in New York City and and the last one lasted a couple of days. The government declared the strike illegal, jailed their leadership, etc... I think the transit workers should have given them more hell, and I think the strike would have been stronger had they been able to get other connected rails (like New Jersey and Long Island) to join them in the strike. It would have been stellar if the whole public sector would have struck AGAINST the law that forbids them from striking.

[accusehistory.livejournal.com]

I'm not really sure why women are regarded as a group that have a harder time during a transit strike the men.

Ask your friends at the TTC - they recognize why themselves. It's called the Request Stop program if you're not familiar.

[flintultrasparc.livejournal.com]

I'm not familiar with Toronto in particular, never been to the city so I think you use "friends" pejoratively. Now that I look it up... I'm not sure how I feel about it. Is there any study as to it's effectiveness in reducing violent crime towards women? The lateness of the hour being that usually (at least where I live) ridership is down that it might be a nice option for everyone. Still, I'd like to see some data on crime reduction in relation to the program.

[zingerella.livejournal.com]

I don't know if it reduced violent crime against women, but it does help women to feel safer, which, in itself allows women more mobility.

I'm no shrinking violet, and I have never allowed the lateness of the hour to affect my mobility, but there are times I've used the request stop program to avoid walking by particularly desolate or ill-lit sections of my route home, and that did allow me to feel safer. I can see how for a more timid woman, that ability might make the difference between feeling safe going out at night and feeling sufficiently unsafe to restrict her own mobility.

[zingerella.livejournal.com]

I don't know if you can measure whether random violence against women had decreased since the RS programme was started. I also don't even know if that's relevant to me.

Again, I'm going to get all personal on you.

Since I was old enough to go out on my own, people warned me about the danger of doing so. "Make sure you have a friend walk you home," "don't take the subway; women get raped on the subway. Take a cab," "Always go out in groups." I don't think I'm unusual. The prevailing cultural mythology about women "out alone" is that we're somehow more vulnerable to violent attack that we are in our homes, from our family. I say mythology, because statistics indicate that 1) men are in greater danger of random violent attack than women, in North American cities, and 2) women are far more likely to be violently attacked and/or sexually assaulted by someone they know than by strangers. But still we're told that wolves wait in dark places.

If all it takes to make some women feel safer and more confident is for a bus to stop in between stops at her street or door, whether she is actually safer or not, then I think we've managed to make that woman more mobile and stronger; we've managed to counter the effects of that mythology.

Now, personally, I think that men should be able to request stops too. Why not? If you're travelling alone and you feel unsafe, and the stop can safely be made at your own street, why shouldn't the driver stop?

I'm not sure what your point about U.S. suburbs is. People have been talking about the deleterious effects of suburban bloat on urban health for a very long time (see Jane Jacobs, et alia).

here, there be dragons

[flintultrasparc.livejournal.com]

Since you shared, so will I. (adding you to my friend's list so you can read it). I know that since, I've avoided some places, skipped on doing somethings I might have otherwise done, deliberately taken the bus rather than walk through some areas, and taken a cab when I didn't want to wait on the bus. So, I'm really sympathetic to this. At the same time, I have to live my life--right? The female whose psychology and socialization I have studied the most, my partner, often makes quite different choices than I do in this regard--namely I walk alone more than she does, take mass transit more than she does, go down to the corner store on foot at night more than she does, get home later from work than she does. Now, she's something of an introvert, so is less likely to be out and about anyway; but I know she doesn't feel as comfortable out on the street as I do--and this is despite (or because) I've had more run ins with street violence. The whole situation makes me sad; and it also makes me wonder if it is her more cautious attitude is the better course of action.

I agree with you that men should be able to make request stops to. Really, the reason it's at all feasible is that there are less people on the bus at night; so the bus might as well stop where people want it to, since it's going to be stopping less to pick up people who aren't there. Also, if everyone can make the request... it degenders the issue and might help change the mythology to make it closer to reality (as you point out, men are in greater danger of a random violent attack; but I'll also add that the attacker is usually a man as well).

That's the thing about mythology. While such a program might make one individual feel safer in taking the bus, it might make another more concerned about walking or taking the bus. That is, for me, why the question "have more women ridden the bus at night since the program was started?"

My point about the suburbs, etc... probably wasn't well made. I feel safer walking the street, when I see other people walking the street. To be more specific, I feel safer walking the street when I can see at least 3 (individuals or groups) or more distinct walkers. Seeing just 1 other (group or individual) makes me more nervous than seeing none. I know that cities used to be safer; and I know that some cities are safer (Toronto as compared to Baltimore) and part of that is better urban planning.

[flintultrasparc.livejournal.com]

There are particular desolate and ill-lit sections on my route home that I would also like to avoid. This would help me feel safer. It's good that people can feel safer. It's good for people to feel they have mobility. I wouldn't want anyone to be either immobile or feel unsafe. I would prefer, however, if our feelings were actually backed by reason.

Toronto compared to other Canadian/U.S. cities for homicide, robbery, break in. Strangely, that table is missing Baltimore, which is generally in close competition with DC, Detroit and New Orleans for murder capital. I'd also like to see a break down for Assault and Sexual Assault as well; and a break down by gender of the victim. At first glance, Ontario is safer than other Canadian provinces for Sexual Assault (and crimes of violence in general).

The question about the "Request Stop" program would have to try and measure if this difference was because of such a program, or other factors, or maybe a combination. Has the amount of violent crime among women bus riders decreased since this program was started? Has the quantity of women riding the bus at night (as compared to taking private transport) increased since the program was introduced? It might be that increasing public transportation use by women at night is the actual goal of the TTC and any actual reduction in violent crime towards women at night is incidental. If it does, however, make women safer... then hopefully we could adopt such a program everywhere.

People moved to suburbia because they thought that they would be safer out there... in the process, it seems that the U.S. has become a much more violent place (including in the cities) than places with higher population density.

[wlach.livejournal.com]

I think it's really the specifics of this situation that count here-- basically, the union promised earlier that it would give 48 hours notice in advance of a strike. Last Friday at 10pm at _night_, service was completely shut down with _no_ warning whatsoever (ostensibly because the union feared a public backlash). The union membership only just rejected the deal that was accepted by the board of directors a day before!

I don't necessarily blame the workers. From what I've read, it sounds as if the whole situation can be pinned to some ugly internal politics in the TTC union board. It's really just a regrettable situation all around. But I think it's fair to set _some_ limits (I'm not talking about taking the right to strike away altogether) on the behavior of the union to make sure this doesn't happen again.

[flintultrasparc.livejournal.com]

From what I've read, it seems like the timing of the strike was bad. It seems like they kind of went with it half-hearted at time that wouldn't be disruptive to most folks. Seems like this might be an example of a half-measure being less useful than a full one.

It might have been more effective if they gave 48 hour notice on Friday at 10PM; and then "the powers that be" would be on a deadline to work out an agreement before the Monday morning commute.

Maybe staggering the shut off at 1:30 AM on the subway, and having buses stop at dawn or some such.

Stranding people at 10PM on a Friday night does seem bad, but I wonder if they also chose that time in correspondence to that being when there was low ridership.

[ladypolitik.livejournal.com]

As a member of the public, I'd like the idea of physically mobilizing support on behalf of the TTC.

I just imagine that without a 48-hour strike notice, it would've been impossible for me to contribute any such efforts, had I been among those physically stranded at Finch station, with no other means of getting home in the east-end, at 12AM in the morning, you see.

[flintultrasparc.livejournal.com]

P.S. Just scoped your profile. Will you be going to both Kinetik and the Montreal Anarchist Bookfair? I'm planning to visit and go to both.

[wlach.livejournal.com]

A shame, but no! I live in Halifax these days. The Montreal Bookfair is a lot of fun though, so enjoy! (and look up sabotabby if she's there!)

[shelestel.livejournal.com]

I think that the main reason why everyone in North America knows that the system sucks but there is no mass movement to do anything about it is the fact that people are not inconvenienced enough. If you live in NA, a moderate effort results in a relatively high standard of living. Such climate does not foster activism. People rebel when they have little or nothing to lose, and the present system operates within -- and takes care to (re)create -- a space where people do have something to lose.

[flintultrasparc.livejournal.com]

People rebel when they have hope, when they feel that they have efficacy. If you take a look at labor militancy in the U.S. and Canada, I think you'll see that labor militancy can be a good bit higher in those areas which have a higher standard of living (or higher human development index, etc...). People have a lot less to loose in the Southern U.S. or Appalachia, yet union strength is found in the U.S. North East. Likewise, Canada has far more labor militancy (and I suspect one of the reasons is that when you are on strike, you still have access to affordable healthcare).

Desperation is as much likely to cause people to sell out and stomp on each other, as it does to inspire solidarity and action.

[shelestel.livejournal.com]

Interesting, thanks.

[flintultrasparc.livejournal.com]

John Gaventa's, Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence & Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley is a good book about efficacy.

[flintultrasparc.livejournal.com]

U.S. Union Membership Rates (Map 2004)
U.S. Poverty by County (Map 2000)

Sorry, I don't have similar maps including Canada, but I think it illustrates my point.

[lovableatheist.livejournal.com]

Blah! I back them 100%, but also agree with your reply to a comment above that there so many other ways the TTC could fight this battle without pissing off all of Toronto. It's a shame that unions don't get a little more creative in their struggles, especially when it always ends up turning people against the union.

[marrythebed.livejournal.com]

It's on Toronto not to be pissed and instead to show full support and to go on strike themselves. Not that everyone in Toronto feels the way you do - I'm sure that, like in NYC's transit strike recently, many workers are in support of the TTC's struggle and do realize that a fight against oppressive labor practices benefits and encourages us all.

Also, one "creative" strategy that we fought for in NYC and that perhaps the TTC fought for there is to demand lower fares and more comprehensive transit alongside with demands about their own jobs.

[seaya.livejournal.com]

Yeah, what if they worked but refused to take any fares from people? That would be cool :). Like a fare strike.

[ladypolitik.livejournal.com]

Exactly. I was *just* about to suggest this. :)

[lovableatheist.livejournal.com]

I thought about that when I first heard they went on strike. I figured that, since it was the end of the month, they could have announced to the public that, if they didn't have a contract by May 1st, they would refuse to collect fares. It would've been perfect timing, as people who buy passes wouldn't have bought them if they knew they would be getting free rides.

[threeliesforone.livejournal.com]

In the "Speak Up" column in the Star, people are stating that the TTC should be privatized for their crimes against humanity! (ie: striking).

How ironic... seeing as that's the reason why the union went on strike: the maintenance workers are being contracted out.

[smhwpf.livejournal.com]

In some sense there's a difference between a strike against a private employer and one in a major public service. In the first case, the employer loses profits but the public isn't seriously inconvenienced - they can go to alternative suppliers.

But if a) public sector employees and b) employees for privately-owned public services are to have any power at all and not get totally shat upon, then yeah, sometimes the public's going to get inconvenienced. Problem is, more depoliticized and deunionized a society. the less the public are likely to see the strikers' struggle as linked to their own.

Interestingly here there's been a nurses strike lately, which in Britain would be virtually unthinkable, but actually seems to have been getting a lot of public support. But Sweden has traditionally been a lot more unionized.

One trend (ambling on a tangent) that seems to happen a lot in Britain is a much greater relative prevalence of one-day strikes, which is probably partly due to reduced labour power, but may also be to some degree a sign of 'smarter' strikes (at least if your goal is fairly narrow rather than a broader political goal.) The turnout on a one-day strike gives both sides a better picture of how much support the union has, and reach a deal that reflects that balance of power, without costing either side too much.

For me at the moment, I can't see anyone quaking in fear at a Peace Researchers strike. We do have institutionalized consultation processes etc. though.

[northbard.livejournal.com]

I think you're framing the question in a way that sets up only one acceptable answer, and I don't believe it's a fair summation of the situation. The question many people are asking is : was giving 30 minutes warning and stranding people across the largest metropolitan area on Canada in the middle of the night the only option that union leadership had?

I believe in the right to strike, the need for it to have an economic effect (else what's the point?), etc..

I also think there is a difference between inconveniencing people and endangering them, either directly by stranding them where they have no means of getting home, or indirectly by making it literally impossible to make a living.

The people most directly affected by a transit strike are those who depend the most on transit, which means the people who have no other options ie - the working class, the poor, and the folks who are physically incapable of getting around more than a few blocks without transit. The people, one might think, that unions were created to defend against abuses by those in power.

A strike which dumps these people out on the streets with no warning in the middle of the night? That strands people in the middle of industrial areas, residential neighborhoods, etc.. with no means of making their way home that doesn't involve hours of travel or major expense?

That sucks, plain and simple.

Rights should, IMO, be balanced by responsibility.

I'm not saying they don't have the right to strike. But I do think that the lack of respect for their riders (aka fellow human beings) shown by not choosing a different method of announcing the strike is something ugly and mean-spirited. I think that the damage to goodwill that they have caused with their political allies, their supporters and their own membership (many of whom have expressed upset at the situation) may well be irreparable.

[accusehistory.livejournal.com]

Sums it up quite nicely.

[northbard.livejournal.com]

I think I should also point out that while I disagree, I utterly sympathize with sabotabby's position on the matter, and it's entirely possible that my take on the matter stems from years of having been utterly reliant on public transit to live when my mobility was limited by physical issues.

[flintultrasparc.livejournal.com]

Do you think a strike starting in the middle of the night would have been better with advance notice? Maybe striking the Subway at 1:30 when it closes anyway, and the buses shortly after (both long before the morning commute); would be the way that had the least impact on the majority of commuters--while that would allow other forms of transportation (taxis, etc...) to curb up to meet the needs that night, but not likely the morning rush?

The only reason to not announce before hand would be concern about what, the government passing a law against it before it happens? Scabs ? We're either of those a realistic possibility in this case?

[northbard.livejournal.com]

the reason they didn't announce beforehand, apparently, was fear for their safety.

[accusehistory.livejournal.com]

The strike wasn't just inconveniencing people. Those who could afford to get around the strike did even if we grumbled while doing so.

The people screwed over most were minimum-wage earners with little to no job security coming from the outer suburbs.

[sabotabby]

That's the problem, because those are the same people who are helped, long-term, by militant labour. But obviously they're the most hurt by it short-term.

[flintultrasparc.livejournal.com]

It's the same with almost all strikes. Those least able to afford to endure a strike, honor a boycott or not cross a picket line--are the ones who most have to hold the fort and will benefit the most in the long term.