And, as promised, O'Brien sent a letter sunday to Andre Cornellier. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/stor...it-strike.html As a result, they're avoiding putting it to a vote yet again. God forbid it cements their resolve or perhaps it's to avoid the possibility of ending the strike. But then again, it's not about the public, as stated by Cornellier. No, it's about the union. On a side note Fairmont Château Laurier is offering rooms for 99$ a night. Tempting for the week of the 22nd-24th where I have to work and don't have a ride. So, are you a complete fucking idiot? You don't think that O'Brien is just playing politics here? Again, the union had a vote at which they voted near-unanimously to reject the city's offer. O'Brien then turned around, made an insult of a "concession", and then put the offer forward, at which point the union leadership sensibly told him to fuck off. Now O'Brien is trying to get everyone to forget that the union already told him to fuck off and is trying to play games. By the way, why won't the city take the compromise deal put forward where they table the scheduling issues for a couple of months? No. If I were a complete fucking idiot, I'd take the fact that the union head is telling the city to fuck off and ignore it once they decided to avoid bringing the tabled offer back to their union especially considering his demeanor in that CTV newscast. One might think that informing the union members, and holding a vote would be the next thing to do in this case considering the union's demands are deemed to be unreasonable in this economic climate and in the hopes to brace for the inevitable recession. That being said, it wouldn't be unreasonable to try to get another vote to see if you can squash the strike right then and there. In order to play politics, you'd need to gain something in the process. The public is already outraged and on the city's side in this fight, so what advantage does that give to the mayor? Why not just hold a vote to demonstrate to the public that you're serious about the affair you've been in for the past 6 days? That is, unless it doesn't actually go in that direction and the strike gets squashed.

Well my line of work means that I advise the employers in this kind of dispute and I'll just say this - everyday I stay doing what I'm doing I am a littler happier trade unions exist and that we have the kind of employment rights legislation we generally have Please elaborate.

In order to play politics, you'd need to gain something in the process. The public is already outraged and on the city's side in this fight, so what advantage does that give to the mayor? Apart from that bullshit web-poll have you demonstrated this statement yet?

Well my line of work means that I advise the employers in this kind of dispute and I'll just say this - everyday I stay doing what I'm doing I am a littler happier trade unions exist and that we have the kind of employment rights legislation we generally have Please elaborate. Triangle Shirtwaist. Google it?

Triangle Shirtwaist. Google it? A more recent example from the right-to-work South.

Triangle Shirtwaist. Google it? A more recent example from the right-to-work South. Christ

In order to play politics, you'd need to gain something in the process. The public is already outraged and on the city's side in this fight, so what advantage does that give to the mayor? Apart from that bullshit web-poll have you demonstrated this statement yet? 4000+ people voted on the poll. What exactly makes it "bullshit". Do you have anything to offer showing favor for the counter argument in the public's eye? You can also simply do a search for articles regarding the matter and look towards the comments section and the amount of people recommending said comments. It should be apparent.

In order to play politics, you'd need to gain something in the process. The public is already outraged and on the city's side in this fight, so what advantage does that give to the mayor? Apart from that bullshit web-poll have you demonstrated this statement yet? 4000+ people voted on the poll. What exactly makes it "bullshit". Do you have anything to offer showing favor for the counter argument in the public's eye? You can also simply do a search for articles regarding the matter and look towards the comments section and the amount of people recommending said comments. It should be apparent. And Snakes on a Plane is gonna be huge and Ron Paul is totally going to be president! Do not confuse self-selecting web-polls and the echo-chamber of on-line forums as indicative of the general population. The very best you can say is that amongst tech-savvy people who are highly motivated to comment on news stories posted on the internet the general mood is anti-union.

In order to play politics, you'd need to gain something in the process. The public is already outraged and on the city's side in this fight, so what advantage does that give to the mayor? Apart from that bullshit web-poll have you demonstrated this statement yet? 4000+ people voted on the poll. What exactly makes it "bullshit". Do you have anything to offer showing favor for the counter argument in the public's eye? You can also simply do a search for articles regarding the matter and look towards the comments section and the amount of people recommending said comments. It should be apparent. And Snakes on a Plane is gonna be huge and Ron Paul is totally going to be president! Do not confuse self-selecting web-polls and the echo-chamber of on-line forums as indicative of the general population. The very best you can say is that amongst tech-savvy people who are highly motivated to comment on news stories posted on the internet the general mood is anti-union. The ones at the cbc web site seem to have different opinions circling around. One even linked me to the bus driver's live journal site. I also happen to live in the city and after speaking with several of my coleagues, the consensus matches said poll and article comments. There's even a facebook group for it.

Triangle Shirtwaist. Google it? A more recent example from the right-to-work South. Christ "Within two years of the accident insurance companies and the North Carolina business lobby collaboratively introduced legislation to severely limit the compensation available to injured workers and relatives of killed workers." Stick it to that Union Scum!

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8lIxeAvrh70 Because this thread has gone on too long without a tangentially related Youtube break, here's the union delegated break from hurling arguments at the impenetrable walls of Fort Meiz.

My friend just successfully used the situation of Warhammer 40k's God-Emperor of Man as a metaphor for the transit system in Ottawa. ie, "we cannot slay the God-Emperor of OCTranspo to re-envision it as something greater because, as broken as it is, we need it or else everything would grind to a halt."

Oh god, that video went from moderately shrugworthy to fuckawesome in about half a second flat. I think we all know when.

Oh god, that video went from moderately shrugworthy to fuckawesome in about half a second flat. I think we all know when. absolutely ridiculous.

Living End! So awesome.

The ones at the cbc web site seem to have different opinions circling around. One even linked me to the bus driver's live journal site. I also happen to live in the city and after speaking with several of my coleagues, the consensus matches said poll and article comments. There's even a facebook group for it. Fuck, it's 2005 all over again.

Wikipedia puts the population of Ottawa at about 800,000. So a 4,000 person online poll means pretty much dick.

Wikipedia puts the population of Ottawa at about 800,000. So a 4,000 person online poll means pretty much dick. The part that makes it worth dick is the online part, the 4,000 part has nothing to do with it. I wouldn't trust an online poll with 10,000 participants, but polls of an entire nation are often considered representative with as few as a thousand.

Oh god, that video went from moderately shrugworthy to fuckawesome in about half a second flat. I think we all know when. Truly, every conflict ever should be solved that way. Can't decide where to eat? Pinball. Need to work shit out in the Middle East? Pinball. I don't think there is anything pinball can't solve.

Sorry to necropost, but I thought it might be apt to ressurect this thread in light of the vote coming up on Thursday. Labour Minister Rona Ambrose has ordered that the workers vote on the latest proposal made by the city (as opposed to only the Union Executives on behalf of the workers). Union Head Andre Cormeiller (who some of you might remember from that CTV clip earlier in this thread) on the upcoming vote: "It's just to show again how they try to undermine the union, and to try to negotiate with our members instead of trying to negotiate with the union," "The bottom line is family life. Family, family, family," said Cornellier in a direct appeal to members. "If we let this go through, it's the end of you and your family, it's the end of the union, it's the end of everything. That is what (management) wants. They want control of you. We have a little bit of that control, and they want to turn our system upside down." "If 51 per cent of us -- 50 per cent plus one -- vote Yes to this contract, (the union) is finished. It's finished. That's why it's important to vote No... They think they're going to get 50 plus one, because if they do, we're finished. ... So please, please, brothers and sisters, please vote No and let's show them that the mayor, Alain Mercier (the head of OC Transpo) ... and the public will not decide what working conditions we're going to have in the workplace." I'm afraid I have a problem with his stance for a couple of reasons (assuming I'm not misinformed) 1. M. Cormeiller is placing the needs of the union not only over the needs of the city and the public, but, it seems to me, the immediate needs of even individual employees. While yes, I understand (as everyone should) the importance of protecting worker rights, sometimes people need to understand the need for concessions. 2. My more controversial concern is that as important to a city's infrastructure public transit is, the fact is, driving buses, as a job, does not require any extant skills beyond the licencing requirements for driving a bus as well as whatever training OC transpo provides. Senior bus drivers, by my understanding, can work a lot of overtime, and make over 70 to 80 thousand dollars a year. My opinion is that an unskilled worker should not be making more than say, a teacher (who don't even have an option to do overtime, unless you count independant, after hours tutoring, which is of course, not covered or mandated by their union), or a younger doctor in a small practice. 3. The main issue: scheduling. I understand that bus drivers have gotten used to having full control of their scheduling (provided they are senior enough). But this does raise certain problems, especially compared to jobs that other, more skilled workers, might detain. First off, I do believe the mayor has a point when he says that he doesn't want to see people driving large buses for two consecutive 7 hour shifts. Yes, I agree that that's dangerous and that the extra hours the driver puts in towards his overtime do not justify the risk of having a tried person behind the wheel of a large vehicle. Secondly, other people in the real world don't have the luxury of making their own hours, why should they? Because they're used to it by now and it's not fair for the city to take that away? I'm sorry, but I can't sympathise with that. André Corneiller harps on how the city's proposal will affect the driver's "family life". Saying that the drivers won't be free to tend to their family if the city decides their schedules. If my loved one has, say, a school recital or something while I'm scheduled to work and it's super important for me to be there, I take a personal day off! I don't understand why the Union believes it's unreasonable that bus drivers should be subject to the same rules that the rest of the working world must abide by? In any case, perhaps it is possible that I've been misinformed on one of the issues. I'm trying my best to stay abreast of the situation, but, at this time, I feel less and less inclined to sympathise with the union on their concerns. I don't believe that the union caving to the City's requests constitutes a dangerous precedent that will "destroy" this, or any other union. I believe the City Council's proposal to be more than fair, especially considering that it is a job that a low-skilled person can do and be paid more than certain people who go to university or college for years. My 2 loonies.

Given the way the strike has been carried out, I've lost my interest in siding with the union. In Montreal, transit strikes still provide service during rush hour, at least initially. This way, people see how crappy it is to lose transit, but the city doesn't shut down. And it gives them something else to take away - some more leverage. Here, it was an absolute strike, aimed at Christmas shoppers, students doing their exams, and a world hockey championship. In the middle of the worst weather we've got this winter. I support worker's rights, but they've been holding the poor people of the city hostage by poorly carrying out their strike.

Union Head Andre Cormeiller (who some of you might remember from that CTV clip earlier in this thread) on the upcoming vote: "It's just to show again how they try to undermine the union, and to try to negotiate with our members instead of trying to negotiate with the union," "The bottom line is family life. Family, family, family," said Cornellier in a direct appeal to members. "If we let this go through, it's the end of you and your family, it's the end of the union, it's the end of everything. That is what (management) wants. They want control of you. We have a little bit of that control, and they want to turn our system upside down." "If 51 per cent of us -- 50 per cent plus one -- vote Yes to this contract, (the union) is finished. It's finished. That's why it's important to vote No... They think they're going to get 50 plus one, because if they do, we're finished. ... So please, please, brothers and sisters, please vote No and let's show them that the mayor, Alain Mercier (the head of OC Transpo) ... and the public will not decide what working conditions we're going to have in the workplace." If 50%+1 of the union members vote yes, then the union isn't finished...the union has spoken. It's not like they're voting to work overtime for no pay or be moved into company towns or get rid of vacation time. They're deciding whether or not avoiding the concessions being asked is worth a further strike. Seems like the kind of thing a union should be doing. 2. My more controversial concern is that as important to a city's infrastructure public transit is, the fact is, driving buses, as a job, does not require any extant skills beyond the licencing requirements for driving a bus as well as whatever training OC transpo provides. Senior bus drivers, by my understanding, can work a lot of overtime, and make over 70 to 80 thousand dollars a year. My opinion is that an unskilled worker should not be making more than say, a teacher (who don't even have an option to do overtime, unless you count independant, after hours tutoring, which is of course, not covered or mandated by their union), or a younger doctor in a small practice. I wouldn't go here. Also, at least down here south of the border, teachers do have some "overtime" options, generally in the form of additional pay for shit like coaching sports (or other after-school activities) or teaching summer classes. Still not quite equivalent, but a teacher willing to make the commitment can make more. And I don't see any real problem with an unskilled worker who is working significantly more hours than a teacher making more than a teacher. 3. The main issue: scheduling. I understand that bus drivers have gotten used to having full control of their scheduling (provided they are senior enough). But this does raise certain problems, especially compared to jobs that other, more skilled workers, might detain. First off, I do believe the mayor has a point when he says that he doesn't want to see people driving large buses for two consecutive 7 hour shifts. Yes, I agree that that's dangerous and that the extra hours the driver puts in towards his overtime do not justify the risk of having a tried person behind the wheel of a large vehicle. Secondly, other people in the real world don't have the luxury of making their own hours, why should they? Because they're used to it by now and it's not fair for the city to take that away? I'm sorry, but I can't sympathise with that. André Corneiller harps on how the city's proposal will affect the driver's "family life". Saying that the drivers won't be free to tend to their family if the city decides their schedules. If my loved one has, say, a school recital or something while I'm scheduled to work and it's super important for me to be there, I take a personal day off! I don't understand why the Union believes it's unreasonable that bus drivers should be subject to the same rules that the rest of the working world must abide by? Yeah, I've yet to see any compelling explanation of why this is such a heinous request. It's not quite job banking, but it's definitely one of those perks of a union job that you're going to have a hard time getting the general public behind. Though, IIRC didn't they take a pay cut or something to get this scheduling privilege? And isn't the city now wanting to take that back, without increasing their pay to the previous level? That might be an issue. Possible I'm mixing up my topics, though.

Yeah, I've yet to see any compelling explanation of why this is such a heinous request. It's not quite job banking, but it's definitely one of those perks of a union job that you're going to have a hard time getting the general public behind. Though, IIRC didn't they take a pay cut or something to get this scheduling privilege? And isn't the city now wanting to take that back, without increasing their pay to the previous level? That might be an issue. Possible I'm mixing up my topics, though. Yes, you're correct on that, which is why I understand that it's a prickly issue. Clearly, that being said, it appears to me that the City Council, at that time, didn't fully comprehend how letting the Union and workers manage their own shifts could be abused in this sense (and yes, I do believe it is an abuse), and is now hoping to backpedal on that, by offering an even higher raise than what the drivers had before the last change, which I think is justifiable. Basically the City is saying (as I understand it): Look, I know we said that you could schedule your own shifts, but we don't think it's working out the way we anticipated, so let us take over again and we'll give you even more money than before. Don't forget that all this overtime the senior drivers are getting are extra taxpayer dollars that need not be spent. Split the hours more evenly and yeah, senior drivers will likely have to adjust to lesser means. I know that that's a lot to ask of them, but they were taking advantage of the system to begin with, in my opinion, and the City's offer is more in line with reality, which is where the rest of us live.

One of you is saying that the City is trying to take back the scheduling rights without giving back the pay that was apparently given up to gain those rights. The other is saying that the City is trying to take back the scheduling rights and is offering more money than was apparently given up to gain those rights. Which situation is reality?

Basically the City is saying (as I understand it): Look, I know we said that you could schedule your own shifts, but we don't think it's working out the way we anticipated, so let us take over again and we'll give you even more money than before. Assuming this is the case, then the union leaders need to be taken out behind the maintenance shed and shot in the mouth. Assuming this is the case, mind you. But it wouldn't surprise me. And would explain why they don't want to put it to a vote...since 51% of drivers probably aren't senior enough to milk the the system in this way. Which situation is reality? I may have to look into this in a little while, before discussing it much more. Either one could be the case now, as it's been a little while since this thread was moving.