McGuinty pushing TTC essential service bill to win Toronto votes, union says
Posted March 10, 2011 6:23 am.
This article is more than 5 years old.
Toronto’s transit union leader claims Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is pushing through TTC essential service legislation to win some votes in close Toronto ridings.
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113 president Bob Kinnear issued a statement this week blasting the provincial government for doing what the city wants when it comes to banning TTC strikes, but then denying Mayor Rob Ford’s request for increased transit funding.
McGuinty said the two issues can’t be compared because City Council backed Ford’s essential service plan. Ford hopes to have the essential service bill passed before the first labour contracts at the TTC expire later this month.
The mayor threatened that “Ford Nation” would vote out McGuinty this fall if he doesn’t provide more funding to the city.
Kinnear attempted to debunk the province’s claim that a TTC strike costs the city $50 million a day in lost economic activity.
“It seems that this $50 million figure was picked out of thin air with no basis in fact,” the union leader said.
Kinnear also took issue with claims TTC strikes are a matter of public health and safety. The labour leader cited a 2008 city staff report on making the TTC an essential service that said there’s no data to support the health and safety claim. That report also stated: “We believe that the TTC, the City and its residents would be best served by not declaring TTC as an essential service, but by leaving the situation as it is today.”
He also noted that over a month ago the union offered to sign a declaration to refer all unresolved bargaining issues to binding arbitration.
“City officials, acting under orders from the mayor’s office, not only refused our offer not to strike, they insulted the union by demanding we sign away our full collective bargaining rights forever,” he said.
“You can take our rights away, but you can’t take our voices away. We will continue to protest this legislation and the anti-worker sentiment it reflects.”
