There are still some simple things in life. Despite the continuous blurring of our “lines in the sand” from the waves of globalization, some issues are tough to straddle. We can no longer discuss things in the safe harbour of “well, it depends.” You are “in” or you’re “out.” (For a great discussion on a surprising range of “lines in the sand” see this editorial piece on clothes drying.)

The labour-union/management debate is rich with long entrenched lines (trenches?) in the sand. I would suggest that deep down, each one of us is either with “the worker” or with “the man.” Maybe not. I won’t tell you which side I’m on. The split between these views carries ample political baggage. Look for it in these two editorials: (1) Buzz Hargrove’s piece in the Toronto Star, Not the Better Way to Bargain; and (2) Robert Fulford’s response in the National Post, This is why we hate unions. (Between the author, the newspaper, and the title, you will be able to guess which is which, and arguably much of the content, without even reading!)

I wrote earlier about “moments of truth,” whereby the right information surfaces. Not “right for the worker” or “right for the man,” but just right in the larger scheme. Idealistic? Absolutely! Unrealistic? Probably! Worth a shot? Why, not?!

The problem is that the “sides” in the argument have their own interpretations of things like “fair” and “reasonable,” and are quick to point out “isolated incidents” (Buzz on the two-day strike) or “sneak attack” (Fulford’s view of the same). The more polarized the divide, the noisier the discussion because “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile” becomes “try to take a mile because we should be getting at least and inch and half!” Zero benefit of the doubt is exchanged (or warranted), and the discussion spirals aimlessly back to “the worker” vs. “the man.”

Those ignorant of the history may repeat its errors, but I believe Mr. Hargrove’s references to the history of collective bargaining are irrelevant and dangerous. Too much has changed. Look at Canadian politics and ask, “who does a pro-union person vote for?” The answer has to include “it depends” (e.g. the line has blurred).

So, what is the answer for the TTC? Those running the system have to have sufficient funds to do so safely. Those funding the system have the right to demand the resources be used as effectively as possible. Those working in the system must receive a fare wage. Those using the system have to contribute their fair share. It is classic triple bottomline problem. To get even close to the “right” solution, (to even see the three lines!) the parties have to get the noise out of the dialogue.

This will require sufficient leadership (from somewhere) to foster mutual trust. This also means that everyone is vulnerable, and will rightly balk at any perceived breach of trust. Someone has to start the process, but until it gets going, the discussion will remain noisy, polarizing, and unproductive. Toronto needs a better fix soon.

• November 2011
• October 2011
• February 2011
• November 2010
• October 2010
• September 2010
• July 2010
• June 2010
• May 2010
• April 2010
• March 2010
• February 2010
• January 2010
• November 2009
• October 2009
• September 2009
• August 2009
• July 2009
• June 2009
• May 2009
• April 2009
• March 2009
• February 2009
• January 2009
• November 2008
• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• February 2008