It's nonsense that CUPE are striking and it's over such a frivolous issue.  They are blocking people from going into public buildings so we can hear "their side" of why they are striking.  All I know is that we are in a recession and people who want to work should be allowed to work.  It would great to fire all the strikers and give their jobs to our unemployed.

Well Kali you may not understand why we are striking but when a city council can give themselves a 9% pay raise in April, they awarded contracts to other municipal services in March with exactly the same issues local 79 and 416 have without demanding these concessions did the economy go bad between March 2009 and June 2009? and why don't they just offer to send it to binding arbitration if they are right? Because they don't care about the tax payer , they want to make it look like we are being unreasonable and all we are asking is to be treated as fair as other services. If you research on the web you can find the avg wage settlement for non union and union municipal servants throughout Ontario. Look at this and when this is over see if we were being so unreasonable.

I don't have any sympathy for the strikers because they are arguing minor points (i.e. benefits and raises) while the rest of must go without these things and still get taxed so we can pay the unions.  I don't agree that the city councilors should have voted themselves a raise in these times but that does not justify striking. 

My household has been living on one income for a year because one of us lost our job and there are very few jobs to be had.  The taxpayer isn't going to have sympathy for unions who walk off the job because they are disinterested in contributing towards a solution to Canada's economic problems by forgoing some of their generous pay and benefits.

When my workplace said they couldn't pay raises this year because of the economic times, I didn't throw a temper tantrum and walk off the job. I had been reading the paper, I saw that millions of jobs had been lost across North America and I realized that this could be coming.  Like many professionals who heard that news this year, I tightened my belt and kept going to work.  I didn't check if my bosses got raises or whined that some of our competitors' compensation packages were better, I did what I was paid to do.  I'm asking our city workers to be professionals and get back to work for starters.  As for realism (re: their pay and benefits), I guess I can't ask for miracles.   

I am a retired steelworker from Hamilton. I worked for Stelco Steel and was a member of Local 1005 USWA. I survived 3 strikes at Stelco and the slurs of non-union people including family members. I am so lucky to have belonged to a union because my rights were protected, my health and safety was, if not guaranteed, at least protect by the laws our provincial government enacted. However, I would much rather have worked for a private company like Stelco, given the incredible animosity between the union and the company that started in 1946 and continued until the sale of the company to US Steel. Governments, whether municipal, provincial, or federal are the worst employers in Canada and quite likely their counterparts in the United States. Instead of fruitful and sometimes tough negtiations they instead try to pressure their employees into substandard agreements without negotiations by enlisteing the public to support them. They try to enact laws to force the employees back to work as a negotiating technique. This defeats the the institution of unionism that during elections canidates embrace to get votes, but when it comes time to treat these voters, who are now employees fairly, they let them down and treat them like some kind of scum or vermin. I have made a short answer very long, but I think that all government employees deserve our support and should be given the right to strike since it is the tactic of last resort that every union is forced to make by the employer to get the employer to negotiate fairly. No one likes to strike, we all lose ,but if empoyers would embrace the new millenium and start treating all employees fairly maybe we could avert further work stopages.

Thanks for the support , you are absolutely right about this as far as striking . The workers just want to be treated exactly the same as other municiple services that have signed contracts as recently as March of 2009 without any of these takeaways that they are demanding from us. The economy didn't go any farther south between March and June than earlier in the year. And it didn't stop City Council from appointing themselves a 9% raise? In regards to the non-unionized types who bitch and complain that we ask for too much and if we are not happy to quit, I say to them if they think they would enjoy the job than apply nobody is stopping them but I can gaurantee if they do get hired and they see the amount of waste through over management and lack of working staff through pencil pushing desk jockeys and the performance bonuses they get off the backs of the workers they will want a raise at contract time too ,they will want to be treated fair, treated with respect and their hand will not shake on payday.

I understand your's and manys frustration, but we are not only fighting for the members now but for future civic members who deserve to make a liveable wage and benefits to provide for their family's. I wonder what the reaction would be if the Government decide to reduce maternity leave from 1 year to 6 weeks or eliminate it completely, because they said they couldn't afford it? It has been people like unions fighting for these things that have made it beter for all, along with equal pay for equal work. Everyone deserves to earn a liveable wage and proper benefits not just the suits.

Well if anyone is interested n working for the city they can apply, and as far as firing all the workers this is a legal strike, and most of the employees are well educated and trained. This could all be ressolved by binding arbitration if the Mayor and Council wanted it resolved so the public wouldn't be inconvienienced , the decision would be binding to both parties, but then the City Council wouldn't be saving about 15 million a day? So ask yourself how many days does the strike need to last before enough money can be saved to pay for the New Street Cars and it doesn't matter how inconvienced people to the Mayor as long as The Mayor and Council get what they want. I am sure most employees would have accepted no raise with the status quo for benefits if the City Council really wanted no strike as we are not oblivious to the economic situation and we do have bills and family's.

 wow....

the workers that use their strike power to bring positive change to working conditions helps all workers.

everyone wants a raise.  not just the unionized worker.

Kyle you are so right , I hear so many people complain about unions and strikes but do they ever ask themselves what working conditions would be like for them if everyone just accepted what employers gave them freely? Do they complain about maternity leave here that is now 1 year where as in the USA it is 6 weeks? No they don't but as long as the work force continue to accept the status quo and not believe they are entitled to earn a liveable wage and benefits witch is the whole point of working , to improve ones life style not just get by while making corporate suits wealthier. If people don't stand up for what is right now then the future people will wake up to will be a real slap in the face.

I voted yes. Most municipal services are not so critical that they need either to be legislated back to work or to be declared as un-strikable. But neither side can be right on all issues or even direction. Regarding the Toronto strike at the moment, when you have hot button issues like bankable sick days, it angers people who are paying for such things. And I think they should be angry over that. NO-one should be able to bank sick days. They are not a right and they are not sacred just because they have been negotiated or extorted depending on your point of view, in past contracts.Sick days are to help you get by and meet your financial obligations should you actually be sick. They are a privilege and no-one, government workers or private sector workers should bank them as unearned pay.

I've been in CUPE (in the '70s/early 80's) and I've been self employed full and part-time  for 3 decades. I currently work full time for a University (tax/tuition supported) and have many benefits here, though not that one. I've been subcontracted and have subcontracted. I worked hard and long for decades and I appreciated every dollar I earned . At no point would I have ever considered bankable sick days to be fair to an employer (which I've been) or to me as a worker. One other thing I have noticed is that my current employer has many people who've been here their entire careers and have a sense of entitlement they do not deserve, having never worked in "the real world". (The real world being that of working for one's self, or for small businesses which are often a yearly expense away from insolvency.) If CUPE in Toronto wants to be fair and to have their ultimate employers - the taxpayers - support them, they will have to burn their sense of entitlement and build a new sense of value and trust with their employer. Drop the untenable sick day pay-out and move towards an agreement that recognises the value of the workers but also the limited financial restraints and the reality of the world and city's economy.

Despite what I said above, I still support CUPE's right to strike. Compromise must be - and eventually will be - reached. A price will be paid by both sides.

I hadn't wanted to post on this thread because I was so turned off by the rhetoric posted by the pro-union folks.  It makes people dislike CUPE more when they are trying to position themselves as heroes who are supposedly fighting for the rest of society by asking for more raises and benefits.  Greed and entitlement are the motivation for the strikers. 

I'm glad to see Al's comments which show his life experience on both sides of the fence.  I personally found my brief time in an union to be a stifling environment where hard work and creativity were discouraged because it made the long-term employees look bad.  Any decent private sector employer will be good to its staff if they work hard. 

I believe that unions are no longer necessary in today's society because people have a lot more options than working for the local coal mine because that's the only job in town.  I don't support the municipal workers right to strike, particularly after I've seen what their strike has done to Toronto in the past 5 weeks.  This beautiful city is slowly unravelling from the effects of the strike on Toronto tourism, local businesses and public health.  I'm certain we'll have more businesses declaring bankruptcy because of the strike which means even more unemployment.  I can't imagine how many mice and rats that will be in Toronto homes by the fall because of the garbage situation. 

 rhetoric?

unions not necessary?

every little positive thing about your job can likely be attributed to the labour movements and unions fighting for it.  the alternative is slave labour.  why do you think apparel manufactures choose sweatshops? its cheaper.  businesses would love to have that domesticaly to save even more money, but unions have fought for something better (see minimum wage, 5 day work week, 8 hour day... etc) the result is laws that dictate to businesses how much they have to pay, how long they have to work, the conditions people are expected to put up with.

Yes after those laws are in place, the union's role is less, however, without the unions how long do you think it would take for business interests to reverse the laws? 

I don't think that all businesses are as bad as you see them, Kyle.  If you have only worked for bad bosses and companies, I can understand why you would be cynical about employers.  Employers are motivated by the profit line but they are also motivated in how much market share they can get.  A business can only go so far with exhausted, demoralized and underpaid staff. 

I've had my share of bad employers in my career.  It made me appreciate all of the good bosses and employers when I've worked for them.  My answer to bad jobs was to take personal responsibility for my career.  

Some companies have a reputation for not paying well or being bad working environments.  In my experience, these companies were where a person gets their start in an industry or it was a dead end job.  Companies like these are where many unions get their start.  People need to understand what their goal is when they take a job - getting some experience to jump to a better company, making a bunch of money or being content with the status quo.  

Unions have their place in other parts of the world where people have less options.  If all unions were abolished in Canada today, the laws are in place to protect Canadian employees.  Legal precedent can't be overturned on a whim - it takes decades of court cases to change the law. 

Another thing to consider is human decency - there are a lot of decent people out there whose goal is not simply to exploit their fellow human being.  Even if some of our laws changed to more pro-business, I believe that a lot of companies would not turn their workplace into a sweatshop. 

 business is motivated by profit. to me this trumps almost any sort of human decency.  the only way business operates in a human fashion is if they can profit from it.  

business can only go so far with demoralized staff... thats correct... but the interest should not be the fact that the business will suffer, it should be that those people are demoralized.

what would a business turn its manufacturing plant (for example) into if laws allowed it? not a sweat shop? how long would people have to work and how much do you think they would be paid if laws did not protect them?

Except of course, the decency of the business owner - who is entitled to make a living. I suppose that particular "human" has no rights, according to your view of the world, because that human started a business... to earn a profit... and is therefore inherently evil and indecent? 

Again... I suppose the "person" that owns the business isn't a "person" by your definition. What principle are you advocating here Kyle? That workers--those individuals who needed the idea, risk and general productive enterprising ability of the business owner--are somehow entitled to take from the business owner according to whatever they demand their "need" to be? 

well i guess is we presume that business is not in business to make money then the owner would be decent... or if they had some ingenious way of having workers happily work for nothing...

business owners in my eyes, take beyond their needs.