Ottawa Transit Strike 2008-2009

Consolidated Repository of Information

This document is a work in progress!

There is a lot of confusion and little information circulating around Ottawa about the nature and details of the impasse between the Amalgamated Transit Union #279 and the City of Ottawa that led to the current transit strike. I've dug up some of the most definitive sources available and posted them here. Maybe this will clear some things up.

Notably still missing from all this information is numbers. Publicized statements and arguments from both sides have rarely been accompanied by any supporting quantitative data or analysis.

I'd like to put some of the major facts and references gathered here into a Wikipedia article shortly. In the meantime, here it is for your perusal, with bonus commentary from yours truly. Comments, corrections, additions and recommendations are solicited!

Progress of Events

Most of the reference links in this section are CBC & Ottawa Citizen articles. There is no evidence to suggest that the events and facts reported by those media are false (except where noted). Their commentary, however, is of course subject to interpretation and bias.

Players

Scheduling Issue -- Best Resources Available

Gleaned Facts

Discussion

NOTE: These are my own personal musings. I have my opinions about the situation. They're probably clear from my comments. I recommend taking my comments with a grain of salt, of course.

If you have a viewpoint or comment you'd like to add to this discussion, please send it to me and I'll be glad to incorporate it.

THIS JUST IN (Jan 28): "We hope that public will start using our web site as source where they can get information based on the facts and not on biased perspectives" -- ATU strike website.

The emotive language on the union's official website (example: calling the City "Cohones-less chickens") underscores the frustration of the union and indicates its unwillingness to negotiate productively. Similarly, the union website employs several red-herring fallacies to tarnish the City's image and distract from the real issue as they've stated it: scheduling. (Admittedly, the other issues, such as the warranty lapses, are absolutely worthy issues in their own rights... but they have little to do with the current strike.)

The employees have been without a contract since the spring. Why the sudden need to strike right before Christmas? Surely just to have the most impact. There is certainly no significant human exploitation going on, even under the proposed scheduling system. There are other options less-severe than outright striking: working-to-rule, forcing reduced schedules, etc.

Similarly, the City could be doing more to end the strike. For example, what about a temporary contract, minus the signing bonus and the scheduling change, set to be renegotiated and renewed by, say, September 2009? (September 2009 is when the new proposed scheduling system would have been put in place.) I'm sure there must be alternatives to waiting out the strike.

To the City's credit, they are willing to consider and negotiate (via binding arbitration) any proposed scheduling system that would meet their criteria of increased labour/safety compliance and reduced unproductive wage spending (overtime, paid idle time). In fact, they proposed binding arbitration to achieve this, an option which was declined by the union. (Why?)

Here's the biggie... The question remains:

Why did the union members vote 75% against the proposed contract?
From all the evidence I've seen, it seems like a prolonged strike is not in the best interests of the majority of them (specifically, the mechanics and junior drivers). Union pressure? Or is there something big that we don't know?

Other Links

-- Ryan