Despite bluster both sides weak
It’s a war for hearts and minds — yours, to be precise. And it erupted in battling news conferences, accusations of unfair bargaining, and an unusual airing of management contract demands on Friday. But despite tough talk from all sides, if there’s a settlement between municipal outside workers and Toronto city hall before midnight Saturday it will be because neither felt fully confident of winning this struggle.
A compromise reached under pressure — requiring give-and-take from all concerned — remains the best possible outcome in this dispute. Indeed, over the long run, that seems the only way to avoid major service disruptions.
The day began with union leader Mark Ferguson saying that his earlier hopes of progress had been dashed by a management ultimatum that “basically guts our collective agreement.” A few hours later, the city fired back by revealing its main bargaining demands, including an offer of more money for workers in each year of a four-year deal along with some significant take-aways on job security and benefits.
Management also made clear that, if a deal isn’t reached by 12:01 a.m. on Sunday, it will immediately — and unilaterally — alter terms of work to fit its contract demands. In effect, rather than declaring an unpopular lockout, the city would be daring the union to strike if it doesn’t like the changes. Faced with that prospect, the union could take a quick strike vote and call a series of rotating walkouts, disrupting services and forcing management to lock out workers after all.
As in poker, how much of this is simply bluff and posturing is impossible to tell. Mayor Rob Ford’s administration is not as strong as it was a year ago when it privatized garbage collection in the western half of the city. Ford’s popularity has been dropping — sunk by broken promises, attempts at ill-judged service cuts, and bungling on everything from the waterfront to public transit.
The realization that politicians budgeted a 2 per cent pay hike for themselves while demanding rollbacks from unionized workers certainly didn’t help management’s case. And labour has shown itself quite capable of effectively fighting back, including with a sophisticated ad campaign.
On the other side, there’s public unease, and perhaps even envy, over union jobs with provisions sweeter than those held by many Torontonians. The city faces real financial challenges. And labour did itself no favours by striking for 39 days in 2009 in an effort to retain an indefensible perk — an entitlement allowing workers to cash in sick days for big money. People remember that, and many resent it.
With neither side clearly dominating the other, a strike or lockout carries immense risk for all. It would be safer, by far, to engage in constructive give-and-take. But reason doesn’t always prevail. Both sides could very easily blunder into open conflict. That would be the worst-case scenario for Torontonians who dread being stuck in the middle, yet again, of a union-management trench war.