The city of Toronto has been caught up in a labour dispute since June 22—when 24,000 municipal workers from two local branches of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) went on strike. After six months of negotiations, paramedics, social service workers, and various other municipal employees walked off the job to reject city officials’ demands for concessions. Benefits for older workers and sick pay policy have been major sticking points during this collective bargaining.
The most contentious aspect of this strike, however, has revolved around Toronto’s waste collection services. When sanitation workers joined the municipal strike, many residents had to adjust to interim measures. In Toronto, the sidewalk waste bins have been taped shut, and the usual curbside services have been replaced with temporary dump sites, which are scattered across the city. It would be an enormous understatement to say that this “garbage strike” has overshadowed the wider economic issues in and around the municipal labour dispute. Some consider the waste work stoppage, alone, an outrageous disaster.
The coverage in Maclean’s magazine is one notable response to this “garbage strike.” As a widely-circulated Canadian publication, Maclean’s is seen on store shelves across the country. The tabloid-style mockery on the cover is a departure for this publication, which usually maintains an air of seriousness.
Unfortunately, such coverage is consistent with various other shrill and counter-productive responses conveyed by Canadian media outlets. From the beginning, a barrage of hostility and panic has been flung at the sanitation workers and the city government. On the third day of the strike, Toronto Star columnist Royson James reported that “talk radio was abuzz with outraged citizens, in full fume over having to wait an hour to dump waste at city transfer stations. Electronic news outlets feed the beast with provocative web polls. And newspaper websites stoke the fires.”
News of Toronto’s labour tensions has even found its way into American media. According to The Canadian Press, the mayor of Toronto “went on CNN last week to urge American tourists to visit the city after an article in the San Francisco Chronicle made Toronto seem like a hazardous vacation destination,” actually rating it worse than notoriously troubled regions like Honduras, Mexico, North Africa and Thailand. As one Toronto writer put it, “Apparently, vacationers being falsely imprisoned, an outbreak of bubonic plague, a surge in the number of cases of dengue fever and the overthrow of a government and all the upheaval that entails, pales in comparison to a strike by municipal workers in the City of Toronto.”
Meanwhile, Windsor, Ontario waste collectors have been on strike for nearly three and a half months—without remotely as much outside press attention. Toronto and Ottawa tend to be principal focal points of the mainstream media in Canada and elsewhere (whereas Windsor—an industrial hub—usually is only discussed when manufacturing issues are brought up). All this overheated rhetoric is quite typical and, in fact, reminiscent of recent belligerent press that called a Toronto bike lane proposal a “war on cars,” and pro-Tamil street rallies a form of “terrorism”.
Talk like this tends to fan the flames of counter-protests, which in the case of the current strike, have resulted in anti-strike rallies to dismiss the basic demands of the workers. Waste also has been left outside of City Hall—to convey discontent, evidently. Littering and illegal dumping have become common over the past few weeks, as some Torontonians have refused to accept interim waste disposal measures noted above. Conversely, some have volunteered for a waste pick-up project in order to, in their words, “compliment efforts already being undertaken by residents in Toronto to keep the city beautiful.” Others have rallied to oppose the temporary dumping sites set up by city officials—often in public parks or arenas. These spaces are becoming breeding grounds for unwanted critters. In turn, the municipal government has been dousing these sites with pesticides and rat poison—thereby provoking concerns about toxic chemicals spreading across surrounding areas (through ground water, for example).
Yet, from an ecological standpoint, there is an upside to these in-city dump sites: the suspension of the usual waste collection operations in Toronto has created inadvertent educational benefits, as residents have had an opportunity to learn more about the sheer volume of ‘garbage’ that they have been throwing away each week. The visibility and odour of this waste are educational experiences that intangible and obscure statistics could not provide. During this strike, Torontonians also have been reminded about sanitation workers, who are normally about as invisible as the contents of the waste bins and landfill space. The more vocal residents generally have not welcomed these reminders; instead, many people in Toronto have been conflating these sanitation workers with the refuse which they usually carry away. In one stock argument, waste collectors are berated because they don’t require the post-secondary schooling which is common in some other professions. I happen to think that waste collectors should be compensated for the indignity of handling materials that others throw away; but such an argument basically hasn’t made it into the discourse of the labour dispute.
These points should become part of a much wider discussion about labour issues and city services. The mainstream press has not been an avenue for such discussions, however—as was the case during a 2008-2009 CUPE strike at a university in Toronto.
As Red Jenny, a progressive Toronto-based blogger, has indicated, labour solidarity and informed discussion have been sorely lacking since the beginning of the current strike. Amidst her other observations, Jenny notes that “cognitive dissonance abounds,” resulting in claims that “Garbage collectors shouldn’t be given the same increases as police officers because garbage collectors aren’t as important. But me oh my, it’s been TWO days without garbage collection and already they are screaming to have someone take away their refuse.”
To be fair, CUPE organizers have not made much effort to explain their position through press channels. Although journalists and editors wouldn’t be very receptive to their point of view, labour organizers at least would be assured of sound bites during an ongoing strike. In tandem with on-the-ground communications with passers-by, CUPE’s web site also could complement such a media campaign, by presenting the organizers’ point of view to journalists and the general public. Further commitment to such communications would be justifiable for CUPE, and for other labour organizers—if not an actual labour movement.
Cultivating more favourable press would encourage city officials to accept CUPE demands—whereas such concessions will be met with even more backlash if labour organizers continue to have so little involvement in media coverage about their strike. This bad press will discourage and hinder other labour organizing as well (more than this caustic journalism would provoke any such efforts); hence, workers outside of CUPE owe it to each other to vocally support the municipal employees who are on strike. In other words: basic labour movement solidarity and education is in order here.
Labour organizers clearly have their work cut out for them in Toronto. Like other workers there, the CUPE members and organizers are in need of far more outside support.
This is not simply about garbage pickup. Parks, community centers and even the ferry to Toronto island has been closed. Let’s not forget ambulance workers are working at 75% capacity. This strike affects the most vulnerable people in society, children the elderly and the poor.
Without cars the poor cannot transport their garbage to the temporary dumps, they are stuck with festering garbage. With the garbage inside the city children and the elderly are being exposed to diseases.
With parks and recreation centers closed the elderly and children are not able to get the exercise they need. The poor cannot afford to go expensive health clubs or private pools.
Many people have lost their jobs or had to take pay cuts due to the recession. This is an essential service and CUPE is endangering the lives of the people of this city in a quest to get even more money and benefits. Let us not forget that CUPE also held Windsor hostage for over 4 months.
So forgive me if I’m not sympathetic to CUPE. Garbage collection is not skilled work. Let’s order CUPE back to work or fire them all. I’m sure the private contractors would more than willing to take over their job.
Hi Claire,
Do you think that these workers should ever be able to strike?
I agree that the strike is more of a problem for the poor, for elderly people, and for children; that’s an important point. I’ll also add that disabled people will find the current disruptions more difficult to cope with. There’s a flip side to these points, however: when the usual municipal services are available, those services are more helpful for the same groups you’ve mentioned.
In many ways, the municipal employees usually provide important services; so shouldn’t people appreciate them because they do that work? In particular, shouldn’t the groups that you’ve mentioned appreciate those workers more? (The Ontario Coalition Against Poverty has supported the strike; but, as usual, they’re an exception.)
At the end of your comment you mention commercial alternatives to the municipal services that aren’t available right now. Do you think that those commercial operations would serve the poor, the elderly, and children as well as the government services that they would replace?
I’m not going to try to respond to all of your points right now, but I will add that I certainly agree that this strike dispute is about a lot more than waste collection services. I have focused on the waste issues because so many people in Toronto have been doing that. (Here’s an example: the other day I noticed a “garbage strike” t-shirt in a store window.)
Toban: comments like Claire’s are why I’m suspicious about the success of what you’re suggesting. Many people can’t get over their own inconvenience and thus can’t imagine that other people matter, too.
For example, Claire makes some fairly obvious errors about the relevant state of law are really annoying. These are some basic points:
Contracting-out is illegal under the current collective agreement, which is still in force. So, that’s out as an option, unless the city wants to get sued for a lot.
Firing union members during a legal strike is bad-faith bargaining and probably good grounds for civil action. That, too, is out as an option, unless the city wants to get sued for a lot.
“Essential service” doesn’t apply to inconvenience — it doesn’t apply to anything less than immediate danger. There is nothing essential about garbage collection or summer camps. No one’s going to die immediately. There might be something essential about EMS services, but that’s why both sides are going to the OLRB: to figure out what level of service actually fits the definition of “essential service”.
If civic workers are ordered back under binding arbitration, they will likely get more pay than the city offered and will likely get to keep their current sick leave provisions. (Arbitrators don’t like pushing compensation forward or back; they like to stick to the status quo.) A back-to-work order which constrained the nature of the agreement too far would likely be found a violation of the Charter.
Anyone who follows labour issues at all closely knows these things, and it gets very tiring trying to explain it again and again and again and again….
On an unrelated note, I found it funny that the woman (who I can only surmise doesn’t have to work for a living, hence why she can complain about other people’s working conditions in the middle of the day) in the third picture misspelled “embarrassing”. I wish people would use spell-check before complaining, it’d be easier to take them seriously.
Oh, and the hostage metaphor needs to be done away with. Unless you’re in a dank basement, tied to a chair and threatened at gunpoint, you’re not a hostage. I don’t imagine that actual hostages find it particularly impressive.
An update –
An agreement was reached in Windsor on July 24th –
http://cupe.ca/strikes/windsor-ratified
(That was the day after this Waging Nonviolence write-up was published.)
The Windsor strike lasted for 101 days.
Here’s another post from Jenny –
“Blame CUPE”
http://redjenny.blogspot.com/2009/07/blame-cupe.html
Basically, she satirizes the sort of press coverage I had mentioned in this Waging Nonviolence post.
—
Also –
Here is some very relevant writing in a Toronto-based socialist publication –
http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/240.php
http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/241.php
http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/bullet237.html
(I’ve barely glanced at those write-ups, myself; so I’m just tossing them out to offer perspectives on the strike — without necessarily agreeing with what’s said in those write-ups.)
So basically anyone who is upset by the sanitation situation (or rather lack of sanitation) is just unintelligent, ill informed, and inconsiderate? And possibly unemployed and lazy? Wow.
Lack of garbage collection is not just an inconvenience – it can quickly become a serious health hazard. Not to mention the tremendous cost that will be necessary to clean up the mess. No doubt there will massive amounts of overtime and extra cleaning that will need to be done.
No reasonable person doubts that all city workers (yes even sanitation workers!)deserve respect and fair compensation. I believe what upsets people is that so many others are having to adjust to the market – ie with pay freezes and cuts, job losses, underemployment, or unemployment. Whereas the city workers are asking for (granted relatively nominal) pay increases and very generous benefits.
Regarding benefits: tax payers tend to have benefits that reflect the market. I believe what outrages most is that the workers are asking for benefits that do not reflect the market. How can we really expect tax payers to be sympathetic to the union workers’ demands? Allowing all workers to accumulate 17 sick days a year (an unattainable dream for a worker in private industry) and to get paid for all of them at retirement will build a tremendous financial burden for the city.
I also believe that those who call for a privatization of sanitation services are calling for it once it is legally viable. Ie that once the contract comes up for renewal, the city can choose to go with a private vendor.
Hopefully this is a wake up call to the tremendous amount of garbage that is generated. However, having a union halt all sanitation services in order to hold out for unrealistic benefits that will certainly lead to budget issues is not the way bring about awareness.
(I guess I now join the masses of “unintelligent, ill informed, language challenged, and lazy”.)
“So basically anyone who is upset by the sanitation situation (or rather lack of sanitation) is just unintelligent, ill informed, and inconsiderate?”
No one has said that, AMHR. I don’t think that anyone’s intelligence has been questioned here, and the rest of what you have said there is unfair and overgeneralized. (I invite you to quote a statement that contradicts what I’ve just said.)
For my part, I haven’t tried to write about each and every response to the strike. I was focusing on the sort of responses that have been at the fore of press accounts, as well as public reactions through mainstream media channels (e.g. talk radio); so I was writing about a form of discourse — rather than the personal character of people involved.
I also was calling for informed discussion — without assuming that everyone involved would support this particular strike, or labour organizing in general. In making such a proposal, I was assuming that various factions would be capable of participating in such discussion.
AMHR:
It seems like you don’t support any labour organizing, under any circumstances. Would that be fair to say?
Labour organizers do not simply submit to “the market” (including the managers, financiers, and others who have more of a prominent place in those commercial systems). Instead, labour organizers try to stake a place for themselves in markets — by challenging the prevailing forces and figures around them. That’s what labour organizers do; they have fought for weekends, benefits, safety protocols, and various other gains which The Market wouldn’t have provided otherwise.
So to say that “the market” matters — while labour organizers’ demands do not — is to dismiss the basic premise of labour organizing in the face of the commercial status quo. That’s why I have suggested that you seem to reject any and all labour organizing.
sometimes rat poisons are never effective against rats so i use a mousetrap instead `