While the optimist would agree with the link in the last post (it now says "yes," unless you click on it a second time) but I'd prefer "maybe." There is, after all, the need for both sides to ratify it. It's unlikely they won't, but who knows? This is the city and the union we're speaking about, here.
Of course, agreeing to binding arbitration with no strings attached 51 days after the strike starts is absurd. Seriously. Why didn't they just agree they couldn't agree and go that route at the beginning? Oh. Right. The feds were prorogued because Harper was having his own little political meltdown and the powers-that-be weren't breathing down city/union collective neck with the threat of back-to-work legislation. So, 51-plus days later and they're where they could've been on day one, with the exception of all the commuting headaches that ensued. This city kills me.
Of course, some conspiracy theorists are suggesting the newest development has more to do with getting things up and running and cleaning up the mess as best as they can before Obama comes to town. Ha. Even if it ends tomorrow, it'll take a while to get the system running. And ridership? Forget it. There'll be plenty of folk who've forsaken Ottawa's public transit.
The aftermath might be as interesting as the strike itself.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Bush on Virgin
The Bear is no more. Virgin bought it. And while I expect there to be some growing pains, I've had to listen to some songs that make me wonder if the format will be changed enough for me to have to find another station. Only time will tell.
The best part, though, is when the host said "It's Bush on Virgin." It's childish, I know, but it made me giggle. It probably doesn't help that the comment came after the host was talking about pants-free subway day being Jan. 10. As she noted, even if Ottawans wanted to stretch and make the O-Train their subway, it's not something anyone will be taking part in here.
Which brings me to the month-old strike (older, actually). Dunno what more can be said about the transit strike that hasn't already been said in almost every forum imaginable. The only real impact for me is the increased commute times thanks to the extra vehicles on the roads. Oh, and the hassle of carpooling a colleague -- that's cramping my style a bit. But I don't rely on transit (thankfully). I recall relying on transit during the '96 strike because I was still in high school. We crammed so many people in little cars, I'm surprised the police didn't pull us over. It was an interesting way to get to know classmates.
What I will say about the current strike is that it seems both sides have backed themselves into a corner and aren't willing to give an inch to even get back to the table. It's become more about saving face than working toward a real solution, which is a big problem. They sit on opposite sides, trading insults and contradicting one another in a very public way, and don't get anything done. The solution? Mayor Larry goes running to the feds for some help, so they force union members to vote on the city's last offer. The members vote it down by about 75%. Now the union can wave that in the face of city negotiators and say "I told you so." Nothing solved. The strike continues. Animosity grows.
A mediator is talking to both sides, separately, on Monday, according to reports. Maybe they'll find some common ground and get them back at the table. Maybe not. I've taken a bit of heat already for not coming out and calling the union bull-headed and demanding they lose their jobs. Well, like it or not, I don't actually believe everything the city says. While the union seems a bit radicalized (just check this out -- with their chanting, "brother and sister" propaganda talk, and lack of detailed analysis), I don't exactly trust the people who run this city, either. Of course, there's no way an employer shouldn't have more control over scheduling. The union isn't fighting the good fight on that one, especially in the realm of public opinion (not that the leaders seem to care, given their comments). It's a sticking point neither party will give on, though.
Binding arbitration might be the only solution, at this point.
The best part, though, is when the host said "It's Bush on Virgin." It's childish, I know, but it made me giggle. It probably doesn't help that the comment came after the host was talking about pants-free subway day being Jan. 10. As she noted, even if Ottawans wanted to stretch and make the O-Train their subway, it's not something anyone will be taking part in here.
Which brings me to the month-old strike (older, actually). Dunno what more can be said about the transit strike that hasn't already been said in almost every forum imaginable. The only real impact for me is the increased commute times thanks to the extra vehicles on the roads. Oh, and the hassle of carpooling a colleague -- that's cramping my style a bit. But I don't rely on transit (thankfully). I recall relying on transit during the '96 strike because I was still in high school. We crammed so many people in little cars, I'm surprised the police didn't pull us over. It was an interesting way to get to know classmates.
What I will say about the current strike is that it seems both sides have backed themselves into a corner and aren't willing to give an inch to even get back to the table. It's become more about saving face than working toward a real solution, which is a big problem. They sit on opposite sides, trading insults and contradicting one another in a very public way, and don't get anything done. The solution? Mayor Larry goes running to the feds for some help, so they force union members to vote on the city's last offer. The members vote it down by about 75%. Now the union can wave that in the face of city negotiators and say "I told you so." Nothing solved. The strike continues. Animosity grows.
A mediator is talking to both sides, separately, on Monday, according to reports. Maybe they'll find some common ground and get them back at the table. Maybe not. I've taken a bit of heat already for not coming out and calling the union bull-headed and demanding they lose their jobs. Well, like it or not, I don't actually believe everything the city says. While the union seems a bit radicalized (just check this out -- with their chanting, "brother and sister" propaganda talk, and lack of detailed analysis), I don't exactly trust the people who run this city, either. Of course, there's no way an employer shouldn't have more control over scheduling. The union isn't fighting the good fight on that one, especially in the realm of public opinion (not that the leaders seem to care, given their comments). It's a sticking point neither party will give on, though.
Binding arbitration might be the only solution, at this point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
