Talk:2006 Toronto Transit Commission wildcat strike

Disputation
GoldDragon states, and I quote, "Moscoe and the TTC disputed many of the claims." Aside from the issue of operator safety, an issue I will raise from management's perspective (hopefully neautralizing the 'biased' nature of the article), I don't believe any of the union's critics ever brought up any credible counter-arguments against Local 113's grievances. Please support your assertion with proper rationale or I will be forced to remove the notice you've added. Looking forward to your response. --QajarCoffee 10:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

neutral
I've edited out the lies, and edited in the left out truth.

this article is still so pro union it makes me want to puke, but at least it should pass for "acceptable". though whoever wrote it should take a look at Stalinism. Pellaken 02:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Highly unacceptable. The content edited out by Pellaken are not lies. In fact, the user has simply deleted text that did not conform to his conservative bent.


 * 1)	It is not false that management is mandated in decreasing maintenance costs. This is a critical aspect of business strategy and is the main reason behind the shift changes. Pellaken mentions the latter but conveniently ignores the rationale behind the decision. I will reinsert the following: “the business-minded”


 * 2)	The union made a grave tactical error by concentrating solely on operator safety. Management and the TTC’s commissioners capitalized by following up with a reference to the jointly appointed panel and their subsequent recommendations. This indeed provided union detractors with much needed public sympathy. This is not a lie. The user who made the deletion believes he can get his points across by asserting slanderous slogans. Do not mix your petty forms of political persuasion with a quasi-academic arena. Because management cannot produce any morally acceptable arguments to back their other decisions, it is my right to question their sincerity. The deleted content will be reverted back into the article with the following change (the alteration has been italicized): “This seemingly conciliatory approach to union grievances gave TTC’s management much valued public sympathy. The sincerity of management’s acquiescent behaviour , however, is highly questionable.”


 * 3)	Although the public was not told directly, it is a fact that they were indirectly informed about the rising tensions within the TTC. Bob Kinnear’s much publicized press conference at a hotel conference room (Highway 7/Leslie) was staged days before the wildcat strike. Union grievances and management noncompliance was clearly illustrated by Kinnear and journalists who reported it. The following will be reinserted: “and signs of an impending strike action on the part of unionized workers were becoming evermore apparent.” I will buttress this point with a reference to the press conference.


 * 4)	The day’s temperature is a point I will not fundamentally tamper with. Nevertheless, Pellaken is resorting to an emotional response from the reader by illustrating who exactly was “harmed” by the strike action. Would it be fair for me to elucidate how unionized workers themselves were impacted by management’s decisions? No, it wouldn’t. Pellaken’s attempt at producing a subjective response has been noted. That particular portion of the edit will be revised. One other note: Why would the vulnerable be out at all during such a hot day in the first place? Even if they were expecting TTC service, many commission buses do not have air conditioning in the first place. Are the workers going to be blamed for that as well? Give me a break.


 * 5)	Now, on to the rationale of the strike itself. It is fallacious to suggest that other union grievances were not established early on by the union. I will agree, however, that operator safety was used as a tool to advance the union’s position.


 * 6)	The final edit reflects an anti-union stance on the part of the editor. Bob Kinnear never arbitrarily promulgated the commencement of the wildcat strike. It was initiated by individual workers. To suggest that “Many now await for the resignation of Kinnear” symbolizes the editor’s partisan role in this article’s revision. This comment will be deleted. --QajarCoffee 06:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

first off, business minded does not mean cutting costs, and signs were not apperent at all. 12 hours warning at most in newspapers and on websites.

also, if you think using big words is going to "scare me off" your wrong. if you continue, I will take this to arbitration.


 * I don’t think it is my responsibility to “provide proof [that suggests] management is business-minded.” If you are unenlightened in regard to the internal dynamics of the TTC, should you really be debating me with such an overtone of certainty? The public sector has evolved over the last couple decades. This evolution marks the shift from KWS policies regarding subsidization to more recent neoliberal theories – more specifically, NPM strategies aimed at privatizing managerial operations. There is an emphasis on treating the public like customers. Many of the union’s grievances reflect policies designed to reduce costs and to maximize efficiency through the use of meager resources. How much more “business-minded” can management be? I am sorry, but that adjective needs to be put in place for individuals such as yourself. It is needed to inform the unenlightened reader with a brief description of what mangement is, on an intrinsic level, and its role in relation to the unionized workforce and the commission.


 * What do you mean it was not covered by the mainstream media? The press conference at Leslie/Highway 7 was intended to provide the media with the union’s position. I was listening to CFRB1010 during that day and they mentioned the press conference every half-hour. Don’t give me that bullshit about the mainstream media not picking up on the increased tensions. I don’t remember the exact date of the conference, but I assure you, it was a couple days before the wildcat.


 * One of your edits suggests that signs of strike action became known “to those inside the TTC.” You are readily admitting that management was intelligible of such signals and failed to act upon them. Your edit also points to the fact that representatives of management lied to the media when the strike was underway. You are shooting your own foot here.


 * You already inserted the fact that commuters were ill-informed. I am taking out your recent edit in that regard. Please do not edit the page haphazardly without reviewing its contents. --QajarCoffee 20:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro
I added detail to the intro, so people could get a quicker idea of what happened. I took the news reports at face value and stayed with the mechanical and janitorial workers, although I think there was considerable more impetus behind this action than simply work scheduling. I'd also like to poke around in the rest of the page and remove some of the "It had been suggested by" type wording.--Bookandcoffee 18:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ttcagreement.JPG
Image:Ttcagreement.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)