Don’t you just love a pile-on?
In a stirring display of bipartisanship, the gotcha right and the jilted left appear to agree that, a month into the strike, the time’s come to dispatch David Miller to that special anaerobic digester reserved for political failures.
Conservatives, displaying an admirable capacity to simultaneously hold contradictory views, have revised their familiar characterization of Miller as a CUPE doll by saying he now bears responsibility for a strike that is all about holding the line on the city budget, which, it seems, is a policy goal only conservatives may legitimately pursue.
“An abject failure,†pronounced the new Maclean’s, with The Globe’s Marcus Gee recycling the allegation. The Star’s Royson James, a lusty Miller critic, feels the mayor should have found a way to prevent the strike, but stops short of explaining how he might have accomplished said feat without breaking the bank. The Sun even managed to find evidence of hypocrisy in Miller playing golf at a private club on the weekend.
On the progressive end of the spectrum, we can listen to labour leaders invoking the ancient calumny against Bob Rae and then hinting how the rank-and-file, demoralized to a nearly catatonic state, could well stay home for next year’s election campaign.
In a perplexing rendition of this argument, John Cartwright of the Toronto and York Region Labour Council raised the spectre of a “backlash by right-wing and corporate interests†[PDF] and reminded the CBC’s Matt Galloway last week how the aggrieved public sector unions sat out the 1995 election — suggesting, weirdly, that they take part of the credit for the victory of the Common Sense Brigade and the misery that ensued.
From where I sit, Miller has handled this strike with nearly pitch-perfect poise, although this is certainly not a majority view. Early on, he articulated the case for fiscal restraint in a recession without reaching for apocalyptic rhetoric. As someone who’s always been scrupulous about lauding the civil service, he’s applied pressure while resisting the enormous temptation to publicly vilify the unions — a stance that would surely earn him some political points with irritated middle class homeowners. What’s more, the mayor has chosen not to scamper off to the province for help, which suggests a desire to negotiate a deal, albeit a tough one, and then take responsibility for it.
Then there’s this business of how Torontonians are “sucking it up,†as Maclean’s notes in its breathless cover story this week, making comparisons to the mess in 2002 and the Army of snow shovellers in 1999. But no one finishes the thought: We’re “sucking it up†in large measure because the city operationalized a savvy contingency plan. Did Miller have something to do with that? You bet he did — the city manager now reports directly to the mayor, and would have certainly sought approval for the strike strategy.
Indeed, the unions are pissed because those park dumps, while gross, work reasonably well, which means there’s no calamitous mess to help raise the stakes.
All that’s left for the union leadership now is to find a face-saving way to accept the city’s public offer. My prediction: the workers will be back well before Simcoe Day.
As for 2010 and beyond, perhaps all those kvetching progressives could ponder how the city will fare under a right-wing mayor (let’s leave the trash talking Mr. Smitherman out of this for now) and a possibly right-wing premier with a rural base.
Contracting out? Tick. Transit City? Not so much. Sounds good, right? Right….
photo by Rannie Turingan
49 comments
I heard that John Cartwright interview as well and thought it was odd and filled with really cartoonish veiled threats. The sad reality is that the unions put Mike Harris is power and then they paid the price. It had to be one of the dumbest strategies of all time.
Not everyone is looking forward to Transit City, and I refuse to believe that a right wing candidate wouldn’t seek to expand our transit system. Maybe it would more sensible and less utopian than a “LRT can give everyone rapid transit” policy.
hear hear.
The seeds of Toronto’s fiscal position, and therefore bargaining position, were not sown this year. There has been many opportunities in the previous years to save money and increase revenue. Very few of them were taken. As for the thought of contracting out and scuttling Transit City, bring it on.
Indeed the blame Miller is getting from many quarters is greatly exaggerated, but be that as it may, how does he change that perception within a year is probably the bigger question for Miller(ites)?
Agree with Glen that Miller will never live this down.
For someone who once bragged during last strike that it wouldn’t happen if he was in charge the situation exposes the Emperor with no clothes. His inability to manage the radicals on his own Executive Committee on the Councillor’s wage freeze issue will also never be forgotten. I also heard the psycho babble from Cartwright on the class struggle and felt it pretty ironic. During amalgamation they were very close allies and Miller was the point man at Council for Construction Building Trades and Cartwright was their leader. Miller is largely responsible for the expansion of the Building Trades monopoly of 9 Trades on public tenders from the Old City to the whole New City where there had been fair and open tendering everywhere but in Toronto. The other funny angle is that Cartwright’s life partner was Councillor Paula Fletcher who sites on the Mayor’s Executive. Not sure if they are still together but she was even more radical than him.
Given what passes for right-wing or conservatives today, i can’t see any funding for rapid transit. Add the fact that we are talking about Toronto (only the most despised city in the province and the country), it’s near impossible.
Consider that even the Liberals haven’t really done anything until McGuinty, what does that tell you about the Right ?
Since you aren’t likely to get any funds then, why are we even discussing subways (or some other technology) when more affordable options like LRT are available ? Are we trying to be “world-class” ? That’s just like the Jones trying to keep up with the Smiths’ lifestyle, even if the Jones can’t afford it.
Cities around the world – in Europe and Asia and other parts of the world – are using LRT. Are we saying that we are so much different then them ?
If you MUST insist on subways, then who gets the goodies and which parts of the city must go without ?
If you MUST insist on buses, will you ride one ?
Are you getting paid directly by Miller?
Miller did nothing to show fiscal restraint or highlight the problems in the budget. He was acting like it was business as usual – Jarvis bike lanes, plastic bag fees… Then suddenly he tries to hold 2 unions to a rational contract while not allowing votes on stopping council raises.
Miller won’t cross pickets, put council on vacation, and is abject in his relations with the unions. He’s not having the law enforced against the unions either.
The Star has a great article about a couple who are using their wedding fund trying to keep current on their mortgage. Hopefully the strike lasts 6 months so ALL city employees get foreclosed/evicted!
It is funny to see Miller-haters like this Reality Check and McD get all worked up and spin their wheels pretty much oblivious to proving the point of this article. Spin spin spin, but no real suggestions of how they’d really do it differently. Ha.
Anyone who thinks Transit City should be discarded is next to insane. I’d loe to hear them clamour for fiscal restraint when a subway on any of those lines would cost 10 times as much. Its a fantastic project, no matter who is advancing it be it a liberal, progressive or neo-con.
McD’s comments seem to be based on ideological rage and not fact. “Radicals on Exec Committee”? C’mon. Look for your ghosts of Bob Rae elsewhere.
RC’s comments are even worse: Miller didn’t show fiscal restraint?!? The City’s budget has increased by 2% or so over his term while Harper’s Cons have gone up in the double digits, and same goes for McGuinty.
Stop the blind rage and get some facts straight first.
Well, Miller’s demise is probably exaggerated, but the guy doesn’t walk on water and Spacing is starting to become a reliable mouthpiece for David Miller.
As for Larry’s comments about chasing world class status with LRTs. Well, most critics of Transit City don’t have a problem with Miller or LRT technology. Rather, we have a problem with the way LRT is being utilized in the Transit City context. For starters, LRT is not a one-size fits all solution to our city’s complicated travel patterns, and, second of all, spending $10 billion on what amounts to be somewhat beefed up streetcar service is a colossal waste of money and a nail in the coffin for future transit expansion of any kind.
Reality Check, if your comments are directed at me … No, I only wish that I was getting a cheque from Miller !
And I won’t defend his record during this strike, but neither will I blame him for everything.
My comments weren’t about Miller.
My observations were about Transit City – how this is the affordable way of giving mobility to as many people as possible.
I’m not pining away about subways like a lot of people are. Would I like a subway ? YES ! I WOULD LOVE A SUBWAY ! I cheer every time a subway gets built – even when it goes into York Region.
But I’m not prepared to pay through the nose for the next decade just to get a subway. I am sure that no other Torontonian is ready for that either.
re: leonard’s comment: I love how if Spacing says something positive about Miller the magazine becomes a mouthpiece. Have you read the previous posts by Lorinc? He has been more than critical in the past.
By simply not jumping on the bandwagon of Miller-bashing and instead providing a rational commentary Spacing provides its readers with the best coverage of City Hall than any of the big blogs offer.
Hopefully the strike lasts 6 months so ALL city employees get foreclosed/evicted!
Reality Check would be one of those “compassionate conservatives” we used to hear so much about, then. I wondered where they all went.
(Full disclosure: I have friends and family who are city employees — some on strike, some management and working at dumps.)
Dear Lady Elaine and Monica,
I put forward information and facts and was not worked up or ranting while both of you are ranting and put forth nothing but an unattractive blind obsequious servitude to ideology over comment. Want an idea; call a meeting of Council and freeze Council wages as Miller has done with non union staff in an act of incredible hypocricy; open up City Public tendering to all qualified Contractors and workers and not restict work only to your political allies and at the same time probably save the City $200million a year. Because you are blind it does not mean there is no light.
Monica: As Maclean’s pointed out, the city’s operations budget has gone from $6.6 billion to $8.7 billion in five years. That’s 5.5 percent a year, not two.
John Lorinc: If you really think Miller’s approach has been so admirable, does that mean that a month-long strike was the best available result? Or do you mean “pitch perfect” more literally, in the sense that you simply like what Miller’s rhetoric? I fear that an affection for the mayor’s stated beliefs, and relatively little interest in his actual results, is common among his progressive supporters.
As for what I’d do different: contracting out, obviously. And I’d have been more honest about the limitations of the green-bin system. And since we’re in this mess in any event, I might even pursue the injunctions against CUPE that Miller seems very reluctant to get.
I’m not a Miller lover nor a Miller hater. In fact, I have no strong opinion about him. However, I too have been puzzled by the arguments of his critics. How can he be simultaneously criticized for “being in bed” with the unions and for refusing to give in to the unions? I mean, which is it?
To me, the saddest thing about this strike is how it has brought to the surface so much anti-Toronto sentiment from outside city borders, and ugly partisanship from within.
Sorry: that “what” in the second paragraph above is extraneous. Oh, for an edit function!
Come on everyone… internet comment boards are meant for outrageous commentary with over-exaggerated statements with little or no evidence to support them. You are all being far far to articulate and factual in your commenting.
Maybe you should read some of the comment sections on our national and local newspaper’s websites and learn some proper internet etiquette.
The nerve!
Garfield,
I think Miller and council took the necessary bargaining position, while CUPE decided to go over the top in the defense of the sick day bank. That was CUPE’s choice. But having opted (this time) for fiscal restraint, Miller had no control over the union’s response. Which is precisely my point: he’s been blamed for causing the strike by the same people who criticize him for overspending. But we all know that if Miller had capitulated by offering up a costly contract, he would have been accused of being a union toady and oblivious to the city’s financial plight. The right wants to have it both ways and to me, that stance makes no sense.
“Contracting out? Tick. Transit City? Not so much. Sounds good, right?”
How does “Contracting out Transit City” sound? 🙂
Miller and his City Manager have threatened the people who pay the bills with tickets for their actions (such as when they get fed up of waiting 90 mins to dump their own garbage) and have ensured the payment gate is open to pay them while dozens of city service gates are barred shut. This should never be forgotten for either man.
To Lornic and Citypainter re Garfield
“the right wanting it both ways ..makes no sense.”
I am sorry why you don’t get the picture. Miller loses both ways because this strike is his admission that all the fairy tales he has told citizens about how great his handling of City Finances were in fact a farce. If he had not reduced City welfare reserves to nothing in good times and doubled the City debt in good times he might have some sympathy. To pretend now to be fiscally responsible is a case of closing the barn door after the horses have gone. Justifiable he is judged guilty of previous fiscal irresponsibilty and now political opportunism in trying to save his skin.
John,
While I am not a fan of the right on city council ,they are the opposite side of the same opportunistic coin, there is no hypocrisy in this case. With the recent settlements and council’s own raises setting the pattern, Miller, finding his fiscal religion, cannot bargain in good faith. The egg is squarely on his face.
@McD: I disagree. Political opportunism would have been going to Province and asking for back to work legislation, thus taking credit for a quick fix to the strike while the arbitrator would have awarded the union with 3% year-over-year raises and no benefit concessions.
Miller is doing the right thing the hard way with the strike. He’s being fiscally responsible — much more so than Mel Lastman ever was — and staring down the union. Kudos to him.
Garfield, you bore me. The Maclean’s article is bunk. It says Toronto’s cost of garbage collection is 65 percent higher than the average of 30 other Canadian cities.
That’s horse-hockey.
How did they get that fantastical number? First, Maclean’s ignored that Toronto has a green bin program, and runs recycling and re-use programs that few others do. But to really get it wrong, they had to toss in the cost of buying the Green Lane landfill, which the city did in 2007. Then they called that the average cost of solid waste. That’s like saying the city will buy a new landfill every year.
So, as they say, don’t believe everything you read.
The city’s original contract position amounted to a pay cut, and an insult in the context of other contracts negotiated by police and firefighters. The refusal to roll back council’s pay hike amounted to an absolute failure of leadership. David Miller ought not to bear the blame for all of this, but he certainly has to take responsibility for a lot of it.
As for the praise for the contingency plans: this strike involves a lot more than just garbage. As someone who can afford to take my kid to Canada’s Wonderland, I note that the supposedly wonderful “contingency plans” haven’t done diddly to keep the pools open, or the summer programs, and only neighbours pitching in (which I decline to praise Mr. Miller for) have saved the parks.
I’d like to believe that we can come up with a few left of centre politicians with more grace and creativity than David Miller has shown. I don’t think we need to treat Mayor Miller as the only alternative to a right-wing coalition that will cancel transit city, outlaw bicycles, and add another deck to the Gardiner.
Garfeild, you should also add that despite increasing spending by an average of 5.5% per year, Mayor Miller campaigned on keeping property tax hikes to the rate of inflation. While he did not exclude other taxes, the impression given was, that was a proxy for the entire tax burden.
This is what I hate about politics. There is no way that spending can increase by 5.5% per year while revenue (property tax) was increasing by only 1.2% (property tax makes only 40% of the city’s revenue(3%*.4)). This charade has been maintained by the high non residential property taxes, raiding the reserves and begging other levels of government for increasing amounts of funds.
On the left side of council they complain about revenue problems. On the right, it is spending. In truth the problem is both.
John Spragge: some clarifications.
The police and firefighters contracts were not negotiated. They were arbitrated. Big difference.
The council pay raise (1) amounts to a relatively tiny total expenditure, and (2) was deliberately made automatic so that it couldn’t be used as ammo in a bargaining war… I guess that one failed. It’s not a pay hike. It’s a moderate, automatic increase.
Where does this 5.5 percent budget increase number come from?
The 2009 budget increase was 2.5 percent:
(Page 35) http://www.toronto.ca/budget2009/pdf/2009_operating_bc_presentation_feb1009.pdf
2008 budget increase was 3.1 percent:
(Page 36) http://www.toronto.ca/budget2008/pdf/2008_operating_intro_bc_jan28_pres.pdf
?
Miller has fully engaged in union bashing – telling workers to “think of the children,” chastising the union for taking 24 hours to look over the city’s proposal before publicly releasing the details, and most of all, refusing to honestly negotiate with the unions for the past 6 months and avoiding this entire strike to begin with.
Since becoming mayor, Miller has gone to great lengths to disassociate himself from the left, and this fiasco is only the latest example. Hopefully progressives in Toronto won’t settle for the status quo in 2010, but instead will put forward a real left wing mayoral candidate. Who that candidate is, I’m not sure. But Miller isn’t it.
Dan, what’s a “real left wing mayor” mean? What if that means “unelectable”. Are memories so short that the 1995 provincial election no longer a cautionary tale for the “real left”?
There’s a difference between sitting on the sidelines (which is what happened in 1995) and actively campaigning behind a more progressive candidate. All I’m saying is we shouldn’t simply settle for the status quo because we’re afraid of the right wing. That’s long been the Liberals’ strategic voting argument. Why can’t we rally behind a candidate who can bring meaningful change?
The 2004 gross operating budgets was $6.6 billion:
http://www.toronto.ca/finance/pdf/2004financialcondition.pdf
The 2009 equivalent was $8.7 billion:
http://www.toronto.ca/budget2009/pdf/09_op_intro_speakingnotes_budgetchief.pdf
The difference is 31%, which works out to 5.6% annually.
The left always destroys itself through a desire for ideological purity: “the perfect is the enemy of the good”.
I consider myself a lefty and I have just about had it with the unions. They don’t vote with the left, and they have been a real stumbling block to environmental reform. I don’t think there should be a race to the bottom on wages and workers’ rights, but I think Toronto’s municipal unions have done VERY well for themselves over the last long while and should have some humility during tough economic times. There should be some awareness that their “workers’ rights” are in a very real way beginning to come at the expense of other working families who aren’t unionized.
I would love to see a list of what ‘concessions’ the union thinks it made over the last 3 or 4 contracts.
andrew:
On police and firefighter contracts, I didn’t know these figures came from arbitration. Thanks. However, if I look at the issue from the perspective of a member of local 416 or 79, an impartial arbitrator decided on a 3% wage hike as a fair measure. For the city to turn around and offer literally nothing when it had discretion would still look to me like an insult.
As for the “automatic” raises, they look to me like a total failure of leadership. Every pilot knows that when the flight gets rough, you unhook the autopilot. With Toronto hurting from the great recession, clinging to an automatic raise looks beyond pathetic. In fact, I would have a touch more grudging respect for council if they had the guts to vote themselves this raise. The essence of a councillor’s job entails standing up and taking responsibility. Putting the raise on autopilot tells me that council will take the money, but they won’t stand up and take the flak.
What’s meaningful change, Dan? You still haven’t explained what a true left wing mayor is, and how one could get elected in middle-of-the-road Toronto.
Garfield, 31% divided by 6 years is actually 5.2%. Regardless of your math, the number is still wrong.
The gross budget includes every dollar the city spends. That means your number includes the cost of services the city doesn’t control — just delivers — like welfare. The gross budget includes welfare payments.
Your number also includes projects funded not by property taxes, but by funding for capital projects like an entire new fleet of buses and subways. It includes the federal and provincial investment in transit like the Spadina subway. It includes the cost of buying a landfill that actually makes money.
A better measure of Miller’s spending is what was in his control: the net budget. The 2004 net budget was $2,943.682. The 2008 net budget was $3,220,660. That’s a 9.4% increase over 6 years, or 1.5%.
The fact is that neither of those numbers tell you very much because they don’t account for service levels — spending more on waste diversion programs (there was no green bin in 2004), increases in transit ridership (and service to go with it), etc.
What the city spent isn’t nearly as important as what we got for it.
Shawn:
Miller in 2003 was clearly the left-wing candidate who people believed would bring about change. He brought together a range of groups and communities – workers, environmentalists, urbanists, artists, cyclists, the list goes on. His strategy was effective and elected what we thought was the left-wing candidate.
Turns out he was more middle of the road, which may be what happens to progressives in government (but that’s another debate). It would be good for Miller to feel the heat from the left so he doesn’t think he can take the progressive vote for granted – which seems to be the case.
It seems pretty obvious this strike is his attempt to pander to the centre-right crowd, especially on the heels of the Jarvis bike lane debate, tax hikes, new garbage bins, among other contentious issues.
Shawn, I’m thinking an effective strategy for progressives (especially with over a year out til the next municipal election) is to either put the pressure on Miller to return to his 2003 roots or to start looking for our own 2010 mayoral candidate.
Either way, the frustration towards Miller from us “kvetching progressives” is important and should be more focused and strategic.
What are your thoughts? Should we just support Miller out of fear that it could be worse?
I think Paul makes a very good point on questioning why one has to support Cupe to be a ‘progressive.’ Miners want mines, CAW wants to build cars, forestry workers want to cut down trees and CUPE wants more for themselves and the public be damned What they consider gutting their contract are generally inefficiencies that most of us would consider stupid perks. Remember when Miller tried to limit overtime hours at the Library only to find out the Collective Agreement was so badly written that an Arbitrator decided that overtime hours were mandatory and could not be cut back. Or remember the TTC wildcat strike where the City settled a suit with ATW by eliminating a drivers scam that guaranteed overtime as opposed to using a substitute bank as the Teachers have to sub in for sick employees. There are hundreds of such issues in these Agreements that if we saw them would make us all question how anything gets done.
Dan,
Perhaps we should all wait until George “OneToronto” Smitherman throws his hat into the ring and we have a three-way race next year…
Bored,
the budget figures represent Toronto’s portion of the cost shared programs. It also includes the yearly carrying cost and principal payment on the capital account.
The discussion here now has livelier aspects than the simple budget numbers, so I’ll just address Bored by suggesting he replenish his acquaintance with compound interest.
Need also point out that there are many items in Toronto budget that are offline in budget calculations and not seen in “City” proper figures. The biggest of these is the Toronto Water budget that is completely off line as is the over 9% yearly increases we will shell out until 2014 that we are paying for in our Water Rate increases. If you look at the City of Toronto Capital Budget you will see TTC, Road and Building costs but nothing on sewer and water plant work that are all included in the Toronto Water Capital Budget. Another slight of hand to hide real tax increases. Similarly TCHC capital costs are completely offline.
Congrates to John Lorinc for stimulating conversation even if he is pretty offline.
McD,
Without getting too deep into a discussion about the city budget, I’d note that the decision to hive off water infrastructure into its own business unit, financed by those water rate hikes, was one of the smartest moves made by the city since amalgamation. Our water system was collapsing due to age and it absolutely needed a predictable long-term funding stream, no pun intended. The TTC should have it so good…
Glen,
I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me or not. The gross budget figures represent Toronto’s portion, AND all provincial and federal funding, including transfers for social service cost-shares.
eg, Over the past six years, the province has raised welfare rates, and there are more people on welfare, so the gross has gone up.
That can hardly be counted as overspending when it’s a flow-through the city doesn’t control. That’s why the 6-year net is a better estimate of increased spending under Miller’s watch: 1.5 percent annually/average.
That said, since the gross includes all additional funding like fed/prov dollars for transit, which have increased massively in the last 6 years, then the gross is a good number to gauge how well he’s done at bringing investment to Toronto. Through that lens, 5.2 percent/year starts to look pretty impressive.
“Shawn, I’m thinking an effective strategy for progressives (especially with over a year out til the next municipal election) is to either put the pressure on Miller to return to his 2003 roots or to start looking for our own 2010 mayoral candidate.”
And your own 2010 mayoral candidate will win, how? And if they lose, how could your strategy possibly be called effective?
If David Miller has committed one major error over the course of the strike it’s allowing people to think he’s f’ing up, when actually…he’s doing alright.
I’ll agree that his contingency plan is good, but I find his ability to communicate the plan falls well short. This is my constant complaint with David Miller. Yes, he’s a stoic, thoughtful manager. But damn it, couldn’t he have a double-shot one morning and get a little fire? The city is in one piece, the garbage is controlled and for many, things are pretty normal. Well…take some fucking credit! Go on the news and tell the union, “Hey! While you’re going all over the city pissing people off, we’re doing quite well so far without you. And if you think we’re going to capitulate due to stinky garbage, well we’re only on Phase 1 of the contigency and we have 2 more to go…so put that in your 45 gallon drum bonfire and smoke it!!”
The union officially surrendered the public relations fight in a Toronto Star interview with the Local 416 president on the weekend, not that they were ever trying to win it. David Miller has yet to fully capitalize on that weakness.
Bored,
I understand what you are saying. In the end though, the vast majority of the budget is a reflection of the city’s decision to spend not the mandatory cost shared programs. For example, between 2003 and 2006 provincially mandated programs escalated in cost by only 66 million dollars. Also, by the same token, the raiding of reserve funds also shows up in the budget totals.
http://southofsteeles.blogspot.com/2007/09/is-current-shortfall-really-from.html
John,
I don’t disagree that it was a good idea. I just disagree that it should be omitted from the Mayor’s calculations on taxes. Just like garbage, user fees or pay as you go are taxes because they were once online items paid for by general account taxes.