From My Bottom Step

Now that it appears likely that LTC bus operators will go out on strike beginning Monday, I’ve begun to hear some local media personalities question whether public transit should be considered an essential service.

Anybody who relies on it can tell you that it already is.

The problem is that public transit is too often only used consistently by those who are the most disadvantaged and marginalized members of society, the young and the old, and those who are the most environmentally conscious. And with the possible exception of that last group, chances are pretty good that they’re not politically active.

Like I said in yesterday’s post, until the people who make the important decisions about public transit have a vested interest in the affordable and consistent delivery of a quality service, it isn’t going to happen.

This morning’s article by Phil McLeod (”Should transit be an essential service?“) argues that the LTC operator’s “pay scale among the lowest of Ontario cities” is a consequence of the local municipal under-funding that I wrote about yesterday. That may seem logical at first blush, but I don’t think that it necessarily need or should be so.

Public transit is a public service. It’s about providing a public service, as a kind of contribution to fellow citizens. Sure, it’s the source of livelihood for the operators, but that shouldn’t be their #1 priority. If all that they care about is financial compensation, then they should choose another line of work.

The same can be said about teachers and social workers and priests/ministers and police and firefighters, and politicians.

I don’t care what public transit operators get paid in other cities. OMG, that’s the same sentiment that was expressed on this morning’s McArthur Roundtable. I’m agreeing (on this one point) with right-wingers like Cheryl Miller and Dan Brown. What are my friends in the local labour movement driving me to? Is it me who’s becoming something other than the democratic socialist that I’ve always viewed myself as, or is the labour movement totally out of whack with what should be considered most important?

Let the citizens of other cities clean up their own mess if they have one. I care about London, and what’s going to happen in London if our bus operators are allowed the unreasonable pay increase that they’re asking for. Which is higher fares, a decrease in ridership, and a corresponding decrease in service (which is already not good enough).

I do agree with Phil that arbitration is not a solution, in this case at least. An arbitrator will base any decision, at least in part, on what operators are getting paid in other cities. But I doubt that said arbitrator will give any real consideration to the negative impact upon the demographic of Londoners who rely upon the service the most. In fact, I’ll wager that said arbitrator would themselves be receiving compensation for that service that would put them in the same category as other “professionals” (i.e. totally oblivious to the daily reality of London’s poorest citizens).

Nobody should be surprised to hear me making this argument. The central tenet of my last municipal campaign was the steadily widening disparity between the rich and the poor in our North American society. And all we’ve had in the last 4 years are one example after another that supports that point of view.

I also agree with Phil that retention pay for London police and firefighters and anybody else that would like to cash in on it is totally unnecessary and never should have been allowed. In fact, that’s something else that was part of my public platform in the last campaign.

With another election next year, maybe London’s citizens should start to ask themselves what the members of our City Council and it’s Boards and Commissions and all of it’s workers stand for?