So why won’t HRM agree to let binding arbitration settle the transit dispute? Before I explain why not, let me first put things in perspective.
As I’m sure you are aware, HRM and the Amalgamated Transit Union local 508 are at odds over a new contract. At the time of writing this, we remain just under $7 million apart in our respective positions.
Money is the issue, not least because of the transit system’s outmoded and expensive system of scheduling, which the union wishes to retain. By this practice, senior drivers have great flexibility in cherry-picking their shifts for a three-month period. The downside, however, is that as many as 80 shifts end up not covered and that results in other drivers having to be called in at an enormous cost in overtime. In the last year alone, HRM taxpayers – who subsidize transit by $36 million annually - have paid out $5 million in overtime for transit employees. That kind of outlay is unsustainable and we simply have to get costs under control.
HRM wants to introduce “rostering,” a widely used system by which drivers pick the same schedule in one-week blocks,according to seniority. This is faster, more efficient and results in better customer service. It also reduces the need for overtime.
Frankly, council and I do not think that binding arbitration would result in the scheduling overhaul that Metro Transit urgently needs for the reasons I have just outlined.
We are concerned that the arbitration process is weighted towards the status-quo in labour-management disputes and, as such, puts taxpayers at risk in that we will not get the changes needed. The present scheduling system is more than 100 years old and must be brought into the 21st Century to try and mitigate the overtime bill.
Some people say that arbitration is an unbiased alternative to conciliation, the route that HRM continues to favour. They claim that arbitration allows both sides an equal chance of achieving their goals. Council and I believe that there is bias and the risk is simply too great to take. We are not comfortable playing blackjack with taxpayer dollars and the future of Metro Transit.
Let me quote from a discussion paper prepared by the Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour regarding dispute resolution. It admits thatbinding arbitration “may not address workplace issues that may need to be fixed.” It also notes that arbitration “may act as a disincentive to the parties to make earnest attempts to resolve their disputes through the negotiation process” and that it may mean some settlement costs may be higher for employers than would otherwise be the case.
I can only repeat that Council and I don’t believe we should gamble with HRM’s future in this way. We feel a negotiated settlement is always best and we stand ready to return to the bargaining table.
I welcome your feedback on this or any other topic relating to our community. You can contact me at kellyp@halifax.ca orwww.peterkelly.caor by phoning 490-4010.
Mayor Kelly is putting forward the thesis that accomodating the demand of sheduling being the decision of the drivers who have achieved seniority that giving way to that demand would be too expensive. Well, if Mayor Kelly really wanted to save tax payers money he would question the extravagance of $57 million dollars on a new Convention Centre which would be a misuse of tax payers money. and provide no service for the community that lives here. To take away the rights that have been achieved by TU bargaining is to diminish rights that have been won. Taking away rights can be seen by some people as diminishing democratic rights for the riding public. We in Halifax should have the right to freedom of movement (a democratic right) which is best provided by the bus system as it is. The Mayor and Counsel in this instance are effectively stalling the process of achieving an agreement by raising issues of expenditure of tax payers money. By the same logic a person could raise the issue of the Oval that has been imposed on Halifax Common which each year will cost tax payers money not only to provide power to make the ice outside but also the issue of using too much power which will raise the power rates for homes in the neighbourhood yet again. Mayor Kelly is inconsistant. He imposes the balancing of the budget when it comes to an effective Public Transit System yet he forgets about the burden of cost to tax payers when he agrees with plans like the Oval and the issue of Music Concerts which squandered many thousands of dollars on taxpayers.