Posts Tagged ‘David Miller’
Smitherman or Tory Pre-Election Decision Highlights the Problem
Simply put, our municipal election system sucks. There are some very real challenges in guarenteeing a free and fair municipal election. There are legitimacy concerns in the eyes of some when turn out is so low. Many aspects of election procedure in Toronto favour incumbents and hurt the chances of a first time challenger to an incumbent Mayor or Councillor. There is also the flagrant use of staff, promotional materials and media advantage that sees incumbents able to steam roll weaker opponents. I recall meeting many voters in the 2006 election who told me that the Constituency Assistant to the Councillor for their area was making calls on behalf of the incumbent. The idea being if the incumbent had helped someone, the staff member who had done the helping would call the voter to remind them and put some pressure on them to support their boss. Not only does it breach ethics rules at City Hall, it’s also so transparently gross, I don’t know how anyone with any sense of integrity can do it. That being said, it demonstrates how perverted our municipal democracy has become.
I have a number of views on reform to the municipal system that I would support. Broadly speaking – a broader ability for Toronto residents to participate through ease of registration, location of polling stations, earlier access to the voters list, and a ‘Challenger’s advocate’ working at City Hall ensuring no abuse of public resources or unfair incumbency advantage are used by incumbents. But in this post, I’m going to focus on the voting system as it seems to the the unmentioned reality that is causing this ‘Smitherman/Tory’ thing in the first place.
The voting system allows for a first past the post result that allows someone to win office in an election where a minority of voters vote, and a minority of the minority who chose to vote elect the winner. David Miller’s 2006 election saw him win with 56% of ballots cast by just 39% of the eligible voting population. 56% of the vote in the context of the 2006 municipal election represents the will of just 22% of the eligible voting public.
In an election where nearly forty candidates sought the office of Mayor, and at least three of them staged very serious campaigns – first past the post isn’t cutting it. Consider that 61% of voters are so disallusioned they currently don’t bother to vote. Is the solution for two serious candidates to get together and decide how best to solidify the 1 in 5 Torontonians it would take to defeat the current Mayor ? Or, is the solution to adopt a voting system where voters could rank candidates for Mayor, Council and Trustee by order of preference, embracing the diversity of grassroots opinion found in a municipal election?
I expect no one will be surprised to know casting a ballot for George Smitherman isn’t something I am prepared to do under any circumstances. He and Dalton McGuinty are equally responsible for my current status as a political independent as it relates to the Provincial scene. Smitherman attacked my community, calling residents absurd, accused them of working themselves into an ‘artificial lather’ in addition to lying about the conduct of Toronto Hydro. He politicized an issue we had not, he attacked us as he tried to legislate our rights to participate in our democracy, through decision making, away.
The day before Smitherman’s first attack on Scarborough residents – I still considered myself an Ontario Liberal and was preparing to renew my membership. The day after, with virtually no time to think about it, as I was doing a flurry of press to defend my community, I wrote:
“As someone who has traditionally been a Liberal both in the card carrying sense and the ideological sense, being pitted between my community and party is not a comfortable position to be in. I joined the Liberal Party when I was 14. I came home from the hospital to Guildwood. Choosing between the two was not difficult. It was principled.” On the Conservative Payroll? NIMBY? Nuclear Lobbyist? Unemployed and Without a Life? No, Not Me. – February 11th 2009
My refusal to support George Smitherman for any electoral office is equally principled.
I don’t want a backroom deal to deprive me of my right to have a choice between all interested candidates for Mayor, while knowing my vote won’t be either ‘wasted’ or part of a vote split that elects the person I don’t want to office.
As I wait for Smitherman and Tory to work it out, I can only imagine how positive an impact electoral reform at the municipal election would have at engaging voters, strengthening our democracy and ending the strangle hold incumbents have on democracy in our City.
I can say with some certainty, should George Smitherman seek the office of Mayor, I will be actively involved in that campaign in addition to the by-election to replace him in the legislature. I know I will not be alone. I encourage anyone else with strong views on this to contact me and get involved in the future of our City.
My hope is that our next municipal council, or provincial legislature will decide after this election to modernize our voting system in Toronto, something I support and hope you do too.
No Comments »Upon Further Inspection – I would Vote ‘No’ to the City’s Offer
I get a lot of emails – especially about the strike these days. The vast majority of them come from members of CUPE 416 or CUPE 79 and express both support and opposition for the strike, provide personal stories, experiences and impacts of the strike and possible changes to the collective bargaining agreements.
I still believe the City should remove the sick pay issue from the table all together, strike up a working committee of union officials and city staff to explore the issue over the term of the next collective agreement and come to a resolution at that time. That being said, the City is refusing to consider that, and the union seems resolute in it’s opposition to the City’s plans around the sick pay issue.
Yesterday I said that I felt changing the sick pay bank to a short term disability plan was fair with a recognition of and plan to pay out what is currently and rightfully owed. While I still stand by that statement, further reading into how the City intends to calculate eligible payouts makes their proposal unfair and discriminatory. This doesn’t mean I don’t think the union’s should put it to a vote, but based on the emails I’ve received, it seems clear workers would reject this offer.
What’s more – I’ve said on a number of occasions that I believe municipal workers should have been entitled to Family Day off – just as they were in 2008. Unfortunately just before the current union agreement expired the City pulled that benefit away and said that because it wasn’t in the collective agreement (the holiday is newer than the agreement) that the workers would need to negotiate for it later. It’s bad politics and frankly poisoned the well long before negotiations even started.
The City would like workers to give up Remembrance Day in exchange for Family Day. This isn’t something members of OPSEU – Ontario’s public sector union are expected to do, and it certainly was not the intention of the Premier to deny people in Ontario another holiday in exchange. Family Day was created to be an additional holiday. While this may seem minor it’s more of the City’s pettiness that sees Torontonians sitting on piles of garbage at home, in their parks and streets.
I think 7.2% over four years is a reasonable wage increase, especially considering the current economic situation which does put more stress on an already financially incompetent City Council.
If Toronto wants to make their current proposal workable, I think they should explore the following:
a) Provide payouts for the sick day bank based on each employees banked days as of December 31st 2010 at a rate of 100% whatever the value would have been under the old system. The current plan to provide 100% to those who retire by December 31st 2010 and just 75% to those who retire January 1st 2011 on is simply not right and will never pass a ratification vote, unless the majority of workers are planning to retire next year.
b) While no long allowing the sick banks to accumiliate after December 31st 2010 – allow workers who have not met the seniority requirements by that date – thus making their bank in effect not payable, to accumulate the necessary seniority through continued employment to allow for their banked sick days to be paid out. The rational here is the savings will still come by capping the size of the payout without unfairly denying someone what they otherwise would have been entitled.
c) Stop being ridiculous and throw in Family Day because it’s a provincially mandated holiday and you’re the City and not throwing it in, or trying to snag Remembrance Day is embarrassing. A provincially appointed arbitrator who gets both Remembrance Day and Family Day off will be very unlikely to see this as reasonable.
The City may not like it, but they need to remember they have nothing going for them at arbitration and need the union’s help if they are to get any movement on the sick pay issue. It’s too fundamental of an issue for an arbitration to decide who is right and who is wrong on, so if given the choice – I believe arbitration would result in the status quo prevailing. That is exactly what the City doesn’t want, and why they need to negotiate fairly on this. I will repeat again, that I think the best solution is to pull the issue right off the table and discuss it over the term of the next agreement, but failing that – the City needs to get real now with it’s offer if it insists on pursuing this issue.
I do enjoy hearing from people both by way of posted comments and emails, and hope workers and others will continue to write me with their views on the strike.
5 Comments »The City Should Not Negotiate In Public
I was surprised when I happened to see on TV over my shoulder last night that the City of Toronto has launched a webpage with the key components of it’s offer to members of CUPE 416 and 79. http://www.toronto.ca/offer is a concept I completely appreciate from a political standpoint, but believe will ultimately cause further damage to what seems like an already damaged process.
The City cannot afford to get the union leadership angry over silly games, and while this site provides important information to Torontonians and especially union members – it is an inappropriate thing to do in the middle of negotiation and I suspect – partly why the unions rejected this offer.
That being said – I believe the City’s proposal to provide a grandfathered payout on existing banked sick days for all employees while transitioning to a new short term disability plan that will see workers receive 75% to 100% of their income when away from work for a longer term illness, is the only way both sides can get part of what they want. Neither is happy, but it’s fair.
Wage increases of 1%, 1%, 2% and 3% are modest, but by the time the four year collective agreement would end, they would see city workers receiving 7.2% more. The unions believe increases of 3% each year over the term of the agreement is more reasonable, and based on what Council gave itself, I appreciate why they think so. That being said, I believe the wages package being offered by the City is reasonable.
It may have taken a strike of 20 days and counting for the City to get it’s act together and recognize an offer with no pay increase, 140 pages of concessions and a removal of the sick pay banking system without any financial compensation was not going to happen. That being said, 20 days of no municipal services, and plummeting approval ratings for the Mayor and Council seem to have sprung them into action.
It is my hope that both unions will allow their employees to vote on this issue, instead of rejecting it full out. I believe this plan could work for many workers, could resolve the strike and get 30 000 people back to work, making our city the great place that it is to live, work and a raise a family.
6 Comments »
