Grand River Transit

[timc]

I've had to rely on my wife for transportation. Fortunately, we do have a vehicle, so I'm not stranded without transit. My commute is also only about 5 km, so I could walk it if necessary.

[KevinT]

The 200 had sufficient ridership to justify an investment in higher-order transit. But buses are cheaper to purchase, and a capital investment of x spent on buses means greater coverage than the same capital outlay on rail transit.

Yes. But it would not have spurred anywhere near the same level of development as what we are seeing next to the LRT line. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we got an LRT instead of a BRT.

Absolutely, bus routes come and go but tracks are forever. No one builds a 30+ story condo tower on the promise of a bus route...

[robdrimmie]

I'm fortunate that it's only about a 15 minutes walk for me to Mill Street Station, and I work downtown. I regularly take the ION and walk home in the evenings, so doing it in the morning isn't a huge additional burden.

I have no idea how I'm supposed to advocate for people to use GRT in the future. This situation is fucking absurd and I'm livid with both sides.

[PhilippAchtel]

I'm fortunate that it's only about a 15 minutes walk for me to Mill Street Station, and I work downtown. I regularly take the ION and walk home in the evenings, so doing it in the morning isn't a huge additional burden.

I have no idea how I'm supposed to advocate for people to use GRT in the future. This situation is fucking absurd and I'm livid with both sides.

If GRT was a business, shutting things down like this would lead to profit loss. Since it's a public service and the region clearly doesn't care how long the strike goes on, they have every incentive in the world to just sit back and watch people suffer. What are the workers supposed to do when the region won't bargain in good faith?

Why would you "both sides" something like this?

Edit: If people are livid, they need to contact their regional councilor and demand they make some concessions to get the system back on the road, not attack the workers or the union for god's sake. Let's have some degree of solidarity amongst people that promote progressive causes like better transit.

[robdrimmie]

I'm fortunate that it's only about a 15 minutes walk for me to Mill Street Station, and I work downtown. I regularly take the ION and walk home in the evenings, so doing it in the morning isn't a huge additional burden.

I have no idea how I'm supposed to advocate for people to use GRT in the future. This situation is fucking absurd and I'm livid with both sides.

If GRT was a business, shutting things down like this would lead to profit loss. Since it's a public service and the region clearly doesn't care how long the strike goes on, they have every incentive in the world to just sit back and watch people suffer. What are the workers supposed to do when the region won't bargain in good faith?

Why would you "both sides" something like this?

Because both sides are being assholes. Job action can take several forms and increase in severity. The union chose to impact the health, education and livelihoods of over 70,000 people who relied on them by fully shutting down the system in January, the minute they were in a legal strike position.

They are not acting in the rider's best interest, nor is that an obligation of theirs. But to suggest that they have not decided to "sit back and watch people suffer" to forward their interests is not even a little bit compelling.

Understand that being upset with the union does not mean I'm on the Region's side.

[taylortbb]

I'm fortunate that it's only about a 15 minutes walk for me to Mill Street Station, and I work downtown. I regularly take the ION and walk home in the evenings, so doing it in the morning isn't a huge additional burden.

I have no idea how I'm supposed to advocate for people to use GRT in the future. This situation is fucking absurd and I'm livid with both sides.

If GRT was a business, shutting things down like this would lead to profit loss. Since it's a public service and the region clearly doesn't care how long the strike goes on, they have every incentive in the world to just sit back and watch people suffer. What are the workers supposed to do when the region won't bargain in good faith?

Why would you "both sides" something like this?

Edit: If people are livid, they need to contact their regional councilor and demand they make some concessions to get the system back on the road, not attack the workers or the union for god's sake. Let's have some degree of solidarity amongst people that promote progressive causes like better transit.

The union doesn't promote better transit. The GRT union was actually one of the groups actively fighting against the construction of ION. They weren't even promoting buses in their members interest, but crazy gadgetbahn schemes with new vehicle technology. I don't feel any obligation to them as "promoters of progressive causes like better transit".

I also don't think the region doesn't care about how long the strike goes on. They've got ridership growth targets and GHG reduction targets, both of which are impacted by this strike. The current strike is about discipline, specifically the region using the cameras to discipline drivers that do things like swear at passengers, or take unscheduled breaks when the bus was supposed to depart. Given how often I've been late for classes, appointments, etc due to drivers taking a smoke break and ignoring the schedule I can't say I have a lot of sympathy for the union. I don't see how the region saying they can't just stop disciplining employees that don't do their job is not "bargaining in good faith".

[ijmorlan]

What are the workers supposed to do when the region won't bargain in good faith?

Is this happening, in this case?

I have to admit I don’t have any idea at all what the issues are, just that there is a strike happening. But if you are suggesting that the Region is not bargaining in good faith, you owe it to everybody here on this board to explain your specific concerns with their behaviour.

[Rainrider22]

I dont know about both sides. The real issue is employee safety says the union head. They want to have barriers installed (which the region is working on) Then the next breath say they don't like being watched all the time on surveillance video. The same video that is there to both keep them safe and assist with capturing someone who cause harm or damage....which would hopefully lead to charges, which would hopefully lead to deterrence of an future safety concerns. To me the message is, we dont want to be watched by management.. The region came up with decent money and the union says it is not about money so I dont see why they are striking.

[danbrotherston]

I dont know about both sides.  The real issue is employee safety says the union head.  They want to have barriers installed (which the region is working on)  Then the next breath say they don't like being watched all the time on surveillance video. The same video that is there to both keep them safe and assist with capturing someone who cause harm or damage....which would hopefully lead to charges, which would hopefully lead to deterrence of an future safety concerns.    To me the message is, we dont want to be watched by management..  The region came up with decent money and the union says it is not about money so I dont see why they are striking.

I don't know what the issue with the camera's are. It sounds like they object to the discpline program, which in my opinion, should be unrelated to the cameras, the cameras are unbiased witnesses, if the process is unfair to drivers, then the removal of witnesses won't solve that.

As for the barriers, I'm not in favour because I feel they make transit unfriendly to the users, but if the reality is we have violence on our buses, that's a shame, and maybe they're necessary, but I remember this came up years ago, why are we talking about it again? I've heard the region offered to install them over 3 years, that's absurd, they've already been piloted and tested, or at least they planned too...so why can't they be installed over the regular maintenance program...I assume our buses are maintained more frequently than every 3 years.

[Rainrider22]

I believe everything you just said is accurate including the point that the barriers are being installed over time. It is a multi million dollar project. The issue with the cameras is that they feel management is watching the employees every move... Get over it... we have video everywhere now...

[trainspotter139]

I dont know about both sides.  The real issue is employee safety says the union head.  They want to have barriers installed (which the region is working on)  Then the next breath say they don't like being watched all the time on surveillance video. The same video that is there to both keep them safe and assist with capturing someone who cause harm or damage....which would hopefully lead to charges, which would hopefully lead to deterrence of an future safety concerns.    To me the message is, we dont want to be watched by management..  The region came up with decent money and the union says it is not about money so I dont see why they are striking.

I don't know what the issue with the camera's are. It sounds like they object to the discpline program, which in my opinion, should be unrelated to the cameras, the cameras are unbiased witnesses, if the process is unfair to drivers, then the removal of witnesses won't solve that.

As for the barriers, I'm not in favour because I feel they make transit unfriendly to the users, but if the reality is we have violence on our buses, that's a shame, and maybe they're necessary, but I remember this came up years ago, why are we talking about it again? I've heard the region offered to install them over 3 years, that's absurd, they've already been piloted and tested, or at least they planned too...so why can't they be installed over the regular maintenance program...I assume our buses are maintained more frequently than every 3 years.

The discipline aspect also came up in the previous contract negotiations in 2017 (https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/safety-disc...-1.3349905). During those negotiations, it was revealed that drivers were being disciplined for hitting construction pylons and not reporting it, even if they didn't know they hit the pylons, as according to management it was "leaving the scene of a collision."

[danbrotherston]

I don't know what the issue with the camera's are. It sounds like they object to the discpline program, which in my opinion, should be unrelated to the cameras, the cameras are unbiased witnesses, if the process is unfair to drivers, then the removal of witnesses won't solve that.

As for the barriers, I'm not in favour because I feel they make transit unfriendly to the users, but if the reality is we have violence on our buses, that's a shame, and maybe they're necessary, but I remember this came up years ago, why are we talking about it again? I've heard the region offered to install them over 3 years, that's absurd, they've already been piloted and tested, or at least they planned too...so why can't they be installed over the regular maintenance program...I assume our buses are maintained more frequently than every 3 years.

The discipline aspect also came up in the previous contract negotiations in 2017 (https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/safety-disc...-1.3349905). During those negotiations, it was revealed that drivers were being disciplined for hitting construction pylons and not reporting it, even if they didn't know they hit the pylons, as according to management it was "leaving the scene of a collision."

I really don't like the idea that drivers are hitting pylons without knowing it.

There is clearly a balance to be struck, I don't believe in an invasion of privacy, if management was reviewing every minute of every bus ride, that would be a problem, if they are responding to complaints, in my opinion that's perfectly fine, I suspect the truth could be somewhere in between, but I really have no idea.

What is also clear is that both sides find this delicate, but that the Union is really losing the PR battle.

[KevinL]

On the barrier thing, apparently GRT never really saw it as a priority and only implemented the pilot because it was agreed in the last contract negotiation - they did the bare minimum required by the terms and then dropped it. That obviously made it a sticking point for the union, so I can see why it's now agreed to go ahead.

The discipline side is a quagmire I'd rather avoid.

[danbrotherston]

On the barrier thing, apparently GRT never really saw it as a priority and only implemented the pilot because it was agreed in the last contract negotiation - they did the bare minimum required by the terms and then dropped it. That obviously made it a sticking point for the union, so I can see why it's now agreed to go ahead.

The discipline side is a quagmire I'd rather avoid.

Indeed, and it lends credibility to the idea that a 3 year rollout is the region dragging their feet.

As for the discipline side, it's definitely not an issue that's easy for discussion, it is unfortunate that it seems to be a sticking point in the negotiations.

[trainspotter139]

The discipline aspect also came up in the previous contract negotiations in 2017 (https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/safety-disc...-1.3349905). During those negotiations, it was revealed that drivers were being disciplined for hitting construction pylons and not reporting it, even if they didn't know they hit the pylons, as according to management it was "leaving the scene of a collision."

I really don't like the idea that drivers are hitting pylons without knowing it.

There is clearly a balance to be struck, I don't believe in an invasion of privacy, if management was reviewing every minute of every bus ride, that would be a problem, if they are responding to complaints, in my opinion that's perfectly fine, I suspect the truth could be somewhere in between, but I really have no idea.

What is also clear is that both sides find this delicate, but that the Union is really losing the PR battle.

It's a simple matter of physics why they wouldn't know about hitting a pylon, especially if it gets hit by the rear end of the bus. This comment from reddit I believe perfectly sums up the issues with the policy around reporting collisions with construction pylons. https://www.reddit.com/r/waterloo/commen...?context=1