Transpo coverage, commentary awful

Friday, June 08, 2012

Times & Transcript

By: Leslie Chandler

Location: D8

Topics: Codiac Transit, Labour Relations

To The Editor : The arrogance expressed in some letters to the editor of this paper and then reinforced in a surly editorial (Put an end to the 'Transpo games,' May 26) regarding what Codiac Transpo staff are paid, or asking for, in the current negotiation morass, is disconcerting.

It is not for the public, or the editorial staff, to determine what constitutes fair wages and benefits for any sector of the workforce.

Industry standards determine what workers receive in their overall negotiated salary/terms/conditions of employment. This is as true of bus drivers and support staff at Codiac Transpo as it is of city managers, nurses, lawyers, IT workers, plumbers, teachers, construction workers, or, newspaper editorialists for that matter. It is, therefore, not my opinion or your opinion that determines the value of the negotiated settlement staff at Codiac Transpo receive. Philosophically speaking, maybe we are all making too much money and should give up things like cost of living in order that the income of industrialists, professional athletes and cabinet minister pension plans may be enhanced.

Were I city manager of transportation I would advocate the disbursement of wages and benefits which meet or exceed industry standards. In exchange, I would feel confident that my professional, well trained, experienced and motivated staff accepts the responsibility of transporting the public safely. Furthermore, the city's investment in half-million-dollar buses would be carefully driven and exceptionally well maintained. Furthermore, when I (finally) got around to reconstituting the transportation efficiencies of my formally archaic and wasteful practices, I would expect to have my staff fully at the ready with ideas, vigour, and support for the impending changes.

It is fair to say that mistakes have been made on both sides in this wholly avoidable debacle. Both sides will have learned from this and be better prepared and more respectful next time around. It must be borne in mind, however, that it is the City of Moncton, not ATU 1290 that is before the N.B.

Labour Board for bad faith bargaining and unfair labour practice - a fact repeatedly omitted from some news reports, editorials, and high velocity letters to the Times & Transcript.

Leslie Chandler, Moncton