Jump to content

lip

Member
  • Posts

    945
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

lip's Achievements

  1. ^Both sides are at fault: Metrolinx isnt forthcoming with information, and hides the most critical parts of how various infrastructure projects would affect communities. There are certainly times they are forthcoming, but there are other times where they choose to be inept and outright do complete 180s on what they initially promise until they are pressed by the community at large. With the particular case of Leslieville, they are just whining over the loss of literally a fraction of their precious park space and increased noise over a corridor which is already set to see massive train traffic increase due to GO RER. I dont have an ounce of sympathy for them whatsoever, and if half those people were as passionate about other critical city projects/politics we wouldnt be consistently electing dopes into office who completely screw up the city with their various antics.
  2. There were multiple issues with the B-D line yesterday evening, not just the Yonge incident. Signal problems were causing trains to crawl eastbound between Bay and Donlands; trains would proceed, stop at a station and wait for 5 mins, before performing the same routine all the way through to Donlands. Then that was followed up with a fire incident at Victoria Park which caused a service suspension between Woodbine and Kennedy. All this compounded by the fact that dummy Leary decided to hack service to every 8 mins in the evening (where conveniently all these incidents were taking place) caused it to look like trains were packed like it was rush hour.
  3. Yeah I dont buy that. Especially when you've got buses leaving simultaneously from Long Branch in packs, there's absolutely no reason for that. Let alone 4 buses coming within 5 mins followed by a massive gap in service. The downtown construction and detours arent helping matters at all, but the TTC is purely inept in their management and the cuts now might be exasperating the issue.
  4. At least there's some lucky people in the city, the 501 in the west end was a bigger cluster**** than it usually is. But there Leary and his gang are clamoring that the cuts are only to routes that have suitable alternatives and wont leave wide gaps in service. Leary is one of the most incompetent CEO/GM's that the TTC has ever had. That rolling protest was ridiculous to me but i'm glad he got heckled.
  5. To double down, yes take the 110A/B. GO Train is even better as you wouldnt run into any risks of delays if you actually need to get somewhere on time. GO will get you anywhere on time most of the time, the TTC will get you to your destination late if you have a schedule to follow. There's no point wasting time on the 501B, one would be lucky to get from Long Branch to King/John in an hour and half if you factor in traffic, and the TTC's consistent screwing around of that "service". Just came back from waiting nearly 30 mins for the 501B just to do a local trip, and of course 2 buses show up back to back (even with absolutely 0 traffic whatsoever). Cant wait to see what Sunday has in store when the TTC hacks the hell out of service all over the city thanks to Leary and his idiotic crew.
  6. Glad to see the TTC is publicly acknowledging they wont meet the AODA deadlines for Islington. Side note, this shift the south end of the terminal happened weeks ago.
  7. Heck even the Twitter Service Alerts havent been great lately either. Last week the Bloor-Danforth Line was out mid-afternoon between Old Mill and Keele because of an emergency alarm, and they claimed shuttle buses were dispatched. I checked the Twitter feed and there was absolutely 0 info about the service suspension 30 mins after the fact (despite the fact the subway still wasnt running, and shuttle buses were no where in sight). I ended up taking a complete detour with the 77 and 80 buses.
  8. You can rant all you want, at the end of the day law is law, legislation is legislation. Employees can walk out all they want, the consequences are what I presented. Dont like it? Take it up with the province. Still dont like it then, sorry youre out of luck. Get bent.
  9. If hundreds of employees walked off work claiming unsafe work for the exact same reason, to which the courts refuse and say that their claim is illegitimate for X reason, than the TTC has the right to say the workers went on an illegal strike under current legislation. I dont know what's so hard to comprehend about that, it's not that difficult. If you dont know how legislation works, im not going to explain to you how it does.
  10. I dont know what youre getting at, anyone (including police, fire fighters, etc. technically has the right to refuse unsafe work). All that point is saying is that the situations in which those sectors can refuse work are more limited. The same thing goes for them, if they refuse work it can wind up in the courts as well, it's not mutually exclusive. Again, I never said TTC workers cannot refuse unsafe work, what I said is that this specific instance of claiming unsafe work would get thrown out of court because it isnt "unsafe work" just because the VISION system isnt working properly. As for Essential Workplaces, here you can go figure it out yourself: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/s11002 https://ospe.on.ca/featured/ontario-orders-closure-of-non-essential-workplaces/
  11. Great, now dig out the Provincial Essential Work legislation. Heck even examine Part 5 of this act clearly, and you'll see the answer. If you cant pick it out, i'll get you started: I think you need to take a better look at this website, because you're calling me out when honestly it should be me questioning your Committee training: https://www.ccohs.ca/topics/hazards/#ctgt_1-6 Again, pulling from the same website I linked above since you all are going towards the OH&S route: Telephone's are always considered primary sources of communication, if that's not functional the rest are secondary. If the TTC provides any one of the following (not limited to): Cameras, automated warning/duress devices, global positioning systems (GPSs), two-way radio, site visits or satellite technology, those are all considered suitable alternatives. So the TTC can easily claim they had alternatives available while the VISION system is down, therefore the claim for unsafe work again would be thrown out. So to address your statement of: "if there is any safety feature disabled... yes, absolutely, the stores should close down! How is this even a discussion? Why should frontline workers put themselves in danger for people like you? What makes you so important?" If the workplace provides a secondary form of emergency communication, the work place would not close down. Period, end of story, no 2 ways about it. It's not about if I like it, or if I want it or not, that's how things are drawn up in the books (and in the books there are many books/laws/legislations that cover this to an extent). The one I pointed out is from the Canadian OH&S legislation.
  12. Well there goes the fantasy of drivers no longer being able to "refuse safe work" due to VISION being down. Good to hear it's back up if it is.
  13. So if a Chain Gas Station (all gas stations in the chain) had all their panic button inoperable for a brief period of time, all the Chains Gas stations should close? If a retail network's panic button system didnt work, all their stores should close down? There are certain safety systems that are considered "Life systems" that are absolutely needed at a base, for a store, factory, bus, truck, etc. to operate. Some of those things include: Fire Alarms, sprinkler systems, smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, emergency braking just to name a few. I've never seen the panic button included explicitly in that list of things consistently across organizations. I never said it's a requirement, I said if the TTC can provide an alternative means to the VISION system for an employee to communicate with TC, I see no issue as to why employees shouldn't be out there doing there jobs. That's when the whole "right to refuse safe work issue" came up. Which i've repeated numerous times, wouldnt hold water in the courts in this instance.
  14. Im not suggesting anything period towards alternatives, what im stating is how the courts would likely see things. Nothing more, nothing less. I dont get paid to think of alternative forms of emergency communication, that's for the TTC to figure out. The point I was making has more to do with the right to refuse unsafe work, which is being taken out of context towards what unsafe work really is. The courts would see through this pretty easily if there were claims made under the pretense of "my work is automatically unsafe because I have no panic button". Yes there are cases where the panic button is needed, but no your job doesnt 100% rely on a panic button being present to perform your duties safely. Again, law always supercedes work policies.
  15. On a case by case basis (ie: not 1000+ employees claiming the same thing) the employer would more or less get fined if it was found they didnt provide a way for the employee to communicate that they were in an emergency *if they were in an emergency at the time they are claiming*. Rack up the fine even higher if the employer was preventing the employee from doing to. But to say there is no panic button, therefore im not going to work because there is a *chance* of an emergency happening or because this policy says so, than no it's not enough. Laws always supersedes company policy, whether someone likes it or not it's not my business.
×
×
  • Create New...