Jump to content

TTC Delays and Disruptions


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Bus_Medic said:

1. The silent panic alarm is dependent on the vision system functioning, and by the TTC’s own policy,  must pass a functionality test during the circle check for the vehicle to be fit for service.
 Non functional safety equipment is reasonable grounds for a work refusal, and would hold up under scrutiny.

2. The Tetra radios that were distributed to the streetcar network are hand held, making them illegal to use behind the wheel of a bus. And installing a dash mount base to the entire fleet is obviously impossible in only days.

3. The use of personal cellphones behind the wheel is illegal and grounds for termination by the TTC’s own policy.  Operators are under no obligation to volunteer the use of personal devices for commission business.

All of these things are dealing with the TTC's own internal policies, and are automatically assuming the work the ops are doing is unsafe. If we're playing legalese/lawyer, this wouldnt fly in the courts and the province could easily argue that this constitutes strike action if there was a mass walkout of workers.

Basically it would be pitting drivers who are claiming their work is unsafe (internal policy) vs provincial law. Guess who would win that one.

Now obviously there would be various incidents to which drivers could be placed in immediate harm, and if they felt as such they could refuse their work. But just to come out and say I feel unsafe because of X, and if this was repeated hundreds of times across the entire organization on the same day well the courts would put 2 and 2 together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, lip said:

All of these things are dealing with the TTC's own internal policies, and are automatically assuming the work the ops are doing is unsafe. If we're playing legalese/lawyer, this wouldnt fly in the courts and the province could easily argue that this constitutes strike action if there was a mass walkout of workers.

Basically it would be pitting drivers who are claiming their work is unsafe (internal policy) vs provincial law. Guess who would win that one.

Now obviously there would be various incidents to which drivers could be placed in immediate harm, and if they felt as such they could refuse their work. But just to come out and say I feel unsafe because of X, and if this was repeated hundreds of times across the entire organization on the same day well the courts would put 2 and 2 together.

The fact that the silent panic button wouldn't work without VISION is not enough of an argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, PCC Guy said:

The fact that the silent panic button wouldn't work without VISION is not enough of an argument?

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, lip said:

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.

And just how do you propose they do that, if the button requires GPS communication to inform control of where the emergency is taking place? No GPS = no way of locating the vehicle.

They already offer a means to communicate that an emergency is in progress, and that is in the form of the communications system that each vehicle is equipped with. If that doesn't work, the vehicle should not run. I cannot imagine what kind of alternative you are suggesting. We are not yet at the point where a driver may telepathically communicate his present status to control... and if we were, I'm not sure we'd be getting around using buses.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, PCC Guy said:

And just how do you propose they do that, if the button requires GPS communication to inform control of where the emergency is taking place? No GPS = no way of locating the vehicle.

They already offer a means to communicate that an emergency is in progress, and that is in the form of the communications system that each vehicle is equipped with. If that doesn't work, the vehicle should not run. I cannot imagine what kind of alternative you are suggesting. We are not yet at the point where a driver may telepathically communicate his present status to control... and if we were, I'm not sure we'd be getting around using buses.

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.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, lip said:

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.

 

Sorry, what exactly is it that you're trying to argue here? That just because the equipment is not always required, it's not essential to safe operation? That's not a very compelling argument in your favour, unless the argument you are trying to make is that we should dispense with all safety measures, ever.

Indeed, many operators will not find themselves needing to use the silent panic button - but it's a safety system, and you never know when things could go wrong and such a thing could be needed. Under regular circumstances, a streetcar operator doesn't need to use track brakes to bring the vehicle to a stop - if there was a mass problem with track brake installations on the streetcar fleet, would you argue that the operators should just suck it up and go out anyway because the cars come with other braking systems? Under ideal conditions, you don't need windshield wipers, seatbelts, fire extinguishers - should we stop worrying about those, too?

10 hours ago, lip said:

I dont get paid to think of alternative forms of emergency communication, that's for the TTC to figure out.

Bullshit. You're out here slamming the TTC for mandating that such a thing be a requirement for a vehicle that's supposed to go out. Without a suggestion as to what alternative safety system could be put in place to ensure an emergency response in the event it is unsafe or impossible to contact control through the regular means, you are nothing but an armchair critic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2021 at 2:47 AM, Xtrazsteve said:

If VISION doesn't work, there is no schedule to display. Once they start a trip, they're blind unless they have a paper schedule with timed stops on them. They aren't suppose to use their phones either.

VISION works fine in regards to the vehicle's schedule. It still shows the vehicle's schedule adherence, timing points, etc. The only thing not working properly is that it's not showing the headways between the vehicle ahead and behind in addition to the phone system not working properly. Also, even if they were operating "blind" because VISION wasn't showing their schedule, all vehicles have a paper waybill which shows the vehicle's entire schedule with timing points from when it leaves the division until it comes back.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PCC Guy said:

Sorry, what exactly is it that you're trying to argue here? That just because the equipment is not always required, it's not essential to safe operation? That's not a very compelling argument in your favour, unless the argument you are trying to make is that we should dispense with all safety measures, ever.

Indeed, many operators will not find themselves needing to use the silent panic button - but it's a safety system, and you never know when things could go wrong and such a thing could be needed. Under regular circumstances, a streetcar operator doesn't need to use track brakes to bring the vehicle to a stop - if there was a mass problem with track brake installations on the streetcar fleet, would you argue that the operators should just suck it up and go out anyway because the cars come with other braking systems? Under ideal conditions, you don't need windshield wipers, seatbelts, fire extinguishers - should we stop worrying about those, too?

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.

 

1 hour ago, PCC Guy said:

Bullshit. You're out here slamming the TTC for mandating that such a thing be a requirement for a vehicle that's supposed to go out. Without a suggestion as to what alternative safety system could be put in place to ensure an emergency response in the event it is unsafe or impossible to contact control through the regular means, you are nothing but an armchair critic.

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wil9402 said:

VISION works fine in regards to the vehicle's schedule. It still shows the vehicle's schedule adherence, timing points, etc. The only thing not working properly is that it's not showing the headways between the vehicle ahead and behind in addition to the phone system not working properly. Also, even if they were operating "blind" because VISION wasn't showing their schedule, all vehicles have a paper waybill which shows the vehicle's entire schedule with timing points from when it leaves the division until it comes back.

Exactly right. Saved me from typing pretty much the same response. 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Shaun said:

How many radios do you think are available?? Let's say there are 200 spares available in the pool. How do you logistically assign those to 5000+ vehicles? 

I said it depends on how many radios are available. I thought I was asking how many are available. I thought there was enough for each vehicle. Are you saying there are only 200 ... spares.  (spares? so if not used, what are non-spares?).

5000 vehicles ... that would include a lot of subway cars ... I hear the radio on the subway all the time during normal times. But surely you only need 2 for every 6 cars - and surely they already have them. Also seems to already be radios in the streetcars, from what I hear. So surely it's only buses - though I don't ride them long enough to notice if they normally have radios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, nfitz said:

5000 vehicles ... that would include a lot of subway cars ... I hear the radio on the subway all the time during normal times. But surely you only need 2 for every 6 cars - and surely they already have them. Also seems to already be radios in the streetcars, from what I hear. So surely it's only buses - though I don't ride them long enough to notice if they normally have radios.

Subway's don't use VISION. Subway TETRA comms have been fine, I've heard nothing out of the ordinary, Red & Yellow alarms still work as I've heard them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should clarify, I don't know for sure that subways don't use VISION. But from my listening on friday and over the weekend with the outages affecting the surface fleet, the comms on the subway side didn't sound any different at all.

But even so, there are only so many trains out at any given time, that even if they were to be given portables, it's not at the same scale as the surface fleet.

I think the portables in the streetcars was a result of the TTC decommissioning the old TRUMP communication system, while VISION installs were just starting on the Flexity fleet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MK78 said:

 I just heard that VISION is back up from the bus dispatch.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, lip said:

All of these things are dealing with the TTC's own internal policies, and are automatically assuming the work the ops are doing is unsafe. If we're playing legalese/lawyer, this wouldnt fly in the courts and the province could easily argue that this constitutes strike action if there was a mass walkout of workers.

Basically it would be pitting drivers who are claiming their work is unsafe (internal policy) vs provincial law. Guess who would win that one.

Now obviously there would be various incidents to which drivers could be placed in immediate harm, and if they felt as such they could refuse their work. But just to come out and say I feel unsafe because of X, and if this was repeated hundreds of times across the entire organization on the same day well the courts would put 2 and 2 together.

If you are in a hole, stop digging because it makes you look like more of a fool.

You may want to read this to stop looking like a fool:

Guide to the Occupational Health and Safety Act: Part V: Right to refuse or to stop work where health and safety in danger | Ontario.ca

I have taken Joint Health and Safety Committee training (it's more than a week) and I have my JHSC certification from the Ministry of Labour. I wonder what your qualifications are.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, lip said:

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?

I have never worked at a retail location with a panic button, and, unlike transit, I have never been given any information at all as to what safety procedures would look like at a gas station, so I'm unable to make a definitive statement on a "panic button", and if there are any suitable alternatives for workers, without looking ill informed. In the case of my place of employment, there appear to be some options for me to make a quick escape in the event of someone threatening my personal safety (to a certain degree), unlike in a bus, so I do not feel its absence to be as significant as I would were I a sitting duck, like a TTC operator. I also live in an area with much less crime than Toronto, so that also factors into it. If I worked at Dundas and Sherbourne, I might feel differently.

That being said, generally speaking, 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?

8 hours ago, lip said:

Which i've  repeated numerous times, wouldnt hold water in the courts in this instance.

Can you provide some reading that would back this statement up? Surely, by your logic, if a COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM not working is insufficient excuse for a worker to refuse unsafe work, then most instances of work refusal are bogus? Unless they're asking you to work with a live electrical circuit or something, you can pretty much argue about nearly anything that there's only a chance something might go wrong. See also: my comments about emergency brakes, windshield wipers, fire extinguishers, the whole shebang.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good analogy with the fire extinguisher.

Not every property has an on board engine compartment suppression system, but lip should have no problem riding in one equipped with that but disabled, because a fire in the rear end “probably won’t happen”.

 

For what it’s worth…

The comments section makes me want to slit my wrists, but so does society at large. lip will find good company there.

I mean, nothing diffuses a tense situation quicker, amirite? Sure beats a dial out to the cops.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting bit from that article, describing exactly what I was hearing on the fallback frequency, I called it like a "line broadcast" on the subway, they describe it a "party line". And yes, there was confusion over how to use it, I absolutely heard it.

"Vision is currently on a fallback system, which instead of a ‘private line’ between operator and dispatcher now operates as a ‘party line’ where communications can be heard by all units on the channel — but even that system isn’t 100% reliable, and some operators said they weren’t aware of it when asked."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ed T. said:

If you are in a hole, stop digging because it makes you look like more of a fool.

You may want to read this to stop looking like a fool:

Guide to the Occupational Health and Safety Act: Part V: Right to refuse or to stop work where health and safety in danger | Ontario.ca

I have taken Joint Health and Safety Committee training (it's more than a week) and I have my JHSC certification from the Ministry of Labour. I wonder what your qualifications are.

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:

image.thumb.png.ed301afecdbe6acd56d7d9059e150d45.png

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

1 hour ago, PCC Guy said:

I have never worked at a retail location with a panic button, and, unlike transit, I have never been given any information at all as to what safety procedures would look like at a gas station, so I'm unable to make a definitive statement on a "panic button", and if there are any suitable alternatives for workers, without looking ill informed. In the case of my place of employment, there appear to be some options for me to make a quick escape in the event of someone threatening my personal safety (to a certain degree), unlike in a bus, so I do not feel its absence to be as significant as I would were I a sitting duck, like a TTC operator. I also live in an area with much less crime than Toronto, so that also factors into it. If I worked at Dundas and Sherbourne, I might feel differently.

That being said, generally speaking, 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?

Can you provide some reading that would back this statement up? Surely, by your logic, if a COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM not working is insufficient excuse for a worker to refuse unsafe work, then most instances of work refusal are bogus? Unless they're asking you to work with a live electrical circuit or something, you can pretty much argue about nearly anything that there's only a chance something might go wrong. See also: my comments about emergency brakes, windshield wipers, fire extinguishers, the whole shebang.

Again, pulling from the same website I linked above since you all are going towards the OH&S route:

image.thumb.png.3e90a4f203cbba81917a725763c11449.png

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bus_Medic said:

7F566FB8-BFFD-4F27-A925-12DE8EEEE5E7.thumb.png.b7ee2d70cf564fc271a1e69ec0494add.png771130AF-FF51-4BCD-8A7F-E987CD66E6FD.thumb.png.90e58a99750d4345f342eb821ec82c18.png

 

I don’t see transit mentioned anywhere in this…..that’s strange, eh?

 

98E508B7-C377-43E8-9903-412710FDE82F.thumb.png.0f1164eba947a19d12ad70dd85899df5.png

This lawyer type can’t figure it out either.

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/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2021 at 4:31 AM, lip said:

Oh really now? I'm pretty sure if they didn't that would constitute strike action, which is illegal under current provincial law. They can try and twist it to health & safety concerns all they want, it wouldn't fly.

“I never said TTC workers cannot refuse unsafe work”

-Yeah, you did. Everything is a bad faith power play to you. Get bent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bus_Medic said:

Yeah, you did.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...