Backstory: Montreal is in day 3 of a transit strike. This time, it's the mechanics and maintenance staff that are striking. Service is maintained during "essential service hours" (6-9, 330-630, and 11-1). Points of contention? What else: money. Oh, and control of their pension plan. Currently, these workers are making 21.37 to 25.15$/hr. 44,569.27 to 52,452.84$/yr. This for a job that doesn't require a high school diploma (you have to have a mechanics degree in heavy trucks. This can be done in two years, and you have to be 19, or have graduated high school). They also need two years experience. Assuming they graduated high school, that's 13 years of schooling. The average salary for a high school teacher in Quebec is 42,687$/yr. That's less than the minimum these guys are making. And they need a high school diploma (on average, 15 years of schooling).
Critics are unfair to transit workers
Letter Published: Thursday, May 24, 2007
The loudest condemnations of striking transit workers seem to come from people earning a lot more than they do, such as journalists and TV commentators. I don't begrudge them their salary and their perks but to have them attack someone earning less than they do is a bit much.
In the same vein, Montreal Transit Corp. boss Claude Trudel wrote in La Presse last week that a two-per-cent raise was excessive and that a salary freeze was reasonable for workers earning $22 an hour. Fine. Let's reduce his salary to $22 an hour, freeze it for 2007 and see how well he does.
To add insult to injury, Henry Aubin points out the strikers' net pension will be about $32,000 a year ("City must hold the line," Opinion, May 23). This is scarcely enough to provide a decent living to a family in 2007. Does Aubin truly believe this pension's buying power will increase over the next 25 years?
Random Idiot #2
Pointe Claire
Dear Random Idiot #2,
I couldn't agree with you more. I mean really, who do these reporters think they are, reporting the facts of a story, like the wages of striking workers in the middle of a wage dispute, or speaking so "loudly" about issues that are really of more concern to lower income earners (like shift workers, or students working part-time and outside of the "essential service" hours) then they in their lofty offices. Where do reporters, making their millions (btw, those freelancers getting 200$ a story would have to write and have published a story every 1.69 days in order to make the minimum these striking workers are making...we won't even go into benefits...yet), so yeah, where do they get off reporting about things that they on their high horses obviously know nothing about. I mean, it's not like it's their job or anything...err....wait...it is.
I've got two main bones to pick with you buddy, which could very well turn into three or four by the end of my rant.
"The loudest condemnations of striking transit workers seem to come from people earning a lot more than they do, such as journalists and TV commentators."
You must not have too many friends buddy, cause I can tell you mine are complaining pretty loud.
"...to have them attack someone earning less than they do is a bit much."
Seriously. Reporters should stick to criticising people who make more than they do. Obviously, it's only fair. We should let the people who make less, you know, like teachers, and nurses, and students, and shift workers, and single-mothers, etc. be the ones to criticize them....Wait a second, I'm pretty sure they are. They just don't all moonlight as journalists. Maybe it's just my background in English Lit that affords me this insight, but I was always taught that the content and the author's opinions aren't always the same thing. I don't see where this could be more true than in journalism. Imagine for instance, a journalist chooses to interview current KKK members (and yes, there are still some). If these members express their beliefs that black people are in fact an inferior species, but the journalist disagrees, is he therefor supposed to omit these comments? Does including them = endorsement? Isn't the essence of responsible journalists to be the voice of the people who don't have the means to speak up.
This is where my big beef is with this idiot. I've been following this story and not because it's particularly inconvenient for me (I am so middle-class, with a) my access to a car, and b) my nice 9 to 5 job which fits conveniently with the essential services schedule). I by the way, make less than these striking workers do, so I have the right to criticize, just in case you were wondering. So yes, I don't really care for me, I have a cushy government job and it really hasn't impacted me. But not too long ago I was a student and working part-time, all of which meant a 9 to 5 job was completely foreign to me. My schedule changed on a day to day basis and would rarely be found in the metro during peak hours. And you know what else, that what these reporters have been saying. I haven't seen a single reporter bitching about how it inconveniences them, in fact, most have gone as far as to note how little it inconveniences them, they bike, or drive, or carpool. All luxuries of the middle class. What of single-mothers without cars trying to get their children to their doctor? Should they go find one of those cool family bikes? Or granny, I mean, she should totally just suck it up and buy a Hoveround to get to the hospital for her blood tests? The reality is those who are most inconvenienced are those who are most depended on it. The nice suburbs? 2.2 cars per household (I'm totally making that number up, but you get it). Condos, apartments and lofts downtown? Oh yeah, those totally come cheap. This is what the reporters are mentioning, and obviously, they are totally self-serving.
"To add insult to injury, Henry Aubin points out the strikers' net pension will be about $32,00 a year. This is scarcely enough to provide a decent living to a family in 2007. Does Aubin truly believe this pension's buying power will increase over the next 25 years?"
Hey Idiot, you know who could live on $32,000 a year? Me. Shift-workers. People making minimum wage, who don't even have pensions. The same people who are coughing up taxi-fare, or taking time off because getting to work costs them more than they'll make once they get there. So yeah, forgive me if I have trouble feeling sorry for these strikers.
I think what gets me about this is that it's one of those devil's advocate things. Sometimes our social consciousness just seems to jive, and everyone is finally at this point where it's like, "I'm all for unions, I'm all for the working man, but sometimes enough is enough. Wait, what? You're not making as much as transit workers in Laval? So go work there!" And then you've got the idiot who's got to be the shit disturber. Problem is, attacking reporters for reporting the news, well, yeah...damn the man! Save the empire!
Critics are unfair to transit workers
Letter Published: Thursday, May 24, 2007
The loudest condemnations of striking transit workers seem to come from people earning a lot more than they do, such as journalists and TV commentators. I don't begrudge them their salary and their perks but to have them attack someone earning less than they do is a bit much.
In the same vein, Montreal Transit Corp. boss Claude Trudel wrote in La Presse last week that a two-per-cent raise was excessive and that a salary freeze was reasonable for workers earning $22 an hour. Fine. Let's reduce his salary to $22 an hour, freeze it for 2007 and see how well he does.
To add insult to injury, Henry Aubin points out the strikers' net pension will be about $32,000 a year ("City must hold the line," Opinion, May 23). This is scarcely enough to provide a decent living to a family in 2007. Does Aubin truly believe this pension's buying power will increase over the next 25 years?
Random Idiot #2
Pointe Claire
Dear Random Idiot #2,
I couldn't agree with you more. I mean really, who do these reporters think they are, reporting the facts of a story, like the wages of striking workers in the middle of a wage dispute, or speaking so "loudly" about issues that are really of more concern to lower income earners (like shift workers, or students working part-time and outside of the "essential service" hours) then they in their lofty offices. Where do reporters, making their millions (btw, those freelancers getting 200$ a story would have to write and have published a story every 1.69 days in order to make the minimum these striking workers are making...we won't even go into benefits...yet), so yeah, where do they get off reporting about things that they on their high horses obviously know nothing about. I mean, it's not like it's their job or anything...err....wait...it is.
I've got two main bones to pick with you buddy, which could very well turn into three or four by the end of my rant.
"The loudest condemnations of striking transit workers seem to come from people earning a lot more than they do, such as journalists and TV commentators."
You must not have too many friends buddy, cause I can tell you mine are complaining pretty loud.
"...to have them attack someone earning less than they do is a bit much."
Seriously. Reporters should stick to criticising people who make more than they do. Obviously, it's only fair. We should let the people who make less, you know, like teachers, and nurses, and students, and shift workers, and single-mothers, etc. be the ones to criticize them....Wait a second, I'm pretty sure they are. They just don't all moonlight as journalists. Maybe it's just my background in English Lit that affords me this insight, but I was always taught that the content and the author's opinions aren't always the same thing. I don't see where this could be more true than in journalism. Imagine for instance, a journalist chooses to interview current KKK members (and yes, there are still some). If these members express their beliefs that black people are in fact an inferior species, but the journalist disagrees, is he therefor supposed to omit these comments? Does including them = endorsement? Isn't the essence of responsible journalists to be the voice of the people who don't have the means to speak up.
This is where my big beef is with this idiot. I've been following this story and not because it's particularly inconvenient for me (I am so middle-class, with a) my access to a car, and b) my nice 9 to 5 job which fits conveniently with the essential services schedule). I by the way, make less than these striking workers do, so I have the right to criticize, just in case you were wondering. So yes, I don't really care for me, I have a cushy government job and it really hasn't impacted me. But not too long ago I was a student and working part-time, all of which meant a 9 to 5 job was completely foreign to me. My schedule changed on a day to day basis and would rarely be found in the metro during peak hours. And you know what else, that what these reporters have been saying. I haven't seen a single reporter bitching about how it inconveniences them, in fact, most have gone as far as to note how little it inconveniences them, they bike, or drive, or carpool. All luxuries of the middle class. What of single-mothers without cars trying to get their children to their doctor? Should they go find one of those cool family bikes? Or granny, I mean, she should totally just suck it up and buy a Hoveround to get to the hospital for her blood tests? The reality is those who are most inconvenienced are those who are most depended on it. The nice suburbs? 2.2 cars per household (I'm totally making that number up, but you get it). Condos, apartments and lofts downtown? Oh yeah, those totally come cheap. This is what the reporters are mentioning, and obviously, they are totally self-serving.
"To add insult to injury, Henry Aubin points out the strikers' net pension will be about $32,00 a year. This is scarcely enough to provide a decent living to a family in 2007. Does Aubin truly believe this pension's buying power will increase over the next 25 years?"
Hey Idiot, you know who could live on $32,000 a year? Me. Shift-workers. People making minimum wage, who don't even have pensions. The same people who are coughing up taxi-fare, or taking time off because getting to work costs them more than they'll make once they get there. So yeah, forgive me if I have trouble feeling sorry for these strikers.
I think what gets me about this is that it's one of those devil's advocate things. Sometimes our social consciousness just seems to jive, and everyone is finally at this point where it's like, "I'm all for unions, I'm all for the working man, but sometimes enough is enough. Wait, what? You're not making as much as transit workers in Laval? So go work there!" And then you've got the idiot who's got to be the shit disturber. Problem is, attacking reporters for reporting the news, well, yeah...damn the man! Save the empire!
