City
Morning Brew: Rats Love Scrambled Eggs, Marketers Targeting Students on Facebook, Blue Jays have All-Stars
Photo: "Raccoon - 5 babies" by Nikopol_TO, member of the blogTO Flickr pool.
What's happening in the GTA (and sometimes beyond):
There's a class action lawsuit brewing, naming Expedia.ca and accusing the online travel middleman of violating consumer protection laws by tacking on non-itemized taxes and service fees.
Students entering universities are being tricked into joining Facebook groups set up by online marketers. Youngsters: be sure that when you join the UofT Class of 2014 group, it's not being run by a marketer who is going to spam you and sell your personal info for years to come.
There's been an arrest in the massive blaze that destroyed almost an entire complex of townhomes under construction in Mississauga last week. A teenager (who is a nearby resident) is accused of arson, and police believe that he may also be responsible for the fire set to the same site back in February. If this is the guy, I'd be really curious about motive - most 19-year olds aren't generally so afflicted by the influx of development into suburbia.
Ordinary citizens cruising Toronto's streets with a truck and offering to haul away your garbage for a fee is not legal. If they do it as a good will gesture, however, it's fine. But judging by the comments in my recent post about questionable private garbage removal services, most people don't care who takes away their garbage or where they're taking it.
You learn something new every day. Today I learned that rats love scrambled eggs, macaroni and cheese, corn, potatoes, and oatmeal. They're not so keen on raw beets, celery, peaches, cooked cauliflower, or grapefruit. All Torontonians are therefore urged to eat nothing but the latter, and hold their ensuing gas when on the subway because it's not likely that we'll see any requests for back-to-work legislation coming from Mayor Miller.
Two Toronto Blue Jays players are going to the 2009 All-Star game in St. Louis. Pitcher Roy Halladay and second baseman Aaron Hill are both deserving of the honour.
And for those of you who were not indoors and online all weekend (because those thunderstorms never really did come, did they?), here's a quick recap of what blogTO was up to:
- Beverly checked out Negroni, a new panini and fresh Italian food joint in Little Italy.
- Briony shared some useful fashion tips after enjoying a shop-in-your-own-closet style consultation courtesy of Wendy Woods (of The Refinery).
- Christopher got a history lesson, fended off his fear or horses, and got to meet some of the Toronto Police's biggest and baddest at the CNE's Horse Palace.
- Catherine chatted with Megan Griffith-Greene, co-editor of Shameless Magazine, about the recently launched She's Shameless anthology.
- Emily and Alyssa checked out Cool Hand of a Girl, a cafe in the Junction, and determined that the breakfast was a little yawn-worthy but the pie rather divine.
Discussion
24 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
Re:Suburban arsonists motivations..I suspect its something along the lines of "Fire pretty; Oh so pretty"
I'm not sure what you mean by the city representing the people and thus the relationship already being poisoned. Striking is, by definition, a move against the employer, but it's not necessarily hostile; it's part of how many bargaining talks go, like a script, a process. Lots of strikes end perfectly equitably.
Replacement workers in Ontario may not be illegal, but it's seriously taboo and would make labour relations permanently horrendous. York U is a great example of an employer who has incredibly awful relations with their union, and so they have labour trouble all the time. (As an aside, I think it's a naive thought to sincerely equate the city -- e.g. its councillors -- with you or me, the "people.")
Anyway, I think the city knows that even though we're angry, they realize that the real blame is seen as lying with the union (which I also personally believe). The city has less to lose in terms of PR, so it's better for them just not to do anything and let strikers take the citizens' heat.
Hiring scabs to take our garbage might temporarily win our favour -- we'll forget or they'll screw up something else by the next election anyway -- but it'd give the city a lasting black mark with unions everywhere. Not worth the price.
Instead of aiming for city workers to be able to live in the city and for them to treat it as a career (a career as a cashier... really), the city should REQUIRE that employees not live in the city, so that they're not voting for their bosses. We should also be aiming for as few career employees as possible - city jobs should be a hand up to the real world, not a padded sinecure. Get the homeless cleaning parks and streets so that they can get secure jobs, don't pay loafing unionists $25/hr when they only work 2/3rds to half of the hours they claim.
Then get rid of councillors' staff, budget, and salaries, so that they are intimately connected to the real world and don;t have much time to meddle in the lives of citizens.
I'd like to point out one difference with this strike than with most others. Usually a strike involves a group of workers and company management. The issues generally revolve around money (or benefits and services that require money) and how much of the profits the company is willing to share with its workers.
This is different because we're not dealing with a company management in the traditional sense, we're dealing with the city. We're also not dealing with profits in a traditional sense, we're dealing with taxes.
Nobody is getting rich off of our taxes (relatively speaking to the millionaires that run businesses). So it's not really an issue of greed, just one of balance.
And of course the other big difference is who is affected by the strike: Company management dealing with smaller profits or the entire general population of an area.
And "naive" huh? I'm guessing you don't vote, because "it doesn't matter anyways", right?
You don't want a black mark with the unions? Since when do they have so much power? Why don't they care about a black mark with the people. Because I'm pretty sure unions have earned it on a wider scale with the York and TTC strikes already.
At this point I'd vote against any councillor who is pro union, everything else being equal. Because I would rather someone with Balls is in charge, also because I vote for someone to represent ME, however naive you may consider that.
and frankly, I'm sick and tired of union strikes.
I also will refuse to vote for ANY politician that is pro union.
I don't work for a Union, MOST people don't. And we still manage to earn a fair wage, get vacation time and great benefits.
NOBODY is entitled to job security.
Toronto, these people work FOR US! WE PAY THEM.
Remember this when that mayoral election comes up.
The only way to get rid of union contracts, is to vote for Anti union officials.
A black mark with unions?? Who cares? tens of thousands of people want those jobs.
Lets not put up with them any longer, let them strike!!!
If they are legislated back to work they will get everything they are asking for. Everything everyone's complaining about. Keep them out, let them struggle not us!! Let them walk back with their tails between their legs begging for their jobs back.
Do you think its different in the East? We can all be pretty opinionated.
Are you really getting tired?
Like they have the right to "comment" on issues that effect their lives, issues they know nothing about, since you know them so well.
So tiny from your high horse, aren't they jamesmallon?
Using rhetoric like "my councillor represents me" still, to me, stands as "naive." Definitely, you voted for a councillor because you feel they accurately or most closely represent your views, but their constituents' needs are not the only force that affects their actions. Some Christie Pits residents really didn't like having that dump site in their local park -- and apparently their councillor actually promised it wouldn't happen -- but that didn't stop it.
As much as we like to make the connections between our taxes and the employer of city workers, that connection is rhetorical at best. We -- as individual citizens and voters -- *don't* employ them. Through taxes, yes, we do end up paying their salaries, but that money is collected by the city and distributed at their discretion. It's the city who employs them. Did you personally interview and hire these workers? Did your neighbour? Were you given the chance to personally vet previous negotiated contracts? Do you have the power to fire any of them? You can certainly petition your city councillor to do it, but then again, you can complain to a McDonald's manager that a worker flipped you off.
I never spoke about "me" having a black mark with unions. I was talking about the city. For the foreseeable future, they will be dealing with a unionized workforce, and unions are infamously wedded to the idea of solidarity. While relations are still not equitable, I'm pointing to the use of scabs *specifically* as needlessly antagonistic on the part of city. I'm not talking about anything else (certainly not back-to-work legislation, which is another can of worms).
Please don't twist what I wrote into generalized commentary on the strike or the union. I was talking about a very particular suggestion made.
DS: I apologize then, but that suggestion is far into the future, and it would be a huge undertaking to draw up contracts with another organization. The two locals here in Toronto represent *24,000* workers.