It is interesting, though, that most people haven’t acknowledged pensions as the primary reason the strike happened. Might make the strikers more sympathetic…

As for the questions you pose, Xanthium, I have a post brewing about some of them, but for now I’ll say this: if your work is essential to a city service, you should be able to afford to live in that city, union or no. To my mind, this is not only a matter of economic justice, but of social diversity. What happens to a city when its less affluent inhabitants are priced out of its housing market? And in case you were wondering, yes, that’s a thesis-related question. :)

The renumeration of the highly skilled is a different issue than that of those who are striking for a living wage. Unions and government regulations give power to those who otherwise have very little to bargain with and help ensure that their employer does not take advantage of them. Market forces are not enough protect the individuals from being exploited. If you work, you should earn enough for you and your family to live on decently–a place to live, enough food, health care, etc. That is an issue of social justice that we all seem to agree on. What we’re really arguing about is what “decently” means; how much does it take to have an acceptable standard of living? Should you make enough to buy a house or just enough to rent your apartment? Should you be able to send your kids to college? Can you afford a car to get to work? I don’t have the answers.

For the record, I find it hard to understand why anyone should earn more than 100k a year. How can that job be tougher than hauling around building materials on a construction site or waiting tables?

I think everyone should ask themselves: Who should make more than $55K a year? Is there anyone that doesn’t have a degree or work in IT suitable to make $55k, or maybe even $75k? Make that money with their bare hands?

Having said this, it wasn’t wages but pensions that led to the STM strike, which doesn’t surprise me in the least. My father’s union believed that pension and health benefits were worth more to its members than wage increases, and negotiated accordingly. My teeth are very glad of it.

Anyway, I completely agree that an arbitrator needs to be called in, and that it should not have come to this. As I understand it, a conciliator joined the bargaining sessions in recent weeks, but clearly he did not have the power to impose a binding settlement. This is one area in which laws could possibly be tweaked without unduly restricting the maintenance workers’ collective bargaining rights, though it would be difficult to provide iron-clad assurances of fairness. Something to think about, at least…

Now I don’t disagree that everyone should earn a comfortable wage as long as they contribute to society to the best of their abilities. And really, why should Joe Rock Star make millions for doing as much work as Joe Janitor. And I’m not saying that because I was fortunate enough to go to college and was born with the abilities that I have, that I should earn more than someone who contributes equally relative their abilities.

But I don’t see substantial reason for a strike. I understand the union doesn’t have any other real pressure tactics they could use. But why can’t we bring in a non-partial arbitrator. Someone who could analyse the situation and return a fair agreement. Not one that splits things down the middle, but one that returns something that weeds out the unreasonable requests of each side. It really should not come to this.