News

I'm not sure how this became my week to tangle with other bloggers on this site, but I can't let Rob Silver's post on Toronto's dubious international attention go without comment.

Yes, it's unfortunate that the San Francisco Chronicle's ranking of the city (well, not exactly the city - more on that in a moment) as a place to avoid cracked CNN. But the enthusiasm with which David Miller's critics are seizing on it speaks to some logical contradictions.

First things first: The Chronicle's travel advice is patently and self-evidently idiotic. Because Toronto has some overflowing garbage cans and a cancelled ferry service, it ranks Canada - not just Toronto, but Canada - atop the likes of Honduras (which is in the midst of a coup) and North Africa (where there's an outbreak of bubonic plague).

Truth is, visitors could spend a few days downtown and barely notice the effects of the strike. If you have kids who are supposed to be in daycare, it's a major headache. If you have to drive your garbage to a temporary dump, it's a relatively minor headache. If you're a tourist, then unless you've built your vacation around daily picnics at Christie Pits, your strike-related woes will be much the same as they are for childless condo-dwellers like me - which is to say, pretty well non-existent.

But let's suppose matters really were as bad as the Chronicle seems to think; after all, the damage is more in the perception than in the reality. Just what is it that David Miller should be doing differently?

What his critics seem to be hinting at - because it's the only present alternative to the strike continuing - is that he should capitulate, giving the workers more or less what they want.

If that argument were being put forward by left-of-centre types who think Miller has sold out his NDP roots and is unfairly targeting the public sector, fair enough. But instead, it's coming from people who've been complaining for years that he's too beholden to unions, and insufficiently committed to reining in the city's costs.

Now that he's actually trying to do so, the same crowd is effectively making the workers' case for them. If that message resonates with enough people - which it doesn't yet seem to be doing - Miller will eventually be compelled to negotiate a settlement from a position of weakness. Shortly thereafter, no doubt, he'll be lambasted by the people who want his job for putting the city through a work stoppage without getting major concessions.

I'm not here to be an apologist for David Miller; for reasons I explained at considerable length a couple of weeks ago, I think his communications are badly flawed. You can also argue that he put himself in a weak bargaining position with this union by meeting the recent demands of other ones (although one can imagine the response of his critics if he'd picked a fight with police or firefighters, or allowed a lengthy TTC strike).

Those who think he should be replaced as mayor, though, need to get past the inconsistencies in their own attacks on him. Either he's the big-spending socialist who always gives his union buddies what they want, or he's the guy who's plunged the city into chaos by picking a fight with workers. He can't be both.

While they choose which argument to go with, the critics who've long been indirectly calling for precisely this kind of labour stand-off might try to help minimize its fallout, rather than maximize it.