Toronto doesn’t have a union problem. The City sometimes has a productivity problem. More often it has an effectiveness problem. Blaming unions for City woes is usually a way to avoid dealing with key issues.

I learned this lesson very early in my political career. As a new City of Scarborough Councillor I attended a conference on managed competition. This is a concept by which an employer asks both the current workforce and outside companies to bid on delivering services.

At the time Scarborough Council was frustrated by garbage collection costs substantially above those in the private sector, and had difficulties in making changes to work practices.

Thinking the managed competition concept to have merit, I convinced Council to pass a resolution to review how Scarborough might achieve better service or lower costs.

In no time I had visits from both City management and representatives from the bargaining units. Each told me that my initiative was unhelpful, and that if they could only get the other side to change, the City would be well on its way to more flexible hours and lower costs.

I told both sides that if together they could achieve target results, there would be no need to consider decommissioning part of the City truck fleet. But if there was no significant progress, then I would insist that Scarborough Council look at outside options. If Scarborough found alternatives to inflexible practices and high costs, then those outside options might actually be approved.

Surprise, surprise. A few of weeks later one of the union representatives shared with me their willingness to make significant changes. Management calculated that while Scarborough could not achieve the complete target, perhaps 85% of the benefits could be captured by modifying work practices and using existing equipment. It was a result happily accepted by Council and myself.

Since amalgamation the Scarborough schedule for waste collection has been implemented Citywide. It is often touted as proof of how unions can provide competitively priced services.

Two facts usually are missed by others in the retelling of this touching parable. One, there is no mention of how it was necessary to compel the original change. Two, the world has changed in the intervening decade, so that costs and service delivery again need attention.

And so we get back to Toronto’s ‘union problem.’

Unless Council regularly reviews which services it requires and how it wants to deliver them, bargaining will remain simply a financial struggle. On these terms service delivery will be stuck in the past. Worse, Council will be abdicating its key role of setting a vision.

While this administration seems timid in providing firm direction to its transit, inside and outside workers, it rose to the challenge during the last round of negotiations with the Toronto Police Association.

In that example the Police Services Board showed clear direction by insisting on a new staffing model that better reflected demand. They let the importance of their objective be known, and firmly handled both anger and reaction from the Association. At the end, the contract went a long way in achieving the Board’s goal of better using our police officers.

Not only do we voters get the government we deserve, but also employers get the employment contracts they deserve.