Waste collectors’ work questioned

(Update)

The headlines were certainly provocative: “part time work — for full-time pay”. A front page article in the Hamilton Spectator Thursday morning took aim at city garbage collectors, and suggested they’re receiving eight hours of pay for only five hours of work. But reaction to the article seems to have nothing to do with the hours worked.

The reaction on the street is about what you’d expect: “What you guys did for the news this morning — that’s a disgrace. We work our asses off hard for you guys!”

And that — is most likely — true. Certainly — it was the line taken by Hamilton City Manager Chris Murray: “I want to say to the folks that are out there working — I have a lot of respect for them, and I know how tough the job is.”

It was a sentiment echoed in a statement issued by the mayor: “This work is physically and mentally demanding, made all the more difficult by the extreme conditions of the past several months. I want to personally thank our city workers for the efforts they have made through one of the harshest winters in recent memory.”

And by union boss Derron Vernon: “The City has publicly stated that public Waste Collection Operators achieve their performance targets, have better performance than does the private sector, in terms of tonnage per household picked up and cost per household — and we receive fewer complaints when compared to the private contractors.”

But no one is asking about who does a better job — public or private — or what the weather may be. The central question is — are the waste collection workers receiving eight hours of pay for five hours of work? And, if so — is that appropriate?

This is as close as I got, to a direct answer from Chris Murray: “During the course of a year the amount of time they spend outside doing what they’ve been assigned, does rise and fall. There is no question about it.”

And Murray says no matter how long it takes — the job is being done, and done well: “Our guys put their head down, and do their job.”

At the moment, the only one at City Hall that seems interested in determining whether the allegations are valid, or not — is councillor Brad Clark: “I am concerned that there seems to be a quick attempt at rationalizing the findings in the investigative report, as opposed to a thorough review. I would prefer to see an actual investigation into the allegations.”

But for the moment at least, Clark seems the only one interested in pursuing that option.

Now — just after the report was written — I did receive another email from City Manager Chris Murray. In it he says: “Before this story broke, we were looking at route optimization, and this report will address the work that gets done in an 8-hour period and whether or not changes need to be considered.”

And, Murray says, part of that consideration should be — does the work get done? Does it get done efficiently? And is there good value for the dollar spent in getting it done. The answer to all three of those questions — in his opinion — is a resounding “yes”.