Tears. Anxiety attacks. Burnout. Depression.
These are among the reasons why political staff at Toronto city hall say they organized in secret before kick-starting a process last year to join a union.
For some of the staff on the small teams that make city hall’s elected offices run behind the scenes — from fixing local issues to providing the research and logistical muscle needed to pass policies at council — the union drive is about breaking free from what they describe as ill treatment, at-times low pay and — in severe cases — sexual harassment and intimidation at jobs they otherwise enjoy.
It’s an effort that, if successful, would make Toronto the first municipality in Canada to have unionized staff that work for elected officials.
The city, which is contesting the proposal at labour board hearings that will last through the fall, has argued that forming one unit under a sole employer would make bargaining “unwieldy, cumbersome, if not an impossibility” — and that the city is not the employer but rather it’s the 26 elected officials for whom the staffers work.
City councillors, most of whom have applied as interveners in the hearings, say they want to continue operating autonomously, like 26 individual administrations, and as the employers of their own staff. Each office, they argue, has its own political mandate and structure.
“This really is a monumental test case in many ways,” said Carlo Fanelli, a York University professor teaching and researching labour studies and employment law.
“It would be wise for policymakers and governments to take such requests seriously,” Fanelli said. “I imagine a lot of different groups are watching this case very closely and it will have implications whether it’s successful or not.”
The Star has spoken to 17 current and former political staff over the past year about the working conditions on city hall’s second floor, where council offices are located.
Because staff who spoke asked not to be identified for fear of professional reprisals, the Star has been unable to put their allegations to councillors and give them the chance to directly respond. As a result, the Star is not identifying particular councillors in this story.
Some councillors’ offices ‘toxic,’ staff say
Multiple political staff told the Star that yelling so often crosses the line into belittling and personal insults that crying is a common occurrence.
One staffer described a councillor’s “temper tantrums” as so persistent and reliable — whenever the councillor had a bad day — that she would cry while hiding at work. She said the “toxic” environment sometimes prevented her and her colleagues from getting back to constituents on time, if at all.
“You cannot make mistakes,” she said, adding that she’s been kicked off of files she was passionate about over a small hiccup. “It sucks that you’re sold a dream but it’s actually a nightmare.”
In other offices, there are serious allegations of sexual misconduct.
A second staffer said they have been sexually harassed and inappropriately touched by a councillor — despite repeated objections.
A third staffer described being sexually harassed by a colleague, including extremely intimate and unwelcomed questions about their body parts — with no reprimand from the councillor once it was raised. This staffer said meanwhile they would often get “disparaging” personal feedback rather than constructive criticism about the work itself. They eventually took a leave of absence.
Several staff said the second floor is rife with name-calling from some councillors or senior staff, and often toward women. Insults range from being called “stupid” or “a f—-ing bitch” when talking about council work, to more provocative labels such as “sluts” or “pussies” to bullying antics such as fat-shaming and mocking disabilities.
“I feel like I’m in an abusive relationship and I don’t know how to leave,” a fourth staffer said.
A fifth staffer, who also experienced persistent and unwanted sexual comments from a councillor, said on top of her “crippling” workload, her stress levels resulted in chronic physical pain, according to her doctor who she said recommended leaving her job.
“I was the councillor in every way except by name,” she said, noting the lack of sleep and stress eventually affected how well she performed. “Then a small typo in a draft newsletter would get me reprimanded harshly. It was a vicious cycle.”
Meanwhile religious holidays, illnesses or permanent health conditions are ignored or downplayed, doctor’s appointments have been used to dock pay and taking a sick leave has put some at risk of getting fired, the Star was told.
During the last election in 2022, a few staff said they were forced to door-knock with masks, despite being ill with COVID-19 and showing symptoms. “Can you imagine how many residents we gave the virus to?” a sixth staffer said.
“We don’t even get time in lieu. If we do, (the councillor) tells us when we can have it,” the fourth staffer said, recalling the last election where they worked 12-hour days seven days a week for several months — then were granted one day in lieu.
Salaries for the same job title, with varying responsibilities, also differ significantly from each other since each office runs autonomously and elected officials make their own judgment calls.
Coun. Lily Cheng — who was not mentioned in the complaints shared by staff — said in a statement that any ill treatment against staff should be met with “meaningful” and “robust” accountability.
“I am deeply disturbed to hear these allegations,” she said. “Abuse, harassment, discrimination, sexual misconduct, and retaliation against staff are unacceptable under any circumstances.”
‘It’s death by a thousand cuts’
A few councillors’ offices have become central to the union bid, either because of the councillors themselves or their most senior staff — or both. Both act as managers and at times like human resources officer.
“I wouldn’t say it’s widespread,” the second staffer said, a sentiment echoed by several others. However, in those few offices, “it’s death by a thousand cuts. When there’s a new employee, some joke they’ll be gone in a couple of months.”
The staffer underscored, as did others, that they love being part of the public service — whether it’s helping a resident with a noise complaint, getting answers about unplowed streets or fixing issues with local parks.
Fifteen city councillors are interveners in the labour board hearings over the city hall union drive.
Steve Russell Toronto Star
“But the problem is it’s day in and day out, and the city is only getting harder,” they said. “You will deal with horrid cases of near homelessness or death or suicide, and it will happen out of the blue. We are not trained for that. We get no support.”
While city workers such as bureaucrats or paramedics have unions such as CUPE and a formal HR process, the closest thing political staff have is the city clerk’s office.
Councillors and their chiefs of staff do not get robust HR or employer training. Staff are expected to abide by an ethics framework but councillors are expected to know and manage their offices according to various rules including that framework, the council code of conduct — and the city and province’s statutory obligations.
According to several council staff, few email the clerk’s office to complain about workplace issues because it’s not seen as effective or trustworthy.
Some who have complained “were fired within days,” the fourth staffer told the Star. “We feel trapped.”
When the Star put these claims to the clerk’s office and the city’s lawyers on the union drive, Russell Baker, the city’s director of communications, said in a statement that elected officials are responsible for hiring, pay rates and managing workplace conditions, but the clerk’s office “supports” with “certain HR services” like payroll.
If staff complain to the clerk’s office, “the clerk’s team makes recommendations based on the situation, which can include referring them to the integrity commissioner’s office, responsible for overseeing the member code of conduct.”
City workers such as bureaucrats or paramedics have unions such as CUPE and a formal HR process, but the closest thing political staff have is the city clerk’s office.
Lance McMillan Toronto Star File photo
However, the only penalties the integrity commissioner’s office can recommend — which need to be voted on by council — include a pay suspension, a reprimand or an apology.
Meanwhile, quitting isn’t as simple as it sounds. Staff who want to pursue a career in politics say their references and reputation matter. “Whether you’re a good or bad staffer in the councillors’ eyes, word gets around in the small, tangled world of politics,” the second staffer said. After all, “each office revolves around one person’s personality and preferences.”
What the councillors think of the union bid
Fanelli, the York professor, said that in the Canadian municipal system there’s a long-standing norm where political staff are supposed to be loyal to their elected official, rather than an institution like the city. So, “historically, it’s been this cultural disposition that has discouraged unionization.”
Coun. Jamaal Myers — who was not mentioned in the complaints shared by staff — said the main reason he applied for intervener status at the hearings was to “be at the table in order to actually affect change,” because “there are things that can be done (to rectify issues) without saying that my staff are no longer my staff.”
Myers continued: “I can acknowledge there are problems … I think where a lot of us, myself at least, draw the line is the distinction between not whether they’re unionized … it’s whether or not they’re my staff. Because that actually affects how you run your office, how you hire, how you fire, what you’re able to do.”
But the union the political staff are trying to join says that wouldn’t change, even if their union drive is successful.
“There is nothing about being unionized that dictates that they could not choose their own staff,” said Rob Smalley, chief operating officer at the Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario.
Smalley said the point of unionization is to offer staff, who are at a “severe power imbalance” with councillors, a stronger voice in their workplace than simply training their bosses to be better managers.
During the first day of the labour board hearings into the union bid last week, lawyer Jack Siegel said in his opening statement that the 15 intervening councillors he represents aren’t suggesting “in any way that collective bargaining is at all inappropriate.” However, they don’t think the city has any role to play in any collective bargaining framework that might be put in place: “This is between (councillors) and their staff.”
Siegel said if the city were classified as the true employer, it would result in an “absurdity” where members of the same bargaining unit would routinely be working against one another. “In the example of the almost-certain mayoralty campaign we’re about to see, members in one office are going to be actively seeking the defeat of opposing members,” Siegel said.
That is the nature of political employment, Siegel added. “No collective agreement can alter that fundamental fact — but it can disrupt it.”
Myers said there are many nuances that have to be thought through so councillors can still run their offices according to their political priorities, the stakes, the high pressure, the standards that come with it — and while ensuring staff work in better conditions.
“At the end of the day … you still need people to be able to react” and perform at a high standard, Myers said. “This is political jobs everywhere.”