# "Unionizing" the CF (merged)



## Roger

This would probebly be a hot topic. But what do you all think if we unionize the Army?

There are other Armies that are.


----------



## Enzo

Which militaries are unionized and to what end?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I believe Norways military are unionized though I could be wrong. All I know is back in 82 in Norway, a lone RCR driving a BD202? had to lug all the toboggans up one of the mountains for the company I was doing the OP for. Apparently the Norwegian drivers invoked a health and safty clause and sat around watching the RCR driver for about 3 hours.    CHEERS


----------



## Infanteer

No.

Mission before the Men...to put something as archaeic as a organized crime...I mean labour, in between it would pose a serious jeopardy to what capabilities we have left.

By the way, I worked with with Dutch infantrymen overseas who were **** good troops.  When we started ribbing them about their union, they said it was mainly a thing for rear ech wogs, none of them took it seriously.


----------



## stukirkpatrick

If they unionized the army, who would break us up if we striked?   

The Mounties?


----------



## Michael OLeary

What advantage could unionizing possibly bring to the table for the average serviceman? 

Also, this is not a new concept:



> While the Bundeswehr is perhaps the clearest example of a democratic military force, numerous other countries also possess features of a more humane and libertarian service, which are instructive of the possibilities here. The Swedes pioneered the ombudsman system of protecting citizens from bureaucratic abuse, and for many years they have maintained a special military ombudsman to aid servicemen. In the Netherlands soldiers have won the right to form their own unions; the Canadian armed forces are also expected to be unionized within a few years. Canada further enjoys, along with Great Britain, New Zealand, and Australia, a system of civilian appeals boards that employ wide review powers over the decisions of military courts and thus protect servicemen from abuses of command authority.  - David Cortright, Soldiers in Revolt; The American Military Today, 1975


And we‘ve come a long way since 1975, even without a union.

Mike


----------



## Michael OLeary

And here‘s an another view of the effects of unionizing armies:



> According to a February 13 Wall Street Journal report, no nation in Europe has a military that can be depended upon in time of war. "Europe‘s military muscle has grown soft," it states. Its troops are poorly equipped and poorly trained. Europe‘s technology is old and obsolete, and there is no money to upgrade it because its troops are too highly paid and enjoy lavish benefits. Indeed, many are unionized and routinely go on strike for such things as increased vacations. Like most workers in Europe, soldiers cannot be fired for incompetence and essentially have jobs for life.


Quoted in:
The Old Europe‘s Paper Armies 
by Bruce Bartlett  (March 29, 2003)
  http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2586


----------



## Redeye

Isn‘t unionizing the army specifically forbidden by the NDA?


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> Originally posted by Michael OLeary:
> [qb] And we‘ve come a long way since 1975, even without a union.
> 
> Mike [/qb]


May we assume that as an officer you are speaking from a manager‘s viewpoint?   

No offence, but perhaps the privates and corporals are the best judge of that.  This corporal thinks there is probably no advantage to it, but we have all seen or heard of troops royally screwed by superiors that should not have done so.  I would put those down to failures in the chain of command, though, rather than a need to unionize.  And I‘ve not experienced that directly myself in close to 10 years.


----------



## gate_guard

> Originally posted by Bruce Monkhouse:
> [qb]  All I know is back in 82 in Norway, a lone RCR driving a BD202? had to lug all the toboggans up one of the mountains for the company I was doing the OP for. Apparently the Norwegian drivers invoked a health and safty clause and sat around watching the RCR driver for about 3 hours.       [/qb]


The CF unionized? Too late. Who needs to unionize when we have Mr Safety Bear and NDHQ coming up with training and operations inhibiting policies?


----------



## Roger

[/QUOTE]And we‘ve come a long way since 1975, even without a union.

Mike [/QB][/QUOTE]

I do not think we have come a long way at all, there we are half the strenght and just as many if not more missions. And as far as equipment, yes there was old equipment but it was available, now we have far fewer vehicles and are expected to do thesame job, less helicopters that are not even military versions.


----------



## Roger

QUOTENo offence, but perhaps the privates and corporals are the best judge of that.  This corporal thinks there is probably no advantage to it, but we have all seen or heard of troops royally screwed by superiors that should not have done so.  I would put those down to failures in the chain of command, though, rather than a need to unionize.  And I‘ve not experienced that directly myself in close to 10 years. [/QB][/QUOTE]

I agree with you and that was my main point, how does a private or corporal right a injustice in Canada, it did happen to me and was just told to suck it up. I do not want to suck it up any more.


----------



## Pikache

If there‘s a problem, do a Redress of Grievance of call the Ombudsman.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Chop, keep in mind that a trade union is concerned with regulations affecting personnel workplace conditions and contracts, it does not dictate equipment levels or operational planning by the employer organization. My comment dealt solely within the purview of the roles of trade unions.

RHF, yes, those are some of the options available to the CF member, similar to those functions that a trade union to provide or coordinates for its own members.

Within the past decade (or so) we have seen the institution of the Ombudsman‘s office, the streamlining of the grievance process (which eliminated much of the chain of command from the process), the institution of the NIS (again separating investigative resources from the chain of command) and our harassment programs (another resource that is responsive to the member‘s needs without being influenced by the chain of command).

Mike D. - shall I assume that as an experienced officer my [managerial?] viewpoint is unwelcome? Despite the fervour of the assault on my comments, no-one has yet put forth a credible argument that a trade union would materially strengthen the CF. If only they can be expected to put forth such an opinion, are there any Privates or Corporals on the forum who can compare, from personal experience, today‘s soldier‘s existense to that of the 70s or 80s, and tell us which he/she prefers?

Mike


----------



## Art Johnson

A comment from a soldier of the 40s and 50s. When was the last time any of these unionized armies fought a battle and won. As for Jacques Chirac what does he know about anything.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> Mike D. - shall I assume that as an experienced officer my [managerial?] viewpoint is unwelcome?


I would hate to think you honestly interpreted my comments that way.  If one were to make a decision on this matter, however, I would hope that the input of NCMs would be considered in addition to that of officers.  You haven‘t suggested that it wouldn‘t be.



> Despite the fervour of the assault on my comments, no-one has yet put forth a credible argument that a trade union would materially strengthen the CF.


I think the majority here agree with you; those that disagree (I am not one of them) have no credible arguments to make.



> If only they can be expected to put forth such an opinion, are there any Privates or Corporals on the forum who can compare, from personal experience, today‘s soldier‘s existense to that of the 70s or 80s, and tell us which he/she prefers?


It would appear that there aren‘t!  Let‘s hope someone comes forward.

I think the Ombudsman and more importantly, the Chain of Command, is well established and _when functioning properly_ can oversee many problems.

I think where a Union might be of advantage is in cases like exposure to depleted uranium, PCBs (as was the case in Yugo, no?), or a Matt Stopford type case.  It is well and good to complain to an Ombudsman about sexual harrassment, but if you have to complain about exposure to PCBs, it is probably too late to have done any good, whereas a Unionized soldier would be able to say "Hey, wait a minute, mission or no mission, this is dangerous."  It is quite possible the Union - if it worked properly - would come back and say "well, operational requirements outweigh your individual concerns about biohazardous material, and we feel the risk is not overly high."  

Unions aren‘t often known to err on the side of management (or in this case, THE MISSION) however.


----------



## portcullisguy

My personal opinion is that a unionized army would be more effective and in greater need in a country where military service was mandatory.  If they MAKE you serve, then you should have some say in the conditions under which you serve.

We have a volunteer army, and our conditions are not horrible.

Even without a union, we have a responsible environmental plan, a stringent safety policy that is reinforced from the highest levels right on down, and a response to an identified need for increased respect and sensitivity in the workplace (SHARP).  Not to mention an accessible dental and health plan, even for Reservists, a pension and reserve gratuity, and comprehensive private financial, social and personal advice program (SISIP).

I can hear the groans already, but before anyone starts slagging these programs as time-wasters, think about the long term implications of them - and similar initiatives - for a moment.

- If we utterly destroyed the environment in our training areas, they would over time become unsuitable for use, which denies their use by future generation soldiers.

- Although many CF trades have built-in safety risks (we are, afterall, soldiers, and can be ordered into battle), if our everyday work is so hazardous and unsafe that we cannot accomplish simple peacetime tasks, we are at risk of not having an effective workforce to employ in a time of need.  Since we rely on volunteers, if peopel perceive the army as "unsafe" in their routine practices, fewer people will want to join up.

- In this day and age, to not implement a program like SHARP is simply ignorant of the day‘s trends.  People are willing to push their limits and put in the extra effort if they feel that they are being respected as persons.  I‘m not saying this means no yelling at troops.  But that the same charter rights should apply. Intolerance for people based on fundamental differences such as race, religion, colour and gender have no place in Canadian society.

We have all this today, and we don‘t even have a union.  Many non-unionized workplaces do not have even these basic and simple programs in place.

If you keep your employees relatively happy, they won‘t WANT or NEED a union.

On a side note, I am neither pro- nor anti-union.  I have worked with both fuse settings.  Pro-union shops can be very much like "DELAY", as opposed to "SUPER QUICK".  My current union seems to think the sun shines out of their arse, and I am always quick to point out their shortcomings.  I appreciate the efforts they have made, but in my current situation, my union does not speak for my trade, and so many safety issues are left off the board.

As a customs officer, charged with defending the border (in a civil sense) and detecting contraband, the utter lack of safety and enforcement equipment and training is shocking.  It is like being an infantry soldier but only given a water pistol and a week‘s training to fight with.


----------



## Gunner

One of my arguments for supporting a union would be protection of military personnel from their employer (the federal government). I am not talking in terms of harassment, etc, etc.

Successive Canadian governments have allowed and fostered the steady decline of the CF.  To wit:

a. the ongoing rust out of equipment with no end in sight;
b. a reduction of personnel in 1990s which caused a large demographic portion of CF members to stagnate fostering a general sense of alienation within the CF;
c.  The same reduction in personnel also effected our recruiting system and we now suffer from a "greying" of our military (for example, the average artillery Capt was 35 in 2000).

Government negligence has also been coupled with increasing demands on the military.  From 1991-2004 saw an unprecedented level of military deployments and operations around the globe.  This has effected our ability to train (collectively and individually) and has led to a gradual erosion in our cohesiveness as an army.  The main effect of this neglience has been on our people (particularly officers, WOs and Sr NCOs.  

Regimentally employed personnel are caught in a preparing to deploy, deploy, post deployment cycle that has effected the social contract between Canada and its soldiers.  People join to the CF for a career.  However, who is sticking up for the soldier that has done 4 or 5 tours, taskings away from home every year, attended career courses when not deployed or tasked, and try to fit in a personal life around their "career".  How much is your personal life suppose to suffer to be a soldier?  

The question becomes, how much is a soldier expected to sacrifice simply because he is a soldier.  Certainly he may be called upon to make the "ultimate sacrifice" should the time and place require it, however, this does not mean he has to sacrifice his own quality of life until that time does it?

Members of the CF don‘t have a guardian against our number one enemy, the federal government.  I am not advocating that a duly elected government does not have the right and authority to use the CF as it sees fit.  However, who is protecting the soldier from the Federal Government and who is standing up for them when they are asked to do too much?  

Who will hold the government responsible for the deaths of soldiers?  I certainly don‘t put my trust in the electorate because we keep electing bozos!

Sorry for the length of the post but unions were designed to protect the workers from the abuses of the employers.  I can not say I have ever felt that the CF has done a very good job of protecting itself from the Federal Government.  If they had, would we be in the position we are in today?

edited to get rid some of the most blatant spelling mistakes...


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> Originally posted by Gunner:
> [qb]Sorry for the length of the post [/qb]


Don‘t be absurd; I for one am greatly impressed by portcullis‘ and your posts; very thought provoking and an excellent discussion of a matter that might easily have been dismissed or turned into a non-productive thread.

Over to Michael?


----------



## Roger

> Originally posted by Gunner:
> [qb]
> Sorry for the length of the post  [/qb]


Well you feel the same way I do, I did not write it in words, but reading your post it is exactly how I feel.

The feeling I get is that the brass only cares for itself and we live by there wim, yes as a soldier our duty is to follow orders, but you would think they would care for our well being.


----------



## Infanteer

> I think you should try your chain of command before you do something else.


Your right sir, it should work.  I think if we are forced to go around it, it represents a leadership problem and perhaps we as a military should have some reflections on our leadership fundamentals (ie, remember...mission-men-self)

-----



> - In this day and age, to not implement a program like SHARP is simply ignorant of the day‘s trends. People are willing to push their limits and put in the extra effort if they feel that they are being respected as persons. I‘m not saying this means no yelling at troops. But that the same charter rights should apply. Intolerance for people based on fundamental differences such as race, religion, colour and gender have no place in Canadian society.


Like I‘ve said before, although good on paper, the policy has been taken too far to where I think it interferes with effiecency.  How can one reasonably expect to conduct stressful military activities while being in constant fear of a career killing harrassment charge...anyone with their *** in the ground will know what I am talking about.

To me, its a band aid for poor leadership.  Anyways, no good unit ever needs to resort to this policy.  A little off topic, but I wanted to rant.
------



> Members of the CF don‘t have a guardian against our number one enemy, the federal government. I am not advocating that a duly elected government does not have the right and authority to use the CF as it sees fit. However, who is protecting the soldier from the Federal Government and who is standing up for them when they are asked to do too much?
> 
> Who will hold the government responsible for the deaths of soldiers? I certainly don‘t put my trust in the electorate because we keep electing bozos!


Once again, I‘ll peg this on the leadership.  Maybe if we had some higher ups not suffering from CRS, it would be a different story.
I wonder, would the situation be different if 20 or 30 general/flag officers handed in their "leafs" as a response to the government ignoring efforts to look out for the troops.

---------



> A comment from a soldier of the 40s and 50s. When was the last time any of these unionized armies fought a battle and won. As for Jacques Chirac what does he know about anything.


Coming from probably the most authoritative member of the board, I find this post settles the issue for me.  Thank you for weighing in, sir.    


How does union help us win the land battle?  The military is an old institution that has seemed to work when it is needed.  Isn‘t there other issues of more pressing concern that we could address.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Infanteer - do you actually know of anyone whose career has been "killed" due to a false harrassment charge?


----------



## Gunnar

The basic function of a union is to protect dumb guys from being exploited by management.  Ideal case is the blue collar job for an average working stiff.  He will never do any other job, so his lot in life has to be set up in such a way that more senior people can‘t take advantage of him.  This doesn‘t work in the Canadian military.

The Canadian military breeds intelligent soldiers, men who can obey orders, but are trained to ask why.  We‘re particularly good at obeying the intent of orders whilst not strictly complying with a given order.  That requires thought, or auftfragstatistik.  (Tell me if I‘m misusing this term Mike).  Unions tend to get in the way of accomplishing anything in a quick manner, bring in the socialist element, and quite often defy common sense.  A good example of this is the teaching industry, where they have a powerful union with their mandated breaks and built-in protections, and it allows for such blatant featherbedding (and allows teachers to push their own political agendas instead of TEACHING) that the Canadian educational system is toast.  We were once on a par with British education and significantly better than the US educational system, but this is no longer the case.  Now we have parents complaining that a literacy test discriminates against those with learning disabilities and language issues...ummm....isn‘t it a test of literacy?  If you‘re slow or have other reasons why you can‘t speak, write or read the language...wouldn‘t that imply illiteracy....?

Sure, the Union isn‘t to blame for all of that, but Unions foster an environment where "trying" is seen to be just as good as "accomplishing", where everyone is allowed to accept weakness as an excuse, and self-esteem is much more important than the goals of the organization.

And that‘s going to keep me safe in my warm comfy bed?

Besides, in a way, you already have a Union.  Your steward is called Sgt. Major.  He‘s supposed to be the head ‘working stiff‘, and the officers are ‘management‘.  Any officer who doesn‘t listen to the Sgt. Major is a fool, and will not last with the men, especially in a war situation where accidents happen with live fire all the time...

See, Unions were based largely on Marx‘s idea of class struggle.  The military system, with its built in "classes" functions that way by default.  This is why the men in our military have accomplished so much with so little, in spite of the butt-snorkelling petty bureaucrats who wear officer uniforms - because the "working class" has to some extent insulated itself from the excess stupidity of the "ruling class", and continues to do things in a tried and true way.


----------



## Gunner

> The feeling I get is that the brass only cares for itself and we live by there wim, yes as a soldier our duty is to follow orders, but you would think they would care for our well being.


Chop, I don‘t agree with your comments at all.  While there is deadwood at every rank level, for the most part, I have always been impressed by the level of commitment by many senior officers.  The level of support (or caring) by senior officers is very good. The idea that you live by "their whim" is ridiculous.



> Once again, I‘ll peg this on the leadership. Maybe if we had some higher ups not suffering from CRS, it would be a different story.
> I wonder, would the situation be different if 20 or 30 general/flag officers handed in their "leafs" as a response to the government ignoring efforts to look out for the troops.


Infanteer, many general‘s and admirals have handed in their "leafs" in response to Federal decisions.  Google search Admiral Landymore and the Admirals Revolt. What about Admiral Anderson our short lived CDS?  What about all of the army generals in the 90s that retired to protest government decisions (MGen Vernon, etc). Why can‘t you name one of these good men who could not continue serving?  Quite simply the media and people do not care about the military which is how the government continues to underfund us.  Look at Cretin a couple of years ago mocking retired generals and their inability to "speak up" until they retired.  *Infanteer, if you don‘t like the way the CF is running why don‘t you turn in your corporal stripes? /B] 




			A comment from a soldier of the 40s and 50s. When was the last time any of these unionized armies fought a battle and won. As for Jacques Chirac what does he know about anything.
Coming from probably the most authoritative member of the board, I find this post settles the issue for me. Thank you for weighing in, sir.
		
Click to expand...

Gents, sorry but this is simplistic reasoning in the extreme.  Victory in the 40s was based on the success of the Russian armies on the Eastern Front not from the inherent strenght of Canadian Battalions ability to impinge on the rights of its soldiers.




			How does union help us win the land battle? The military is an old institution that has seemed to work when it is needed. Isn‘t there other issues of more pressing concern that we could address.
		
Click to expand...

Infanteer, a union could help right the wrongs inflicted upon our organization.  It is beyond the capability of anyone in the CF and without external influences it won‘t be fixed.  The Canadian army has never been prepared for conflict and if we don‘t get our act together, we never will.  Leadership can‘t change a politicians or bureaucrats mind about funding, personnel levels, resourcing, etc, etc.  




			butt-snorkelling petty bureaucrats who wear officer uniforms - because the "working class" has to some extent insulated itself from the excess stupidity of the "ruling class", and continues to do things in a tried and true way.
		
Click to expand...

Geez, you have to be kidding me comrade!  There obviously isn‘t any stupidity in the "working class".   *


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> Originally posted by Gunnar:
> The basic function of a union is to protect dumb guys from being exploited by management.


As someone who is both university educated and who has been aided by his union in a recent dispute, I take offence at that.  It‘s not even remotely true.




> Ideal case is the blue collar job for an average working stiff.  He will never do any other job, so his lot in life has to be set up in such a way that more senior people can‘t take advantage of him.


My job is white collar.



> The Canadian military breeds intelligent soldiers, men who can obey orders, but are trained to ask why.  We‘re particularly good at obeying the intent of orders whilst not strictly complying with a given order.  That requires thought, or auftfragstatistik.  (Tell me if I‘m misusing this term Mike).


Sounds good to me...



> Unions tend to get in the way of accomplishing anything in a quick manner, bring in the socialist element, and quite often defy common sense.  A good example of this is the teaching industry, where they have a powerful union with their mandated breaks and built-in protections, and it allows for such blatant featherbedding (and allows teachers to push their own political agendas instead of TEACHING) that the Canadian educational system is toast.


You have a problem with mandated breaks?  I work in a hospital with employees of two different unions, and common sense is allowed to apply - no one measures breaks to the second, and there is give and take - it all depends on the manager and the employees, and how happy they are in their work.  Many RNs and LPNs volunteer time when needed.  It would probably be that way in a unionized Canadian Army, too.   I don‘t agree with the comment about teachers getting to push their own personal agenda; doesn‘t match what I have heard from my teacher friends here in Alberta.




> See, Unions were based largely on Marx‘s idea of class struggle.  The military system, with its built in "classes" functions that way by default.  This is why the men in our military have accomplished so much with so little, in spite of the butt-snorkelling petty bureaucrats who wear officer uniforms - because the "working class" has to some extent insulated itself from the excess stupidity of the "ruling class", and continues to do things in a tried and true way.


You‘re way too wrapped up in what you THINK a union is, and not well versed at all in how they operate.


----------



## Infanteer

> Infanteer, many general‘s and admirals have handed in their "leafs" in response to Federal decisions. Google search Admiral Landymore and the Admirals Revolt. What about Admiral Anderson our short lived CDS? What about all of the army generals in the 90s that retired to protest government decisions (MGen Vernon, etc). Why can‘t you name one of these good men who could not continue serving? Quite simply the media and people do not care about the military which is how the government continues to underfund us. Look at Cretin a couple of years ago mocking retired generals and their inability to "speak up" until they retired.


When I think of officers who "fell on their sword", think of this *this*.  As for Cretin‘s remarks, I think we can agree that he was a continuation of Trudeau as Military‘s Number One Enemy.



> Infanteer, if you don‘t like the way the CF is running why don‘t you turn in your corporal stripes?


Because that would no message across.  A Lieutenant General is an important figure, politically and militarily (that is why they get little flags for their cars, I guess), whereas my two hooks denote me as another warm body to fill a trench.



> Infanteer, a union could help right the wrongs inflicted upon our organization. It is beyond the capability of anyone in the CF and without external influences it won‘t be fixed. The Canadian army has never been prepared for conflict and if we don‘t get our act together, we never will. Leadership can‘t change a politicians or bureaucrats mind about funding, personnel levels, resourcing, etc, etc.


How would a union fix these problems?  The military has many special interest groups looking out for it; David Bercuson bleats or Jack Granatstein bleet to the national media once a month.  I just don‘t see how it could possibly succeed where others have (up until now) met with difficulty.  

I guess I could say I believe this do to distrust in the idea of unions as they exist today.  This comes from my personal experiences of dealing with unions from a managerial standpoint (ie, they cause more headaches then they fix).

Since we are on the subject of problems in the CF, I noticed at Chapters last week that Granatstein has a new book out entitled _Who Killed the Canadian Military?: What Canada Must Do to Defend Itself in the 21st Century_.  It is probably worth reading to get a better insight on this subject.

Infanteer Out.


----------



## Gunner

> When I think of officers who "fell on their sword", think of this this.


How come Col Tim Collins didn‘t go out with a loud bang?  He certainly had the media stature to do it and it would have been picked up by the tabloids in a further effort to embarrass Blair.



> Because that would no message across. A Lieutenant General is an important figure, politically and militarily (that is why they get little flags for their cars, I guess), whereas my two hooks denote me as another warm body to fill a trench.


So you are going to sit in the mess and grip about how *^*&^ the military is and deride general officers for not quitting in a media spectacle?  Where‘s your principles man?       Unfortunately, a LGen leaving the military doesn‘t really do much to embarrass the government.  Look at MGen Cam Ross‘s reaction to the government decision to deploy to Afghanistan.



> How would a union fix these problems? The military has many special interest groups looking out for it; David Bercuson bleats or Jack Granatstein bleet to the national media once a month. I just don‘t see how it could possibly succeed where others have (up until now) met with difficulty. I guess I could say I believe this do to distrust in the idea of unions as they exist today. This comes from my personal experiences of dealing with unions from a managerial standpoint (ie, they cause more headaches then they fix).


I‘m not a fan of unions either but the CF is faced with a situation where no one looks out for it and political considerations take precedence over military requirements (ie, the LSVW).  

We do have some influential friends of the military but more people can name Sven Robinson and Shiela Copps then Bercuson and Granastein.

Cheers,


----------



## Infanteer

> We do have some influential friends of the military but more people can name Sven Robinson and Shiela Copps then Bercuson and Granastein.


Ouch...sad but true.

I think from this parlee I figure that our problems are not military or political, rather they are social (ie, not many Canadians give a flying **** about their military).

Anyone have any ideas on how to address this issue?


----------



## cdonnelly

Being a union guy I must add that unions do provide a degree of job security in some environments, facilitate wage increases and cost of living allowances during the bargaining process. As for unionizing the CF...I think we need to be re-born hard first(speaking in the reserve world of course).By the way nice site.


----------



## Infanteer

> Being a union guy I must add that unions do provide a degree of job security in some environments


I agree with you to some extent.  I got buddies who are independant tradesmen, and the union protects them from groups that would undercut a journeymen‘s (deserved) wage.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

This is all nice but we have strayed from the original question. However I‘m afraid I can‘t be of much help because I waffle back and forth. I‘m thinking maybe something more of an association with strict guidelines on what can and cannot be included under the umbrella. I do work in a union job and yes sometimes you do need protection from overzealous polititions. Even though I liked Mike Harris and most of the idea‘s the Tories had,{which included closing my workplace] the way they were implemented was terrible because they would‘nt listen to anything the rank and file had to say.  :flame:   However the flip side of me hates the way that no matter what some of the people do here they don‘t ever seem to have to pay the piper as in the union‘s eyes they can do no wrong.    CHEERS


----------



## Infanteer

> This is all nice but we have strayed from the original question.


One thing I have learned is that you can‘t fight internet thread evolution.  Just go with the flow


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

TOUCHE!!!


----------



## S McKee

The crux of the article is women in combat...I think that this has been done to death..however in the sceond part of the article I found it interesting that 30% of NCMs are in support of a professional association or union. The RCMP has an association for its members however it doesn't really have any power.  


Women still not accepted in combat, reports find
Last Updated Tue, 08 Mar 2005 09:32:01 EST 
CBC News
MONTREAL - Women are still not accepted in combat roles by many of their male colleagues in Canada's ground forces, according to internal army reports. 

The two studies, obtained by the CBC's French-language network Radio-Canada, looked at the attitudes of rank-and-file soldiers on such issues as gays and lesbians, ethnic minorities and commanding officers. 

They found that soldiers in Quebec least welcomed women in combat positions. 

Michel Drapeau, a retired Armed Forces colonel and military commentator, said the army has to try harder to integrate women in combat units. 

"At the moment, there is a wide difference between what is being said and what is being done, and the polls tells us that soldiers, the dialogue they are having, is not quite the one that their leaders are [having]." 

But an army recruiter said it will take time for women to fit into what have been traditional male positions. 

Lieut. Nancy Baril, an Armed Forces recruiter at CFB Valcartier in Quebec, said attitudes are changing as more women go into jobs traditionally held by men. 

"They know if they come in the military, even if it's a guy or a girl, they're going to do the same job, they're going to get paid the same." 

About 17 per cent of the army's personnel are women. The army hopes to have that up to 28 per cent in two decades. 

Many troops, especially in Quebec, also are unenthused about having gays and lesbians in the army, the studies suggest. 

Some in lower ranks want union

The reports also suggest the lower ranks have lost confidence in officers. 

As well, researchers found that 30 per cent of the lower ranks would support the creation of a professional order or union. 

Drapeau said the finding indicates that the army has a serious problem. 

"It shows a breakdown in esprit de corps, in leadership, two absolute essential qualities of the modern armed forces."


----------



## GerryCan

> As well, researchers found that 30 per cent of the lower ranks would support the creation of a professional order or union.
> 
> Drapeau said the finding indicates that the army has a serious problem.
> 
> "It shows a breakdown in esprit de corps, in leadership, two absolute essential qualities of the modern armed forces."





I'm very interested to know exactly what kind of union this 30% is supposedly supporting. My only experience with a union was 3 years under C.A.W. also referred to as 'Cry and Whine'

During those few years I noticed that a union is good for 2 things:

1. Getting lazy people out of work they don't want to do through a series of loopholes;

2. Creating a permanent barrier between higher authorities  and common labourers in the work place.

So if its Esprit de Corps we're losing out on, I'm not sure that a union would be the best means of regenerating such a thing.
Also with leadership along the same lines, a Union Rep isn't going to help in any way shape or form for a fall out in leadership. Only leadership can rectify that problem.

Can you imagine a Snr NCO telling a Pte to do something and hearing "I'd like to speak with my union rep."

Again, I'd like to see what type of union would be implemented, as there are quite a few armies out there that are unionized. I'm also interested to know how effective these unionized armies are now with it in place.


----------



## S McKee

My only experience with a military union in action was with the Dutch. During the height of the war in Bosnia we actually had Dutch soldiers refuse to go on missions that they thought were too dangerous, these were soldiers attached to a Canadian unit, and depite our protests there wasn't a thing we could do about it.


----------



## winchable

I was once told by my boss at my office, when I jokingly said "Wait until we get unionized then you'll see lazy."
He responded by saying "If management does such a piss poor job that you actually feel the need to unionize then I'll know I've done something really wrong." I'd like to point out that I call my boss Joe, he wears a ball cap to work and his office is the same size as mine, we're at a level of management employee interaction where he rarely ever needs to pull out the "boss" card.

In the developed world where we have minimum wages, courts, human rights watches etc. I can only see a union wedging in between management and labour and really just exacerbating the fading (yet still present) notions of upper and lower classes, which unions are somehow a result of I believe.

In an organisation such as the military where thousands of peoples (millions even) lives depend on the professional and close interaction between "management" and "labour" (define those as you wish, on a small level or the big picture) I could only see a union as a negative force...do we really want to breed any (More) contempt between lower and upper ranks? Our NCOs and Officers?

Back to my orginal point, sorry, if there is a strong sentiment that a union is neccessary perhaps the "management" might wish to consider why someone would feel that way rather then how to avoid it, or even accomodate it.
I lost myself there a bit, there shouldn't _need_ to be a union.

That story about the Dutch is just absurd too, it just shows that a union cannot function in a military, maybe because there is a degree of danger to every job and there has to be some kind of "override" button when it comes to what one individual is afraid of.

Bit altruistic? Was that a bit much? I'm just throwing thoughts out at this point


----------



## NiTz

I don't want to start a flamewar here, but I saw this reportage on tv last night and actually they said that the canadians in the west least welcomed women, gay and lesbians in the ranks, and that Quebec has the most open-minded soldiers... Maybe I misunderstood or something but i'll check this info again, as it makes more common sense to me that what Jumper said was right, as we, in Quebec, are a bunch of always-whining and union-wanting people. Don't misunderstand me here, not ALL quebecers are like that, but there's lots of them.  Anyways, feel free to correct me!

By the way, IMHO it would be stupid to unionize the army. I'm part of a union actually in my civi job and it SUCKS. Really! If they unionize the army, they'll encourage lazyness, overpaying, and imagine the poor officers having to deal with soldiers complaining : "it's too dangerous for me, I refuse to do it!" or "hey, I won't finish my work, it's 4:00pm!" . We'll lose all about what the army is all about and besides, work conditions are similar and even better in many cases than in unionized places. Rare are the places where someone with a 3rd grade in secondary school gets paid 30000$ a year the first year with all dental and medical plus the month of vacations. Look at what union does : in my region, everybody working in plants are about to lose their job as the directors of the plants now move outside of Canada because they're tired to pay stupid asses 34$ an hour for sitting on their ass and break material and don't do anything except whining and complaining because "it's too dangerous to work". In a union, they're always abuse and that's what's killing the whole thing. They're even closing the Wal-Mart in my city because of this stupid union. We lose 200 jobs AGAIN.. Really, people should stop thinking that unions are always good, in fact, they're not. Just my 2 cents



Cheers!


----------



## GGboy

Am I the only one who finds the idea of a "target" of 28% women in the army in two decades a little silly? If the gals can do the job, and I've met many fine female soldiers in the CF Reg Force and Reserves, then fine, but setting a quota like that will only cause problems IMHO. It will invariably mean watering down the requirements, which will be a slap in the face to the women who did manage to meet the cbt arms standards.
Also, doesn't CBC have any other "military experts" on call besides the unfortunately ubiquitous Col. (ret'd) Drapeau? Yeah, I know: rhetorical question ...  :-\


----------



## putz

Before this gets too off topic I believe that this is covered in another thread:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27970.from1110302627/topicseen.html#new



			
				GGboy said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who finds the idea of a "target" of 28% women in the army in two decades a little silly? If the gals can do the job, and I've met many fine female soldiers in the CF Reg Force and Reserves, then fine, but setting a quota like that will only cause problems IMHO. It will invariably mean watering down the requirements, which will be a slap in the face to the women who did manage to meet the cbt arms standards.
> Also, doesn't CBC have any other "military experts" on call besides the unfortunately ubiquitous Col. (ret'd) Drapeau? Yeah, I know: rhetorical question ... :-\



Also its Vice Versa:


			
				NiTz said:
			
		

> I don't want to start a flamewar here, but I saw this reportage on tv last night and actually they said that the canadians in the west least welcomed women, gay and lesbians in the ranks, and that Quebec has the most open-minded soldiers...


----------



## P-Free

Unionizing the army would be ridiculous. For a union to work, it has to have bargaining power and for an organization like the military to give that much power to the individual would be disastrous.


----------



## mo-litia

NiTz said:
			
		

> By the way, IMHO it would be stupid to unionize the army. I'm part of a union actually in my civi job and it SUCKS. Really! If they unionize the army, they'll encourage lazyness, overpaying, and imagine the poor officers having to deal with soldiers complaining : "it's too dangerous for me, I refuse to do it!" or "hey, I won't finish my work, it's 4:00pm!"



Have you been to a headquarters Bldg lately? ;D

I am a strong supporter of unions-for the reasons they were initially created.  However, I agree with some posts that many unions have regressed into a sheltering system for laziness and incompetency among workers.  As for the idea of a unionized military, IMO it is a incredibly bad idea.

Not sure if this is true, but I heard that in the Dutch military if a troop refuses to cut his hair in accordance with regulations he simply pays a small monthly 'fine' and keeps his hippie dreadlocks.   :


----------



## NiTz

Very good post Mol-litia. It's exactly my point of view.. maybe the union in my workplace gives me a bad idea of all the unions? Anyways, the thing about the dutch army is ridiculous.. it's very bad for the look of the army, and it doesn't look professional at all. 



Cheers!


----------



## Acorn

I think it'd be prudent for people to post what they know is fact about the Dutch Army, rather than "I heard that..." type stuff.

Acorn
(I haven't seen a long-haired Dutch soldier since they got rid of conscripts)


----------



## Love793

Great, and I have enough trouble getting guys to actually work as it is. ;D


----------



## Cloud Cover

I don't think the enemy is going to respect your union rights -"solidarity forever" is not a universal maxim. Also, unionization inevitably leads to more contracting out and more micro management, which fuels more unrest in the workplace. 

The formation of a professional organization with it's own distinct ethos and creed for duly qualified personnel with the skill, expertise and wherewithall is something I have long advocated.


----------



## Brad Sallows

If you lot ever decide to do the union thing, at least keep this one important fact in mind: "management" is not the officers, it is the government and people of Canada.  All of you - NCMs and officers - are in the same boat.  I think some people have a misconception that "management"="officers", but the officer corps isn't going to spring for more money to meet the demands of the union - it has no money to spring.


----------



## mo-litia

Acorn said:
			
		

> I think it'd be prudent for people to post what they know is fact about the Dutch Army, rather than "I heard that..." type stuff.
> 
> Acorn
> (I haven't seen a long-haired Dutch soldier since they got rid of conscripts)



I think admitting that the knowledge is unverified is a lot more prudent than posting it as an implied fact...

Although in light of the fact that the Dutch no longer use conscripts I can see that there are likely no more 'longhairs' in the Dutch military.   (Just unionized clowns who refuse dangerous missions by calling their union reps!)

So you HAVE seen longhaired Dutch troops? Would you care to elaborate?   Was the barracks room telegraph correct in that they only had to pay a monthly stipend to keep their curly locks or was the Sergeant blowing smoke up my ass?


----------



## FastEddy

Whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> I don't think the enemy is going to respect your union rights -"solidarity forever" is not a universal maxim. Also, unionization inevitably leads to more contracting out and more micro management, which fuels more unrest in the workplace.
> 
> The formation of a professional organization with it's own distinct ethos and creed for duly qualified personnel with the skill, expertise and wherewithall is something I have long advocated.




It would appear that since 1968 we have, watered down, turned insideout and back, the CAF's to a point where the Good Order and Military Discipline seems to be disappearing. A Union would certainty put the icing on the cake.

Example;    CPO to Ordinary Seaman, Jones I want that Head scrubbed down.
                      Ordinary Seaman to CPO,   Sorry Chief thats not my job description.

                      Chopper Pilot to Crew,         Okay fellows lets get this show on the road.
                      Crew to Chopper Pilot,         Sorry Sir, but according to Union rules we are not required
                                                                              use or operate any equipment that may be antiquaint ed
                                                                              or pose a threat to our health or safety.

                     2/Lt. to Platoon Sgt.             Sargeant, take four and flank right of that MG Pillbox.
                     Platoon Sgt. to 2/Lt.             Sir, are you out of your f****** mind, I'm going to have
                                                                              clear this with our Shop Steward, this order could get
                                                                              us killed.

Slightly exaggerated, perhaps, but I think we all get the message.


----------



## Infanteer

Just before we start trashing the Dutch, I'd like to point out that I was on a course with Dutch soldiers while overseas and I don't find the description of "lazy union sop" very accurate.  These Dutchmen were very fit and capable soldiers - they were all from an Infantry regiment ("Princess Irene" or something) and I know one has went onto a Dutch SOC unit.  We were bugging them about their union and they told us that the whole union thing isn't taken very seriously by the "tip of the spear" types in the Dutch Army; they told me it was mainly something that was used by soldiers, mainly Rear Ech types, to sob when they felt life as a soldier was unfair (maybe akin to our Ombudsman?).


----------



## mo-litia

That doesn't surprise me at all, Infanteer. I was having trouble trying to wrap my head around the concept of a military union in a nation that had been conquored by the Nazis.  Good to hear that us 'pointy stick' types tend to think alike regardless of our nationality.

I can't trash the Dutch army though; the Netherlands still spends more of their GNP on their army than we do... :crybaby:


----------



## DBA

Can only find some old information, MS Encarta94 says about Dutch Defense: "All males must serve from 14 to 17 months in the armed forces. In the late 1980s, conscripts made up almost half the 103,600 members of the Dutch armed forces."  In a mandatory service situation having something like a union or a more powerful ombudsmen isn't such a bad idea. There would also in general tend to be a large difference in attitudes in the volunteer longer serving members compared to those in for the fairly short mandatory service period.


----------



## pbi

Unions exist because leadership fails. Period.

If you doubt me, check out successful, happy non-union firms in this country and see what makes the difference: leadership. We could go on for hours about the abysmal lack of any kind of leadership in the civvy workplace (including, I'm sorry to say, the protective services...) but I think I've made my point.

All the arguments against unions posted here are good ones. My grandfather was a   skilled machinist in the aircraft industry for years, and was a union man. When approached about the possibility of being a shop steward, he declined. He told me that in his opinion the union had long ago lost sight of what it was created for, and was more interested in looking after its power than anything else.

Besides, I challenge you to find an organization the size of the CF that offers as many benefits, protections, and is as hard to fire anyone from as   the CF. As well, a form of "protection" exists in the WO/Senior NCO class, who have no real equivalent in the civiilian workplace. 

My guess is that this supposed "30%" of people who want a union contains very few Army people, and even fewer combat arms. It is probably made of those whiners who joined the military as "a job" and don't like being told what to do when they would rather just sit on their asses.

Mo-litia: I don't know where you get the basis for your crack about HQs, but I've spent a few years in units (both Res and Reg) and in HQs   and IMHO overall the number of people working late, taking work home or coming in on weekends is much higher in HQs than it is in units. Enjoy your time in battalion: when it's over, it's over.

Cheers.


----------



## mo-litia

pbi - it was meant as a joke. Don't think I'm trying to play super soldier...


----------



## pbi

Ok-point taken. 

Cheers


----------



## NiTz

For you info. only, the union is very costly too. I pay 31.25$ A WEEK for union dues! It was 18.45$ a couple of years ago but some clowns in quebec city decided to go out with signs for 8 months, and we had to pay for them and thats worse : we'll have to pay this until the loan is cleared. But we don't know the amount of the loan.. it's ridiculous. So, union dues, placed on a annual basis, now cost me 1625$ a year.  :  awful


Cheers!

Nitz


----------



## Acorn

At least you can claim union dues on taxes. I wish compulsory "club memberships" (mess dues) were treated that way.

Infanteer's experience with the Dutch is much the same as mine. I found they can be very agressive troops. As well, a Dutch Sgt Maj I worked with for a few years explained to me that the union is more like a professional association, and was originally put in place to prevent the abuse of conscripts and improve the overall QOL of the troops. It's mandate still remains as such.

I have no idea whether they paid a monthly "fee" to be allowed to grow their hair. I do remember seeing some of them in the early '80s in Germany, and there was a fair representation of long-haried soldiers.

Acorn


----------



## Cloud Cover

Acorn said:
			
		

> At least you can claim union dues on taxes. I wish compulsory "club memberships" (mess dues) were treated that way.



Incorporate yourself and claim the dues as business expenses, along with your computer and internet connection to view army.ca!![professional development and training expense].


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Acorn said:
			
		

> At least you can claim union dues on taxes. I wish compulsory "club memberships" (mess dues) were treated that way.
> 
> Acorn



I have my Mess Dues receipt marked Mess Assessment. I've been claiming it for years as Professional Dues and never been questioned and have always had it accepted. Maybe I'm just lucky.


----------



## ZipperHead

Ref Dutch soldiers: I worked with a tank platoon in Bosnia in 2000, and we asked about the hair deal (most of them had hair shorter than the average Canadian soldier). The sgt said that they sign some form of agreement that they won't embarrass the Royal Dutch Army while serving overseas, and having "unmilitary" style of hair falls under that. They were extremely good soldiers, and I would work with them over US, UK or any other soldiers. Germans were also very good. Most of the Dutch soldiers (again, soldiers, not REMF's) basically mocked the union idea.

Mess dues: When I mentioned claiming them once when I had my taxes done by H & R Block, they said that you can't, and since they will back you if you are audited, I would go with them on that.

A little while back there was some clown who sent an email around the DIN wanting to start up some "association" to protect CF members from "The Man". I could only fathom a guess as who would be the President of this "association". Hmmmm. I could also see the incessant (moreso than now, which staggers the imagination) whinging about how shitty we are treated (3 meals a day in the field and on course, a paycheck GUARANTEED every 2 weeks, usually 4 and a half day workweeks (less if you count sports afternoons, Tp Leaders hours, mess meetings, etc, etc). Yeah, I could get this kind of money on civvy street with a grade 12 education. Anybody who suggests forming a union in the CF should be shot with a ball of their own shit, and be forced to work in a minimum wage job for a month, and then see what they think about forming a union, which would only suck out "association" or union dues out of us, for nothing in return (I somehow couldn't see us going on strike, so strike pay is out.....). 

As mentioned, we already have an Ombudsman, so it's not like we're some sweatshop, pumping out goods for Kathie Lee Gifford or anything. And frankly, I don't think I would be able to restrain my rage if one of my troops threatened to go to the "shop steward" when I told him to do his job  :threat: 

Al


----------



## Cloud Cover

recceguy said:
			
		

> I have my Mess Dues receipt marked Mess Assessment. I've been claiming it for years as Professional Dues and never been questioned and have always had it accepted. Maybe I'm just lucky.



The only possible category under section 8. (1)(i) of the Income Tax Act that would make mess dues an allowable deduction is sub-para (v) which requires that the purpose of the mess membership is an association of public servants the primary object of which is to promote the improvement of the member's conditions of employment or work. That doesn't sound like any mess in the CAF that I am aware of, and in any event it has already been judicially determined that members of the CF are not public servants by any stretch- unlike their civilian counterparts.     

AFAIK, service in the CF is not considered to be a form of professional employment under which the payment of the membership due is necessary to maintain a professional status (other than one in which it is a requirement to hold a licence- [doctor, lawyer, certain engineers, nurses and a few others.) Your T-4 slip should indicate in a box any annual professional, union or like dues that you may deduct. 

I think you have been lucky, indeed. [not that it's a big deal for the 20 bucks in tax you save at the end of the year.]   

I am starting to think that if a military mess was converted into a not for profit corporation, shares subscriptions could be offered based on rank instead of paying dues. This way, some of your capital is preserved. The NPC would be obligated to purchase back your shares if a member cashes out of the mess.


----------



## ArmyRick

A union for the army. No. NO. NO FREAKIN WAY !!!

Here is the logic. What rules in the National Defence Act allow your supervisors (I hate that word) and/or leaders to abuse their authority? What extra vacation time do we neeed in the service?

Wake up call people. Those of you with civilian employment expirience know what I am talking about.

How about we change the rules of garrison life for combat arms so we do mandatory 44 hour work weeks and lets cut that vacation back to 2 weeks maximum vice the luxurious 20-25 annual days + weekends + stat holidays (annual days can only be used monday to friday and not on stat days either). Oh and lets ditch that short, compassionate and special leaves that can be authorized by your CO. So a service member who expiriences usually 5-7 weeks off each year will now be down to 2 weeks total. 

Hey thats what the labour rules are.

Forget good training exercises because they would be a risk. Too much liability.

Come to think, can all exercises because where is the CF going to get the money for all that over time? Our customer, the govt of Canada will not foot the bill. Or maybe to meet this need we can shrink the army down to one brigade.

Come on, troops. We have it good in the military. We are well paid and looked after. Try working a civilian manual labour job for three weeks and compare us to that.

The stuff we need is what no union can get us. New AFVs, no helicopters, more troops and updating the existing stuff we have.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> Anybody who suggests forming a union in the CF should be shot with a ball of their own shit, and be forced to work in a minimum wage job for a month, and then see what they think about forming a union, which would only suck out "association" or union dues out of us, for nothing in return
> Al



Great post!


----------



## KOMODO

I'm not in favour of a union but some things need to be addressed.

1. You pay UI all your career and never receive any.

2. You get injured on a tour and become 100% disabled. You apply to VAC and receive a full
pension. OK now what about the SISIP YOU PAID FOR (LTD). You would not get a cent from them.
Reason, they claw back any payment from the VAC. Accordingly, VAC is an award for your pain and suffering and NOT a Disable pension as per say.

3. This issue is being addressed as we speak in the modern day veteran charter. As a Cf member
and having completed 4 tours I have seen to many good soldiers lose there careers over medical
and not get the SISIP AS THEY PAID FOR. 

4. As for the people that come in here whining, lets say Id rather be sitting at a desk in the warm than doing paper stuff all my career than the army stuff that have destroyed my health. 

5. Final point,  DON'T ROCK THE BOAT BECAUSE ONE DAY YOU WILL BE IN IT.


----------



## c4th

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> How about we change the rules of garrison life for combat arms so we do mandatory 44 hour work weeks and lets cut that vacation back to 2 weeks maximum vice the luxurious 20-25 annual days + weekends + stat holidays (annual days can only be used monday to friday and not on stat days either). Oh and lets ditch that short, compassionate and special leaves that can be authorized by your CO. So a service member who expiriences usually 5-7 weeks off each year will now be down to 2 weeks total.



Rick,   Don't even think stuff like that.   Some idiot is going to read that and screw us, or we'll get 50,000 recruits jamming up the recruiting system!



			
				KOMODO said:
			
		

> I'm not in favour of a union but some things need to be addressed.
> 1. You pay UI all your career and never receive any.



You would be eligible for EI upon the termination of your contract.   



			
				KOMODO said:
			
		

> 2. You get injured on a tour and become 100% disabled. You apply to VAC and receive a full
> pension. OK now what about the SISIP YOU PAID FOR (LTD). You would not get a cent from them.
> Reason, they claw back any payment from the VAC. Accordingly, VAC is an award for your pain and suffering and NOT a Disable pension as per say.



LTD clawbacks are a reality in union and non-union world.   IMO most benefit packages are pretty much
scams to get employees to accept lower pay, even though the employee pays for it.   



			
				KOMODO said:
			
		

> 4. As for the people that come in here whining, lets say Id rather be sitting at a desk in the warm than doing paper stuff all my career than the army stuff that have destroyed my health.



My civvy office job will be available as soon as my CT to 031 goes through.   Send me a private message and I will tell you where to send your resume.   BTW, at the end of my last tour I was in pretty close to the best physical shape of my life.   My vision was better.   Had money in the bank, and no signs of stress.   Trust me, civvy street destroys your health and it's boring.


----------



## S McKee

KOMODO said:
			
		

> I'm not in favour of a union but some things need to be addressed.
> 
> 1. You pay UI all your career and never receive any.
> 
> 2. You get injured on a tour and become 100% disabled. You apply to VAC and receive a full
> pension. OK now what about the SISIP YOU PAID FOR (LTD). You would not get a cent from them.
> Reason, they claw back any payment from the VAC. Accordingly, VAC is an award for your pain and suffering and NOT a Disable pension as per say.
> 
> 3. This issue is being addressed as we speak in the modern day veteran charter. As a Cf member
> and having completed 4 tours I have seen to many good soldiers lose there careers over medical
> and not get the SISIP AS THEY PAID FOR.
> 
> 4. As for the people that come in here whining, lets say Id rather be sitting at a desk in the warm than doing paper stuff all my career than the army stuff that have destroyed my health.
> 
> 5. Final point,   DON'T ROCK THE BOAT BECAUSE ONE DAY YOU WILL BE IN IT.


CF ombudsman released a report which looked into concerns regarding SISIP and VAC you should go to their site and review their conclusions, one of which was to cease the practice of deducting SISIP based on your VAC.  http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/reports/special/sisip-toc_e.asp


----------



## S McKee

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> Ref Dutch soldiers: I worked with a tank platoon in Bosnia in 2000, and we asked about the hair deal (most of them had hair shorter than the average Canadian soldier). The sgt said that they sign some form of agreement that they won't embarrass the Royal Dutch Army while serving overseas, and having "unmilitary" style of hair falls under that. They were extremely good soldiers, and I would work with them over US, UK or any other soldiers. Germans were also very good. Most of the Dutch soldiers (again, soldiers, not REMF's) basically mocked the union idea.
> 
> Mess dues: When I mentioned claiming them once when I had my taxes done by H & R Block, they said that you can't, and since they will back you if you are audited, I would go with them on that.
> 
> A little while back there was some clown who sent an email around the DIN wanting to start up some "association" to protect CF members from "The Man". I could only fathom a guess as who would be the President of this "association". Hmmmm. I could also see the incessant (moreso than now, which staggers the imagination) whinging about how shitty we are treated (3 meals a day in the field and on course, a paycheck GUARANTEED every 2 weeks, usually 4 and a half day workweeks (less if you count sports afternoons, Tp Leaders hours, mess meetings, etc, etc). Yeah, I could get this kind of money on civvy street with a grade 12 education. Anybody who suggests forming a union in the CF should be shot with a ball of their own crap, and be forced to work in a minimum wage job for a month, and then see what they think about forming a union, which would only suck out "association" or union dues out of us, for nothing in return (I somehow couldn't see us going on strike, so strike pay is out.....).
> 
> As mentioned, we already have an Ombudsman, so it's not like we're some sweatshop, pumping out goods for Kathie Lee Gifford or anything. And frankly, I don't think I would be able to restrain my rage if one of my troops threatened to go to the "shop steward" when I told him to do his job   :threat:
> 
> Al



Great post, when I mentioned my experience with the Dutch at the beginning of this thread I should have stated that they were conscripts, my apologies.. anyway Allan your 100% right , for all the bitching we do as soldiers we have it pretty good (9% in total pay raises this year). I make over 62 grand a year and the benefits: medical, dental I don't have to wait in line for medical specialists, I can take leave when ever I want. Not to mention the life experience. Why would we need a union to come in here and screw it all up?


----------



## KOMODO

to 04 
Never compare us military to the civilian world. We are a bread of our own. Don't bring  weekend warrior attitude from the civilian side and think the military runs the same way. We work hard,play hard.
Sure there is down time and you find things to due but it all pays out in the end when you are deployed and little time off  except R and R. Yes we get a pay check every 2 weeks. A good pay raise too. Its about time. Remember the early 90s when the pay freeze was on.Tough times for the junior ncms.We made it through.As a civie union, on the picket line!!!!!!!

Cheers 
Sniper(4 C K)


----------



## ZipperHead

One comment ref UI (or EI): People tend to get the impression that we should get back what we put into EI. The I stands for Insurance. If people wrecked their car every 26 weeks (or whatever the length of time is) and wanted a new one, their insurance rates would go up, so why should people be able to go on EI all the time without paying higher premiums than people such as ourselves who rarely if ever claim EI (BTW, I'm on Parental Leave right now, so I've been able to recoup some of what I've paid into for my whole adult life (18+ years)).

I'm glad that there is a EI program as it protects the average worker, but like any program out there, there are people who abuse it no end, and also there are people who could conceivably never use it in their entire life (if they are lucky).

Al


----------



## GO!!!

It has been addressed several times that a union would not be required if the leadership was "doing their job" 

My question is, how can the leadership do their job when they are shuffled in and out like so many cards? I have seen 3 Pl comds in the last year, not one of which who bothered to learn the names of anyone but the s**t disturbers in his pl. I've also seen CSMs come in and tell troops in their own coys that they were just here to punch a ticket before going back to ______(Wx, the hill, Ops - take your pick)

There has been a breakdown in leadership. 

On the issue of days off - how many people on this forum have been promised days off for various extra duties - only to return and find out that the last guy left and "forgot" to tell him?

As to the 5-7 weeks a year off - I want your job! Due to "operational requirements" I was not permitted more than 4 days of leave consecutively last year - and never on more than 2-3 days notice. 

My glorious unit has decided that all troops will bring coveralls, PT gear and cbts to work all the time- every day. We are unable to ascertain even what clothes we wear the next day!

Unit cohesiveness - means bringing in a group of guys every time a Coy goes somewhere in order to bring it up to strength. I have had a different section for every exercise over the last 3 years - try writing a fair PER for a guy!

Of course airing these beefs makes one "disloyal" or means that they have a "bad attitude", ensuring that the leadership that week will never hear it, or if they do, take it as anything other than griping.

However, beefs without a solution are gripes. SOOOOOO if we were to keep everyone in a position for a period of 24 mos - CPL and UP - most of the problems above would be pre - empted, as would the additional ones of trg standardisation and corporate memory - which is nearly non - existant.

AND- it can be done - after all - we seem to have very rigid time frames for the employment of OC's and CO's. Apply that same system to the working ranks and watch the Infantry get better and better.

Any thoughts?


----------



## ZipperHead

> AND- it can be done - after all - we seem to have very rigid time frames for the employment of OC's and CO's. Apply that same system to the working ranks and watch the Infantry get better and better.



Excellent point. I clued into a sad fact of military life a few years back: the shelf life of pretty much any policy, promise, initiative seems to be two years. Hmmmm, is there a correlation here??? I remember the days when you seemed to be in a troop for 2 or 3 years, for better or for worse. I knew guys that OT'ed because they couldn't stand someone in their chain of command, and knew they were there for at least 2 years (pretty drastic move, but people like that would have OT'ed anyway). I loved knowing that you would be able to get SOP's, drills, etc down cold within a troop in that time, and only have to go over it briefly at the beginning of an ex for any newbies (officer, young drivers, etc). Now, with all the doctrinal, SOP, whatever changes, I refer to them as NSOP (NON-standard operating procedures) because there are so many changes that one couldn't possibly keep up to them, so everything becomes a power struggle (or worse yet, a fug juck).

I filled out a pers info form when I first got to the Armour School, with my employment for the last 10 years, and only had space for about 4.5 years worth of employment at the Regt. By the same token, I saw some guys whose roots are so deep into the soil here in Gagtown, that they didn't fill up half the spaces for over 10 years of employment (ie. same job for 4 or 5 years). It's feast or famine, I guess..... and I shouldnt't complain too much, as I have had the opportunity to do a bunch of different jobs, but how proficient can you get if you only do something for 4 or 5 months (Jack of all trades, master of none).

We get given days off for working courses (usually 2 days for a 4 or 5 week course), and I tell my young guys to use 'em as soon as they can, because people tend to forget about the good things you've done, and focus on the time 13 years ago when you forgot to screw the top of a gerry can on all the way.... I never did get my 2 days for a course I taught on last summer (the cheques in the mail....). I have the luxury of taking time off if I need it, but the young guys are sometimes too afraid to bring it up, for fear of looking like a whiner (though there always seems to be the guy that says "I worked 2 minutes late one day last week, can I get an afternoon off???")

One thing that was brought up that I agree with is the fact that we shouldn't compare ourselves to the civilian sector, for better or worse. For everything we bitch about that we don't get that civvies do, there are many things we do get that they don't (which people always manage to think about before they bitch...). One of the things I despise is the 0800 - 1600 hrs mentality that has come to be in vogue for opposite reasons: try going into a place that never sends troops to the field (clothing stores, base orderly room, etc) and seeing that they've booked off early, so you're screwed, yet we are expected to work 0800 - 1600 pretty much every day, even if you just spent a ridiculous amount of time in the field, or overseas, or on course. If you work in an office job, fine 0800-1600hrs every day, but for field soldiers, there should be some slack cut (and at the lower, or middle "management" levels it is possible), but the corporate culture has reached to the upper levels, and you are made to feel guilty if you leave work at 1500hrs, even though you were in at 0600hrs for PT with your course. Or worked 18 hour days in the field..... you get the idea. I think the whole yin-yang aspect of the time off should be able to balance it self out naturally, without meddling from carpet commando's, and leaders are able to manage their soldiers down time without justification (reasonable being the key factor here).

Anyway, I got wound up pretty good there, so know it's time to come down....

Al


----------



## Brad Sallows

To be honest, I didn't realize the army had a problem with too much ionization in the first place...

(Thank you, Dr Hebden.)


----------



## c_canuk

I think Unionization would be a bad idea, what would be an interesting experiment though would be to expand the Padre trade so that there would be more of them to filter through the system and see where problems are arising.

I find that within my own unit I get impatient with micro managers... I would love to start my day with a briefing on whats supposed to be accomplished by the end of the day, then allow me to do it, what ends up happening is I get an LT a Wo and a Sgt constantly sending me on small taskings that often conflict, and had I been given the overall plan for the day could have organized my people more efficiently, but since I'm not being told everything and I spend half my day trying to get my orders straight chasing down the three of them, not as much gets done... Then they blame us when we aren't ready to deploy on time.

Then for example, when I'm working in the CP I get a recovery request, pass it on, and the LT orders me "Ask them if they tried 4 low" and I have to look away so he can't see my exasperated expression... He doesn't seem to understand that I've trained these people, I know what they are capable of I've seen what they've done in these sit for years, I know they aren't going to tell me they are stuck and need recovery if they haven't tried every available option. He insults me and my people by assuming they are complete idiots. But I have to go over the radio and ask this question, which makes me feel like an excrement and degrades who I'm asking and anyone else that hears it.

Stuff like this happens all the time, it's just little stuff that could be corrected, but if I speak up about it I'm Criticizing my superiors, and they don't understand what they are doing to moral and retention rates, perhaps if we had a padre watching everything going on, and having the ability to interface with everyone they could become an unofficial line of communication and suggestion to help improve the working environment


----------



## ArmyRick

c_canuck, as far as the LT butting in where he shouldn't, pull aisde your SGT or WO (depending on who is more appropriate in the chain) and discuss what the LT did. 

They will tell you what they think. If its valid point and your leaders are doing their job, then let the NCOs deal with it via the NCO chain command. 
(you gripe to sect comd, SGT to PL WO, PL WO to CSM and if its a valid point, CSM talks to OC, who in turn counsels young LT Jimmy Bob on how the army works OR you will be told some up along the way). 

As a CPL, do not engage the LT in a "professional development conversation" because that would be asking for trouble.

Hope this helps?


----------



## c_canuk

if this was an isolated incident I'd do just that, but they've let the LT inflate their self importance a whole lot by not reigning this person in a long time ago, when the CO and DCO are not around this individual struts around like General Patton and nothing been done. This member was commissioned from the ranks a while ago, and personally I thought this member was a Gray Man during their stay in the ranks. but that's my opinion, which is worth as much as it cost you , they must have impressed someone to get where they are, I wouldn't be in any position to know.

Bringing it up with the Senior NCOs would just make me a "non team player", plus they were standing 5 feet away when that particular incident happened. I know the sgt is a very switched on member, but recently I get the feeling that his hands are tied somewhere and I don't know whats going on behind the scenes. But it would be nice if there was someone that was not bound by internal politics and neutral to the COC that could pass information around.

All I know is that this kind of thing is killing Moral in my unit... though it could be a lot worse.


----------



## GO!!!

Canuck,
     Not to make you feel worse, but this sounds like the kind of guy you should just tune out - he's probably more annoying than harmful. If that's the biggest beef you have, count yourself lucky! It could be a whole lot worse. 

Besides, you can always put gay pride stickers all over his car when he's away on ex, and leave 100 urgent messages from "big Bruce" all over his desk for others to see. 

That works well - I mean I've heard it does anyway...


----------



## c_canuk

lol, well I heard through the grape vine today this individual is trying to get a reg force posting with RCR, I predict a sharp learning curve  ;D


----------



## FastEddy

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I think Unionization would be a bad idea, what would be an interesting experiment though would be to expand the Padre trade so that there would be more of them to filter through the system and see where problems are arising.




c_canuk, as frustrating as it is, remember Officers are like a barrel of Apples, there's always a few Sour or Rotten Ones. Has been and will always be.

Your a 100% right about Unionization, it would be a disaster.

Remember what goes around usually comes around and sooner or later this thorn in your side will be reassigned.

If its any comfort, your problem is not unique, in or out of the CAF's, BELIEVE ME.


----------



## Alien1

Unionize the army has been tried in 1999 or 2000 I'm not sure. For the first meeting, only 6 peoples sowed up in Valcartier and I was one of them. There were few sergeants and an undercover MP. I never heard again about this. I guess soldiers are not ready yet for this.


----------



## HollywoodHitman

How would the QR&O's or the NDA be ammended / interpreted to allow the formation of an unauthorised sub-organisation within the military? Is it possible that the attempt to form a Union in the CF might be violating Federal and military law?


----------



## pbi

Yes-it's already against Federal law, and military law. Military law is empowered by the NDA, which is the law of Canada. IIRC attempts at unionization are referred to as "forming a combination".

Anyway, it's a bad idea. IMHO unionization is the result of a situation in which leadership has utterly failed (at all levels...) and there are no institutional protections for people at lower levels or the defense of pay and benefits. This is is simply not the case in our military. While we have certainly experienced some disgracefully bad leadership in the recent past, our leadership today, overall, is as good as most and much, much better than many, especially with the newer, more op-focused senior officers we are now seeing in the Army such as Gen Hillier, Gen Natynczyk, Gen Devlin, etc. And as for protection of people at lower levels: sorry--a Canadian soldier is just about the best-paid, best taken care of,  best protected and hardest to fire of any of his kind that I know of. Overall, we have it pretty good: unionization would be pointless, divisive, and unnecesary.

Cheers.


----------



## reccecrewman

I used the search tool, and found little on the topic, but after doing an overseas tour, I have a couple questions I'm hoping some of the old guard can answer.  For starters, I never even knew such a thing was possible, how can an Army be unionized?  Apparently the Dutch Army is unionized and I'm just curious;

1. - Can a unionized Army go on strike?

2. - If they can (and did) would soldiers they have on overseas missions stop their work & return home?

Personally, I think it's kind of an oxymoron to have an Army thats unionized. Would that not hinder the operational effectiveness of an Army?  Anyhow, I'm just curious to see some feedback from some guys with more wisdom and experience in this matter.  As I said earlier, I did a search and found very little, so I don't mean to bring up a topic that has already been bantered about, but I'd like to get more opinions and thoughts on the matter.


----------



## Michael OLeary

I would suspect that in any unionized army, the requirement to particpate in the army's operations would remain an essential task that could not be abdicated.

The union element probably fills the roles of such things as we have embedded in the Ombudsman, the grievance system, the tying of our pay rates to the Public Service (thus 'benefitting' from their union negotiations) as well as possibly providing access to assisting officers and conflict resolution, both of which we also have mechanisms in place for.


----------



## Fraser.g

LOL

A unionized army could not be told to get up in the morning just "strongly advised" ;D


----------



## Glorified Ape

The police are unionized, but cannot shirk their duties as they qualify as an emergency service. I imagine, as Michael O'Leary pointed out, that "striking" by the army would be dealt with largely as it is with the police - they grieve by other means.


----------



## HollywoodHitman

Combat operations will only be 8 hours in length. There will be a grace period of 2 hours, where the Employer may require you to work overtime. You will be paid at time and a half and then after the 2 hours, double time, and so on and so on. Please see Collective Agreement for clarification. 

Combat operations over 10 hours total will be immediately suspended so that relief in place may take place and fresh troops brought forward. Upon relief taking place, there will be a 15 minute set up time allocated to each soldier, so they may prepare themselves for operations to resume. 

Any questions please be sure to contact your shop steward or chappel chair. :dontpanic:


----------



## Old Sweat

This question came up in the seventies and, I believe, originated with one of the public service unions. It went nowhere as there were a number of unanswered questions, such as the membership. Should it be restricted to non-management and supervisory, which leaves out officers, WOs and NCOs, or all ranks? The big killer was that the members would pay dues (which was suspected as being behind the suggestion) but could not strike, work to rule or any of the other job action associated with unionized labour. And, could NDHQ lock out the troops?


----------



## Acorn

Not sure how many will concur, but of the European armies I've dealt with the Dutch are among the best - union or not.

Acorn


----------



## Big T

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> The police are unionized, but cannot shirk their duties as they qualify as an emergency service. I imagine, as Michael O'Leary pointed out, that "striking" by the army would be dealt with largely as it is with the police - they grieve by other means.



This is true, striking impossible!


----------



## STA Gunner

Police forces will conduct a "work to rule" campaign that, although they will respond to emergencies, they will not conduct routine work, such as vandalism investigations, traffic duty etc.

The Dutch Union system is rather bitter sweet.  I got to work quite extensively in Kabul over my first month there with a Dutch platoon Commander who had been in Bosnia at the same time I was. (we only meet on missions  )

Their pay rate etc is negotiated by the unions.  Their unions do also have a grievance procedure.  However, like our military, there are some gung-ho soldiers and some not.  Unfortunately, many of the policies that flow out from the union are to appease the masses, and have a less than optimised effect on the soldier at the sharp end.

I hope the following is not too confusing...

One of their issues that they are dealing with now (as I understand it, and I may have learned it wrong from my Dutch colleague) is that the union and military have to agree on their overtime.

A soldier there is paid for a 9 hour day.  For every hour a Dutch soldier works overtime, ie on exercise, he is entitled to either another hour's overtime pay, or an equitable amount of time off.  I don't think that it is time and a half, but I will use that in this example.  So he works a 18 hour day because he is preparing for ATI (the Dutch must have those).  He gets paid for his 9 hours and banks the other 9 overtime, to be paid out as 13.5 hours, or 9 hours off.

The military will decide, based upon its requirements whether to grant that soldier that day off.  The union decides, based upon its commitment of man-hours to the military whether the soldier gets the time off.  In essence, once ATI is over, the unit is not doing anything for a couple of weeks, the soldier can take a day off.

However, the union must commit X number of calendar days worth of work to the Dutch Army.  Despite that the soldier worked 2 days' worth of hours, it is only counted as one calendar day.  So the union will crank out its formula, and check its sheets to ensure that if this soldier is given the day off, it will not put the union in the red as far as man days go.  However, just to be safe, it will be denied.  To make this more confusing, the man days ratios are based upon rank.

Often, the soldiers will get the time off, but the SrNCOs and Officers will be left getting overtime pay.  That does not sound to bad, but in the Netherlands, military overtime is counted as separate from pay, as an allowance, so it is taxed at the highest level it can be in the Netherlands.  So the officer would go home with less money than he would have, had he just taken the day off.

But about unions, I am sure it brings other good things to the Dutch.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bumped with the latest from Michel Drapeau & Co. ....


> On Jan. 16, 2015, in a six-one ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada extended the freedom of association provision in the Charter of Rights to permit members of the RCMP to form a professional association. This association will engage into collective bargaining efforts, and address long-standing issues, mostly related to service conditions, grievances, and consultations on workplace issues. This leaves the Canadian Armed Forces as the only workplace in Canada where the constitutional right of freedom of association is not authorized.
> 
> Up until 10 days ago, one reason for excluding members of the RCMP from exercising their right of association was a recognition that loyalty to superiors was of greater importance than loyalty to fellow officers. This is no longer true. RCMP management can no longer refuse associations to have a voice in collective bargaining, which will enable members in the collective sense to meet management at the table on more equal terms.
> 
> Similarly, the strongest argument against permitting members of the CAF to the right to form an association is that it may compromise the core values of discipline and operational effectiveness. This suspicion is unfounded.
> 
> (....)
> 
> * Working models*
> 
> Sweden and Germany currently have functioning independent military associations. In Germany, the Deutscher Bundeswehr Verband was created in 1956, and has approximately 200,000 members—three times the size of Canada’s entire Regular Force. The Deutscher Bundeswehr Verband is financed by members’ fees and they employ their own advisory staff.
> 
> Another successful model is the European Organisation of Military Associations (EUROMIL), which was founded in 1972. EUROMIL is a conglomerate of more than 42 associations from over 24 EU countries representing approximately 500,000 military members! The mission of EUROMIL is: “Representing human rights, fundamental freedoms and professional interests of military personnel in Europe,” including the improvement of the living and working conditions of military personnel and the application of and correct implementation of EU social legislation for military personnel.
> 
> In Spain, a constitutional court ruled in 2000 that members of their armed forces had a constitutional right to participate in bodies representing their social and economic interests, provided these bodies did not intend to engage in industrial action.
> 
> In the U.S., there already exists a large number of military professional associations and societies.
> 
> 
> *A matter of rights*
> 
> In Canada, there are many areas where the Canadian military fails to ensure that the rights of its members are protected or respected in accordance with traditional Charter values. Some of these include:
> 
> _*Grievances*_: The average time for a grievance to be determined at the initial authority level, currently, is more than 250 days. The statutory time limit is four months. Hence, time and, again, the military are letting down CAF members, when they are exercising the only right available to them to challenge a decision or omission by the chain of command. The time to have a grievance heard at the final authority level is typically measured in years, rather than months, or days, as should be expected. These grievances are mostly left to collect dust on the desk of the CDS.
> 
> _*Career Administrative Review*_:  Any soldier can face a career administrative review or be removed from command on very short notice. A negative result may be career-ending, which has lifelong reputational, professional, and financial consequences. This process may be engaged while the member is serving abroad where he or she has no access to support mechanisms. Worse, under current regulations, the member cannot act through counsel or a representative to ensure that their rights are protected. On the other side of the equation, the CAF has readily available access to JAG lawyers.
> 
> _*Harassment*_: A soldier who wishes to file a complaint of harassment is compelled to report such a complaint through their chain of command even though the alleged offenders may actually be fellow soldiers serving within the chain of command.  Again, he or she cannot, as any other ordinary Canadians would under the circumstances, instruct counsel—or their association—to represent them during these procedures.
> 
> _*Code of Service Discipline*_: Approximately 2,000 soldiers—or one in every 34 Regular Force members—faces a summary trial each year. These disciplinary proceedings, which are heard by that soldier’s commanding officer, could lead to a sentence with ‘true penal consequences’ such as incarceration, demotion, a large fine, or a reprimand. A summary trial conviction may also result in a criminal record.  Amazingly, however, there is no right to legal counsel at a summary trial even if an accused is being tried on Canadian soil, during peacetime. This disciplinary procedure is also devoid of the following:
> 
> There are no records of proceeding;
> 
> There are no rules of evidence, including non-compellability of the accused to be a witness against himself, self-incrimination, adverse inference from the accused’s silence, or, spousal privilege;
> 
> There may be full reliance of hearsay evidence;
> 
> There is no right of appeal; and
> 
> There is no right to grieve the outcome of a summary trial.
> 
> No other Canadian faces such a one-sided penal justice process.
> 
> (....)



Full article also attached if link above doesn't work for you, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42).


----------



## Pusser

As with anything from M. Drapeau, this needs to be taken with a grain of salt.  In particular, this little nugget:

_"In the U.S., there already exists a large number of military professional associations and societies."_

The implication is that Canada does not have such things.  This is not correct.  There exist many such groups in Canada as well.  For example, the Logistics Association, the Naval Association of Canada, various and numerous regimental associations, etc.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I am sceptical. Many of Mr Drapeau's examples are only "sort of" true, if one treats outlier cases as the rule.  I am curious about a few things:

If the CF was allowed a professional association, how much per month would the mandatory dues be? Would the association be allowed to engage in political activity? Who would the leadership of the association, be and what would be their renumeration? Would then become their full time job? How would you square off the NDA and the requirement to maintain discipline with the fact that members of the PA would be disciplining other members of the PA? Who would be considered management? General Officers? All officers? WOs and above? What subject areas would the PA be allowed to negotiate? Working conditions? Pay? Equipment purchases? What Operations the CF conducts?

This is a hare-brained idea...


----------



## George Wallace

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I am sceptical. Many of Mr Drapeau's examples are only "sort of" true, if one treats outlier cases as the rule.  I am curious about a few things:
> 
> If the CF was allowed a professional association, how much per month would the mandatory dues be? Would the association be allowed to engage in political activity? Who would the leadership of the association, be and what would be their renumeration? Would then become their full time job? How would you square off the NDA and the requirement to maintain discipline with the fact that members of the PA would be disciplining other members of the PA? Who would be considered management? General Officers? All officers? WOs and above? What subject areas would the PA be allowed to negotiate? Working conditions? Pay? Equipment purchases? What Operations the CF conducts?
> 
> This is a hare-brained idea...



You left out the "Charitable Organization" status.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/lstngs/menu-eng.html


----------



## X Royal

Mr Drapeau's does make some valid points in respect to Code of Service Discipline.


----------



## tomahawk6

Isn't the CF one of the highest paid militaries in NATO ? If thats correct then unionizing would seem to be counter-productive.By the way I don't like the concept of a unionized military.


----------



## 63 Delta

I was under the impression that you could appeal a Summary Trial conviction, and that if you did it would usually go to a higher authority who had more powers of punishment. Thus the incentive to appeal was usually pretty small. Is this right or?


----------



## McG

X Royal said:
			
		

> Mr Drapeau's does make some valid points in respect to Code of Service Discipline.


Again, there are a lot of misrepresentations of omission.


> Code of Service Discipline: Approximately 2,000 soldiers—or one in every 34 Regular Force members—faces a summary trial each year. These disciplinary proceedings, which are heard by that soldier’s commanding officer, could lead to a sentence with ‘true penal consequences’ such as incarceration, demotion, a large fine, or a reprimand. A summary trial conviction may also result in a criminal record.  Amazingly, however, there is no right to legal counsel at a summary trial even if an accused is being tried on Canadian soil, during peacetime. *Before a Commanding Officer has authority to levy any sentence that would lead to a criminal record, the accused must have been given an election to proceed by court martial and prior to making that election the accused would have had right to consult legal council.*  This disciplinary procedure is also devoid of the following:
> 
> There are no records of proceeding;*The presiding officer is required to maintain detailed notes of the proceeding.*
> 
> There are no rules of evidence, including non-compellability of the accused to be a witness against himself, self-incrimination, adverse inference from the accused’s silence, or, spousal privilege; *There are rules of evidence.  They are less than the rules of evidence in a court, but they are still there.  The accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself.  He can choose to be a witness, and that decision may work out for better or for worse.*
> 
> There may be full reliance of hearsay evidence;*True, but the threshold of "beyond reasonable doubt" still exists for a guilty finding.  It takes a lot of hearsay to overcome that threshold.*
> 
> There is no right of appeal; and *There is right to review.  The guilty may request the finding and/or the sentence be reviewed.  The review is conducted by the presiding officer's superior.  All summary trial files, when completed, pass through the local legal advisor office where they are informally reviewed - discovery of an anomaly of justice in a guilty finding (or sentencing) will lead to an automatic review.*
> 
> There is no right to grieve the outcome of a summary trial. *See above re: right to review*
> 
> No other Canadian faces such a one-sided penal justice process. *Summary Trial, at the level were election to court martial has not been given to the accused, is not analogous to a penal justice process but to the disciplinary process of a profession.  The comparison here should not be to criminal courts but the proceedings for professional misconduct that may apply to doctors or engineers.*


----------



## Jorkapp

HULK_011 said:
			
		

> I was under the impression that you could appeal a Summary Trial conviction, and that if you did it would usually go to a higher authority who had more powers of punishment. Thus the incentive to appeal was usually pretty small. Is this right or?



That's partially correct. In requesting a Review of Summary Trial Proceedings, the review is done by the next level of authority for discipline (e.g. if the trial was by a delegated officer, it goes to the CO). The outcome of a Review of Proceedings can be a substitute punishment, but a new punishment cannot exceed the scale of punishment of the original presiding officer, and cannot be any worse than what was originally imposed.


----------



## X Royal

How many times in a civilian court does not only the defendant, many of the possible witnesses  and the defender(assisting officer) of the accused work directly under the judge?
Before the trial would the presiding officer have access to the accused history far beyond what a civilian judge would have? In fact the presiding officer may already know the accused quite well. This may or may not work out in the accused favor. 
Not a recipe for a fair and impartial trial IMO.
Although no presiding officer would like to be caught uttering the phase "march in the guilty bastard" I'm sure it is the feeling before the trial at times.


----------



## McG

X Royal said:
			
		

> How many times in a civilian court does ...


Again, a civilian court is a bad comparison.  If the offence and potential punishment are in a range where comparison to civilain court is apt, then the accused will have been offered to elect court martial. 

The appropriate comparison, of a summary trial where no election is offered, is to the disciplinary hearings of a provincial medical or engineering association.  In these situations there may very well be familiarity and professional relations between the various involved parties.


----------



## jeffb

X Royal said:
			
		

> Although no presiding officer would like to be caught uttering the phase "march in the guilty *******" I'm sure it is the feeling before the trial at times.



Possibly although I have been involved in maybe 20 summary trials under half a dozen different Presiding Officers as both the Admin O and the Assisting Officer and that hasn't been my experience. What I have seen though is Presiding Officers recusing themselves because they have a history with the individual or know too much about the case. I have also seen three trials in which the member was found not guilty. Yes, most trials do result in convictions but that is also because charges that do not have an almost certainty of conviction get dropped at the UDI phase. When a member is found not guilty it's because the Investigating Officer on the UDI missed something in my opinion. Most charges also require a review by the A/JAG and come back with both pre-charge and pre-trial advice so there is a non-biased party double checking the process.  

These are just my experiences, and I accept that others may vary.


----------



## X Royal

I personally seen an individual sentenced to Club Ed for (60 or 90 days) without any real proof.
Police lineup was conducted at London Police HQ where 2 or the three civilian witnesses identified me as the guilty party. Luckily I was with the Base Commander at the time of the offense. BTW the third witness identified an other party that was not the convicted party. In any civilian court he would have walked due to reasonable doubt. 
Although he may of been a guilty party a fair trial was not had.


----------



## X Royal

Would you expect the chain of command in a unit such as the one in the thread "_Denial of Access to MIR By Unit_" to make a fair decision on how to fairly conduct of a summary trial?


----------



## George Wallace

X Royal said:
			
		

> Would you expect the chain of command in a unit such as the one in the thread "_Denial of Access to MIR By Unit_" to make a fair decision on how to fairly conduct of a summary trial?



Would you expect the civilian courts and Justice System to make fair and knowledgeable decisions after what happened recently in St Albert with reference to allowing a vicious criminal like Shawn Rehn to still be out on the streets?

No one is perfect, no matter what court may be in session.  There will be injustices, but they are a rarity compared to number of times where justice has been served in a fair and civilized manner.


----------



## X Royal

George was the decisions made in St. Albert situation "fair and knowledgeable" or made under what was allowable under the existing laws?


----------



## McG

X Royal said:
			
		

> I personally seen an individual sentenced to Club Ed for (60 or 90 days) without any real proof.


No.  You saw no such thing at a Summary Trial.


----------



## X Royal

It may not have been a summary trial but it was conducted by the military in London without legal representation.
In the civilian system this would have never occurred & the individual would have been appointed legal representation.


----------



## McG

X Royal said:
			
		

> It may not have been a summary trial but it was conducted by the military in London without legal representation.


When did this happen?  Either your information is so old as to be irrelevant, or you are weaving a tall tale to bolster your argument.


----------



## George Wallace

X Royal said:
			
		

> George was the decisions made in St. Albert situation "fair and knowledgeable" or made under what was allowable under the existing laws?



Just as all decisions in a military judicial system is conducted under the Criminal Code of Canada, the Code of Service Discipline, the NDA, etc.  Any judgement that does not follow the full extent of the Laws of Canada, leaves the accused the recourse of a Grievance as laid out by our military rules and regulations.  This would expose the offending officer and result in that officer being charged.  

Life isn't fair, but we try to make it as fair as "humanly" possible.


In your "London" case, what recourse did the accused take if they felt they were wrongly tried?  Or is this just a myth?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

X Royal said:
			
		

> It may not have been a summary trial but it was conducted by the military in London without legal representation.
> In the civilian system this would have never occurred & the individual would have been appointed legal representation.



No he wouldn't. Don't try and import US concept you heard of in TV shows to Canada.

Judges in Canada do not have the power to "appoint" counsel to unrepresented accused, nor do we have "public" defenders. If someone qualifies for Legal Aid lawyer and wishes to be represented, they will be, otherwise, if they wish to represent themselves, there is only one option (other than let it be) that is open to the Court: appoint an "Amicus Curiae", a friend of the court, which is basically a lawyer to help the Court deal with the unrepresented defendant by advising him, but only to the same extent that the Court itself could, which is only on the technical aspects of how to present your case before the court, not the underlying law.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Union != professional association.

A union's business is to lobby for things for its members and protect their interests.

A professional association's business is to lobby for the interests of the public the profession serves and enforce ethical standards and discipline among its membership (again, for the good of the public etc).

The same organization can not be trusted to properly serve both; a unionized occupation which meets customary criteria of a profession and aspires to professional status should have a professional association separate from its union, and in that case the key appointments of the association will probably have to be made by a third party (eg. provincial or federal government) since the union will inevitably try to persuade members to vote union-favoured candidates into professional association positions.


----------



## X Royal

MCG said:
			
		

> When did this happen?  Either your information is so old as to be irrelevant, or you are weaving a tall tale to bolster your argument.


Around 1980. Yes dated but the system has not been completely revamped.
And in no way is this a tall tale.
If anyone who has spent more than a few years in our military believes things like this have not happened and have the possibility to happen again then they must be looking through foggy glasses.
And yes I've also seen the opposite happen where people have gotten breaks they never should have where others have been dealt with far more harshly for far lesser offenses. 
When trials happen within unit lines there is way too many connections to be completely impartial. In many cases the accuser and the accused both work for the judge of the case. Also the appointed assisting officer is also in the same chain of command.


----------



## McG

X Royal said:
			
		

> ... dated but the system has not been completely revamped.


It was completely revamped.  It happened in the '90s with much other post-Somalia modernization.
The reforms targeted excessive discretion of the chain of command and abuses such as you may have witnessed.

There are training requirements, obligations to consult lawyers and constraints upon presiding officers that did not exist in the days that you refer to.

Only a CO can sentence a soldier to detention up to no more than 30 days, and the CO cannot do that unless he has provided the soldier with an election to be tried by CM.  Prior to making the election, the soldier has a right to access defense council.  If the soldier does not feel he can get a fair trial in the unit, he can go in front of a judge with full legal representation.  

The system is not the one that you think you know.


----------



## Tibbson

X Royal said:
			
		

> It may not have been a summary trial but it was conducted by the military in London without legal representation.
> In the civilian system this would have never occurred & the individual would have been appointed legal representation.



It "may not" have been?  That implies that you do not know first hand and as others have said your tale makes no sense whatsoever.  At a summary trial the accused has an assisting officer and given the level of any such charge that is appropriate.  If it was a Court Martial then there was legal representation.  

And yes, in a civilian court this happens all the time.  People often go to court over traffic offences and do not have a lawyer unless they wish to pay for one themselves.


----------



## Tibbson

X Royal said:
			
		

> Around 1980. Yes dated but the system has not been completely revamped.
> And in no way is this a tall tale.
> If anyone who has spent more than a few years in our military believes things like this have not happened and have the possibility to happen again then they must be looking through foggy glasses.
> And yes I've also seen the opposite happen where people have gotten breaks they never should have where others have been dealt with far more harshly for far lesser offenses.
> When trials happen within unit lines there is way too many connections to be completely impartial. In many cases the accuser and the accused both work for the judge of the case. Also the appointed assisting officer is also in the same chain of command.



Firstly, the accused does not need to accept any appointed assisting officer and I've seen plenty of officers from outside a unit being asked to act as someones assisting officer.  

Secondly, when discussing the current state of the military legal system, you can't compare anything from 1980 to today.  Just off the top of my head I can note the following differences:

1)  JAG officers now review all charges that are laid in order to ensure they are worded correctly and in many cases COs consult with their legal advisors during the summary trial process to ensure they are making sound decisions;
2)  Decisions of summary trials are reviewed for correctness after the fact and presiding officers are called to task for any errors or omissions;
3)  Presiding officers must have taken training before they can act in that capacity
4)  More and more the accused is afforded full disclosure of all evidence before their summary trial so they can rebut the charge or formulate their defence.  This was never done before around 2008 never mind way back in 1980;
5)  Custody Review Officers are now in place to review any pretrial detention or release conditions applied to someone once charged, either by their CoC or by the NIS and there exists a mechanism to appeal any findings of the CRO if the accused does not agree and wishes to appeal;
6)  The Regional Military Prosecutor office was created to handle CM prosecutions;
7)  Defence Council Services has stood up totally separate from the RMP side of the JAG Branch (which are both separate from the other sections of the Branch)
8)  The Court Martial Appeals Court has continued to evolve and develop to the point where it is now a superior court;
9)  The NDA was overhauled in, I believe 1991 which created most of the above noted changes or at least codified them.

Your reliance on a faulty remembrance of an incident you heard about in or from the 80s is irrelevant unless you are speaking in context about things that (may have) happened in the 80s.


----------



## X Royal

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> And yes, in a civilian court this happens all the time.  People often go to court over traffic offences and do not have a lawyer unless they wish to pay for one themselves.


Speaking in an Ontario context how many traffic offenses (HTA) will occur jail time?
Yes some traffic offenses can be tried under the C.C.C. but HTA offenses don't bring those sentences.


----------



## X Royal

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Your reliance on a faulty remembrance of an incident you heard about in or from the 80s is irrelevant unless you are speaking in context about things that (may have) happened in the 80s.


I admit my remembrance of the incident may not be 100% as time has passed but the basic facts I stated were 100% correct.
As I knew & worked with the accused and was part of the police line-up I more than just heard of the incident.


----------



## Pusser

X Royal said:
			
		

> How many times in a civilian court does not only the defendant, many of the possible witnesses  and the defender(assisting officer) of the accused work directly under the judge?
> Before the trial would the presiding officer have access to the accused history far beyond what a civilian judge would have? In fact the presiding officer may already know the accused quite well. This may or may not work out in the accused favor.
> Not a recipe for a fair and impartial trial IMO.
> Although no presiding officer would like to be caught uttering the phase "march in the guilty *******" I'm sure it is the feeling before the trial at times.



I was involved in a Summary Trial where that was exactly the case.  We simply moved the trial to another unit and had a different CO hear it in order to remove bias.


----------



## tomahawk6

Military justice can be funny at times.I had a soldier transfer into the unit after he and several others were involved in a racial incident involving a firearm.The four white soldiers and a group of black soldiers were waiting to board a local bus to go into town.The black soldiers threatened the white soldiers and one of the white soldiers had a small handgun which he fired at one of the black soldiers hitting him in the buttock but otherwise nothing more serious.The MP's arrested everyone involved.The soldiers were offered a plea bargain or trial.The soldier that came to our unit was the only one that chose a court martial.He was acquitted.All others went to the Disciplinary Barracks at Ft Leavenworth.While at the post lockup awaiting a disposition of their case,the white soldiers were in the same jail cells as some of the black soldiers.Evidently they set aside their issues.Sometimes its better to take the trial.


----------



## Alberta Bound

X Royal, I don't think comparing the CF Judicial system and the civilian can ever be compared fairly to each other. But there are many similarities. As SL stated many people come to court unrepresented. And often unprepared for what is to occur. This can occur on Provincial Offences and even Criminal Code matters. In Alberta the general penalty for a Provincial Offence is a fine of 0 to $2000 and/or 6 months in jail. I have seen people not contact counsel in advance and then refuse duty counsel and plead guilty to offences after the judge has explained the penalty range includes custody and hearing that the Crown will seek gaol. In Northern Manitoba I saw people do the same on minor Criminal Code charges over the speaker phone to a judge after the court party could not fly in. Whenever I acted for the Crown I always explained all the steps and issues and advised the judge what info I provided to the accused. Usually trying to have an elder or a relative present for fairness. I can't say all other RCMP members did the same and may some people have agreed to penalties longer than a lawyer could have argued for them if their court was in Ottawa or other cities. Maybe. But when the choice is 20 days custody upon sentence in Detachment cells ( where we let family visit, drop off food and once gave buddy a day pass to go to a birthday) or 30 days remanded (sent out to a provincial jail) before their next court date for a plea. Ultimately it was their choice. Is Justice equal for all, no. Fair? We try.


----------



## X Royal

In the civilian system even at the JP level you have the option of having a lawyer represent you (on your own dime) but do you have this same option at a military summary trial?


----------



## OldSolduer

X Royal said:
			
		

> In the civilian system even at the JP level you have the option of having a lawyer represent you (on your own dime) but do you have this same option at a military summary trial?


Yes you can hire a lawyer . There is also a legal service provided by the JAG.


----------



## upandatom

As stated previously;

A member feels he was wronged the member can put in a grievance, or call the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman is the uncle that sits in the corner asks why are you crying, says ok, and tells you to go back to play. 

I have yet to see the Ombudsmen step in and fix a situation, the only thing I have seen them do is provide a non biased report about the Policies, Direction and situation with the CAF, VAC and other Government Agencies. Which, if you visit and pay attention to their site you will see a very long list of reports, and the suggested COA the particular Agency should take. I havent seen much progress in this, hundreds of reccomendations, reports that are hundreds of pages long, with no resolutions or results in place (See Cold Lake PMQ temp price freeze due to PLD, yet the cost of PMQs rose significantly this year with no improvements made). The Ombudsman seems to be the Good Conscience sitting on the shoulders that they just ignore. 

As for the Grievance board, I am impressed with them. They have sped up timings, they have pumped back results effectively, efficiently and fairly. However, the 6-9 month turnaround is not fast enough for issues that arise quickly and promptly. Even then, you are putting a complaint in against the system to the system. (complaing to your brother for picking on you while hes punching you in the arm). For certain events such as PER redress, minor various disputes where a third party not attached to the direct CoC it is extremely beneficial. Put into place though, you are grieving a policy (Terms of Service, Permanent MEL Change, Forced release,) or an act that occured due to a policy change, or you were wronged because of a decision made up, way up in the Command. How can you be 100% sure that it is not being looked at somewhat biased, especially with a DMCA, D MIL C stamp on it and the appropriate Flag/Staff officer signing off on it. At that point you are setting a precedent, for other people to make the same claim that they were wronged under similar circumstances. That opens a Can of Worms that I am fairly certain the Grievance Board does not want to do.


So where is someone to turn when the system fails. Civilian courts? Look at the latest case where the CAF spent close to $700k in legal expenses against the 6 members with the class action suit. They spent more on the legal expenses then the probable cost of giving those members exactly what they were after. The case isnt even over yet. 

An organization like the Ombudsman with the power of the grievance board is more effective in a situation such as this.


----------



## McG

X Royal said:
			
		

> In the civilian system even at the JP level you have the option of having a lawyer represent you (on your own dime) but do you have this same option at a military summary trial?


As I have posted a number of times already: fines are significantly constrained and jail time is not an option at Summary Trial unless the accused has been given the option of elevating the case to court martial.  This effectively does give the member the option of having a lawyer because at court martial there will be a defence lawyer.  Those summary trial proceedings where an election is not given are incomparable to civilian court proceedings; they are instead analogous to disciplinary proceedings of civilian professional associations.


----------



## Harris

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Yes you can hire a lawyer . There is also a legal service provided by the JAG.



Yes you can hire a lawyer on your own dime, but the Presiding Officer is under no obligation to allow him/her to speak.  The JAG does NOT provide a representative to the accused.  If that has changed I've not been told.


----------



## Pusser

upandatom said:
			
		

> An organization like the Ombudsman with the power of the grievance board is more effective in a situation such as this.



If by "grievance board" you mean the Military Grievances External Review Committee (it used to be called the Canadian Forces Grievance Board), then I have to correct you and say that the Committee has no power other than moral suasion.  The CDS is the Final Authority (FA)for all grievances and has the ability to agree or disagree with the Committee's findings.  The advantage of the Committee, however, is that they will look at the grievance from a legal point of view (they're all lawyers) and will cite precedence in law.  Notwithstanding that though, the CDS is not under any obligation to follow their recommendations.

With regard to grievances setting precedents, they don't.  Any ruling from the FA makes it very clear that every grievance is unique and the CDS is under no obligation to treat similar case the same way and he is not bound by any previous decisions.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bumped with the latest plea, this time from a former CF member, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ ....


> It’s an idea that deserves serious consideration, especially in light of the failure of Canada’s military brass to properly deal with issues such as care of its sick and wounded, harassment of personnel, and sexual assault: Should our military be allowed to form a professional association that will advocate for its members, assist and advise soldiers with any grievances that they may have, and bargain collectively with government to improve the conditions of service for all men and women in uniform?
> 
> Military associations with collective bargaining rights have, for decades, been a staple among many of our European NATO allies such as Germany, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands.  Most recently French military personnel won the right to form an association though the French government fell short of granting their soldiers full collective privileges.
> 
> No doubt, the thought of an association of uniformed and serving Canadian military personnel bargaining for better service conditions will raise a few worried eyebrows — much like women in combat roles did 25 years ago.  Yet the idea is not as foreign to the Canadian security establishment as one might initially think.
> Related
> 
> From the Canadian Border Services Agency to the Canadian Coast Guard to our municipal police and fire services, to various employees of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Communication Security Establishment, our security personnel carry out their duties in the defence of Canada and Canadians as members of a unionized workplace.  Soon to be added to the extensive list of union shops in Canada’s security and defence network is the RCMP which, in a recent Supreme Court ruling, won the right to organize.
> 
> And though, for obvious reasons, many of  these services may not have the right to strike, they still maintain the right to form an association, bargain collectively, and advocate on behalf of their fellow members.
> 
> If we trust our police,  firefighters, coast guard personnel and border guards to organize and bargain for better working conditions and benefits , why then do we still find it necessary to deny our army, navy and air force personnel the same right?
> 
> It is a question that will inevitably be asked by an increasingly better educated and informed military
> 
> “In the decades ahead, Canada, like most advanced democracies, will find it increasingly difficult to compete on the open market to recruit and retain personnel to serve in the military,” says retired colonel and lawyer Michel Drapeau. “Given that the rank and file (and their spouses) are increasingly more sophisticated and educated, they will want to have a say in their conditions of service. At present, the individual has no voice whatsoever; it is all totally one-sided.”
> 
> For retired air force captain and disabled veteran advocate Sean Bruyea, an organized military association protecting its members would help protect the military’s “most valuable operational resource” — its serving members.
> 
> “Past and present military thinkers have all told us that the individual soldier is the greatest resource. Yet the interests of this greatest resource are placed last behind all other political and bureaucratic concerns.  A military association or union would place these interests on an equal footing.”
> 
> Probably the  largest criticism of a Canadian military association is that it would devalue leadership and compromise discipline, thus preventing the military from carrying out combat operations.
> 
> Drapeau insists that this is not what a military association is about.
> 
> “An association of military personnel would not be involved in these operational areas. They would respect the need for discipline as well as the need for the unity of command which provides a military force with the required command and control mechanisms to successfully conduct military operations.”
> 
> Instead, according to Drapeau, the focus of an association would be on personnel matters such as annuities and pensions, health and dental care, compensation and benefits, harassment, grievances where “military personnel should enjoy a level of support and benefits at least equal to that provided to a member of civil society or other sectors of the general public service.”
> 
> I don’t think anyone in the military and veteran community would oppose our men and women in uniform having the right to comparable pay and benefits to those of other members of the public service. Yet, when the u-word comes up as a possible long-term solution, it is invariably met with the argument that it would compromise the high standards of leadership that all officers and non-commissioned officers are rigorously required to uphold.
> 
> “That is not the case in Europe, that is not the case in industry and that is not the case in the public service,” says Drapeau. “Good leaders are sought everywhere, and if you happen to be a good leader then the association won’t come and play in your neck of the woods; they will only represent such matters as pay and benefits and pension issues.”
> 
> In fact, according to Bruyea, a military union would reinforce effective leadership.
> 
> “Leadership would have to become more caring through awareness and education from this new equal partner. Leadership would necessarily become stronger due to the need to more justly balance personal concerns with political interests, bureaucratic demands and operational needs.”
> Read & Debate
> 
> In fact, as I have personally observed as a union steward in my current employment, only weak, self-serving and destructively career-obsessed leaders feel threatened by a unionized workplace. The military would be no different.
> 
> But maybe a unionized military need never be considered if we still honestly believe those who serve our military as infantry soldiers, naval combat information operators, airborne electronic sensor operators and communicator research operators, to name only a few, are simple mindless automatons who cannot be trusted with a legal collective stake in their own welfare and career progression.
> 
> Our men and women in uniform, however, may perceive their self worth quite differently.


----------



## Pusser

"Instead, according to Drapeau, the focus of an association would be on personnel matters such as annuities and pensions, health and dental care, compensation and benefits, harassment, grievances where “military personnel should enjoy a level of support and benefits at least equal to that provided to a member of civil society or other sectors of the general public service.”

This is the key reason we should fight off this notion.  Frankly, I rather like the fact that our current level of support and benefits exceeds that of the public service.  I'm not interested in anything that could degrade that.


----------



## PuckChaser

Pusser said:
			
		

> This is the key reason we should fight off this notion.  Frankly, I rather like the fact that our current level of support and benefits exceeds that of the public service.  I'm not interested in anything that could degrade that.



In that same sense though, we're constantly under attack on those benefits and have no voice to fight Treasury Board on them. That, and PSAC continually bargains away our items (likely unintentionally) to the benefit of their members. I personally do not like the public service unions, but if our pay/benefits is being tied to someone else's bargaining, that's not fair or equitable.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

And for those that want a union, don't forget the  $1000+ a year for dues that you'll have no control on how they spend it, even if you don't agree with their platform.


----------



## Teager

Slightly off topic but along the same lines looks like the CVA is looking at the idea of a Veterans Association with the big Union UNIFOR. I see some pros but mostly cons with this idea.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Teager said:
			
		

> Slightly off topic but along the same lines looks like the CVA is looking at the idea of a Veterans Association with the big Union UNIFOR. I see some pros but mostly cons with this idea.



Just what they need, to alienate even more veterans.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>"Instead, according to Drapeau, the focus of an association would be ...

... whatever the association can find to keep itself busy, irrespective of what Drapeau thinks it should be.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

> Military associations with collective bargaining rights have, for decades, been a staple among many of our European NATO allies such as Germany, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that all these countries found the unions weren't all they cracked-up to and have since gotten rid of them?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that all these countries found the unions weren't all they cracked-up to and have since gotten rid of them?



Yep, just who we want to emulate.... Germany, a country we have beaten not once, but twice!


----------



## OldSolduer

Teager said:
			
		

> Slightly off topic but along the same lines looks like the CVA is looking at the idea of a Veterans Association with the big Union UNIFOR. I see some pros but mostly cons with this idea.



CVA should go pi$$ up a rope .


----------



## The Bread Guy

Teager said:
			
		

> Slightly off topic but along the same lines looks like the CVA is looking at the idea of a Veterans Association with the big Union UNIFOR. I see some pros but mostly cons with this idea.


Good point - a few more details in a recent email (attached), shared to add to the discussion.


----------



## Petard

So now CVA, a shrill organization IMO, wants to turn up the volume?

Great  :


----------



## McG

Veterans' Professional Association?  If you make a profession of being a veteran, you are doing it wrong.


----------



## Pusser

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> In that same sense though, we're constantly under attack on those benefits and have no voice to fight Treasury Board on them. That, and PSAC continually bargains away our items (likely unintentionally) to the benefit of their members. I personally do not like the public service unions, but if our pay/benefits is being tied to someone else's bargaining, that's not fair or equitable.



I don't think it's fair to say that PSAC bargains away any of our benefits.  They don't give up anything without a fight.  Furthermore, they're not the only player.  They are the largest, but other union agreements also figure into our comparability formula.  Most of what we've "lost" in the last few years (and I'm not really inclined to think that these "losses" are necessarily a bad thing) are a result of shifts in goverment and public opinion on the subject:

1)  Increases in CFSA contributions are more a result of bringing things back into line with how the program was originally intended.  The whacked-out interest rates of the 1980s skewed everything and successive governments have been trying to put things right ever since.  The fact remains that we have an incredible pension plan that is the envy of most working people in this country.

2)  Loss of Severance Pay was inevitable.  Outside of government, people rarely get severance pay for retiring.  It's usually reserved for folks who are fired, laid-off, etc.  The Public were starting to question this practice.  Furthermore, the PS unions did not give this up willingly.  My understanding is that they were basically told that if they wanted a pay raise they had to give up severance pay.  The trouble with public service unions is that their bargaining power is often limited when governments can simply legislate the end result if necessary.  On a side note, the main reason CF members cannot usually claim EI on leaving the CF is because our severance benefits often exceed the applicable EI benefits.  Perhaps now releasing CF members will be able to claim EI more than they used to be able to?  This could mitigate another common complaint.

3)  The loss of ability to claim for mortgage breaking fees on posting is actually very reasonable in most circumstances. Every bank in Canada will allow you to port a mortgage free of charge, so there is no reason why the Crown should be paying to break mortgages on postings.  The down side of this are those cases where the member will not be buying another house (e.g. OUTCAN/isolated posts).  This last point needs to be addressed.

The only one I'm really pi$$ed about is the new requirement to move at least 40km to qualify for a move on retirement.  As far as I can see, this change was more about embarrassing a prominent Liberal supporter than about saving money or instituting fairness.  How dare someone claim his legal entitlements AND join the Liberal Party!


----------



## George Wallace

Pusser said:
			
		

> I don't think it's fair to say that PSAC bargains away any of our benefits.  They don't give up anything without a fight.  Furthermore, they're not the only player.  They are the largest, but other union agreements also figure into our comparability formula.



Sorry.  I disagree with your statement.  PSAC as the largest PS union has done just that, not only to us, but to all the other smaller PS unions as well.  The other PS unions always wait for PSAC to do its negotiations and then they fall in line, with little choice as they do not have the clout that PSAC numbers have.   I know damn well that PIPS does not like the end of Severance Pay, nor do they like the end to Sick Leave and many other items that PSAC have bargained away.



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Most of what we've "lost" in the last few years (and I'm not really inclined to think that these "losses" are necessarily a bad thing) are a result of shifts in goverment and public opinion on the subject:



Many of us will disagree with some of your "not necessarily a bad thing" philosophy.



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> 1)  Increases in CFSA contributions are more a result of bringing things back into line with how the program was originally intended.  The whacked-out interest rates of the 1980s skewed everything and successive governments have been trying to put things right ever since.  The fact remains that we have an incredible pension plan that is the envy of most working people in this country.



Just because it is the envy of most working people in Canada, does not mean it has to be tampered with.  There is NOTHING stopping all those other people from banding together and demanding similar pension plans from their employers, or from other employers from creating such pension plans to entice people to work for them.  Any Economist can tell you all about "interest rates" and that they are never written in stone, so don't blame market conditions on why contributions are not what they should be.



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> 2)  Loss of Severance Pay was inevitable.  Outside of government, people rarely get severance pay for retiring.  It's usually reserved for folks who are fired, laid-off, etc.  The Public were starting to question this practice.  Furthermore, the PS unions did not give this up willingly.  My understanding is that they were basically told that if they wanted a pay raise they had to give up severance pay.  The trouble with public service unions is that their bargaining power is often limited when governments can simply legislate the end result if necessary.  On a side note, the main reason CF members cannot usually claim EI on leaving the CF is because our severance benefits often exceed the applicable EI benefits.  Perhaps now releasing CF members will be able to claim EI more than they used to be able to?  This could mitigate another common complaint.



BS.  A far more employers than you hint to, have Severance packages of some sort.  

Claiming EI after Release.  Yeah!  That is such an important reason for us to lose Severance Pay.   NOT!



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> 3)  The loss of ability to claim for mortgage breaking fees on posting is actually very reasonable in most circumstances. Every bank in Canada will allow you to port a mortgage free of charge, so there is no reason why the Crown should be paying to break mortgages on postings.  The down side of this are those cases where the member will not be buying another house (e.g. OUTCAN/isolated posts).  This last point needs to be addressed.



Sorry.  Mortgage breaking fees on posting are a very necessary benefit for those who have short postings that are less than the period listed in their mortgage.   Most mortgages will have a condition that one can not break a mortgage in the first two years of the mortgage.  How many Service members have been faced with one or two year postings, planned or unplanned, where they have been in the circumstance where they have had to break a mortgage early?  I have been in that position and know that the $3K fee (in 1991) would have been a large hit to my bank account.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

George, there is so much wrong with your post I don't know where to start...........I'll just say I thought Pusser's post was well thought out and pretty much spot on.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> George, there is so much wrong with your post I don't know where to start...........I'll just say I thought Pusser's post was well thought out and pretty much spot on.



I completely concur.


----------



## Pusser

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sorry.  I disagree with your statement.  PSAC as the largest PS union has done just that, not only to us, but to all the other smaller PS unions as well.  The other PS unions always wait for PSAC to do its negotiations and then they fall in line, with little choice as they do not have the clout that PSAC numbers have.   I know damn well that PIPS does not like the end of Severance Pay, nor do they like the end to Sick Leave and many other items that PSAC have bargained away.
> 
> Many of us will disagree with some of your "not necessarily a bad thing" philosophy.
> 
> Just because it is the envy of most working people in Canada, does not mean it has to be tampered with.  There is NOTHING stopping all those other people from banding together and demanding similar pension plans from their employers, or from other employers from creating such pension plans to entice people to work for them.  Any Economist can tell you all about "interest rates" and that they are never written in stone, so don't blame market conditions on why contributions are not what they should be.
> 
> BS.  A far more employers than you hint to, have Severance packages of some sort.
> 
> Claiming EI after Release.  Yeah!  That is such an important reason for us to lose Severance Pay.   NOT!
> 
> Sorry.  Mortgage breaking fees on posting are a very necessary benefit for those who have short postings that are less than the period listed in their mortgage.   Most mortgages will have a condition that one can not break a mortgage in the first two years of the mortgage.  How many Service members have been faced with one or two year postings, planned or unplanned, where they have been in the circumstance where they have had to break a mortgage early?  I have been in that position and know that the $3K fee (in 1991) would have been a large hit to my bank account.



In quick response:

Yes, PSAC is big and powerful, but some of the other unions are pretty powerful as well (e.g. the two Federal Government Trades and Labour Councils, which are separate bargaining units, are pretty @#$%! powerful).  However, all the union power in the world will not help you when the government is bound and determined to get its way on a point.  I maintain that no union "bargained away" severance pay.  No one wanted to lose it, but faced with a determined foe, they conceded in order to make other gains.

1)  The CFSA was designed from the outset to have only a slight differential between employee and employer contribution rates.  However, at one point (the 1980s) the government was contributing seven dollars for every one dollar that the member contributed.  Keep in mind that the CFSA is a defined benefit plan, meaning that regardless of what happens to interest rates, the government has to make up the shortfalls.  Now that interest rates are more stable, moving the yardsticks to get things back within the intent of the plan is a reasonable course of action. 

2)  I honestly don't know what the current trend on severance pay is in the private sector, but I do find it odd that one can get paid for simply retiring - a planned and forecasted event (lay-offs and downsizing are different and severance for those is still intact).  I also have to concede that I, in fact, lost very little in this deal as I was almost at the maximum anyway when the shoe dropped (i.e. I'm getting virtually all the severance pay I would have gotten anyway).  Plus I have the added benefit of being able to take some of it early in order to more easily tax shelter it.

3)  Sorry, but there is absolutely nothing unreasonable about not paying mortgage termination penalties in most cases (I did mention that there are a few where it is appropriate).  Bank mortgages can be ported free of charge anywhere in Canada, so there is no reason for the Crown to pay mortgage termination fees for inside Canada moves.


----------



## opcougar

Excellent point you make, and am sure this is one overlooked point for those that might be in favour of a union. I mean there are some that already think Mess dues should be optional, and now considering having to pay out to some Union that might / might not do anything for you.

Speaking of breaking Mortgages and penalties, what is it going to take for this country and the businesses to show more appreciation for the Forces, and have offers like they do in the US? The Govt can work out some kind of deal with banks, where CAF members don't get a penalty when they sell their homes...is this asking too much?

I cross the border at least twice a month, and am able to get Govt rates at hotels, stores, get on a plane along with US service mbrs, and get into museums, galleries and aquariums for free. Last place I got this was in Chicago at the Shedd aquarium



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> And for those that want a union, don't forget the  $1000+ a year for dues that you'll have no control on how they spend it, even if you don't agree with their platform.


----------



## George Wallace

Oh!  You can get Government rates at hotels here in Canada.  Just don't do it (unless you are on duty and can claim it).  It usually costs you more for the Government rate than for the regular rate.


----------



## Brasidas

Travel lodge gives me a decent rate both in Canada and the States.


----------



## George Wallace

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Travel lodge gives me a decent rate both in Canada and the States.



Let's not mix up Government Rates (negotiated between the Government and the Company) and Military Discounts (a discount offered to military pers by the Company on its own accord) offered by various hotels/motels.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I get mil rate in Canada and the States with my ND 75. My senior discount is normally higher though 

You need to let this line go George.


----------



## George Wallace

recceguy said:
			
		

> I get mil rate in Canada and the States with my ND 75. My senior discount is normally higher though
> 
> You need to let this line go George.



Huh?  Just pointing out that the Government rate you may think is cheaper for hotels, often is more expensive.... :dunno:  ...Don't know what you are getting on about?


----------



## Pusser

opcougar said:
			
		

> Speaking of breaking Mortgages and penalties, what is it going to take for this country and the businesses to show more appreciation for the Forces, and have offers like they do in the US? The Govt can work out some kind of deal with banks, where CAF members don't get a penalty when they sell their homes...is this asking too much?



In all fairness, you're asking the bank to lose on money on something over which they have no control.  When anyone breaks a mortgage, the bank will incur a cost.  A portion of the mortgage breaking fee they charge is in fact a penalty (i.e. they are punishing the mortgagee for being a pain), but a good chunk of it is to cover the bank's losses.  Considering that banks will allow mortgagees to port the mortgage (i.e. transfer it to a new house), I think they've got that pretty much covered.  However, there are cases where members are not able to port their mortgages (e.g. an OUTCAN posting) and for that reason, this subject should be re-opened by Treasury Board and some allowances made.


----------



## dapaterson

It is odd that the NJC Relocation directive still covers part of the cost of mortgage breaking.

http://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/directive/index.php?sid=111&hl=1&lang=eng#tc-tm_11



> 8.11 Mortgage-Breaking Penalties
> 
> When an employee incurs a mortgage early repayment penalty he or she shall be reimbursed an amount not exceeding 3 months' interest or $5,000, whichever is less and as follows:
> 
> Core Fund
> •Employees purchasing at the new location who cannot port mortgage;
> •Employees who rent at the new location;
> •Employees who are unable to buy because of a requirement to occupy Crown housing.
> 
> Personalized Funds
> •Employees who purchase at the new location and who decide not to port their mortgage when portability was an option.


----------



## Brasidas

Pusser said:
			
		

> In all fairness, you're asking the bank to lose on money on something over which they have no control.  When anyone breaks a mortgage, the bank will incur a cost.  A portion of the mortgage breaking fee they charge is in fact a penalty (i.e. they are punishing the mortgagee for being a pain), but a good chunk of it is to cover the bank's losses.  Considering that banks will allow mortgagees to port the mortgage (i.e. transfer it to a new house), I think they've got that pretty much covered.  However, there are cases where members are not able to port their mortgages (e.g. an OUTCAN posting) and for that reason, this subject should be re-opened by Treasury Board and some allowances made.



What about cases where the military family finds the housing market in the new posting unaffordable and prefer to rent? I think the rules as posted by dapaterson make a lot of sense.


----------



## Pusser

Brasidas said:
			
		

> What about cases where the military family finds the housing market in the new posting unaffordable and prefer to rent?



I don't disagree with you on that point.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Some of the latest arguements, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ ....


> Canada's military leadership's ongoing failure to deal with the endemic problems of harassment, sexual misconduct, a broken grievance system and lack of long-term medical care for serving members of the Armed Forces keep making headlines 30 years on.
> 
> Nonetheless, politicians seem willing, yet again, to leave the problem to the generals, like our recently replaced chief of the defence staff, Tom Lawson, who dismissed the problem of sexual harassment by stating that some military personnel are simply "biologically wired in a certain way."
> 
> Former veterans argue that now's the time for government to give our men and women in uniform a voice in their own well-being by allowing them to form a professional association or union.
> 
> "There's absolutely no reason, within the realm of Canadian Charter rights or natural justice, that would prevent Canadian Armed Forces members from organizing and collectively bargaining for their rights and benefits," says retired air force captain and disabled veteran advocate Sean Bruyea. The RCMP, in fact, won the right to unionize in a recent Supreme Court ruling.
> 
> Understandably, the idea of a professional military association or some variation of a union may seem revolutionary to those who only see soldiers on public occasions and royal visits parading automaton-like in lockstep to the commands of their sergeant-major. But the plain truth is that associations with collective bargaining rights are not as novel an idea in this country's defence-security network as you might think.
> 
> Every day our uniformed paramilitary municipal and provincial police, border guards and fire service personnel ensure our safety and security as card-carrying union members. The same is true of employees of the Canadian Coast Guard, as well as various elements of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and Communication Security Establishment.
> 
> Of course, these uniformed and armed employees do work that's classified as essential services and do not have the right to strike. But that doesn't stop them from bargaining collectively for greater benefits and salary, seeking arbitration when contract talks reach an impasse or advocating on members' behalf. It doesn't in the military services of other countries, either.
> 
> For the last few decades, Canadian Forces have served alongside unionized military personnel from Germany, Norway, Netherlands and Sweden. France's military is soon to unionize, too.
> 
> Understandably, some fear that unionizing the armed forces will compromise its disciplinary ethos. But just how valid is the argument that union membership will invariably "pacify" those who wear a uniform and may have to stand in harm's way? Are municipalities being flooded with complaints that our unionized police are slack in their fight against crime and their interaction with the public? The opposite appears more often to be the case.
> 
> Should I be concerned that unionized firefighters in my community may fail to show up and do their job if my house catches fire? Likewise, there seems to be no perceivable level of public panic that safety is being compromised because our Coast Guard and Canadian Border Services Agency members carry union cards.
> 
> Yet, despite the fact that our military personnel are increasingly technologically savvy and educated, long-outdated notions of absolute disciplinary submission to superiors continue to dominate our perception of what is right and normal.
> 
> "The modern military should not be about the antiquated notion of marching in perfect unison on a parade square following barking orders," says Bruyea. "Soldiers who know that their needs and views will be respected can contribute their innovation, creativity and best abilities, resulting in more effective units and a more effective military."
> 
> Retired army colonel and lawyer Michel Drapeau says, "Our men and women in uniform are becoming more sophisticated and educated. They know they have rights and they want to have them observed. However, at present it is very much one-sided in favour of the military chain of command, which does not shy away from using its potent disciplinary powers to silence dissent and leave wrongs unattended."
> 
> Drapeau, who served in a variety of senior command positions during a 34-year military career, envisions an association of military professionals working in concert with the chain of command to "achieve excellence in standards of discipline... within a modernized and effective military justice system."
> 
> Closely related to concerns about the impact on discipline is the fear that a unionized military might compromise the high standard of leadership that officers and non-commissioned officers are expected to aspire to.
> 
> "Nonsense," says Peter Stoffer, the NDPs Veteran Affairs critic, who was active in the union movement prior to entering politics. "If anything, it will help the leadership in the Forces. The only people who fear unions are very poor and weak managers."
> 
> Drapeau argues that without an association to hold leaders to good leadership principles, bad leaders can continue to "use the incredible disciplinary power that they have over the careers of others."
> 
> Bruyea goes further, saying that it is "questionable whether Canada has ever produced a culture of strong, caring leadership, let alone any culture of quality leadership, in our military." He describes Canada's senior military leadership as " technocratic careerists who rarely put the interest of subordinates first."
> 
> As a counter to this bureaucratic careerism, a union, according to Bruyea, "would allow the personnel interests to be put on equal footing with other political and bureaucratic demands."
> 
> It's inevitable that any future debate over a possible unionized Canadian Armed Forces will raise concerns among traditionalists, as did the opening of combat roles to women and the introduction of religious headgear in the 1980s and 90s.
> 
> Our government may well decide that basic Charter rights do not apply to Canada's military when it comes to unionization. Should that happen, it will then be up to our soldiers to decide how much they may want to be a part of an organization unwilling to trust them as legally recognized stakeholders.
> 
> _Robert Smol served in the Canadian Armed Forces for more than 20 years. He is currently a teacher and freelance writer in Toronto. _


----------



## c_canuk

maybe a proffesional association might be able to apply pressure to solve IRP, HQ bloat along with other administrative sink holes that never seem to get resolved like MES.

EDIT: clarity


----------



## TCM621

c_canuk said:
			
		

> maybe a proffesional association might be able to apply pressure to solve IRP, HQ bloat along with other administrative sink holes that never seem to get resolved like MES.
> 
> EDIT: clarity


I am vehemently against a union.  You just can't have Pte Bloggins running to his union Rep when Sgt tells him to do something he feels is outside his job description. I also feel unions begin to be more concerned with their own power than actually helping their members be successful parts of a whole. 

With that said,  a professional association, where we could be members and vote on things we feel need to change, could be the voice we need at the table. We all see these things being done and hearing generals say certain things that make us scratch our heads because we know they are not feasible on the ground. We have no way of getting front line info up to the government except through those same people who made the decisions we think are unworkable. 

The people with the voices are often so far removed from the rank and file that their issues aren't our issues. A professional association could be the way to get our issues heard. 

There would be a lot of issues though.  Would it be all ranks? If so would it end up being dominated by those same senior personnel. How would it be organized to ensure fair representation? If it was strictly democratic, it could end up being preoccupied by army NCM issue due to sheer numbers.  How would it get involved without undermining the CoC ?


----------



## mariomike

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I also feel unions begin to be more concerned with their own power than actually helping their members be successful parts of a whole.



As I am no longer a member of the CAF Reserve, I offer no opinion on whether a union ( call it an association if you prefer ) would be good or bad for current CAF members. 

But, if you are referring to unions in general, I was a full-time member of the same union for a little shy of 37 years. We did not have, and did not seek, the right to strike. Toronto's police officers, firefighters and paramedics have been unionized for almost a century. I believe most of our elected leaders worked to negotiate better pay, benefits, pensions and working conditions for the membership. If they didn't, they were voted out, and returned to their stations.


----------



## TCM621

mariomike said:
			
		

> As I am no longer a member of the CAF Reserve, I offer no opinion on whether a union ( call it an association if you prefer ) would be good or bad for current CAF members.
> 
> But, if you are referring to unions in general, I was a full-time member of the same union for a little shy of 37 years. We did not have, and did not seek, the right to strike. Toronto's police officers, firefighters and paramedics have been unionized for almost a century. I believe most of our elected leaders worked to negotiate better pay, benefits, pensions and working conditions for the membership. If they didn't, they were voted out, and returned to their stations.



I will not comment about that particular union, they may be fantastic for all I know. However, many police unions will protect their members to the detriment of the intituition. I think EMS unions in general are probably the best out of the bunch because they are filled with people who, at heart, are there to help others. That is my main point about unions, is that they are, by their very nature, at odds with the intitutions (at least to some degree). For a union, the needs and wants of the membership has to come first. When they are given the ability to disrupt work if their desires are not met, it becomes problematic in a military context. I would likely support a professional association who could act as out voice in Ottawa. The ombudsman's office is a great tool but it is reactive. An expanded role might be an option. Basically, I believe we need a voice and we don't have it and I don't really know what the solution is.


----------



## c_canuk

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> There would be a lot of issues though.  Would it be all ranks? If so would it end up being dominated by those same senior personnel. How would it be organized to ensure fair representation? If it was strictly democratic, it could end up being preoccupied by army NCM issue due to sheer numbers.  How would it get involved without undermining the CoC ?



That's the million dollar question isn't it... 

After a moment of thought how about:

For each element the reg force could provide(8 reps x 3 elements = 24)

2 Pte-MCpl Reps 
2 Sgt/PO2 -MWO/CPO2 Reps
2 2Lt-Capt Reps
2 Maj-Col Reps

2 for each rank range to provide 1 for Support trades, 1 for Cbt Arms trades.

For each element of the reserves (4 Reps X 3 Elements = 12)
1 Pte-MCpl Reps
1 Sgt/PO2 -MWO/CPO2 Reps
1 2Lt-Capt Reps
1 Maj-Col Reps

They could meet quarterly at a round table, no ranks to discuss current concerns, to be sent directly to CDS and DM. Conversely the CDS and DM could engage them to provide feed back as a sounding board perhaps.

Meeting Agenda could be:
1) Review of past issues, discuss what changes have been made, review the effectiveness, conclude if issue is resolved or not.
2) Introduction of new observed issues by each member in turn.
3) Once all issues are tabled, discussions of possible solutions and options
4) Conclusion would be the prioritizing of remaining issues by vote, the Top 5 to be staffed up to CDS and DM.

The intention of my description is that this would mainly be an additional/alternate method for the CDS and DM to obtain status information and what the members feel are serious issues. 

obviously any actions they decide to take based on the round table discussions would be completely to their discretion. I feel the report from the round table's tone should be, "This is information we think are effecting the efficiency of the CF, here are our proposed solutions to deal with these issues"


----------



## mariomike

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I think EMS unions in general are probably the best out of the bunch because they are filled with people who, at heart, are there to help others.



That's nice to hear, but I was only familiar with Metro. There was never a labour disruption, because we only responded to 9-1-1 calls. If you delay service without a good reason, you will be fired. ( Non-emergency calls were serviced by private companies. ) 
Same situation with the fire service.



			
				Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I would likely support a professional association who could act as out voice in Ottawa.



Like the RCMP Association?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

The difference between an "Association" and a "Union"?
The spelling.......


----------



## mariomike

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> The difference between an "Association" and a "Union"?
> The spelling.......



Association sounds nicer?


----------



## Halifax Tar

What a coincidence.  We were discussing this in the mess today.  

What I took from it was the fact so many Snr NCOs and JRs are actually in favor of some sort of representation, now, that speaks volumes about their opinions and observations of their commissioned leaders. 

I get the feeling many have lost confidence in our officer corps and specifically our Snr Officer / Flag Officers.  

Perhaps this should be addressed before unionizing or "associating" happens.


----------



## mariomike

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> However, many police unions will protect their members to the detriment of the intituition.



I wouldn't know about that. But, now that you mention it, I do remember when Metro Police went on a slowdown over the two-man car in the mid 1970's.


----------



## Jed

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> What a coincidence.  We were discussing this in the mess today.
> 
> What I took from it was the fact so many Snr NCOs and JRs are actually in favor of some sort of representation, now, that speaks volumes about their opinions and observations of their commissioned leaders.
> 
> I get the feeling many have lost confidence in our officer corps and specifically our Snr Officer / Flag Officers.
> 
> Perhaps this should be addressed before unionizing or "associating" happens.



A very valid point.

IMO, unions would never work for those in their country's uniform. No one needs a middle management entity between officers and troops.  Sort out issues the old fashioned way.

After all, we don't want to adopt the old USSR template where units have their mandatory Political Officer.


----------



## dapaterson

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> What a coincidence.  We were discussing this in the mess today.
> 
> What I took from it was the fact so many Snr NCOs and JRs are actually in favor of some sort of representation, now, that speaks volumes about their opinions and observations of their commissioned leaders.
> 
> I get the feeling many have lost confidence in our officer corps and specifically our Snr Officer / Flag Officers.
> 
> Perhaps this should be addressed before unionizing or "associating" happens.



Mainguy Mark II?


----------



## Brad Sallows

If you're going to have a professional organization ("college"), have one; if you're going to have a union, have one; do not mix them.  The reason to have both: someone in violation of the requirements laid down and enforced by the first will want to be represented and assisted by the second.  There has to be a clear and broad line dividing them.


----------



## cupper

The big question is where are you going to put the union label?


----------



## Blackadder1916

cupper said:
			
		

> The big question is where are you going to put the union label?



Since the CAF doesn't actually make anything other than soldiers, sailors and whatever they call the other guys, the logical thing to do is tattoo it on the a$$ at BMQ/BMOQ graduation.


----------



## TCM621

Jed said:
			
		

> A very valid point.
> 
> IMO, unions would never work for those in their country's uniform. No one needs a middle management entity between officers and troops.  Sort out issues the old fashioned way.
> 
> After all, we don't want to adopt the old USSR template where units have their mandatory Political Officer.



What, in your opinion, is the "old fashioned" way?

I agree though that we can't have any organization that gets involved in day to day ops. We need the ability to get things done right now, not after I check with my union rep. I am thinking more universal issues rather than personal ones. A good example is the MCpl rank. How many times has it come here, or in your work place, that MCpl should be an actual rank rather than an appointment? This is an issue that really has no effect on anyone but the people wearing that rank so it isn't something that will likely get pushed by leadership. 

There are other issues that are important to the frontline people that are basically irrelavent in the big picture. An association could provide a voice on the issue. A lot of militaries have associations for their military personnel. An example is http://ausn.org/ whose mandate is "to advocating for Navy equipment and benefits for all members of the Navy—active and reserve; officer, enlisted, and civilian; serving, veteran, and retired; and their families—AUSN informs and educates members of Congress and their staffs on issues of importance to the Navy." The British have http://www.baff.org.uk/ whose mission is "is to represent its members in the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, the British Army and the Royal Air Force, including the reserves." And the Autralians have http://www.dfwa.org.au/ whose purpose is "‘……..to foster the best interests and welfare of all members of the Australian Defence Force and their families in any matter likely to affect them during or after their period of service……". So this is actually quite common.


----------



## Jed

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Since the CAF doesn't actually make anything other than soldiers, sailors and whatever they call the other guys, the logical thing to do is tattoo it on the a$$ at BMQ/BMOQ graduation.



Love it.  Use the SN  ;D

old fashioned way ?  A union is definitely just wasted interference between officers / NCMs / troops use the military's team making and leadership skills.

association - Just a bunch of troops not on task in a REMF position.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Here is an opinion piece from a former CAF member on the merits of unionization of the CAF.  Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.  Discuss.



> Opinion
> Old ways of trying to fix the military aren't working. The Canadian Armed Forces should unionize
> It might seem like a radical idea, but much of Canada's security defence community is already unionized
> By Robert Smol, for CBC News Posted: Feb 20, 2017 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Feb 20, 2017 5:00 AM ET
> 
> Leadership at the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) has always insisted that the well-being of the rank and file is their primary concern.
> But the seemingly endless number of cases and stories about delayed pensions, lack of mental health resources, systemic sexual harassment or even tragic, fatal incidences suggest that generals are losing the battle. The piecemeal approach to fixing these issues isn't working. Here's something that might: unionizing the military.
> 
> It might seem like a radical idea, but the truth is that much of Canada's security defence community is already unionized, including the police and fire departments, EMS, as well as the uniformed and armed personnel at Canadian Border Service Agency and Canadian Coast Guard. So too is the Communication Security Establishment under the Department of National Defence, as well as certain elements of Canadian Security Intelligence Service. In 2015, the RCMP won the right to unionize, too.
> 
> Faster and better treatment
> 
> Unionization is about trust and empowerment. It means giving the military rank and file the right, as a group, to self-advocate and negotiate for improved salary, benefits and working conditions within government-approved parameters. It will also give individual members the means to more effectively air their grievances. Invariably, the result will be faster and better treatment when it comes to injuries and disabilities, and it will mean quicker and more efficient remedies when benefits are denied.
> 
> On paper, it's true that anyone in the military — from private to general — has the right to initiate a grievance, allegedly without fear of reprisal. In reality, it's not so straightforward. Consider how a 19-year-old female private might feel, for example, individually filing a formal complaint of workplace harassment compared to, say, a 50-year-old colonel grieving the terms of his employment. It is simply not enough to say that all military personnel has the right to make a complaint if there are no corresponding guarantees of equality in representation, immune to influence of the strict military hierarchy.
> 
> Now, before a dystopian mirage of slovenly soldiers refusing orders preempts this debate, it's important to outline what a unionized military does not mean: unionization does not mean challenging the operational commitments of the military, nor does it give service members the right to refuse a lawful order. It will not pacify our military, and the standard commands of "fall-in," "advance," "fire" and "halt" will not be subject to pre-approval by the union. Unionized militaries of NATO countries such as Germany, Norway and the Netherlands don't operate like that, and ours won't either.
> 
> Like its sister services in the defence security community, a unionized Canadian military — for obvious reasons — will not have the legal option to withdraw services and go on strike. Nor would it be locked out if contract negotiations reach an impasse. Instead, much like our police and fire services, it would have the options of mediation or binding arbitration to settle any contract disputes.
> 
> A more educated military
> 
> The incentive to unionize the military is particularly important given the prospect of looming personnel shortages, wherein Western militaries — including Canada's — will find it increasingly difficult to meet the growing demand for highly skilled and educated men and women to fill its ranks. The days when high school dropouts could easily find career options throughout the Forces have long since passed, meaning our ranks are now filled with increasingly high-skilled and educated men and women. Can we really continue to delude ourselves into thinking they are not capable or deserving of their own to organization to advocate for their workplace and careers?
> 
> The old ways of trying to fix the military aren't working. It's time to try something new. A unionized military will ultimately mean our Forces will be better supported, which — for the men and women who protect our rights and freedoms — is something that is long overdue.
> 
> About The Author  Robert Smol
> Robert Smol served over 20 years in the Canadian Armed Forces. He is currently a teacher and freelance writer in Toronto.
> This column is part of CBC's Opinion section. For more information about this section, please read this editor's blog and our FAQ.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/unionize-caf-1.3988971


----------



## Halifax Tar

Interesting.  Would we need three unions really ?  1 each for Officers, Sgt-CWO and Pte - MCpl ?

I think this opinion piece speaks more about one persons view on their experienced leadership in the CAF, than an actual urgent requirement.


----------



## mariomike

> It might seem like a radical idea, but the truth is that much of Canada's security defence community is already unionized, including the police and fire departments, EMS, as well as the uniformed and armed personnel at Canadian Border Service Agency and Canadian Coast Guard.



I'm only familiar with Toronto. Those three departments have been unionized since 1918.

We do not have, and do not seek, the right to strike. Neither can we be Locked-out. Issues not resolved by collective bargaining, go to binding interest arbitration.

Chiefs are non-union.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Imagine, some folks not getting thrown under the bus while others get protected because of [ insert reason] a family name, somebodies pet, 'right school', etc?  
It would shake the very core of NDHQ as far as I'm concerned.    I like it....


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Imagine, some folks not getting thrown under the bus while others get protected because of [ insert reason] a family name, somebodies pet, 'right school', etc?
> It would shake the very core of NDHQ as far as I'm concerned.    I like it....



You honestly believe us unionizing would solve that particular problem (if it actually is a problem)? How?

I know that you have a lot more experience in a unionized workforce than I do, but I remain unconvinced that the union dues I would have to pay and the petty Union political fights over who gets to be shop steward and who gets to be on the base/national councils would be better than the situation we currently have. And don't kid yourself- a CF union would find a way to insinuate itself into operational matters. And how exactly would the "who is rank and file, who is excluded" work? All officers excluded? Just General Officers? How about Commanding Officers? What about CWOs? This is an unworkable proposal, unless you radically restructure the CF at the same time.

You may have had a rough go, but I actually (generally) trust my chain of command and have been well treated by it.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Personally, I can't help but wonder: If negotiations were not going the way the Army or Air Force wanted them, would the union protest by making its members wear their DEU pants with the CADPAT top, à la reverse police protest?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-police-camouflage-pants-fine-beaten-1.3676204

 [  :rage:


----------



## mariomike

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> à la reverse police protest?
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-police-camouflage-pants-fine-beaten-1.3676204



That's a disgrace. Never disrespect your department. If it's that bad, quit and find another job.

Simplest job action is to refuse non-mandated overtime. 
https://www.google.ca/search?q=toronto+paramedics+work+to+rule&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=vAGrWPqeK6yC8Qe7prqYCw&gws_rd=ssl#q=toronto+paramedics+refuse+overtime&start=0

Metro Police went on a slowdown 40-years ago over two-man cars. 

You can't refuse or delay service to a call. But, police can stop writing tickets. "Went through a red light? Sorry, I was looking the other way." etc...

Radio and newspaper ads about Response Time scare tactics to put a fright into taxpayers were popular: "Babies will burn". etc. if the city did not hire more members or closed neighbourhood stations.

I remember radio ads years ago with a mother screaming into a telephone at a paramedic dispatcher, and the dispatcher apologising that he did not have a car to send. 
"When seconds count...we're 15 minutes away." 

Main thing is to keep the taxpayers on our side. We're the good guys. Let them take out their fears on City Hall.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I'm sure it was mentioned earlier in this merged thread (sorry mods for starting a new topic-early morning posting.. [:-[), but there are several European militaries that are unionized to some degree.  The Dutch Navy comes to mind, they seem to be able to make it to sea as required and they were in the sandbox with us as well.


----------



## GAP

The last thing I want to see is bus driver mentality driving the actions of combat forces.....dumb idea


----------



## Pusser

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'm sure it was mentioned earlier in this merged thread (sorry mods for starting a new topic-early morning posting.. [:-[), but there are several European militaries that are unionized to some degree.  The Dutch Navy comes to mind, they seem to be able to make it to sea as required and they were in the sandbox with us as well.



There are a lot of misconceptions about the "unionization" of the Dutch armed forces.  They are not truly unionized in the traditional sense (i.e. the sense in which most of us think of unions).  They do have national level negotiating committees, though.  Interestingly enough, our Ship's (Fund) Committees are supposed to perform this function (as cited in the Mainguy Report), but for the most part, they deal strictly with spending the Ship's Fund.  I tried to explain what the Ship's Committee was actually supposed to be doing to an XO once - the conversation did not end well for me - suggesting he read the Mainguy Report was not a good idea.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

There seemed to be a lot of focus in the article regarding grievances.  The grievance system is, like all systems, imperfect but it does work, at all levels.  Maybe the author needs to take a look at the grievance system as it is today and the plans on where it is heading in the near future.

If the Sqn's MCpls, Cpls and Avr's all said they think we need a union to be able to address their issues, my first though would be the crew, Sqn, Wing and fleet leadership is REALLY failing in their responsibilities (clearly laid out in the QR & O...).


----------



## Journeyman

> Old ways of trying to fix the military aren't working. The Canadian Armed Forces should unionize
> By Robert Smol,
> 
> Like its sister services in the defence security community, a unionized Canadian military — for obvious reasons — will not have the legal option to withdraw services and go on strike.


But we've already seen posts here about other union-dictated job actions -- a "work slowdown" for example;  I shudder to think of our bureaucracy actually getting _slower!_   



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> Metro Police went on a slowdown 40-years ago over two-man cars.


 Was the change an unlawful order?  Is the world still turning with one-person cars across the planet, or is this a fine example of the union protecting its turf, screwing with leadership trying to keep things running?



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> You can't refuse or delay service to a call. But, police can stop writing tickets.


 Could troops not stop doing drill?  Parade square bashing started losing its lustre after the Spanish adopted the Cuadro and Tercios formations in the early-16th Century, so it's not really the soldiers' core function -- "the Shop Steward says I don't have to." 


*Possibly the ONLY good reason to unionize: *
we could _all_  then go to some Ambulance site and spam every thread with, "this one time when I was a unionized military person...."   :nod:

Yes MM, this time the topic _is_  unions, so have at 'er.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Unionize the CAF and contract  the steward jobs and all that jazz to the legion.


----------



## mariomike

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Was the change an unlawful order?  Is the world still turning with one-person cars across the planet, or is this a fine example of the union protecting its turf, screwing with leadership trying to keep things running?



I believe it was officer safety.

"It took me 10 years to get two men in a car in Metro. We had guys beaten up, stabbed and murdered when they were one in a car." 
Sid Brown, President Metro Toronto Police Association
Star, December 20, 1976 



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> Could troops not stop doing drill?



Why? I was in a union but did drill during recruit training.



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> Yes MM, this time the topic _is_  unions, so have at 'er.



Thanks.  

"The union must respect the employer's exclusive right to manage its operations and to direct its work forces."
http://hrcouncil.ca/hr-toolkit/policies-unionized-environment.cfm


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You may have had a rough go, but I actually (generally) trust my chain of command and have been well treated by it.



I had a great go,....would do it again in a heartbeat.   The problem is most military folks, and I was like that also, think all Unions as these places where fall-downs get to stay employed even if they fuck up.  Well that is only the case where management fucks up, where they do their due diligence bad apples are gone.

With no trucks, no boots, no [insert just about anything for the men/women here], but PLENTY of money for new jobs for certain retiree's, and all kinds of new 'staff' positions springing eternal, I guess the last thing a lot of folks would want is more openness and honesty at the top.

All a Union does is keep things on the straight and narrow,....why does that scare you?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Imagine, some folks not getting thrown under the bus while others get protected because of [ insert reason] a family name, somebodies pet, 'right school', etc?
> It would shake the very core of NDHQ as far as I'm concerned.    I like it....



Unions were originally formed to combat unsatisfactory work conditions.  It might be a great way to solve our persistent procurement problems.  Maybe if we had a union I could get a pair of boots that don't blow out after three weeks riding my desk.

While I don't like the idea of a unionized military sometimes you need to fight fire with fire.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> While I don't like the idea of a unionized military sometimes you need to fight fire with fire.



I agree,......I don't really like it either.  
EDIT: Which contradicts my earlier I like it but I wish it didn't have to be so......


----------



## George Wallace

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Unions were originally formed to combat unsatisfactory work conditions.  It might be a great way to solve our persistent procurement problems.  Maybe if we had a union I could get a pair of boots that don't blow out after three weeks riding my desk.
> 
> While I don't like the idea of a unionized military sometimes you need to fight fire with fire.



Are those problems that you just quoted not the result of a unionized PWGSC?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Are those problems that you just quoted not the result of a unionized PWGSC?



No!  Do the workers make the rules??


----------



## George Wallace

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> No!  Do the workers make the rules??



Yes.  In the case of PWGSC, they do make many of the rules.

We have a case here of "Cross Border Shopping".   >


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

George, George, George,.........if a Union gets to "make many" of the rules then everybody in management in that shop needs to be let go and real ones brought in.
I don't know the work place so I can't say much more.


----------



## mariomike

To add to the discussion,

"The union must respect the employer's exclusive right to manage its operations and to direct its work forces."
http://hrcouncil.ca/hr-toolkit/policies-unionized-environment.cfm


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Are those problems that you just quoted not the result of a unionized PWGSC?



I fail to see the premise to your conclusion?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Pusser said:
			
		

> There are a lot of misconceptions about the "unionization" of the Dutch armed forces.  They are not truly unionized in the traditional sense (i.e. the sense in which most of us think of unions).  They do have national level negotiating committees, though.  Interestingly enough, our Ship's (Fund) Committees are supposed to perform this function (as cited in the Mainguy Report), but for the most part, they deal strictly with spending the Ship's Fund.  I tried to explain what the Ship's Committee was actually supposed to be doing to an XO once - the conversation did not end well for me - suggesting he read the Mainguy Report was not a good idea.



Seen Pusser, and to a certain extent, agreed.

But one must remember that you may be dealing with two different things here. The Maingy report comes from a different era, when the RCN was it's own service. The Ship's Fund Committee, is exactly that nowadays: Something required by the current NPF system in order to spend the funds in the ship's fund.

That financial set up did not exist as such in the RCN of old. What had been required before the Maingy report, largely ignored by the powers that be, and led to the insistence of the Maingy report to use them properly were the "Ship's Welfare Committee". They were meant to be specifically safe places for what can be termed collective grievances simmering on board ships. They had the dual function of permitting the airing of those grievances so that the command team would know of their existence and extent and second, of being a forum for the command team to either explain what they would do about the grievance - or clearly explain why the command team itself was powerless to deal with the situation. Sure, in the NPF system then in place, the Welfare committee was also a good place for the crew to let the command team, which had sole discretion at that time, know how they would like to see the money from the Ship's fund spent.  

To me those two Committees are different and, nowadays, should be kept separate. However, there is nothing in today's regulation to prevent Welfare being discussed in committee as was proposed by the Maingy report. As XO, I myself made sure that both topics were dealt with and were dealt with separately. I believe that good officers, who have read and understood the Maingy report, will acknowledge that the system is still required, even nowadays where the compensation and employment of crew is much more developed system with greater protection against abuse than in the past. IMHO, you can never have too much feedback from the crew on how they see things going, so you can act accordingly (even if so acting is merely explaining why something can't be helped).


----------



## George Wallace

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I fail to see the premise to your conclusion?



Just their being the bane in everyone's side on all matters procurement.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just their being the bane in everyone's side on all matters procurement.



And this is Union-related how??


----------



## George Wallace

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> And this is Union-related how??



NONE.  Go back to origin of this:  





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Are those problems that you just quoted not the result of a unionized PWGSC?



My attempt at levity failed in reply to the CAF having problems with



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> .......  It might be a great way to solve our persistent procurement problems.  Maybe if we had a union I could get a pair of boots that don't blow out after three weeks riding my desk.



and the fact that Public Works has their fingers into everything.......that unionizing the CAF may not have any affect, as another 'unionized' organization is involved; an organization that really doesn't care one way or the other about the CAF, only their stated responsibilities/MOU, nothing else.  Union agreements keep organizations like Public Works and all Government union members bound to work only within their defined agreements, not to stray outside of those agreements; if it isn't written in your job description, you are not to do it.  In effect, this can be shown to be one flaw with CAF procurement, the Public Sector side of the procedure.  

Other than being unionized, the Union usually has nothing to do with what Public Works does, only the conditions that they work under in their job descriptions.  Sorry if I am all over the map there. 

I just can't see the military being unionized as being beneficial to anyone; least of all, the nation.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

George Wallace said:
			
		

> NONE.  Go back to origin of this:
> My attempt at levity failed in reply to the CAF having problems with
> 
> and the fact that Public Works has their fingers into everything.......that unionizing the CAF may not have any affect, as another 'unionized' organization is involved; an organization that really doesn't care one way or the other about the CAF, only their stated responsibilities/MOU, nothing else.  Union agreements keep organizations like Public Works and all Government union members bound to work only within their defined agreements, not to stray outside of those agreements; if it isn't written in your job description, you are not to do it.  In effect, this can be shown to be one flaw with CAF procurement, the Public Sector side of the procedure.
> 
> Other than being unionized, the Union usually has nothing to do with what Public Works does, only the conditions that they work under in their job descriptions.  Sorry if I am all over the map there.
> 
> I just can't see the military being unionized as being beneficial to anyone; least of all, the nation.



Any military union should be "For the soldiers, run by the soldiers"

It should exclude the entire officer corps and I would like to think of it as the institution's very own sergeant major.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Union agreements keep organizations like Public Works and all Government union members bound to work only within their defined agreements, not to stray outside of those agreements; if it isn't written in your job description, you are not to do it.



How many arty rounds you fired George?  Plotted?  Dispatched any jumpers??   No?  Why??


----------



## mariomike

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> It should exclude the entire officer corps and I would like to think of it as the institution's very own sergeant major.



From what I have seen and understand of unions, management is always non-union.


----------



## Jed

mariomike said:
			
		

> From what I have seen and understand of unions, management is always non-union.




I thought that Sgts were the backbone of the Army?   How does that square with a union?   Just my opinion but the union thing for the CF is total BS.  Let's all get our USSR political officers in the mix too?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Jed said:
			
		

> I thought that Sgts were the backbone of the Army?   How does that square with a union?   Just my opinion but the union thing for the CF is total BS.  Let's all get our USSR political officers in the mix too?



Squares just fine........define what you think a Union does please?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Ask your Sgt. to take the ridiculously crappy boots to the publics attention.........and he'll say "Yea, Ok?"   Why not, he's your backbone, isn't he?
Now ask your Union........


----------



## Jarnhamar

Hypothetically speaking what would a military union be involved in? 

Poor PER scores? 
Work place harassment? 
Members being posted when they don't want to? 
Living conditions while on exercise or deployed? 
Food quality  (like in Poland) 
FORCE test failures?


----------



## TCM621

I do not support unions in general and for the military in particular. However,  we do deserve a seat at the table and I don't think we have one. I envision an association, which is a stakeholder at all major DND related discussions,  which provides the voice of the rank and file.  It would also be free to speak out on behalf of the troops which is something that CAF leadership is either unable or unwilling to do. 

For example,  the CAF association would  lobby the government to fix PLD or the home equity loss program. We have the ombudsman who does good work but doesn't seem to have any teeth as his recommendations are ignored year after year. If we could go public saying, "Sorry,  (government of the day ) according to the troops themselves you are not doing everything to support them like you say you are. Here are 5 things they have been asking for and you keep denying to fix,"  it would go a long way to getting things done. 

The make up of it would be problematic but it might be the natural evolution of the messes. We all know our messes are basically dead. We basically just have empty public bars instead if the private clubs we used to have. If messes functioned as the local association. meeting point,  meetings might be worth going to. Or it could be an outside organization but we would have to find some equivalent of of workers vs management. NCMs vs officers is a little to simplistic because a chief is much more "management" than a captain. Snr leadership is often seen as political and out of touch with the rank and file and frankly they are already in a position to make themselves heard if they wanted to. It would be a waste of time to have the same people in charge of an association.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## c_canuk

didn't think Unionizing the CF would be a good thing until MES was implemented. A Union might have been able to stop that clusterfrig. 

Bad decisions have damaged our moral, our compensation and most importantly, our ability to support the CAF.

Sometimes a Union's worst and best trait is to mire the managers so they can't make bad crippling decisions. Those of us in the working ranks had no way to stop it, we could only watch aghast as our trade was burned down around us.

this crap with DPPD right now is ridiculous. I have a 2 guys who have identical functional quals and rank, one gets spec pay because he got his 5s before 2011, and one doesn't cause he got his after. A retro ruling is that CST is not a new trade, so in 2011 spec pay should not have been frozen and my other guy should be getting it.

right now the one who was getting spec pay is getting money he's entitled to clawed back, while the other is staring at $22k in his bank account he's not entitled to that's growing by ~$500 every month. This money he can't spend is being taxed.

bet a union would fix this crap right quick.

Edited: fix language


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Hypothetically speaking what would a military union be involved in?
> 
> Poor PER scores?
> Work place harassment?
> Members being posted when they don't want to?
> Living conditions while on exercise or deployed?
> Food quality  (like in Poland)
> FORCE test failures?



I would say all but postings.  Management always has the right to manage, unless they sign certain things away, like seniority.   Aren't all those other things already subject to a grievance process?   So nothing would change for them, except you'd have professional help, so management would need to be spot on.  Again, is that a horrible thing to ask??


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Any military union should be "For the soldiers, run by the soldiers"
> 
> It should exclude the entire officer corps and I would like to think of it as the institution's very own sergeant major.



Which would work for the Army, I guess. Even though, how do you define "soldiers"? Would they include the cooks, who may have more in common with the RCAF and RCN cooks than with the infantryman?

That would be one of the big problems: defining who is who, and on what basis. We may talk about the civil service union, but the reality is that they have union*s*. Their unions (plural) are generally organized along the lines of the type of work they do within the civil service. In the other security services, you have unions for the police - all policemen do police work, a single type of task - same for the firefighters. In the civil service at large, you have union for the professionals, another one for the clerks type of employees, another one for the engineers, etc, etc. All of this makes sense as each group is generally engaged in the same type of undertaking.

But in the military, would we have to have unions for each similar task? For instance, would there be a union for seamen, in the Navy generally, or would, say, the Mar Eng (who already have a "union" as we all know - it says so in the Naval Engineering Manuals and Orders  ;D) be in a union with the various Air techs, or with the Combat engineers?



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> From what I have seen and understand of unions, management is always non-union.



So what's your point mariomike? In the CAF, the role of officers is to lead, not to manage. While there are some relationships more akin to management here and there, that is not the officer's corps primary function. A Brigade commander's job is to lead his brigade in combat but he could next (or first) be posted to Ottawa in a ADM job; the job of a ship's C.O. is to lead his crew into combat, but he could also be posted as a director in a HQ at some point. Would they be taken in and out of the union depending on their actual posting?


----------



## George Wallace

c_canuk said:
			
		

> bet a union would fix this shit right quick.



Have you heard of Phoenix?    >


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

c_canuk said:
			
		

> didn't think Unionizing the CF would be a good thing until MES was implemented. A Union might have been able to stop that clusterfuck.
> 
> Bad decisions have damaged our moral, our compensation and most importantly, our ability to support the CAF.
> 
> Sometimes a Union's worst and best trait is to mire the managers so they can't make bad crippling decisions. Those of us in the working ranks had no way to stop it, we could only watch aghast as our trade was burned down around us.
> 
> this shit with DPPD right now is ridiculous. I have a 2 guys who have identical functional quals and rank, one gets spec pay because he got his 5s before 2011, and one doesn't cause he got his after. A retro ruling is that CST is not a new trade, so in 2011 spec pay should not have been frozen and my other guy should be getting it.
> 
> right now the one who was getting spec pay is getting money he's entitled to clawed back, while the other is staring at $22k in his bank account he's not entitled to that's growing by ~$500 every month. This money he can't spend is being taxed.
> 
> bet a union would fix this shit right quick.



Maybe not fix,.....never a guarantee, but someone would need to make a pretty good case in front of an arbitrator.  
Nothing wrong with getting things right......


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Have you heard of Phoenix?    >



Oh,...you mean the system where managers got bonus's and not fired??   Thanks for seeing it my way George, glad I could convince you.


----------



## Jed

Unions in the Civi world work for the first couple of decades then just like Communism, human nature causes the system to fail.

A union in the military would just slowly gum up the effectiveness of Canada's military. Good leadership should solve the problems without the BS thrown in by Unions. Just how do you think this work when in a SHTF situation?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I would say all but postings.  Management always has the right to manage, unless they sign certain things away, like seniority.   Aren't all those other things already subject to a grievance process?   So nothing would change for them, except you'd have professional help, so management would need to be spot on.  *Again, is that a horrible thing to ask??*



No, not at all. 



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Oh,...you mean the system where managers got bonus's and not fired??   Thanks for seeing it my way George, glad I could convince you.



Checkmate.


----------



## mariomike

Jed said:
			
		

> I thought that Sgts were the backbone of the Army?   How does that square with a union?



My union experience is municipal.

Sergeants have been in the union since 1918. Anyone above the rank of Sergeant is not in the union.
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/rank/



			
				Jed said:
			
		

> Just my opinion but the union thing for the CF is total BS.  Let's all get our USSR political officers in the mix too?





			
				Jed said:
			
		

> Unions in the Civi world work for the first couple of decades then just like Communism, human nature causes the system to fail.



Not going to argue with you about what's good for the army or Communism.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Jed said:
			
		

> Unions in the Civi world work for the first couple of decades then just like Communism, human nature causes the system to fail.
> 
> A union in the military would just slowly gum up the effectiveness of Canada's military. Good leadership should solve the problems without the BS thrown in by Unions. Just how do you think this work when in a SHTF situation?



Can you explain or just quote stuff you haven't any experience in?    What BS does a Union "throw in"?   If just throwing the word 'good leadership" was the answer, then why are we even talking about this?

And in the last 28 years I've been in a few SHTF situations and it doesn't effect it one iota.  My boss directs and I do.......


----------



## mariomike

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> And in the last 28 years I've been in a few SHTF situations and it doesn't effect it one iota.  My boss directs and I do.......



Might as well throw the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 43, (1) and (2).2 in,

Union or no union, Corrections, and emergency services, do not have the right to refuse work where the circumstances are inherent in their work and/or if the work refusal would directly endanger the health and safety of another person.


----------



## Journeyman

Going back to the article that kicked off this latest 'discussion,'  what would a military union do that is not already the purview of the Ombudsman and his staff?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Going back to the article that kicked off this latest 'discussion,'  what would a military union do that is not already the purview of the Ombudsman and his staff?



Not worry about getting appointed again?

And not everything needs to go to the highest court in the land.....


----------



## Jed

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Can you explain or just quote stuff you haven't any experience in?    What BS does a Union "throw in"?   If just throwing the word 'good leadership" was the answer, then why are we even talking about this?
> 
> And in the last 28 years I've been in a few SHTF situations and it doesn't effect it one iota.  My boss directs and I do.......



I have had 21 years dealing in the Federal Unions and about 10 years with a provincial union. That does not count any 2nd hand experience picked up with the Unions my spouse has had. No, I never worked internally as a union worker. I refused to do this when given the opportunity at a personal cost in the pay cheque.

I deplore unions with a passion, just about as much as I deplore Communism. In my experience they eventually all become just another Religious Cult that does a disservice to the individual and the common good.

For example: The SUN or SRNA The Sask Nurses.  40 years ago the Nurses were getting a raw deal hence big fights to establish a Union. Now Nurses are extremely over worked, Bad Nurses skate on through to the detriment of the patients and their capable colleagues; and the Courts attack someone calling a spade a spade and fine them for speaking their mind.

The Teacher's Unions begin to totally slant how our children perceive the world and our western society starts to bubble wrap our children and prevent any freedom of thought and action. Besides that they screw up the works for the others in our society due to the culture of entitlement.  Then people start to vote for idiots that couldn't find their way out of a wet paper bag.

But hey, that's just a grumpy old guy opinion.  [


If you have seen the show 'Little Big Man' I probably relate to the Cheyenne 'Contrary'


----------



## sailorprivateer

I'm currently in a unionize workplace and I kid you not, it's a mess. Right now we are voting for the new CBA. People who are with the other plant for 25+ years want wage increase like we're still in the 80s, while the new guys are willing to take a paycut to retain 80% health benefits plus a $500 signing bonus. 

Imagine if the AF, RCN, and Army would each demand specific things. Unionize is not a bad thing, I think it's better to have civilian workplaces to deal with it rather than in military.


----------



## Navy_Pete

What function would a union bring that isn't already available somewhere?

Off the top of my head, if there is something wrong, everyone has the following options to report/look for redress;
-use the CoC
-use the unofficial CoC channels
-grievances
-padres
-ombudsman
-UCRs (amazing how everyone knows a piece of kit sucks but never gets reported properly)
-EAPs
-general bitching at town halls

I'm not really sure what other function a union would bring to the table.  Also, if you divide it along jobs, would you have a number of different unions for each trade, lump them together, etc etc.  You'd end up with half a dozen different unions at every small unit; seems like it would add a lot of politics.

There are already more than enough processes in place; should we not just use those first and fix the problems?  Having said that, I've generally had a pretty good CoC support when needed, and tried to do the same for folks below me in the chain, so maybe that's why I don't see the necessity.


----------



## sailorprivateer

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I'm not really sure what other function a union would bring to the table.


I guess you have a union steward present with you when you get written up or sent to the office (or whatever is the equivalent in the military).


----------



## mariomike

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Also, if you divide it along jobs, would you have a number of different unions for each trade, lump them together, etc etc.



May we use The Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) as an example?  I understand they are "civvies", not CAF.

"Many of PSAC’s 172,000 members work for the federal public service, crown corporations or agencies as immigration officers, fisheries officers, food inspectors, customs officers, national defence civilian employees, and the like. However, an increasing number of PSAC members work in non-federal sectors: in women’s shelters, universities, security agencies and casinos. In Northern Canada, PSAC represents most unionized workers employed in the Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories."
http://psacunion.ca/

This may, or may not, be of interest to the discussion of unions,

The Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada is comprised of regular members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
http://mppac.ca/

Would a ( hypothetical, of course ) CAF union represent reserve members?

_As always,_  not to say a union is a good, or bad, thing for the CAF and its members.


----------



## Remius

mariomike said:
			
		

> May we use The Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) as an example?  I understand they are "civvies", not CAF.
> 
> "Many of PSAC’s 172,000 members work for the federal public service, crown corporations or agencies as immigration officers, fisheries officers, food inspectors, customs officers, national defence civilian employees, and the like. However, an increasing number of PSAC members work in non-federal sectors: in women’s shelters, universities, security agencies and casinos. In Northern Canada, PSAC represents most unionized workers employed in the Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories."
> http://psacunion.ca/
> 
> This may, or may not, be of interest to the discussion of unions,
> 
> The Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada is comprised of regular members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
> http://mppac.ca/
> 
> 
> Would a ( hypothetical, of course ) CAF union represent reserve members?
> 
> _As always,_  not to say a union is a good, or bad, thing for the CAF and its members.




I belive  they use the term REGULAR to differentiate between uniformed paid officers as opposed to Civilian Members which are/were not PS employees.  Not the same way the CAF refers to regular forces.  I say are/were since they are all being converted to the PS this year I believe. I know they have auxiliaries as well but as far as I know they are not paid employees.

Good question but I suspect they would or could be covered the same way any part time employee would be covered.


----------



## mariomike

Remius said:
			
		

> Good question but I suspect they would or could be covered the same way any part time employee would be covered.



Our union did not have part-time members, so I had to look it up,

Do part-time employees pay reduced union dues?

No. In accordance with the relevant collective agreement, the employer must deduct an amount equal to the monthly union dues from the pay of any employee in the bargaining unit.
https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/labour-management/union-dues/frequently-asked-questions-union-dues.html


----------



## jollyjacktar

My experience with being a Union member was to see my dues taken each month without my having the feeling of money well spent, just like being forced to be a Mess member.  Unlike Mess dues, however, I could at the very least claim my Union dues at tax time.  So, maybe a little more useful.  

I understand the general distrust or unease with the thought of a Union of any sorts within the CAF.  But, there must be some reason the Europeans got together with a compact or Union or whatever you want to call it and some reason why they still have one in force.  I am damned if I know as I have never had the opportunity to ask anyone about it from across the Pond.


----------



## TCM621

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Going back to the article that kicked off this latest 'discussion,'  what would a military union do that is not already the purview of the Ombudsman and his staff?


The problem with the ombudsman is that he can't claim to speak with our voice because we didn't put him there nor can we get rid of him if we are not satisfied with his performance. I don't want people to think I don't appreciate the work the office of the ombudsman does  I definitely think they try hard,  but on major issues they have been ineffective. Part of the reason might be that the public does equate the ombudsman with he voice of "the troops". 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Edit: spelling


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> What function would a union bring that isn't already available somewhere?
> 
> Off the top of my head, if there is something wrong, everyone has the following options to report/look for redress;
> -use the CoC
> -use the unofficial CoC channels
> -grievances
> -padres
> -ombudsman
> -UCRs (amazing how everyone knows a piece of kit sucks but never gets reported properly)
> -EAPs
> -general bitching at town halls
> 
> I'm not really sure what other function a union would bring to the table.  Also, if you divide it along jobs, would you have a number of different unions for each trade, lump them together, etc etc.  You'd end up with half a dozen different unions at every small unit; seems like it would add a lot of politics.
> 
> There are already more than enough processes in place; should we not just use those first and fix the problems?  Having said that, I've generally had a pretty good CoC support when needed, and tried to do the same for folks below me in the chain, so maybe that's why I don't see the necessity.



The answer is simple:  Lobbying power and money to back it up and deal with the courts.  If it improves our equipment, housing, services for veterans, etc.  I'm all for it.


----------



## mariomike

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The answer is simple:  Lobbying power and money to back it up and deal with the courts.  If it improves our equipment, housing, services for veterans, etc.  I'm all for it.



That sounds good. But, how would the 27,000 PRes members feel about paying the same union dues as the Regular Force?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

mariomike said:
			
		

> That sounds good. But, how would the 27,000 PRes members feel about paying the same union dues as the Regular Force?



Sounds like you pay a different rate, if this is the biggest gripe I'm sure we can come to a collective solution.


----------



## mariomike

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Sounds like you pay a different rate, if this is the biggest gripe I'm sure we can come to a collective solution.



Sounds like you pay the same rate,

Do part-time employees pay reduced union dues?

No. In accordance with the relevant collective agreement, the employer must deduct an amount equal to the monthly union dues from the pay of any employee in the bargaining unit.
https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/labour-management/union-dues/frequently-asked-questions-union-dues.html


----------



## SupersonicMax

You missed the second question:

How are the amounts of union dues to be paid by employees determined?
Union dues are set by the bargaining agents and calculated either by using a fixed rate  or as a percentage of the employee’s salary.


----------



## daftandbarmy

A unionized Army was more or less responsible for not preventing this tragedy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre

And, in the aftermath that included the fall of the government of the day, the Dutch committed to never again deploy unionized troops to a war zone, I believe.

And, having worked with both unionized and non-unionized Dutch Marines, I wouldn't put much faith in the former... if at all.


----------



## Furniture

I won't lie, I like the idea of a union to manage out benefits and our schedule baring a national crisis... But in the world of combat and troops deployed in the support of combat I feel like a union is more a source of problems than solutions.

Examples in support of unionization include extra work hours to support poor/ineffective planning by supervisors. Eg, storing ship at 1500 on a Friday two week before a deployment. 

Examples in support of not unionizing, troops work as long and as hard as required to accomplish the objectives set forth by the government. 

In reality most of the military's effort is spent on example 1, poor planning and no accountability for officers poor planning/ lack of consultation with Snr NCOs. If the CAF had to pay hourly for what we do and what we bring to the table the way we work and the hours we work would be wildly different. As it stands a CO can order his troops to be at work an hour early and stay a few hours late every day and nobody can argue. The Navy does it regularly with cold moves and such and never considers the impact the irregular hours and extra hours have on morale.

If unionized at the very least every hour the military steals from us is accounted for and repaid in some way, that is a massive improvement over how the system works/doesn't work now.


----------



## Ostrozac

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> If unionized at the very least every hour the military steals from us is accounted for and repaid in some way, that is a massive improvement over how the system works/doesn't work now.



You may be mixing up your observed problem and your proposed solution. The RCMP aren't unionized (yet) but they still get overtime when they work extra hours.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=daftandbarmy] And, having worked with both unionized and non-unionized Dutch Marines, I wouldn't put much faith in the former... if at all.
[/quote]

Do you mind if I ask what were some of the  problems or issues working with unionized Dutch marines you noticed ?


----------



## Lightguns

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> I won't lie, I like the idea of a union to manage out benefits and our schedule baring a national crisis... But in the world of combat and troops deployed in the support of combat I feel like a union is more a source of problems than solutions.
> 
> Examples in support of unionization include extra work hours to support poor/ineffective planning by supervisors. Eg, storing ship at 1500 on a Friday two week before a deployment.
> 
> Examples in support of not unionizing, troops work as long and as hard as required to accomplish the objectives set forth by the government.
> 
> In reality most of the military's effort is spent on example 1, poor planning and no accountability for officers poor planning/ lack of consultation with Snr NCOs. If the CAF had to pay hourly for what we do and what we bring to the table the way we work and the hours we work would be wildly different. As it stands a CO can order his troops to be at work an hour early and stay a few hours late every day and nobody can argue. The Navy does it regularly with cold moves and such and never considers the impact the irregular hours and extra hours have on morale.
> 
> If unionized at the very least every hour the military steals from us is accounted for and repaid in some way, that is a massive improvement over how the system works/doesn't work now.



After 34 years of garrison, exercises and operations and based on an 8 hour day, 5 day week, I likely owe the government a few months.  As for unions, heck, every time, I asked for something or conducted business base side, it always felt like the CF was unionized......


----------



## mariomike

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> You missed the second question:
> 
> How are the amounts of union dues to be paid by employees determined?
> Union dues are set by the bargaining agents and calculated either by using a fixed rate  or as a percentage of the employee’s salary.



Thank-you for pointing that out.  Percentage of salary seems more fair.



			
				Ostrozac said:
			
		

> The RCMP aren't unionized (yet) but they still get overtime when they work extra hours.



According to their website, "We seek to exercise our right to engage in free collective bargaining with our Employer, a right currently enjoyed by all police officers in Canada, except for RCMP members."


----------



## Jarnhamar

Thread reminded me of this story.


> http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/659988/German-army-pulls-out-NATO-training-exercise-exceeding-overtime-limits
> Soldiers taking part in a month-long drill in Norway returned to their homeland after less than two weeks when they fell foul of strict new rules by Berlin which limit the amount of time recruits can be on active duty.
> 
> It follows claims savage budget cuts have left German forces training with broom handles instead of guns.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Do you mind if I ask what were some of the  problems or issues working with unionized Dutch marines you noticed ?



Weapons unusable due to dirt, refusing to work when ordered by their Officers, NCOS who would be shot in any normal military for their levels of overt insolence, and failing completely in just about every task they were assigned apart from disembarking from the LPDs and sitting on their ample asses. And then there's the long hair and other unkempt appearance things, but I can forgive a lot in that department as long as troops can complete their tasks on time and to standard.

We had Whisky Company, RNLMC attached to us in 45 Cdo and they were 'professional' marines with standards similar to ours. It was fun to wind them up about their unionized brethren, who they would have gladly gunned down given the chance I believe.


----------



## Navy_Pete

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> ..
> In reality most of the military's effort is spent on example 1, poor planning and no accountability for officers poor planning/ lack of consultation with Snr NCOs. If the CAF had to pay hourly for what we do and what we bring to the table the way we work and the hours we work would be wildly different. As it stands a CO can order his troops to be at work an hour early and stay a few hours late every day and nobody can argue. The Navy does it regularly with cold moves and such and never considers the impact the irregular hours and extra hours have on morale.
> ..



Most of the irregular timings for all that stuff have to do with the work hours for the unionized civilian employees, particularly if you are ammunitioning.  Ships will also stay out overnight because of overtime considerations for tugs, or CM to IOL rather than get the private fuel barge to come alongside due to the surcharge.  Basically ship's fuel is a different budget and people don't account for lost productivity or SS time what making these decisions.  I blame the MBA culture of 'maximizining stakeholder outputs to achieve strategic objectives at the tactical level'. :facepalm:


----------



## dapaterson

Sort of like "We saved $50 on your airfare by giving you four flights that take an extra three hours".  Can we get a little HRG love here?


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Weapons unusable due to dirt, refusing to work when ordered by their Officers, NCOS who would be shot in any normal military for their levels of overt insolence, and failing completely in just about every task they were assigned apart from disembarking from the LPDs and sitting on their ample asses. And then there's the long hair and other unkempt appearance things, but I can forgive a lot in that department as long as troops can complete their tasks on time and to standard.
> 
> We had Whisky Company, RNLMC attached to us in 45 Cdo and they were 'professional' marines with standards similar to ours. It was fun to wind them up about their unionized brethren, who they would have gladly gunned down given the chance I believe.



So, only part of the Dutch military is unionized?  How would that work?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> So, only part of the Dutch military is unionized?  How would that work?



I'm not exactly sure, but the Danes and Norwegians are similar I think. I believe it has something to do with mass, conscript, Continental armies required to defend the homeland, which can be unionized, and a small number of professionals available to deploy internationally to meet NATO and other commitments. This may have changed with recent moves to professionalize vs. conscript a larger proportion of Continental European militaries.

I do know that the Dutch weren't impressed with the performance of their 'unionized' conscripts at Srebrenica, which resulted in the massacre that brought down their government, so have changed their policies on how and where they deploy them.


----------



## mariomike

Although it hasn't happened since 1945, there may come a time "during hostilities or during a time of war as declared by the Government of Canada" when civilians are drafted into the CAF.

When, like it or not, Reservists are involuntarily activated to full-time and, like it or not, may be sent out of Canada.

VR's will / may be put on hold until "cessation of hostilities". 

What good will a union do then?


----------



## Jed

mariomike said:
			
		

> Although it hasn't happened since 1945, there may come a time "during hostilities or during a time of war as declared by the Government of Canada" when civilians are drafted into the CAF.
> 
> When, like it or not, Reservists are involuntarily activated to full-time and, like it or not, may be sent out of Canada.
> 
> VR's will / may be put on hold until "cessation of hostilities".
> 
> What good will a union do then?



This pretty much is what I meant when I said a SHTF scenario.  Not just a crunch time occurring that resolves its self in a week.


----------



## Ostrozac

mariomike said:
			
		

> Although it hasn't happened since 1945, there may come a time "during hostilities or during a time of war as declared by the Government of Canada" when civilians are drafted into the CAF.



Well, the bad news is that conscription would almost certainly violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but the good news is that it is a situation tailor made for the Notwithstanding Clause to be invoked. Of course, a law passed under Notwithstanding has to renewed every 5 years, leading to a major political crisis 5 years into the next total war.

But hey, isn't a political crisis over conscription one of the signs that Canada isn't fighting a skirmish anymore? It's a great national tradition, how come they never made a heritage moment about a Conscription Crisis?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The notwithstanding clause lets you set aside the rights and freedoms of art 2 and arts 7 to 15. Basically, the fundamental freedoms such as freedom of conscience, of belief, of expression, then the  judicial rights against search, seizure, your rights if arrested, etc (but including the right to life and liberty - but this one is already limited by "as exist" in a free and democratic society, which includes the right to conscript in most democracies I know), and the most important for setting aside: The right to non-discrimination based on sex, origin, religion, etc.

Now why would we want to restrict that last one? You implement conscription, bring it down equally on women, LGBT Canadians and members of any faith, I say. They want full equality - no reason not to do their fair share of the killing/dying protection of those rights requires.


----------



## Ostrozac

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The notwithstanding clause lets you set aside the rights and freedoms of art 2 and arts 7 to 15. Basically, the fundamental freedoms such as freedom of conscience, of belief, of expression, then the  judicial rights against search, seizure, your rights if arrested, etc (but including the right to life and liberty - but this one is already limited by "as exist" in a free and democratic society, which includes the right to conscript in most democracies I know), and the most important for setting aside: The right to non-discrimination based on sex, origin, religion, etc.



Personally, I suspect that Conscription fails Article 7 -- security of the person. But your legal opinion may be equally valid, backed by common standards throughout world democracys. Anyway, it would be fun to see the supreme court case. Well, it would be fun if wasn't happening in the middle of World War III.


----------



## OldSolduer

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Now why would we want to restrict that last one? You implement conscription, bring it down equally on women, LGBT Canadians and members of any faith, I say. They want full equality - no reason not to do their fair share of the killing/dying protection of those rights requires.



I'm sure the groups you've mentioned would find sufficient reason to restrict conscription to eligible males only....white heteros, who have had the "privilege" of fighting and dying for for Canada for 150 years. I can hear the screams of anguish now.....


----------



## mariomike

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I'm sure the groups you've mentioned would find sufficient reason to restrict conscription to eligible males only....white heteros, who have had the "privilege" of fighting and dying for for Canada for 150 years.



Canada has not had conscription in over 70 years. 

The US conscripted males of all colours during Vietnam,

"Blacks suffered disproportionately high casualty rates in Vietnam. In 1965 alone they comprised almost one out of every four combat deaths."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties#Disproportion_of_African_American_casualties

"while blacks only made up about 11% of the population of the US."


----------



## Kirkhill

Not sure whether to tax him, hire him or conscript him

https://v.connatix.com/0745056c-c1ee-4832-9a52-eb7ea7e2826c/Contents/49406/95e4bbbe-5a57-4fef-9152-464a0ef81007_desktop_low_360_mute.mp4


----------



## mariomike

If conscription / draft was ever re-instated, how could / would that work with a unionized military?

Unionization during peacetime might be an interesting social experiment, but during wartime?


----------



## OldSolduer

mariomike said:
			
		

> Unionization during peacetime might be an interesting social experiment, but during wartime?



I don't know about the rest of the readership but the CAF is not a place for "social experiments". The CAF has a job to do and "social experiments" only distract from that.


----------



## mariomike

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I don't know about the rest of the readership but the CAF is not a place for "social experiments". The CAF has a job to do and "social experiments" only distract from that.



Thank-you.

I did not suggest the peacetime CAF unionize. I understand the CAF has a job to do.

My question was, "If conscription / draft was ever re-instated, how could / would that work with a unionized military?"

"...during wartime?"



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> Although it hasn't happened since 1945, there may come a time "during hostilities or during a time of war as declared by the Government of Canada" when civilians are drafted into the CAF.
> 
> When, like it or not, Reservists are involuntarily activated to full-time and, like it or not, may be sent out of Canada.
> 
> VR's will / may be put on hold until "cessation of hostilities".
> 
> What good will a union do then?



I do not believe any of the readership served during Conscription.  So, I thought it was a reasonable question.

We have been debating this 11-page  ' "Unionizing" the CF ' thread for the last thirteen years. 

I have no dog in the fight either way. Just asking.


----------



## Loachman

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I don't know about the rest of the readership but the CAF is not a place for "social experiments".



Huh? We've been a venue for social experimentation for almost four decades that I remember.


----------



## mariomike

Loachman said:
			
		

> Huh? We've been a venue for social experimentation for almost four decades that I remember.



Saw this from a thread fifteen years ago,
http://army.ca/forums/threads/2435.0/nowap.html



> Why I Quit: A Sampling of the Survey
> 
> Some responses to the Canadian Forces' survey:
> 
> (The Canadian Forces) is now no more than a social experiment conducted by politicians who have no idea what the ultimate role of the military is."


----------



## OldSolduer

Loachman said:
			
		

> Huh? We've been a venue for social experimentation for almost four decades that I remember.



And you are correct in that assessment. I'm saying the CAF is not the place to conduct them.


----------



## Loachman

But it _is_, as opposed to _shouldn't be_.

We do seem to make things work better and sooner than the rest of society, though.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Loachman said:
			
		

> But it _is_, as opposed to _shouldn't be_.
> 
> We do seem to make things work better and sooner than the rest of society, though.



Oh, sure, so you're suggesting that we're more effective just because we're run almost exclusively by middle aged white men who oppose unions, right?


----------



## Loachman

I have yet to reach middle age, but may qualify as "angry".


----------



## Blackadder1916

Loachman said:
			
		

> I have yet to reach middle age, but may qualify as "angry".



So after 43 (?) years of service and those unproductive years prior to joining, you expect to live well past 118 years of age.  I've accepted that I'm a middle aged guy, however, I did get a little pissed several years ago when I saw a sign in a Sears store that indicated age 55 for the senior citizens discount.


----------



## Brasidas

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> So after 43 (?) years of service and those unproductive years prior to joining, you expect to live well past 118 years of age.  I've accepted that I'm a middle aged guy, however, I did get a little pissed several years ago when I saw a sign in a Sears store that indicated age 55 for the senior citizens discount.



Many years ago, I made some idle observations and mentioned to my wife that I felt old. Seeking to reassure me as I approached my 30th birthday, she said that I wasn't old but rather that I was "just middle-aged".


----------



## Halifax Tar

Let's do it! 



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/unionize-caf-1.3988971


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> Let's do it!
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/unionize-caf-1.3988971


Lets have a long sober look at it before you jump into unionizing.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I'm trying to imagine the Union Reps not being the same folks who end up on the Mess Committee's...but it's not working.


----------



## Halifax Tar

OldSolduer said:


> Lets have a long sober look at it before you jump into unionizing.





Eye In The Sky said:


> I'm trying to imagine the Union Reps not being the same folks who end up on the Mess Committee's...but it's not working.



If true; when I hear a ship and crew were sent to back sea 4 days after 1 month of post-deployment leave; from a grueling 7 month confined to ship tour for another 5 weeks sail I am not sure I can say leadership has the best interest of the rank and file anymore.

Could it be worse than we already have ?


----------



## dapaterson

Halifax Tar said:


> If true; when I hear a ship and crew were sent to back sea 4 days after 1 month of post-deployment leave; from a grueling 7 month confined to ship tour for another 5 weeks sail I am not sure I can say leadership has the best interest of the rank and file anymore.
> 
> Could it be worse than we already have ?



Hold my 0.5% beer...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dapaterson said:


> Hold my 0.5% beer...


It's true.


----------



## Weinie

Eye In The Sky said:


> I'm trying to imagine the Union Reps not being the same folks who end up on the Mess Committee's...but it's not working.


And how many SCRITS points will acting as the Union Rep garner? Glad I am retiring soon.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Speaking as a long time Union guy/steward/executive, a Union doesn't give you any more juice, it's just there to defend against collective agreement infractions.   Without a collective agreement the only other tools available you already have....grievances, human rights, etc.  

Think you got sent out to sea again too soon??   "Show us where it says the agreed upon number of days required in between sailings". 
If its not written down then a Union would be useless.


----------



## mariomike

OldSolduer said:


> Lets have a long sober look at it before you jump into unionizing.



A 14-page look here,









						"Unionizing" the CF (merged)
					

Huh? We've been a venue for social experimentation for almost four decades that I remember.   And you are correct in that assessment. I'm saying the CAF is not the place to conduct them.




					army.ca
				






mariomike said:


> Although it hasn't happened since 1945, there may come a time "during hostilities or during a time of war as declared by the Government of Canada" when civilians are drafted into the CAF.
> 
> When, like it or not, Reservists are involuntarily activated to full-time and, like it or not, may be sent out of Canada.
> 
> VR's will / may be put on hold until "cessation of hostilities".
> 
> What good will a union do then?


----------



## Weinie

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Speaking as a long time Union guy/steward/executive, a Union doesn't give you any more juice,* it's just there to defend against collective agreement infractions.   Without a collective agreement the only other tools available you already have....grievances, human rights, etc. *
> 
> Think you got sent out to sea again too soon??   "Show us where it says the agreed upon number of days required in between sailings".
> If its not written down then a Union would be useless.


Yeah I understand Bruce. When we get to the point where Collective Agreements override National Security, Universality of Service, or the concept of ultimate liability, I am out.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Weinie said:


> Yeah I understand Bruce. When we get to the point where Collective Agreements override National Security, Universality of Service, or the concept of ultimate liability, I am out.


Isn’t the Danish military unionized?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Weinie said:


> Yeah I understand Bruce. When we get to the point where Collective Agreements override National Security, Universality of Service, or the concept of ultimate liability, I am out.


It would never need to "get there".  Those things can be agreed upon, or a collective agreement, if you will.  

My job didn't have anywhere near the repercussions your jobs could have, but if my former employer declared an "emergency " then the collective agreement be damned.   That crap can be sorted out after the emergency.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

SupersonicMax said:


> Isn’t the Danish military unionized?


I'm sure the Dutch army was way back in the 80's.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

I would say so long as it was solely a mechanism to ensure admins policies drafted are policies followed (Leave, Pay, HR issues etc.), vice turning it into the "Axe-grinding Guild Local 256" for the CoC... why the hell not?

If the operational business is still being conducted and members are actually supported in administrative aspects, instead of left to fend for themselves in the Grievance wilderness, I think it's something we should investigate.

That said, good luck trying to sell this past the smoke pit though


----------



## Blackadder1916

Many of our European allies have already embraced associations/unions going back many years with little (or no ?) disruption.  There is a mix of how they select representatives and for some countries there are separate professional associations depending on rank.  As well, there are differences in what services they provide to their members or how representation is made to the various governments.  I have yet to hear of any that have any say or input to operational decisions.  Links to those that are part of the European Organization of Military Associations and Trade Unions (EUROMIL) can be found at their site.  Our members - EUROMIL

Since most of the member countries aren't English speaking, the easiest to understand is probably the Irish.  https://pdforra.ie/who-we-are/


----------



## mariomike

> When we get to the point where Collective Agreements override National Security, Universality of Service, or the concept of ultimate liability, I am out.



From the article,



> Like its sister services in the defence security community, a unionized Canadian military — for obvious reasons — will not have the legal option to withdraw services and go on strike. Nor would it be locked out if contract negotiations reach an impasse. Instead, much like our police and fire services, it would have the options of mediation or binding arbitration to settle any contract disputes.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Don't need a union if a properly self-governing profession is in place.  If self-governance has failed and can't be fixed, then the profession has evolved to become an occupation.


----------



## Haggis

mariomike said:


> What you have to be concerned about with unions - even if they do not have, or seek, the right to strike - is slowdowns, work to rule, mass book offs etc.


A very powerful and recent example of the impact of work to rule (doing your job exactly as ordered, with no exercise of discretion or judgement and following every law, regulation, order, directive, SOP  etc. slavishly regardless of how byzantine, irrelevant or unproductive) was the job action by Border Services Officers - who had been without a contract for over three years - in early August. In less than four hours, international commerce and travel essentially ceased just days before the Trudeau Liberals had wanted to re-open the border.

I suspect that Trudeau personally told the president of the TB "settle with them *NOW*!" as the TB was very quickly back at the table and a deal reached within hours of the job action.


----------



## FJAG

Haggis said:


> A very powerful and recent example of the impact of work to rule (doing your job exactly as ordered, with no exercise of discretion or judgement and following every law, regulation, order, directive, SOP  etc. slavishly regardless of how byzantine, irrelevant or unproductive) was the job action by Border Services Officers - who had been without a contract for over three years - in early August. In less than four hours, international commerce and travel essentially ceased just days before the Trudeau Liberals had wanted to re-open the border.
> 
> I suspect that Trudeau personally told the president of the TB "settle with them *NOW*!" as the TB was very quickly back at the table and a deal reached within hours of the job action.


Two flaws in your argument:

Firstly, the Canada Border Services Agency Act has no equivalent of s79 and 80 of the NDA (Mutiny with and without violence); and

Secondly, National Defence provides no service to Canada whose suspension would have an immediate effect of on the economic well-being of the country. Chances are it would lead to a realization they could do with a lot less people in the department.  😁

(A third one might be that NDHQ couldn't really work any slower 😉 )

(Ooh! Ooh! I just thought of a fourth. Most police unions exclude the "officer ranks" which would be some 13,500 commissioned officers out of a total force of 61,000 Reg F. So there'd be one quarter of the force working as per normal and required to pick up the slack -   )

🍻


----------



## Haggis

FJAG said:


> Two flaws in your argument:
> 
> Firstly, the Canada Border Services Agency Act has no equivalent of s79 and 80 of the NDA (Mutiny with and without violence); and


Would the NDA retain s79 and 80 in their current forms if the CAF unionized?


FJAG said:


> Secondly, National Defence provides no service to Canada whose suspension would have an immediate effect of on the economic well-being of the country. Chances are it would lead to a realization they could do with a lot less people in the department.  😁


You're likely right, which could lead to job action to protect union positions from being eliminated or contracted out.


FJAG said:


> (A third one might be that NDHQ couldn't really work any slower 😉 )


Imagine how slow it would be if NDHQ worked to rule.....


FJAG said:


> (Ooh! Ooh! I just thought of a fourth. Most police unions exclude the "officer ranks" which would be some 13,500 commissioned officers out of a total force of 61,000 Reg F. So there'd be one quarter of the force working as per normal and required to pick up the slack -   )🍻


If the Reg F were unionized, I expect the P Res would be members as well, no?  Unions like members because members mean dues.


----------



## dimsum

Blackadder1916 said:


> the easiest to understand is probably the Irish.


Well, there's a first for everything, I guess.


----------



## Navy_Pete

I think it would be good to have some kind of mechanism to push back when the GoC arbitrarily changes some of the compensation rules. The ones around the 'separation entitlement' that caused havoc years ago, as well as the TB rules around the depressed market laws that led to big grievances come to mind.

I think an effective 'Military Ombudsmans' office would be able to provide some kind of help if that sort of function to review compensation policy changes might be a workable option, and honestly without a collective agreement a union would be a waste of time, as the GoC can update our current compensation and benefits package at will, and all we can do is lump it or leave, as they have no legal obligation to negotiate that prior to changing it.

Similarly, as long as the GoC is talking to the Legion as the primary veterans organization we're hooped.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Re: Unionization of the CAF: just what we need- another industrial revolution “solution” to our 21st century issues…


----------



## mariomike

Saw this in "Rebuild basic officer training". It has to do if there is, or is not, need for a union in the CAF.



> Don't need a union if a properly self-governing profession is in place.



Despite the name, regulatory Colleges are not teaching institutions. Instead, under statutory authority, they provide oversight of the profession belonging to the College, which includes determining the scope of practice, initial education and continuing competency requirements for membership, conducting quality assurance, investigation of complaints and discipline of it's members when necessary.

A regulatory College is statutorily charged with protecting the public interest by setting educational requirements, competency profiles and standards of practice, developing and enforcing a Code of Ethics, ensuring professional competency through quality assurance, promoting inter-professional collaboration, maintaining a public register of members, conducting public outreach, and responding to public complaints.

A regulatory College has no impact on the role of unions / associations. 

Unions / associations represent the rights and interests of employees in relation to employers.

Some professions ( such as physicians, nurses, paramedics ) have both.


----------



## KevinB

No effective Army unionizes.
   Each of the EU union Armies are absolute trash.


----------



## Bluebulldog

mariomike said:


> Some professions ( such as physicians, nurses, paramedics ) have both.



Unless I'm mistaken, only ACP paramedics are governed / regulated. PCP Paramedics aren't. 

I do think they need to be. I've had some interactions with some superior people in the field, I've also seen some pretty big $#itpumps.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Unions / associations represent the rights and interests of employees in relation to employers.



Compensation is somehow bound to public service and the service has its own processes for grievances (which, already noted, may not currently be working well).  What's left for unions?


----------



## mariomike

Brad Sallows said:


> What's left for unions?



Judging from this 10-page discussion, quite a bit, apparently.









						Civilians complaining about Police/Emergency Services' Pay
					

It seems that any time the yearly salary of a police officer is brought up, most people seem to complain that "police are grossly overpaid for what they do". I have a serious bone to pick with this issue. It's so evident that the general public is simply unaware of just how risky and demanding...




					www.milnet.ca
				




At least at the municipal level in Ontario.

Escalating Emergency Services Labour Costs and the Ontario Taxpayers’ Ability to Pay


			https://www.amo.on.ca/AMO-PDFs/Reports/2011/2011AbilitytoPayPositionPaper2011.aspx
		


Unions work for members of our emergency services.  RCMP members voted to unionize not so long ago. 

That is not to suggest the CAF should have a union.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Halifax Tar said:


> If true; when I hear a ship and crew were sent to back sea 4 days after 1 month of post-deployment leave; from a grueling 7 month confined to ship tour for another 5 weeks sail I am not sure I can say leadership has the best interest of the rank and file anymore.
> 
> Could it be worse than we already have ?



Leadership isn't supposed to have the best interest of the rank and file at heart in every action, they should have the best interests of the country at heart. Many times the what is the best interest of the rank and file and serving the country can coincide, other times they cannot.

The way leadership should think is Mission, Troops, then Self. Priority is always the Mission and if you have a very limited number of troops and ships available it means you will have send them out without rest whether or not you want to as a person. It is the same thing as ordering a bunch of troops into a battle even though you know it could likely be their death. 

Yes it sucks, but what is your proposed solution? Leadership needs to hire more. Odds are the ones deciding which ships are sailing have no control over who is being hired. That leaves them between a rock and a hard place because they have a duty to ensure that the job gets done. 

Similar issue exist in the civilian world depending on the job you may occupy. Lack of personnel leads to the few that remain suffering to make it happen. In my unionized workplace which is chronically understaffed if a critical job comes in there is forced overtime available as a option to management to ensure the job gets done. 

From personal experience my opinion of unions is lackluster at best. They can help you, but they can also hinder you just as much. I understand where they can be beneficial, but there is downsides to everything. Issues like factions within the union can cause particular problems because certain groups will work for their best interest against the collectives best interest.

Simple example, my workforce is a fairly senior workforce. We are starting to get some newer members but overall there is a significant number who have been there 25+ years. When you join you get 2 weeks of vacation. Every 5 years they add one week of vacation to a max of 7 weeks (which is pretty good). There is no incentive to try and increase the vacation for the new guys though as the senior guys have already worked though the system and they wouldn't receive any benefit from it despite the fact it would benefit the workforce as a whole going forward. Much like how the older guys are on a defined benefit pension and the newer ones are on defined contribution based off the old guys who never had to switch pensions making the decision for those who joined after them, receiving a lump sum to make the switch. After all it didn't hurt them and they got money from it. 

Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Brad Sallows said:


> Don't need a union if *a properly self-governing* profession is in place ...


CF's likely better than most, but there's also enough evidence out there these days to suggest way more needs to be done on this front - which I suspect stirs the "time for a union/professional association" pot.

For more information, there appears to be a European Organisation of Military Associations and Trade Unions representing at least 30 such groups across Europe. 

On the right to strike, they had this to say:


> “_We know that the right to strike in the military can shock some people, and not least within the military. For EUROMIL this issue was never a priority, but the decision of the ECSR is clear_” EUROMIL’s President Emmanuel Jacob said. “_Let’s compare it with nuclear weapons. Everybody knows who has them and where they are, but nobody wants to use them. But they are often the deciding factor in finding diplomatic solutions. In our position paper the diplomatic solution is the social dialogue and collective bargaining to avoid this right. A strike is not a goal in itself but a deterrent tool_” Jacob argued.


One of the axes they're grinding:  sexual abuse of women in the Irish military (sadly, sound familiar?) Could such an org have done a better job here on this issue? Can't say - lots depends on the org & how they would have done things. Still, food for thought.


----------



## mariomike

Eaglelord17 said:


> Simple example, my workforce is a fairly senior workforce. We are starting to get some newer members but overall there is a significant number who have been there 25+ years.





> Be careful what you wish for.



Might be interesting to hear things from their perspective.


----------



## lenaitch

FJAG said:


> (Ooh! Ooh! I just thought of a fourth. Most police unions exclude the "officer ranks" which would be some 13,500 commissioned officers out of a total force of 61,000 Reg F. So there'd be one quarter of the force working as per normal and required to pick up the slack -   )
> 
> 🍻


Most police senior officers in all but the smallest services have their own bargaining unit that is either legally or effectively recognized by their employer, excluding 'chief' ranks who typically work under individual contracts.


Haggis said:


> Imagine how slow it would be if NDHQ worked to rule.....



Or forced to actually read the rules and end up having to work harder?
[/QUOTE]


----------



## OldSolduer

At my unionized workplace the union protects the dunderheads who shouldn't be here. It totally ignores those who have a legit beef with the management,

There's a lesson in this somewhere.....


----------



## The Bread Guy

OldSolduer said:


> At my unionized workplace the union protects the dunderheads who shouldn't be here ...


Yeah, that pisses me off, too, but it's not always a union thing.

To be entirely fair, did the bosses follow all the steps to deal with the dunderheads?  

My experience in public sector unionized environments shows me a big part of the problem can be bosses who don't document & have the difficult conversations when needed, hence leaving loopholes for dunderheads to drive thru.


----------



## SupersonicMax

OldSolduer said:


> At my unionized workplace the union protects the dunderheads who shouldn't be here. It totally ignores those who have a legit beef with the management,
> 
> There's a lesson in this somewhere.....


Not sure we do a good job in the CAF either…


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Perhaps the union could also advocate on behalf of its  retired membership also, as civie ones do. Then we could grieve against VAC and Blue Cross as agents of VAC.


----------



## Remius

Fishbone Jones said:


> Perhaps the union could also advocate on behalf of its  retired membership also, as civie ones do. Then we could grieve against VAC and Blue Cross as agents of VAC.


That’s actually not a bad idea…


----------



## The Bread Guy

Fishbone Jones said:


> Perhaps the union could also advocate on behalf of its  retired membership also, as civie ones do. Then we could grieve against VAC and Blue Cross as agents of VAC.


One of the things the EU group advocates for, in fact ....


----------



## brihard

I’m on my phone so I won’t be easily able to quote specific posts, but a few thoughts. Caveat- I’m not taking a particular position on CAF unionization.

The closest relevant comparator in Canada is probably the recent unionization of the RCMP a couple summers ago. That took many years of legal action to win the right to unionize. Absent a voluntary legislative change, CAF would likewise need to see a successful legal challenge of the statutory barriers to unionizing.

RCMP now comes under (but has its own part within) the Federal Public Service Labour Relations Act.

In both RCMP and Public Service, “officers” cannot participate in the union. RCMP have commissioned officers. Presumably CAF would face the same restriction.

While CAF pay has been linked to public sector, unionizing can change that. RCMP got a 23% raise- granted, they have comparators in the form of other police services. 

VAC and pension benefits are not subject to collective bargaining- this is a legislative provision.

RCMP collective agreement has a national security provision.

Union doesn’t trump operational needs. The big things are pay and comp, grievances related to the collective agreement, health and safety, etc. Management still has the right to manage. More a matter of making sure members aren’t worked continuously past the point of safety, and that they’re fairly compensated for working extra hours.

Plenty of emergency services unions have no right to strike. No need to fear CAF would be able to use labour disruptions.

Unions can and sometimes do _advocate_ for retirees, but from what I’ve seen this seldom has teeth. Most grievance provisions expire when you cease being an employee.


----------



## Eaglelord17

mariomike said:


> Might be interesting to hear things from their perspective.


It is depending on who you talk to. There is some who are exceptionally vindictive whose mentality is because I was treated this way, everyone else should be treated this way. There is also a few who are altruistic. And then there is the majority which is self-serving (and you find that with any group, be it the Navy looking out for the Navy, Army looking out for the Army, RCR looking out for the RCRs, etc.). I can't necessarily fault them for their actions (other than the vindictive ones, they can go back to the stone age they belong in), as the whole reason you work is to benefit yourself. 

One of the issues likely coming up in our next contract agreement is management will likely try to get rid of our profit sharing agreement (after 50 million in profits they have to share up to 10% of them with the employees based off a formula). The reason this will likely be a issue is we have for the first time in a while made record profits and the company doesn't like sharing them. So odds are they shall try to offer a substantial cheque to remove it from the agreement. The issue with that is with the senior members close to retirement they aren't going to receive many more profit sharing cheques anyways so for them the payout is more than any amount they will make off it in the future. For the younger members (and future members) it screws them as they would make more from the profit sharing cheques than any payout will give them long term. Just a simple example of how unions can form factions and potentially hurt their own members to benefit others. 

I could see a military union running into problems where certain services are favoured over others and having the numbers to ensure its that way (ex. if there is 20k more Army members than Navy members whose issues will be at the forefront?). Just food for thought.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Many examples of that....we did it to the new hires in Ontaroo Corrections, but just about any professional sports are prime, very public examples.  "Entry contracts " in exchange for less escrow tax....


----------



## mariomike

Eaglelord17 said:


> One of the issues likely coming up in our next contract agreement is management will likely try to get rid of our profit sharing agreement (after 50 million in profits they have to share up to 10% of them with the employees based off a formula). The reason this will likely be a issue is we have for the first time in a while made record profits and the company doesn't like sharing them. So odds are they shall try to offer a substantial cheque to remove it from the agreement. The issue with that is with the senior members close to retirement they aren't going to receive many more profit sharing cheques anyways so for them the payout is more than any amount they will make off it in the future. For the younger members (and future members) it screws them as they would make more from the profit sharing cheques than any payout will give them long term. Just a simple example of how unions can form factions and potentially hurt their own members to benefit others.



Sounds similar to the sick pay gratuity drama our members were put through,  after I retired.
Nobody had it taken away from them. Only future hires were put on the new short term plan.

Hopefully, your situation will resolve successfully as well.

At least private sector unions deal with the company.

Public sector unions must also contend with the taxpayers and news media - in addition to the employer.




> I could see a military union running into problems where certain services are favoured over others and having the numbers to ensure its that way (ex. if there is 20k more Army members than Navy members whose issues will be at the forefront?).



You never know with people's attitudes.

Some might ask, "They have it - why don't I?"

Others might say, "I don't have it, so they shouldn't either!"

Like people are supposed to be in a race to the bottom with each other.

I don't know how a union would / could work for the CAF.
Although it has not happened in 80 years, it's the only employer I know of that can draft people, and refuse VR's, during wartime.


----------



## kev994

The Bread Guy said:


> My experience in public sector unionized environments shows me a big part of the problem can be bosses who don't document & have the difficult conversations when needed, hence leaving loopholes for dunderheads to drive thru.


That sounds exactly like the CAF.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Unionizing the CAF may go a long way to combating the toxic and unaccountable leadership problems (at all rank levels) we're plagued with.

Even after years of platitudes, robust mission statements, and floofy talking points about listening we still routinely see leaders do whatever the **** they want because we have a culture of not being accountable.

I was never a fan of unions because I didn't understand them, and they seemed (and still seem) like their own mafia. But I'm also seeing first hand how union reps are stopping managers from getting away with stuff that's clearly against the rules. Our institution will cut down a Lt Col (or General) who doesn't tow the line. There's no protection for troops.


One of the problems with this idea is that the bad leaders would be unionized too so we may run into the same issues that it seems like police do where it appears their shitty toxic officers are protected.  Do we need CAF members sitting at home for 5 years on paid administrative leave while their misconduct is dealt with? Probably not. 

There's also the issue mentioned up-thread about the mess mafia. CAF members retire and all of a sudden CSM Jones is now union rep Jones who still meets his buddies in uniform at the Legion Fridays.


----------



## MilEME09

Would it better? Or just another mechanism to protect people from reprocusussions. We have a major accountability issue at all levels, and it erodes trust, cohesion and leads to a unit being less effective. Adding an organization that would protect those members who do wrong would not help. The CAF has all the tools it needs to fix it self, people just are happy with the status quo, even if it's unethical.


----------



## Furniture

MilEME09 said:


> Would it better? Or just another mechanism to protect people from reprocusussions. We have a major accountability issue at all levels, and it erodes trust, cohesion and leads to a unit being less effective. Adding an organization that would protect those members who do wrong would not help. The CAF has all the tools it needs to fix it self, people just are happy with the status quo, even if it's unethical.


It wouldn't be a fix to every issue the CAF has, but it might help fix a few. 

As @Jarnhamar mentioned, it might provide an avenue for troops to be protected from bad leadership. I also think it would help with one of our retention dissatisfiers, "work-life balance".

You can be double, or triple hatted for weeks/months/years, and get nothing for it but maybe a slightly higher PER. If it started costing money to make Sgt Bloggins acting OPs WO, acting SM, etc., the CAF might be incentivized to fix the problem. Right now it's easier to just pile more work on, until things fail(and the member takes the blame), or the member burns out. In the PS if you're acting in a position, you get the pay for that position. So when my boss was acting in a MT7 position, he was paid as a MT7 despite being a MT6.


----------



## lenaitch

brihard said:


> I’m on my phone so I won’t be easily able to quote specific posts, but a few thoughts. Caveat- I’m not taking a particular position on CAF unionization.
> 
> The closest relevant comparator in Canada is probably the recent unionization of the RCMP a couple summers ago. That took many years of legal action to win the right to unionize. Absent a voluntary legislative change, CAF would likewise need to see a successful legal challenge of the statutory barriers to unionizing.
> 
> RCMP now comes under (but has its own part within) the Federal Public Service Labour Relations Act.
> 
> In both RCMP and Public Service, “officers” cannot participate in the union. RCMP have commissioned officers. Presumably CAF would face the same restriction.
> 
> While CAF pay has been linked to public sector, unionizing can change that. RCMP got a 23% raise- granted, they have comparators in the form of other police services.
> 
> VAC and pension benefits are not subject to collective bargaining- this is a legislative provision.
> 
> RCMP collective agreement has a national security provision.
> 
> Union doesn’t trump operational needs. The big things are pay and comp, grievances related to the collective agreement, health and safety, etc. Management still has the right to manage. More a matter of making sure members aren’t worked continuously past the point of safety, and that they’re fairly compensated for working extra hours.
> 
> Plenty of emergency services unions have no right to strike. No need to fear CAF would be able to use labour disruptions.
> 
> Unions can and sometimes do _advocate_ for retirees, but from what I’ve seen this seldom has teeth. Most grievance provisions expire when you cease being an employee.



It would interesting to see the terms of the union agreements that these European militaries have.  I have a hard time believing that there isn't some kind national emergency trigger that negates all or most of the typical collective agreement topics (if for no other reason than the overtime bill would be nuts).

The CAF is so broad that finding comparators would be a challenge.  Some trades have civilian counterparts, many do not.  Would pay be set by trade?  Rank?  Both?  Hours of work could be a double-edged sword.  In a collective agreement world, things like 'sports days', minimum staffing stand-downs, etc. might not happen because, 'ya know, the contract'.   Once there is a collective agreement in place, everything revolves around; it sits between management and worker regardless of how collegial or acrimonious the relationship is.

The RCMP union doesn't have the ability to negotiate pensions - yet.  My Association didn't for years, until a few years ago.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Furniture said:


> You can be double, or triple hatted for weeks/months/years, and get nothing for it but maybe a slightly higher PER. If it started costing money to make Sgt Bloggins acting OPs WO, acting SM, etc., the CAF might be incentivized to fix the problem. Right now it's easier to just pile more work on, until things fail(and the member takes the blame), or the member burns out. In the PS if you're acting in a position, you get the pay for that position. So when my boss was acting in a MT7 position, he was paid as a MT7 despite being a MT6



For 2 years I filled 2 different positions at my Sqn;  Crew Lead (part of Aircrew Flt) and AES Op Training O (part of Standards & Training Flt).  Benefit to me?  As you said, PER scoring.  Sometimes I was at work for 0600 so I could “get some work done before work started” and leave at 1900.  I had a 1 hour commute each way as well.  At the end I was pretty tired and angry; this was an operational squadron, so I was also holding standby on weekends, deploying…not to mention the secondary duties. 

I just spent the last month and change doing 2 jobs (1 as Acting)… 

For all the CAF members who end up in similar situations, we don’t get any extra compensation and no protection - I know people who took a hit on PDRs/PERs when double hatted for not performing their primary duties “to the best of their abilities”.


----------



## MilEME09

Eye In The Sky said:


> For 2 years I filled 2 different positions at my Sqn;  Crew Lead (part of Aircrew Flt) and AES Op Training O (part of Standards & Training Flt).  Benefit to me?  As you said, PER scoring.  Sometimes I was at work for 0600 so I could “get some work done before work started” and leave at 1900.  I had a 1 hour commute each way as well.  At the end I was pretty tired and angry; this was an operational squadron, so I was also holding standby on weekends, deploying…not to mention the secondary duties.
> 
> I just spent the last month and change doing 2 jobs (1 as Acting)…
> 
> For all the CAF members who end up in similar situations, we don’t get any extra compensation and no protection - I know people who took a hit on PDRs/PERs when double hatted for not performing their primary duties “to the best of their abilities”.


Having been in the double, triple hat position my self,  all it accomplished was burning me out. Maybe I am just a fool for not pulling pin for the constant burn out, but if I do, that's one more hat someone else has to wear.

Half these situations are because we lack trained people right now, that us understandable, and part of my reasoning the whole CAF needs a reconstitution break from OPS, 1.5 years where we pull from all brigade's to man the schools to 110% instructor capacity and get some major through put.

The other half I feel is people who are bad at their job get work taken away and pushed to someone else. The poor performer is then put in a corner to do no harm. This needs to change, poor performers need to dealt with if they cannot carry out their responsibilities.


----------



## mariomike

brihard said:


> Plenty of emergency services unions have no right to strike.



How ugly an emergency services slowdown or strike can be is well illustrated in "The Final Fire". A book by Dennis Smith.

Just shy of 37 years full-time in the same union / same employer, we were fortunate to be never one minute on strike, or lock-out.

There were no part-timers, and most joined young and stayed in for the whole ride.

Not to mention it was / is a union shop aka "closed shop" since 1917. So, we inherited ours.

"Two-hatters or multiple-hatters" aka "Superior Duties or multiple-superior duties" were compensated at alternate rates as per the collective agreement.

Not sure if members of an orgnanization today with a high percentage of part-timers and a relatively high rate of attrition would be very enhusiastic about starting their union from scratch.

The CAF has functioned for so many years without a union. Do members feel the need to start one now?


----------



## brihard

mariomike said:


> How ugly an emergency services slowdown or strike can be is well illustrated in "The Final Fire". A book by Dennis Smith.
> 
> Just shy of 37 years full-time in the same union / same employer, we were fortunate to be never one minute on strike, or lock-out.
> 
> There were no part-timers, and most joined young and stayed in for the whole ride.
> 
> Not to mention it was / is a union shop aka "closed shop" since 1917. So, we inherited ours.
> 
> "Two-hatters or multiple-hatters" aka "Superior Duties or multiple-superior duties" were compensated at alternate rates as per the collective agreement.
> 
> Not sure if members of an orgnanization today with a high percentage of part-timers and a relatively high rate of attrition would be very enhusiastic about starting their union from scratch.
> 
> The CAF has functioned for so many years without a union. Do members feel the need to start one now?


They would need to win a court case that would probably go all the way to the SCC first. The Mounted Police Association of Ontario case started in 2006, and got an SCC ruling in 2015 that was the culmination of appeals. Obviously the government fought it all the way. From there it was still another 4 years before an association got enough members to request a vote to certify in 2019. 15 years from first court case to first collective agreement.

Needless to say, any troops working to try to achieve these ends, even through completely legal and legitimate process, would likely be shooting their career in the head, and I have every belief that CAF would make their lives hell and aim to drive them out.


----------



## Remius

Cue all the complaints from troops having to pay for union dues…


----------



## Haggis

Remius said:


> Cue all the complaints from troops having to pay for union dues…


...as opposed to Mess dues to support an archaic, class-based mandatory social club?


----------



## Remius

Haggis said:


> ...as opposed to Mess dues to support an archaic, class-based mandatory social club?


Unless it comes with a sizeable pay hike, union deductions will be a source of plenty of complaining.

Mess dues are whole other unrelated complaint issue.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Just make union activities a secondary duty.  No dues.


----------



## Remius

Brad Sallows said:


> Just make union activities a secondary duty.  No dues.


Are there examples of effective unions with no financial source?  

Making it a secondary duty would imply that the union is taxpayer funded using government assets, time etc no?


----------



## Brad Sallows

Part of being an effective bullshitter is to never let people know when you're pulling a tail.


----------



## Remius

Brad Sallows said:


> Part of being an effective bullshitter is to never let people know when you're pulling a tail.


Regardless, a CAF union would inevitably mean union dues.  No way a union that size could function without money.

That means deductions that I doubt most troops would agree to if presented.


----------



## Remius

Mind you a union could advocate to eliminate mandatory mess dues lol.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Remius said:


> Mind you a union could advocate to eliminate mandatory mess dues lol.


Which has no more push ability then you just gave it....


----------



## Remius

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Which has no more push ability then you just gave it....


Hence the “lol” I put at the end of my statement


----------



## brihard

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Which has no more push ability then you just gave it....


That would likely be something that would fall under collective bargaining.

As for dues- in Canada, the norm is everyone pays dues regardless of whether or not they’re a ‘card carrying’ member, because everyone benefits.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

What is a WAG amount monthly dues would equal?  Just even a ballpark guess.  30 bucks?


----------



## Remius

Eye In The Sky said:


> What is a WAG amount monthly dues would equal?  Just even a ballpark guess.  30 bucks?


So PSAC has a formula used based on a percentage of your salary at the lower step and adds in other factors.  But I would say double that easily if you were to use a Cpl's rate of pay as an equivalent.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Eye In The Sky said:


> What is a WAG amount monthly dues would equal?  Just even a ballpark guess.  30 bucks?


Depends on your union. For a example a recent cheque I received which would equal roughly Cpl 4 military pay, there was $38.18 deducted from it. So monthly your looking at about $80 for a Cpl deducted, more as you earn more, less as you earn less. This year already I have paid over 1k in dues and it isn't done yet.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Now I have no idea about mess dues, but Union dues are a deduction on your income tax.


----------



## OldTanker

One thing I found interesting when I made the transition from military to civilian life was that the first responders I worked with (all three services) wore the rank of the position they were filling, even for short periods of time. So a police Sgt would wear SSgt badges when filling in for his shift supervisor when he was on leave. There was no "promotion" involved and no paperwork drama. I don't know if they received the related extra pay or not. It always bothered me how often people in the CF were put into higher-ranked positions, often for extended periods of time, but equally often were not granted acting rank but just soldiered on in their "confirmed" rank without the related insignia and pay. This might be the kind of issue a union could sort out.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Yes, but they might be required to justify why those positions take this certain rank, and they don't want the world to know that most Cpl/clerks could actually do 95% of the work our HQ's churn out.


----------



## Remius

OldTanker said:


> One thing I found interesting when I made the transition from military to civilian life was that the first responders I worked with (all three services) wore the rank of the position they were filling, even for short periods of time. So a police Sgt would wear SSgt badges when filling in for his shift supervisor when he was on leave. There was no "promotion" involved and no paperwork drama. I don't know if they received the related extra pay or not. It always bothered me how often people in the CF were put into higher-ranked positions, often for extended periods of time, but equally often were not granted acting rank but just soldiered on in their "confirmed" rank without the related insignia and pay. This might be the kind of issue a union could sort out.


I guess it depends on what positions we are talking about.  It may be that the CAF has high rank-low rank positions.  So a Sgt/MCpl could still be a section commander or platoon warrant could be a Sgt/WO.

But doesn’t WSE or Acting/lacking already cover some of that?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Remius said:


> I guess it depends on what positions we are talking about.  It may be that the CAF has high rank-low rank positions.  So a Sgt/MCpl could still be a section commander or platoon warrant could be a Sgt/WO.
> 
> But doesn’t WSE or Acting/lacking already cover some of that?


I was recently Acting in a higher rank position.  No extra pay or anything.  I just got to continue doing my normal job AND the Acting one as well.  It’s fun!!


----------



## Blackadder1916

From an article in The Wavell Room









						Does The Military Need A Union? » Wavell Room
					

Does the military need a union? An independent association to represent the rights and interests of its members like those which serve the police?




					wavellroom.com
				





> Queen’s Regulations officially permits military personnel to join civilian trade unions and professional associations, that enhance their trade skills and knowledge1; but the UK’s trade union legislation specifically excludes armed forces personnel from collective labour relations2. This prevents the statutory creation of an association to represent and promote the interests of the UK’s armed forces, making the UK out-of-step with many of our closest allies. The militaries of Germany, Norway, the USA, Belgium, *Australia*, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Ireland all benefit from armed forces representative bodies.



Australia?  While it is common among European militaries, this was the first indication that the Aussies have some form of representative association.

A little research found the Defence Force Welfare Association









						About Us
					

The work of the Defence Force Welfare Association impacts all current and former members of the Australian Defence Force, and their families. The Defence Force Welfare Association is an Australia wide organisation with the National Office located in Canberra and Branch and Chapter Offices in...




					dfwa.org.au
				




And from an introduction found in a submission made by the DFWA to a public inquiry, some description of their history and role.



> 1. DFWA was formed as the Regular Defence Force Welfare Association in 1958 at the urging of federal parliamentarians as there was no organisation representing the interests of serving ADF members and their families to government. At that time, the standing Army had recently been created and legislation changes concerning superannuation pensions, affecting serving members and obviously affecting them after service, were being introduced. There was no organisation addressing the welfare of those leaving the regular forces or protecting the conditions of service of those serving. At that time, existing exservice organisations (ESO) such as the RSL were concerned with “returned” servicemen and Legacy was concerned only with the widows and dependents of those who did not return.
> 
> 2. Ministerial approval was given to form the Association and the word “welfare” in the title was crucial for that decision. The term “Regular” was dropped from the name in 2007, in recognition of the changed circumstances in which regular full time and reserve members of the ADF now serve.
> 
> 3. Our Purpose. *The DFWA purpose is to support the interests and wellbeing of both serving and exserving members of the ADF and their families. We have official ADF and Defence recognition for this role.*
> a. We are an *Authorised Intervener at Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal on Pay and Conditions of Service hearings*. For example, we represent the interests of currently serving ADF members, especially on the Workplace Remuneration Arrangement hearings every three years.
> b. We are the official ADF Member representative on the national Emergency Services Industry Reference Committee managing recognition of training across the industry. Other members are emergency service unions and emergency services employer and the Defence employer representatives.


----------



## Furniture

Remius said:


> I guess it depends on what positions we are talking about.  It may be that the CAF has high rank-low rank positions.  So a Sgt/MCpl could still be a section commander or platoon warrant could be a Sgt/WO.
> 
> But doesn’t WSE or Acting/lacking already cover some of that?


How often do we use those tools? 

If unionized it would be part of the contract, not left up to the CoC to determine if it's worth _their_ time/effort.


----------



## Remius

Furniture said:


> How often do we use those tools?
> 
> If unionized it would be part of the contract, not left up to the CoC to determine if it's worth _their_ time/effort.


Sure.  It’s a leadership issue and the will to do up the proper paperwork. 

We do work a lot one rank above though.   A Capt could be a company commander right?  Does this mean he gets Major pay and the rank to go with that if he’s a Company Commander on a 30 day ex? 

We would have to abandon certain practices.  An infantry section commander would have to be a Sgt for example and never a MCpl.   2ic take over would still be a thing but would come with an acting promotion and rank. 

Not arguing for or against.  But my suspicion is we would have way more people in acting ranks than in substantive ones in our military.


----------



## brihard

Eye In The Sky said:


> What is a WAG amount monthly dues would equal?  Just even a ballpark guess.  30 bucks?


Mine are 1.75% of salary, but we also saw some pretty rapid and significant compensation increases. Phenomenal return on investment. It also includes representation and if necessary legal counsel for disciplinary proceedings, or for statutory charges if it’s in the course of duty and not covered by the crown. Lots of other stuff too. Well worth it



Remius said:


> Sure.  It’s a leadership issue and the will to do up the proper paperwork.
> 
> We do work a lot one rank above though.   A Capt could be a company commander right?  Does this mean he gets Major pay and the rank to go with that if he’s a Company Commander on a 30 day ex?
> 
> We would have to abandon certain practices.  An infantry section commander would have to be a Sgt for example and never a MCpl.   2ic take over would still be a thing but would come with an acting promotion and rank.
> 
> Not arguing for or against.  But my suspicion is we would have way more people in acting ranks than in substantive ones in our military.



In my outfit, if we’re acting, we don’t wear the rank but we do get the pay. So yeah- if a MCpl is filling a Sgt’s substantive job as a section commander, pay them the Sgt’s pay. Likewise the Capt commanding a company. Pay her what she’s due for doing the job. That’s only fair. Whether or not they WSE the rank itself could be figured out. One significant aspect for us is if you’re acting and then promote substantive, your promotion, seniority, and pay increments are all backdated.


----------



## childs56

Only a liberal or Ndp supporter would suggest to unionize the Military. 
That would be one of the worse things the Military could do. Members already complain about paying mess dues, could you imagine of they had to pay another $40 a pay check to Union Dues. 
As for them moving things forward, I doubt that.  I went from non union job to a Union job. It was like walking back 20 or more years for overall progress. The lack of common sense for basic functions is comical, progress is slow at best. Because to many members look at the short term gain and fail to look long term. 
Safety is lacking,  HR is lacking, processes are lacking and the list goes on.  Unions are great for few things. Keeping mediocre performers employed, keeping Union bosses with a huge paycheck they otherwise would not get, supporting governments who do not support what you do.  

I think the Military should stay the way it is, but they need new leadership, ones who will actually do the right thing.


----------



## dapaterson

The CAF lacks HR professionals, and so even when individuals meet the criteria for acting rank, the work often isn't done.

CAF members granted acting rank who are then made substantive carry forward pay incentives for their acting time.


----------



## Remius

brihard said:


> Mine are 1.75% of salary, but we also saw some pretty rapid and significant compensation increases. Phenomenal return on investment. It also includes representation and if necessary legal counsel for disciplinary proceedings, or for statutory charges if it’s in the course of duty and not covered by the crown. Lots of other stuff too. Well worth it
> 
> 
> 
> In my outfit, if we’re acting, we don’t wear the rank but we do get the pay. So yeah- if a MCpl is filling a Sgt’s substantive job as a section commander, pay them the Sgt’s pay. Likewise the Capt commanding a company. Pay her what she’s due for doing the job. That’s only fair. Whether or not they WSE the rank itself could be figured out. One significant aspect for us is if you’re acting and then promote substantive, your promotion, seniority, and pay increments are all backdated.


Which is why without a significant pay increase, the CAF rank and file might not be too happy about paying mess dues.  In the short run at least. 

Yes we could but you and I both know how many times Cpls can be section commanders or Sgts acting as Platoon WOs.   I have no idea what the battalions look like right now but I would assume a lot of people are working one rank above.   Basically it would become steady state given the current CAF personnel sate. 

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m for it.   I just have a hard time seeing it ever happening.


----------



## mariomike

brihard said:


> Mine are 1.75% of salary, but we also saw some pretty rapid and significant compensation increases. Phenomenal return on investment. It also includes representation and if necessary legal counsel for disciplinary proceedings, or for statutory charges if it’s in the course of duty and not covered by the crown. Lots of other stuff too. Well worth it



Nice to hear that.

I'll make a prediction. Compare your first collective agreement and the one when you retire.

I bet your last one will be a lot fatter than your first. I know mine was.


----------



## brihard

mariomike said:


> Nice to hear that.
> 
> I'll make a prediction. Compare your first collective agreement and the one when you retire.
> 
> I bet your last one will be a lot fatter than your first. I know mine was.


Well yeah. Our first agreement was basically a tourniquet in the form of pay. Much more work to be done.

Personally I don’t think we’ll see CAF unionize in the next couple decades. Huge legal obstacles. A gaggle of troops would need to be willing to start work now and see it through for a decade and a half while their careers are torpedoed. Everything I’ve said has been for information and discussion’s sake only.

But it’s interesting to imagine how a collective bargaining agent might tackle things like base pay, PLD, acting, relocation, accommodations, hours of work outside of operations/exercises, and so on and so forth.


----------



## RedFive

brihard said:


> Well yeah. Our first agreement was basically a tourniquet in the form of pay. Much more work to be done.
> 
> Personally I don’t think we’ll see CAF unionize in the next couple decades. Huge legal obstacles. A gaggle of troops would need to be willing to start work now and see it through for a decade and a half while their careers are torpedoed. Everything I’ve said has been for information and discussion’s sake only.
> 
> But it’s interesting to imagine how a collective bargaining agent might tackle things like base pay, PLD, acting, relocation, accommodations, hours of work outside of operations/exercises, and so on and so forth.


And it worked astoundingly well where I'm at. The city that's currently replacing us with their own Police force confidently stated they expected to hire hundreds (4-500 IIRC) of recently released RCMP members, and my understanding now is the provincially instituted limitation on hiring experienced members came about specifically because Surrey Police Service wasn't getting as many Mounties (less than 100 I had heard) as they had anticipated and was aggressively poaching from neighbouring municipal forces instead.

I guess spending as much time as he did calling us all garbage at our jobs worked well for the Mayor.

EDIT to add supporting news stories:

Surrey Police hiring cap

Surrey RCMP survey results


----------



## MH2022

OldSolduer said:


> At my unionized workplace the union protects the dunderheads who shouldn't be here. It totally ignores those who have a legit beef with the management,
> 
> There's a lesson in this somewhere.....


You're right a union might get in the way of the fast and effecient process the CAF has to remove them, and instead they'll probably just I don't know ride out a career in the canteen which would be unimaginable in the CAF


----------



## Eye In The Sky

childs56 said:


> Only a liberal or Ndp supporter would suggest to unionize the Military.
> That would be one of the worse things the Military could do. Members already complain about paying mess dues, could you imagine of they had to pay another $40 a pay check to Union Dues.



I just did an Acting position and my regular one for a month.  If I was paid the difference in pay between the Acting and my position, the pay difference would easily cover the $40.

what's the benefit to me to mess dues?  I get a parting gift on posting/release...that's it.


----------



## Brad Sallows

A tempting irony beckons - unionization as the path to pay for performance.


----------



## Remius

Eye In The Sky said:


> I just did an Acting position and my regular one for a month.  If I was paid the difference in pay between the Acting and my position, the pay difference would easily cover the $40.
> 
> what's the benefit to me to mess dues?  I get a parting gift on posting/release...that's it.


40$ is low.  It would probably cost more but that is an aside. 

Right now I can refuse to do any job that does not fit my work description or my salary level.  So I can’t be the director unless I get acting pay to with it.  In theory. 

But don’t kid yourselves if you all think that a union would solve that problem.  Plenty of people still work their substantive and acting jobs despite acting pay and plenty take on roles that would merit acting and don’t get it or ask for it or have it offered. 

I’m not sure the CAF could afford the acting pay it would have to dole out unless they fix manning as a whole, reclassify    positions to appropriate ranks etc etc. 

Now would a union force the CAF to do those things as a result or should the CAF get its house in order before even considering a unionized work force?


----------



## Brad Sallows

Why fight Canada as a partner in a coalition when a little agitation can preoccupy the CAF for the next few years?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eye In The Sky said:


> I just did an Acting position and my regular one for a month.  If I was paid the difference in pay between the Acting and my position, the pay difference would easily cover the $40.
> 
> what's the benefit to me to mess dues?  I get a *parting gift* on posting/release...that's it.



Whoa. Wait... what's this 'parting gift' thing all about?

Asking for a friend


----------



## Brad Sallows

Didn't you get a beer mug?  Even an unwashed one?


----------



## kratz

Brad Sallows said:


> Didn't you get a beer mug?  Even an unwashed full one?


FTFY


----------



## daftandbarmy

Brad Sallows said:


> Didn't you get a beer mug?  Even an unwashed one?



Nope, nada, nothing. Not even a 'so long, sucker'.

It's 'COVID' though, so there's no mystery why units aren't focusing too much on those leaving/ retiring etc. so I'm not the only one, of course.

Glass half full: (CWID there?) having been the PMC etc I know where, in the Mess, I can find a nice beer tankard should I feel the need to 'recognize' myself in the future just in case, you know, they forget


----------

