# Union of National Defence Employees



## S McKee (9 Aug 2005)

PUBLICATION:  The Hamilton Spectator 
DATE:  2005.08.09 
EDITION:  Final 
SECTION:  <Canada>/World 
PAGE:  A8 
BYLINE:  Murray Brewster 
SOURCE:  The <Canadian> Press 
DATELINE:  HALIFAX 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Civil support in war zones worries union

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The union representing <Canada's> civilian defence workers is bracing for a battle over compulsory service in war zones, as hundreds of uniformed soldiers pack their kitbags for lengthy stints in Afghanistan. 

The president of the Union of National Defence Employees said yesterday that the chief of defence staff, General Rick Hillier, told him during recent talks that civilian support personnel on bases across the country could be called on for extended overseas deployments. 

"In turn, I put the chief of defence staff on notice that these assignments will in no case be mandatory," said John MacLennan, in a speech to union members in Halifax. 

The union's main concern is that workers who refuse foreign assignments could face either formal or informal penalties, especially in terms of career advancement and opportunities. 

MacLennan said the union is still uncertain whether it will support some form of overseas deployment for its members, where unionized staff are offered a choice, during the deployment to Kandahar. 

The <Canadian> military has used civilians as cooks and technicians on overseas deployments in the past. 

But MacLennan said unionized Defence Department employees have generally done short stints, lasting no more than a few days or weeks, on specific assignments, such as equipment repair jobs. 

"Now with this vision of deployable public servants, you're looking at months," he said. Underscoring longer-term commitments is becoming a recurring theme for the military. 

On Sunday, Major-General Andrew Leslie, land forces commander, predicted at an international conference in Ontario that Afghanistan will become 20-year duty for the <Canadian> <army>. 

His comments echo similar warnings last spring from Hillier. 

The debate over the use of civilian labour also comes as the first contingent of 1,500 <Canadian> troops touch down in Kandahar for an extended, dangerous mission. 

Since the late 1990s, private civilian contractors have helped fill long- term support positions, particularly during the <Canadian> army's operations in Bosnia. But military planners say having day-to-day base staff around during deployments is something that makes sense from an operational and budgetary point of view. 

Hillier was away on leave yesterday and unable to respond to MacLennan's comments. But a Defence Department spokesman said he can't speculate on how civilian deployments will be handled.


Here we go. The joys of having civvies in the military  :


----------



## Bograt (9 Aug 2005)

Civilian defence staff role not yet clear

By MURRAY BREWSTER / The Canadian Press
http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2005/08/09/f187.raw.html



> The union representing Canada's civilian defence workers is bracing for a battle over compulsory service in war zones, as hundreds of uniformed soldiers pack their kitbags for lengthy stints in Afghanistan.
> 
> The president of the Union of National Defence Employees said Monday that the chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, told him during recent talks that civilian support personnel on bases across the country could be called upon for extended overseas deployments.
> 
> ...



Ah..... sevice to one's country, loyalty, pride in doing a job well done, I see these values are still being articulated by the leadership within the labour movement.

"Americanizing" our military. Where have I heard that before? Hmm. I beginning to believe that we have a nation of people who eat a lot of fibre. They have to in order to be able to stick their heads so far up their behinds. Anyone know where I put my country? I seem to have misplaced it... I don't know what the frigg I have know.


----------



## Springroll (9 Aug 2005)

This article has given me mixed feelings. On one hand I can understand what they are saying, but in the same, why should they receive the same benefits as military service members who are over there and in constant danger??

I don't know what to think of that right now. I will have to re-read it later and comment on it then.


----------



## Roy Harding (9 Aug 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> This article has given me mixed feelings. On one hand I can understand what they are saying, but in the same, why should they receive the same benefits as military service members who are over there and in constant danger??
> 
> I don't know what to think of that right now. I will have to re-read it later and comment on it then.



Have another cup of tea, re-read it.

They'll receive the same benefits BECAUSE they'll be "over there and in constant danger"


----------



## Springroll (9 Aug 2005)

Retired CC said:
			
		

> Have another cup of tea, re-read it.
> 
> They'll receive the same benefits BECAUSE they'll be "over there and in constant danger"



This is what I don't get though. 
They will be performing the duties of cooks and such.....
why should they get the same benefits as those who are out patrolling etc?

Sitting by a stove does not qualify(in my eyes) as a dangerous job. I do that job everyday in my home.
Now if their base was under constant attack and such, then I could understand, but just because you are over there does not mean you should get those benefits.... JMO

I definitely need another cup of tea though..I'm starting to nic out again..hehehe
I love the light headness ;D


----------



## aesop081 (9 Aug 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> This is what I don't get though.
> They will be performing the duties of cooks and such.....
> why should they get the same benefits as those who are out patrolling etc?
> 
> ...



Military cooks get the same benefits as the infantryman patrolling the streets.  So why shouldn't the civy who cooks with military cooks ?  It may be news to you but regardless of ones trade ( civillian or military) being in a conflict area is inherently unsafe.


----------



## Armymedic (9 Aug 2005)

Things he said I agree with...



> "The department must understand that any one member who goes abroad shall receive the same benefits and rights as our military counterparts enjoy when deployed to operational theatres," said MacLennan.
> 
> "Any member who enters a high-risk theatre will be exposed to potential life threatening situations, full liability must rest with the employer."



Every employee of DND (including CFPSA, NOT including CANCAP) should have the same benifits if they are serving together overseas with soldiers. That means, they get the same pay, but live in the same crappy conditions...nothing more and nothing less, that is only fair.

What I don't agree with...



> Also during his speech, MacLennan also tore a strip off Hillier, accusing the country's top soldier of trying to "Americanize our Canadian military" by making it more aggressive and shifting the focus away from the country's traditional role as a peacekeeper.
> 
> "But are we American? No, we're Canadian and we do things the Canadian way."



Gee, I wonder what happens when an employee in a civilian company publicaly critizes the policy desicions of the CEO?   I think Mr MacLennan should have an education session as to what his department actually is there for. If he doesn't like it, then he should take his hard earned union options of transfering to a more friendly gov't department, perhaps Fisheres and Agriculture...no wait, they kill animals for our food, can't have that...Immigration maybe then.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Aug 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> Things he said I agree with...
> 
> Every employee of DND (including CFPSA, NOT including CANCAP) should have the same benifits if they are serving together overseas with soldiers. That means, they get the same pay, but live in the same crappy conditions...nothing more and nothing less, that is only fair.
> 
> ...



I could not agree with you more


----------



## Roy Harding (9 Aug 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> ...
> What I don't agree with...
> 
> Gee, I wonder what happens when an employee in a civilian company publicaly critizes the policy desicions of the CEO?   I think Mr MacLennan should have an education session as to what his department actually is there for. If he doesn't like it, then he should take his hard earned union options of transfering to a more friendly gov't department, perhaps Fisheres and Agriculture...no wait, they kill animals for our food, can't have that...Immigration maybe then.



Armymedic:   Although I agree with your sentiments, you're off-target.   The CDS is NOT the "CEO" of DND, the MND is.   To continue your analogy - the CDS is the "VP in Charge of the CF", the DM is the "VP in Charge of Non-CF DND Personnel"

Springroll:

I'm at work right now and can't really spend time on more than quick missives - expect further discussion tonight regarding your mistaken views of CS and CSS troops and what they do.   The delay will also enable my blood pressure to settle down, and may preclude my lamentable proclivity for "shooting from the lip" when angered.

Retired CC


----------



## Armymedic (9 Aug 2005)

[quoteArmymedic:   Although I agree with your sentiments, you're off-target.   The CDS is NOT the "CEO" of DND, the MND is.   To continue your analogy - the CDS is the "VP in Charge of the CF", the DM is the "VP in Charge of Non-CF DND Personnel"][/quote]

I know this, but it was just easier to type CEO instead. 

Thank you for sorting out my slack and idle (just returing from Afghanistan at 0300 hrs) frame.


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 Aug 2005)

Bograt said:
			
		

> Civilian defence staff role not yet clear
> 
> By MURRAY BREWSTER / The Canadian Press
> http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2005/08/09/f187.raw.html
> ...



Whatever the labour leadership thinks and says  is liklely different than most of the rank and file, who are generally decent, hard working and typically very conservative individuals who couldn't give a rats ass about the political musings of the union movement. The only thing they rely on the union for are wages, working conditions, benefits and the like ... other than that they have little time for the current direction of the union movement.


----------



## Springroll (9 Aug 2005)

Now that I have had my tea, and feel better and level headed and am not wanting a smoke....

Retired CC,

You seem to have some issues with your blood pressure...have you talked to your doc about it??
If you get that angry or frustrated over posts all the time, maybe it is time to take a short sabbatical?
There is no need to get so flustered over a post that had JMO at the end of it.
I am entitled to my opinion and if it bothers you, then don't read my posts. 

A nice simple solution.   

Instead of getting into specifics, I will just bring up that the civvies already have many benefits that CF members do not. 
So to treat them "equally" would mean to increase the CF standards as well. It would be great for you boys, but I don't see that happening any time soon. :

Sometimes I like unions, other times I despise them.


----------



## Roy Harding (9 Aug 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Thank you for sorting out my slack and idle (just returing from Afghanistan at 0300 hrs) frame.



Hey!!   Welcome home!

Get laid, get drunk, get some sleep - or whatever order YOUR personal SOP dictates!


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Aug 2005)

Lets see:

How many ways can you hire a cook or a mechanic?

Hire an infanteer for the regular force and train them to do the above jobs.

Hire a cook or mechanic and train them to become regular force infanteers.

Hire a cook or mechanic and train them to become reserve force infanteers.

Hire an UNDE member as a cook or mechanic.

Hire a Canadian company like SNC to supply Canadian cooks or mechanics.

Hire an American/Brit/Whatever company to hire anybody willing to become a cook or mechanic

Hire from the local economy.

Rather a large slate of options.   All sorts of issues to be worked through (security versus the benefits of pumping Canadian dollars into the local economy and getting the job done more cheaply but with the added benefit of local goodwill.

I'd say that the CDS has a fairly strong hand to play, including whiskey's point concerning the inclinations of the membership many of whom have previous service.

On the otherhand what kind of a hand is MacLennan holding.

Godstrewth, my ancestors in the South Ayrshire Labour Party will likely roll over in their grave but  I cannae thole Scots unionists.   MacLennan? That's a Campbell name is it not?   That would explain everything.   ;D

Cheers.

Forgot a couple: 

Take a released reg force cook or mechanic and turn them into reserve force infanteers

Take a released reg force infanteer and turn them into a reserve force cook or mechanic

The mind boggles.


----------



## Gunner (9 Aug 2005)

> Here we go. The joys of having civvies in the military



I don't think we have civilians in the military...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Aug 2005)

Quote from Whiskey601,
_Whatever the labour leadership thinks and says  is liklely different than most of the rank and file, who are generally decent, hard working and typically very conservative individuals who couldn't give a rats *** about the political musings of the union movement. The only thing they rely on the union for are wages, working conditions, benefits and the like ... other than that they have little time for the current direction of the union movement._

Thanks for that Whiskey, 
Signed,
 Disgruntled OPSEU guy


----------



## S McKee (9 Aug 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> I don't think we have civilians in the military...



I should re-phrase. While they are a necessary evil I'm not a big fan of DND civilian employees for this very reason; when the going gets tough, the tough haul out the collective barginning agreement. Not to paint everyone with the "same brush" just my opinion.  My belief is if you can hire a soldier to do the job do it.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Aug 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> when the going gets tough, the tough haul out the collective barginning agreement.



Yup...i've been the victime of that one in gagetown , dealing with the civy drivers from field support !  Just had to learn to use their book against them


----------



## P-Free (9 Aug 2005)

If the choice is between eating IMPs or sending civilian cooks to the warzone, I think I'll support sending the cooks over.  ;D

Also, there is no safe place in Afghanistan, the base is probably an easier target than a patrol through the city.


----------



## Chimo (9 Aug 2005)

Here are the points I agree with, for what they are worth. First, we are all part of the defence team, if civvies deploy they should get the same benefits and pays. Second, the head of UNDE has a right to speak out, as long as he is speaking for the majority of his union brethren. I equate it to supporting your troops.

Now, what i disagree with and can not accept, is that the head of UNDE does not seem to understand that we are at WAR. :threat: We have been in a war against terror since 9/11. Politicians, Union Leaders, and the general Canadian public seems to have a hard time accepting that fact.


----------



## JBB (9 Aug 2005)

My My My... what has the CF come to.  As a medically released ex soldier (031 26 yrs) and a supporting member of Union (they get me my pay raises after all).  I now work for the CF as a civilian.  The CF must be in a world of hurt if they want this broken ex soldier to deploy. 
I think we have at long last reached the bootom of the barrel.   Over the top boys


----------



## Steel Badger (9 Aug 2005)

We should be careful in slagging the DND union types...

They might need more Bongo therapy and group hugs like they received during the First Gulf War.


----------



## S McKee (9 Aug 2005)

Like Chimo said we are all part of the "Defence Team". One of the core values of 1 ASG states: "The Defence Team is the cornerstone of our success, and every effort will be made to leverage and enhance the military and civilian interface to the betterment of those we support." whew!   There's no "I" in team, I encourage the other half of the "Defence Team" to come in for the big win because if you don't you'll be standing tall before the man and he will take a giant **** on you. Remember inside every Afghani there's a Canadian screaming to get out.


----------



## Roy Harding (9 Aug 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> Now that I have had my tea, and feel better and level headed and am not wanting a smoke....
> 
> Retired CC,
> 
> ...



Springroll:

Because you, at times, seem to be a fairly knowledgeable individual vis a vis military matters, I sometimes forget that you are, indeed, a civilian.  At those times, I don't have my "forgivable ignorance radar" engaged, and I react to your posts as if they had been written by a soldier/airman/sailor who SHOULD know better.  This forgetfulness gives rise to my raised blood pressure.

Firstly - don't worry about my health - you've got enough to worry about already, what with upcoming BMQ and all.

Secondly - I don't get angry or frustrated over posts all the time.  Just the ones that deserve such a reaction - as yours would have, had you actually had any military experience (and "hubby's" experience doesn't count - just ask my wife, who, at one time thought she "knew" about the Army because she had been raised by a soldier, then married one.  She found out different once she joined - as will you.)

Finally - I have never been "flustered" in my life - please don't use randomly ascribed transitive verbs to describe my (completely unknowable to you) state of mind.

In the interest of not hijacking this thread (any further than I already have), I've started a new one discussing the subject of CSS here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33366.0.html


----------



## NavComm (10 Aug 2005)

First, I agree that civvies, if deployed, should receive the same pay/benefits/conditions as soldiers. I also think it's unfortunate we don't have enough military cooks to fill the jobs, but that is another topic.

I do not have a lot of military experience myself but this comment struck me as pretty out there even for a civilian.



			
				Springroll said:
			
		

> Sitting by a stove does not qualify(in my eyes) as a dangerous job. I do that job everyday in my home.
> Now if their base was under constant attack and such, then I could understand, but just because you are over there does not mean you should get those benefits.... JMO



Cooking supper for 'hubbie' and the offspring is in no way comparable to cooking in a mess in a war zone I'm sure the cooks and everyone else who were in the U.S. mess in Mosul on December 21, 2004 would beg to differ with your analogy. If you've forgotten the incident, you can google it but to jog the memory I've quoted part of one article below:

"An explosion ripped through a mess tent at a military base near Mosul where hundreds of U.S. troops had just sat down to lunch Tuesday, and officials said more than 20 people were killed and at least 57 were wounded."


JMO but I think any overseas deployment is dangerous. Any military base is a potential target.


----------



## Springroll (10 Aug 2005)

NavComm said:
			
		

> First, I agree that civvies, if deployed, should receive the same pay/benefits/conditions as soldiers. I also think it's unfortunate we don't have enough military cooks to fill the jobs, but that is another topic.
> 
> I do not have a lot of military experience myself but this comment struck me as pretty out there even for a civilian.
> 
> ...



Thank you for that Navcomm. I was not aware of that attack.

I think what eats at me is that you have people begging to be cooks and the such when they join the CF, but they get turned down, and look where we are now. My hubby wanted to join as a cook almost 10 years ago and they said they had too many of them....now we don't have enough of them. 

My suggestion would be to to go around to the other branches and offer those deployments to cooks who are not being utilized right now. A prime example is my husbvand's ships cook...I know he would jump at the chance to get over there.

As for the comment about feedinmg hubby and kiddies, my experiences goes past basic supper making. I have worked with a catering company in Victoria and have had large quantities of food to make. I know it is not the same as a mess tent, but I do not like people making assumptions about what i have done with my life. I really should write and autobiography.


----------



## S McKee (10 Aug 2005)

CF Cooks!!!! By far THE most under-rated and under-appreciated trade in the service. Those guys/gals make or break any tour. We've all been there... when it's real boring what to you have to look forward to? Food! The meals; lunch, supper etc. They have always gone above and beyond for the troops and while everyone else is lounging around because it's too hot to work, they're out there under canvass cooking up growlies. I've heard that there is a VAST difference in quality and service when they are replaced by civvies.


----------



## Hatless Dancer (10 Aug 2005)

I think we should all bear in mind that these people are indeed civilians. They should no tbe forced to go, nor should they face administrative punishment for refusing. When we signed up, we understood fully what we were getting involved with. Todays budget constraints mandate that we "outsource" some of the functions that the armed forces used to undertake internally. The American army has handed over most of its logistical tasks to KBR and Halliburton because it is far more cost effective to do so.


----------



## Roy Harding (10 Aug 2005)

Hatless Dancer said:
			
		

> I think we should all bear in mind that these people are indeed civilians. They should no tbe forced to go, nor should they face administrative punishment for refusing. When we signed up, we understood fully what we were getting involved with. Todays budget constraints mandate that we "outsource" some of the functions that the armed forces used to undertake internally. The American army has handed over most of its logistical tasks to KBR and Halliburton because it is far more cost effective to do so.



Absolutely agree - but if they DO go, then I believe they should have the same financial entitlements as the soldiers deploying.


----------



## GO!!! (10 Aug 2005)

Hatless Dancer said:
			
		

> I think we should all bear in mind that these people are indeed civilians. They should no tbe forced to go, nor should they face administrative punishment for refusing.



NO.

Add the possibility of mandatory overseas deployment to operational theatres to the CBA. Throw in all of the goodies and benefits that the troops get (HLTA, Post Deployment Leave etc.) And if they refuse - F-I-R-E-D. 

If we are to truly be a "defence team" half of the team cannot pull out of the game if they think the field is too hard/hot/dangerous. For the salaries that the DND civvies make (my wife is one), it will be very simple to hire more qualified individuals to replace the ones that quit over the requirement to be deployed.


----------



## Hatless Dancer (10 Aug 2005)

The term "Collective Bargaining Agreement" is exactly that, a mutually agreed apon set of working conditions and compensation arrangements. I don't think any union would ever agree to having a mandatory deployment clause in its CBA.Having said that, I think it would be virtually impossible to compel a civillian to go. I am sure it would not only violate the current collective agreement, but would run afoul of provincial Workers Compensation regulations, in that an employee can refuse to perform work deemed hazardous. I'm sure any 2nd year law student could mount a charter challenge or two as well.


----------



## Cloud Cover (10 Aug 2005)

Hatless Dancer said:
			
		

> The term "Collective Bargaining Agreement" is exactly that, a mutually agreed apon set of working conditions and compensation arrangements. I don't think any union would ever agree to having a mandatory deployment clause in its CBA.Having said that, I think it would be virtually impossible to compel a civillian to go. I am sure it would not only violate the current collective agreement, but would run afoul of provincial Workers Compensation regulations, in that an employee can refuse to perform work deemed hazardous. I'm sure any 2nd year law student could mount a charter challenge or two as well.



Provincial workers compensation regulations seldom, if ever, have extra-territorial application. If deployment overseas is deemed to be part of the employment contract by the government, I don't see how a Charter right could be invoked-it would depend on what the sanctions would be for refusing to go. While unions can try and negotiate, the government has a lot of freedom of manoever to "dictate" when it comes to bona fide National Defence requirements so long as the delterious effects are reasonably unavoidable. In any event, the unions ultimately require the support of their work force to negotiate, and I think the work force would throw its weight behind the CDS as long as there are provisions for valid, permissible reasons to request exemption from deployment.  [i.e. disability etc.]  
You don't necessarily have to wear a uniform to make a valuable overseas contribution. What is required is the proper [ahem...] motivation.


----------



## NavComm (10 Aug 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> As for the comment about feedinmg hubby and kiddies, my experiences goes past basic supper making. I have worked with a catering company in Victoria and have had large quantities of food to make. I know it is not the same as a mess tent, but I do not like people making assumptions about what i have done with my life. I really should write and autobiography.



Well excuse me for not knowing everything about you. I was responding to your statement:

"Sitting by a stove does not qualify(in my eyes) as a dangerous job. I do that job *everyday in my home*."

I see no reference to your wider experience as a catering cook. Tell me, were you under attack by enemy fire the entire time during your catering career?


----------



## Springroll (10 Aug 2005)

NavComm said:
			
		

> Well excuse me for not knowing everything about you. I was responding to your statement:
> 
> "Sitting by a stove does not qualify(in my eyes) as a dangerous job. I do that job *everyday in my home*."
> 
> I see no reference to your wider experience as a catering cook. Tell me, were you under attack by enemy fire the entire time during your catering career?



Well now, I am curious about your work experience, NavComm..... :

I bet you have never been under fire other than with blanks, right??
You should really re-read what I wrote before jumping on me.

Good night, NavComm


----------



## NavComm (10 Aug 2005)

You are correct I have never been under fire. But then I'm not the one making the statement that "Sitting by a stove does not qualify(in my eyes) as a dangerous job. I do that job everyday in my home.".

I did read what you said and I also take issue with your statement that people are 'begging to become cooks'. I didn't meet anyone like that during my application process or during basic training. In fact I only met one person who actually applied to be a cook. But you seem to have much more knowledge on these matters than I do, so I will defer to your deep insight.

Good night to you as well


----------



## canadianblue (11 Aug 2005)

Umm, I think it's probably best to use the good old "two ears, one mouth use according" principle here. I am currently enrolled into the forces, and people could just as easily say that I don't deserve danger pay because all I do is setup a radio, whatever.

Don't make statements like that unless you have either gotten through the training or have experience. I don't because I haven't experienced the military yet.


----------



## GO!!! (11 Aug 2005)

Springroll - I have been under fire - and I think that your posts lack relevance, experience and intelligence - please post only if you have something intelligent to say, which contributes to the discussion at hand. 

Oh, and have a nice day.


----------



## STA Gunner (11 Aug 2005)

This discussion reminds me of when I was in the Balkans.  One soldier tried debating with every senior officer he came across as to why he deserved more "danger pay" than the rad ops, clerks and QM personnel in our camp.  He even pursued with Comd NCE at the time.

As we were doing our workup training for Roto 0 to Kabul, a similar challenge came up.  Despite having it explained how the system works over and over, some soldiers thought they had an inherent right to more.  In their view, those soldiers that did not leave the base did not have the same level of risk.  Although he is  right (traffic, ambush, etc) he had missed the connection on two points.  First, essentially the assessment is done by theatre, not location of job.  Second, the assessment is not done upon MOC, or type of employment.

Someone in better knowledge of the system can perhaps explain better, but I will give a layman's crack at explaining how it works.  The allowances are broken up by Risk and Hazard.  Risk is the threat of being there, Hazard is the environmental factors for being there.  Hazard takes into account the things like malaria, snakes, scorpions, heat, dust etc.  So that would be consistent for all people on a camp.  Risk takes into account danger from attack.  Both are assessed regularly (ie for each Roto).

The arguments in Afghanistan did not subside (although no one was going to fall on his sword over it) until the rocket hit Camp Warehouse.  It hit 3 metres away from a tent containing civilians (Hesco Bastion absorbed almost all the blast), and 10 metres away from the kitchen, which was under construction.  Any remaining doubts about risk were lifted during the King's Palace rocket threat and the Ammo Storage site Mortar threat.

So all military in theatre are on the same hazard and risk.  Now for civilians...CANCAP is not paid the same, as they are contracted.  My father is in Kabul as a CANCAP worker and he does not need the same allowances.  He is already adequately compensated.  But the UNDE workers should be given the same allowances.  They are, after all, established by the Treasury Board (I believe) and would be paid out to RCMP, CSIS or other government agencies that work there, why not UNDE workers?  In reality, we are all breathing the same dust, and equally at risk of chewing on that 107 incoming to the camp.


----------



## GO!!! (14 Aug 2005)

STA

I agree with you completely, except that if there is  a shortage of volunteers amongst UNDE employees to fill positions in the camps, that they should be forced to either go on the tour, or go and find another job.  

They do deserve to be compensated properly for going though - and that means the same amounts - but not more, than the troops that they are supporting.

This seems like a bit of a non - issue to me anyway though, as there is no shortage of civilians who want to be employed overseas at contractor prices, so why would we use expensive, high maintenance, strike prone union labour?


----------



## Gunner (14 Aug 2005)

> This seems like a bit of a non - issue to me anyway though, as there is no shortage of civilians who want to be employed overseas at contractor prices, so why would we use expensive, high maintenance, strike prone union labour?



I agree that this is a non-issue and may simply be UNDE positioning itself for contract negotiations and using the recent media spotlight on the CDS to grab some cheap medai headlines.


----------



## DG-41 (15 Aug 2005)

As far as the "cooks in danger" topic goes....

A military cook is, at the end of the day, still a trained rifleman, and could be expected to join in a battle if required. More than one army has rounded up cooks, bin rats, and mantainers to form an ad-hoc infantry unit for a local counterattack.

That is not true of civillians. The civvies might be exposed to the same dangers that come with living in a military camp, but they would never be expected to go on a mission "outside the wire".

Hm. All this talk about military cooks suddenly has me jonesing for track pads and a grilled cheese sandwich.  

DG


----------

