Commissionaires

[Stoker]

I know the Commisionaires was started as a place where ex military personnel could get employment after their service and to that end they did very well.  It seems that more and more often that the level of professionalism they display is dropping off. For instance in Halifax at the gates the level of professionalism is pretty bad and i'v been vocal to them at this.  I know that they are not military anymore and more often enough their military ties are questionable however I think they need to display themselves better especially at the gates.
I would love to see a more professional force take over the gates at bases, perhaps even MP's.
Do anybody notice this or am I out on a limb?





edited to correct the wrong spelling of the title

 

[Sythen]

I recently got hired as a Commissionaire. Complain to the manager on duty, not the person messing up.

their military ties are questionable however

In order to maintain certain perks, they must have 65% of their workforce being veterans.

 

[Stoker]

I recently got hired as a Commissionaire. Complain to the manager on duty, not the person messing up.

In order to maintain certain perks, they must have 65% of their workforce being veterans.

I have complained and the same kind of stuff is still happening, perhaps its time to bring in a more squared away company to look after gate guard duties and so forth. I'm not convinced the commisionaires are completely up to the task. I know some are but alot are not.

 

[CountDC]

follow it up the chain.  They have one the same as we do.  You could also submit your concerns to the base chief (although he may want to inspect you first  ;D)

 

[jollyjacktar]

follow it up the chain.  They have one the same as we do.  You could also submit your concerns to the base chief (although he may want to inspect you first  ;D)

They work for the Naval Provost Marshall here in Hfx, or the Base Security Officer at other locations.  If you have a problem, let the MP's know and they will see it sorted out.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

It looked more professional back when we had the Force Protection teams on the gates for the Dockyard.

 

[NSDreamer]

It looked more professional back when we had the Force Protection teams on the gates for the Dockyard.

/Thread derail

Do you think that security at the dockyards/Stadacona will increase in future years as they begin building the new ships?

 

[Stoker]

It looked more professional back when we had the Force Protection teams on the gates for the Dockyard.

I agree. In the US, a lot of the navy and coast guard bases have uniformed armed security forces that handle gate duties. I personally think Canadian bases should have something more than the commissionaires.

 

[aesop081]

something more than the commissionaires.

Beyond a clipboard and a sharp pencil, what more do we need ?

;D

 

[jollyjacktar]

/Thread derail

Do you think that security at the dockyards/Stadacona will increase in future years as they begin building the new ships?

Where did they go? Or were they cut back with the Reserve cutbacks?

 

[garb811]

I have complained and the same kind of stuff is still happening, perhaps its time to bring in a more squared away company to look after gate guard duties and so forth. I'm not convinced the commisionaires are completely up to the task. I know some are but alot are not.

The Corps of Commissionaires has right of first refusal on security contracts so in order for a "company" to be brought in, they would need to be "unwilling" to fill the positions and pass on the call up. Note I do not say "unable" as, in my experience, they will fill the post with someone on life support before they admit they can't fill it.  Some places I have been at, it has been horrendous.  One place the Corps did not have enough personnel to fill all the contracts so rather than let the position go to another security company, they had their pers take "leave" from established positions in order to have them work the temporary post they didn't want to admit they couldn't fill.

One other point.  The Commissionaires do not "work" for anyone in the military chain, including MPs. They are contractors who are contracted to provide a service.  It is up to them to provide the service within the terms of the contract they are hired via.  The best we can do, even when someone is obviously unsuited to the job, is to file a complaint with the site manager and request they member be removed from post.  While this normally happens, it is not unheard of for that individual to reappear doing another job several months on...

 

[Stoker]

Where did they go? Or were they cut back with the Reserve cutbacks?

The gate guard went sometime ago due to funding. There is still force protection water born though.

 

[Stoker]

Beyond a clipboard and a sharp pencil, what more do we need ?

;D

Perhaps a sharp wit?

 

[observor 69]

The Corps of Commissionaires has right of first refusal on security contracts so in order for a "company" to be brought in, they would need to be "unwilling" to fill the positions and pass on the call up. Note I do not say "unable" as, in my experience, they will fill the post with someone on life support before they admit they can't fill it.  Some places I have been at, it has been horrendous.  One place the Corps did not have enough personnel to fill all the contracts so rather than let the position go to another security company, they had their pers take "leave" from established positions in order to have them work the temporary post they didn't want to admit they couldn't fill.

One other point.  The Commissionaires do not "work" for anyone in the military chain, including MPs. They are contractors who are contracted to provide a service.  It is up to them to provide the service within the terms of the contract they are hired via.  The best we can do, even when someone is obviously unsuited to the job, is to file a complaint with the site manager and request they member be removed from post.  While this normally happens, it is not unheard of for that individual to reappear doing another job several months on...

Not an expert on this but my story applies to Pearson Int. airport. My understanding is the reason the Commissionaires do not work inside the airport is they were underbid by a private security firm. Hence they are outside doing traffic control.
Ialso recall a hospital where again the Commissionaires were underbid by a private firm.

 

[Stoker]

The Corps of Commissionaires has right of first refusal on security contracts so in order for a "company" to be brought in, they would need to be "unwilling" to fill the positions and pass on the call up. Note I do not say "unable" as, in my experience, they will fill the post with someone on life support before they admit they can't fill it.  Some places I have been at, it has been horrendous.  One place the Corps did not have enough personnel to fill all the contracts so rather than let the position go to another security company, they had their pers take "leave" from established positions in order to have them work the temporary post they didn't want to admit they couldn't fill.

One other point.  The Commissionaires do not "work" for anyone in the military chain, including MPs. They are contractors who are contracted to provide a service.  It is up to them to provide the service within the terms of the contract they are hired via.  The best we can do, even when someone is obviously unsuited to the job, is to file a complaint with the site manager and request they member be removed from post.  While this normally happens, it is not unheard of for that individual to reappear doing another job several months on...

That's very interesting not too shabby having a monopoly. I personally seen Commissionaires asleep in their shacks as well. That also explains how just about anyone can now work for them as well.

 

[aesop081]

Perhaps a sharp wit?

Would be better than the shitty attitude at many locations.

 

[Nemo888]

I think most only make 27k a year. You won't get much for that.  Put a layer of real security covertly behind them. Too much visible security attracts attention. 

 

[Occam]

Note I do not say "unable" as, in my experience, they will fill the post with someone on life support before they admit they can't fill it. 

I think I've met him, actually.....  ;D

The Corps of Commissionaires has right of first refusal on security contracts so in order for a "company" to be brought in, they would need to be "unwilling" to fill the positions and pass on the call up.

As someone very new to the procurement world, I take this to mean that the Commissionaires have a Standing Offer for security services.  If there are other security services who have provided Standing Offers, wouldn't a right of first refusal constitute sole sourcing?

 

[aesop081]

I take this to mean that the Commissionaires have a Standing Offer for security services. 

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/biens-property/sngp-npms/bi-rp/tech/scrt-eng.html

Under the National Master Standing Offer (NMSO) for Commissionaire Services, the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires has the right of first refusal for security guard contracts with the federal government. The responsibility of contracting with the Corps falls to PWGSC, which is recognized by the Treasury Board as the contracting authority for commissionaire services required by federal departments and agencies. If the Corps declines a call-up against the NMSO, PWGSC may initiate a call-up against standing offer from a private security agency.

 

[Remius]

Funny story.  But made me angry at the time.  In our armouries I came in and needed keys to a room.  The commissionaire on duty was not the regular one.  So I was asked for I.D.  She looked at it and it all checked out.  except she didn't check to see if I was on the access list (I was).  I called her on that saying that my ID alone shouldn't get me access, she should look at the frikking list.  So once that was done, I need key A.  So I signed for key A and went to unlock the room only to find out she had given me key B.  So I go back to her and say ui was given the wrong key.  No problem she says.  Just sign back in key B to get key A.  I told her I hadn't signed for key B and we could just swap keys.  Nope.  I had to sign back in key B which I hadn't signed out.  Until I did, no key A would be given to me.  This time I was getting somewhat annoyed.  I explained that she could just give me key A because I had actually signed that one out and could just take key B back.  Nope.  Dosen't work that way she said.  I realised that logic wasn't going to work.  So I put it to her like this.  Had someone signed for key A?  Yes.  Me.  is that key in the press?  Yes it was.  So i said I would sign key A back in thus accounting for that key.  No problem right?  Good.  Then i asked her if someone had signed out key B.  No one had.  I asked her if it was in the press.  She said no.  I pointed out i could just leave now without her having any record of me having key B or even giving me key B since key A was what I signed for and apparently returned.  At this point the hamster started spinning the wheel in her head and suggested we just swap keys...sigh.  Felt like a "who's on first" routine.