Union of National Defence Employees

[JBB]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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!!!]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!!!]

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]

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!!!]

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]

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.