WHY AN AGRESSIVE FIGHTING CULTURE IS IMPORTANT

[54/102 CEF]

Just ask the Border Guard Service
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/12/01/4700534-cp.html

 

[Bane]

Boarder services got by for a long time without guns didn't they.

 

[Roy Harding]

Boarder services got by for a long time without guns didn't they.

When they were tax collectors - now they're being asked to be border GUARDS. 

A big difference.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Border guards unprepared to bear sidearms, will cost government millions

By Dean Beeby, THE CANADIAN PRESS
     
OTTAWA - Ottawa is facing a multimillion-dollar bill to find work for border guards who can't - or won't - carry guns, newly released documents show.

The Canada Border Services Agency began arming its officers with 9-millimetre pistols in August, and so far 150 volunteers have successfully completed the training. Eventually, the agency plans to arm 4,800 border guards at all land and marine border crossings, though not at airports.
But an internal analysis indicates that between 25 and 30 per cent of those guards will be unable or unwilling to carry sidearms - as many as 1,440 employees.
"This estimate was based on consultations with frontline managers, who have firsthand experience in supervising officers on a daily basis," says briefing material obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

"In many cases, these managers have had informal discussions with staff where views were expressed freely and openly."
Over the last decade, customs officials have gradually evolved from mere tax collectors to true border guards, equipped with batons, handcuffs and pepper spray. But officers have always needed to call police to resolve potentially violent incidents at border crossings.

Last year, the Conservative government acceded to long-standing demands from the guards' union and others, and set aside $175 million over two years to begin equipping border guards with pistols, eventually choosing the 9mm Beretta PX4 Storm as the standard sidearm.
In some cases, this "significant cultural change . . . will cause officers to reconsider their career choice and to explore potential opportunities to make a change," say internal agency documents.

The agency has agreed in principle to accommodate guards who prefer work that does not require sidearms, or who fail the training program because of physical problems, such as poor vision. Details are currently being worked out with the customs excise union, which is negotiating a new contract following the June 21 expiry of its old agreement.
Finding work for unarmed officers will cost the agency $21 million over the next decade, and $4 million annually beyond that, say internal projections prepared for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day.

That could mean moving guards who don't bear arms to administrative positions, or providing incentives for early retirement.
There are also fears that the so-called arming initiative will exacerbate the agency's already high annual attrition rate of 12 per cent. The government is currently hiring 400 additional officers, but they're only intended to double-up with existing officers who now work alone in unsafe situations.

"The arming of officers may further aggravate what appears to be a higher than normal rate of turnover," says one briefing document.
The union commissioned its own study into the arming initiative, which involved interviews with about 380 officers. The study determined that 14 per cent would not be willing or able to carry a gun - much lower than the government's own estimates.

A union spokesman said that because the startup of the arming initiative has relied on eager volunteers, there's no indication yet how many unarmed officers will have to be accommodated with other work.
"We don't have any clear numbers yet," Jean-Pierre Fortin said in an interview. "We're at the beginning of this initiative."
But he said the union will fight for "full protection" for the minority of members who can't or won't carry guns.

A spokesman for the agency said all officers will be given two chances to pass the firearms training course, which is currently conducted by the RCMP in Ottawa and Chilliwack, B.C.
Those who fail once receive "feedback and guidance to help them prepare for their next qualification attempt," Chris Williams said in an interview.
Day told a Commons committee earlier this year that the problem will eventually be resolved through new recruiting.

"Everybody now coming into CBSA would not be able to entertain the prospect of not having a sidearm, just as a firefighter couldn't sign up to enter the profession of firefighting and say they never want to ride on a firetruck," he said.
"That person would be excused from the beginning."

Since sidearms were issued in the summer, there have been only two incidents in which border guards have drawn their guns, once at a British Columbia-Washington crossing and once in Sarnia, Ont. No guard has yet fired a gun in a border incident.


I disagree with the highlighted version, I am of the belief that as those who wish to remain "tax collectors" are weeded into other jobs that those who remain, along with the new hires, will take the same pride in being LEO's that exists in other trades and the turnover rate will go down.

 

[54/102 CEF]

Don't slag the the border guards - lots of chicken$hits all over the government - take a page from the Army - ``getting hit in the face doesn`t really hurt most of the time.``

A real quote from an ex OC of 2 Cdo - can any old timers guess who? HEY GRAMPA WAKE UP - How was it in in 74?

 

[Roy Harding]

Border guards unprepared to bear sidearms, will cost government millions

By Dean Beeby, THE CANADIAN PRESS
   
OTTAWA - Ottawa is facing a multimillion-dollar bill to find work for border guards who can't - or won't - carry guns, newly released documents show.

The Canada Border Services Agency began arming its officers with 9-millimetre pistols in August, and so far 150 volunteers have successfully completed the training. Eventually, the agency plans to arm 4,800 border guards at all land and marine border crossings, though not at airports.
But an internal analysis indicates that between 25 and 30 per cent of those guards will be unable or unwilling to carry sidearms - as many as 1,440 employees.
"This estimate was based on consultations with frontline managers, who have firsthand experience in supervising officers on a daily basis," says briefing material obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

"In many cases, these managers have had informal discussions with staff where views were expressed freely and openly."
Over the last decade, customs officials have gradually evolved from mere tax collectors to true border guards, equipped with batons, handcuffs and pepper spray. But officers have always needed to call police to resolve potentially violent incidents at border crossings.

Last year, the Conservative government acceded to long-standing demands from the guards' union and others, and set aside $175 million over two years to begin equipping border guards with pistols, eventually choosing the 9mm Beretta PX4 Storm as the standard sidearm.
In some cases, this "significant cultural change . . . will cause officers to reconsider their career choice and to explore potential opportunities to make a change," say internal agency documents.

The agency has agreed in principle to accommodate guards who prefer work that does not require sidearms, or who fail the training program because of physical problems, such as poor vision. Details are currently being worked out with the customs excise union, which is negotiating a new contract following the June 21 expiry of its old agreement.
Finding work for unarmed officers will cost the agency $21 million over the next decade, and $4 million annually beyond that, say internal projections prepared for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day.

That could mean moving guards who don't bear arms to administrative positions, or providing incentives for early retirement.
There are also fears that the so-called arming initiative will exacerbate the agency's already high annual attrition rate of 12 per cent. The government is currently hiring 400 additional officers, but they're only intended to double-up with existing officers who now work alone in unsafe situations.

"The arming of officers may further aggravate what appears to be a higher than normal rate of turnover," says one briefing document.
The union commissioned its own study into the arming initiative, which involved interviews with about 380 officers. The study determined that 14 per cent would not be willing or able to carry a gun - much lower than the government's own estimates.

A union spokesman said that because the startup of the arming initiative has relied on eager volunteers, there's no indication yet how many unarmed officers will have to be accommodated with other work.
"We don't have any clear numbers yet," Jean-Pierre Fortin said in an interview. "We're at the beginning of this initiative."
But he said the union will fight for "full protection" for the minority of members who can't or won't carry guns.

A spokesman for the agency said all officers will be given two chances to pass the firearms training course, which is currently conducted by the RCMP in Ottawa and Chilliwack, B.C.
Those who fail once receive "feedback and guidance to help them prepare for their next qualification attempt," Chris Williams said in an interview.
Day told a Commons committee earlier this year that the problem will eventually be resolved through new recruiting.

"Everybody now coming into CBSA would not be able to entertain the prospect of not having a sidearm, just as a firefighter couldn't sign up to enter the profession of firefighting and say they never want to ride on a firetruck," he said.
"That person would be excused from the beginning."

Since sidearms were issued in the summer, there have been only two incidents in which border guards have drawn their guns, once at a British Columbia-Washington crossing and once in Sarnia, Ont. No guard has yet fired a gun in a border incident.


I disagree with the highlighted version, I am of the belief that as those who wish to remain "tax collectors" are weeded into other jobs that those who remain, along with the new hires, will take the same pride in being LEO's that exists in other trades and the turnover rate will go down.

For the record - I am not now, nor have I ever been a CBSA agent, nor am I a LEO - I'm just a retired soldier.

Having said all that - I CAN see how some CBSA folks may frown upon the "new" initiative to actually GUARD the border.  This wasn't the way it was when they were hired, and it hasn't been the way it is during most of their career - they are, perhaps, justified in their protest.  Someone changed the rules on them - there needs to be a way to accommodate these folks.

Whether that way is administrative positions, or early retirement, or some other way, I can't say - but I do think they have a valid point (as much as I am in disagreement with them).

 

[X-mo-1979]

Mortar guys and pioneers didnt stay as such when the infantry job changed.
Sure some moved on however most rerolled into the LIB or mech batallions.Whats the difference.

As for agressive fighting culture,have you worked with any of our newly produced soldiers lately?Maybe we were as timid as they are during training...however I remember it differnt.

Adapt and overcome.Or seek elsewhere.

 

[geo]

I'm with Roy on this one... they got hired as tax collectors & are now being given an entirely new job description...
Any new guy being hired will have to train as a border guard & qualify as same.  Any old timer needs to be given an oportunity to remuster to a new occupation in the Public Service.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Someone changed the rules on them - there needs to be a way to accommodate these folks.

There is.  It's called "finding a new job".  It's the option most people have.  Before we waste time on the obvious objection, let's set it aside right now: no one is entitled to a job at public expense, nor entitled to have the terms of reference of employment remain unchanged.

 

[Roy Harding]

>Someone changed the rules on them - there needs to be a way to accommodate these folks.

There is.  It's called "finding a new job".  It's the option most people have.  Before we waste time on the obvious objection, let's set it aside right now: no one is entitled to a job at public expense, nor entitled to have the terms of reference of employment remain unchanged.

I see your point - and agree with it to a point.  I think, however, that when one's job description changes a drastically as theirs has, SOME attempt at accommodation should be expected.  IFF there are administrative or other jobs for which these folks are qualified, then steps should be taken to ensure they have an opportunity to compete for them.

 

[BKells]

>Someone changed the rules on them - there needs to be a way to accommodate these folks.

There is.  It's called "finding a new job".  It's the option most people have.  Before we waste time on the obvious objection, let's set it aside right now: no one is entitled to a job at public expense, nor entitled to have the terms of reference of employment remain unchanged.

Let's pretend your job is infantry. I don't know anything about you, but let's just say it's infantry. So, the CDS decides that the infantry will no longer work with guns and run around the forest... you're going to carry a two-headed axe and ride uni-cycles everywhere.

Oh, what's that? You lack the dexterity to wield a large two-headed axe? You have no balance and simply cannot, despite any amount of training, ride a uni-cycle into battle? Well, that's too bad. Go find a new job. You should have thought of this when you signed up for the infantry, silly.

 

[X-mo-1979]

You mean the military would change our roles!And not offer O.T's to everyone!
Hmmmmm.If you have more than 5 years in I'm certain you have see massive career/job changes in the CF.Tel op's,infantry,armoured ...the list goes on.

Imagine if the axe wielding lumber jack refused to use the new chainsaw.Because when HE joined it was only axe work.Guess what would happen.Bye Bye!

No different.Times have changed and border services must adapt.

And I can pretty well guarantee the people who are doing this complaining are not the majority.We all know these type,I've work with a few.

 

[Brad Sallows]

When conditions where I work change dramatically (as they have several times over the past few years), the "accommodation" is a choice to adopt and accept the new technologies and processes and structures, or to move along.  The private sector equivalent of an OT is a nice-to-have, not an expectation or obligation.

Please explain to me, and most other private sector taxpayers, why we should bear the cost of a benefit to others which we do not enjoy.  Why are public sector employees quantifiably weaker than private sector employees, and unable to cope with life?

 

[BKells]

Arming of the border guards implies that someday, these guards will actually have to use these weapons. Someone that joined the CBSA ten, or even five years ago could not fathom that being proficient in the use of handguns would be part of their job description. Some of them may be physically incapable or morally opposed to learning and using firearms.

Despite what the private sector may do, it is our responsibility as good employers and as fellow humans to provide them with new career opportunities. The dog-eat-dog world of the private sector is not a useful comparison in a debate about whether to treat these people with respect.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

When conditions where I work change dramatically (as they have several times over the past few years), the "accommodation" is a choice to adopt and accept the new technologies and processes and structures, or to move along.  The private sector equivalent of an OT is a nice-to-have, not an expectation or obligation.

Please explain to me, and most other private sector taxpayers, why we should bear the cost of a benefit to others which we do not enjoy.  Why are public sector employees quantifiably weaker than private sector employees, and unable to cope with life?

Hold on a minute sunshine......we are talking about arming, and expecting them to use if necessary, people who were hired as [with all due respect} uniformed clerks.  To compare that to some "changing technologies" is asinine.

Maybe you would be okay with armed substandard LEO's but not I........


Just out of curiousity, did we give everyone in the Airborne the boot or did they get a chance to go and/or do something else?

 

[Roy Harding]

When conditions where I work change dramatically (as they have several times over the past few years), the "accommodation" is a choice to adopt and accept the new technologies and processes and structures, or to move along.  The private sector equivalent of an OT is a nice-to-have, not an expectation or obligation.

Please explain to me, and most other private sector taxpayers, why we should bear the cost of a benefit to others which we do not enjoy.  Why are public sector employees quantifiably weaker than private sector employees, and unable to cope with life?

There are examples of private companies which, having drastically changed technologies, went out of their way to re-train their personnel for occupations for which those employees showed an aptitude.  I do not have the time to do the digging to get references for you right now (I've got some physical snow digging to do) - but I will bring an example or two to this forum later today or tonight.

But while you wait for these examples - chew on this.  Please explain to me, and most other private sector taxpayers (I'm a private sector taxpayer too) why we should bear the cost of medical benefits which we do not enjoy?  Think about medical coverage for persons who are the victims of diseases which we are not - nor likely to be in our lifetime (based on medical history and risk factors) - or perhaps through self-inflicted injury or as a result of personal choice??  Perhaps something to do with "social responsibility"? 

And just for the record, I am a hardcore fiscal conservative with libertarian leanings - but I still believe in something called "social responsibility"?

I am not suggesting that these CBSA officers be HANDED anything - only given the opportunity to prove their worth for available jobs for which they have an aptitude.  Hardly a hand out.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>it is our responsibility as good employers and as fellow humans to provide them with new career opportunities.

It is not.  On the contrary, it is the responsibility of governments to shed every unnecessary burden.  Governments should be the most parsimonious employers, not the most generous.  That is the proper moral responsibility that comes with any enterprise based on takings.  I fully realize that "government has a duty to be a generous employer" is a popular mantra, particularly among people employed by governments; it just happens to be wrong because it fails to assess the whole picture.  "Social responsibility" means also taking into account the interests of the people paying the bills who do not enjoy any sort of government protectionism.  Our responsibility as fellow humans is to be the least possible burden on others.  If your job is obsolete and there is no standing equivalent or similar open position, your responsibility is to learn new duties or look for work elsewhere.

It doesn't matter whether people were hired as "uniformed clerks".  Where the requirement is for armed guards, armed guards should replace uniformed clerks.  Each obsolete uniformed clerk is not entitled to make-work.  Either there is an alternate bona fide open position for which a person is suited and willing to apply, or there is not.  I agree with Roy that if genuine alternatives exist, the alternatives should be explored.  What I disagree with is the drift towards vague "something must be done" solutions.

I am aware that private employers sometimes take exceptional measures to help employees.  But I do not confuse "may" and "must".

Medical care is a universal entitlement.  Public employment is not.  I am not compensated for every decision and act of an elected or unelected public person which fucks over my interests or my employers' in order to provide goodies for someone else or their employers.  Government waves its pen, backed by a sword, and that is that.  When a universal employment protection program is proposed, let me know and I'll look at the details to see if it makes sense.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The fact of the matter is that, within the Govt of Canada, literally thousands of decent jobs are going unfilled as a result of retirements and tight labour markets (just go for a quick visit to www.jobs.gc.ca).

If some of these CBSA types don't feel like they want to carry guns, I see mutual benefit to encourage them to remain within the Public Service, but compete for and win another position, with another department.

I don't feel that they are owed a living- the world has changed.  They must adapt or move on.

 

[BKells]

Our responsibility as fellow humans is to be the least possible burden on others.  If your job is obsolete and there is no standing equivalent or similar open position, your responsibility is to learn new duties or look for work elsewhere.

The least possible burden on others? What about helping out people in need and having some compassion? The CBSA, by arming its guards, is actively putting people out of jobs who cannot use weapons. These people will be unemployed as a direct result of new policies. In that case, it is the responsibility of the CBSA to make genuine efforts towards retraining these individuals, at the CBSA's expense, so they can continue their career. Their job is not "obsolete", as you say; and neither are they themselves "obsolete". By unfortunate circumstance, the job which they signed up for has been changed on them and they are entitled to retraining and a new job.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The CBSA, by arming its guards, is actively putting people out of jobs who cannot use weapons.

Don't you mean choose not use weapons?  Are these employees suddenly without free will?