• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

"Unionizing" the CF (merged)

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"
 
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?
 
The difference between an "Association" and a "Union"?
The spelling.......
 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
The difference between an "Association" and a "Union"?
The spelling.......

Association sounds nicer?  :)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
The big question is where are you going to put the union label? ;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.






 
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....
 
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.

 
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

[:D  :rage:
 
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.

 
Back
Top