New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Bass ackwards]

Chief, I can understand a guy (or gal for that matter) who already has their pension locked in, but -just going on what I've gleaned from this site over the last few years- will there be enough years of employment to make it worthwhile for someone with less than 20 years to change horses like that ?

My impression was that what we do here (in Canada) is wait until the keels are literally rusting off the ships, then we give 'er for a few years to build new ones and then padlock the shipyards for another 20 years or so.

As you and jollyjacktar point out: guys with knowledge, experience and skills will step across, but will that matter to a unionized shipyard ? I've no doubt that to the employer, a hull tech or marine electrician or any other tech would be a jewell to hire, but will that ring the same bell with the union -who will invariably give precedence to the lazy, pot-head arsehole who blows shifts on a routine basis and does as little as possible when he does show up but who was lucky enough to get hired a day earlier than the ex-RCN guy ?

Please gents, I'm not arguing your point. I'm genuinely curious. I've been working in unionized industrial shops now for the last 14 years.
The first one (softwood lumber) got shot out from under me after I put 10 years in. So I started over again at age 43 (in mining this time) and all the work ethic, attendance records, experience or anything else didn't mean a damned thing. Return to square one.
Oh the money's nice. I'm not hurting at all. I don't have to work very hard if I don't feel like it.
But how long does this gig last ?

I'd be curious to know how the guys who left for the CPF project made out. What are they doing now ? 

 

[Navalsnpr]

I would imagine that all three shipyard (BC, NS & QC) will get a piece of the pie.

 

[Stoker]

Chief, I can understand a guy (or gal for that matter) who already has their pension locked in, but -just going on what I've gleaned from this site over the last few years- will there be enough years of employment to make it worthwhile for someone with less than 20 years to change horses like that ?

My impression was that what we do here (in Canada) is wait until the keels are literally rusting off the ships, then we give 'er for a few years to build new ones and then padlock the shipyards for another 20 years or so.

The ship building will last over twenty years supposedly.

As you and jollyjacktar point out: guys with knowledge, experience and skills will step across, but will that matter to a unionized shipyard ? I've no doubt that to the employer, a hull tech or marine electrician or any other tech would be a jewell to hire, but will that ring the same bell with the union -who will invariably give precedence to the lazy, pot-head arsehole who blows shifts on a routine basis and does as little as possible when he does show up but who was lucky enough to get hired a day earlier than the ex-RCN guy ?

Even with all the call backs, they will have to hire hundreds of workers off the street.

Please gents, I'm not arguing your point. I'm genuinely curious. I've been working in unionized industrial shops now for the last 14 years.
The first one (softwood lumber) got shot out from under me after I put 10 years in. So I started over again at age 43 (in mining this time) and all the work ethic, attendance records, experience or anything else didn't mean a damned thing. Return to square one.
Oh the money's nice. I'm not hurting at all. I don't have to work very hard if I don't feel like it.
But how long does this gig last ?

I'd be curious to know how the guys who left for the CPF project made out. What are they doing now ?

I suspect a lot of guys went on to other things as the project only lasted for a short number of years.

 

[Bass ackwards]

20+ years of shipbuilding in this country sounds like a good thing.

I guess all we can do is wish the old salts well and hope the new ships attract new people.

Thanks for the replies.

 

[cupper]

I know this isn't a politics thread, but Harper hasn't pandered to Quebec yet, why would he start now?

Call me cynical, but since they lost Quebec seats in the last election, he'll try and rebuild by dumping money and attention on Quebec. I watched growing up in the 70's and 80's. And the quality of work coming out of Quebec has always been suspect at best. Remember when they had to tow the Algonquin away in the middle of the night and bring her back to Halifax to finish the job?

And Bombardier did a bang up job on the MLVW and the Iltis.

 

[PuckChaser]

He didn't dump money and attention to Quebec when he had a minority, and got a majority government without a lot of Quebec seats. Methinks Quebec's time of pushing around federal politics is over.

 

[cupper]

He didn't dump money and attention to Quebec when he had a minority, and got a majority government without a lot of Quebec seats. Methinks Quebec's time of pushing around federal politics is over.

Here's hoping, but I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[MightyIndustry]

Chief, I can understand a guy (or gal for that matter) who already has their pension locked in, but -just going on what I've gleaned from this site over the last few years- will there be enough years of employment to make it worthwhile for someone with less than 20 years to change horses like that ?

My impression was that what we do here (in Canada) is wait until the keels are literally rusting off the ships, then we give 'er for a few years to build new ones and then padlock the shipyards for another 20 years or so.

As you and jollyjacktar point out: guys with knowledge, experience and skills will step across, but will that matter to a unionized shipyard ? I've no doubt that to the employer, a hull tech or marine electrician or any other tech would be a jewell to hire, but will that ring the same bell with the union -who will invariably give precedence to the lazy, pot-head arsehole who blows shifts on a routine basis and does as little as possible when he does show up but who was lucky enough to get hired a day earlier than the ex-RCN guy ?

Please gents, I'm not arguing your point. I'm genuinely curious. I've been working in unionized industrial shops now for the last 14 years.
The first one (softwood lumber) got shot out from under me after I put 10 years in. So I started over again at age 43 (in mining this time) and all the work ethic, attendance records, experience or anything else didn't mean a damned thing. Return to square one.
Oh the money's nice. I'm not hurting at all. I don't have to work very hard if I don't feel like it.
But how long does this gig last ?

I'd be curious to know how the guys who left for the CPF project made out. What are they doing now ?

Somebody please enlighten me. My understanding of the trades qualifications that you get in the CF is that they don't count for much towards a civvy trades ticket. If you're a specialist (I'm talking "subject matter expert" qualifications), you have some leverege, but if you're a hull tech or an electrician (for example) you still have to start out as an apprentice when you get out of the forces. And now, with Electricians, NETs, and weapons techs being all the same trade, the discrepancy between what working life on the "inside is" compared to what its like "outside" is going to...make it difficult for people getting out.

 

[MightyIndustry]

If you mean FMF, you're right.  But with the cutbacks to the civil service that source is getting more dry.  From what I have been told from my former co-workers who came to FMF from Irving, I would not jump over to them without some serious contemplation.  Don't trust them with what I have heard on how they can treat employees.

BTW
From what I understand (and I'm probably the only guy here that didn't already know this-so ecuse my ignorance) there is no more double dipping. There is one federal pension, and only one federal pension.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Irving in Halifax and Saint John should win, but the Quebec yards will will based on the results of the election, and the sudden pandering by Harper about adding seats for Quebec.

So essentially the same thing that has always happened.

Here we go again with the "this is my opinion, so I must be right and you have to accept it as fact".

Show us the money!!  Show us the seats for Quebec, show us the overwhelming need to console the Quebec shipyards (or legislature) and above all, show us PM Harper's 'pandering' to Quebec. Because, since he's recieved a majority, without Quebec, parliment no longer needs to have that Quebec trump card, and he's been governing fine without it.

Once the redisribution and addition of seats takes place, Quebec will become about as relevant as that heated floor you have in the rear of your minivan.

 

[cupper]

Here we go again with the "this is my opinion, so I must be right and you have to accept it as fact".

Show us the money!!  Show us the seats for Quebec, show us the overwhelming need to console the Quebec shipyards (or legislature) and above all, show us PM Harper's 'pandering' to Quebec. Because, since he's recieved a majority, without Quebec, parliment no longer needs to have that Quebec trump card, and he's been governing fine without it.

Once the redisribution and addition of seats takes place, Quebec will become about as relevant as that heated floor you have in the rear of your minivan.

:boring: Your tirades about my posts are getting very tiring. :facepalm:

First: you are correct in one point for which I must give you credit. I did express an opinion. Did I say it had to be right? No. Show me where in these posts that I claim to be right and everyone else's opinion is wrong and doesn't matter. If you can find it, fine, otherwise, blow it out your shorts.

Second: how am I supposed to show that something I said may possibly happen happened when it hasn't happened yet? I did not say that Harped had dumped money into Quebec, but that based on recent statements by "The Harper Government" all indications were that we are heading back into another cycle of "Lets be Nice to Quebec"

Third: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/10/14/pol-harper-new-seats.html

Fourth: I've watched Government after Government for the past 40+ years pander to Quebec. Plus ca change, c'est plus la meme chose.

Finally: There you go again making another assumption based on some non-existant statement. I don't drive a mininvan.  ;D

 

[observor 69]

According to my newspaper Harper has delayed a Parliamentary seat redistribution as it would add seats to western Canada but give no additional ones to Quebec.
Also, while obviously required, the much delayed money for the replacement for the Champlain bridge was recently announced.
So any attempt to predict whether best versus political decision will direct the ship contract is hard to call.

IMHO of course. 

 

[jollyjacktar]

BTW
From what I understand (and I'm probably the only guy here that didn't already know this-so ecuse my ignorance) there is no more double dipping. There is one federal pension, and only one federal pension.

If you retire with your contract complete, or 24 year + a day, you are eligible for an immediate annuity.  That cannot be taken from you.

 

[Edward Campbell]

How much of a strategy is it gong to be?

What is the AIM of our shipbuilding policy? Near term AIM? Medium term AIM? Long term AIM?

Because I really don't know: what share of the Canadian shipbuilding industry is from the Gov't of Canada (Navy, Coast Guard, Fisheries & Oceans, Crown Corporations, etc)?

Where do provinces - e.g. BC which has a big public ferry fleet - fit into the strategy?

How do we do on private and off-shore sales? Are the oil rigs, that we build, for example exported?

What about design? Are we a nation with a capable naval architecture infrastructure - one that can design for export?

----------

Personally, I would like a truly national plan: one that says "we (Ottawa and St John's and Halifax and Fredricton and Quebec City and Toronto and Victoria) plan to build about x warships, y coast guard and fisheries research vessels, etc and z ferries over the next 20 years. We expect to keep n yards on the Pacific Coast, in the Great Lakes, in the St Lawrence and on the Atlantic Coast busy with a total of about __number__ permanent jobs."

From a regional industrial/employment perspective, n jobs with a 20 year + "lifespan" is better than 3n jobs that only last for six or seven years.

 

[PuckChaser]

Third: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/10/14/pol-harper-new-seats.html

Did you even read the article? It was hinted that because there is going to be a large increase of seats to other provinces, Quebec's representation in the House would fall below the representation it has for the Canadian population and it would have to have some seats added so it is equal. That's the whole point of adding new seats, giving all the provinces proper seat distribution based on their representative populations. No one is pandering Quebec, to me it sounds like he'll give Quebec a pittance so they have no excuse if they try to whine about not getting more than a handful of seats because at least they'll get some.

Mods, maybe a thread split is in order?

 

[Stoker]

BTW
From what I understand (and I'm probably the only guy here that didn't already know this-so ecuse my ignorance) there is no more double dipping. There is one federal pension, and only one federal pension.

Double dipping is alive and well i'm afraid.

 

[Stoker]

Somebody please enlighten me. My understanding of the trades qualifications that you get in the CF is that they don't count for much towards a civvy trades ticket. If you're a specialist (I'm talking "subject matter expert" qualifications), you have some leverege, but if you're a hull tech or an electrician (for example) you still have to start out as an apprentice when you get out of the forces. And now, with Electricians, NETs, and weapons techs being all the same trade, the discrepancy between what working life on the "inside is" compared to what its like "outside" is going to...make it difficult for people getting out.

Actually many of the trades have civilian equivalencies such as Mar Eng tech, NET and weapons tech. When they finish they have a civilian qual as well.

 

[Occam]

Actually many of the trades have civilian equivalencies and many trades go to civilian universities such as Mar Eng tech, NET and weapons tech. When they finish they have a civilian qual as well.

That may be the case for those who were trained under the previous syllabus, but I can guarantee you that anyone trained under the new W Eng Tech program will not be given a civilian equivalency, once it is evaluated for accreditation.  The previous syllabus would make someone QL5 trained eligible for certification as a "Certified Electronics Technician", but the new program is not going to have anywhere near enough training hours to satisfy CTAB.  I can't speak to the electrical/engineering/hull trades as I don't know how much change they've undergone in the past decade.

Personally, I don't see an exodus of CF members going to work for the winning shipyard(s) as they generally wouldn't have the experience required for the position(s).

Double dipping is alive and well i'm afraid.

Can you define "double dipping" for me, please?

I just retired from the CF, eligible for an immediate annuity.  I also started immediate employment with the Public Service.  I chose not to transfer my pension from the CFSA to the PSSA, and to draw an annuity immediately.  Drawing my CFSA annuity and earning a salary in another position (Public Service or otherwise) is not double dipping.  I earned my pension, thanks.  I understand many people colloquially refer to it as "double dipping", but when you qualify it with "I'm afraid", it suggests there's something not right about it.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Actually many of the trades have civilian equivalencies such as Mar Eng tech, NET and weapons tech. When they finish they have a civilian qual as well.

As a HT, I would have to start as an apprentice.  No Red Seal for us.

 

[Stoker]

That may be the case for those who were trained under the previous syllabus, but I can guarantee you that anyone trained under the new W Eng Tech program will not be given a civilian equivalency, once it is evaluated for accreditation.  The previous syllabus would make someone QL5 trained eligible for certification as a "Certified Electronics Technician", but the new program is not going to have anywhere near enough training hours to satisfy CTAB.  I can't speak to the electrical/engineering/hull trades as I don't know how much change they've undergone in the past decade.

Didn't know that but it makes sense, there are still a lot of people out there that have the civilian equivalency however.

Personally, I don't see an exodus of CF members going to work for the winning shipyard(s) as they generally wouldn't have the experience required for the position(s).

Time will tell but I just came back from a personnel meeting where we were briefed that this is being looked at and being factored into personnel numbers.

Can you define "double dipping" for me, please?

I just retired from the CF, eligible for an immediate annuity.  I also started immediate employment with the Public Service.  I chose not to transfer my pension from the CFSA to the PSSA, and to draw an annuity immediately.  Drawing my CFSA annuity and earning a salary in another position (Public Service or otherwise) is not double dipping.  I earned my pension, thanks.  I understand many people colloquially refer to it as "double dipping", but when you qualify it with "I'm afraid", it suggests there's something not right about it.

Just to clarify the only aspect of double dipping I don't agree with is regular force mbr's getting out and joining the reserves. These regular force mbr's then take jobs away from qualified reserves and kick up a stink when its time for them to leave. That is in my little corner and its a headache to back fill these guys when its time for them to take their 35 day break.