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

Paid parking DND property

Status
Not open for further replies.
National Defence Parking Policy
Sisters and Brothers,

I am bringing to your immediate attention my deep and grave concerns regarding a parking policy which will affect UNDE members both public and private sector, separate employer, separate operating agency and non-public funds. In fact, all Canadian Forces Personnel are subject to this new policy that the department has introduced and will be enforcing. This Parking Policy at Bases, Wings, Area Headquarters, Lodger Units, and Armories throughout the country was presented to all Unions and Bargaining Agents at the June 8 National UMCC meeting.

I have included the attached briefing package and draft DAOD along with this summary for your information. No further details have been distributed other than what you are now receiving.

The Department, as directed by the Canada Revenue Agency who is responsible for ensuring that government departments are in compliance with Treasury Board legislation and in this situation the Government Property Traffic Act and Government Property Traffic Regulation, made it very clear in its submission to Unions that the planned Parking Policy will be implemented as scheduled with few exceptions, as parking spots are not considered a condition of employment by Treasury Board.

Although at this time, this decision will not affect every worksite based on the criteria proposed, there will be a very significant impact to the majority of our membership.

Who is Excluded

Any Crown-owned property that does not have access or is not provided with public transit services such as a bus or subway system directly to a military facility or has routes on military facilities;
Members who have been certified by a doctor to have a disability requiring the use of their privately-owned vehicle and cannot depend on public transit systems;
Shift workers;
Civilian or military duties that are considered to be, or necessary for, minimal operation requirements (MOR).
Therefore, in short, any Crown-owned facility that has access to a public transit system will be applying parking fees that will be set at whatever the local market value is in the location of the particular Base, Wing, Lodger Unit, Headquarters area or Armories.

The Department’s strategy to implement a Parking Policy and its disciplines are to be determined through Local Parking Board Committees to be set up at each local worksite.

As this news is now a major concern and a priority for our membership, it has also come in a timely fashion as the National Executive is in session this week. I can assure you, Brothers and Sisters, the Executive will not rest easy on this issue.

More information will be forthcoming to all Locals within the next week on our position and the stand we are collectively going to take.

In Solidarity,

John MacLennan
National President
 
http://www.unde-uedn.com/english/news/parking_letter.shtml

Link to post above.
 
http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/cfao/029-09_e.asp

Wow, I'm glad I ride my bike or take the bus. I wonder what set them off in this course of action...
 
DND POLICY
3. At DND installations served by regularly-scheduled public transit, parking should be provided in the minimum quantity required for effective operation of the installation, and members and DND civilian employees who are provided with parking will be charged for the space provided. Conversely, at DND installations not served by regularly scheduled public transit, parking will be provided without charge to members and DND civilian employees in a quantity sufficient to meet a reasonable demand. The parking spaces available to an installation under the terms of this policy may be located in any parking areas located within one-half kilometre of the installation.


I foresee challenges based on the fact that not everyone at the worksite has access to public transit from their home location.  Could this affect the current restrictions for how far away from the worksite you are allowed to live? 

 
GreyMatter said:
I foresee challenges based on the fact that not everyone at the worksite has access to public transit from their home location.  Could this affect the current restrictions for how far away from the worksite you are allowed to live? 

Maybe the reasoning is that you could drive to the public transit close to you...like those park n ride systems many cities have.
 
Lets try an example - a CF member lives 35 km from the base and there is no public transit system between where the member lives and the base. 

Would the member have to pay for parking based on current regulations?
Should the member have to pay for parking based on current regulations?
 
DND POLICY
3. At DND installations served by regularly-scheduled public transit, parking should be provided in the minimum quantity required for effective operation of the installation, and members and DND civilian employees who are provided with parking will be charged for the space provided. Conversely, at DND installations not served by regularly scheduled public transit, parking will be provided without charge to members and DND civilian employees in a quantity sufficient to meet a reasonable demand. The parking spaces available to an installation under the terms of this policy may be located in any parking areas located within one-half kilometre of the installation.

Yes the member would and should notwithstanding the fact there is no public transportation by his house.  Where the member lives is their choice, where the base is located is not.  If the member doesn't want to pay for parking then they need to come up with a way to make it to the public transport system, just like every civie does.
 
MP 00161 said:
Yes the member would and should notwithstanding the fact there is no public transportation by his house.  Where the member lives is their choice, where the base is located is not.  If the member doesn't want to pay for parking then they need to come up with a way to make it to the public transport system, just like every civie does.

I hope you MPs don't interpret things like this all the time. Read your last post again.

You have answered GreyMatters question as "Yes that the member would and should notwithstanding the fact there is no public transit."

When the section you've quoted (Section 3) for your answer quite clearly states:
"Conversely, at DND installations not served by regularly scheduled public transit, parking will be provided without charge to members and DND civilian employees in a quantity sufficient to meet a reasonable demand. The parking spaces available to an installation under the terms of this policy may be located in any parking areas located within one-half kilometre of the installation.

I'm still sitting here trying to figure out how you manage to pull a member could and should pay out of that.

 
ArmyVern said:
I hope you MPs don't interpret things like this all the time. Read your last post again.

You have answered GreyMatters question as "Yes that the member would and should notwithstanding the fact there is no public transit."

If you're not going to fully quote me, at least use the accepted form of a partial quote and use "..." at the point where you have chosen to truncate.  Fully quote what I said and it makes sense, "Yes the member would and should notwithstanding the fact there is no public transportation by his house.", particularly when taken fully in context with greymatters previous post which stated:

GreyMatter said:
I foresee challenges based on the fact that not everyone at the worksite has access to public transit from their home location.  Could this affect the current restrictions for how far away from the worksite you are allowed to live?

If the base (or work location) has public transport, but the member has chosen to live in a location which is not served by public transport connecting to the base, then they would and should pay for parking.  This happens in Ottawa all the time at OGDs and NDHQ too if memory serves.  People who do not live by public transport or live a long way from their place of work are eligable for a parking spot if they meet the criteria for allocation and a spot is available, but they pay for the spot, it isn't free.  If the member doesn't want to pay for parking they have the choice of driving to a location from which they can access the public transortation, such as the previously mentioned "park and rides" etc.
 
MP 00161 said:
If you're not going to fully quote me, at least use the accepted form of a partial quote and use "..." at the point where you have chosen to truncate.  Fully quote what I said and it makes sense, "Yes the member would and should notwithstanding the fact there is no public transportation by his house.", particularly when taken fully in context with greymatters previous post which stated:

If the base (or work location) has public transport, but the member has chosen to live in a location which is not served by public transport connecting to the base, then they would and should pay for parking.  This happens in Ottawa all the time at OGDs and NDHQ too if memory serves.  People who do not live by public transport or live a long way from their place of work are eligable for a parking spot if they meet the criteria for allocation and a spot is available, but they pay for the spot, it isn't free.  If the member doesn't want to pay for parking they have the choice of driving to a location from which they can access the public transortation, such as the previously mentioned "park and rides" etc.

This is the part of your post I did not quote:
DND POLICY
3. At DND installations served by regularly-scheduled public transit, parking should be provided in the minimum quantity required for effective operation of the installation, and members and DND civilian employees who are provided with parking will be charged for the space provided.
The part from you I did quote:
Conversely, at DND installations not served by regularly scheduled public transit, parking will be provided without charge to members and DND civilian employees in a quantity sufficient to meet a reasonable demand. The parking spaces available to an installation under the terms of this policy may be located in any parking areas located within one-half kilometre of the installation.

It is (the part I didn't quote), quite simply, irrelevant to answering his question which was:
GreyMatter said:
Lets try an example - a CF member lives 35 km from the base and there is no public transit system between where the member lives and the base. 

Would the member have to pay for parking based on current regulations?
Should the member have to pay for parking based on current regulations?

I have bolded the fact for you that there is NO public transit system available in his example. Therefore the part I've didn't include from your quote is NOT applicable. My question to you is how did you manage to interpret that the member would and should pay from that, when quite clearly your own quote states otherwise?

Now, if there was some type of public transit available between his workplace and towards the area of his residence, then he would pay. IE if he can travel a couple kms towards work via POMV and then pick up public transport such as a GO Train towards his workplace, the parking charges apply if he still wishs to drive and park.

In this case though, he indicates that there is no public transit available between the areas of his home and work. I take that to mean that he can not travel towards his workplace and meet up with any type of public transport (because if he COULD do that ... then public transport IS available ... it's just not door to door ) If he is expecting that means door to door public transport, he would be wrong.
 
Since it clearly states in the CFAO that bases without public transport get free parking, why would he ask about paying for parking in relation to a 35 km drive unless the base was indeed served by public transportation?  Again, his concern was not about not having public transportation on the base it was about not having public transportation between where the member lives and the base. So, I guess to answer this question:

ArmyVern said:
I hope you MPs don't interpret things like this all the time.

Yes, actually we do because we have the ability to analyse a question in relation to all the facts at hand in order to come to the logical conclusion as to what the question actually was in the first place. 

Also, I'm not concerned about you dropping the quote of the CFAO, rather about truncating my words (Yes the member would and should notwithstanding the fact there is no public transportation by his house.) without any indication you had done so and then using the truncated quote as a basis for attacking my answer (ie. in this instance "by his house" is relevant because it relates to the inference that that although the base has pubilc transport, his house does not).

In any case, I'm done with being baited by you so don't expect a reply should you choose to try again.
 
Please take any further he quoted/she quoted to PM and lets return to the subject at hand.
 
MP 00161 said:
Since it clearly states in the CFAO that bases without public transport get free parking, why would he ask about paying for parking in relation to a 35 km drive unless the base was indeed served by public transportation?  Again, his concern was not about not having public transportation on the base it was about not having public transportation between where the member lives and the base. So, I guess to answer this question:

Yes, actually we do because we have the ability to analyse a question in relation to all the facts at hand in order to come to the logical conclusion as to what the question actually was in the first place. 

Also, I'm not concerned about you dropping the quote of the CFAO, rather about truncating my words (Yes the member would and should notwithstanding the fact there is no public transportation by his house.) without any indication you had done so and then using the truncated quote as a basis for attacking my answer (ie. in this instance "by his house" is relevant because it relates to the inference that that although the base has pubilc transport, his house does not).

In any case, I'm done with being baited by you so don't expect a reply should you choose to try again.

Baiting you??? I think perhaps you flatter yourself too much.

Clearly you have interpreted it as "BY his house" (You know the part that you accuse me of truncating?? I did no such thing...I highly suggest that you re-read my post). Here's the link to my post so you can see for yourself, clearly your response is there in its entirety, quoted at the beginning of my post; And yes I ended your within my post at the point where it's relevancy ended.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63462/post-586021.html#msg586021

Again, irrelevant, the member himself did not say "BY his house" (that's your take) in his question, he said BETWEEN his house and workplace ... You state that it's relevant because:
(ie. in this instance "by his house" is relevant because it relates to the inference that that although the base has pubilc transport, his house does not).

Your interpretation (ie your analyses) has interchanged the words "BY" and "BETWEEN," leading, possibly, to the wrong answer being given. No where in his question does he state that there is public transport at either his house OR at his work (as you have inferred in your quote portion above). He states only that there is NO public transport available between his home and workplace. I certainly don't see him saying anywhere, "there is public transport at work but none where I live so do I have to pay for parking."

No worries about different methodolgies and interpretations here on my part ... it happens all the time, and, quite often, different conclusions can indeed be drawn dependant upon how one goes about their analyses.

 
Harris said:
Please take any further he quoted/she quoted to PM and lets return to the subject at hand.

Ooops, sorry.

I'm done now anyway.  :)

We were both analysing and trying to answer a question regarding paying for parking though ... and decide what the correct answer to the members question is ... so, it's kind of on-topic.
 
GreyMatter said:
I foresee challenges based on the fact that not everyone at the worksite has access to public transit from their home location.  Could this affect the current restrictions for how far away from the worksite you are allowed to live? 
Not sure if it would affect it or not but would definately be part of a lengthy debate.

Touching on this fact will then be countered by the fact that residence location of DND employees was based on a personal choice and not DND; thus the employee would be responsible if no public transport is available within the immediate vicinity. This is ut one example, but am sure that many more arguments to validate each position would arise.
 
CFAO 29-9 notwithstanding, it applies to CF members only and not DND Civilian Employees despite the fact that para 1 states that it does. Remember that CFAO's are the CF Admin Orders and not the DND Admin Orders, attempting to apply a CFAO to a civilian employee would only result is successful redress by the UNDE. Henceforth using the CFAO to argument any civilian member having to pay for parking is invalid as it cannot be applied to them.

However to resolve this issue a draft DAOD has been produced which would be all emcompassing of DND members & employees and can be found at this link: http://www.unde-uedn.com/english/info/umcc_parking.pdf
 
I've thought about it for a bit and to me I think the only factor is if the military installation is served adequately by public transportation. Like other posters have said, you're free to live where you want so they can't really account for your personal proximity to public transit.

What I'm really curious about is what brought this whole thing on in the first place. Is there a big problem Forces wide with respect to parking? It just seemed to come out of nowhere!
 
niceasdrhuxtable said:
What I'm really curious about is what brought this whole thing on in the first place. Is there a big problem Forces wide with respect to parking? It just seemed to come out of nowhere!

All the information is already provided in this thread:

Dolphin_Hunter said:
The Department, as directed by the Canada Revenue Agency who is responsible for ensuring that government departments are in compliance with Treasury Board legislation and in this situation the Government Property Traffic Act and Government Property Traffic Regulation, made it very clear in its submission to Unions that the planned Parking Policy will be implemented as scheduled with few exceptions, as parking spots are not considered a condition of employment by Treasury Board.

Found at link:
PO2FinClk said:
http://www.unde-uedn.com/english/news/parking_letter.shtml
PO2FinClk said:
http://www.unde-uedn.com/english/info/umcc_parking.pdf
Read page 2 of the link above as it lists why this change is seen as needed.
 
Hmmm... I can see how the argument would make sense, but I dont see how this argument could have been accepted by the DND.  Many employers offer free parking.  Its not like the DND has a bunch of parking spaces that anyone can park in and the members are unfairly taking spots that should be available to the general public (well, maybe in Ottawa).  Most bases have wide areas of unused area that have been designated as available for parking.  To me this is just envious bitching by our civilian counterparts in high-density areas.

What peeves me off more is that members waited years for improved pay rates, we finally got them, and now the money is being chiselled away by BS cost increases and expenditures that were not figured into the original pay raises. 
 
See, what pisses me of the most, is when some stupid wanker of a civil servant looks at the situation and says "the military is geeting an unfair perk - lets put a stop to it...."

We've got 66 of our fellow soldiers dead from Afghanistan, however many on other peacekeeping missions, and training. and, then there's the wounded, and those with psychological wounds that never heal completely.....

And then some chair-bound fool thinks we get unfair advantages?????

I wish we could ship the whole stupid lot of them off to a FOB for a few months...

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top