Strike

[Furniture]

There is no doubt pay is having an effect on the CAF. I'll tell you right now, things are not good in the RCN and the recent PLD mess has really exacerbated things, especially in the PO2 and up ranks.

Having said that, a lot of people like me are waiting to see what actually gets deposited in my account on Aug 1 to make decisions.

It's been more than two weeks, so people have forgotten that both coasts essentially saw pay cuts to senior NCMs...

 

[Halifax Tar]

It's been more than two weeks, so people have forgotten that both coasts essentially saw pay cuts to senior NCMs...

Except those RCN Snr NCMs. And that wave is coming.

 

[Brad Sallows]

They will get a nice increase. They didn't add 31 percent more to payrolls to piss them off. They added them because they vote.

Depends on how they are classified. Companies beef up exempt staff and contractors when they are preparing to deal with a strike; no reason governments can't learn to do the same.

 

[Furniture]

Except those RCN Snr NCMs. And that wave is coming.

More than just RCN, there are RCAF and CA folks posted to those locations as well.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The right to strike does not mean the right to prevent others from going about their lawful business.

Demonstrators should also exercise a little common sense. Lining the sidewalk of a block of high-use thoroughfare three and four deep so that pedestrians are forced to navigate a narrow bit of curbside space with 60+ k/h traffic rolling by isn't likely to generate sympathy.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Except those RCN Snr NCMs. And that wave is coming.

Don't forget anyone in PMQs! Even with max CFHD it's a decent real reduction in take home pay.

 

[brihard]

This is illegal action and it is time the government used the laws on the books to prevent it.

As per the criminal code:

Intimidation

• 423(1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, wrongfully and without lawful authority, for the purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he or she has a lawful right to do, or to do anything that he or she has a lawful right to abstain from doing,
  • (a) uses violence or threats of violence to that person or their intimate partner or children, or injures the person’s property;
  • (b) intimidates or attempts to intimidate that person or a relative of that person by threats that, in Canada or elsewhere, violence or other injury will be done to or punishment inflicted on him or her or a relative of his or hers, or that the property of any of them will be damaged;
  • (c) persistently follows that person;
  • (d) hides any tools, clothes or other property owned or used by that person, or deprives him or her of them or hinders him or her in the use of them;
  • (e) with one or more other persons, follows that person, in a disorderly manner, on a highway;
  • (f) besets or watches the place where that person resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or
  • (g) blocks or obstructs a highway.
• Marginal note:Exception
  (2) A person who attends at or near or approaches a dwelling-house or place, for the purpose only of obtaining or communicating information, does not watch or beset within the meaning of this section.

Margins (d) through (f) should apply. The right to strike does not mean the right to prevent others from going about their lawful business. Its time we stop catering to people who seek to use violence (preventing people from going places is violence) to force some sort of political outcome. Go protest, strike if you want to, but you don’t get to block or prevent others from doing as they wish.

Simply being in the way and slowing down foot or vehicle traffic, without offering violence or threats, would not be any of those things. It’s long accepted in law that strikes and protests are going to cause some inconvenience and delay.

Threats or assaults are obviously completely unacceptable.

 

[Spencer100]

Demonstrators should also exercise a little common sense. Lining the sidewalk of a block of high-use thoroughfare three and four deep so that pedestrians are forced to navigate a narrow bit of curbside space with 60+ k/h traffic rolling by isn't likely to generate sympathy.

You didn't grow up in a union town? LOL

 

[Jarnhamar]

PSAC is not "fighting" for you...and why should they? Do you pay dues to them?

This is the subtle message the union seems to be pushing. The PSAC is doing this for the CAF too.

You get the raise they get therefore what's good for them is good for you though.

I've heard the CAF isn't automatically entitled to a pay raise just because they get one. We need to ask for it, it's normally approved but it isn't a guarantee. That could be bad info though.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Millions for unconscious bias training? Total woke nonsense.

That's an easy fix. Take the Unconscious Bias online course that was on GC Campus (now The Canada School of Public Service I believe).

Extra pay and extra vacation for indigenous with as little as 3 months employment?

For real?

 

[Haggis]

gotta admit I don't even remember a strike in 2004. Getting too old

I worked in ADM (HR-Mil) and ADM IM from '99 to '07 minus two deployments. I recall we had just moved out to Startop before the strike. Pretty sure it was in '04, but that's an almost 20 year memory test.

 

[Haggis]

This is the subtle message the union seems to be pushing. The PSAC is doing this for the CAF too.

PSAC, like the GoC, uses the CAF to their advantage when convenient. CAF time is not union time, so it doesn't count toward anything except vacation credits.

 

[Brad Sallows]

This is the subtle message the union seems to be pushing. The PSAC is doing this for the CAF too.

Call bullsh!t. PSAC is doing this for itself. The fact that there is a policy/process/mechanism/connection/relationship is a creature of what the government decided to do. That's like saying I'm a great guy because I pay taxes that support [whatever].

 

[Navy_Pete]

PSAC, like the GoC, uses the CAF to their advantage when convenient. CAF time is not union time, so it doesn't count toward anything except vacation credits.

It is also used to figure out starting salary when you get hired now; I can't remember the equivalent to the IPC but you can do a 'PLAR' to start someone above level 1 on the table for that particular job category (ie EG 6 pay level 4). Not sure if that is part of the priority hiring program for veterans.

 

[Remius]

I've heard the CAF isn't automatically entitled to a pay raise just because they get one. We need to ask for it, it's normally approved but it isn't a guarantee. That could be bad info though.

 

[Kilted]

• terrorist activity means
  
  • (a) an act or omission that is committed in or outside Canada and that, if committed in Canada, is one of the following offences:
• ...
  • (i) that is committed
    • (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and
    • (B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and
  • (ii) that intentionally
    • (A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,
    • (B) endangers a person’s life,
    • (C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,
    • (D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or
    • (E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),

 

[brihard]

• terrorist activity means
  • (a) an act or omission that is committed in or outside Canada and that, if committed in Canada, is one of the following offences:
• ...
  • (i) that is committed
    • (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and
    • (B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and
  • (ii) that intentionally
    • (A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,
    • (B) endangers a person’s life,
    • (C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,
    • (D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or
    • (E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),

Please tell me you aren’t in any way trying to suggest that anything about this legal strike in any way comes close to what you just quoted.

 

[Kilted]

Please tell me you aren’t in any way trying to suggest that anything about this legal strike in any way comes close to what you just quoted.

It's slightly meant to be satire. But I can't see how they can legally disrupt access to military establishments.

 

[MJP]

It's slightly meant to be satire. But I can't see how they can legally disrupt access to military establishment

 

[Haggis]

It's slightly meant to be satire. But I can't see how they can legally disrupt access to military establishments.

A military establishment is a government establishment. Disrupting/delaying access impacts the employer and is a legal tactic.

One thing I learned as a picket line monitor (almost 20 years ago, possibly not current info) is that CAF members can be delayed, but not denied. As they cannot picket in sympathy or are part of a sister union, they must be permitted to attend their work locations. If they are late, so be it. It's not their fault. The CAF member has to attend the workplace and attempt access. They can't just call in and say "there's a picket line at work, I'm staying home."