- Reaction score
- 1,724
- Points
- 1,140
Not sure we do a good job in the CAF either…
"Unionizing" the CF (merged)
- Thread starter Roger
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 6,080
- Points
- 1,160
Perhaps the union could also advocate on behalf of its retired membership also, as civie ones do. Then we could grieve against VAC and Blue Cross as agents of VAC.
That’s actually not a bad idea…
- Reaction score
- 4,266
- Points
- 1,260
One of the things the EU group advocates for, in fact ....
I’m on my phone so I won’t be easily able to quote specific posts, but a few thoughts. Caveat- I’m not taking a particular position on CAF unionization.
The closest relevant comparator in Canada is probably the recent unionization of the RCMP a couple summers ago. That took many years of legal action to win the right to unionize. Absent a voluntary legislative change, CAF would likewise need to see a successful legal challenge of the statutory barriers to unionizing.
RCMP now comes under (but has its own part within) the Federal Public Service Labour Relations Act.
In both RCMP and Public Service, “officers” cannot participate in the union. RCMP have commissioned officers. Presumably CAF would face the same restriction.
While CAF pay has been linked to public sector, unionizing can change that. RCMP got a 23% raise- granted, they have comparators in the form of other police services.
VAC and pension benefits are not subject to collective bargaining- this is a legislative provision.
RCMP collective agreement has a national security provision.
Union doesn’t trump operational needs. The big things are pay and comp, grievances related to the collective agreement, health and safety, etc. Management still has the right to manage. More a matter of making sure members aren’t worked continuously past the point of safety, and that they’re fairly compensated for working extra hours.
Plenty of emergency services unions have no right to strike. No need to fear CAF would be able to use labour disruptions.
Unions can and sometimes do advocate for retirees, but from what I’ve seen this seldom has teeth. Most grievance provisions expire when you cease being an employee.
The closest relevant comparator in Canada is probably the recent unionization of the RCMP a couple summers ago. That took many years of legal action to win the right to unionize. Absent a voluntary legislative change, CAF would likewise need to see a successful legal challenge of the statutory barriers to unionizing.
RCMP now comes under (but has its own part within) the Federal Public Service Labour Relations Act.
In both RCMP and Public Service, “officers” cannot participate in the union. RCMP have commissioned officers. Presumably CAF would face the same restriction.
While CAF pay has been linked to public sector, unionizing can change that. RCMP got a 23% raise- granted, they have comparators in the form of other police services.
VAC and pension benefits are not subject to collective bargaining- this is a legislative provision.
RCMP collective agreement has a national security provision.
Union doesn’t trump operational needs. The big things are pay and comp, grievances related to the collective agreement, health and safety, etc. Management still has the right to manage. More a matter of making sure members aren’t worked continuously past the point of safety, and that they’re fairly compensated for working extra hours.
Plenty of emergency services unions have no right to strike. No need to fear CAF would be able to use labour disruptions.
Unions can and sometimes do advocate for retirees, but from what I’ve seen this seldom has teeth. Most grievance provisions expire when you cease being an employee.
Eaglelord17
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,071
- Points
- 1,040
It is depending on who you talk to. There is some who are exceptionally vindictive whose mentality is because I was treated this way, everyone else should be treated this way. There is also a few who are altruistic. And then there is the majority which is self-serving (and you find that with any group, be it the Navy looking out for the Navy, Army looking out for the Army, RCR looking out for the RCRs, etc.). I can't necessarily fault them for their actions (other than the vindictive ones, they can go back to the stone age they belong in), as the whole reason you work is to benefit yourself.
One of the issues likely coming up in our next contract agreement is management will likely try to get rid of our profit sharing agreement (after 50 million in profits they have to share up to 10% of them with the employees based off a formula). The reason this will likely be a issue is we have for the first time in a while made record profits and the company doesn't like sharing them. So odds are they shall try to offer a substantial cheque to remove it from the agreement. The issue with that is with the senior members close to retirement they aren't going to receive many more profit sharing cheques anyways so for them the payout is more than any amount they will make off it in the future. For the younger members (and future members) it screws them as they would make more from the profit sharing cheques than any payout will give them long term. Just a simple example of how unions can form factions and potentially hurt their own members to benefit others.
I could see a military union running into problems where certain services are favoured over others and having the numbers to ensure its that way (ex. if there is 20k more Army members than Navy members whose issues will be at the forefront?). Just food for thought.
- Reaction score
- 6,482
- Points
- 1,360
Many examples of that....we did it to the new hires in Ontaroo Corrections, but just about any professional sports are prime, very public examples. "Entry contracts " in exchange for less escrow tax....
- Reaction score
- 1,512
- Points
- 1,260
Sounds similar to the sick pay gratuity drama our members were put through, after I retired.
Nobody had it taken away from them. Only future hires were put on the new short term plan.
Hopefully, your situation will resolve successfully as well.
At least private sector unions deal with the company.
Public sector unions must also contend with the taxpayers and news media - in addition to the employer.
You never know with people's attitudes.
Some might ask, "They have it - why don't I?"
Others might say, "I don't have it, so they shouldn't either!"
Like people are supposed to be in a race to the bottom with each other.
I don't know how a union would / could work for the CAF.
Although it has not happened in 80 years, it's the only employer I know of that can draft people, and refuse VR's, during wartime.
That sounds exactly like the CAF.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,046
- Points
- 1,160
Unionizing the CAF may go a long way to combating the toxic and unaccountable leadership problems (at all rank levels) we're plagued with.
Even after years of platitudes, robust mission statements, and floofy talking points about listening we still routinely see leaders do whatever the **** they want because we have a culture of not being accountable.
I was never a fan of unions because I didn't understand them, and they seemed (and still seem) like their own mafia. But I'm also seeing first hand how union reps are stopping managers from getting away with stuff that's clearly against the rules. Our institution will cut down a Lt Col (or General) who doesn't tow the line. There's no protection for troops.
One of the problems with this idea is that the bad leaders would be unionized too so we may run into the same issues that it seems like police do where it appears their shitty toxic officers are protected. Do we need CAF members sitting at home for 5 years on paid administrative leave while their misconduct is dealt with? Probably not.
There's also the issue mentioned up-thread about the mess mafia. CAF members retire and all of a sudden CSM Jones is now union rep Jones who still meets his buddies in uniform at the Legion Fridays.
Even after years of platitudes, robust mission statements, and floofy talking points about listening we still routinely see leaders do whatever the **** they want because we have a culture of not being accountable.
I was never a fan of unions because I didn't understand them, and they seemed (and still seem) like their own mafia. But I'm also seeing first hand how union reps are stopping managers from getting away with stuff that's clearly against the rules. Our institution will cut down a Lt Col (or General) who doesn't tow the line. There's no protection for troops.
One of the problems with this idea is that the bad leaders would be unionized too so we may run into the same issues that it seems like police do where it appears their shitty toxic officers are protected. Do we need CAF members sitting at home for 5 years on paid administrative leave while their misconduct is dealt with? Probably not.
There's also the issue mentioned up-thread about the mess mafia. CAF members retire and all of a sudden CSM Jones is now union rep Jones who still meets his buddies in uniform at the Legion Fridays.
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,795
- Points
- 1,210
Would it better? Or just another mechanism to protect people from reprocusussions. We have a major accountability issue at all levels, and it erodes trust, cohesion and leads to a unit being less effective. Adding an organization that would protect those members who do wrong would not help. The CAF has all the tools it needs to fix it self, people just are happy with the status quo, even if it's unethical.
- Reaction score
- 6,685
- Points
- 1,140
It wouldn't be a fix to every issue the CAF has, but it might help fix a few.
As @Jarnhamar mentioned, it might provide an avenue for troops to be protected from bad leadership. I also think it would help with one of our retention dissatisfiers, "work-life balance".
You can be double, or triple hatted for weeks/months/years, and get nothing for it but maybe a slightly higher PER. If it started costing money to make Sgt Bloggins acting OPs WO, acting SM, etc., the CAF might be incentivized to fix the problem. Right now it's easier to just pile more work on, until things fail(and the member takes the blame), or the member burns out. In the PS if you're acting in a position, you get the pay for that position. So when my boss was acting in a MT7 position, he was paid as a MT7 despite being a MT6.
lenaitch
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,725
- Points
- 1,160
It would interesting to see the terms of the union agreements that these European militaries have. I have a hard time believing that there isn't some kind national emergency trigger that negates all or most of the typical collective agreement topics (if for no other reason than the overtime bill would be nuts).
The CAF is so broad that finding comparators would be a challenge. Some trades have civilian counterparts, many do not. Would pay be set by trade? Rank? Both? Hours of work could be a double-edged sword. In a collective agreement world, things like 'sports days', minimum staffing stand-downs, etc. might not happen because, 'ya know, the contract'. Once there is a collective agreement in place, everything revolves around; it sits between management and worker regardless of how collegial or acrimonious the relationship is.
The RCMP union doesn't have the ability to negotiate pensions - yet. My Association didn't for years, until a few years ago.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
For 2 years I filled 2 different positions at my Sqn; Crew Lead (part of Aircrew Flt) and AES Op Training O (part of Standards & Training Flt). Benefit to me? As you said, PER scoring. Sometimes I was at work for 0600 so I could “get some work done before work started” and leave at 1900. I had a 1 hour commute each way as well. At the end I was pretty tired and angry; this was an operational squadron, so I was also holding standby on weekends, deploying…not to mention the secondary duties.
I just spent the last month and change doing 2 jobs (1 as Acting)…
For all the CAF members who end up in similar situations, we don’t get any extra compensation and no protection - I know people who took a hit on PDRs/PERs when double hatted for not performing their primary duties “to the best of their abilities”.
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,795
- Points
- 1,210
Having been in the double, triple hat position my self, all it accomplished was burning me out. Maybe I am just a fool for not pulling pin for the constant burn out, but if I do, that's one more hat someone else has to wear.
Half these situations are because we lack trained people right now, that us understandable, and part of my reasoning the whole CAF needs a reconstitution break from OPS, 1.5 years where we pull from all brigade's to man the schools to 110% instructor capacity and get some major through put.
The other half I feel is people who are bad at their job get work taken away and pushed to someone else. The poor performer is then put in a corner to do no harm. This needs to change, poor performers need to dealt with if they cannot carry out their responsibilities.
- Reaction score
- 1,512
- Points
- 1,260
How ugly an emergency services slowdown or strike can be is well illustrated in "The Final Fire". A book by Dennis Smith.
Just shy of 37 years full-time in the same union / same employer, we were fortunate to be never one minute on strike, or lock-out.
There were no part-timers, and most joined young and stayed in for the whole ride.
Not to mention it was / is a union shop aka "closed shop" since 1917. So, we inherited ours.
"Two-hatters or multiple-hatters" aka "Superior Duties or multiple-superior duties" were compensated at alternate rates as per the collective agreement.
Not sure if members of an orgnanization today with a high percentage of part-timers and a relatively high rate of attrition would be very enhusiastic about starting their union from scratch.
The CAF has functioned for so many years without a union. Do members feel the need to start one now?
They would need to win a court case that would probably go all the way to the SCC first. The Mounted Police Association of Ontario case started in 2006, and got an SCC ruling in 2015 that was the culmination of appeals. Obviously the government fought it all the way. From there it was still another 4 years before an association got enough members to request a vote to certify in 2019. 15 years from first court case to first collective agreement.
Needless to say, any troops working to try to achieve these ends, even through completely legal and legitimate process, would likely be shooting their career in the head, and I have every belief that CAF would make their lives hell and aim to drive them out.
Haggis
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,138
- Points
- 1,140
...as opposed to Mess dues to support an archaic, class-based mandatory social club?
Unless it comes with a sizeable pay hike, union deductions will be a source of plenty of complaining.
Mess dues are whole other unrelated complaint issue.
Similar threads
