"Unionizing" the CF (merged)

[Infanteer]

I think you should try your chain of command before you do something else.

Your right sir, it should work. I think if we are forced to go around it, it represents a leadership problem and perhaps we as a military should have some reflections on our leadership fundamentals (ie, remember...mission-men-self)

-----

- In this day and age, to not implement a program like SHARP is simply ignorant of the day‘s trends. People are willing to push their limits and put in the extra effort if they feel that they are being respected as persons. I‘m not saying this means no yelling at troops. But that the same charter rights should apply. Intolerance for people based on fundamental differences such as race, religion, colour and gender have no place in Canadian society.

Like I‘ve said before, although good on paper, the policy has been taken too far to where I think it interferes with effiecency. How can one reasonably expect to conduct stressful military activities while being in constant fear of a career killing harrassment charge...anyone with their *** in the ground will know what I am talking about.

To me, its a band aid for poor leadership. Anyways, no good unit ever needs to resort to this policy. A little off topic, but I wanted to rant.
------

Members of the CF don‘t have a guardian against our number one enemy, the federal government. I am not advocating that a duly elected government does not have the right and authority to use the CF as it sees fit. However, who is protecting the soldier from the Federal Government and who is standing up for them when they are asked to do too much?

Who will hold the government responsible for the deaths of soldiers? I certainly don‘t put my trust in the electorate because we keep electing bozos!

Once again, I‘ll peg this on the leadership. Maybe if we had some higher ups not suffering from CRS, it would be a different story.
I wonder, would the situation be different if 20 or 30 general/flag officers handed in their "leafs" as a response to the government ignoring efforts to look out for the troops.

---------

A comment from a soldier of the 40s and 50s. When was the last time any of these unionized armies fought a battle and won. As for Jacques Chirac what does he know about anything.

Coming from probably the most authoritative member of the board, I find this post settles the issue for me. Thank you for weighing in, sir.


How does union help us win the land battle? The military is an old institution that has seemed to work when it is needed. Isn‘t there other issues of more pressing concern that we could address.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Infanteer - do you actually know of anyone whose career has been "killed" due to a false harrassment charge?

 

[Gunnar]

The basic function of a union is to protect dumb guys from being exploited by management. Ideal case is the blue collar job for an average working stiff. He will never do any other job, so his lot in life has to be set up in such a way that more senior people can‘t take advantage of him. This doesn‘t work in the Canadian military.

The Canadian military breeds intelligent soldiers, men who can obey orders, but are trained to ask why. We‘re particularly good at obeying the intent of orders whilst not strictly complying with a given order. That requires thought, or auftfragstatistik. (Tell me if I‘m misusing this term Mike). Unions tend to get in the way of accomplishing anything in a quick manner, bring in the socialist element, and quite often defy common sense. A good example of this is the teaching industry, where they have a powerful union with their mandated breaks and built-in protections, and it allows for such blatant featherbedding (and allows teachers to push their own political agendas instead of TEACHING) that the Canadian educational system is toast. We were once on a par with British education and significantly better than the US educational system, but this is no longer the case. Now we have parents complaining that a literacy test discriminates against those with learning disabilities and language issues...ummm....isn‘t it a test of literacy? If you‘re slow or have other reasons why you can‘t speak, write or read the language...wouldn‘t that imply illiteracy....?

Sure, the Union isn‘t to blame for all of that, but Unions foster an environment where "trying" is seen to be just as good as "accomplishing", where everyone is allowed to accept weakness as an excuse, and self-esteem is much more important than the goals of the organization.

And that‘s going to keep me safe in my warm comfy bed?

Besides, in a way, you already have a Union. Your steward is called Sgt. Major. He‘s supposed to be the head ‘working stiff‘, and the officers are ‘management‘. Any officer who doesn‘t listen to the Sgt. Major is a fool, and will not last with the men, especially in a war situation where accidents happen with live fire all the time...

See, Unions were based largely on Marx‘s idea of class struggle. The military system, with its built in "classes" functions that way by default. This is why the men in our military have accomplished so much with so little, in spite of the butt-snorkelling petty bureaucrats who wear officer uniforms - because the "working class" has to some extent insulated itself from the excess stupidity of the "ruling class", and continues to do things in a tried and true way.

 

[Gunner]

The feeling I get is that the brass only cares for itself and we live by there wim, yes as a soldier our duty is to follow orders, but you would think they would care for our well being.

Chop, I don‘t agree with your comments at all. While there is deadwood at every rank level, for the most part, I have always been impressed by the level of commitment by many senior officers. The level of support (or caring) by senior officers is very good. The idea that you live by "their whim" is ridiculous.

Once again, I‘ll peg this on the leadership. Maybe if we had some higher ups not suffering from CRS, it would be a different story.
I wonder, would the situation be different if 20 or 30 general/flag officers handed in their "leafs" as a response to the government ignoring efforts to look out for the troops.

Infanteer, many general‘s and admirals have handed in their "leafs" in response to Federal decisions. Google search Admiral Landymore and the Admirals Revolt. What about Admiral Anderson our short lived CDS? What about all of the army generals in the 90s that retired to protest government decisions (MGen Vernon, etc). Why can‘t you name one of these good men who could not continue serving? Quite simply the media and people do not care about the military which is how the government continues to underfund us. Look at Cretin a couple of years ago mocking retired generals and their inability to "speak up" until they retired. Infanteer, if you don‘t like the way the CF is running why don‘t you turn in your corporal stripes? /B]

A comment from a soldier of the 40s and 50s. When was the last time any of these unionized armies fought a battle and won. As for Jacques Chirac what does he know about anything.
Coming from probably the most authoritative member of the board, I find this post settles the issue for me. Thank you for weighing in, sir.

Gents, sorry but this is simplistic reasoning in the extreme. Victory in the 40s was based on the success of the Russian armies on the Eastern Front not from the inherent strenght of Canadian Battalions ability to impinge on the rights of its soldiers.

How does union help us win the land battle? The military is an old institution that has seemed to work when it is needed. Isn‘t there other issues of more pressing concern that we could address.

Infanteer, a union could help right the wrongs inflicted upon our organization. It is beyond the capability of anyone in the CF and without external influences it won‘t be fixed. The Canadian army has never been prepared for conflict and if we don‘t get our act together, we never will. Leadership can‘t change a politicians or bureaucrats mind about funding, personnel levels, resourcing, etc, etc.

butt-snorkelling petty bureaucrats who wear officer uniforms - because the "working class" has to some extent insulated itself from the excess stupidity of the "ruling class", and continues to do things in a tried and true way.

Geez, you have to be kidding me comrade! There obviously isn‘t any stupidity in the "working class".

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Gunnar:
The basic function of a union is to protect dumb guys from being exploited by management.

As someone who is both university educated and who has been aided by his union in a recent dispute, I take offence at that. It‘s not even remotely true.

Ideal case is the blue collar job for an average working stiff. He will never do any other job, so his lot in life has to be set up in such a way that more senior people can‘t take advantage of him.

My job is white collar.

The Canadian military breeds intelligent soldiers, men who can obey orders, but are trained to ask why. We‘re particularly good at obeying the intent of orders whilst not strictly complying with a given order. That requires thought, or auftfragstatistik. (Tell me if I‘m misusing this term Mike).

Sounds good to me...

Unions tend to get in the way of accomplishing anything in a quick manner, bring in the socialist element, and quite often defy common sense. A good example of this is the teaching industry, where they have a powerful union with their mandated breaks and built-in protections, and it allows for such blatant featherbedding (and allows teachers to push their own political agendas instead of TEACHING) that the Canadian educational system is toast.

You have a problem with mandated breaks? I work in a hospital with employees of two different unions, and common sense is allowed to apply - no one measures breaks to the second, and there is give and take - it all depends on the manager and the employees, and how happy they are in their work. Many RNs and LPNs volunteer time when needed. It would probably be that way in a unionized Canadian Army, too. I don‘t agree with the comment about teachers getting to push their own personal agenda; doesn‘t match what I have heard from my teacher friends here in Alberta.

See, Unions were based largely on Marx‘s idea of class struggle. The military system, with its built in "classes" functions that way by default. This is why the men in our military have accomplished so much with so little, in spite of the butt-snorkelling petty bureaucrats who wear officer uniforms - because the "working class" has to some extent insulated itself from the excess stupidity of the "ruling class", and continues to do things in a tried and true way.

You‘re way too wrapped up in what you THINK a union is, and not well versed at all in how they operate.

 

[Infanteer]

Infanteer, many general‘s and admirals have handed in their "leafs" in response to Federal decisions. Google search Admiral Landymore and the Admirals Revolt. What about Admiral Anderson our short lived CDS? What about all of the army generals in the 90s that retired to protest government decisions (MGen Vernon, etc). Why can‘t you name one of these good men who could not continue serving? Quite simply the media and people do not care about the military which is how the government continues to underfund us. Look at Cretin a couple of years ago mocking retired generals and their inability to "speak up" until they retired.

When I think of officers who "fell on their sword", think of this this. As for Cretin‘s remarks, I think we can agree that he was a continuation of Trudeau as Military‘s Number One Enemy.

Infanteer, if you don‘t like the way the CF is running why don‘t you turn in your corporal stripes?

Because that would no message across. A Lieutenant General is an important figure, politically and militarily (that is why they get little flags for their cars, I guess), whereas my two hooks denote me as another warm body to fill a trench.

Infanteer, a union could help right the wrongs inflicted upon our organization. It is beyond the capability of anyone in the CF and without external influences it won‘t be fixed. The Canadian army has never been prepared for conflict and if we don‘t get our act together, we never will. Leadership can‘t change a politicians or bureaucrats mind about funding, personnel levels, resourcing, etc, etc.

How would a union fix these problems? The military has many special interest groups looking out for it; David Bercuson bleats or Jack Granatstein bleet to the national media once a month. I just don‘t see how it could possibly succeed where others have (up until now) met with difficulty.

I guess I could say I believe this do to distrust in the idea of unions as they exist today. This comes from my personal experiences of dealing with unions from a managerial standpoint (ie, they cause more headaches then they fix).

Since we are on the subject of problems in the CF, I noticed at Chapters last week that Granatstein has a new book out entitled Who Killed the Canadian Military?: What Canada Must Do to Defend Itself in the 21st Century. It is probably worth reading to get a better insight on this subject.

Infanteer Out.

 

[Gunner]

When I think of officers who "fell on their sword", think of this this.

How come Col Tim Collins didn‘t go out with a loud bang? He certainly had the media stature to do it and it would have been picked up by the tabloids in a further effort to embarrass Blair.

Because that would no message across. A Lieutenant General is an important figure, politically and militarily (that is why they get little flags for their cars, I guess), whereas my two hooks denote me as another warm body to fill a trench.

So you are going to sit in the mess and grip about how *^*&^ the military is and deride general officers for not quitting in a media spectacle? Where‘s your principles man? Unfortunately, a LGen leaving the military doesn‘t really do much to embarrass the government. Look at MGen Cam Ross‘s reaction to the government decision to deploy to Afghanistan.

How would a union fix these problems? The military has many special interest groups looking out for it; David Bercuson bleats or Jack Granatstein bleet to the national media once a month. I just don‘t see how it could possibly succeed where others have (up until now) met with difficulty. I guess I could say I believe this do to distrust in the idea of unions as they exist today. This comes from my personal experiences of dealing with unions from a managerial standpoint (ie, they cause more headaches then they fix).

I‘m not a fan of unions either but the CF is faced with a situation where no one looks out for it and political considerations take precedence over military requirements (ie, the LSVW).

We do have some influential friends of the military but more people can name Sven Robinson and Shiela Copps then Bercuson and Granastein.

Cheers,

 

[Infanteer]

We do have some influential friends of the military but more people can name Sven Robinson and Shiela Copps then Bercuson and Granastein.

Ouch...sad but true.

I think from this parlee I figure that our problems are not military or political, rather they are social (ie, not many Canadians give a flying **** about their military).

Anyone have any ideas on how to address this issue?

 

[cdonnelly]

Being a union guy I must add that unions do provide a degree of job security in some environments, facilitate wage increases and cost of living allowances during the bargaining process. As for unionizing the CF...I think we need to be re-born hard first(speaking in the reserve world of course).By the way nice site.

 

[Infanteer]

Being a union guy I must add that unions do provide a degree of job security in some environments

I agree with you to some extent. I got buddies who are independant tradesmen, and the union protects them from groups that would undercut a journeymen‘s (deserved) wage.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

This is all nice but we have strayed from the original question. However I‘m afraid I can‘t be of much help because I waffle back and forth. I‘m thinking maybe something more of an association with strict guidelines on what can and cannot be included under the umbrella. I do work in a union job and yes sometimes you do need protection from overzealous polititions. Even though I liked Mike Harris and most of the idea‘s the Tories had,{which included closing my workplace] the way they were implemented was terrible because they would‘nt listen to anything the rank and file had to say. :flame: However the flip side of me hates the way that no matter what some of the people do here they don‘t ever seem to have to pay the piper as in the union‘s eyes they can do no wrong. CHEERS

 

[Infanteer]

This is all nice but we have strayed from the original question.

One thing I have learned is that you can‘t fight internet thread evolution. Just go with the flow

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

TOUCHE!!!

 

[S McKee]

The crux of the article is women in combat...I think that this has been done to death..however in the sceond part of the article I found it interesting that 30% of NCMs are in support of a professional association or union. The RCMP has an association for its members however it doesn't really have any power. 


Women still not accepted in combat, reports find
Last Updated Tue, 08 Mar 2005 09:32:01 EST
CBC News
MONTREAL - Women are still not accepted in combat roles by many of their male colleagues in Canada's ground forces, according to internal army reports.

The two studies, obtained by the CBC's French-language network Radio-Canada, looked at the attitudes of rank-and-file soldiers on such issues as gays and lesbians, ethnic minorities and commanding officers.

They found that soldiers in Quebec least welcomed women in combat positions.

Michel Drapeau, a retired Armed Forces colonel and military commentator, said the army has to try harder to integrate women in combat units.

"At the moment, there is a wide difference between what is being said and what is being done, and the polls tells us that soldiers, the dialogue they are having, is not quite the one that their leaders are [having]."

But an army recruiter said it will take time for women to fit into what have been traditional male positions.

Lieut. Nancy Baril, an Armed Forces recruiter at CFB Valcartier in Quebec, said attitudes are changing as more women go into jobs traditionally held by men.

"They know if they come in the military, even if it's a guy or a girl, they're going to do the same job, they're going to get paid the same."

About 17 per cent of the army's personnel are women. The army hopes to have that up to 28 per cent in two decades.

Many troops, especially in Quebec, also are unenthused about having gays and lesbians in the army, the studies suggest.

Some in lower ranks want union

The reports also suggest the lower ranks have lost confidence in officers.

As well, researchers found that 30 per cent of the lower ranks would support the creation of a professional order or union.

Drapeau said the finding indicates that the army has a serious problem.

"It shows a breakdown in esprit de corps, in leadership, two absolute essential qualities of the modern armed forces."

 

[GerryCan]

As well, researchers found that 30 per cent of the lower ranks would support the creation of a professional order or union.

Drapeau said the finding indicates that the army has a serious problem.

"It shows a breakdown in esprit de corps, in leadership, two absolute essential qualities of the modern armed forces."

I'm very interested to know exactly what kind of union this 30% is supposedly supporting. My only experience with a union was 3 years under C.A.W. also referred to as 'Cry and Whine'

During those few years I noticed that a union is good for 2 things:

1. Getting lazy people out of work they don't want to do through a series of loopholes;

2. Creating a permanent barrier between higher authorities  and common labourers in the work place.

So if its Esprit de Corps we're losing out on, I'm not sure that a union would be the best means of regenerating such a thing.
Also with leadership along the same lines, a Union Rep isn't going to help in any way shape or form for a fall out in leadership. Only leadership can rectify that problem.

Can you imagine a Snr NCO telling a Pte to do something and hearing "I'd like to speak with my union rep."

Again, I'd like to see what type of union would be implemented, as there are quite a few armies out there that are unionized. I'm also interested to know how effective these unionized armies are now with it in place.

 

[S McKee]

My only experience with a military union in action was with the Dutch. During the height of the war in Bosnia we actually had Dutch soldiers refuse to go on missions that they thought were too dangerous, these were soldiers attached to a Canadian unit, and depite our protests there wasn't a thing we could do about it.

 

[winchable]

I was once told by my boss at my office, when I jokingly said "Wait until we get unionized then you'll see lazy."
He responded by saying "If management does such a piss poor job that you actually feel the need to unionize then I'll know I've done something really wrong." I'd like to point out that I call my boss Joe, he wears a ball cap to work and his office is the same size as mine, we're at a level of management employee interaction where he rarely ever needs to pull out the "boss" card.

In the developed world where we have minimum wages, courts, human rights watches etc. I can only see a union wedging in between management and labour and really just exacerbating the fading (yet still present) notions of upper and lower classes, which unions are somehow a result of I believe.

In an organisation such as the military where thousands of peoples (millions even) lives depend on the professional and close interaction between "management" and "labour" (define those as you wish, on a small level or the big picture) I could only see a union as a negative force...do we really want to breed any (More) contempt between lower and upper ranks? Our NCOs and Officers?

Back to my orginal point, sorry, if there is a strong sentiment that a union is neccessary perhaps the "management" might wish to consider why someone would feel that way rather then how to avoid it, or even accomodate it.
I lost myself there a bit, there shouldn't need to be a union.

That story about the Dutch is just absurd too, it just shows that a union cannot function in a military, maybe because there is a degree of danger to every job and there has to be some kind of "override" button when it comes to what one individual is afraid of.

Bit altruistic? Was that a bit much? I'm just throwing thoughts out at this point

 

[NiTz]

I don't want to start a flamewar here, but I saw this reportage on tv last night and actually they said that the canadians in the west least welcomed women, gay and lesbians in the ranks, and that Quebec has the most open-minded soldiers... Maybe I misunderstood or something but i'll check this info again, as it makes more common sense to me that what Jumper said was right, as we, in Quebec, are a bunch of always-whining and union-wanting people. Don't misunderstand me here, not ALL quebecers are like that, but there's lots of them.  Anyways, feel free to correct me!

By the way, IMHO it would be stupid to unionize the army. I'm part of a union actually in my civi job and it SUCKS. Really! If they unionize the army, they'll encourage lazyness, overpaying, and imagine the poor officers having to deal with soldiers complaining : "it's too dangerous for me, I refuse to do it!" or "hey, I won't finish my work, it's 4:00pm!" . We'll lose all about what the army is all about and besides, work conditions are similar and even better in many cases than in unionized places. Rare are the places where someone with a 3rd grade in secondary school gets paid 30000$ a year the first year with all dental and medical plus the month of vacations. Look at what union does : in my region, everybody working in plants are about to lose their job as the directors of the plants now move outside of Canada because they're tired to pay stupid asses 34$ an hour for sitting on their ass and break material and don't do anything except whining and complaining because "it's too dangerous to work". In a union, they're always abuse and that's what's killing the whole thing. They're even closing the Wal-Mart in my city because of this stupid union. We lose 200 jobs AGAIN.. Really, people should stop thinking that unions are always good, in fact, they're not. Just my 2 cents



Cheers!

 

[GGboy]

Am I the only one who finds the idea of a "target" of 28% women in the army in two decades a little silly? If the gals can do the job, and I've met many fine female soldiers in the CF Reg Force and Reserves, then fine, but setting a quota like that will only cause problems IMHO. It will invariably mean watering down the requirements, which will be a slap in the face to the women who did manage to meet the cbt arms standards.
Also, doesn't CBC have any other "military experts" on call besides the unfortunately ubiquitous Col. (ret'd) Drapeau? Yeah, I know: rhetorical question ...  :-\

 

[putz]

Before this gets too off topic I believe that this is covered in another thread:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27970.from1110302627/topicseen.html#new

Am I the only one who finds the idea of a "target" of 28% women in the army in two decades a little silly? If the gals can do the job, and I've met many fine female soldiers in the CF Reg Force and Reserves, then fine, but setting a quota like that will only cause problems IMHO. It will invariably mean watering down the requirements, which will be a slap in the face to the women who did manage to meet the cbt arms standards.
Also, doesn't CBC have any other "military experts" on call besides the unfortunately ubiquitous Col. (ret'd) Drapeau? Yeah, I know: rhetorical question ... :-\

Also its Vice Versa:

I don't want to start a flamewar here, but I saw this reportage on tv last night and actually they said that the canadians in the west least welcomed women, gay and lesbians in the ranks, and that Quebec has the most open-minded soldiers...