RCMP First Contract

[mariomike]

I understand this will help the RCMP in many ways and I disagreed with a massive pay gap between them and municipalities. However I would rather have seen it solved the other way with the other forces being made comparable to them. To me the Police in country are paid well beyond what they should be for the work that is done (safer to be a cop today than it ever has been in history). I would rather the police be paid a bit less with more cops on the streets as my preferred outcome.

You really do want our police in a race to the bottom!

 

[Good2Golf]

So that (no longer available) CFIB 2015 report seems to have dealt with wage-earners only, not salaried employees, but alas, back in the day, it took all of 24-hours for a breakdown of the faultyness of the CFIB report:

5 charts show math doesn’t add up in new public sector wage attack by CFIB

Is the Canadian Federation of Independent Business playing the blame game with unions when it should be checking its math?



The small business lobby group’s new report — which claims private sector workers earn considerably less than their public sector counterparts — is mathematically flawed, according to Toby Sanger, an economist with the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

The CFIB study also blames the public sector for sacrificing “cost considerations” for “labour peace” with unions.

Here are five reasons why the CFIB’s new Wage Watch study simply doesn’t add up:

1. FUZZY MATH​

According to the CFIB, “disparities between private sector and public administration wages are persistently high. This shows that not enough attention has been paid by public employers to ensure appropriate balance and comparability.”

The CFIB report says federal public servants make 13% more than similar occupations in the private sector. But a 2014 report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, analysing the same 2011 National Household Survey data, found an overall public-sector wage advantage of 2.3%.

This is what Canada’s average annual pay looks like, according to a CUPE analysis:

What accounts for the disparity in the two reports?

According to Sanger, the CFIB’s report used faulty math:

“They use medians instead of mean averages in order to amplify the difference in public and private sector wages (because public sector wages are more equitable). But you can’t multipy medians or differences in medians to come up with an aggregate.”

More at title link above.

 

[RedFive]

Private sector workers earn less, work more: report

The average public sector employee makes 18 to 37 per cent more than a comparable employee working in the private sector, according to a new report from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

www.ctvnews.ca

Obviously it isn't equal with some jobs underpaid, but in many cases a lot are overpaid too. Best comment I saw in a while to explain this is Private sector is driven by profits which results in as much cutting as possible. The Public sector isn't and the wages are only really constrained by how much the taxpayer is willing to put up with not by any sort of defined metric.

Comparable ways to measure military pay is to look at equivalent militaries. A basic Captain in Canada makes almost 84k a year. A Army officer in the UK makes 74122.12$ after conversion. A Australian Captain makes 65238.85$ after conversion. A New Zealand officer makes 67472.84$ after conversion. These are all fairly comparable militaries and countries and we are well beyond them in pay. You could also likely do the same thing with police around the world and also likely find we are paying much more than most.

I understand this will help the RCMP in many ways and I disagreed with a massive pay gap between them and municipalities. However I would rather have seen it solved the other way with the other forces being made comparable to them. To me the Police in country are paid well beyond what they should be for the work that is done (safer to be a cop today than it ever has been in history). I would rather the police be paid a bit less with more cops on the streets as my preferred outcome.

Of course, you have to have the papers to justify your own position, many of the jobs which would be easiest to cut in any organization also tend to be the ones who protect themselves the most.

While I appreciate your position, if disagree with it, I will point out that the RCMP struggled to hire anybody to do the job at its current and soon to be past pay grade. Those they did hire either did so with the express intent of leaving for a different force when experience had been gained, were hired with lowered standards because there was nobody else, or joined for personal reasons such as family connections to the force or a desire to transfer an existing pension. I am not saying all members hired since 2016 are poor quality hires as I'm included in that number, but the number of poor quality recruits has climbed immensely. Personal opinion only, I doubt very strongly you could convince the types of people you want to be Police officers to do the job if every Police force in the country paid that, or less as you want.

Another personal opinion here, so take it for what its worth. The RCMP has been the "yes men" Walmart bargain price Police force of choice for too long. It is in the force's best interest to divest itself of most if not all contract Policing, starting with the largest Detachments (mainly in the Lower Mainland of BC) and to focus on its Federal mandate, which as has been documented in the media, the force is barely or not even a little bit capable of dealing with.

That way, when massive shootings in rural areas of Provinces notorious for underfunding their Police forces happen, the only people to accept blame are the politicians and senior management that didn't fund the local Police to suitable levels to protect the population.

 

[Weinie]

Your right that it is a first world complaint to want fiscal responsibility and good management, many of the kleptocracies of the world wouldn't tolerate that concept, hell our current PM is doing his best to emulate some of them. It is a large part of what separates us from them.

Congrats on paying taxes, there is a difference between the public sector paying taxes and the private sector paying taxes. One is simply returning some of the wealth they paid out, the other is actually bringing in new funds and is required to keep our whole society functioning. When our public sector is on average overpaid by 16-32% on what the private sector makes for the same job, and any sort of questioning as to why we are paying them that much is met with a immediate dismissal of the questioning it sounds a bit like 'let them eat cake'.

That sir, is bullshit. Regardless of how and whom from taxes are collected, they go into a common fund that contributes to the common good, democratically determined.

So under your interpretation, gov''t employees only return the wealth that they didn't earn, while you in the private sector are valiantly keeping the economy afloat, against the dastardly government.? Sighhhhhhh

 

[Remius]

. (I like beer and we drive two cars)

I hope both are not enjoyed at the same time

 

[brihard]

While I appreciate your position, if disagree with it, I will point out that the RCMP struggled to hire anybody to do the job at its current and soon to be past pay grade. Those they did hire either did so with the express intent of leaving for a different force when experience had been gained, were hired with lowered standards because there was nobody else, or joined for personal reasons such as family connections to the force or a desire to transfer an existing pension. I am not saying all members hired since 2016 are poor quality hires as I'm included in that number, but the number of poor quality recruits has climbed immensely. Personal opinion only, I doubt very strongly you could convince the types of people you want to be Police officers to do the job if every Police force in the country paid that, or less as you want.

Another personal opinion here, so take it for what its worth. The RCMP has been the "yes men" Walmart bargain price Police force of choice for too long. It is in the force's best interest to divest itself of most if not all contract Policing, starting with the largest Detachments (mainly in the Lower Mainland of BC) and to focus on its Federal mandate, which as has been documented in the media, the force is barely or not even a little bit capable of dealing with.

That way, when massive shootings in rural areas of Provinces notorious for underfunding their Police forces happen, the only people to accept blame are the politicians and senior management that didn't fund the local Police to suitable levels to protect the population.

Yes to much of this, but disagreed about shifting to full federal. Members working in federal might spend months and months on a narrow part of one big file where the consequences of failure are high. They will get a low volume of opportunities to get good at things when the stakes are low. The advantage of starting out on contract policing is the chance to make a lot of little mistakes, get told a lot of lies, get ripped apart on the stand, and learn key things like evidence collection and continuity, writing judicial authorizations, etc when the files themselves are small. A member on the road doing several files a shift will come out of their first few years having learned a ton, taken a lot of statements, gotten a feel for when other people are full of shit, gotten comfortable in court, will probably have written a few search warrants and production orders if they're inclined to... Someone going to Serious and Organized Crime or to National Security right out of Depot will have a very steep learning curve on the basic cop stuff. There is considerable value to those early years on the road before moving into bigger, longer, slower investigations that have potential to really touch on the national interest.

That said, someone can do years of contract and still suck at criminal investigations, or go right to federal, stay humble and start swinging at the ball til they connect. If the RCMP were to intent to go solely federal, it would be best to capture some lessons learned from equivalent organizations in our allies. And that said, a pivot to full federal would take a decade or two anyway...

 

[lenaitch]

Yes to much of this, but disagreed about shifting to full federal. Members working in federal might spend months and months on a narrow part of one big file where the consequences of failure are high. They will get a low volume of opportunities to get good at things when the stakes are low. The advantage of starting out on contract policing is the chance to make a lot of little mistakes, get told a lot of lies, get ripped apart on the stand, and learn key things like evidence collection and continuity, writing judicial authorizations, etc when the files themselves are small. A member on the road doing several files a shift will come out of their first few years having learned a ton, taken a lot of statements, gotten a feel for when other people are full of shit, gotten comfortable in court, will probably have written a few search warrants and production orders if they're inclined to... Someone going to Serious and Organized Crime or to National Security right out of Depot will have a very steep learning curve on the basic cop stuff. There is considerable value to those early years on the road before moving into bigger, longer, slower investigations that have potential to really touch on the national interest.

That said, someone can do years of contract and still suck at criminal investigations, or go right to federal, stay humble and start swinging at the ball til they connect. If the RCMP were to intent to go solely federal, it would be best to capture some lessons learned from equivalent organizations in our allies. And that said, a pivot to full federal would take a decade or two anyway...

I have worked with RCMP members who went directly from Depot to federal policing (O Div) and their lack of "basic cop stuff" skills was glaring.

Actually, there are very few federal statutes that specifically empower the RCMP. If the government wanted to, they could provide funding to the provinces, who are responsible for the administration of justice, to chase multi-jurisdictional crime, leaving the RCMP a specialized shell of its former self. I certainly don't see contract policing being received well in the Maritimes, not without an permanent infusion of cash, probably more than the feds fund now.

 

[dapaterson]

Am I the only person who, every time this thread is up, immediately thinks it's about "Star Trek: First Contact"?

 

[brihard]

Am I the only person who, every time this thread is up, immediately thinks it's about "Star Trek: First Contact"?

Probably not (eyeballs Dimsum). But a borg fight at Zefram Cochrane’s camp would be a pretty unremarkable rural Alberta file.

I have worked with RCMP members who went directly from Depot to federal policing (O Div) and their lack of "basic cop stuff" skills was glaring.

Actually, there are very few federal statutes that specifically empower the RCMP. If the government wanted to, they could provide funding to the provinces, who are responsible for the administration of justice, to chase multi-jurisdictional crime, leaving the RCMP a specialized shell of its former self. I certainly don't see contract policing being received well in the Maritimes, not without an permanent infusion of cash, probably more than the feds fund now.

Anything National Security is RCMP by statute. I couldn’t see the provinces willingly taking on stuff like border enforcement, or organized crime specifically of an international or national scope. Diplomatic security under the Vienna Convention is RCMP for sure, along with federally protected VIPs. Corruption of foreign public officials, some domestic corruption, war crimes/crimes against humanity would stay federal for sure as well. Most of the RCMP’s criminal intelligence infrastructure only makes sense as a federal purview... I really think the vast majority of the current federal policing mandate isn’t stuff the provinces would want.

Agreed WRT the Mari times and contract policing. Even with the pay raise, the feds subsidize policing 10-30% depending on program portfolio and community size, plus all the infrastructure. That’s a big hit for provinces or municipalities to absorb. But I could see the RCMP in the long term starting to back away from contract policing starting with the largest- so basically the BC lower mainland. A lot will hinge on whether Surrey pulls off the establishment of their own police service. Their first few dozen are sworn in, but none of that is boots on the street, and the municipal election is a bit over a year out...

 

[Haggis]

Am I the only person who, every time this thread is up, immediately thinks it's about "Star Trek: First Contact"?

Now I do. And it's your fault.

 

[Haggis]

Probably not (eyeballs Dimsum). But a borg fight at Zefram Cochrane’s camp would be a pretty unremarkable rural Alberta file.



Anything National Security is RCMP by statute. I couldn’t see the provinces willingly taking on stuff like border enforcement, or organized crime specifically of an international or national scope. Diplomatic security under the Vienna Convention is RCMP for sure, along with federally protected VIPs. Corruption of foreign public officials, some domestic corruption, war crimes/crimes against humanity would stay federal for sure as well. Most of the RCMP’s criminal intelligence infrastructure only makes sense as a federal purview... I really think the vast majority of the current federal policing mandate isn’t stuff the provinces would want.

Agreed WRT the Mari times and contract policing. Even with the pay raise, the feds subsidize policing 10-30% depending on program portfolio and community size, plus all the infrastructure. That’s a big hit for provinces or municipalities to absorb. But I could see the RCMP in the long term starting to back away from contract policing starting with the largest- so basically the BC lower mainland. A lot will hinge on whether Surrey pulls off the establishment of their own police service. Their first few dozen are sworn in, but none of that is boots on the street, and the municipal election is a bit over a year out...

One federal responsibility the RCMP could easily divest itself of is border enforcement. But that would require several legislative changes to allow the CBSA to manage the entire border. CBSA's union has been asking for that for years.

 

[brihard]

One federal responsibility the RCMP could easily divest itself of is border enforcement. But that would require several legislative changes to allow the CBSA to manage the entire border. CBSA's union has been asking for that for years.

My understanding is CBSA’s upper management are mostly from a customs and excise background and see the role of the organization as more about revenue than law enforcement? My buddies who are FBs have had little good to say about management and have been largely unimpressed with the union, too...

 

[Haggis]

My understanding is CBSA’s upper management are mostly from a customs and excise background and see the role of the organization as more about revenue than law enforcement? My buddies who are FBs have had little good to say about management and have been largely unimpressed with the union, too...

This has been my experience as well. However, I also see, at least publicly, that upper management has come to accept that CBSA has been and is now a law enforcement agency. Even the CBSA's Facebook page identifes it as a "Government Organization - Law Enforcement Agency". That's significant as we both know how image conscious the federal government is.

I've had little direct dealings with our union. They ask for lots of stuff, especially during negotiations. Some are throwaway demands IOT to get something else. I'm still very disappointed in how they handled the CAF service time for seniority issue.

 

[lenaitch]

Probably not (eyeballs Dimsum). But a borg fight at Zefram Cochrane’s camp would be a pretty unremarkable rural Alberta file.



Anything National Security is RCMP by statute. I couldn’t see the provinces willingly taking on stuff like border enforcement, or organized crime specifically of an international or national scope. Diplomatic security under the Vienna Convention is RCMP for sure, along with federally protected VIPs. Corruption of foreign public officials, some domestic corruption, war crimes/crimes against humanity would stay federal for sure as well. Most of the RCMP’s criminal intelligence infrastructure only makes sense as a federal purview... I really think the vast majority of the current federal policing mandate isn’t stuff the provinces would want.

Agreed WRT the Mari times and contract policing. Even with the pay raise, the feds subsidize policing 10-30% depending on program portfolio and community size, plus all the infrastructure. That’s a big hit for provinces or municipalities to absorb. But I could see the RCMP in the long term starting to back away from contract policing starting with the largest- so basically the BC lower mainland. A lot will hinge on whether Surrey pulls off the establishment of their own police service. Their first few dozen are sworn in, but none of that is boots on the street, and the municipal election is a bit over a year out...

I wasn't thinking so much of 'willingness' but feasibility should some future government decide to go in that direction; with a bag-o-cash of course, as it is the Canadian way. National security matters for sure but I was overseas twice in the course of criminal investigations and did a couple of domestic corruption (municipal politicians - always a hoot).

As you say, the uniformed member is the feedstock for major criminal investigations, no different than a municipal or provincial department.

 

[RedFive]

Perhaps an all federal stance would be too far the other way, but maybe a population limit on places we will Police? Or police the territories only and leave the various provinces to pick up their own tabs for Policing?

My personal favourite option would be to stop selling ourselves short and say to anybody that wants to hire us to Police their jurisdiction, based on these metrics (whatever the may be, Crime Severity Index, population, whatever) your detachment requires X number of members, which will cost Y amount of dollars. If you don't like that, or can't afford that its ok, but you'll have to find somebody else to Police for you.

I suspect that would solve an awful lot of the staffing, kit and equipment issues we face right now. (Yes I still drive a Ford Crown Victoria, last produced in 2012 and all of which by the RCMP's own policies should have been retired based on age AND mileage, but they soldier on for lack of replacement. And don't even get me started on the jam o' matic Smith and Wesson 5946's that we've run out of parts for that are only two years younger than I am...)

WRT CBSA and FSOC Border Integrity, my patrol zone currently includes two of the busiest CBSA crossings in Canada as well as two of the most notorious smuggling/loophole locations between BC and Washington State. FSOC Border Integrity is vastly more capable of taking care of it, however up until COVID happened they were an investigative only unit and anybody actually illegally crossing the border would be chased by us already horrifically overworked and almost certainly out of position General Duty Cst's. Lots of people got away.

CBSA also calls us for anything that isn't customs or excise related, including Criminal offences they have the authority and requirement to investigate but lack the knowledge and support of the management to do so like people intercepted with Warrants, impaired drivers, etc. Lots of excellent members there, held back by lousy policy and incompetent leadership.

 

[mariomike]

I'm still very disappointed in how they handled the CAF service time for seniority issue.

That is CAF to CBSA ( I believe that is what you are referring to? ).

I understand employers have Pension Transfer Agreements.

But, I have never heard of any union that would ever place a new member higher on their seniority list than a member already on it.

Your Seniority Date is the date you join the union. Not the CAF.

Any seniority accumulated with another union - even if the CAF had one - stays with that union. You don't get to transfer it to your new union.

Even Police to Police lateral transfers do not transfer seniority,

Q: I have presently accumulated 10 years of service with my current agency. Is this seniority transferrable?

A: Lateral Entry applicants are considered new hires. There is no consideration given to previous service with other police agencies.

Careers- Toronto Police Service

www.torontopolice.on.ca

Same policy regarding seniority would apply to lateral transfers in the emergency services.

Do CAF members expect to join a union, and be placed higher on the seniority list than members already on it, because of their time in the CAF?

If so, they are going to be "very disappointed."

You start at the bottom of the seniority list, like everyone else who joined before you did, and work your way up.

 

[Haggis]

Do CAF members expect to join a union, and be placed higher on the seniority list than members already on it, because of their time in the CAF?

If so, they are going to be "very disappointed."

You start at the bottom of the seniority list, like everyone else who joined before you did, and work your way up.

There ae two parts to my disappointment.

First, in 2012, the GoC/TB allowed CAF members who joined the PS to use their CAF time towards vacation credits (all Reg F, Class B/C >180 days). At that time, and until today, time worked anywhere in the federal public service counts towards seniority for vacation and line bidding at CBSA. This did not apply to CAF members who joined the union. In short, the applicant who spent 5 years as a call centre agent for Service Canada would have their time count, but the 25 year CAF member applicant would not.

Second, rather than simply make a decision to include CAF service in the union's definition of "public service", the union held a vote whereby the membership would decide. The proposal and the vote were very poorly communicated and only a small percentage of FB cast ballots.

Predictably, the proposal was defeated.

 

[mariomike]

There ae two parts to my disappointment.

First, in 2012, the GoC/TB allowed CAF members who joined the PS to use their CAF time towards vacation credits (all Reg F, Class B/C >180 days). At that time, and until today, time worked anywhere in the federal public service counts towards seniority for vacation and line bidding at CBSA. This did not apply to CAF members who joined the union. In short, the applicant who spent 5 years as a call centre agent for Service Canada would have their time count, but the 25 year CAF member applicant would not.

Second, rather than simply make a decision to include CAF service in the union's definition of "public service", the union held a vote whereby the membership would decide. The proposal and the vote were very poorly communicated and only a small percentage of FB cast ballots.

Predictably, the proposal was defeated.

If you don't mind me asking, is CBSA a Separate Bargaining Unit ( SBU )? Separate from the call centre workers etc in the main union?

We had our own SBU. We bargained separately from "the others". Thank God.

As a federal law enforcement agency, CBSA should not be forced to sit beside call centre workers at the same negotiating table.

SBU is the way to go for a professional agency or department, in my opinion.

RCMP never were in a union, so were able to start their own, which is better than a SBU.

But, for those of us unable to break away from the parent union ( believe me, we tried ), SBU is a good compromise. Probably for the best as we didn't have a lot of members.

As an SBU, we were subject to interest arbitration and therefore could not strike or be locked out in the event of an impasse at negotiations.

The others could strike, or get locked out. But, not us.

I assume the same is true for CBSA?

I am sure it must be - no strike or lockout - for RCMP.

 

[Haggis]

Border Services Officers, the FB group, are represented by the Customs and immigration Union (CIU), which is a part of PSAC.

I think you missed my point. Members of another public service union who join CBSA and become members of the CIU can transfer their prior union time/seniority for the purposes of vacation and line bidding, but CAF vets who join cannot. That is the bone of contention that CAF vets have with the CIU.

 

[mariomike]

Border Services Officers, the FB group, are represented by the Customs and immigration Union (CIU), which is a part of PSAC.

I think you missed my point. Members of another public service union who join CBSA and become members of the CIU can transfer their prior union time/seniority for the purposes of vacation and line bidding, but CAF vets who join cannot. That is the bone of contention that CAF vets have with the CIU.

I think I understood your point. I did not address it because it probably would not be what you would like to hear.

I think I may also understand the point of CIU, as you explain it.

Members of another public service union

prior union/seniority

I'm not an expert. But, my uneducated guess of the situation you describe is that because CAF members are not members of a union, they have no prior union seniority to transfer to CIU.

Yes, I can appreciate that would not be popular with CAF members applying for public service jobs, and perhaps my understanding of the CIU position is wrong.

Good luck with CIU.

Does the RCMP union have the same policy regarding seniority rights of former CAF members as the CIU? Or, are they more open-minded.