RCMP First Contract

[Haggis]

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.





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.

It's pretty hard to hurt my feelings.

I understand the CIU's point of view and it is, in general terms, what you articulated above. Our hope was that since vacation credits were now transferable, so would time.

Here's hoping that one of our "Queen's Cowboys" will be along shortly to answer your last question.

 

[brihard]

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

"Seniority" is a word or concept that, thus far, has not been applied in RCMP collective bargaining. Mounties have a modest pay allowance for staying with the force (roughly an extra 1.5% per five years of service), but there is no formalization of seniority for job postings, promotions, etc with the extremely narrow exception of if two promotional candidates are exactly equal, the tie breaker is seniority. But that's pre-union. There's nothing where a rule or policy gives better shifts or postings or any other consideration to Mounties on the grounds of seniority. It just isn't a thing.

Existing RCMP policy, which will not change with this contract, offers some credit of years served for vacation time, based on exactly what a CAF member can carry in for pension transfer. Former military police qualified to a sufficient level may have their service credited for purposes of 'time in' requirements to promote from Constable to Corporal.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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...

My buddy is a Surrey RCMP, the pay difference was about the only thing that the new SPD had over the RCMP, that is now gone. The RCMP have a real hard time getting enough members to work Surrey, the burnout is high. He had 6 years on the street there, which made him one of the more senior constables, but he is done on it, took a job in the schools and now moving into a more specialised unit. Big problem is that the recruits have a lot of academic education and are totally unprepared for the realities of the street. So a lot leave after a year there. If a significant portion of the RCMP are not willing to transfer over, the JIBC which trains non-RCMP police here says they cannot meet the demand for the number of new recruits needed.

 

[RedFive]

My buddy is a Surrey RCMP, the pay difference was about the only thing that the new SPD had over the RCMP, that is now gone. The RCMP have a real hard time getting enough members to work Surrey, the burnout is high. He had 6 years on the street there, which made him one of the more senior constables, but he is done on it, took a job in the schools and now moving into a more specialised unit. Big problem is that the recruits have a lot of academic education and are totally unprepared for the realities of the street. So a lot leave after a year there. If a significant portion of the RCMP are not willing to transfer over, the JIBC which trains non-RCMP police here says they cannot meet the demand for the number of new recruits needed.

I'm also in Surrey, and can confirm all of that.

Add the lack of transfers in of experienced members because nobody wants to slam the brakes on their career while the City sorts their lives out, very few recruits arriving from Depot, the exceptionally high workload compared to other Detachments and a tone deaf senior management that can most charitably be described as "out of touch with the troops" and its a morale pit. Many members have fled for neighbouring municipal departments for an instantaneous 15-20k a year raise, quality equipment, and much better treatment by the senior ranks.

Most people I talk to just want the Detachment to close so we can get on with our careers, but nobody knows what that will look like because staffing won't make a decision until the City starts filling their own positions. We've been in limbo like this for more than two years and we're running out of people, patience, and mental resilience to deal with it all and continue doing our jobs.

 

[mariomike]

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

Here's hoping that one of our "Queen's Cowboys" will be along shortly to answer your last question.

"Seniority" is a word or concept that, thus far, has not been applied in RCMP collective bargaining.

Thank-you for the explanation.

I wondered if seniority would be a factor in things like "Senior Qualified" vs "Relative Ability Process".

When you work, where you work, your partner were permanent with us. Lifetime, if you wanted. Not subject to change.

Vacation was a seniority bid.

The RCMP sounds more flexible.

Existing RCMP policy, which will not change with this contract, offers some credit of years served for vacation time, based on exactly what a CAF member can carry in for pension transfer.

Sounds like the RCMP is pretty relaxed about seniority. Nice for releasing CAF members who might be concerned about it.

Mounties have a modest pay allowance for staying with the force (roughly an extra 1.5% per five years of service).

"Retention Pay" started in Toronto. Too many people in police and emergency services wanted to transfer to quieter municipalities. OMERS was the pension plan for all three services all over Ontario.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I'm also in Surrey, and can confirm all of that.

Add the lack of transfers in of experienced members because nobody wants to slam the brakes on their career while the City sorts their lives out, very few recruits arriving from Depot, the exceptionally high workload compared to other Detachments and a tone deaf senior management that can most charitably be described as "out of touch with the troops" and its a morale pit. Many members have fled for neighbouring municipal departments for an instantaneous 15-20k a year raise, quality equipment, and much better treatment by the senior ranks.

Most people I talk to just want the Detachment to close so we can get on with our careers, but nobody knows what that will look like because staffing won't make a decision until the City starts filling their own positions. We've been in limbo like this for more than two years and we're running out of people, patience, and mental resilience to deal with it all and continue doing our jobs.

Thing is that if you stay with the RCMP, you have the option to work many other places, if you go SPD, that is where you be for the rest of your career. Some people will like that, others won't.

 

[Haggis]

"Retention Pay" started in Toronto. Too many people in police and emergency services wanted to transfer to quieter municipalities.

I work in a specialized field in my agency. We have significant retention challenges. The prospect of retention pay has been brought up several times and discarded by both management and the union. We are a very small, highly motivated and passionate community (<175) with a "can-do" approach to things which keeps management satisifed with the status quo. Our small numbers don't hold the union's interest for very long.

 

[Eaglelord17]

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

I simply want good value for my tax dollars, and a constant justification of rates and pays is part of that.

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

The public sector exists to provide services. It doesn't generate wealth though. Basically any money they take back in taxes is not wealth generated for Canada as drawing a salary in the first place is giving money in return for a service. It is just reducing the cost of the service.

If no one external (i.e. private sector) was providing income into the government it would be out of money pretty fast. Government only economies always fail comrade. If there was no government or public service, I would have more money as I wouldn't be paying taxes, but I would also have to pay for all the things we take for granted myself, likely at a higher cost in either sweat or cash.

As to the 'common good' that is debatable. Lots of things get justified under the common good which really isn't. Many of the worst acts in history have been done for the 'good' of someone else. Democratically determined also isn't always good, it is only as good as your average voter.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I work in a specialized field in my agency. We have significant retention challenges. The prospect of retention pay has been brought up several times and discarded by both management and the union. We are a very small, highly motivated and passionate community (<175) with a "can-do" approach to things which keeps management satisifed with the status quo. Our small numbers don't hold the union's interest for very long.

PSAC kept throwing away the CCG seagoing personal and our needs. We were just useful bargaining chips. It was actually the DFO Minister that did more for us CCG Rescue Specialists than the union.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I simply want good value for my tax dollars, and a constant justification of rates and pays is part of that.

The public sector exists to provide services. It doesn't generate wealth though. Basically any money they take back in taxes is not wealth generated for Canada as drawing a salary in the first place is giving money in return for a service. It is just reducing the cost of the service.

If no one external (i.e. private sector) was providing income into the government it would be out of money pretty fast. Government only economies always fail comrade. If there was no government or public service, I would have more money as I wouldn't be paying taxes, but I would also have to pay for all the things we take for granted myself, likely at a higher cost in either sweat or cash.

As to the 'common good' that is debatable. Lots of things get justified under the common good which really isn't. Many of the worst acts in history have been done for the 'good' of someone else. Democratically determined also isn't always good, it is only as good as your average voter.

The shipping companies didn't want to pay for the TC Inspectors, so they made a deal with the Classification Societies to do ship inspections, they quickly realized that the TC inspectors were cheaper and more available. As an Inspector/regulator, a good portion of my job was to ensure companies cleaned up their crap after they had finished and didn't screw over everyone else to save themselves a few bucks. A lot of companies were great and I could count on them to do a good job and need minimal supervision. Other companies were either well meaning sh*tshows or total assholes to everyone. It was always the total assholes who were the first t complain to the media or the Minister, when told to clean up their act.

 

[Weinie]

I hope bo

I simply want good value for my tax dollars, and a constant justification of rates and pays is part of that.

The public sector exists to provide services. It doesn't generate wealth though. Basically any money they take back in taxes is not wealth generated for Canada as drawing a salary in the first place is giving money in return for a service. It is just reducing the cost of the service.

If no one external (i.e. private sector) was providing income into the government it would be out of money pretty fast. Government only economies always fail comrade. If there was no government or public service, I would have more money as I wouldn't be paying taxes, but I would also have to pay for all the things we take for granted myself, likely at a higher cost in either sweat or cash.

As to the 'common good' that is debatable. Lots of things get justified under the common good which really isn't. Many of the worst acts in history have been done for the 'good' of someone else. Democratically determined also isn't always good, it is only as good as your average voter.

The public service, at multiple levels, generates outcomes (based on a democratic approach that most within Canada agree to/have come to expect) like roads, education, health care, water, power, and sewer. If you don't like that approach, you have several options available to you. I also want good value for MY tax dollars. You can bitch all you want, but you still likely have it pretty good. Flailing at gov't jobs and their compensation is futile. In the early 90's, I made half of what a GM worker in Oshawa earned. I didn't attack/criticize GM, it was reality.

 

[Remius]

My wife makes a lot less than what she would be making in the private sector. She gets a market allowance but it’s still less. However benefits and pension is a big factor. She’s also incredibly talented at what she does. We want and need people like that.

I feel like I make a fair salary as a supervisor and project manager but have no frame of reference. I am likely under classified given what I do but I’m not complaining.

 

[Good2Golf]

Hopefully it will be another few months before the next round of angry Karens wanting to speak to the manager about why the ungrateful people they pay the salaries of, should be doing far more than they are.

 

[lenaitch]

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.

That's what - on a very basic level - happens in Ontario. The government says municipalities are responsible of policing. They can either have their own department, contract another municipal department or contract with the OPP. Which ever way they go, the government determines whether a proposal meets the mandated 'adequacy and effectiveness' regulations. The OPP costing formula is rather complex but basically boils down to a 'provincial rate' plus a 'local rate' based on historic calls for service.

I don't know all of the details but Quebec went a more prescriptive route; dictating which municipality had (or could not) have PDs and, even within, what the scope of major criminal investigations they could handle.

One problem with pension portability was the lifetime cost evaluations. The OPP's pension and OMERS (municipal) have different calculations that took several years to sort out so the 'retiring end' pension plan didn't inherit cost liabilities that weren't contributed to during the member's time in the previous plan. One big cost factor was post-retirement benefits which are vastly different between the two. Anyway, it was eventually sorted out and legislation changed. I recall they were working through pension portability with the feds when I retired and don't know where it stands. I forget how the seniority thing worked out. Like the RCMP, seniority isn't a huge deal, much beyond the arm-wrestling for summer annual leave slots.

 

[CBH99]

I'm also in Surrey, and can confirm all of that.

Add the lack of transfers in of experienced members because nobody wants to slam the brakes on their career while the City sorts their lives out, very few recruits arriving from Depot, the exceptionally high workload compared to other Detachments and a tone deaf senior management that can most charitably be described as "out of touch with the troops" and its a morale pit. Many members have fled for neighbouring municipal departments for an instantaneous 15-20k a year raise, quality equipment, and much better treatment by the senior ranks.

Most people I talk to just want the Detachment to close so we can get on with our careers, but nobody knows what that will look like because staffing won't make a decision until the City starts filling their own positions. We've been in limbo like this for more than two years and we're running out of people, patience, and mental resilience to deal with it all and continue doing our jobs.

Is Seb still RSM of E Div, or did he retire recently?

I'd have gone there in an instant if I had known he was hanging around those parts. Love the guy

 

[brihard]

Is Seb still RSM of E Div, or did he retire recently?

I'd have gone there in an instant if I had known he was hanging around those parts. Love the guy

Seb popped smoke. I think he’s doing leadership consulting now, and of course still folding people in shapes they didn’t think they could fold into.

Sucks. That man was a leader, and fantastic support for the guys on the road.

 

[RedFive]

Seb popped smoke. I think he’s doing leadership consulting now, and of course still folding people in shapes they didn’t think they could fold into.

Sucks. That man was a leader, and fantastic support for the guys on the road.

Never met the man in person, but his reputation is legendary.

Surrey Detachment had it's own Staff Sergeant Major who is a similar level of leader. I don't know the actual circumstances of his departure as he remained tight lipped and professional throughout, but the Constable's underground rumour mill suggested heavily he went to bat for "the road" too hard during Covid and was made to go away by the current head shed in the Detachment. Richmond Detachment snapped him up very quickly indeed.

That same head shed has the gall to show up at night shift briefings and say things like "it's news to me" when they're told how low morale is, or alternately ask us why morale is so low when they're responsible for the lions share of it.

 

[Haggis]

.... still folding people in shapes they didn’t think they could fold into.

I work with a number of very skilled folks who are masters of "involuntary yoga".

 

[mariomike]

I simply want good value for my tax dollars, and a constant justification of rates and pays is part of that.

I think every taxpayer wants good value for their emergency services.

Always a lively topic of discussion,

Civilians complaining about Police/Emergency Services' Pay

It seems that any time the yearly salary of a police officer is brought up, most people seem to complain that "police are grossly overpaid for what they do". I have a serious bone to pick with this issue. It's so evident that the general public is simply unaware of just how risky and demanding...

www.milnet.ca

10 pages.

 

[mariomike]

I simply want good value for my tax dollars, and a constant justification of rates and pays is part of that.

Eaglelord17, thinking a bit more about what you said. Specifically about what was called "giving the taxpayers a bang for their buck".

Productivity was calculated as Unit Hour Utilization. That's the formula used by "High Performance" urban systems.
( UHU = the number of runs divided by the total number of unit hours in the measurement interval ).

Metro Police may use their own formula to measure productivity. Or, they may use the same.

It would be interesting to compare productivity stats over the years to what they are now.

With Metro Police, I think their big change came with the introduction of the two-man car ( as it was called back then ) in 1976.

To maintain the same car count meant a significant increase in hiring.

Metro fought the arbitration all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, and lost. They still dug their heels. It took a work to rule to get it finally initiated.

"It took me 10 years to get two men in a car in Metro. We had guys beaten up, stabbed and murdered when they were one in a car."
Sid Brown, President Metro Toronto Police Association
Toronto Star, December 20, 1976

Background:
In 1972, Metro Police was made an essential service. They gave up their right to strike in exchange for compulsory binding interest arbitration.
In 1974, the arbitrator ruled in favor of the Metro Toronto Police Association on the two-man car issue.
Understandably, the higher ups were concerned that two-man cars would "drain" the car count.
This led to the 1976 slowdown by the union. Metro accepted the arbitration ruling.

Two-officer cars have been pretty common in American cities for decades. Remember Adam-12 ( LAPD ) and Car 54 ( NYPD )?

From the U.S. Department of Justice,

Not sure if two-officer cars are common in the rest of Canada?

"IN CITIES WHERE ONE-MAN PATROL PREDOMINATES, THERE IS PERSISTENT PRESSURE FROM POLICE UNIONS AND FROM THE RANK AND FILE TO MOVE TOWARD TWO-MAN CARS. IN MANY CITIES WHERE TWO-MAN CARS PREDOMINATE, THERE IS PRESSURE FROM POLICE ADMINISTRATORS CONCERNED ABOUT PATROL COVERAGE AND FROM CITY OFFICIALS CONCERNED ABOUT TAX RATES TO USE ONE-MAN CARS WHEREVER POSSIBLE."