"Unionizing" the CF (merged)

[Roger]

This would probebly be a hot topic. But what do you all think if we unionize the Army?

There are other Armies that are.

 

[Enzo]

Which militaries are unionized and to what end?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I believe Norways military are unionized though I could be wrong. All I know is back in 82 in Norway, a lone RCR driving a BD202? had to lug all the toboggans up one of the mountains for the company I was doing the OP for. Apparently the Norwegian drivers invoked a health and safty clause and sat around watching the RCR driver for about 3 hours. CHEERS

 

[Infanteer]

No.

Mission before the Men...to put something as archaeic as a organized crime...I mean labour, in between it would pose a serious jeopardy to what capabilities we have left.

By the way, I worked with with Dutch infantrymen overseas who were **** good troops. When we started ribbing them about their union, they said it was mainly a thing for rear ech wogs, none of them took it seriously.

 

[stukirkpatrick]

If they unionized the army, who would break us up if we striked?

The Mounties?

 

[Michael OLeary]

What advantage could unionizing possibly bring to the table for the average serviceman?

Also, this is not a new concept:

While the Bundeswehr is perhaps the clearest example of a democratic military force, numerous other countries also possess features of a more humane and libertarian service, which are instructive of the possibilities here. The Swedes pioneered the ombudsman system of protecting citizens from bureaucratic abuse, and for many years they have maintained a special military ombudsman to aid servicemen. In the Netherlands soldiers have won the right to form their own unions; the Canadian armed forces are also expected to be unionized within a few years. Canada further enjoys, along with Great Britain, New Zealand, and Australia, a system of civilian appeals boards that employ wide review powers over the decisions of military courts and thus protect servicemen from abuses of command authority. - David Cortright, Soldiers in Revolt; The American Military Today, 1975

And we‘ve come a long way since 1975, even without a union.

Mike

 

[Michael OLeary]

And here‘s an another view of the effects of unionizing armies:

According to a February 13 Wall Street Journal report, no nation in Europe has a military that can be depended upon in time of war. "Europe‘s military muscle has grown soft," it states. Its troops are poorly equipped and poorly trained. Europe‘s technology is old and obsolete, and there is no money to upgrade it because its troops are too highly paid and enjoy lavish benefits. Indeed, many are unionized and routinely go on strike for such things as increased vacations. Like most workers in Europe, soldiers cannot be fired for incompetence and essentially have jobs for life.

Quoted in:
The Old Europe‘s Paper Armies
by Bruce Bartlett (March 29, 2003)
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2586

 

[Redeye]

Isn‘t unionizing the army specifically forbidden by the NDA?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael OLeary:
[qb] And we‘ve come a long way since 1975, even without a union.

Mike [/qb]

May we assume that as an officer you are speaking from a manager‘s viewpoint?

No offence, but perhaps the privates and corporals are the best judge of that. This corporal thinks there is probably no advantage to it, but we have all seen or heard of troops royally screwed by superiors that should not have done so. I would put those down to failures in the chain of command, though, rather than a need to unionize. And I‘ve not experienced that directly myself in close to 10 years.

 

[gate_guard]

Originally posted by Bruce Monkhouse:
[qb] All I know is back in 82 in Norway, a lone RCR driving a BD202? had to lug all the toboggans up one of the mountains for the company I was doing the OP for. Apparently the Norwegian drivers invoked a health and safty clause and sat around watching the RCR driver for about 3 hours. [/qb]

The CF unionized? Too late. Who needs to unionize when we have Mr Safety Bear and NDHQ coming up with training and operations inhibiting policies?

 

[Roger]

[/QUOTE]And we‘ve come a long way since 1975, even without a union.

Mike [/QB][/QUOTE]

I do not think we have come a long way at all, there we are half the strenght and just as many if not more missions. And as far as equipment, yes there was old equipment but it was available, now we have far fewer vehicles and are expected to do thesame job, less helicopters that are not even military versions.

 

[Roger]

QUOTENo offence, but perhaps the privates and corporals are the best judge of that. This corporal thinks there is probably no advantage to it, but we have all seen or heard of troops royally screwed by superiors that should not have done so. I would put those down to failures in the chain of command, though, rather than a need to unionize. And I‘ve not experienced that directly myself in close to 10 years. [/QB][/QUOTE]

I agree with you and that was my main point, how does a private or corporal right a injustice in Canada, it did happen to me and was just told to suck it up. I do not want to suck it up any more.

 

[Pikache]

If there‘s a problem, do a Redress of Grievance of call the Ombudsman.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Chop, keep in mind that a trade union is concerned with regulations affecting personnel workplace conditions and contracts, it does not dictate equipment levels or operational planning by the employer organization. My comment dealt solely within the purview of the roles of trade unions.

RHF, yes, those are some of the options available to the CF member, similar to those functions that a trade union to provide or coordinates for its own members.

Within the past decade (or so) we have seen the institution of the Ombudsman‘s office, the streamlining of the grievance process (which eliminated much of the chain of command from the process), the institution of the NIS (again separating investigative resources from the chain of command) and our harassment programs (another resource that is responsive to the member‘s needs without being influenced by the chain of command).

Mike D. - shall I assume that as an experienced officer my [managerial?] viewpoint is unwelcome? Despite the fervour of the assault on my comments, no-one has yet put forth a credible argument that a trade union would materially strengthen the CF. If only they can be expected to put forth such an opinion, are there any Privates or Corporals on the forum who can compare, from personal experience, today‘s soldier‘s existense to that of the 70s or 80s, and tell us which he/she prefers?

Mike

 

[Art Johnson]

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.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Mike D. - shall I assume that as an experienced officer my [managerial?] viewpoint is unwelcome?

I would hate to think you honestly interpreted my comments that way. If one were to make a decision on this matter, however, I would hope that the input of NCMs would be considered in addition to that of officers. You haven‘t suggested that it wouldn‘t be.

Despite the fervour of the assault on my comments, no-one has yet put forth a credible argument that a trade union would materially strengthen the CF.

I think the majority here agree with you; those that disagree (I am not one of them) have no credible arguments to make.

If only they can be expected to put forth such an opinion, are there any Privates or Corporals on the forum who can compare, from personal experience, today‘s soldier‘s existense to that of the 70s or 80s, and tell us which he/she prefers?

It would appear that there aren‘t! Let‘s hope someone comes forward.

I think the Ombudsman and more importantly, the Chain of Command, is well established and when functioning properly can oversee many problems.

I think where a Union might be of advantage is in cases like exposure to depleted uranium, PCBs (as was the case in Yugo, no?), or a Matt Stopford type case. It is well and good to complain to an Ombudsman about sexual harrassment, but if you have to complain about exposure to PCBs, it is probably too late to have done any good, whereas a Unionized soldier would be able to say "Hey, wait a minute, mission or no mission, this is dangerous." It is quite possible the Union - if it worked properly - would come back and say "well, operational requirements outweigh your individual concerns about biohazardous material, and we feel the risk is not overly high."

Unions aren‘t often known to err on the side of management (or in this case, THE MISSION) however.

 

[portcullisguy]

My personal opinion is that a unionized army would be more effective and in greater need in a country where military service was mandatory. If they MAKE you serve, then you should have some say in the conditions under which you serve.

We have a volunteer army, and our conditions are not horrible.

Even without a union, we have a responsible environmental plan, a stringent safety policy that is reinforced from the highest levels right on down, and a response to an identified need for increased respect and sensitivity in the workplace (SHARP). Not to mention an accessible dental and health plan, even for Reservists, a pension and reserve gratuity, and comprehensive private financial, social and personal advice program (SISIP).

I can hear the groans already, but before anyone starts slagging these programs as time-wasters, think about the long term implications of them - and similar initiatives - for a moment.

- If we utterly destroyed the environment in our training areas, they would over time become unsuitable for use, which denies their use by future generation soldiers.

- Although many CF trades have built-in safety risks (we are, afterall, soldiers, and can be ordered into battle), if our everyday work is so hazardous and unsafe that we cannot accomplish simple peacetime tasks, we are at risk of not having an effective workforce to employ in a time of need. Since we rely on volunteers, if peopel perceive the army as "unsafe" in their routine practices, fewer people will want to join up.

- 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.

We have all this today, and we don‘t even have a union. Many non-unionized workplaces do not have even these basic and simple programs in place.

If you keep your employees relatively happy, they won‘t WANT or NEED a union.

On a side note, I am neither pro- nor anti-union. I have worked with both fuse settings. Pro-union shops can be very much like "DELAY", as opposed to "SUPER QUICK". My current union seems to think the sun shines out of their arse, and I am always quick to point out their shortcomings. I appreciate the efforts they have made, but in my current situation, my union does not speak for my trade, and so many safety issues are left off the board.

As a customs officer, charged with defending the border (in a civil sense) and detecting contraband, the utter lack of safety and enforcement equipment and training is shocking. It is like being an infantry soldier but only given a water pistol and a week‘s training to fight with.

 

[Gunner]

One of my arguments for supporting a union would be protection of military personnel from their employer (the federal government). I am not talking in terms of harassment, etc, etc.

Successive Canadian governments have allowed and fostered the steady decline of the CF. To wit:

a. the ongoing rust out of equipment with no end in sight;
b. a reduction of personnel in 1990s which caused a large demographic portion of CF members to stagnate fostering a general sense of alienation within the CF;
c. The same reduction in personnel also effected our recruiting system and we now suffer from a "greying" of our military (for example, the average artillery Capt was 35 in 2000).

Government negligence has also been coupled with increasing demands on the military. From 1991-2004 saw an unprecedented level of military deployments and operations around the globe. This has effected our ability to train (collectively and individually) and has led to a gradual erosion in our cohesiveness as an army. The main effect of this neglience has been on our people (particularly officers, WOs and Sr NCOs.

Regimentally employed personnel are caught in a preparing to deploy, deploy, post deployment cycle that has effected the social contract between Canada and its soldiers. People join to the CF for a career. However, who is sticking up for the soldier that has done 4 or 5 tours, taskings away from home every year, attended career courses when not deployed or tasked, and try to fit in a personal life around their "career". How much is your personal life suppose to suffer to be a soldier?

The question becomes, how much is a soldier expected to sacrifice simply because he is a soldier. Certainly he may be called upon to make the "ultimate sacrifice" should the time and place require it, however, this does not mean he has to sacrifice his own quality of life until that time does it?

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!

Sorry for the length of the post but unions were designed to protect the workers from the abuses of the employers. I can not say I have ever felt that the CF has done a very good job of protecting itself from the Federal Government. If they had, would we be in the position we are in today?

edited to get rid some of the most blatant spelling mistakes...

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Gunner:
[qb]Sorry for the length of the post [/qb]

Don‘t be absurd; I for one am greatly impressed by portcullis‘ and your posts; very thought provoking and an excellent discussion of a matter that might easily have been dismissed or turned into a non-productive thread.

Over to Michael?

 

[Roger]

Originally posted by Gunner:
[qb]
Sorry for the length of the post [/qb]

Well you feel the same way I do, I did not write it in words, but reading your post it is exactly how I feel.

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.