Should the RCMP be allowed to unionize?


View Poll Results: Should the RCMP be allowed to unionize?
Yes 6 66.67%
No 1 11.11%
Binding arbitration Yes- No union 2 22.22%
Binding arbitration No 0 0%
Leave it to consulting only with RCMP elected Reps 0 0%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 9. You may not vote on this poll

Goober
#1
Should the RCMP be allowed to unionize?
If not, should they be allowed to have binding arbitration settle pay, benefits, grievances etc.

RCMP officers bring union bid to Supreme Court - Politics - CBC News

RCMP members are before the Supreme Court of Canada making a final pitch for their right to form an independent union.

They are appealing an Ontario Court of Appeal decision which found that federal labour laws which exclude RCMP members from collective bargaining do not violate the Charter of Rights.

RCMP regulations provide for elected staff-relations representatives who are to be consulted on staff and pay issues.

The Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada says that's not good enough and has been fighting for the right to collective bargaining.

The association won a victory in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in 2009, but that was overturned on appeal in 2012.

There are about 18,000 uniformed Mounties in the national force.

The association argues that denying them the right to unionize threatens collective bargaining rights generally.

Some major labour bodies, including the Canadian Labour Congress and the Public Service Alliance of Canada, are interveners in the case.

Rae Banwarie, the association's president, said the challenge could prove to be a landmark case, especially if the court sides with the RCMP and the staff relations representatives system.

"It will be the beginning of the end for collective bargaining in Canada, as employers could justifiably impose labour programs and deny employees the right to select independent associations to bargain on their behalf," he said.

"Canadians deserve better. This unchecked power is not acceptable in a just and democratic society."

Lawyers for the Attorney General of Canada argued at the appeal court that the staff representative system more than meets constitutional scrutiny.

They said the reps are elected to provide fair and equitable representation to management and to participate in developing policy and procedures that affect employment.
 
JLM
+1 / -1
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Should the RCMP be allowed to unionize?
If not, should they be allowed to have binding arbitration settle pay, benefits, grievances etc.

RCMP officers bring union bid to Supreme Court - Politics - CBC News

RCMP members are before the Supreme Court of Canada making a final pitch for their right to form an independent union.

They are appealing an Ontario Court of Appeal decision which found that federal labour laws which exclude RCMP members from collective bargaining do not violate the Charter of Rights.

RCMP regulations provide for elected staff-relations representatives who are to be consulted on staff and pay issues.

The Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada says that's not good enough and has been fighting for the right to collective bargaining.

The association won a victory in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in 2009, but that was overturned on appeal in 2012.

There are about 18,000 uniformed Mounties in the national force.

The association argues that denying them the right to unionize threatens collective bargaining rights generally.

Some major labour bodies, including the Canadian Labour Congress and the Public Service Alliance of Canada, are interveners in the case.

Rae Banwarie, the association's president, said the challenge could prove to be a landmark case, especially if the court sides with the RCMP and the staff relations representatives system.

"It will be the beginning of the end for collective bargaining in Canada, as employers could justifiably impose labour programs and deny employees the right to select independent associations to bargain on their behalf," he said.

"Canadians deserve better. This unchecked power is not acceptable in a just and democratic society."

Lawyers for the Attorney General of Canada argued at the appeal court that the staff representative system more than meets constitutional scrutiny.

They said the reps are elected to provide fair and equitable representation to management and to participate in developing policy and procedures that affect employment.

No, I think we are probably paying enough for law enforcement as is without having to fund another layer of parasites.
 
Goober
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

No, I think we are probably paying enough for law enforcement as is without having to fund another layer of parasites.

Is that your only problem with a union?
 
JLM
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Is that your only problem with a union?

For now! -
 
Goober
+1
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

For now! -

Are you aware of how a Para Military Org works- How you can be completely shut down due to networking- and guess what- SFA you can do about it.

Note the harassment against women.
A ton of dirt that has never seen the light of day.
 
lone wolf
#6
RCMP are non-union for the same reason the Military is non-union - to obey without question
 
taxslave
+4
#7  Top Rated Post
NO. I do not believe that any government employees should belong to a union or have the right to strike. They must not be permitted to be able to hold taxpayers ransom because they have a monopoly service. Their pay and perks should be commensurate with similar jobs in the private sector with binding arbitration to settle disagreements. Pay would be based on job position, not on years of service or degrees held.
 
darkbeaver
#8
The RCMP should be disbanded.
 
Goober
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

NO. I do not believe that any government employees should belong to a union or have the right to strike. They must not be permitted to be able to hold taxpayers ransom because they have a monopoly service. Their pay and perks should be commensurate with similar jobs in the private sector with binding arbitration to settle disagreements. Pay would be based on job position, not on years of service or degrees held.

And how should pay, benefits, grievances addressed.

In the 80 we in the Military, upon posting received 1 months pay- Around 98/2000 or so, the Logistics Branch Chief was addressing the Snr. NCO's Warrant at our Edmonton Mess.

I asked a question - was the months pay, (married) 1/2 months pay (single) removed from our pay raise for that year. Reply was yes.
At that time other Govt employees did receive that benefit, the Military was last on the list.
 
relic
+1
#10
What difference does it make, steve will legislate them back to work any way.
 
Cannuck
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

...because they have a monopoly service.

Many of them don't.
 
taxslave
+2
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Many of them don't.

WHat government agency other than schools does not have a monopoly? And even they have to follow government guidelines. SOme like Canada post even have a law prohibiting competition. We can't even get off this island without using a ferry run by government employees that have been known to hold us hostage for their pay demands.
 
Goober
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

WHat government agency other than schools does not have a monopoly? And even they have to follow government guidelines. SOme like Canada post even have a law prohibiting competition. We can't even get off this island without using a ferry run by government employees that have been known to hold us hostage for their pay demands.

Schools have a near monopoly- when they go on strike, the impact is immense.
 
taxslave
+2
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Schools have a near monopoly- when they go on strike, the impact is immense.

My point. That is why government employees must not be permitted to have traditional unions. This is how with their militant unions government employees have gotten so far ahead of private enterprise employees in pay and perks. In the real world we have been lucky to hold even, especially in non union places while government employees have been gaining to the point most taxpayers are making significantly less than public servants.
 
JLM
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

NO. I do not believe that any government employees should belong to a union or have the right to strike. They must not be permitted to be able to hold taxpayers ransom because they have a monopoly service. Their pay and perks should be commensurate with similar jobs in the private sector with binding arbitration to settle disagreements. Pay would be based on job position, not on years of service or degrees held.


I can only judge from what I've seen after nearly 30 years of being Unionized, so I'm only judging by one Union.............far too much dead weight and protection of the drones and parasites. Any raises we did get were more than offset by the loss of pay while on strike. One of their main arguments is "when we get you a two bit raise that raise goes on forever" BULLSH*T, we all die or retire eventually. For this particular thread I just ask is it going to result in less crime at lower costs?

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

The RCMP should be disbanded.

I think you are on the right track, but perhaps a little too severe. Let's not lose the good cops we do have, just identify the bad apples and "deep six" them, and I'm certain that won't happen with a Union.
 
Goober
#16
Again I ask, how are reasonable issues like harassment, abuse of authority, pay rates addressed.
Must have missed the answers????
 
JLM
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Again I ask, how are reasonable issues like harassment, abuse of authority, pay rates addressed.
Must have missed the answers????

How much of this would a Union address or would they only make it worse?

Upon pondering the matter for an hour or so, I do have a couple of questions? We've had numerous instances of serious complaints in recent years about the actions of the R.C.M.P. There was the fatal one at Y.V.R. seven years ago, there was the death of Ian Bush at the police detachment at Houston B.C. and there was the assault of Buddy Tevares at Kelowna about three years ago. How would a Union accelerate the conclusion of these three cases, without causing further annoyance to the public? Don't you think if we are going to add to the payroll at mainly taxpayer expense there has to be an offset in reduced policing costs?
 
bill barilko
+2
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

How much of this would a Union address or would they only make it worse?

Upon pondering the matter for an hour or so, I do have a couple of questions? We've had numerous instances of serious complaints in recent years about the actions of the R.C.M.P. There was the fatal one at Y.V.R. seven years ago, there was the death of Ian Bush at the police detachment at Houston B.C. and there was the assault of Buddy Tevares at Kelowna about three years ago. How would a Union accelerate the conclusion of these three cases, without causing further annoyance to the public? Don't you think if we are going to add to the payroll at mainly taxpayer expense there has to be an offset in reduced policing costs?

Yes I have many of the same questions & no answers-it's such an awful situation with so much obvious dead wood in the organisation already.
 
WLDB
+3
#19
The corruption issues should probably be dealt with before this one. Allowing them to unionize right now would likely only make things worse in the corruption department.
 
JLM
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

The corruption issues should probably be dealt with before this one. Allowing them to unionize right now would likely only make things worse in the corruption department.

A fair assessment methinks!
 
L Gilbert
+2
#21
I'm fine with collective bargaining. I think they should be able to negotiate stuff like pensions, settle grievances, etc. and as long as it neither interferes with their work or with any legal actions against them, I'm ok with it.
 
Zipperfish
+3
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

My point. That is why government employees must not be permitted to have traditional unions. This is how with their militant unions government employees have gotten so far ahead of private enterprise employees in pay and perks. In the real world we have been lucky to hold even, especially in non union places while government employees have been gaining to the point most taxpayers are making significantly less than public servants.

Meh. I make more outside of government than I did inside government. For clerks and stuff, you do better in government. As you move up the pay scale the advantage moves to the private sector. The pension is a big attractor, but eventually, it's not even worth it for that, especially since the work environment isn't great in government--too many managers. BC government has trouble hanging on to engineers. They are paying them like $60-70 Grand, but engineners are making $110K in Alberta for moderate experience.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

RCMP are non-union for the same reason the Military is non-union - to obey without question

How'd that work for the SS?

Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Again I ask, how are reasonable issues like harassment, abuse of authority, pay rates addressed.
Must have missed the answers????

Within the chain of command. Or at least, that's how it should be.

You were in service, Goob. You know that the chain of command can work, especially when Sergeant-Major understands his job. Doesn't always work, but then again, neither do unions.
 
captain morgan
+1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Schools have a near monopoly- when they go on strike, the impact is immense.

The reason that the school system has evolved and developed a private sector opportunity is because the public system was not delivering on results and were abusing their capacity to strike

Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Again I ask, how are reasonable issues like harassment, abuse of authority, pay rates addressed.
Must have missed the answers????

How will a union solve harassment or abuse of authority?

As far as pay rates go - how about the age-old system that if it ain't enough, you (as an employee) leave and go to work across the street?
 
Walter
+1
#25
Let those who want to be in a union be in a union and those who don't want to be don't have to be.

Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

How'd that work for the SS?

Very well.
 
captain morgan
+1
#26
Sorry Walt, doesn't work that way.

If it is a union shop, then you must belong to said union and you must pay them the requisite club fees.

Fun, eh?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Let those who want to be in a union be in a union and those who don't want to be don't have to be.


Very well.

Not at all surprised you admire the SS.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Sorry Walt, doesn't work that way.

If it is a union shop, then you must belong to said union and you must pay them the requisite club fees.

Fun, eh?

Negative, that's a closed shop. A union shop is one where you must be a union member to get hired in the first place.
 
darkbeaver
+1
#28
Every western country admired the SS through their imitation of the same.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Every western country admired the SS through their imitation of the same.

Every Western country? Try "every country." Y'all taken a look at the East lately?

Not exactly a paradise of respect for human rights.

Sorry to interrupt your biases with some reality.
 
captain morgan
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

Negative, that's a closed shop. A union shop is one where you must be a union member to get hired in the first place.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Once the RCs go union, that potential will apply on a practical basis
 

Similar Threads

100
Who should be allowed to vote?
by ansutherland | Jun 28th, 2010
22
Where should pets be allowed?
by CBC News | Sep 9th, 2008
3
Air India allowed to happen?
by Karlin | May 10th, 2007
13
No Homeless Allowed
by kashmyre | Dec 29th, 2006
no new posts