The RCMP are a para military organization not the local cops. In the management setups we used to study in the military the condition was called Multi Functional responsibility.

There's going to be bad apples in a few bushels
from the orchard.

The RCMP on the detachment level are a fine group
of law enforcement officers.

I'd rather have the RCMP around than some of the gun happy cops in the U.S., or even some security guards who get overzealous in their jobs.

I think the answer to the Mounties problems lie in two things. Unionization and full civilian review.

I believe Bud Campbell is correct on both points. Retired mounties belong to the same group military, Judges, and federal government employees belong. at conference of our association the mounties who attend talk about the lack of a union. Senior RCMP fight to keep them from forming one.They get close to organizng but no cigar yet.

"I think the answer to the Mounties problems lie in two things. Unionization and full civilian review."

Spoken like a true 'working British Columbian' Budd.

Unions are the answer for everything, right?

Wrong. The shop floor type of unions are good for some trades and occupations, but not others, and besides the police already belong to something that could be considered to be a union. Just as the firefighters do.

Jim Reed: "the police already belong to something that could be considered to be a union. Just as the firefighters do."

Although the police and fire battle some of the same internal problems - the firefighters call themselves an association - but have the same legal bargaining rights as steelworkers in Trail BC. They are unionized under the law.

I think notion of RCMP unionization is worth talking about - but they 'the constables themselves' should be making that decision.

Lets start by simply amending federal law and give them the same opportunity as most federal employees - they currently cannot form a union under federal law.

Let's not hand them a 'cookie cutter' union where they don't have to organize themselves - develop natural leadership - and bargain if successful.

As for jurisdiciton and 'provincialization' I can't see law enforcement becoming like the US. I am fine with provincial police forces with strong civilian oversight - and a national RCMP to link the provincial forces together - manage cross jurisdictional issues etc.

I have faith that our law enforcement branches can get along better than their US counterparts - while avoiding jurisdictional clashes...imagine the city police, county police, state police and FBI showing up at the same scene...

With provincial forces they handle all law enforcement within the province and utilize the RCMP for cross jurisdictional issues and assistance in large scale federal crime.

I'm no expert...but any solution that could reward the many great police officers and punish the few bad ones I am for!

I love reading these missives from those wise ones who just know a union wouldn't be any good for specific groups of people.

Gee, when I was a little boy I learned that individuals have the right to join collectively with their fellow workers and decide if they want to be repesented by a union.

I'm afraid I wasn't taught about the great wise ones like Jim Reed who know better. In fact, about the only thing I ever learned about outside involvement such as Reed's comments was that they are often made to cause chaos rather than bring solutions to the table.

I'd bet most of the RCMP are old enough to decide without outside influence if they need representation.

BTW, most firefighters in Canada are represented by the International Association of Fire Fighters, as much a union as any organization is in Canada.

As for the police having "something that could be considered a union," what would that be Jim?

Municipal police forces have unions, such as the Vancouver Police Union. I don't always agree with the positions they take on public policy issues, such as their opposition to the safe injection site.

Still, unionization will allow members to assert their interests within a legal framework, somthing Liberals like Jim Reed should understand but pretend not to, since it's not to their party's advantage.

The ones who don't think unions are much good and the cops shouldn't have one, must know that a number of cities in BC have unionized coppers. We had no union in the military but found to our surprise that a number of european militaries are most definitly unionized. In any exercise we did with those guys, we saw no less effort by them and their standards were every bit as rigourous as ours. If the Mounties were unionized and some senior folks tampered with the pension plan somebody would be on them rather quick. The senior mountie left( got shipped out) because he of all people gave conflicting evidence at a MP Committee. wonder how his speaking under oath in his caree had similar slipups? His performance was after a bunch of cash was spent to prepare him for his moments of fame, or whatever it is you call of people who lie about things. Hope it didn't come from some mounties widows pension.

"Municipal police forces have unions, such as the Vancouver Police Union. I don't always agree with the positions they take on public policy issues, such as their opposition to the safe injection site."

The safe injection site is not a good idea, it's
like giving out free booze to alcholics. The best idea is to get the addicts off that junk for good.
I'm with the politice on that one.

"Still, unionization will allow members to assert their interests within a legal framework, somthing Liberals like Jim Reed should understand but pretend not to, since it's not to their party's advantage."

Why would there be a need to 'assert their interests' as in a strike? That would put the public in a dangerous position.

There are contract agreements drawn up without
the power of strike, Budd. The Operating Engineers for example have rarely if ever gone on
strike.

The police should never have the right to strike
as it puts the public in a dangerous situation.

Besides the police function differently than the usual shop guys. The employer is the city.

Unions have their place, but not every place is
best for a union to exist.

Besides having a union would not prevent the
vacuuming off of pension funds done by the Higher
Ups.

We've seen some union president take their own members' money not long ago.

I'm also not a Liberal Budd. I belong to the NDP.

my question budd cambell is ,,, how do you feel about the two members of the b.c. ferries marine local hiding behind there union in refusing to tell all, re-[who was pitching and who was catching, or was it the old bob job] in the sinking and loss of two lives.
glenn

As you well know, Glenn, these people are not following some mysterious order from their bargaining unit. On the contrary, they are complying with legal advice given to them by their own, individual lawyers.

In any other context people exercising their right not to talk to a plainly adversarial process would see their choice respected. BC Ferries, which conducted this non-report and non-investigation, is a potential respondent in civil litigation and therefore has an interest in diverting blame. The political reason why there two people do not have there rights respected is because these workers are unionized, and to do so would violate the BC Liberals' anti-labour policies.

Didn't take long for the conversation to shift over to BC Ferries. I. surprised the fast cats ferries wern't talked about. The folks who were on the bridge of the qaueen of the North gave testimony to the Canada Safety Board inspectors. They were avised not to give statements to the company by the layers so as not to incriminate themselves. Ever see the legal commercials. have a car accident , call us first.

"BC Ferries, which conducted this non-report and non-investigation, is a potential respondent in civil litigation and therefore has an interest in diverting blame. "

Budd. You're forgetting several things here.

You're also confusing

There was no mechanical defect with the ferry.

It appears that the two people on the bridge at the time are excercising their right to be silent at an internal hearing.

It was intriguing that one didn't know where the
autopilot switch off was. It was to that person's
right just below on the front panel. Within easy reach.

They did however talk at the Transportation Safety Board hearing since testimony at TSB
cannot be used in court.

It's rather odd that they haven't spoken out to clear their names.

As for the "non-report", it is a detailed account of what happened.

Match BC Ferries' report with the TSB report due out later this year, and you'll have your answer.

The two could still be subject to heavy litigation if they are found to be the cause by
the TSB report.

Remember Budd, this isn't a labour related issue,
but rather to find the cause of an accident.

You're confusing a non-existant labour dispute with one in finding the cause of a tragid accident.

Clearly they are hiding behind the union's lawyers.

Just because a person is unionised, does not
dilute their responsibilities to be accountable for their actions.

As you well know, Black Raven, your entire post consists of 180 degree distortions. You're the one trying to make this a labour relations issue.

These individuals were advised by their own lawyers not to give testimony to the company's staff. They did give testimony to the Transportation Safety Board and the RCMP. I don't know if you're right in saying that testimony to the TSB cannot be used in court, but statements they gave to the RCMP surely can.

The reason their lawyers would have advised them not to give statements to the company's non-investigation is quite obvious. The company has a interest here, they are not a neutral investigative body. If there are lawsuits from passengers, their families or insurers, one obvious potential respondent is BC Ferries Corp. They have an interest in shifting the blame from themselves as a corporation to some private individuals if they can.

The refusal of these people to talk to the company's so-called "Divisional Inquiry" (what the origin of that term is I have no idea) stems from their individual interests and rights and has nothing to do with the BC Ferry Workers Union. Your attempts to portray this as a union inspired refusal is, as you know, nothing but pure, raw BC Liberal party politics.

President Hahn, I believe, has staked his entire career at BC Ferries on de-unionizing the operation. Whether it's sending ferry construction work overseas to screw George MacPherson's members out of millions in wages (and give them instead to workers who belong to European unions), or building the totally unnecessary new terminal building at Tsawwassen and turning all the stalls over to small businesses paying the minimum wage, instead of having refreshments served by unionized BC Ferries staff, everything Hahn does is motivated by a need to get unions, at least Canadian or BC unions, out of the picture and off of the property to whatever degree he can manage. That's why the BC Liberals love him so much, ... he's turning their favourite convention drinking song into government policy!

"If there are lawsuits from passengers, their families or insurers, one obvious potential respondent is BC Ferries Corp. They have an interest in shifting the blame from themselves as a corporation to some private individuals if they can."

Budd, as per usual, you're going off topic, but
if the two are found to be negligent, yes they too can be sued by the victim's survivors.

If it's found that all operations prior to the 14 minutes that isn't accounted for was not the fault of BC Ferries, then BC Ferries will not be subject to litigation if it's found that the operations were sound and the equipment was indeed in working order (that will be determined by the Transportation Safety Board).

"The refusal of these people to talk to the company's so-called "Divisional Inquiry" (what the origin of that term is I have no idea) stems from their individual interests and rights and has nothing to do with the BC Ferry Workers Union. Your attempts to portray this as a union inspired refusal is, as you know, nothing but pure, raw BC Liberal party politics."

Never said it was a union issue nor with the BCFMWU. But the two are hiding behind both their
own lawyers and the lawyers represeting the ferry worker's union.

"President Hahn, I believe, has staked his entire career at BC Ferries on de-unionizing the operation."

That simply isn't going to happen, and I'm sure the public wouldn't want to see that. You're halluncinating again.

"Whether it's sending ferry construction work overseas to screw George MacPherson's members out of millions in wages (and give them instead to workers who belong to European unions),"

The facilities for building large steel hulled ferries was found not be be cost effective here.

You can blame your NDP for that one since if they were smart in the early 1990's they would have kept on going from where BC Social Credit left off in building large steel hulled ferries, but didn't do so.

George is dreaming in technicolour if he thinks
the facilities to built large ferries at a cost
effective means is available here on The Coast.

" or building the totally unnecessary new terminal building at Tsawwassen and turning all the stalls over to small businesses paying the minimum wage, instead of having refreshments served by unionized BC Ferries staff, everything Hahn does is motivated by a need to get unions, at least Canadian or BC unions, out of the picture and off of the property to whatever degree he can manage."

Someone is dreaming in technicolour. The facilties are modelled after YVR which have proven to be quite successful, but NDPers don't like success too much. Why is there an explicit need to have Ferry Workers manage the Tsawwassen Quay? The Ferry Workers should be operating the ferries, not the cash register at a public market place. The terminal isn't 100% the domain of Ferry Workers, except in ferry operations.

"That's why the BC Liberals love him so much, ... he's turning their favourite convention drinking song into government policy!"

Budd, you're really going off the deep end here.

Go to the fridge, Budd.

There's a chocolate rabbit waiting in there to have his ears bitten off.

Meanwhile, let's get back on top in regards to the Queen's Cowboys and the skimming off the top
by evil doers.

Black Raven:

Budd, as per usual, you're going off topic, but
if the two are found to be negligent, yes they too can be sued by the victim's survivors.

I am glad to see that you agree that BC Ferries Corp has a concrete, financial interest in shifting the blame to these two individuals, or to anyone else who might be conveniently available for the purpose. Their fake inquiry had no other purpose than to accomplish this objective.

Never said it was a union issue nor with the BCFMWU. But the two are hiding behind both their
own lawyers and the lawyers represeting the ferry worker's union.

Let's view this in light of your earlier statement:

Clearly they are hiding behind the union's lawyers.

Just because a person is unionised, does not
dilute their responsibilities to be accountable for their actions.

How are these people "hiding behind" lawyers? How are the lawyers for the union involved? In any other context, when if ever is a person's refusal to testify considered a case of hiding behind lawyers?

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that you keep claiming that the fact that these people are unionized is relevant in this context, when in fact, the collective agreement has nothing to do with their personal right to remain silent in terms of the employer's far from independent non-investigation.

BTW, Black Raven, you should know that the official rumour is that there was sex happening on the bridge, and that's what the bit about the music in the background is supposed to prove. I heard this sleazy rumour in January, and at the time it was stated that "everyone knows this, but the union is covering for these people".

"I am glad to see that you agree that BC Ferries Corp has a concrete, financial interest in shifting the blame to these two individuals, or to anyone else who might be conveniently available for the purpose. Their fake inquiry had no other purpose than to accomplish this objective."

Well Budd, if the equipment was allegedly in working order and there was no mechanical other defect? what exactly did happen?

Someone obviously wasn't paying attention.

How are these people "hiding behind" lawyers? How are the lawyers for the union involved? In any other context, when if ever is a person's refusal to testify considered a case of hiding behind lawyers?

The union lawyers would be involved with any
union member in a serious situation like this.

Just if there was a problem with Company "A" against Company "B", Company A's lawyers would ask the employees of Company A not to say anything. It's usual procedure.

The two have the choice to provide statements, but for some reason are obviously being silent.

The reason is obvious. They should be defending themselves and are not. What does that tell you?

It's not a slight against the union, just what happens in a working environment.

"BTW, Black Raven, you should know that the official rumour is that there was sex happening on the bridge, and that's what the bit about the music in the background is supposed to prove. I heard this sleazy rumour in January, and at the time it was stated that "everyone knows this, but the union is covering for these people"."

That silly rumour has been discounted by both the BCFMWU and BC Ferries.

Budd, you're making this into an excessive support
for unionised workers and the BCFMWU.

Let's wait to see what the TSB report has to say.

I'll bet it will match the BC Ferries report about 98%, and the outcome won't be all that suprising.

In the context of the incident whether the members on the bridge were unionised or not is not specifically important to the alleged cause
or alleged chain of events that led to the cause.

Anyway, enough of this "solidarity forever". claptrap.

The BCFMWU is a union of highly trained professional and well regarded hardworking individuals.

Try to be one, Budd.

Well folks, the thread was RCMP and ended up in BC Ferries. I guess the story should have shut down a number of posters ago. Might be the reason most folks tune it out. I wonder who Black Raven things he is convincing. Certainly not Bud nor I for that matter Good night