WSIB in Emergency Services

[Booter]

Everything you say could be brought to pass, but likely at the cost of extensive civilization of managerial, executive, and many investigative support roles that could be filled by someone who must have cop training and experience, but may never need to put on a belt again. The defensible (in the sense of labour law) need to be readable as a bonafide operational requirement decreases quickly starting around Sgt. And not even all Cpl roles… there’s some double-edged sword dancing inherent in moving to a universality of service model.

The fact that you say doing so would wind up civilianizing the entire outfit when they start promoting only emphasizes to me that the expectations of our leadership are all wrong

I’m kindve kidding around. But maybe not really…

 

[brihard]

The fact that you say doing so would wind up civilianizing the entire outfit when they start promoting only emphasizes to me that the expectations of our leadership are all wrong

I’m kindve kidding around. But maybe not really…

But you get what I mean, right? It’s already happening to an extent, probably the more and more the closer you get (institutionally) to Ottawa. It would be super easy for someone at HQ to wonder why, say, a SSgt in a district advisory or criminal operations oversight role needs to still be a cop as long as they did enough cop stuff before. That’s an extreme example, but how about a sergeant spot on a specialized warrant writing team? Or on forensic ident where it’s expected that the scene is secure by general duty members?

Obviously I don’t personally buy in to this sort of take- but they’re arguments that could be sold and bought but people in positions of influence…

Personally I like keeping police KSAs and, to an extent, peace officer status in badged positions (but I support routes to bring in needed civilian expertise). But I also recognize that going too hard on a universality of service approach could backfire. I don’t know where the right balance is, but I also have no power or responsibility whatsoever.

 

[Booter]

a vacancy is basically an empty position. ODS people in positions are noted as ODS in those positions.

This is wholly dependant on how the staffing in the division is presenting the numbers. There are definitions and intended use like you’re saying- the practical application of those numbers does not work that way. In my experience, which isn’t universal. But it’s pretty extensive in contract provinces.

CMs are being phased out. Not deemed, just not replaced through attrition. I could be wrong but I believe the plan is to convert those attrited positions to PS positions. An issue is that you might never get that RM position back.

I’ve been around for two changes to phasing in phasing out CMs and a preference for PS and the reverse. You’re correct. Today.

But you’re level headed response to my nonsensical raving is appreciated

 

[mariomike]

In muni emergency service, at least our dept., if WSIB says you can't do the job, HR gives you a permanent "Suitable Job" with the employer.

Simple as that. Nothing else changes.

YMMV

Suitable Job
Suitable employment is defined as employment consistent with the employee’s
skills and functional abilities that does not pose a health and safety hazard to the
employee or co-worker.

 

[lenaitch]

I’ve been around for two changes to phasing in phasing out CMs and a preference for PS and the reverse. You’re correct. Today.

Going back some but I recall your rotary pilots went back and forth a few times.

*****

The issue of civilianizing traditional police jobs has been around for a while; both as a way to accommodate injured members and a way to cut costs. I haven't seen movement with my former employer (OPP) to create 'civilian investigators' to the extent that I noticed in the above link; specifically public/suspect facing or contacting roles. Civilianization has been limited to support area such as forensics and cyber crime.

It seems that 're-homing' members with physical injuries has seen more success than those with mental ones. I worked with a member who was blinded on the job and he became an intelligence analyst, and they have a member who lost a leg in an m/c collision who is now back on the road (not riding) with the help of a high-tech prosthetic.

I get the sense that civilianization, for whatever reason, is likely to have more success (or, at least, les negative impact) in more concentrated municipal emergency services than in deployed one (or perhaps the centralized functions of a deployed service) where the flexibility of members has a more immediate impact. So long as the numbers aren't significant, the impact on front line operations would be relatively limited, but as the comparative numbers grew, it could impact the uniformed side to respond to major incidents. I'm not suggesting that the numbers would become that imbalanced due to accommodation but they could be as bean counters look to save today's dollars.

So long as 'civilianization' is a tool to accommodate their own members, I don't see bargaining units making much of a fuss; but if it becomes an organizational cost saving project, I think they would become more vocal.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

OK, OK, I'll say it........we all know the type of folks who will be filling up any of these 'cushier' positions. Those who have "earned" it won't even get a sniff.....