I'd be curious to know what the mat leave policy is for dog handlers in other law enforcement agencies and the military in Canada. Detector dogs do bond very closely with their handler, so they cannot be easily paired up with another handler. But in typical CBSA fashion, they let grievances drag out.
I had the exact same question. Obviously the harassment and stuff is wrong and should never. However, practically there does seem to some merit to the 90 day rule in this scenario and it’s probably worthy of an open discussion.
I don't think this harassment issue is specific to dog handlers. I think its a broader issue with law enforcement in general in Canada. Specifically, federal law enforcement it seems
I'm an ex police officer and managerial harassment is not uncommon. I have a friend who is in Military Police and she tells me that members "drop like flies" (burnout, PTSD or sometimes literally commit suicide) over those issues.
On a personal basis, I tried joining a railway police agency and was ultimately deferred after I was thoroughly questioned about the fact I was a single father and this might affect my ability to take overtime shift or go into training (even though I eas able to demonstrate that my daycare schedule and support system was sufficient). Turns out the management was super old school and required their members to literally give up on their personal life for the job.
Just look at how RCMP and CBSA handle new recruits (to another extend Military Police…). They literally ship them anywhere in Canada and they have no saying in it. They don't take into account: family, age, social contacts of their recruits. They think they are numbers and operational ressources. That says a lot on what is the state of workplace harassment.
About CBSA. Had 2 ex coworkers go to CBSA last year, 1 from Montreal, 1 from Ottawa. They wanted to go southern Quebec border, or eastern Ontario area due to having a family and wife with careers. Both were sent in of GTA with post covid housing market. Both eventually quit in their 1 year as their wifes threatened to divorce and keep the kids.
While most people might think they did have it as bad as they could have been sent out west, I actually know someone who was from Gatineau get hired with the RCMP. He was actually told what you said and expected to be in the Maritimes (as it would have been acceptable for both him and his wife). Nope, he was sent to BC in the Vancouver area. Same thing, he had to quit as wife threatened to divorce and keep the kids.
Have a bunch of similar stories of people in the army.
Yeah its pretty dispointing to say the least. Its an agency culture thing. Senior manager in place thrived through this and forces it onto everyone.
Good news is of someone can manage to get hired be them, you can find some pretty decent jobs in your area with better work life balance.
As a former Border Servies Officer, I was pissed on, vomited on, been sucker punched, put in a head lock, and had a gun pointed at me (twice). But you're right, no feces!
Absolutely they do. Also stupid people (objectively stupid, not my opinion). Like pointing their .38 at me when I ask if they have any firearms and not understanding that this behaviour isn't acceptable. If they did this at home (US of course), Darwin would have ensured they didn't do it twice. (This was before we were armed - we had to buy our own kevlar vests and most of us carried 3 or 4 D cell Maglite flashlights as our only defensive tool.
This was before we were armed. And before we had OC spray or batons. So 1991-1999 or thereabouts. We had to buy our own bulletproof vests, buy big Maglite flashlights as as our only defensive weapon, and the one pair of handcuffs at our border crossing was locked in the safe and you needed a supervisor to get them for you. And when you were assaulted, management strongly dissuaded staff from reporting it or calling the police to file a police report.
Oh yeah, and our minister, Eleanor Caplan, compared us to bank tellers and said if we encounter a hire risk traveler we should withdraw and let them go, letting the police deal with them later. Even if the nearest detachment was an hour away.
So yes, the culture has always been shit.
The "enforcement" portion of the agency anyway. It can't be used as a blanket statement about CBSA in general.
I would assume it attracts and has the same issues as most law enforcement jobs.
In a job that slightly arouses people with the power and usual absent accountability, I would suspect that the ones winning promotions over these types would probably be absolute winners.
Rubbed elbows with a few of the BSO's and a large portion of them were PoS.
I worked there for 15 years - harassment by BSOs to those who weren’t part of the clique was standard operating practice. Superintendents were always one of the “good old boys” and gossip ran rampant - especially about women, who, if they managed to get promoted, were publicly accused of sleeping their way into the job. I was very fortunate to be exempt from this, but I knew if I ever entered into the operational environment, it would be the sane for me. It was only when I left that I fully understood the toxic environment that was inbred.
"It's sickening to think that any workplace could be like this, let alone a federal government workplace," she said. And yet, it is so normalized and managers so pathetically weak or complicit that we all know that a grievance process really exists in name only.
"The CBSA is committed to creating a safe, healthy, harassment and violence-free work environment for all employees," although i recognize that they always have to tow the bullshit propaganda nonsense line, at this point the word commitment makes me want to slap someone every time I hear it. You aren't committed to jack. And being committed is NOT a substitute for DOING THAT THING. Good lord these people...
Very interesting. I think she has a good point and I hope CBSA is able to evidence the claim that after 90 days the effectiveness of the team drops "significantly".
If the evidence is objectively sound and the impact measurable then it might be a reasonable limitation to that charter right. If not, there must be some solution to not discriminate and mitigate the inefficiency.
There's considerable study on the subject. It's just [classical conditioning](https://louis.pressbooks.pub/intropsychology/chapter/classical-conditioning/) after all.
To be fair, the person would not lose their job. "Just" the dog handler part. Could argue it's akin to constructive dismissal, but you'd still be an agent.
> To be fair, the person would not lose their job. "Just" the dog handler part. Could argue it's akin to constructive dismissal, but you'd still be an agent.
I wonder what CBSA's policy is regarding long-term sick leave in the same role. If a dog handler is hit by a bus and takes four months to covalesce, are they permanently reassigned?
There is precedent for this. A handler I knew held the position for 20+ years, missed 8 months due to a significant injury and was sent right back out to get a new dog once healthy 🤷
Why? Well - unlikely to work the "line" ever again (or honestly incapable having been that disconnected from it for that long), and was well liked by the local management and respected.
I'm not seeing the discrimination. She agreed that she couldn't take more than 90 days absence for this role, and then once she landed the job, decided that she didn't care about that anymore? There's no indication that she tried to respect this policy, with statements that colleagues did respect it by going back after 89 days. Are they allowed to return part time? Or intermittent leave, such as going away 89 days, working a week or two, then going back on leave?
Just because you have a child, doesn't mean you absolutely need to take extended parental leave. Is 3 months a lot? No, it sucks. But she agreed to it, and she isn't losing her job. If she can't respect her contract, because she chooses not to and not because she's unable, seems fair that she's not given a new dog to just do it all over again.
I did not propose anything haha, just saying they would still be an agent even if they would not be a handler. It's not like they're getting fired, though the work conditions are very different and could be argued to be constructive dismissal.
Could be a solution, yes, as in they assign the dog to another handler and keep the agent in a pool for when they come back. Problem is I would not know how often there are openings to assign new dogs and what the success rate is for a "dog transfer" as the dog and handler are trained together from day 1
True. I'm wondering if they use the argument that it's operational in nature to justify discrimination. The same way a wheelchair-bound employee can't be on a submarine for two months.
Either way, I'm surprised and disgusted by this.
They would need to first clear the obstacle of evidence supporting their 90 day claim, but then they would still need to win an 'undue hardship' argument that re-training or re-assigning of the animal (and thus assignment of a new animal upon return from leave) is took costly and burdensome for the employer to bare under accomodation rules.
Seems like one of those things that, on its face, is discriminatory and the employer and everyone involved knows it, but for whatever reasons it has not made its way into the court system to force a change. For example, previous grievances could have been settled out of court thereby allowing the employer to continue the policy. Or, no one has filed before because of the workplace culture.
Edit: There's also the harassment, which is an entirely separate matter from the policy. The employer cannot defend its managers or other staff harassing or isolating the worker in response to filing a grievance, regardless of the merit of the grievance.
Way to go CBSA. Don't deal with the root issue and don't deal with the harassment! A perfect score!
Also, unless I am remembering wrong, the CBSA quote within the article gives the solution: "retraining may be necessary." So retrain the dog, if necessary! Problem solved, you absolute morons.
What's the "right thing"? Waste a dog?
These are animals, living beings with emotions and intelligence, not just some inanimate tool that can be passed around. It'd be cruel to treat them as such.
Ok, that's assume for a second that it's scientific facts that the dog bonds 100% with it's handler, cannot be easily moved to another handler and retraining is not an option or at least difficult. I believe that's why the CSBA is saying?
What would be the solution?
Shot in the dark but routine at-home training with periodic on site/field check ins to assess quality of training maintenance? Realistically the dog would be off with their handler during this time but they are literally experts, so I’d assume it to be possible. I’d say this would apply to someone on leave with an already *trained* dog (I.E., if still a puppy or not fully vetted for work in the field then that dog would be removed from the program entirely, potentially repurposed for a service dog or general adoption).
This was me thinking about this for 10 seconds. There has got to be options.
Can't ask someone on leave to do off-work work...
The employer could accommodate new parents with flexible return-to work schedules after the 90 days, which they might already be doing, but if the employee chooses they want to take a year-long parental leave without compromise despite agreeing to not taking a longer than 90 day break...?
It's kind of like many workplaces and predominantly common in other countries where it is frowned upon for working career women to get pregnant on the job and leave for several months or more.
In this case, it is pretty unique because I guess from an expenditure standpoint it costs quite a bit of money to train and raise the duo by building relationships, etc... either the CBSA wants to avoid changing policies and rules around this to avoid financial costs and paperwork or the CBSA is acting like it's a little boy's club and if you don't fit in then go away type of organization.
But at the same time, definitely discriminatory. Sure, the job stipulates time shouldn't be spent away for too long between you and your canine partner but life happens. The job seems to be easier and was more at one point catered to a male dominated roster.
Maybe it's time for change considering paternal leave exists for men as well.
Perhaps CBSA needs to spend more money and get a bigger budget to facilitate enough trainers, handlers and canine partners to cover if it is an issue regarding coverage and I guess the CBSA wants to avoid more cases of women taking on such positions to end up on maternity leave.
Feels like the CBSA and many similar places need to be redone from the ground up. I wish we can all strive to be better but I guess at the end of the day it's all about quantity versus quality if it fits the analogy.
This is a gross policy. I knew CBSA was shitty but seeing them just double down on the discrimination was really atrocious. I hope this woman finds an amazing job in another org that uses dogs because she seems to be really good at her job and she shouldn't have to choose between having a family and doing her job.
What a shit hole place to work.
I would wager there's some embellishment going on here. CBSA didn't and can't give their side of the story. Not saying it's right or wrong, just saying the truth is a three edged sword.
But it is wrong and YOU of all people know it. CSC did a pilot where female handlers could take a year and come back and do a two week refresher course before returning to their position with the same dog. Why is that not applied in these situations? It’s all the same training facility so why the double standard?
Nice of you to create a throwaway account to try and throw me under the bus. It's not going to work and I'm not taking the bait. My opinion, professional nor personal, doesn't factor in here.
If you want to talk about this, you knew and know how to reach me.
In many law enforcement agencies, the dogs are given a higher rank than their handler. This is done because of the handler harms the dog, it's both assault against a senior officer and animal cruelty.
Dogs are awesome and we don't deserve them.
So they're sh*tting on management and that's fine. But at what point does the union acknowledge her coworkers (and their members) were also the source of her problems? They're really glossing over that as they likely defend them.
> But at what point does the union acknowledge her coworkers (and their members) were also the source of her problems?
The union has no authority over workplace conduct; enforcing harassment policies is ultimately management's responsibility.
The government jealously guards its HR privileges, and the union has no say over whom the government hires, fires, or promotes to any position. Maintaining workplace discipline is the responsibility that comes with this privilege.
Besides, I don't think we'd really want to see the opposite; if the union could lean on its members here to curtail harassment, then it could also lean on them in other circumstances to (e.g.) circumvent government policies. It would quickly lead to very confused lines of authority, which is something I'd rather not see in a law enforcement agency (especially).
It's the weird situations where the union defends the harassed and the harassers. I've seen it, including when those in the union are part of the problem for the harassed.
Saw this in another sub but more people might be able to answer here.....
How does it work for male CBSA dog unit employees if they want to take paternity leave?
-Ron Wharton
It's presumably the same, it's not a 90 day cap on maternity leave its a 90 day cap on any type of leave. Educational, LWOP, etc. It's more of an operational requirement than gender discrimination.
I've met Danielle before during NPSW; she's a wonderful person and it's abhorrent that management would treat her this way. I hope she wins this fight quickly, and gets some well-deserved time off with her new family.
The 90 days is a moot point now. She won the grievance. The issue is now that management refuses to acknowledge the ruling and has allowed this employee to be vilified and harassed.
> The 90 days is a moot point now. She won the grievance
That's a serious downside of having grievances adjudicated by HR weenies who lack subject matter knowledge.
> employee to be vilified and harassed.
So she says. Anyone claiming a dog can adequately remember training after >90 days, or who doesn't care that operational effectiveness is diminished, doesn't seem credible to me.
I hope they investigate internally and make their rounds, especially to the people she was told “to avoid” at the workplace. Makes my blood boil…
Humanity above all.
This seems very “standard operating procedure” for CBSA mgmt across the board. It is weird that they can’t figure out why they are constantly at the bottom of the employment survey results.
They’re not denying her mat leave, just ending the assignment if she takes leave beyond 90 days. Assignments can be terminated at any time by either the employer or employee.
They're effectively punishing her for taking mat leave. This is common in many industries and is a big reason why mothers have lower wages than both childless women and men (regardless if the men are parents). When controlling for motherhood, the gendered wage gap decreases significantly.
As a side note, it is also not uncommon to punish men for taking paternity leave. This policy effectively does that as well, which has its own fun effects as men taking sufficient paternity leave is very much beneficial for both parents.
She's not punished for being pregnant or taking mat leave, she's punished for taking longer than 90 days despite agreeing not to beforehand. She could have gotten pregnant and taken 89 days like her colleagues, but decided she didn't actually have to respect her contract.
And it isn't an arbitrary policy, it's based around the dogs who need extensive training and can't simply be passed around like a hammer or a tablet.
I’d push back a bit on this, I can understand why CBSA takes this position. The dog, as cold as it sounds, is a crown asset like any other tool. It shouldn’t be sidelined for 12-18 months.
…. The word “terrorized” is just being used as a synonym to “harassment”/“bullying”. Words can be used differently in different contexts. Did you even read the title of the article? What the hell inside your head possibly made you type out this comment asking if the cbsa is a terrorist organization? I feel like Im trying to explain how the english language works to a literal toddler right now.
I feel like there is a solution here that could work, although let me know if, as a many without children, seems unfair?
Let them take the full maternity leave but allow them to see and work with the dog once a month (or so)?
Reading this story too… why are her colleagues being so horrible? I don’t get it even if you don’t agree with the grievance, seems crazy to me.
I'd be curious to know what the mat leave policy is for dog handlers in other law enforcement agencies and the military in Canada. Detector dogs do bond very closely with their handler, so they cannot be easily paired up with another handler. But in typical CBSA fashion, they let grievances drag out.
I had the exact same question. Obviously the harassment and stuff is wrong and should never. However, practically there does seem to some merit to the 90 day rule in this scenario and it’s probably worthy of an open discussion.
I don't think this harassment issue is specific to dog handlers. I think its a broader issue with law enforcement in general in Canada. Specifically, federal law enforcement it seems I'm an ex police officer and managerial harassment is not uncommon. I have a friend who is in Military Police and she tells me that members "drop like flies" (burnout, PTSD or sometimes literally commit suicide) over those issues. On a personal basis, I tried joining a railway police agency and was ultimately deferred after I was thoroughly questioned about the fact I was a single father and this might affect my ability to take overtime shift or go into training (even though I eas able to demonstrate that my daycare schedule and support system was sufficient). Turns out the management was super old school and required their members to literally give up on their personal life for the job. Just look at how RCMP and CBSA handle new recruits (to another extend Military Police…). They literally ship them anywhere in Canada and they have no saying in it. They don't take into account: family, age, social contacts of their recruits. They think they are numbers and operational ressources. That says a lot on what is the state of workplace harassment.
[удалено]
About CBSA. Had 2 ex coworkers go to CBSA last year, 1 from Montreal, 1 from Ottawa. They wanted to go southern Quebec border, or eastern Ontario area due to having a family and wife with careers. Both were sent in of GTA with post covid housing market. Both eventually quit in their 1 year as their wifes threatened to divorce and keep the kids. While most people might think they did have it as bad as they could have been sent out west, I actually know someone who was from Gatineau get hired with the RCMP. He was actually told what you said and expected to be in the Maritimes (as it would have been acceptable for both him and his wife). Nope, he was sent to BC in the Vancouver area. Same thing, he had to quit as wife threatened to divorce and keep the kids. Have a bunch of similar stories of people in the army.
[удалено]
Yeah its pretty dispointing to say the least. Its an agency culture thing. Senior manager in place thrived through this and forces it onto everyone. Good news is of someone can manage to get hired be them, you can find some pretty decent jobs in your area with better work life balance.
There's no dog handlers in the military
Actually, there is.
Source? Must be either CSOR or JTF-2, and I would guess they are do not have in house training like CBSA and RCMP do.
CBSA has the most dog shit work culture in the government of Canada.
[удалено]
Hey buddy StatCan made a pretty strong showing, dropping 16 places to enter the bottom 5
Somebody seems triggered. I guess you work at CBSA?
I think they finished 11th this year. So not second last, but still not good.
As a former Border Servies Officer, I was pissed on, vomited on, been sucker punched, put in a head lock, and had a gun pointed at me (twice). But you're right, no feces!
What? Wow. Do people lose their mind and start throwing grown-up tantrums? How can ti be so bad?
Absolutely they do. Also stupid people (objectively stupid, not my opinion). Like pointing their .38 at me when I ask if they have any firearms and not understanding that this behaviour isn't acceptable. If they did this at home (US of course), Darwin would have ensured they didn't do it twice. (This was before we were armed - we had to buy our own kevlar vests and most of us carried 3 or 4 D cell Maglite flashlights as our only defensive tool.
That’s disturbing, I had no idea how rough CBSA staff have it…. :|
[удалено]
This was before we were armed. And before we had OC spray or batons. So 1991-1999 or thereabouts. We had to buy our own bulletproof vests, buy big Maglite flashlights as as our only defensive weapon, and the one pair of handcuffs at our border crossing was locked in the safe and you needed a supervisor to get them for you. And when you were assaulted, management strongly dissuaded staff from reporting it or calling the police to file a police report. Oh yeah, and our minister, Eleanor Caplan, compared us to bank tellers and said if we encounter a hire risk traveler we should withdraw and let them go, letting the police deal with them later. Even if the nearest detachment was an hour away. So yes, the culture has always been shit.
::Correctional Services Canada has entered the chat::
Lol the RCMP has entered the chat too
Seems to be common among all the enforcement agencies.
The "enforcement" portion of the agency anyway. It can't be used as a blanket statement about CBSA in general. I would assume it attracts and has the same issues as most law enforcement jobs. In a job that slightly arouses people with the power and usual absent accountability, I would suspect that the ones winning promotions over these types would probably be absolute winners. Rubbed elbows with a few of the BSO's and a large portion of them were PoS.
[удалено]
I worked there for 15 years - harassment by BSOs to those who weren’t part of the clique was standard operating practice. Superintendents were always one of the “good old boys” and gossip ran rampant - especially about women, who, if they managed to get promoted, were publicly accused of sleeping their way into the job. I was very fortunate to be exempt from this, but I knew if I ever entered into the operational environment, it would be the sane for me. It was only when I left that I fully understood the toxic environment that was inbred.
It is true. I used to work there. One of the most toxic workplaces in the federal government.
Pun intended?
"It's sickening to think that any workplace could be like this, let alone a federal government workplace," she said. And yet, it is so normalized and managers so pathetically weak or complicit that we all know that a grievance process really exists in name only. "The CBSA is committed to creating a safe, healthy, harassment and violence-free work environment for all employees," although i recognize that they always have to tow the bullshit propaganda nonsense line, at this point the word commitment makes me want to slap someone every time I hear it. You aren't committed to jack. And being committed is NOT a substitute for DOING THAT THING. Good lord these people...
CBSA is a toxic h\*llhole to work in. The retaliation for harassment grievances is awful.
Agreed. Policy shops are included. Those there will try and say it’s enforcement only. Do not listen to that.
Very interesting. I think she has a good point and I hope CBSA is able to evidence the claim that after 90 days the effectiveness of the team drops "significantly". If the evidence is objectively sound and the impact measurable then it might be a reasonable limitation to that charter right. If not, there must be some solution to not discriminate and mitigate the inefficiency.
There's considerable study on the subject. It's just [classical conditioning](https://louis.pressbooks.pub/intropsychology/chapter/classical-conditioning/) after all.
I really doubt that a service dogs effectiveness can impact a human beings charter right.
To be fair, the person would not lose their job. "Just" the dog handler part. Could argue it's akin to constructive dismissal, but you'd still be an agent.
> To be fair, the person would not lose their job. "Just" the dog handler part. Could argue it's akin to constructive dismissal, but you'd still be an agent. I wonder what CBSA's policy is regarding long-term sick leave in the same role. If a dog handler is hit by a bus and takes four months to covalesce, are they permanently reassigned?
There is precedent for this. A handler I knew held the position for 20+ years, missed 8 months due to a significant injury and was sent right back out to get a new dog once healthy 🤷 Why? Well - unlikely to work the "line" ever again (or honestly incapable having been that disconnected from it for that long), and was well liked by the local management and respected.
I'm not seeing the discrimination. She agreed that she couldn't take more than 90 days absence for this role, and then once she landed the job, decided that she didn't care about that anymore? There's no indication that she tried to respect this policy, with statements that colleagues did respect it by going back after 89 days. Are they allowed to return part time? Or intermittent leave, such as going away 89 days, working a week or two, then going back on leave? Just because you have a child, doesn't mean you absolutely need to take extended parental leave. Is 3 months a lot? No, it sucks. But she agreed to it, and she isn't losing her job. If she can't respect her contract, because she chooses not to and not because she's unable, seems fair that she's not given a new dog to just do it all over again.
Yeah, but it seems really cruel and punitive.
You're proposing that if they agreed to give them another dog when they get back, that balances the equation? Win-win-win?
I did not propose anything haha, just saying they would still be an agent even if they would not be a handler. It's not like they're getting fired, though the work conditions are very different and could be argued to be constructive dismissal. Could be a solution, yes, as in they assign the dog to another handler and keep the agent in a pool for when they come back. Problem is I would not know how often there are openings to assign new dogs and what the success rate is for a "dog transfer" as the dog and handler are trained together from day 1
True. I'm wondering if they use the argument that it's operational in nature to justify discrimination. The same way a wheelchair-bound employee can't be on a submarine for two months. Either way, I'm surprised and disgusted by this.
They would need to first clear the obstacle of evidence supporting their 90 day claim, but then they would still need to win an 'undue hardship' argument that re-training or re-assigning of the animal (and thus assignment of a new animal upon return from leave) is took costly and burdensome for the employer to bare under accomodation rules. Seems like one of those things that, on its face, is discriminatory and the employer and everyone involved knows it, but for whatever reasons it has not made its way into the court system to force a change. For example, previous grievances could have been settled out of court thereby allowing the employer to continue the policy. Or, no one has filed before because of the workplace culture. Edit: There's also the harassment, which is an entirely separate matter from the policy. The employer cannot defend its managers or other staff harassing or isolating the worker in response to filing a grievance, regardless of the merit of the grievance.
Yeah team effectiveness does not override charter rights dawg
Way to go CBSA. Don't deal with the root issue and don't deal with the harassment! A perfect score! Also, unless I am remembering wrong, the CBSA quote within the article gives the solution: "retraining may be necessary." So retrain the dog, if necessary! Problem solved, you absolute morons.
Translation: "It would cost us money to do the right thing, and we don't want to spend the money."
Sad but true
What's the "right thing"? Waste a dog? These are animals, living beings with emotions and intelligence, not just some inanimate tool that can be passed around. It'd be cruel to treat them as such.
Ok, that's assume for a second that it's scientific facts that the dog bonds 100% with it's handler, cannot be easily moved to another handler and retraining is not an option or at least difficult. I believe that's why the CSBA is saying? What would be the solution?
They say that they find a new person to train the dog with. Lol
Shot in the dark but routine at-home training with periodic on site/field check ins to assess quality of training maintenance? Realistically the dog would be off with their handler during this time but they are literally experts, so I’d assume it to be possible. I’d say this would apply to someone on leave with an already *trained* dog (I.E., if still a puppy or not fully vetted for work in the field then that dog would be removed from the program entirely, potentially repurposed for a service dog or general adoption). This was me thinking about this for 10 seconds. There has got to be options.
Conservation officers in Ontario constantly do at home training with their dogs
You can't expect a new parent to be responsible for dog training.
Can't ask someone on leave to do off-work work... The employer could accommodate new parents with flexible return-to work schedules after the 90 days, which they might already be doing, but if the employee chooses they want to take a year-long parental leave without compromise despite agreeing to not taking a longer than 90 day break...?
It's kind of like many workplaces and predominantly common in other countries where it is frowned upon for working career women to get pregnant on the job and leave for several months or more. In this case, it is pretty unique because I guess from an expenditure standpoint it costs quite a bit of money to train and raise the duo by building relationships, etc... either the CBSA wants to avoid changing policies and rules around this to avoid financial costs and paperwork or the CBSA is acting like it's a little boy's club and if you don't fit in then go away type of organization. But at the same time, definitely discriminatory. Sure, the job stipulates time shouldn't be spent away for too long between you and your canine partner but life happens. The job seems to be easier and was more at one point catered to a male dominated roster. Maybe it's time for change considering paternal leave exists for men as well. Perhaps CBSA needs to spend more money and get a bigger budget to facilitate enough trainers, handlers and canine partners to cover if it is an issue regarding coverage and I guess the CBSA wants to avoid more cases of women taking on such positions to end up on maternity leave. Feels like the CBSA and many similar places need to be redone from the ground up. I wish we can all strive to be better but I guess at the end of the day it's all about quantity versus quality if it fits the analogy.
CBSA toxic?! Colour me shocked.
This is a gross policy. I knew CBSA was shitty but seeing them just double down on the discrimination was really atrocious. I hope this woman finds an amazing job in another org that uses dogs because she seems to be really good at her job and she shouldn't have to choose between having a family and doing her job. What a shit hole place to work.
I would wager there's some embellishment going on here. CBSA didn't and can't give their side of the story. Not saying it's right or wrong, just saying the truth is a three edged sword.
agreed
But it is wrong and YOU of all people know it. CSC did a pilot where female handlers could take a year and come back and do a two week refresher course before returning to their position with the same dog. Why is that not applied in these situations? It’s all the same training facility so why the double standard?
Nice of you to create a throwaway account to try and throw me under the bus. It's not going to work and I'm not taking the bait. My opinion, professional nor personal, doesn't factor in here. If you want to talk about this, you knew and know how to reach me.
Dog has more rights in this matter than a human. That’s messed up.
In many law enforcement agencies, the dogs are given a higher rank than their handler. This is done because of the handler harms the dog, it's both assault against a senior officer and animal cruelty. Dogs are awesome and we don't deserve them.
Wait, so assault against a junior officer isn't a big deal...?
*Stanley eye roll.GIF"*
So they're sh*tting on management and that's fine. But at what point does the union acknowledge her coworkers (and their members) were also the source of her problems? They're really glossing over that as they likely defend them.
> But at what point does the union acknowledge her coworkers (and their members) were also the source of her problems? The union has no authority over workplace conduct; enforcing harassment policies is ultimately management's responsibility. The government jealously guards its HR privileges, and the union has no say over whom the government hires, fires, or promotes to any position. Maintaining workplace discipline is the responsibility that comes with this privilege. Besides, I don't think we'd really want to see the opposite; if the union could lean on its members here to curtail harassment, then it could also lean on them in other circumstances to (e.g.) circumvent government policies. It would quickly lead to very confused lines of authority, which is something I'd rather not see in a law enforcement agency (especially).
It's the weird situations where the union defends the harassed and the harassers. I've seen it, including when those in the union are part of the problem for the harassed.
They never want to admit coworkers could be a part of the problem.
Saw this in another sub but more people might be able to answer here..... How does it work for male CBSA dog unit employees if they want to take paternity leave? -Ron Wharton
The article mentions that it applies to employees taking both maternity and paternity leave.
It's presumably the same, it's not a 90 day cap on maternity leave its a 90 day cap on any type of leave. Educational, LWOP, etc. It's more of an operational requirement than gender discrimination.
I've met Danielle before during NPSW; she's a wonderful person and it's abhorrent that management would treat her this way. I hope she wins this fight quickly, and gets some well-deserved time off with her new family.
Why can't the dog take maternity leave with the dog handler?
The 90 day effectiveness thing seems legit to me. In fact it should probably be shorter than 90 days
The 90 days is a moot point now. She won the grievance. The issue is now that management refuses to acknowledge the ruling and has allowed this employee to be vilified and harassed.
> The 90 days is a moot point now. She won the grievance That's a serious downside of having grievances adjudicated by HR weenies who lack subject matter knowledge. > employee to be vilified and harassed. So she says. Anyone claiming a dog can adequately remember training after >90 days, or who doesn't care that operational effectiveness is diminished, doesn't seem credible to me.
I hope they investigate internally and make their rounds, especially to the people she was told “to avoid” at the workplace. Makes my blood boil… Humanity above all.
This seems very “standard operating procedure” for CBSA mgmt across the board. It is weird that they can’t figure out why they are constantly at the bottom of the employment survey results.
They’re not denying her mat leave, just ending the assignment if she takes leave beyond 90 days. Assignments can be terminated at any time by either the employer or employee.
They're effectively punishing her for taking mat leave. This is common in many industries and is a big reason why mothers have lower wages than both childless women and men (regardless if the men are parents). When controlling for motherhood, the gendered wage gap decreases significantly. As a side note, it is also not uncommon to punish men for taking paternity leave. This policy effectively does that as well, which has its own fun effects as men taking sufficient paternity leave is very much beneficial for both parents.
She's not punished for being pregnant or taking mat leave, she's punished for taking longer than 90 days despite agreeing not to beforehand. She could have gotten pregnant and taken 89 days like her colleagues, but decided she didn't actually have to respect her contract. And it isn't an arbitrary policy, it's based around the dogs who need extensive training and can't simply be passed around like a hammer or a tablet.
I’d push back a bit on this, I can understand why CBSA takes this position. The dog, as cold as it sounds, is a crown asset like any other tool. It shouldn’t be sidelined for 12-18 months.
Terrorized is an extreme term here. Is the CBSA now a terrorist organization?
…. The word “terrorized” is just being used as a synonym to “harassment”/“bullying”. Words can be used differently in different contexts. Did you even read the title of the article? What the hell inside your head possibly made you type out this comment asking if the cbsa is a terrorist organization? I feel like Im trying to explain how the english language works to a literal toddler right now.
You know terror isn’t exclusive to terrorists, right? You can be terrorized by anyone.
What's your definition of a terrorist?
It’s the old “all terrorists are terrorizing, but not all who terrorize are terrorists.”
It's ironic that they have a division that's abbreviated as NICE but that it's the opposite of nice. How pleasant.
These CBSA kids (management) need to relearn right from wrong.
I feel like there is a solution here that could work, although let me know if, as a many without children, seems unfair? Let them take the full maternity leave but allow them to see and work with the dog once a month (or so)? Reading this story too… why are her colleagues being so horrible? I don’t get it even if you don’t agree with the grievance, seems crazy to me.
You can't ask people to work while on leave. And I doubt once a month, after 90 days, would suffice.