# Discrimination



## golgo1313 (24 Jan 2014)

Long time dweller, first time poster.  

I have an issue and I'm not sure if this is the correct forum for it.  If it's not I apologize.  Long story short,  I work in a section that is a lot more physical than the other sections at my unit.  Like everyone, I've had my few injuries, but nothing that ever warranted a chit more than a week, and I NEVER used any injury to get pulled out of any field ex's.  I've put in 2 years in the section and put a request to move to a different section to learn a different aspect of my job.  The section I'm looking to get put into is going to be entering it's training cycle this year, and my knowledge/experience would be an asset.  Everyone in my immediate CoC supports the move, but the SSM disagrees.  His claim is that I would be a liability due to my chit history, and sending me to a section that is out of training cycle and is on their way to being dissolved into the other sections.  

My question is: How can anyone say that I am not suited for a less physical job as my chit history shows I could be a liability.  To me, that is the same as saying that I'm a liability because I'm black, or saying that someone is a liability because they are a woman; when clearly neither is a factor for any aspect of the job.  

The way I see it is I'm being penalized for normal wear and tear from Rucking long distances with heavy weight.  If I've passed the CF Express Test and scored decently on the Coopers test, how can my medical history dictate anything?  The SSM isn't a medical practitioner, so how can he pass judgement based on chits?  

This sounds like I'm being a baby about not getting what I wanted but without getting into exact details, I'm being penalized for sacrificing a lot of blood, sweat and tears.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Jan 2014)

If you've got a book of med chits in 2 years, your SSM might have a point in being concerned. Some people just have bad luck, and others are overtly prone to getting hurt. Have you asked for a meeting with the SSM through your CoC? Sounds like the next logical step would be to explain your injury history and demonstrate how what you're working on to help limit injuries.

Comparing an injury history to racial discrimination is way off the mark here, the CF is allowed to change people's employment or kick them out for medical limitations. Your SSM wants whats best for that section, and if he puts someone in there who he thinks is going to be injury prone and therefore an admin burden, he's not going to do it. You need to prove otherwise.


----------



## golgo1313 (24 Jan 2014)

The SSM said this to me directly when I met with him.  Thats how I know about it in the first place.  

The thing is, I have no medical limitations.  Right now and for the last long while I've been fit for duty.  There are people in that specific section I'm looking at going to that are chit riders who will get chits for everything.  From getting out of parades to field exercises.  

To me, it seems like the SSM decided that "This guy doesn't want to be in such and such a section.  He doesn't want to to be here?  I'll put him somewhere else he doesn't want to be".   For a Sqn SSM to decide on someone's career progression based on past chit history seems ludacris to me.  If I was on a tcat or something then I'd understand.


----------



## Journeyman (24 Jan 2014)

Right up front let me say that no one here can give you a complete answer, or one you'd prefer to hear, because we have only one side of the story -- and that side is decidedly lacking in some basic details: are the chits for the same ailment or all over the place?  Are there any other factors that you deem unimportant but may be weighed in the SSM's decision?  

Warning:  prepare to be unhappy with this response.

Nonetheless.......



			
				golgo1313 said:
			
		

> .....the SSM disagrees.  His claim is that I would be a liability due to my chit history


 The SSM's interest is clearly the success of the section being ramped up; it's not to punish you personally.



> ..... because I'm black, or saying that someone is a liability because they are a woman; when clearly neither is a factor


 You're right, they're not factors.  However, your SSM apparently has reason to believe that your MIR track-record_ is_ a factor. 

Being black or a woman isn't negotiable (with the exceptions of Michael Jackson or sex-change surgery).  While most of us are born in a hospital, some people perhaps _choose_ to spend more time there than others -- again, we have no idea what all your chits are for.  

Put yourself in the SSM's boots with the major concern being the section's viablity; is it possible that you are being seen as:  
a) someone with recurring medical problems that could cause you to be pulled out at a critical time?  
b) a malingerer? (Again, we're talking about how he may perceive you.  Is there a dark side to the reason your CoC was so supportive of you moving on?)



> The way I see it is I'm being penalized for normal wear and tear from Rucking long distances with heavy weight.


 If everyone in your Sqn is doing ruck marches, but you're the only one with a history of chits that is obviously noteworthy, that isn't "normal."



> The SSM isn't a medical practitioner, so how can he pass judgement based on chits?


 That's what he gets paid for.  Outside the scope of direct treatment, which includes prescribing recovery,  the medical staff "advise" with "decide" being the prerogative of the chain of command.



> To me, it seems like the SSM decided that "This guy doesn't want to be in such and such a section.  He doesn't want to to be here?  I'll put him somewhere else he doesn't want to be".


 Again, while he likely balanced your desires with the section's needs, your wishes come a distant second to operational requirements.  It's not personal.



> For a Sqn SSM to decide on someone's career progression based on past chit history seems ludacris to me


Perhaps your career progression would be better served by being the best soldier possible in the new section.  Go on, prove him wrong.



> seems ludacris ludicrous to me


One's a lame rapper; the other one is pride in literacy. 




> I'm being penalized for sacrificing a lot of blood, sweat and tears.


   :warstory:   or    :    your call.


Minor edit


----------



## golgo1313 (24 Jan 2014)

I wasnt looking for the answer I wanted.  I was looking for an answer.  I understand the other perspective.   Just asking about whether or not a chit history can be used against a healthy troop by an SSM. 

What I wasnt looking for was smart ass answers about literacy.  Take your dick-ish comments elsewhere Journeyman.  No need for your further input.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jan 2014)

golgo1313 said:
			
		

> I wasnt looking for the answer I wanted.



It would appear that indeed you were.


----------



## Teager (24 Jan 2014)

golgo1313 said:
			
		

> I wasnt looking for the answer I wanted.  I was looking for an answer.  I understand the other perspective.   Just asking about whether or not a chit history can be used against a healthy troop by an SSM.
> 
> What I wasnt looking for was smart *** answers about literacy.  Take your dick-ish comments elsewhere Journeyman.  No need for your further input.



Hey Journeyman did provide a warning to his response that you may be unhappy with his response.


----------



## golgo1313 (24 Jan 2014)

Yeah, I suppose that should have said "looking for the answers I wanted.".  I wasnt aware that Pulitzer prized winning authors scanned these forums looking for grammatical errors.  Good on ya though.  

If you do not have anything to say pertaining to the subject at hand, move on.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jan 2014)

golgo1313 said:
			
		

> Yeah, I suppose that should have said "looking for the answers I wanted.".  I wasnt aware that Pulitzer prized winning authors scanned these forums looking for grammatical errors.  Good on ya though.
> 
> If you do not have anything to say pertaining to the subject at hand, move on.



When you registered for this site, you were required to read the Army.ca Conduct Guidelines.  Again, appearances are that you did not.  Just to clarify something for you; we strive to have a site where posters are 'professional' and use proper English in the written form.  If you do not want to abide by the rules as set out, we can easily remove your access to the site.  Your choice.


George
army.ca Staff


----------



## Journeyman (24 Jan 2014)

golgo1313 said:
			
		

> What I wasnt looking for was smart ass answers about literacy.


_That's_ what you took from the entire post?   :not-again:


----------



## golgo1313 (24 Jan 2014)

> Hey Journeyman did provide a warning to his response that you may be unhappy with his response.



I wasnt unhappy with the response.  I asked for information.  Got an answer, asked for further clarification and mentioned that the need for smart ass comments was nil.


----------



## golgo1313 (24 Jan 2014)

> That's what you took from the entire post?



It is not. I read your entire post.  Its the only thing I felt warranted a comment.


----------



## golgo1313 (24 Jan 2014)

George Wallace:  You are going to bring up forum guidelines and policies and refer to the one thing that I misspelled?  Truly a fine job you are doing!   

I came looking for clarification.  I received your opinions, and frankly didnt need any sarcastic, smart ass remarks.  That is all.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (24 Jan 2014)

The need for smart ass answers are always nil but just like in the real army, the chances of them happening are very high.

I've been on the receiving end of being told "no" for something and then questioning why that decision was what it was.  As young troops we don't have the "big picture". We only see what we have right in front of us.  Maybe the SSM was told that there were certain qualifications needed for the move and you lack them?  Maybe he is trying to push you to imporve as a soldier by giving you a goal to work to?  Maybe he just plain hates you?  Who knows.

You said he's sending you into a section that is going to be dissolved and put into the other sections so isn't there a chance you go there?  Be hopeful, be the best soldier you can be for yourself and someday you'll get the kickass jammy taskings that you wanted.

Good luck.


----------



## golgo1313 (24 Jan 2014)

> The need for smart *** answers are always nil but just like in the real army, the chances of them happening are very high.
> 
> I've been on the receiving end of being told "no" for something and then questioning why that decision was what it was.  As young troops we don't have the "big picture". We only see what we have right in front of us.  Maybe the SSM was told that there were certain qualifications needed for the move and you lack them?  Maybe he is trying to push you to imporve as a soldier by giving you a goal to work to?  Maybe he just plain hates you?  Who knows.
> 
> ...



Thank you for your help.  I figured there may have been a bigger picture, but the reasoning was just off to me.  It didn't seem right so I figured I'd ask.  Thanks for your insight.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jan 2014)

golgo1313 said:
			
		

> I wasnt looking for the answer I wanted.  I was looking for an answer.  I understand the other perspective.   Just asking about whether or not a chit history can be used against a healthy troop by an SSM.



If a soldier had a long list of medical chits I'd personally take it into a big consideration whether I supported a request depending on the nature of the request.

For example if someone spent most of a 4 year period in an infantry battalion bouncing from one medical chit to the other I wouldn't support them applying to be a firefighter, do selection or something else physically demanding.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (24 Jan 2014)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> If a soldier had a long list of medical chits I'd personally take it into a big consideration whether I supported a request depending on the nature of the request.
> 
> For example if someone spent most of a 4 year period in an infantry battalion bouncing from one medical chit to the other I wouldn't support them applying to be a firefighter, do selection or something else physically demanding.



Interesting... I have heard the opposite...

Units accepting and encouraging their members that serve no purpose to get out and do nothing somewhere else.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jan 2014)

golgo1313 said:
			
		

> George Wallace:  You are going to bring up forum guidelines and policies and refer to the one thing that I misspelled?  Truly a fine job you are doing!
> 
> I came looking for clarification.  I received your opinions, and frankly didnt need any sarcastic, smart ass remarks.  That is all.



That is not all.

You are on a private forum, which has members who monitor it for the owner.  If you want to have an attitude, and not play nice, you will not remain on this site.  Simple.

KISS


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jan 2014)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Interesting... I have heard the opposite...
> 
> Units accepting and encouraging their members that serve no purpose to get out and do nothing somewhere else.



And that attitude has led to the demise of Regiments.


----------



## Loachman (24 Jan 2014)

golgo1313 said:
			
		

> I came looking for clarification.  I received your opinions, and frankly didnt need any sarcastic, smart ass remarks.  That is all.



So you've never been ribbed, or ribbed anybody else, before, in your whole life?

I can understand your shock and dismay, then.

We're not just a bunch of teddy-bear-cuddlers here.

Rel - a - a - a - a - x, mon.


----------



## golgo1313 (24 Jan 2014)

> That is not all.
> 
> You are on a private forum, which has members who monitor it for the owner.  If you want to have an attitude, and not play nice, you will not remain on this site.  Simple.
> 
> KISS



I'd like to see when I haven't played nice.  Up until now, I think I've been pretty straight forward about things.  I came, I asked and I got an outlook that made sense.  The fact that I wasn't into getting smart ass remarks is no reason for you to flaunt your "power" as an admin.  Then to goad me with a kiss?  Sure, you're going to say you meant Keep It Simple Stupid, but we all know better.  




> If a soldier had a long list of medical chits I'd personally take it into a big consideration whether I supported a request depending on the nature of the request.
> 
> For example if someone spent most of a 4 year period in an infantry battalion bouncing from one medical chit to the other I wouldn't support them applying to be a firefighter, do selection or something else physically demanding.



See, ObedientiaZelum makes sense.  The only thing is I haven't ridden any chits, and never used one to get out of any duties or field ex's which is what I see a LOT of troops do.  If in a 2 year span a troop has been on chit 8 times (no less than a week each) and is deemed to be a chit commando then I guess it is what it is.  My intent was to go to less physically demanding section to potentially use my experience to help them in their infancy.  




> You said he's sending you into a section that is going to be dissolved and put into the other sections so isn't there a chance you go there?  Be hopeful, be the best soldier you can be for yourself and someday you'll get the kickass jammy taskings that you wanted.



That thought crossed my mind, but it seems like an extra amount of effort and paperwork to accomplish the same thing.   I guess if it made sense, it wouldn't be the army right?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jan 2014)

golgo1313 said:
			
		

> I'd like to see when I haven't played nice.  Up until now, I think I've been pretty straight forward about things.  I came, I asked and I got an outlook that made sense.  The fact that I wasn't into getting smart ass remarks is no reason for you to flaunt your "power" as an admin.  Then to goad me with a kiss?  Sure, you're going to say you meant Keep It Simple Stupid, but we all know better.
> 
> 
> See, ObedientiaZelum makes sense.  The only thing is I haven't ridden any chits, and never used one to get out of any duties or field ex's which is what I see a LOT of troops do.  If in a 2 year span a troop has been on chit 8 times (no less than a week each) and is deemed to be a chit commando then I guess it is what it is.  My intent was to go to less physically demanding section to potentially use my experience to help them in their infancy.
> ...



I'm going to suggest that if you want to get candid points of view, you'll just have to take the good with the bad.

Everyone here is entitled to their opinion. You are far from the first that has come here with this type of problem and you are being treated the same as the rest were.

You're asking people for a judgment or recommendation based solely on your say so. Most everyone here has been around the block more than a few times and knows not to accept the one single side of any story as any sort of proof. They are jaded and rightfully so.

If you want input, good or bad, stop poking people with a stick and arguing your topic off on a tangent with bitching and moaning about being corrected. Simply ignore the bad advice, about your problem, and discuss what you think is valid.

Stick to your complaint and stop the  :argument:


----------



## ajp (24 Jan 2014)

Calling it Discrimination is not appropriate I am certain.  The Sergeant Major has his priorities.  Just because you didn't get the choice you wanted doesn't mean he's not taken your choice into consideration.  It just means he said no.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Jan 2014)

golgo1313 said:
			
		

> I wasnt looking for the answer I wanted.  I was looking for an answer.  I understand the other perspective.   Just asking about whether or not a chit history can be used against a healthy troop by an SSM.



You are asking the question wrong, which makes me think you don't really understand the nature of the job and the responsibilities your CofC have to their HHQ.

Let me change it a little for it to make sense:



			
				golgo1313 said:
			
		

> I wasnt looking for the answer I wanted.  I was looking for an answer.  I understand the other perspective.   Just asking about whether or not a chit history can be used against a healthy troop  considered by an SSM when he has to decide what recommendations to make to the CofC about the most suitable place to put a soldier, and taking into consideration the input of others such as Troop/Platoon Leaders and WOs, etc in order to ensure his/her Sqn/Coy/etc  is ready to do the job it is expected to do.



The answer, of course, is yes a SSM should consider these things.  It is not punishment.  

You can always ask your Union Rep if that is okay and in line with our Collective Bargaining Agreement.  Oh wait; we don't have those in the CAF.

When this week started, I was on Crew X.  At the end of this week, I am on Crew Y.  The Sqn MWO for my trade didn't call me to ask my opinion, I just spoke quickly to my new Lead about a few little things and carried on after finding out.  Nature of the beast.

 :2c:


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Jan 2014)

I can almost guarantee that every single person that has posted on this thread has been disappointed at one time or another by not getting a sweet gig in their unit or a posting they desperately wanted.  It's always a bummer, it's (almost) never personal, just the nature of the big green man eating machine.


----------



## stealthylizard (24 Jan 2014)

Have to agree with the others.  People in bigger shoes look at bigger pictures.  I went through BMQ and DP1 to be an infanteer.  Myself  and many others eventually got moved over to transport for our deployment to Afghanistan.  None of us were very happy about it, if we wanted to drive a truck we would have enlisted as an MSE OP.  There were different reasons for different people.  Essentially it came down to (as was explained to us), they wanted people they could rely on to do their jobs with minimal supervision, and if something happened like an IED strike, or a TIC, as infantry, we would know how to react.  

Looking back at it now, I couldn't have asked for a better place to be.  Everyone got along.  We were left alone to do our own thing.  Our chain of command was virtually invisible, as they were in KAF while we were out supporting others in PB's and FOB's.  I only saw our platoon commander three times during the 7 months.  Platoon WO, once.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Jan 2014)

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> I only saw our platoon commander three times during the 7 months.  Platoon WO, once.



People pray for stuff like that!   ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jan 2014)

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> Myself  and many others eventually got moved over to transport for our deployment to Afghanistan.  None of us were very happy about it,



Try going from being told your're slated for a spot as a door gunner to doing convoy security


----------



## CombatDoc (24 Jan 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> People pray for stuff like that!   ;D


It obviously proves that God exists!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Jan 2014)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Try going from being told your're slated for a spot as a door gunner to doing convoy security



Trucks and stuff have doors too.   ;D


----------



## JesseWZ (24 Jan 2014)

Has it occurred to you (the OP) there may be a better, more qualified candidate for the job? For example, lets say there is someone who has the exact same history as you, PER rankings, TI, courses, tours, etc... but they haven't been on a chit 8 times in two years? (Which,* in my opinion only*, seems like a lot). 

If you were your SSM, and with true objectiveness looked at the above scenario, wouldn't you pick the guy without +/- 8 weeks out of the preceding 2 years on medical restrictions?

I would apologize for your feeling you have been hard done by, but I don't actually feel you deserve one. Sometimes you are simply the victim of circumstance outside of anyone's control.

Like if someone got hit by an asteroid. No one blames the person, or, for that matter, the asteroid.

You are pretty scant with the details ( and depending on the chits, and your unit, perhaps rightfully so) but unless new information arises, I have a hard time seeing how anyone  here will agree with you, especially after the attitude you have chosen to display towards other posters. Most of whom have a metric ton(ne?) of experience in the CF, and some of whom who have been Sergeant Majors and RSMs and the like.  

My 2 cents.


----------



## Szczep (25 Jan 2014)

golgo,  I think your points are very legit. 
Maybe, just maybe, you are too good at what you do. "They" do not want you to move from that position to something new.
If that is the case you will never get career opportunities like other do. Forget about being offered any courses, second language training, postings, etc. etc.  You will see others going through the system enjoying all that there is to be 'recognized' and you will be doing the job that you are very good at.  
Cheers and Pro Deo et Patria.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Jan 2014)

golgo1313 said:
			
		

> It is not. I read your entire post.  Its the only thing I felt warranted a comment.



...as opposed to saying, "I can see you point on several things you mentioned, but I don't think picking apart my spelling was warranted."  Otherwise, you come across as ignoring all the valid points Journeyman had, and just whining about having improper spelling being pointed out.

Perhaps you should have been clearer in your opening query, and said, "I only want to hear answers that support/reinforce my position that I was being discriminated against." 

Regards
G2G


----------

