# Hillier: CF "still very much on life support systems"



## MarkOttawa (13 Oct 2006)

A long way to go.
http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-10-12T212410Z_01_N12294136_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-DEFENSE-CANADA-COL.XML



> Canada's overstretched armed forces "are still very much on life support systems" despite recent budget increases, the country's top soldier said on Thursday.
> 
> General Rick Hillier's remarks were clearly aimed at former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien, who was cool to the military and presided over sharp cuts in spending during his time in power from 1993 to 2003.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## battleaxe (22 Oct 2006)

This article expands on the sorry state of personnel and manning that exists in the CF today.
I've been spending the last few days getting used to the site, perusing the different forums, and generally figuring out how to not repeat topics.
A lot of interesting info in here- a lot of stuff comes up again and again- retaining personnel  being one of the repeated concerns.
When speaking of lack of personnel and underborne trades in the CF, I must admit the one thing that has always floored me is the way DMCARM handles some of its releases.
Just when the CF needs all its corporate knowledge and military expertise, simply to train all the supposed recruits that are going to be flooding into the military, DMCARM is making some fairly asinine decisions on medical releases.

Tell me, is this an Atlantic issue, or is everyone aware of the following cases that have been in the media here?  

One guy- had a bout of kidney stones- then wasn't sick again for 6 years - guy never missed a day of work even when he had the stones.  He was medically discharged just recently- quite involuntarily.

Another guy- 23 years in- had resigned for a longer engagement.  Had stomach problems.  Was sick for awhile but hasn't been sick in two years. Has been well and a biopsy could not confirm Chrohn's - yet he was just released for Crohn's.

If the CF is on life support, why get rid of perfectly well and willing and able individuals? 

These examples are of men who are healthy and should not even have been considered for release.  But even if soldiers are injured and disabled , the military should be saying to them, " now you won't be going on deployment, but you're going to teach others how to do so and what to expect when they get there...you still owe us for all the training and you will finish your contract " (if they can work, I'm not heartless).

Many of you may already know my stance on employing medically released CF soldiers - from the Human Rights Commission case thread.

What I would like to know from everyone who is currently serving is this; how many of you would accept a disabled soldier in your workplace and how many would just feel resentful that the disabled one was working without being deployable?  How many would feel that they were just covering the ass of that person?

Many of you have stated that the CF should focus on retention- by that do you mean only deployable ones?  Would you end up resenting the disabled ones that are retained?

A great example of what I am getting at is MCpl Paul Frankln.  Inspiring individual- double amputee, yet currently teaching combat medicine in the military. A wonderful follow up on him was recently featured in the Globe and Mail.

Call me crazy, but shouldn't we be keeping any and all experience that we can- at least until the CF is up and running with adequate personnel numbers again?


----------



## blacktriangle (22 Oct 2006)

battleaxe said:
			
		

> This article expands on the sorry state of personnel and manning that exists in the CF today.
> I've been spending the last few days getting used to the site, perusing the different forums, and generally figuring out how to not repeat topics.
> A lot of interesting info in here- a lot of stuff comes up again and again- retaining personnel  being one of the repeated concerns.
> When speaking of lack of personnel and underborne trades in the CF, I must admit the one thing that has always floored me is the way DMCARM handles some of its releases.
> ...



Yep. Thats the one thing holding me back from picking Reg. force combat arms as a career. More then I fear being wounded, I would fear being medically released while I can still contribute in some way. I have seen many people, including teachers, that are disabled but still manage to do their job just fine. Not always, but often.

The last thing we need are people being released and sent on their way -not  after what the've done for Canada, and what they can still do for the CF. 

God bless Mcpl Franklin and those like him!


----------



## Petard (22 Oct 2006)

I think you're creeping into the validity of the universality principle, ie if you're not deployable, you're not employable"
I have to agree with it.
With respect to the individual cases you mentioned, on the face of it they seem outrageous that the Forces tossed these good men out. But then again I don't know all the reasons why those particular people got dealt such a s****y card, there might be more to the story.
In any case if what happened was wrong, and it sure seems that it is, then it should definitely be redressed, but that does mean we should toss the universality of service principle.
The people who are unfit and being released I believe should be considered for re-hire as DND instructors for military related training. This is happening to a certain extent with driver training, there are a number of others that I can think of that could use this approach. But keeping undeployable people in uniform does burden those that are, you are asking them to go more often than they should. This isn't just about deploying either. There is always a Left Out Of Battle list which limits who can be sent out on a task. By accepting what you're suggesting, keeping the unfit ones in uniform, then you are entrenching a problem even further, the LOB list could never be reduced.
It is very unfortunate to see someone who doesn't want to go being pushed out for medical reasons, but most also accept they don't want someone carrying part of their load either. There are programs to assist them if they are being medically released to retrain them. Not always the best, some want to be retrained to something that the system will not support for instance, but personally all things considered I think it is fair.


----------



## armyvern (22 Oct 2006)

Battleaxe,

I can only speak for my trade and my experience but my thoughts are:

Because my trade already has too many undeployable peronnel on PCats employed within it and others awaiting release, the positions those med/deployable unfit personnel fill up can not be staffed by fully fit and deployable soldiers. That is exactly the reason why personnel such as myself who are fit *and deployable,* have done 3 or 4 tours in the past 5 years. And when I'm not on a tour chances are I'm on a course away from home etc, not to mention that our regular day jobs often require us to be away from home for prolonged time periods on taskings, instructing etc.

Bottom line is that the CF requires fit and deployable personnel. And sure a pers who's suffering a disability etc may be able to perform one of those desk jobs in Canada, but he still can't deploy when his number comes up so I get to go twice, and then he's filling my job when I get back...which is my only break.

And there are trades worse off than mine. I am quite sorry about the circumstances you have detailed in your Human Rights thread, but the CF is the Military..and we need to be able to deploy and perform *every* function required of us, overseas, in-theatre or at home in Canada.


----------



## gaspasser (22 Oct 2006)

Well said Librarian, I see alot of that too in my trade.  Lots of members on release (retirement!) but having to go thru the motions for deployment which they will never see while other ones with personal problems and minor medical cats get to sit down.  I see alot of tours coming out of certain bases and the operators getting burned out while other operators are begging to go and can not because it's not their time or they are on the wrong base. 
 I know where you're coming from about you going on tour and someone who can't go occupies your position, they get the promotion and you get bumped down (sorry, partial ranting) Your trade and mine are two of the largest in the logistics today, we are also the ones with the oldest members.  All tours need loggies and most of us are getting burnt out and releasing.  We need more "fresh blood" to help take the pressure off.  My trade needs to get rid of the "lets send the experienced ones first" attitute.  You can not learn if you do not do.
I am what you would call a well rounded operator and can get deployed anywhere at anytime.  I've got Desert Sheild/Storm and two other tours below my belt, I am gearing up to go again. Yet I see others who aren't going due to whatever reasons sitting back and laughing.  
(rant off)
GP out


----------



## battleaxe (22 Oct 2006)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Battleaxe,
> 
> Bottom line is that the CF requires fit and deployable personnel. And sure a pers who's suffering a disability etc may be able to perform one of those desk jobs in Canada, but he still can't deploy when his number comes up so I get to go twice, and then he's filling my job when I get back...which is my only break.
> 
> And there are trades worse off than mine. I am quite sorry about the circumstances you have detailed in your Human Rights thread, but the CF is the Military..and we need to be able to deploy and perform *every* function required of us, overseas, in-theatre or at home in Canada.



Our case is not about having disabled soldiers employed in the CF.  I recognize that we cannot be clogging up the system and causing people like you to be deployed over and over.  That is not the intention.

The current state of affairs is this:  There are many people being released from the CF who can work full time, are highly trained and educated, do not want to go back to school, have proven themselves, and love their jobs.  There are thousands of people across Canada working to assess these disabled soldiers, rehabilitate them, train them to find jobs, re-educate them, and help them to apply for jobs.
Instead of paying a whole slew of people (who have never worked in the military) to find our guys jobs, why don't we just pay our guys to continue working.  In training, in mentoring, in support functions.  It will lighten your loads in garrison (so that you could actually not be stressed out and overworked when you are supposed to be having down time), and the CF could still hire all the newbies that are needed so that you could all take a much deserved break from deployment.

There are those who will need extensive disability services, if their injuries are severe enough.  However, SISIP already does rehab and vocational assistance, and provides financially, for those who are severely disabled. I don't even know what VAC is doing sticking their noses into rehab and vocational retraining.  If a body needs it, SISIP does it. 

 I'd like firm numbers on the percentage of our released (and highly trained) men and women who, although deemed disabled by CF standards, can and still want to work full time.

Ideally, if there were no unions and politics to cloud the issue, there would be a static and consistent support force - separate from the deployable force (an ideal place to employ disabled military personnel who wish to continue contributing to the military effort)- that would work in support of the deployable ones.  Who would you rather have working for you in Canada, some civilian employee who passed a government test but has never been to basic, or some former soldier who has walked a few in your boots?

The biggest question is-Where will we put them all. First of all, there may not be as many as some might think.  Some will be too hurt to work, some will opt for retirement, some will choose to follow old interests, some will choose the education benefit, some will have job offers waiting for them.  Where will we put them?  In training, most won't even have to move, all trades are hurting.  They'll simply be listed under a different employer so that replacements can still be brought in to refresh the troops.

There has to be some way that we don't lose all the training and expertise that's wrapped up in these men and women.  Any suggestions, I'm all ears (or fingers).  With all the spending scandals in the government today, I think that following good human resources practices and continuing to employ our well trained assets would be a minor one.

I'm not saying I have it all figured out-believe me, I thought I had it figured out before I started talking with you all on this site-now I'm all buggered up again.  I just know that, as is, the system's not working for me...or many others.  And if you were to bust up your knee next month, were released...and could still work full time...you might have issues with it as well.

It's all about where you've been and are coming from.

One last thought on this, however- the ones who are non-deployable and could contribute-isn't that what SPHL is for?  To take a soldier off the trade list so that a new recruit could be hired against the injured one?   Or is SPHL still just a dumping ground before release?
They were really working on emphasizing that a soldier could be on SPHL and still work when I left.  No headway in this area?


----------



## Petard (22 Oct 2006)

I don't think that's what SPHL is intended to do, be a "dumping ground". My understanding of it was people were sent there in case there was an outside chance their condition would improve, unfortunately more often than not it doesn't.

I think you're beginning to skew this thread into something you've become so fixated on, that the CF should automatically guarantee a person in the CF employment until the end of their contract, but I think you're not seeing the forest anymore, but you are bumping into a lot of trees. Take a step back.  

WRT hiring pers who have been medically released to assist in training, this is starting to happen now, and it is giving some relief to the PCF cycles of units. No it is not automatic that someone medically released gets hired, the individual cases are far too unique I would say for that to work. They are civie companies that bid for these training contracts, and their terms of refernce for hiring are for the most part making it ideal to hire the very people you're talking about. It is only good business sense to hire ex-military, even those who are medically released but can do the job.


----------



## armyvern (22 Oct 2006)

battleaxe said:
			
		

> Our case is not about having disabled soldiers employed in the CF.  I recognize that we cannot be clogging up the system and causing people like you to be deployed over and over.  That is not the intention.


Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that *exactly what you've proposed below*?? 



			
				battleaxe said:
			
		

> Call me crazy, but shouldn't we be keeping any and all experience that we can- at least until the CF is up and running with adequate personnel numbers again?


Again, my answer is no. Precisely because those undeployable soldiers take up positions at home. At home, if the position is staffed (even by an undeployable member), then the trade can not recruit to fill it...*as it isn't vacant*. We will not get our numbers up to *adequate deployable numbers of staff * until those undeployable numbers of personnel are removed from the total numbers of positions. Only once they are removed, does a position exist for our trade to recruit fit and deployable personnel into.

Please do not turn this thread into another "guarantee of employment" thread...you already have one running here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51761.0.html

It'd be appreciated thanks.


----------



## GAP (22 Oct 2006)

I got the impression that he was talking about non-deployable people that have been released, but are fully trained in the trade, coming back as contractors. This would free up the CF spot, but actually allow for an increase in personnel.


----------



## armyvern (22 Oct 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> I got the impression that he was talking about non-deployable people that have been released, but are fully trained in the trade, coming back as contractors. This would free up the CF spot, but actually allow for an increase in personnel.


Positions that contractors fill are CF military or DND public service positions that have been eliminated and contracted out as a "cost-savings" measure. We can't afford any more of that. Instead of eliminating and "contracting out positions" we need to fill them with fully fit and deployable CF members.


----------



## 284_226 (22 Oct 2006)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that *exactly what you've proposed below*??



No, she didn't.  She made a very clear distinction between being employed by the CF, and being employed by DND.



> Again, my answer is no. Precisely because those undeployable soldiers take up positions at home. At home, if the position is staffed (even by an undeployable member), then the trade can not recruit to fill it...*as it isn't vacant*. We will not get our numbers up to *adequate deployable numbers of staff * until those undeployable numbers of personnel are removed from the total numbers of positions. Only once they are removed, does a position exist for our trade to recruit fit and deployable personnel into.



I don't quite understand your logic.  If the original post in the thread referred to a story which stated we're at 62,000 personnel now, and plan to be at 75,000 five years from now, then wouldn't that imply that we have about 13,000 positions to recruit people into, even if we don't release *anyone* due to CRA/medical/voluntary reasons?



> Please do not turn this thread into another "guarantee of employment" thread...you already have one running here:
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51761.0.html
> 
> It'd be appreciated thanks.



The initial post in the thread dealt with the CF's inability to meet current obligations due to a shortage of manpower, and if you ignore the reference to having twice the applicants as compared to this time last year (which is malarkey), then how much more relevant could it be to keep highly trained people around in whatever capacity possible?


----------



## 284_226 (22 Oct 2006)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Positions that contractors fill are CF military or DND public service positions that have been eliminated and contracted out as a "cost-savings" measure. We can't afford any more of that. Instead of eliminating and "contracting out positions" we need to fill them with fully fit and deployable CF members.



It could be argued that hiring more public service employees (for argument's sake, we'll say CS-1/CS-2 classifications) would free up more "fit and deployable" ATIS/LCIS servicemembers to deploy.  Why have a uniformed person manning a help desk when you can put a civvie in the position at a lower wage, and deploy the servicemember until he/she breaks?  There is a happy medium in there, somewhere...


----------



## armyvern (22 Oct 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> It could be argued that hiring more public service employees (for argument's sake, we'll say CS-1/CS-2 classifications) would free up more "fit and deployable" ATIS/LCIS servicemembers to deploy.  Why have a uniformed person manning a help desk when you can put a civvie in the position at a lower wage, and deploy the servicemember until he/she breaks?  There is a happy medium in there, somewhere...


Well it could also be argued, and is in fact the case, that it is those over-deployed personnel who we are trying to retain who are getting out and taking up the contractor positions. So who really have you freed up to deploy? No-one...now you've just got to up the training and skill level of someone else to take that persons 'intended' position at those force-generators. And recruit more unqualified pers to fill in the vacuum, and the resources training them, and tasking qualified pers out to train them (during their 'supposed breaks' from tours). And the circle continues.

As for your response reference your friend battleaxe's post, all I can say is that we do not have those 13 000 new and promised positions right NOW nor the untrained and unqualified personnel to fill them NOW. We MAY have them 5 or 6 years down the road. The crisis is NOW. The positions that need to be fully fit and deployable are the ones we have right NOW, in this time of deployment. Now a "possible" 13000 troops over the next five years that those fully fit and deployable personnel will be busy training (and training requires going to the field etc so the instructors need to be fully fit) in between their tours and amongst their own personal courses the instructors are required to complete is really going to help in retaining them isn't it? Not likely.


----------



## Donut (22 Oct 2006)

With regards to the two specific cases, the kidney stones and Crohn's, my thoughts are on record in the CFHS threads on the topics.  

I'll point out the that systemic shortages (the 13,000) do not necessarily translate into "extra" positions in units that you can put people into. If it says you get 12 Storeswomen (to point to the Librarian), and you're deploying in support of X, and 4 of them are unfit field/deployment/whatever, you really only have 8 to support your establishment when the chips are down.  SO you look outside your establishment, and someone gets sucked out of another position to go.

As well, those 13,000, while there will be SOME growth, is really going to bring a lot of units to proper strength.  Rumint says someone asked to bring them up to wartime strength. That means that the new pers are going to allow a lot of things to run properly, for the first time in a long time.

Also these positions are usual steps on a career path.  Time in a line unit, time at a base, time at a school, time in training/standards/insert position of choice here.  These are all necessary steps to develop the military proffesional we need.  

I THINK, you could replace some support positions, such as SOME administration positions with CR types, and that MAY provide some more stability to the unit administration.  Our Bde Comd, and I suspect a lot of other commanders, have civilian secretaries.  That could possibly be expanded to a lower level, such as Res Orderly Rooms, but as The Librarian pointed out, these are the "Break" (from some things, anyway) portion of a career.  If you knew that your entire career was going to be 6-8 months overseas, 12-14 months at "home", and back overseas again, how inclined would you be to sign the IE?  Some would love it, others, not so much.

The Librarian has just posted a good chunk of what I've said, so +1 to her, too.

DF

Edit: Punctuation


----------



## dapaterson (23 Oct 2006)

+1 to ParaMedTech. and +1 to the Librarian.

We need non-deployable positions for military folks to rest between deployments.  Certain support functions can be civilianized, but we must retain military capacity in those roles as well (something we've been very poor at ensuring - we're short of CS and CSS everywhere... they are the real limiting factors right now).


----------



## battleaxe (23 Oct 2006)

ParaMedTech said:
			
		

> With regards to the two specific cases, the kidney stones and Crohn's, my thoughts are on record in the CFHS threads on the topics.



I found it.  Didn't mean to be repetative-I've been doing my best to wade through the 120+ current affairs forums.  Cut the new guys/gals a little slack-it takes time to catch up - you all talk a lot.

Anyway, I'm getting to realize that element plays a big role in perception of these issues.  Army tradespeople, I'm learning, have the biggest problem with what I stand  for. Most of you seem to think I'm out to lunch, actually. 
Well, so then are most of the human resources professionals and disability management professionals that I've consulted with over the last two years- who are also appalled at the way CF personnel are treated when injured.
So then are the soldiers/veterans who have already been through the process and agree that it doesn't work so well all of the time.

I must admit, I'm shocked at some of the negative comments I've been getting.  They haven't changed my opinions to any degree...they just shock me. Always good to get a sobering boot in the butt, though.  It focuses me.

Some of you seem so cavalier about the employment of others who don't share your state of "deployability". You seem quite insensitive...but I know that's not it.  Bravado, defense mechanisms, definitely a different mentality that, as a nurse, I've never encountered before.  I've not had many encounters with combat personnel other than in the hospital - and that is why I don't believe your attitudes have anything to do with insensitivity - from those experiences I think that most of you often care too much about everything.
Are you, if injured (knock on wood) willing to accept the fate of your injured comrades?
Are you willing to accept your release, gracefully walk away and not scream that all the expertise and knowledge you sweated so hard for is valuable and could help to save the lives of other soldiers, even if you can't physically be on the ground with them. 
Seems to me that you are doing yourself an injustice.  I think you deserve more consideration that you would demand for yourself. I think that you have done things and know things that make you invaluable to the well being of future generations of soldiers.

It's too bad you feel the CF and DND should have the power to simply throw that away.

Anyway, this topic has been discussed quite a bit before.  I've done a bit more searching and have a better handle on what has gone through before.  I'll try not to repeat again.  

I got zealous- perhaps because I've been living this for awhile- and the majority of the people who have contacted me are looking for help because they have difficulties with the system and current employment initiatives.  It's been discussed a lot, but the problem is far from resolved.

Best to you all.


----------



## paracowboy (24 Oct 2006)

I'm living it right now. If the Army decides that I can no longer be of Service to it, and tells me to piss off, then that is what I will do.

That's why it's called SERVICE.

And that's why all these HR people, and other flat-faced, dope-smokin', greasy civvies are so appalled. Because we SERVE. We SERVE until we are drained dry and valueless, and the Army kicks us to the curb like the heartless bitch she is. We don't have the same "me first" mentality so prevalent in this disgusting excuse of a society. We don't place our wants before everything else. We place the mission first, THEN our men, then ourselves. And the mission demands fresh, deployable troops right NOW. To be trained up, used up, and thrown aside just like us.

Get over it.


----------



## Journeyman (24 Oct 2006)

battleaxe said:
			
		

> I recognize that we cannot be clogging up the system and *causing people like you to be deployed over and over. That is not the intention*.


Regardless, that is the result.



			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> ...and *if you ignore the reference * to having twice the applicants as compared to this time last year (*which is malarkey*)...


One cannot judge whether or not you are more informed than the CDS, who made that statement; I suspect he may actually have the figures at hand, whereas you have offered nothing. Nonetheless, it's not a really useful discussion technique to say "well, if you just ignore the stuff that I don't believe...."



			
				battleaxe said:
			
		

> I must admit, I'm shocked at some of the negative comments I've been getting.  *They haven't changed my opinions to any degree...they just shock me*.


 So you came here, seeking advice, acknowledging that you do not know enough about the system. Admirable. Yet, when you received responses that did not align with your pre-conceived notions, particularly from the army types who speak overwhelmingly from personal experience, you dismiss the input. You try and justify the views as being informed by either callousness or caring too much - - basically judging the source of the message, rather than focussing upon what you are being told. 

If you must judge the messengers, perhaps consider them as providing a realistic appraisal based on having to live with the results of unqualified "experts" who, despite being informed otherwise, still claim to speak on our behalf. 

While you should be congratulated for your intentions, your refusal to accept input which doesn't reinforce your views seriously diminishes your credibility. Please stop trying to "help."


----------



## battleaxe (24 Oct 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> While you should be congratulated for your intentions, your refusal to accept input which doesn't reinforce your views seriously diminishes your credibility. Please stop trying to "help."



And that's all I've ever wanted to do.  I'm sorry if I managed to offend in the process-misguided soul that I am. 

 I have never presumed to speak on anybody's behalf.  All opinions and editorials I've ever written are fully my own, based on experiences I've had personally and with others.
You imply that I am close minded and unwilling to accept your input.  I say that is the only reason that I've come onto this site-to learn and be open minded.  The fact that your input hasn't changed my way of thinking is not something you should find offensive.  They are my opinions and words and the last ime I checked, the battle for freedom of thought was over and won.

Have you all been open-minded enough to read and think about the links that I have posted?  Or have you just dismissed them outright because I'm not one of the regular gang?  

Nobody yet has taken the time to answer my question-What if it was you injured and being released?  What would you expect to happen?  Sorry, I did get one opinion on it from paracowboy-the guy who lives in a "disgusting excuse of a society" and is quite fine with having his butt kicked to the curb.  

Everybody else of a like mind?


OK, then I don't want to see any of you on the street, like the veteran on Princess street in Kingston, standing there with your brain bucket held out for change, holding a sign that says, "I don't have a job, and VAC won't help me, can you spare me some change".

I don't want to see you there, because then I'll feel the need to help again.  And don't kick my ass for wanting to help...What drives you?  

You imply that I am close-minded.

Back at ya. 

I'm not block-headed, nor am I a sucker for punishment...and I refuse to continue arguing for the sake of arguing.  I'll back off and stop trying to convince you.  I just ask that you try to accept that not everyone is so ready to accept the current state of things as some of you are.


----------



## 284_226 (24 Oct 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> I'm living it right now. If the Army decides that I can no longer be of Service to it, and tells me to piss off, then that is what I will do.



I seriously doubt your response to being told to piss off by the Army will be a simple "Okay, boss".  



> That's why it's called SERVICE.



Service does not mean blindly following whatever you're told to do, nor does service mean that your employer has no obligations to you.



> And that's why all these HR people, and other flat-faced, dope-smokin', greasy civvies are so appalled. Because we SERVE. We SERVE until we are drained dry and valueless, and the Army kicks us to the curb like the heartless ***** she is. We don't have the same "me first" mentality so prevalent in this disgusting excuse of a society. We don't place our wants before everything else. We place the mission first, THEN our men, then ourselves. And the mission demands fresh, deployable troops right NOW. To be trained up, used up, and thrown aside just like us.



Holy crap...were you waving a CF Ensign and standing at Attention when you typed that?  

If you haven't noticed, in the last few decades it has become quite clear that servicemembers and veterans are NOT to be simply used up and thrown aside.  If you're a MCpl, I'm sure that somewhere along the line you were told that CF members are ASSETS, to be managed responsibly just like any other resource.  If you pay any attention to what our current CDS is saying, we've changed from a risk-averse organization to a risk-mitigated one.  Risk-mitigated does not mean we are simply disposable assets.  For you to believe that we're simply to be used and thrown away would imply that you think there's an unlimited supply of us (servicemembers) to replace those being tossed.  That's simply NOT the case, and until the entire organization returns to a somewhat healthier state, I think your take on things is seriously flawed - and the SERVICE disagrees with you.


----------



## paracowboy (24 Oct 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> I seriously doubt your response to being told to piss off by the Army will be a simple "Okay, boss".


you're wrong. I've got plans in place, should that happen. When I signed the line, I was well aware that I could be killed, or worse severely injured, and would then be tossed away with a tiny pension to cover medical expenses. If you weren't, you should have paid more attention. We joined the ARMY. Our job is to place our body in harm's way on a regular basis. Anyone who didn't think they'd get hurt and replaced, is probably not too bright.



> Service does not mean blindly following whatever you're told to do, nor does service mean that your employer has no obligations to you.


that, right there, tells me what your attitude is. "Employer"  :



> Holy crap...were you waving a CF Ensign and standing at Attention when you typed that?


 That's a stupid question. How the hell could I type, if I were standing properly at attention? When at the position of attention, one's hands are at one's side. Perhaps you didn't pay attention when being taught Drill, either?



> and the SERVICE disagrees with you.


oh, I don't think so. I've had my options outlined quite clearly, and should it be decided that I can no longer be deployed, then I can no longer be retained, and will be punted to the door, where I will put my back-up plans in action.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Oct 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> I seriously doubt your response to being told to piss off by the Army will be a simple "Okay, boss".
> 
> Service does not mean blindly following whatever you're told to do, nor does service mean that your employer has no obligations to you.
> 
> ...



Sorry but you are wrong, I have seen with my own eyes fine soldiers when injured beyond hope of returning being let go, it broke their hearts and the hearts of the CO doing it, but with such a small military and budget, there is little room for compassion, every slot counts and every boot needs to be able to respond. I don't agree with using certain trades as infantry, but for tactical and long term planning reasons, not because it's not fair. the situation is directly the result of Liberal policies over the last decade, it's about time they took the blame for this.


----------



## 284_226 (24 Oct 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> battleaxe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, it's not.  If you think it is, go back and read that post again.  Repeat as necessary until you understand that nobody is asking for a disabled servicemember to continue wearing a uniform.



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> 284_226 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm sure he does have the figures at hand.  I'm merely questioning whether the figures he stated are accurate.  He only stated that "we're seeing twice the applicants show up", which is far from indicative of how many are actually being accepted.  My information comes from two acquaintances that work at two different recruiting centres.  Their information is telling me that not only are the number of applicants way down, but that they're not even getting people in the door.  These are both "eastern" recruiting centres, which have historically enjoyed higher than average numbers of applicants/entrants.  So, unless these two centres are statistical flukes (and I have no reason to believe that they are, but anything is possible), then something doesn't add up with the statement the CDS is making.



> So you came here, seeking advice, acknowledging that you do not know enough about the system. Admirable. Yet, when you received responses that did not align with your pre-conceived notions, particularly from the army types who speak overwhelmingly from personal experience, you dismiss the input. You try and justify the views as being informed by either callousness or caring too much - - basically judging the source of the message, rather than focussing upon what you are being told.



Considering there's a large number of people who still (mistakenly) believe that she's arguing that CF members should continue to serve in the CF regardless of disability, I think she should be granted a little latitude in addressing the "source of the message". 



> If you must judge the messengers, perhaps consider them as providing a realistic appraisal based on having to live with the results of unqualified "experts" who, despite being informed otherwise, still claim to speak on our behalf.



Again, if the "messengers" still haven't grasped the concept of what's being presented, how can their appraisals be realistic?



> While you should be congratulated for your intentions, your refusal to accept input which doesn't reinforce your views seriously diminishes your credibility. Please stop trying to "help."



I think there have been several people who understand her views and have expressed that there are merits to it; however, there remains a large number of people who think that they're going to be stuck doing an extra roto because some disabled CF member is hogging a domestic posting.  Once again, if you carefully read her arguments, nobody is going to be put in that position.

I think the reason most people are misinterpreting battleaxe's position is because they so vehemently oppose the concept of a disabled CF member continuing to serve, that they get their back up so fast they can't be bothered to read enough to find out that's not what battleaxe is advocating.  Put aside the preconception and emotion, and look at it again.  If you're a serving and healthy CF member, battleaxe's "concept of ops" doesn't affect you one iota, and greatly benefits those that the CF "tosses to the curb after being used up".


----------



## Petard (24 Oct 2006)

It seems to me that a lot of the responses now in this thread are a long way away from what the I saw as the message the CDS was trying to get across.
I thought his message was "don't think enough has been done yet to repair the damage that was done during the years of neglect".
I don't see anything in the message that relates to the argument here being made about keeping medically released service pers employed in the military. To me I thought it was aimed at those who might think the military doesn't need anymore, or thought that the military  got enough in the last budget and raised manning levels; the CDS I thought was simply saying not yet, not given the load on the machine and the damage done before.
Now whether or not what Battle axe or 284-226 are pushing at has any merit in helping alleviate the damage that was done before in our capability I thought they made more than clear in the discussion related to the human rights challenge thread. 
This "discussion" doesn't seem to have any traction anymore.


----------



## 284_226 (24 Oct 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> you're wrong. I've got plans in place, should that happen. When I signed the line, I was well aware that I could be killed, or worse severely injured, and would then be tossed away with a tiny pension to cover medical expenses. If you weren't, you should have paid more attention.



And if you've been paying attention, somebody obviously thinks it shouldn't be your burden to carry if you get injured or killed while serving, otherwise we'd never have seen the New Veterans Charter, or any of the other umpteen improvements to benefits given to veterans over the last couple of decades.  That's great that you took the initiative to take care of things yourself, but I think at the end of the day it's been well established that it's not your obligation to do so.



> We joined the ARMY. Our job is to place our body in harm's way on a regular basis. Anyone who didn't think they'd get hurt and replaced, is probably not too bright.



To be entirely correct, you joined the Army.  I joined the Navy and VOTed to the Air Force, but that's neither here nor there.  If the crap hits the fan so bad that they need my sorry butt on the front line, then please direct me to the handbaskets and I'll be right there.  It's not a matter of not expecting that you'd be hurt or replaced, it's that you or your family will be taken care of should you take a little "unlimited liability" in the kevlar helmet.



> that, right there, tells me what your attitude is. "Employer"  :



What else would you call them?  As an employee, my butt belongs to the CF.  As the employer, the CF is obligated to take care of me or my family if my SERVICE disables me.  The precedent is established with all the WWI, WWII, Korea, Merchant Marine and other veterans who are now under the care of VAC.  Are you going to tell me they should've taken out life or disability insurance??



> That's a stupid question. How the hell could I type, if I were standing properly at attention? When at the position of attention, one's hands are at one's side. Perhaps you didn't pay attention when being taught Drill, either?



I wasn't sure if you took a "split keyboard" one step further or not.  But in my defence, I went through a Naval platoon in '85 and did shipboard drill after that.  The Air Force doesn't seem to do drill, so I'm flat out of excuses.



> oh, I don't think so. I've had my options outlined quite clearly, and should it be decided that I can no longer be deployed, then I can no longer be retained, and will be punted to the door, where I will put my back-up plans in action.



I hope for your sake that your back-up plans are infallible, because you may change your tune slightly if you have to fall back to service-related benefits.


----------



## paracowboy (24 Oct 2006)

Petard said:
			
		

> This "discussion" doesn't seem to have any traction anymore.


nope. But it WAS mildly amusing. I'll probably let it go a bit more, giggle at the sillier stuff, then split it all off and let this topic get back on track.


----------



## 284_226 (24 Oct 2006)

Petard said:
			
		

> It seems to me that a lot of the responses now in this thread are a long way away from what the I saw as the message the CDS was trying to get across.
> I thought his message was "don't think enough has been done yet to repair the damage that was done during the years of neglect".
> I don't see anything in the message that relates to the argument here being made about keeping medically released service pers employed in the military. To me I thought it was aimed at those who might think the military doesn't need anymore, or thought that the military  got enough in the last budget and raised manning levels; the CDS I thought was simply saying not yet, not given the load on the machine and the damage done before.



I agree as to your interpretation of his message.



> Now whether or not what Battle axe or 284-226 are pushing at has any merit in helping alleviate the damage that was done before in our capability I thought they made more than clear in the discussion related to the human rights challenge thread.
> This "discussion" doesn't seem to have any traction anymore.



Simply put, our capability is suffering right now, and now is not the time to be indiscriminately tossing people out the door.  I think enough arguments have been made that, at least in the interim, we need just about every body we've got to be able to fulfill our taskings and be able to train new enrollees until they're trained enough to stand on their own two feet.  When the tempo drops, feel free to toss all the less than able bodies to the curb.  That's all.


----------



## 284_226 (24 Oct 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> nope. But it WAS mildly amusing. I'll probably let it go a bit more, giggle at the sillier stuff, then split it all off and let this topic get back on track.



Seems to me it was on-topic discussion from square one.  And I don't think there's anything amusing about it, unless you want to count the drill remarks...


----------



## battleaxe (24 Oct 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> I'm living it right now. If the Army decides that I can no longer be of Service to it, and tells me to piss off, then that is what I will do.
> 
> That's why it's called SERVICE.
> 
> ...



You'll only be living what I'm talking about if you are ever disabled and looking at release.

When I was first told of this site, and wanted to contribute, I was asked to read the site guidelines and abide by them.  I read in those guidelines that we are, at all times, to act as representatives of the Canadian Forces.

Calling interested civilians "flat faced, dope-smokin', greasy civvvies" might be a bit off-putting. I have to hope that other CF personnel don't want to be represented by someone who believes that we live in a "disgusting excuse of a society".

Why did you join if you have such a low opinion of those you are tasked with protecting?

I was really looking forward to some challenging arguments and smart discussion.  This is something I thought that you, as DS, would encourage. Being told to "get stuffed" and "get over it", however, doesn't really strike me as conducive to healthy debate.  

But, that's just me.

If, in the future, you wish to offer some definitive arguments and details on how the system is working for you, I'll be keeping an eye on the site. I'd be interested to read about your ideas.  Until then, I think I'll steer clear of you.

You seem to have it all worked out, and I wish you the best, paracowboy.

I'm glad to have mildly amused you...made your day, I'm sure.

Thanks for fighting for us all. I may not appreciate your attitude, but I will always appreciate that.




[Edited to move code "[/quote]" so as to make sense of the 'Quote with Post'.]


----------



## Journeyman (24 Oct 2006)

Well, 284_226, here's what I do know.....

As a member here for less than two weeks, you have managed to turn three threads into the "284_226 show": Human Rights Commission Challenge (time-sensitive topic); Kidney Stones; and  Hillier: CF "still very much on life support systems" 1

In doing so, you've called the CDS a liar.2 

When called on it, you implied it was merely his staff officers lying to him.3 

You've effectively called a respected combat arms solider a liar because he has a different interpretation of "service."4

Although a member with significant overseas time was explaining to "battleaxe" why we _need_ garrison tours to recoup, you dismissed her views claiming _she_ didn't understand5

Quite simply, anyone who doesn't agree with you must


> *go back and read that post again.  Repeat as necessary until you understand* 6



Now, you've spelled out the rationale for all of this:
You've  been diagnosed with kidney stones, and if "shown the door, [you] won't be going quietly."7

To "make your case," you come seeking support from those who face a higher risk of injury due to regular deployments, notwithstanding there is no comparison with your trade, which deploys only to "UAE/Alert"...and you're not in the rank group that deploys8

However, you see no option that _you_ are mistaken. Nor is there recognition of the simple fact that soldiers....serving members with extensive deployment experience....*do not share your point of view*. 

Battleaxe had the common sense, if not the grace, to bow out:


			
				battleaxe said:
			
		

> *I refuse to continue arguing for the sake of arguing.  I'll back off and stop trying to convince you.*



*I therefore ask that you seriously consider following the wisdom of your heroine.*

-----------------------------------
1. Human Rights Commission Challenge (time-sensitive topic) http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51761/post-460829.html#msg460829
Kidney Stones http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49135/post-430774.html#msg430774
Hillier: CF "still very much on life support systems" http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51805/post-461373.html#msg461373
2. http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51805/post-466376.html#msg466376
3. http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51805/post-467595.html#msg467595
4. http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51805/post-467548.html#msg467548
5. http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51805/post-466376.html#msg466376
6. http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51805/post-467595.html#msg467595
7. http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49135/post-460493.html#msg460493
8. http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49135/post-460493.html#msg460493


----------



## paracowboy (24 Oct 2006)

battleaxe said:
			
		

> You'll only be living what I'm talking about if you are ever disabled and looking at release.


I am. At least by Cbt Arms standards, and possibly (I'm still waiting out) by CF standards.

as for this: 





> When I was first told of this site, and wanted to contribute, I was asked to read the site guidelines and abide by them.  I read in those guidelines that we are, at all times, to act as representatives of the Canadian Forces.
> 
> Calling interested civilians "flat faced, dope-smokin', greasy civvvies" might be a bit off-putting. I have to hope that other CF personnel don't want to be represented by someone who believes that we live in a "disgusting excuse of a society".
> 
> ...


stick around. You'll get used to me, and soon enough you'll decipher the code. Ask Pea or any of the other civvie chicks.

And as for our society, and the civvies that fill it - I'll fight for 'em, kill for 'em, and die for 'em, but I DON'T have to talk to 'em.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Oct 2006)

What I am witnessing here is the difference in attitudes between Cbt Arms "Brothers at Arms"/"Family" and Trades who are more accustomed to 9 to 5 jobs in sterile environments, having never seen the inside of a tent or hooch.  There are distinctive difference in these two types of people.  For some the CF becomes a family, for others it is just a job.  For some it is a 'commitment', while for others it is for personal/professional gain.  It can cause great amounts of conflict between members from Field Units and those from Static Institutions.  It is not conveniently confined to 'Cbt Arms vs the Rest', but usually can be distinguished by the 'Green' vs 'Blue'.  Some shades of 'Blue' are more 'Green' than 'Blue', so that can't be used as a General distinction either.   For some it is Service to Country.  For others it is Service to Self.

Anyway, I am sure that by reading the posts of many here, you will be able to tell by their 'attitude', from where they come and where they are headed.


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Oct 2006)

I joined as a Field Engineer in '79.  I never went far in rank, but I never said no to a posting, tour, or task.  I screwed my back, hard, on Ex "Cox's Folly" in Suffield in 97, spinal board, medevac, 8 months learning to walk upright, etc.  Took over 4 years for a CMRB decision: Accommodation or release.  I asked what accommodation was, and was told it meant I could never serve in a CER again, let alone operate my babies (AEV/AVLB).  I took the 3B, as I had over my 20 by then.  I came in a field soldier, and I'd be buggered if I wasn't going out the same way.  Not sure of my point here, but it felt relevant when I started typing.....Carry on, type among yourselves.


----------



## 284_226 (24 Oct 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well, 284_226, here's what I do know.....
> 
> As a member here for less than two weeks, you have managed to turn three threads into the "284_226 show": Human Rights Commission Challenge (time-sensitive topic); Kidney Stones; and  Hillier: CF "still very much on life support systems" 1



So my time here on this forum has some bearing or weight?  I'll be happy to provide references to other forums I've participated in since the late 80's if posting history makes any difference at all.  I had no idea that debating with people turn it into my show.



> In doing so, you've called the CDS a liar.2



If that's what you want to call it, sure.  Based on the limited information I've seen, I'm comfortable enough to go out on a limb and say that "twice the people through the door as compared to this time last year" is at the very least misleading.



> When called on it, you implied it was merely his staff officers lying to him.3



I said nothing of the sort - but that's a pretty adept attempt at putting words in my mouth, though.  I said I questioned whether the figures were accurate, either as a result of being given misleading information, or from twisting it to feed his audience at the time.  If I recall correctly, the fire aboard HMCS/M Chicoutimi was described by brass to the media as "minor".  We all know how accurate that was.



> You've effectively called a respected combat arms solider a liar because he has a different interpretation of "service."4



Again, I said nothing of the sort.  I pointed out that "service" != "slave".  At no point did I call him a liar.



> Although a member with significant overseas time was explaining to "battleaxe" why we _need_ garrison tours to recoup, you dismissed her views claiming _she_ didn't understand5



If we're bringing up "significant overseas time", then I should probably mention that I had 9 years sea time, with most of the years being well in excess of 180 days deployed.  I know all about "shore postings" and the need to recoup.  I dismissed her view because she didn't (and still doesn't, as far as I've been able to tell) understand that nobody is asking for disabled members to remain serving, thus jamming up her domestic posting/position.  Yet, she (and others) repeatedly bring that issue up, despite it being a non-issue in the argument.



> Quite simply, anyone who doesn't agree with you must "go back and read that post again.  Repeat as necessary until you understand".



People are free to disagree with me if they like.  However, if their logic is faulted, I'm well within my bounds to point that out - that's what debate is.



> Now, you've spelled out the rationale for all of this:
> You've  been diagnosed with kidney stones, and if "shown the door, [you] won't be going quietly."7



Interesting how you conspicuously ignored my follow-on to that post, which stated "_If the PCat does come down the pipe, I will raise a fuss for no other reason than the fact that I'm proud of the 21-year career I've had with the CF until now, and I don't think I'm ready to be put to pasture just yet.  I'm supporting the CHRC case mostly because there are a lot of injured CF members that don't have the luxury I have of being able to fall back on not one, but two highly marketable skill sets.  I'm in no fear of not being able to find work.  It does concern me that members who have little more than "Death Tech" to offer on a resume are simply offered "priority hire" with the Public Service.  That's not good enough for our people, especially when every other Canadian is guaranteed better by law._

So there, now you have my rationale.



> To "make your case," you come seeking support from those who face a higher risk of injury due to regular deployments, notwithstanding there is no comparison with your trade, which deploys only to "UAE/Alert"...and you're not in the rank group that deploys8



Again, context.  My rank group deploys - I'm not specifically trained on the deployed equipment, despite being specifically trained in nearly everything else.  Wouldn't it stand to reason that everyone is afforded the same benefit regardless of whether they get a bullet in the helmet in Afghanistan or they slip going down a ladder onboard a ship alongside in Halifax harbour?



> However, you see no option that _you_ are mistaken. Nor is there recognition of the simple fact that soldiers....serving members with extensive deployment experience....*do not share your point of view*.



I'm proven wrong on occasion.  But it's always by someone who's done their homework better than I have, and there aren't many out there that can claim that.  I'll debate a point until someone offers concrete proof to the contrary.



> Battleaxe had the common sense, if not the grace, to bow out:
> *I therefore ask that you seriously consider following the wisdom of your heroine.*



I've spent the last 21 years battling ignorance and/or indifference, and I'm not about to quit now.


----------



## armyvern (24 Oct 2006)

Edited to delete my entire post about where I am coming from.

1) Because it's not worth arguing over with people who will continue to presume they are the the ones with the only answer, which from my experience...is not the answer; and

2) Because my experience is not their experience insult my intelligence, and my compassion for my fellow injured soldiers.

So that leaves us with this option...

Just one more thread...placed on the ignore list.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51805/post-466365.html#msg466365

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51805/post-466327.html#msg466327


----------



## Petard (24 Oct 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I joined as a Field Engineer in '79.  I never went far in rank, but I never said no to a posting, tour, or task.  I screwed my back, hard, on Ex "Cox's Folly" in Suffield in 97, spinal board, medevac, 8 months learning to walk upright, etc.  Took over 4 years for a CMRB decision: Accommodation or release.  I asked what accommodation was, and was told it meant I could never serve in a CER again, let alone operate my babies (AEV/AVLB).  I took the 3B, as I had over my 20 by then.  I came in a field soldier, and I'd be buggered if I wasn't going out the same way.  Not sure of my point here, but it felt relevant when I started typing.....Carry on, type among yourselves.


Well Battle axe was wonderin what someone "green' would do if it happened to them personally.
here's one more.
In 95 I faced a CMRB, didn't even really know a lot about what was going on then, other than I had a broken Achilles tendon that might mean the same options as Kat faced, but with one more, if the prognosis was positive in 3 months my case would be looked at again and I might be able to stay without restriction.
3 months of hard work with an outstanding physio-therapist and the progress was good enough that I could stay. But if it hadn't been, I was damned if I would stay and have someone carry my weight, or to sit as a civie in a course programmers chair, or any other spot that needs serving pers to cycle through, not remain entrenched and grow stale.
There were options then for people being medically released, and I would say they're even better now. Like I said earlier, there may be exceptions, and that's what the redress process is for, but I still think it's a fair system. Had it happened then that I had to go, if it happens in the future, I would definitely not go bitter, but would have been glad for having had the chance to serve as long as I had. I would keep in touch with those that knew me, and to see how they're doing (maybe old soldiers don't fade away so easily), and though I don't have much more than death tech either for my resume, I would get on with life.


----------



## 284_226 (24 Oct 2006)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Edited to delete my entire post about where I am coming from.
> 
> 1) Because it's not worth arguing over with people who will continue to presume they are the the ones with the only answer, which from my experience...is not the answer; and
> <snip>
> ...



Now that's ripe.

As a parting comment, she makes reference to two quotes in which she argues that disabled members should not be in uniform taking up a non-deployed position, resulting in her being deployed more often.

Now did I or did I not state in my last post (and others) that nobody is asking for disabled CF members to remain in a uniform?

This sounds like a scene out of a Laurel and Hardy flick.
_
Person A - "I don't like being deployed more than I have to".

Person B - "Nobody is asking you to deploy more than you have to".

Person A - "No, I *really* don't like being deployed more than I have to, and I know I'm right".

Person B - "But you're not going to be deployed more than you have to be".

Person A - "You're not listening.  I told you I don't like being deployed more than I have to._

 :brickwall:


----------



## paracowboy (24 Oct 2006)

well, I was going to split this thing, but it's only got two posts that are remotely related to the actual subject, the rest being some bizarre tangent about how the CF should be some sort of welfare program, or owes 284_226 a bazillion dollars or something, so I don't think it's salvageable. I'm just gonna let it sink.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (24 Oct 2006)

I was medically released in 01 because of a crushed leg after a MLVW ran over it in Petawawa, i could still walk and run to a certain extent with the metal rod and screws they had to use to save the leg, but i certainly could't put a 80lb ruck on my back and walk for miles on end or be deployed overseas, what did they do with me, put me behind a desk and until i was healed and then they medically released me. Do i feel like i was shafted and they just discarded me, of course not, they helped me through the entire process with SISIP and veterans affairs before the release and for the most part it all went fairly smooth. I knew that my career was over and it was time to move on. I now have another career in electronics in which they paid for my schooling and a decent pension. I had 23 good years in the forces and i wouldn't trade that for anything, but looking back i know now that someone would have to pickup the slack somewhere along the line for me because they were short able bodied people and that isn't something i was willing to ask anyone to do.

 Think about it...


----------



## Journeyman (24 Oct 2006)

battleaxe said:
			
		

> *I'll back off and stop trying to convince you*.





			
				battleaxe said:
			
		

> You'll only be living what I'm talking about....


Well, that hiatus lasted a whole five hours.  :

You said you were done here. For some of us, words have meaning. Out


----------



## Jed (24 Oct 2006)

Librarian, Your picture really "cracks" me up.  ;D


----------



## armyvern (24 Oct 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> Now that's ripe.


Actually you are quite ripe, which is exactly the reason I deleted my post. I do not have to justify myself to people such as yourself who've nothing better to do than insult the intelligence, integrity and what you believe to be the lack of compassion by over-deployed pers such as myself.


			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> As a parting comment, she makes reference to two quotes in which she argues that disabled members should not be in uniform taking up a non-deployed position, resulting in her being deployed more often.
> 
> Now did I or did I not state in my last post (and others) that nobody is asking for disabled CF members to remain in a uniform?


That is indeed what you said in response to my post at the first link where I had pointed out that that was what was inferred by her comments I quoted there. 
To which the retort was no she's talking about DND posns and *contractor* positions to which I responded at my second linked post as to why the myth of putting them in*contractor* positions would not work. Contractor positions are in fact positions that the CF gives up...in order to save money. The more of them we give up, the less places for us fit and deployable pers to work at the same locations as our familes during our deployment "breaks."


			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> This sounds like a scene out of a Laurel and Hardy flick.
> 
> Person A - "I don't like being deployed more than I have to".
> 
> ...


I suugest to you, that it is you who is not listening and indeed, continues to display that holier than thou attitude by constantly belittling and insulting those personnel who are not in agreement with your position.

Which reiterates the fact that the deleting of my post was the proper thing to do. No, you're right, I can't argue with your brick wall.

Best to avoid demeaning and insulting others, and I actually have no time for people like you who seem to enjoy it, fare thee well.

*"Check ignore button!!"*

*"Checked!"*

Librarian *OUT*.


----------



## battleaxe (24 Oct 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well, that hiatus lasted a whole five hours.  :
> 
> You said you were done here. For some of us, words have meaning. Out



I freelance write and have been published in The Globe and Mail, The Chronicle Herald, The Kingston Whig-Standard, Today's Parent, Tour of Duty Atlantic, and Canadian Living.  You want to lecture me on the meaning of words-have a ball.

Read my post again...I said I would stop trying to convince you.  I never said I would stop monitoring the site.  Actually, I stated quite plainly that I was going to keep in touch.

My message this afternoon had nothing to do with trying to convince you of anything-it was all about the unprofessional conduct of one of the DS and the lack of fair and reasonable dialogue that can be found on this site.  Proof in point - I'm adding your message "Out" to my ever expanding list of rude responses- "Get stuffed" being my favorite so far.

Once again, you have failed to actually read and grasp what I've written.

I'm going to continue looking in because eventually somebody will actually take the time to go over what I've written and catch the clue about what I am trying to impress upon you.  I leave it up to 284_226 - who is actually one of the few of you who actually do get it and people like Mr. Monkhouse - who gets it and has the power to influence the topics on this site - to actually do the convincing.

When you actually do get the concept, this discussion will become truly interesting.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Oct 2006)

battleaxe said:
			
		

> I freelance write and have been published in The Globe and Mail, The Chronicle Herald, The Kingston Whig-Standard, Today's Parent, Tour of Duty Atlantic, and Canadian Living.  You want to lecture me on the meaning of words-have a ball.
> 
> Read my post again...I said I would stop trying to convince you.  I never said I would stop monitoring the site.  Actually, I stated quite plainly that I was going to keep in touch.
> 
> ...



Wow!  Don't you come off as an arrogant condescending piece of work.  We often have to put up with 'intelligent' young students, trolling here, who think that they are so superior to us poor ignorant military types.   :    Shame that you had to mention some of Canada's less than stellar newspapers too.    This whole topic has gone downhill very quickly with the pair of you hijacking it with your own agendas.  Pity.


----------



## 284_226 (24 Oct 2006)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Actually you are quite ripe, which is exactly the reason I deleted my post. I do not have to justify myself to people such as yourself who've nothing better to do than insult the intelligence, integrity and what you believe to be the lack of compassion by over-deployed pers such as myself.



I did not claim you had a lack of compassion, nor did I claim you lacked integrity.  I did point out that you're still misinterpreting what this is all about, and that's resulting from a lack of attention to details.



> To which the retort was no she's talking about DND posns and *contractor* positions to which I responded at my second linked post as to why the myth of putting them in*contractor* positions would not work. Contractor positions are in fact positions that the CF gives up...in order to save money. The more of them we give up, the less places for us fit and deployable pers to work at the same locations as our familes during our deployment "breaks."I suugest to you, that it is you who is not listening and indeed, continues to display that holier than thou attitude by constantly belittling and insulting those personnel who are not in agreement with your position.



"Not in agreement with *your* position", eh?  Since you're so insistent that I'm taking this personally and not being objective about it, you won't mind pointing out *precisely* where *I* made any reference to "contractor" positions.  Here's the link you gave - happy searching.  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51805/post-466365.html#msg466365



> Best to avoid demeaning and insulting others, and I actually have no time for people like you who seem to enjoy it, fare thee well.



There was nothing I said that was demeaning or insulting.  I may have said you needed to read a little more closely, but I think it needed to be said - as is clearly illustrated above.


----------



## aesop081 (24 Oct 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> I did not claim you had a lack of compassion, nor did I claim you lacked integrity.  I did point out that you're still misinterpreting what this is all about, and that's resulting from a lack of attention to details.




Digging yourself quite the hole i see...........enjoy   :


----------



## 284_226 (24 Oct 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> well, I was going to split this thing, but it's only got two posts that are remotely related to the actual subject, the rest being some bizarre tangent about how the CF should be some sort of welfare program, or owes 284_226 a bazillion dollars or something, so I don't think it's salvageable. I'm just gonna let it sink.



Mind pointing out where I said that?

BTW - from http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51970.0.html - 

_The second trend relates to a tendency for the board to have a mean streak.  In the past some of the users we have banned have accused us of a heavy hand, and in the past they were just whining.  However, lately, we have seen a tendency 'the mob' to tear someone apart for what may be an innocuous error, and then the dogpile starts if they say anything in their own defence. This has manifested itself in what some may see the roving mobs circling, scrutinizing every post for weakness or naiveté or whatever.  Sometimes it's spontaneous, at other times it is the mob following a perceived example set by senior members (unfortunately, there are times when this includes those of us who are DS)._

Sound vaguely familiar?


----------



## muskrat89 (24 Oct 2006)

Anyway... locked

 :


If there's enough interest/valid (potential) input, the Mods will consider opening it back up tomorrow.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Oct 2006)

I know this is presently locked but I just wanted to clarify one point. My name was brought into this fracas by a member who sent me a PM explaining what she tried to say and that it didn't work out like that. It happens, ....it is the internet after all, so no problems there.

Just to clarify my position, I agree the CF should, and I think this is the problem word, accommodate, whatever this may entail.   However my problem and I think the problem of many is that we all see the the "lowlifes" over and over abusing the system to get out of anything and it taints us all so that when someone is legitimately injured our first reaction is to go  :

I know in the trade I work now I'm sick of "accommodates" who can't do this or can't do that and guess who has to "mop up"?  However the co-worker who just found out he/she has diabetes so he/she can't work nights and the co-worker who has trouble sleeping so he/she can't work nights are TWO WHOLE DIFFERENT animals, but as long as theres a Doctor's note, they are treated the same. :rage:

Well guess what, in my world the latter person is SOL as no one sleeps well working nights but that is part of the job that YOU joined, and it, nor you has changed, just the level of whine.
The former?  No problem, if I have to do extra then...that's life.

Not fair??......neither is being LEGITIMELY injured.....


PS...might be lots of spelling errors...the spellcheck *butchered* it and I'm short on time...will fix later.


----------

