# Refusal to Work



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Steven R Clark" <sclark@canada.com>* on *Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:45:17 -0400*
Civilians have it. What methods does a service person have to refuse 
unsafe or unhealthy practices?
Steve Clark
CFB Petawawa, Ontario
Civilians have it. What methods does a 
service
person have to refuse unsafe or unhealthy practices?
Steve ClarkCFB Petawawa,
Ontario
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Michael O‘Leary" <moleary@psphalifax.ns.ca>* on *Tue, 19 Sep 2000 20:33:12 -0400*
I‘m not sure exactly what the reference would be, but every supervisor 
has a duty to protect the well-being of their subordinates. Recently a 
military engineering officer was court-martialled and demoted for 
failing to ensure safe working conditions which led to a sapper being 
electrocuted.
Any service member who thinks they are being subjected to unsafe working 
conditions should speak out. In some cases, the supervisor may not be 
aware of the hazard.
But, one also has to be aware that military service is often accompanied 
by conditions that a civilian would consider hazardous. A sapper on a 
mine clearance job could not refuse to enter the minefield because of 
the dangers of explosion.
It‘s a grey area to be sure, but one that needs communication between 
supervisor and subordinate to ensure that everyone is doing their duty.
Mike
2001 Canadian Military History Calendar
regimentalrogue.tripod.com
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Steven R Clark
  To: army@cipherlogic.on.ca
  Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 5:45 PM
  Subject: Refusal to Work
  Civilians have it. What methods does a service person have to refuse 
unsafe or unhealthy practices?
  Steve Clark
  CFB Petawawa, Ontario
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
I‘m not sure exactly what the reference 
would be,
but every supervisor has a duty to protect the well-being of their 
subordinates.
Recently a military engineering officer was court-martialled and demoted 
for
failing to ensure safe working conditions which led to a sapper being
electrocuted.
Any service member who thinks they are 
being
subjected to unsafe working conditions should speak out. In some cases, 
the
supervisor may not be aware of the hazard.
But, one also has to be aware that 
military service
is often accompanied by conditions that a civilian would consider 
hazardous. A
sapper on a mine clearance job could not refuse to enter the minefield 
because
of the dangers of explosion. 
It‘s a grey area to be sure, but one 
that needs
communication between supervisor and subordinate to ensure that everyone 
is
doing their duty.
Mike
2001 Canadian Military History
Calendar
regimentalrogue.tripod.com
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From:
  Steven 
R Clark

  To: army@cipherlogic.on.ca 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 
2000 5:45
  PM
  Subject: Refusal to Work

  Civilians have it. What methods does 
a service
  person have to refuse unsafe or unhealthy practices?

  Steve ClarkCFB Petawawa,
Ontario
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Steven R Clark" <sclark@canada.com>* on *Tue, 19 Sep 2000 20:58:15 -0400*
Hi Mike,
I know of the case of which you speak. That particular case was at the 
heart of a discussion today. Had the sapper refused the work, claiming 
it was unsafe, my belief is that the one giving the order would be the 
same one to raise the charge of disobeying a lawful command, or 
whatever else. The question that arose was this: If he refused, and was 
subsequently charged, who makes the final decision s to whether or not 
the job would of been safe, thus giving him reasonable grounds to refuse 
the work? This case was, as it unfortunately turned out, took a life to 
prove it. But, if the job was never done, what proof would there of 
been?
Steve
Hi Mike, 
I know of the caseof which you 
speak. That
particular case was at the heart of a discussion today. Had the sapper 
refused
the work, claiming it was unsafe, my belief is that the one giving the 
order
would be the same one to raise the charge of disobeying a lawful 
command, or
whatever else. The question that arose was this: If he refused, and was
subsequently charged, who makes the final decision s to whether or not 
the job
would of been safe, thus giving him reasonable grounds to refuse the 
work? This
case was, as it unfortunately turned out, took a life to prove it. But, 
if the
job was never done, what proof would there of been?
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Michael O‘Leary" <moleary@psphalifax.ns.ca>* on *Wed, 20 Sep 2000 00:06:57 -0400*
Steve,
You pose a question which is difficult to analyse in a vacuum. My first 
question would be, what about the other members of the chain of command 
in that incident, or similar cases? I would hope that the soldier, 
feeling that a hazard exists can seek advice or support from someone 
other than the individual giving the order. Ultimately, the final 
determination may have to be left to a Delegated Officer during a 
summary trial, or a CO if a Summary Investigation is ordered as a result 
of the refusal. There is certainly no easy answer. I do think, however, 
that you and your peers are doing exactly what is needed at this time, 
discussing the possibilities. An awareness of such situations are as 
important to our leaders as discussion of tactical or ethical dilemmas. 
Perhaps we need a more direct approach to instruction and execution of 
risk assessment in all contexts for commanders at all levels. I have 
noticed in my readings that the US Army does just that, every training, 
administrative, and operational task is subjected to a risk analysis - 
and they focus on minimizing the risk to the soldier, not the risk to 
the officers‘ career.
Mike
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
Steve,
You pose a question which is difficult 
to analyse
in a vacuum. My first question would be, what about the other members of 
the
chain of command in that incident, or similar cases? I would hope that 
the
soldier, feeling that a hazard exists can seek advice or support from 
someone
other than the individual giving the order. Ultimately, the final 
determination
may have to be left to a Delegated Officer during a summary trial, or a 
CO if a
Summary Investigation is ordered as a result of the refusal. There is 
certainly
no easy answer. I do think, however, that you and your peers are doing 
exactly
what is needed at this time, discussing the possibilities. An awareness 
of such
situations are as important to our leaders asdiscussion of 
tactical or
ethical dilemmas. Perhaps we need amore direct approach to 
instruction and
execution of risk assessment in all contexts for commanders at all 
levels. I
have noticed in my readings that the US Army does just that, every 
training,
administrative, and operational task is subjected to a risk analysis - 
and they
focus on minimizing the risk to the soldier, not the risk to the 
officers‘
career.
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Jay Digital" <todesengel@home.com>* on *Wed, 20 Sep 2000 06:11:38 -0400*
any soldier has the right to refuse illegal orders and also has the 
right to demand the proper safety precautions be taken before doing any 
work that has a certain degree of danger.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Steven R Clark
  To: army@cipherlogic.on.ca
  Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 5:45 PM
  Subject: Refusal to Work
  Civilians have it. What methods does a service person have to refuse 
unsafe or unhealthy practices?
  Steve Clark
  CFB Petawawa, Ontario
any soldier has the 
right to refuse
illegal orders and also has the right to demand the proper safety 
precautions be
taken before doing any work that has a certain degree of 
danger.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From:
  Steven 
R Clark

  To: army@cipherlogic.on.ca 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 
2000 5:45
  PM
  Subject: Refusal to Work

  Civilians have it. What methods does 
a service
  person have to refuse unsafe or unhealthy practices?

  Steve ClarkCFB Petawawa,
Ontario
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"dave" <dave.newcombe@home.com>* on *Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:35:19 -0700*
A soldier always had the option of redressing any situation, that was 
questionable.  We were always taught to do the job, then complain 
afterwards.  In the case of obvious safety concerns, above and beyond 
training and experience, that would be a hard call.  In the case of a 
sapper in a minefield, they are trained for that, it is part of our 
bread and butter.  As for a situation where one is electrocuted, could 
it even be forseen, if so then every safety measure needs to be 
followed.  there will always be situations where accidents and incidents 
occur, we can only hope we are lead by competant and knowledgable 
leaders.  we have to trust in them, but they are still only human.
chimo
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
A soldier always had the option of 
redressing any
situation, that was questionable. We were always taught to do the 
job,
then complain afterwards. In the case of obvious safety concerns, 
above
and beyond training and experience, that would be a hard call. In 
the case
of a sapper in a minefield, they are trained for that, it is part of our 
bread
and butter. As for a situation where one is electrocuted, could it 
even be
forseen, if so then every safety measure needs to be followed. 
there will
always be situations where accidents and incidents occur, we can only 
hope we
are lead by competant and knowledgable leaders. we have to trust 
in them,
but they are still only human.
chimo
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"The MacFarlanes‘" <desrtrat@amug.org>* on *Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:31:33 -0700*
It is funny, the paths that our lives take, and the circles that the 
paths take us in. I spent many years doing things that civilians think 
of as dangerous, but I never really thought of as dangerous. Sure, 
firing howitzers "danger close", or working with recruits on a small 
arms range especially SMG C1s, or working a bay on a grenade range may 
require a heightened sense of awareness, but I never considered them 
outright dangerous. I trusted my training, and superiors, and peers, to 
do things properly. Looking back, things I instructed my soldiers to do 
concerning "safety" was more part of my job, and practical, than it was 
for safety‘s sake. Things like not sleeping under vehicles in the field, 
handling ammunition properly, refueling properly, using the buddy 
system, to watch for frostbite. Now, part of my civilian occupation 
involves being a "Safety Director" at a manufacturing facility. These 
types of operations never would have appeared dangerous to me. There are 
hundreds of hazards that exist in any manufacturing facility, maybe even 
thousands. Chemicals, forklifts, pinch points, moving equipment. Now I 
see the other side of the coin, and boy is it different. In addition the 
people don‘t have the rigorous training that we did in the military, and 
boy do I see some careless, stupid, irresponsible stunts, every day. I 
have seen far more people injured in industrial settings, than I did in 
13 years in the Military. I guess, after my rambling, my point is this - 
yes it exists, in the civilian world, probably because, believe it or 
not, it is needed more. They, generally, have far more dangerous 
operations excluding combat, obviously, far less training, and more of 
a chance for having a knucklehead as a Supervisor. Like most of the 
others said, when the rare need does exist, hopefully, the unlawful 
order/redress/chain-of-command/training, etc., will provide enough of a 
safety net no pun intended to make these incidents few and far 
between, and correctable, when they do occur.
Ubique
M J MacFarlane
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: dave
  To: army@cipherlogic.on.ca
  Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 4:35 PM
  Subject: Re: Refusal to Work
  A soldier always had the option of redressing any situation, that was 
questionable.  We were always taught to do the job, then complain 
afterwards.  In the case of obvious safety concerns, above and beyond 
training and experience, that would be a hard call.  In the case of a 
sapper in a minefield, they are trained for that, it is part of our 
bread and butter.  As for a situation where one is electrocuted, could 
it even be forseen, if so then every safety measure needs to be 
followed.  there will always be situations where accidents and incidents 
occur, we can only hope we are lead by competant and knowledgable 
leaders.  we have to trust in them, but they are still only human.
  chimo
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
It is funny, the paths 
that our
lives take, and the circles that the paths take us in. I spent many 
years doing
things that civilians think of as dangerous, but I never really thought 
of as
dangerous. Sure, firing howitzers "danger close", or working with 
recruits on a
small arms range especially SMG C1s, or working a bay on a grenade 
range may
require a heightened sense of awareness, but I never considered them 
outright
dangerous. I trusted my training, and superiors, and peers, to do things 
properly. Looking back, things I instructed my soldiers to do concerning 
"safety" was more part of my job, and practical, than it was for 
safety‘s sake.
Things like not sleeping under vehicles in the field, handling 
ammunition
properly, refueling properly, using the buddy system, to watch for 
frostbite.
Now, part of my civilian occupation involves being a "Safety Director" 
at a
manufacturing facility. These types of operations never would have 
appeared
dangerous to me. There are hundreds of hazards that exist in any 
manufacturing
facility, maybe even thousands. Chemicals, forklifts, pinch points, 
moving
equipment. Now I see the other side of the coin, and boy is it 
different. In
addition the people don‘t have the rigorous training that we did in the
military, and boy do I see some careless, stupid, irresponsible stunts, 
every
day. I have seen far more people injured in industrial settings, than I 
did in
13 years in the Military. I guess, after my rambling, my point is this - 
yes it
exists, in the civilian world, probably because, believe it or not, it 
is needed
more. They, generally, have far more dangerous operations excluding 
combat,
obviously, far less training, and more of a chance for having a 
knucklehead as
a Supervisor. Like most of the others said, when the rare need does 
exist,
hopefully, the unlawful order/redress/chain-of-command/training, etc., 
will
provide enough of a safety net no pun intended to make these incidents 
few and
far between, and correctable, when they do occur.
Ubique
M J 
MacFarlane
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From:
  dave

  To: army@cipherlogic.on.ca 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 
2000 4:35
  PM
  Subject: Re: Refusal to 
Work

  A soldier always had the option of 
redressing any
  situation, that was questionable. We were always taught to do 
the job,
  then complain afterwards. In the case of obvious safety 
concerns, above
  and beyond training and experience, that would be a hard call. 
In the
  case of a sapper in a minefield, they are trained for that, it is part 
of our
  bread and butter. As for a situation where one is electrocuted, 
could it
  even be forseen, if so then every safety measure needs to be 
followed.
  there will always be situations where accidents and incidents occur, 
we can
  only hope we are lead by competant and knowledgable leaders. we 
have to
  trust in them, but they are still only human.

  chimo







name="Tempe.gif"
R0lGODlh0wEoAMYAAP///wAAAEpKSlJSUlpaWmtra3t7e4SEhIyMjJSUlKWlpbW1tb29vc7Ozu/v
74yEhO trc6MjM5KSvd7c/9jQv85AM5rSv9KAP9rALGxsf97AP UAP tAP/GAN7GGP/vAMbGvcbG
WufnY///Of//EMbna4T3rYStnEL/3oSMjHuEhADv/0LO3kqEjISttQDG/wC1/xiU3gCM/0JjhABz
/1KE1jlrvSlarQBj/yFj7wBC/2t7tSlS71JSWoR7hAAAADAwMP///zExMQAeAAD/ALcBBwAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH/
C05FVFNDQVBFMi4wAwEAAAAh QQEAAD/ACwAAAAA0wEoAAAH/oBBgoOEhYaHiImKi4yNjo QkZKT
lJWWl5iZmpucnZ6JDoqhkKOLpY2ng6mFq6ymhK2Ip7FBtIK2rbaMs4 8sq gh6u ksS7sMGiyobD
yJPGwLfJ08LCDtfY2drb3N3e3 Dh4uPk5ebn6Onq6 zt7u/w8fLz9PX29/j5 vv8/f7/AAMKHEiw
oMGDCBOya CAoUMhECNKnEixosWLGC86bMhxo8eOID KDElypMmSKE qTMlypcuWMF/KjElzps2a
OG/qzMlTZwORGYMKHTq0p9GdSI8qTcp0qdOmUJ9KjXqygFUDVEv 3Arxh9evYMOKHUu2rNmwCRJs
Xcu2rdu3/nDjyp1Lt67du3jz6t3Lt6/fv4ADxzVQgDCBwoLldj3LuLHjsmkTS55MubLly5gza7b8
wABhq4gzL35MurTZyJtTq17NurXr138TdPZs9fADySDYghhturdv1LCD981AvLjx4sI3H2d7vDny
5NDtgliAAMFs2lYtaNCAAcN2DRQi5GUAAgT587x9q3 c9rz59 7jw58vvz79 /bz4y vX/7 /uY5
1xwQ/xUIoHsGzpfggfMdB4R7Ag64YIITklfhhQxmSJ8CHCqQQHUPdAbaYR58YOKJHGyAwQUTVMjA
izAykN56NJ6WQIw45qjjjjz26OOPQAYpJIwRGvfgkEgm/qkkkM7FWKSRS0Yp5ZRULmAlhwl4iEAK
IWJn1QhgjkDCmCZygAEFQVqpppoz1ugmWjeuKaeaDNA55wJ1WpknnnbqKeeed/IZ6JqAzrnnoYT2
qSiiCwDhqIOOOlpooYYOmuigjArq56aLKsqpcw qGemokAZK6Z2ndsqpppOq6uqlrP5pKZ7Tqdlh
WiDSZlgLK/SKAgoliGniBhVM4OqpCrT55rJpzTqnAndCe6Wt1E7r7LXYWiuntM9uW 0C3FrpILfh
ZmtutOim  2a5XILKrnUDnjuueVq6y276mpbL7jf7jvri9N66OGH1nn2WQEtsNDrwiiYMMIHZlLQ
ra0d/las7LJuplXxxhxzCC7HH0PbYcgkd2zyySibHHLFK7O8cckeb wgzM7JbJwCx3WYs87GLbDz
yjXHDPLLHBrZ88hIQ5ry0im3LPTQLkON9NNRi0w10w3w96LVA4Mo4sGHtRDDCyuQXQIJHWxAAdEp
X4wxjRozLffcdNdt990mj1txkXs/KSDPfAMedN1GFwdE3kYejvfijDfe E/mAXrrh1waDFoBBBAw
AAwvdP6CCCaeWbfbb6sXt Oop6464Ub2HTjOfv8Ne5GK 2134cQpbnPrq/fuO NBbBV5nhXjWrCX
mWceAwzMwyBmByyanNb005Neem/UZ6/99tx37/33/uCHL/743TtIPaTNpTUgEOubj/5x6iee/viJ
J2Dc9pCSr// /Pff/zXCA5itsmS861wucz24AQxkIAMYlOADxCKf9a5XGv9Z8IIYzCD3zBc/wwGh
g7mzX/3y5z4jgTAD7KufCA1HPxauEIXZy58GZ0jDGdaiIwGsk7SwRLDjHVBzPYgBA2XwMAxUYHwT
pCB7asjEJjqRgy kXRQ/OMUTfpCDDoodDMVnwhdS8YRbdKIYx8i9WtzQIZCL3JWK5zXkZW4AN6CB
HE8AsQtsrzp4rM4BkqjExhgvj4AMpCAHSchCGvKQiEykIgHpIDxqEQgIaGQkjVSdRkoyi7GDJCJj
/pdHSC3yk6AMpShBCUDh5QYEEICACBrggla6cgewjGUsZ0DLWs7gBjjIZQxI8AEMTCCQBwimMIPJ
xz6eJS3DTKYyl8nMZjrzmdCMpjSnuUwHCRNSoxrVAay5TSMF05rcxKQHsxkpaWbym4mjpjrXyc52
upOZFeAACUqAAx3UUwc10IEOeHDPHOizngD9p0AfqLZlGuAAB01oMY0JmQQgNJgG8MFDEzrRiiZU
BQjF6EUrOlGNPvSjFD2oRUca0pFmFKES3ahIVQrSllqUmwZw0Eoh lBrxtSbNzVcNw2HUXHm7qQU
7ahJD5rJnBouqDNFKkmXWlKgphSoNDWAR5M6/lWXJpWpUJ1pRVVwVQNgoAMk8Kc 7amDHfBABzaw
gT7zSdax3vOeNUBbBVRqsLoaYKEMHUta7MrXvvr1r4ANrGAHS9jCBlamnmmOXYljMMQ61khGRWFi
cVecxWZgspXta KyaZzIOsqwoA2taEdLWr9SQAMfEMFYV7tPf/LgrGhlrWztycsLRMCuhbkKaPCa
Vzjl9refCS5ohEtc3RpXuMNNLnCVi9zlOhe50L0cYZrr3OQSxkG69RsQCiPTAmDXu5DFLqQiCyrw
Gu63VzFSbj jReMcl7nGfe575Yve9cbXvtQ9mHXnO13 xvdg0z3tB0Iw2wIbmLVFtEB1L1cA/t72
9itpYbCEJ0zhCk9YvxauMIYzzOENK1fCG/4uaJ60XfPmzirfFS JR0w7E6NwwuplcHvPy H71jjD
HrZxjXN84x4XgAIb AACDkzkAiPgAxqQQI0d/OAfRNjHUI6ylKdM5QqLGDQpXB KY5xi9dLOUZfL
MqRcXOLLJQ7GMy5zldfM5ja7eUS1YfNh5ow5AjD5wWmhs54xx c9 7nPgNbznwcd6DoT tCFzlyi
B/3nbCaanGCeczYlPSo OxqbkQr0YSC93U2fd8 VbjSnOZ1oTSsa0aiu86JLzWhWuzrVc461rJN3
6j7T ta4rnWuk3fn3uZ518AOtrCHTexi/hv72MhOtrANHWwHKRvXhnu2tIPN7Glb 9rYxrWpb63q
U/vZ2L3O66 zTe5ym/vc5Ha2tT2I7na7 93wzvYA5k3veZOxhvXOt773ze9696Df9P43wPct8HkX
fOAIT3jCD85vhgdc4Q4fgIMU3m8PUlzfEc93xjOO8Yt7/OMD5/jDCd5vkYO83wIYQMpTrvJ701Dl
MGf5ymNO85nTHOYqn7nMcb5zm/sc5zUP s55Pm dF/3o9R460n/e86U7XehEb7rOszl0oxM96QOI
1NVZDnSmB33rTjd606Fe9bCDHetn57rao/71srPd6mL3eszXLoC631zmdc 73vfO9777/v3vgA 8
4AdP MIb/vCIT7ziF8/4xjv 8ZCPvOQnT/m9CyHvl7 83jX/d85v/vOY77vn6z56vmve86cPPelX
L4DUt/71sId95lmfes7P/vWuv33uVe962a  9rQPvu9Dv/vhFx/4xuc965N//ODrXvix/73wm8/8
6Ss/9runPvCpH33cW7/3yAf/8L2P/elDpPXnz7xE0H8R9q///RFxf/wpIn/6p3/ 6s8/ vd/f9zr
P/38p37 N3sA2H8CaIAIyH4B6H8MmIAIWIAHGIELaIAT H8RKIEYiIENeIHyt4EV IEQWIEZqIEO
eIAeeH/5F4IUiIL8J4InGIAj6H4dm2iBLYh/Mgh/DwiDJmiBPKiAE6GD HeB8HeDOCiEM4iCLPiD
RQiER5iCRSiEI iEPoiDTQiFQCiFQTiAT8iED4iFSMiDSMiFTuiF/1d/RmiDQxiEY/iERNGGbviG
cBiHcjiHdFiHdniHeJiHeriHfNiHfviHgBiIgjiIhFiIhniIiJiIiriIffgDjPiIkBiJheiIksiI
lFiJFhEIACH5BATIAP8ALAwACAAyABQAAAe8gAGCg4SFhoeIiYqLjI2Oj5CRikSUlISVlYVDm5uD
mJmJQ4KfRAGlpkOYAaKrnJ2sRKmZrIadpqejp5aDtraCtru/tJqwuLe5hL3DwMa xMieus2szszJ
w9fQ0MGtwtnHvNjJv6Snop/Ura6jt5XivMKk8Z/CrszoiMqX5sO71cXfalHrx2 ft3Dauh3SF 0g
tH8JnX1z5o gQ4XcJI5b1S7YOVW/1PkqZc8RvX0g60ksKamly5cwY8osFAgAIfkEBB4A/wAsDAAI
ADIAFAAAB5WAAYKDhIWGh4iJiouMjY6PkJGKQ5SUhZWWhJhDl5iTgpucnAGhpKCbpqSoo4aZmaew
g66sqrG2nbezmqOvtb63u7m8tLqyw8GHxbG9yr7MtJegqp6mpdWo19TJp9ahs93eiM3jx8bC4uXL
xOnO6 jnv 3Iz /x5PD04tLY2a i2v8qOeLHrdc0gwQlKVzIsKHDh4ICAQAh QQEyAD/ACwMAAgA
MgAUAAAHuYABgoOEhYaHiImKi4yNjo QkYlElJWElZaEQ5ubhZhEikOCm5gBoKZDpaIBnJysgp g
q4adrLOmp5Saq7Wjq7qDvYW1wsDAvsjBv6fJtLy3xsy2zdO4u4jE0LnS2dfWyom8uKWvn KttbLo
4aOxp6Sfvui/87fexe/a1Onc9uDVsPJdEvjvGMBhzwZSAyaMnzdnCwkG3LfsIa1R446JiodxHayM
/hBxHBRrl6uB5CSpXMmypcuXgwIBACH5BAQeAP8ALAwACAAyABQAAAeVgAGCg4SFhoeIiYqLjI2O
j5CRikOUlIWVloSYQ5eYk4KbnJwBoaSgm6akqKOGmZmnsIOurKqxtp23s5qjr7W t7u5vLS6ssPB
h8Wxvcq zLSXoKqepqXVqNfUyafWobPd3ojN48fGwuLly8Tpzuvo57/tyM/v8eTw9OLS2Nmvotr/
Kjnix63XNIMEJSlcyLChw4eCAgEAIfkEBMgA/wAsDAAIADIAFAAAB76AAYKDhIWGh4iJiouMjY6P
kJGKRJSUhUOYmJeZQ4SVlYqdAZ WRIKcmqKonaajQ58Booaao62ClrGsprS0t624p7Kbvp6tmpa8
wrjAuYi0zLjHu6rKv7bNh8/X0brYvbXEg9 Xt7Wwsbmcp mYxuaUwuTv56vJqMavpM6i0PjgycWC
BczGb5s/ZNQGfmNGSJvCbgAHcRs4q DDfwkl tOYiN88cexkdbq3Tl8jk LUNVSp8ZyklzBjypxJ
c1AgACH5BAQeAP8ALAwACAAyABQAAAeVgAGCg4SFhoeIiYqLjI2Oj5CRikOUlIWVloSYQ5eYk4Kb
nJwBoaSgm6akqKOGmZmnsIOurKqxtp23s5qjr7W t7u5vLS6ssPBh8Wxvcq zLSXoKqepqXVqNfU
yafWobPd3ojN48fGwuLly8Tpzuvo57/tyM/v8eTw9OLS2Nmvotr/Kjnix63XNIMEJSlcyLChw4eC
AgEAOw=
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *DHall058@aol.com* on *Sat, 23 Sep 2000 00:43:27 EDT*
Mike,
You may have also picked up from your readings that the US military is being 
criticized for putting too much emphasis on "zero casualties", with a 
resultant lack of mission accomplishment.  I‘m hearing from a number of 
retired senior officers that we will be reverting back to the old 
philosophy...Don‘t endanger the troops unnecessarily, but sometimes you are 
going to lose people while taking the hill.
I‘d be interested in hearing your thoughts about that, as well as the rest of 
the list members.
Dave Hall
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Jay Digital" <todesengel@home.com>* on *Sat, 23 Sep 2000 01:03:57 -0400*
My feelings are that anyone joining a combat arms trade has accepted the
fact that they may die in the course of performing their duties. I think if
they hadn‘t accepted this possibility then they never would have joined. I
don‘t mean to say troops should be used as cannon fodder but I don‘t think
any army should shy away from a battle because they don‘t want to incur any
casualties at all. I applaud this move.
----- Original Message -----
From: 
To: 
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2000 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: Refusal to Work
> Mike,
> You may have also picked up from your readings that the US military is
being
> criticized for putting too much emphasis on "zero casualties", with a
> resultant lack of mission accomplishment.  I‘m hearing from a number of
> retired senior officers that we will be reverting back to the old
> philosophy...Don‘t endanger the troops unnecessarily, but sometimes you
are
> going to lose people while taking the hill.
> I‘d be interested in hearing your thoughts about that, as well as the rest
of
> the list members.
> Dave Hall
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca Mike Oleary* on *Sat, 23 Sep 2000 12:21:14 -0400*
Dave, and Jay,
We have to be careful how we approach this question, and not confuse
operational risk which comes from doing our jobs as infantry, sappers,
etc. and risk which unnecessarily places troops in danger of avoidable
injury during non-combat tasks.
Selecting an tactical course of action solely to minimize casualties
eventually leads to the conclusion that inaction or surrender is the 
only
course. ‘Reductio ad absurdum‘? Of course. Anyone who thinks that combat
operations can be conducted with a zero-casualty rate should find 
another
line of work.
However, I think the crux of this discussion is not combat operations, 
but
other operations, training and daily working conditions.
No supervisor, officer or NCO, can justify allowing dangerous working
conditions that can be identified and removed without affecting the
effectiveness of the ordered task. Like the high-voltage wire and the
sapper. Moving the wire was within the technical ability of the
organization, and the supervisors had the training and responsibility to
identify and remove the hazard. It‘s why we conduct training, and 
refresh
skills, before we conduct potentially dangerous acts e.g., Tests of
Essential Training before weapons firing is risk assessment and
minimization. It‘s why we do periodic inspections of weapons, vehicles 
and
workspaces. It‘s the point of any general safety program. Simply put, 
it‘s
conservation of our MOST valuable resource, our troops.
Dave, I know what you mean about the Americans going a bit overboard. 
While
I agree that the execution may need to be refined, it does not mean that 
the
approach to the problem is flawed.
It if a fact that troops do get hurt in training. Some accidents have
attributable human causes, others do not. The chance that someone may 
get
hurt is not sufficient reason to not train, or to create safeguards that
make the training worthless. But risk assessment is necessary is 
everything
we do, and perhaps we need a more structured approach, or maybe just 
better
training of our leaders at all levels of this factor and its attendant
responsibilities.
I‘ve had a fair bit of experience in ranges and live fire training,
specifically field firing. I‘ve always found that there is plenty of 
safety
built into the manuals and have usually worked to the limits allowed by 
the
system. I‘ve been on other ranges where adding additional safety 
detracted
from the training value. And generally the range accidents I‘ve heard 
about
occurred when someone decided they were going to ignore the manual. Risk
assessment can be taken too far, but when it is not done the results can 
be
catastrophic.
Mike
The Regimental Rogue
2001 Canadian Military History Calendar
 http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/index.htm 
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
Dave, and Jay,We have to be 
careful how
we approach this question, and not confuseoperational risk which 
comes from
doing our jobs as infantry, sappers,etc. and risk which 
unnecessarily
places troops in danger of avoidableinjury during non-combat
tasks.Selecting an tactical course of action solely to minimize
casualtieseventually leads to the conclusion that inaction or 
surrender is
the onlycourse. ‘Reductio ad absurdum‘? Of course. Anyone who thinks 
that
combatoperations can be conducted with a zero-casualty rate should 
find
anotherline of work.However, I think the crux of this 
discussion is
not combat operations, butother operations, training and daily 
working
conditions.No supervisor, officer or NCO, can justify allowing 
dangerous
workingconditions that can be identified and removed without 
affecting
theeffectiveness of the ordered task. Like the high-voltage wire and 
thesapper. Moving the wire was within the technical ability of
theorganization, and the supervisors had the training and 
responsibility
toidentify and remove the hazard. It‘s why we conduct training, and
refreshskills, before we conduct potentially dangerous acts e.g., 
Tests
ofEssential Training before weapons firing is risk assessment
andminimization. It‘s why we do periodic inspections of weapons, 
vehicles
andworkspaces. It‘s the point of any general safety program. Simply 
put,
it‘sconservation of our MOST valuable resource, our 
troops.Dave, I
know what you mean about the Americans going a bit overboard. WhileI 
agree
that the execution may need to be refined, it does not mean that 
theapproach
to the problem is flawed.It if a fact that troops do get hurt in 
training. Some accidents haveattributable human causes, others do 
not. The
chance that someone may gethurt is not sufficient reason to not 
train, or to
create safeguards thatmake the training worthless. But risk 
assessment is
necessary is everythingwe do, and perhaps we need a more structured
approach, or maybe just bettertraining of our leaders at all 
levels of
this factor and its attendantresponsibilities.I‘ve had a 
fair bit of
experience in ranges and live fire training,specifically field 
firing. I‘ve
always found that there is plenty of safetybuilt into the manuals 
and have
usually worked to the limits allowed by thesystem. I‘ve been on 
other ranges
where adding additional safety detractedfrom the training value. And 
generally the range accidents I‘ve heard aboutoccurred when someone 
decided
they were going to ignore the manual. Riskassessment can be taken 
too far,
but when it is not done the results can
becatastrophic.MikeThe Regimental Rogue2001 
Canadian
Military History Calendarhttp://regimentalrog
ue.tripod.com/index.htm
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"The MacFarlanes‘" <desrtrat@amug.org>* on *Sat, 23 Sep 2000 09:49:59 -0700*
Mike... kind of what I alluded to, in my earlier post... for things 
typically considered hazardous, training and supervision all but 
eliminated the hazards. Its the other stuff that can get you, and needs 
a good dose of common sense
Mac
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Mike Oleary
  To: army@cipherlogic.on.ca
  Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2000 9:21 AM
  Subject: Re: Refusal to work
  Dave, and Jay,
  We have to be careful how we approach this question, and not confuse
  operational risk which comes from doing our jobs as infantry, 
sappers,
  etc. and risk which unnecessarily places troops in danger of 
avoidable
  injury during non-combat tasks.
  Selecting an tactical course of action solely to minimize casualties
  eventually leads to the conclusion that inaction or surrender is the 
only
  course. ‘Reductio ad absurdum‘? Of course. Anyone who thinks that 
combat
  operations can be conducted with a zero-casualty rate should find 
another
  line of work.
  However, I think the crux of this discussion is not combat operations, 
but
  other operations, training and daily working conditions.
  No supervisor, officer or NCO, can justify allowing dangerous working
  conditions that can be identified and removed without affecting the
  effectiveness of the ordered task. Like the high-voltage wire and the
  sapper. Moving the wire was within the technical ability of the
  organization, and the supervisors had the training and responsibility 
to
  identify and remove the hazard. It‘s why we conduct training, and 
refresh
  skills, before we conduct potentially dangerous acts e.g., Tests of
  Essential Training before weapons firing is risk assessment and
  minimization. It‘s why we do periodic inspections of weapons, 
vehicles and
  workspaces. It‘s the point of any general safety program. Simply put, 
it‘s
  conservation of our MOST valuable resource, our troops.
  Dave, I know what you mean about the Americans going a bit overboard. 
While
  I agree that the execution may need to be refined, it does not mean 
that the
  approach to the problem is flawed.
  It if a fact that troops do get hurt in training. Some accidents have
  attributable human causes, others do not. The chance that someone may 
get
  hurt is not sufficient reason to not train, or to create safeguards 
that
  make the training worthless. But risk assessment is necessary is 
everything
  we do, and perhaps we need a more structured approach, or maybe just 
better
  training of our leaders at all levels of this factor and its 
attendant
  responsibilities.
  I‘ve had a fair bit of experience in ranges and live fire training,
  specifically field firing. I‘ve always found that there is plenty of 
safety
  built into the manuals and have usually worked to the limits allowed 
by the
  system. I‘ve been on other ranges where adding additional safety 
detracted
  from the training value. And generally the range accidents I‘ve heard 
about
  occurred when someone decided they were going to ignore the manual. 
Risk
  assessment can be taken too far, but when it is not done the results 
can be
  catastrophic.
  Mike
  The Regimental Rogue
  2001 Canadian Military History Calendar
   http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/index.htm 
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
Mike... kind of what I 
alluded to,
in my earlier post... for things typically considered hazardous, 
training and
supervision all but eliminated the hazards. Its the other stuff that can 
get
you, and needs a good dose of common sense
Mac
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From:
  Mike
  Oleary 
  To: army@cipherlogic.on.ca 
  Sent: Saturday, September 23, 
2000 9:21
  AM
  Subject: Re: Refusal to 
work

  Dave, and Jay,We have to be 
careful how
  we approach this question, and not confuseoperational risk which 
comes
  from doing our jobs as infantry, sappers,etc. and risk which
  unnecessarily places troops in danger of avoidableinjury during 
non-combat
  tasks.Selecting an tactical course of action solely to 
minimize
  casualtieseventually leads to the conclusion that inaction or 
surrender
  is the onlycourse. ‘Reductio ad absurdum‘? Of course. Anyone who 
thinks
  that combatoperations can be conducted with a zero-casualty rate 
should
  find anotherline of work.However, I think the crux of this 
  discussion is not combat operations, butother operations, training 
and
  daily working conditions.No supervisor, officer or NCO, can 
justify
  allowing dangerous workingconditions that can be identified and 
removed
  without affecting theeffectiveness of the ordered task. Like the
  high-voltage wire and thesapper. Moving the wire was within the 
technical
  ability of theorganization, and the supervisors had the training 
and
  responsibility toidentify and remove the hazard. It‘s why we 
conduct
  training, and refreshskills, before we conduct potentially 
dangerous acts
  e.g., Tests ofEssential Training before weapons firing is risk 
assessment
  andminimization. It‘s why we do periodic inspections of weapons, 
vehicles
  andworkspaces. It‘s the point of any general safety program. 
Simply put,
  it‘sconservation of our MOST valuable resource, our 
troops.Dave, I
  know what you mean about the Americans going a bit overboard. 
WhileI agree
  that the execution may need to be refined, it does not mean that
  theapproach to the problem is flawed.It if a fact that 
troops do
  get hurt in training. Some accidents haveattributable human 
causes, others
  do not. The chance that someone may gethurt is not sufficient 
reason to
  not train, or to create safeguards thatmake the training 
worthless. But
  risk assessment is necessary is everythingwe do, and perhaps we 
need a
  more structured approach, or maybe just bettertraining of our 
leaders at
  all levels of this factor and its 
attendantresponsibilities.I‘ve
  had a fair bit of experience in ranges and live fire 
training,specifically
  field firing. I‘ve always found that there is plenty of 
safetybuilt into
  the manuals and have usually worked to the limits allowed by 
thesystem.
  I‘ve been on other ranges where adding additional safety 
detractedfrom the
  training value. And generally the range accidents I‘ve heard 
aboutoccurred
  when someone decided they were going to ignore the manual. 
Riskassessment
  can be taken too far, but when it is not done the results can
  becatastrophic.MikeThe Regimental 
Rogue2001
  Canadian Military History Calendarhttp://regimentalrog
ue.tripod.com/index.htm
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"dave" <dave.newcombe@home.com>* on *Sat, 23 Sep 2000 11:46:44 -0700*
By following carefully detailed safety procedures, range accidents are 
rare, but certainly do still occur.  In subsequent investigations, the 
root cause is usually determined and action can be taken to prevent 
reoccurance.  what we have to remember is that most safety rules are 
based on past incidents or accidents.  The Military is a profession that 
embraces dangerous taskings, but accomplishes them because of training 
and dedication to the job.  I agree, if you want a totally safe job, do 
not join the forces, but understand that thwere are more dangers in the 
normal workplace, because of percieved safety.  I never thought live 
explosives were safe, when you crawl through a mine field with 35 lbs of 
C-4 in your pack, you pay attention to your training.  The sapper 5 
meters back has a pack full of det‘s, and he is paying attention too.  
Maybe the accident rate is low, because we are so aware of the danger.
In any case, any accident is regretable, and it is only hoped that it is 
not repeated.
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
By following carefully detailed safety 
procedures,
range accidents are rare, but certainly do still occur. In 
subsequent
investigations, the root cause is usually determined and action can be 
taken to
prevent reoccurance. what we have to remember is that most safety 
rules
are based on past incidents or accidents. The Military is a 
profession
that embraces dangerous taskings, but accomplishes them because of 
training and
dedication to the job. I agree, if you want a totally safe job, do 
not
join the forces, but understand that thwere are more dangers in the 
normal
workplace, because of percieved safety. I never thought live 
explosives
were safe, when you crawl through a mine field with 35 lbs of C-4 in 
your pack,
you pay attention to your training. The sapper 5 meters back has a 
pack
full of det‘s, and he is paying attention too. Maybe the accident 
rate is
low, because we are so aware of the danger.
In any case, any accident is 
regretable, and it is
only hoped that it is not repeated.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *DHall058@aol.com* on *Sat, 23 Sep 2000 15:04:13 EDT*
Mike,
I‘m in complete agreement with your analysis.  My tank brigade lost seven 
soldiers to training accidents during one week-long field exercise in 1978.  
Every loss was preventable.  The key is knowing the difference between 
realistic training and maintaining safe working conditions.  Even in combat, 
departure from safety rules leads to "friendly fire" casualties, or 
accidental deaths.  I think that the line btween operational risk and 
occupational safety guidelines got blurred a bit much here, though. I have 
seen it on the street in law enforcement, where officers won‘t even stop cars 
for traffic violations because "there might be a bad guy driving it." Actual 
quote from a now ex-patrol officer!
Dave
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Steven R Clark" <sclark@canada.com>* on *Sat, 23 Sep 2000 18:12:57 -0400*
So far, most of the talk on this topic has been opertional. Most of the talk
has been related to "hazardous" jobs, ie mine clearance, infantry and the
like.
What I would like to know, is if Joe vehicle tech says that those jack
stands are unsafe, and he will not put up that there LSVW on them to crawl
underneath to change that rusted out ole fuel tank....can he refuse to do
that job?
Can Joe welder refuse to work in that there welding shop because the exhast
system for the neighbouring paint shop vent out through the welding shop,
spewing paint fumes into yonder welding shop? Long term and short term
effects
Can Joe body man refuse to scrape, wire brush, sand, grind that yucky rusty
green paint off that there LSVW, because of the toxic effects of CARC paint?
Can Joe fcs tech refuse to solder those little wires together, because of
inadequate ventilation in the shop?
Can you tell I‘m a tech? I want to know, if a civilian working for the DND
can refuse a job, because he feels it is dangerous or would endanger his
health, can a military member refuse in the same way? We are talking peace
time, we are talking a tech on the floor, we are not dis-arming nuclear
warheads, nor are we shooting to kill Joe the Fantasian.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: 
To: 
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2000 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: Refusal to work
> Mike,
> I‘m in complete agreement with your analysis.  My tank brigade lost seven
> soldiers to training accidents during one week-long field exercise in
1978.
> Every loss was preventable.  The key is knowing the difference between
> realistic training and maintaining safe working conditions.  Even in
combat,
> departure from safety rules leads to "friendly fire" casualties, or
> accidental deaths.  I think that the line btween operational risk and
> occupational safety guidelines got blurred a bit much here, though. I
have
> seen it on the street in law enforcement, where officers won‘t even stop
cars
> for traffic violations because "there might be a bad guy driving it."
Actual
> quote from a now ex-patrol officer!
> Dave
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------

