# CF 'Budman:  "Mobility, separation and risk" affecting CF families



## The Bread Guy (5 Nov 2013)

From the media:


> Canadian military life is unnecessarily tough on families and especially stressful for children whose health, behaviour and education suffer from too many re-locations, sub-standard housing and fretting about the safety of their deployed parent, says an often-damning report to be released later Tuesday.
> 
> _‘On the Homefront: Assessing the Well-Being of Canada’s Military Families in the New Millennium’_ is one of the largest, most detailed investigations undertaken by the Department of National Defence Ombudsman’s office and criticizes the chronic lack of support and consideration given to the spouses and children of serving troops.
> 
> ...


More from the CF Ombudsman himself:


> The report notes that three characteristics, taken together, have a direct and unique impact on the life of military families. These characteristics are mobility, separation and risk.
> 
> 
> The requirement for military families to pick up and move on a recurring basis, with little to no input on when, where and for how long, has a highly disruptive influence on family life. The report noted that many commanders and service providers indicated that the frequency of moves – three times more often than civilian families – is the single most unsettling feature of the Canadian Forces lifestyle.
> ...


From the report:


> .... Recommendation 1: Establish a modern definition of military family
> 
> (....)
> 
> ...


----------



## Ostrozac (5 Nov 2013)

I'm all for helping out families, but it is important to remember that approximately 35% of the Reg Force is single. Whatever the solution is going to be -- I think it's important that benefits, taskings and postings should be shared equitably.

If modernizing military family support means single guys get posted every year and married guys don't, then that's fixing a problem by creating a problem.


----------



## TCM621 (5 Nov 2013)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> I'm all for helping out families, but it is important to remember that approximately 35% of the Reg Force is single. Whatever the solution is going to be -- I think it's important that benefits, taskings and postings should be shared equitably.
> 
> If modernizing military family support means single guys get posted every year and married guys don't, then that's fixing a problem by creating a problem.



That is always the rationale for doing nothing. The fact is that it is easier and cheaper to move a single person. Not to mention the only one affected signed on for unlimited liability.  

I don't mean to say screw the single guy but if the posting in going to adversely affect a family (above and beyond usual posting stuff) you should look at the members with the least attachments. It is just smart. Piss off the family to much you will lose the member or he will lose the family.

However, a lot of issues can be dealt with just by recognizing what a family needs. A COS date a month from now (or less) should never happen except in an emergency, for example. Forcing an unaccompanied move (especially with today's IR rules) should never happen except in rare circumstances.


----------



## PMedMoe (5 Nov 2013)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I don't mean to say screw the single guy but if the posting in going to adversely affect a family (above and beyond usual posting stuff) you should look at the members with the least attachments. It is just smart. Piss off the family to much you will lose the member or he will lose the family.



That's not smart, that's discrimination.  And if the single people (or those without kids) keep getting dinged, you may lose them as well.  In fact, they might ditch faster than the family guy or gal because they have no one depending on them.  



			
				Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Forcing an unaccompanied move (especially with today's IR rules) should never happen except in rare circumstances.



Hey, there were/are a lot of people on IR simply because their spouse didn't want to move.  Some of the reasons that I heard were downright flimsy and should have never been approved.

The way I look at it, the member either a) was already in the CF when they met their spouse or b) were married and then joined the CF.  Either way, the spouses _should_ have been prepared for the CF life.  I know that's not always the case, but with the family support, MFRCs, etc, there's no excuse for them not being informed.  Just my  :2c:


----------



## George Wallace (5 Nov 2013)

:

If the Military intended you to have a wife, it would have issued you one.

 >


----------



## Strike (5 Nov 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :
> 
> If the Military intended you to have a wife, it would have issued you one.
> 
> >



That's why I have a husband instead.   ;D


----------



## George Wallace (6 Nov 2013)

Strike said:
			
		

> That's why I have a husband instead.   ;D



I must apologise.  The Army DID issue "Housewives".   They were a couple of bobbles of green, khaki, white and/or black thread, a couple of needles, a thimble, and sometimes a small pair of scissors all wrapped up in a cloth roll.   >


----------



## TCM621 (6 Nov 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> That's not smart, that's discrimination.  And if the single people (or those without kids) keep getting dinged, you may lose them as well.  In fact, they might ditch faster than the family guy or gal because they have no one depending on them.
> 
> Hey, there were/are a lot of people on IR simply because their spouse didn't want to move.  Some of the reasons that I heard were downright flimsy and should have never been approved.
> 
> The way I look at it, the member either a) was already in the CF when they met their spouse or b) were married and then joined the CF.  Either way, the spouses _should_ have been prepared for the CF life.  I know that's not always the case, but with the family support, MFRCs, etc, there's no excuse for them not being informed.  Just my  :2c:



If you need to move someone next week, do you look at the member, married with 3 kids in school, a house and a mortgage first? Or are you gonna look at the single guy in an apartment? If you are need to post someone to an isolated posting where there is limited access to civilian medical care, do you look at the member with 3 civilians in his family unit or the single member who's medical needs are taken care of the CF?

If post the single guy is always the answer, at the very least the career manager is lazy and should be replaced. However, it is the option with less moving parts. Single people often have their own reason why they would be a poor fit as well and that should be respected also.

As for IR, I meant those instances where IR was actually warranted not the  "I don't want to sell my house in Pet while I am posted to Ottawa" crowd. My personal best was an IR posting on one days notice. That should never happen except in an emergency.


----------



## PMedMoe (6 Nov 2013)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> If you need to move someone next week, do you look at the member, married with 3 kids in school, a house and a mortgage first? Or are you gonna look at the single guy in an apartment? If you are need to post someone to an isolated posting where there is limited access to civilian medical care, do you look at the member with 3 civilians in his family unit or the single member who's medical needs are taken care of the CF?



Very rare that those occurrences come up.  And they can still post a married member unaccompanied for a short period of time.  Not too many isolated postings left, and I know that in Goose Bay, the CF also looks after dependent's health care (not sure of other isolated places).

I, as part of a married service couple, got posted IR twice even though there were people (some single) of the same rank and trade level who had been in their positions much longer than I had been in mine.  As a matter of fact, I got posted four times in five years while people (again some single) remained in positions they'd been in for five years or more (in one case over 10 years and that person is _still_ there).

I still think that's discrimination and I don't agree with it.  I'm glad you're not my CM because I'm "single" (at least in the CF's eyes) now.


----------



## Halifax Tar (6 Nov 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I, as part of a married service couple, got posted IR twice even though there were people (some single) of the same rank and trade level who had been in their positions much longer than I had been in mine.  As a matter of fact, I got posted four times in five years while people (again some single) remained in positions they'd been in for five years or more (in one case over 10 years and that person is _still_ there).
> 
> I still think that's discrimination and I don't agree with it.  I'm glad you're not my CM because I'm "single" (at least in the CF's eyes) now.



Moe it boggles the mind how some people seem to do 20+ years in one geographical area yet some seem to be posted every 3 years or so.  Especially in our "purple trades" universe there is no excuse for it.  

As well when I joined my first ship the policy was that local married members would stand all the duty watches over xmas and new years and over summer block leave thus enabling the single members the ability to get home and see family.  I feel like when I first joined, the CF looked out for single members,  I feel recently that that has eroded.


----------



## TCM621 (6 Nov 2013)

I agree it shouldn't happen very often and if handled in the right way, a posting for a married person shouldn't be that bad. Moving is one of the realities of the CAF and single or married you have to be prepared to move. I think the problem is how it is handled, not whether or not they are going to post someone. Single people don't have to worry about most of the problems they are talking about. You don't have a spouse that has to be underemployed because of a posting, you don't have dependants who can't find doctors, you don't have children to uproot for their schools and social networks (I use single to mean CF members without dependants, single parents would obviously have the same issues).

The solution shouldn't be post single people and not families, I don't agree with that because it doesn't address the core problems. Finding options in the geographical area should always be a first priority (for all) not only does it mitagate the impact of moving, it saves the CF tens of thousands of dollars _per move._ How about telling members where they will be posted further in advance? There may be some last minute changes due to unforseen circumstances but most people would be able to plan ahead to better help their spouse get a better job on the other side or prepare the children. If housing and health care are an issue as they are in many places, step up and address it directly. Stop tearing down Qs and raising prices, set up a dependant's medical clinic on base or work with the communities to increase available services in the area.

So while I do think that it is easier to move a young single unattached member that a older member married with children, I think that option should be step Y just above fuck over the family. The CF just has to realize that the average age of members is older now. Not everyone joins right out of highschool and Mommies house. They have to address the needs of their members be they married or not, or they will not be able to addres the needs of the service.


----------



## PMedMoe (6 Nov 2013)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> They have to address the needs of their members be they married or not, or they will not be able to addres the needs of the service.



Now that, I can agree on.   :nod:


----------



## Armymedic (7 Nov 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I, as part of a married service couple, got posted IR twice even though there were people (some single) of the same rank and trade level who had been in their positions much longer than I had been in mine.  As a matter of fact, I got posted four times in five years while people (again some single) remained in positions they'd been in for five years or more (in one case over 10 years and that person is _still_ there).



And I got screwed out of two postings because the male side of a service couple was being posted, and the female side needed a posting onto the same base, taking the position the career manager promised me. I am going to go from Cpl to MWO on the same base. So my family will have the pleasure of being born, growing up, and graduating high school in the same community.

Anyway; that rant aside....

The leadership of the military needs to realize that when we are away from home, doesn't matter if it is overnight in the tng area or 6 months on another continent, our chair at the dinner table, the driver seat of our car, and our pillow in the bed are not being occupied and the people who need us to occupy that space the most know we are gone.


----------



## PMedMoe (7 Nov 2013)

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> And I got screwed out of two postings because the male side of a service couple was being posted, and the female side needed a posting onto the same base, taking the position the career manager promised me. I am going to go from Cpl to MWO on the same base. So my family will have the pleasure of being born, growing up, and graduating high school in the same community.



Well, RP, you know _our_ CM never did that for anyone except when sending people on their PA courses.  Talk about a waste of posting allowances.   :


----------



## McG (12 Nov 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> > Recommendation 14: Develop a national employment strategy to assist spouses/partners
> >
> > (....)
> >
> > Recommendation 15: Assist military families to obtain better access to healthcare


These would be the two most important recomendations in the whole thing.

As an alternate (or addition) to recommendation 14, the government could allow joint tax filing for military families.  This would recognize the reduced career oportunities typcially accepted by the spouse who frequently relocates with a military member and often resides in locations with limited profesional career opportuniites.  

When the CF had bases in Germany, it provided schools and hospitals for the families.  We don't need to do that in Canada, but maybe the CAF could buy priorety for military families by partially funding a medical facility (or two) on or near bases.


----------

