Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"

[OldSolduer]

I fully agree. Well said Brian

 

[cowboy628]

So that's complete bulls-it. You wont change the political minds we've lost so . Now we my as well call for the disbanding of all military. I will never try to sell the army to any one I know.

 

[FJAG]

My take on it:

For about as far back as we've had a military, there was a gentlemen's agreement between the state and society, and those who step up to serve and put themselves at risk. It didn't need to be written down anywhere, it was just understood as 'the right thing' that the state would look after those injured and disabled in its service. There was no reason to question that.

. . .

I would like to agree with you on this but the concept of "looking after" veterans is a relatively modern feature going back to the First World War. Prior to that the British crown had anything but a "gentleman's agreement" with it's soldiers. Support for retired and wounded veterans was sketchy at best and left to others.

The following is a quote from What’s in a Name? Defining and Caring for “Veterans” The United Kingdom in International Perspective by Christopher Dandeker, Simon Wessely, Amy Iversen, John Ross, King’s College London

In contrast to the above cases, successive British governments have tended to forget and neglect their ex-service personnel once they have left the armed forces. This culture of neglect is connected with Britain’s long history of possessing a professional, volunteer military—conscription has been the exception not the norm. Consequently, Britain developed a tradition of civil-military relations well before the development of the modern citizenship state. A central feature of this tradition has been the paradoxical relationship between the armed forces, the state, and civilian society. Government was able to develop systems of military manpower long before service members were in any position to enforce robust citizenship rights.8

Meanwhile, both government and much of the wider public could maintain feelings of pride in their armed forces, which could, quite easily, sit alongside perceptions of the military’s being on the margins of society; indeed, this was reinforced by its being deployed overseas on imperial duties. Proud of their armed forces, they could nonetheless adopt the view that looking after ex-service personnel was someone else’s responsibility. For many soldiers through the ages, their experience on departing the armed forces has been to hear the words “good bye and good luck!” This is not to deny countertrends. As Stanhope remarked a quarter of a century ago, Britain’s record for caring for ex-servicemen has not always been distinguished. There are those who would argue that [in 1979] it still falls short of the ideal. But it is better than it was, and the man who is really down on his luck should be able to find help somewhere.9

A key feature of this less-than-ideal record is that the central organs of the British state have not played a key role in providing assistance to ex-service personnel. Instead, this has flowed from a patchwork of regimental and corps associations from the early nineteenth century, followed by civilian charities, and only later still by the post–Second World War welfare state, which made services available to all citizens—both military and civilian.10

Full article here: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/kcmhr/publications/assetfiles/veterans/Dandeker2006-whatsinaname.pdf

While we would like to think that there is an unspoken covenant for our "unlimited service" the reality is that the courts have not found one and as such we need to seek statutory protection through our legislatures.

I know when the changes to our legislation came about a decade or so back I for one said that this is putting us into a "Worker's Compensation" scheme modelled on insurance principles. I felt that to be a bad thing at the time. Unfortunately the colleagues I was saying this to at the time seemed to shrug it off.

:cheers:

 

[Strike]

Brian, that would make a really good "Letter to the Editor" or Opinion piece.

 

[upandatom]

So that's complete bulls-it. You wont change the political minds we've lost so . Now we my as well call for the disbanding of all military. I will never try to sell the army to any one I know.

I won't sell anyone on it either. This has become a tool and a game for whatever political party it suits at the time.

I'm fed up with the current liberal government.
I'm sure most of Western Canada is as well. I don't see them staying for another term, and I would strongly predict a PC majority. We have a very prominent issue with MSM here as they do south of the border. The MSM like to pursue hot topics, and alter the headlines to suit there needs. Canadians are starting to see that.

Andrew Scheer, will be the next PM. There are too many Scandals for Trudeau to stay. He has lied about the Equitas, as well as the pension for life. Pension for life is a step in the right direction, more so a tip toe. It works for those who need it. the combo of the pain and suffering and additional pain and suffering is close to, in addition with DEC. It could be better. But the sheer low numbers, made me think they went in, found the cheapest way to push this "better program" forward. It helps those in dire, but is a a kick in the teeth for others. Some people would receive 30 a month for the rest of their life? Not even a case of beer outside of Quebec. That does not benefit them at all, the pension buyout, where you can take a lump sum, better be in play. Because $30-500 a month will not have a beneificial Impact on someone's life, where the $50k -$400k might. ( You could become mortgage free, therefore decreasing cost of living, improving your finances)

I always was certain Equitas would fail. Not to be a dick. But a supreme Court is not going to overrule something most Canadians see as trivial as their vets. We do not have the same support as Southside does.  I always hoped they would win, it would make the government accountable. But, I have lost faith in any governing body being accountable for their actions,

 

[brihard]

I would like to agree with you on this but the concept of "looking after" veterans is a relatively modern feature going back to the First World War. Prior to that the British crown had anything but a "gentleman's agreement" with it's soldiers. Support for retired and wounded veterans was sketchy at best and left to others.

The following is a quote from What’s in a Name? Defining and Caring for “Veterans” The United Kingdom in International Perspective by Christopher Dandeker, Simon Wessely, Amy Iversen, John Ross, King’s College London

Full article here: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/kcmhr/publications/assetfiles/veterans/Dandeker2006-whatsinaname.pdf

While we would like to think that there is an unspoken covenant for our "unlimited service" the reality is that the courts have not found one and as such we need to seek statutory protection through our legislatures.

I know when the changes to our legislation came about a decade or so back I for one said that this is putting us into a "Worker's Compensation" scheme modelled on insurance principles. I felt that to be a bad thing at the time. Unfortunately the colleagues I was saying this to at the time seemed to shrug it off.

:cheers:

You’re right, of course, about going back prior to WW1. I was generalizing so as not to get sucked too far into specifics that are far enough removed by time that they would merely obfuscate. I think it is fair and sufficient to say that it’s been about a century. And yes it has never been lavish, nor am I saying it ought to be. The real gist of what I’m saying is that any residual pretense if there being an ‘understanding’ is now dead and gone. And yes, as you say (and as I did) this now needs to be legislated.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Now that the Court of Appeal sided against us, I don't expect our current government to do a single thing to improve our lot. O'Reagan has done absolutely nothing, since taking over from Hehr, who also did nothing but fuck us off. I'll be suprised if they even mention Veterans again before they hit the campaign trail.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Purely hypothetical but I'm seeing CAF members not just here but elsewhere as well saying they won't recommend the CAF to anyone after this.

I bet if that really caught on and a considerable number more CAF members went out of their way to anti-recruit people interested in the CAF the government might take notice when they can't send us around on their Ralph Wiggum "we're helping!" tours.


The Liberals made some pretty big campaign promises and were just as quick to break them.
The election time promises they pull out of their ass this coming election sure will be funny to see. Maybe promise the military more armored vehicles that magically appeared?

 

[Pusser]

Purely hypothetical but I'm seeing CAF members not just here but elsewhere as well saying they won't recommend the CAF to anyone after this.

I bet if that really caught on and a considerable number more CAF members went out of their way to anti-recruit people interested in the CAF the government might take notice when they can't send us around on their Ralph Wiggum "we're helping!" tours.


The Liberals made some pretty big campaign promises and were just as quick to break them.
The election time promises they pull out of their *** this coming election sure will be funny to see. Maybe promise the military more armored vehicles that magically appeared?

You're assuming that Canadians give a damn.  We're such a small part of the general populace that some recent surveys seem to indicate that a scary number of Canadians don't even know we exist.  Unfortunately, until Canadian force political parties to treat the Armed Forces as a serious election issue, they won't.  By and large, Canadians get what they vote for and we're not that. 

As for broken promises, it's kind of hard to show that.  No timelines were ever promised, so anything not yet delivered can still be "in progress."  For equipment this is certainly true as we all know that the procurement process is a long haul.  Lifetime pensions?  Remember, the Liberals never promised to simply reinstate the Pension Act as it was before.  They simply promised a return to lifetime pensions and they're delivering on that.  Folks may feel that the Liberal government has broken its promises, but a good spin doctor can show otherwise and Canadian are generally pretty happy to be spun on these issues.

 

[TCM621]

You're assuming that Canadians give a damn.  We're such a small part of the general populace that some recent surveys seem to indicate that a scary number of Canadians don't even know we exist.  Unfortunately, until Canadian force political parties to treat the Armed Forces as a serious election issue, they won't.  By and large, Canadians get what they vote for and we're not that. 

As for broken promises, it's kind of hard to show that.  No timelines were ever promised, so anything not yet delivered can still be "in progress."  For equipment this is certainly true as we all know that the procurement process is a long haul.  Lifetime pensions?  Remember, the Liberals never promised to simply reinstate the Pension Act as it was before.  They simply promised a return to lifetime pensions and they're delivering on that.  Folks may feel that the Liberal government has broken its promises, but a good spin doctor can show otherwise and Canadian are generally pretty happy to be spun on these issues.

I think that if we are unable to recruit because Canadians don't trust the government to treat them fairly, we may see some changes. Unfortunately, that will take another 10 years to manifest if it does at all.

I'm 4th generation military and I am not encouraging my kids to join.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Nobody gives a crap about the CAF or its members.  Ask the question:  "Does your immediate family care at all about issues facing veterans, CAF deployments, CAF procurement, etc?"

I can certainly say that mine don't and I am fairly certain it is the same for many other CAF members as well.  It's not that they don't care, it is that they have been conditioned to think that the Government will look after us when things go pear shaped, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

At the end of the day, every CAF member should have a decent life insurance policy of their own.  We are paid well enough that all that extra money we make, like all that tour money, danger pay, allowances, etc, should be shoved in to Investments, RRSPs, TFSA, Property, etc.

I would love to see things change but I think it's only going to get worse, best milk the cow for all its worth.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Nobody gives a crap about the CAF or its members.  Ask the question:  "Does your immediate family care at all about issues facing veterans, CAF deployments, CAF procurement, etc?"

I can certainly say that mine don't and I am fairly certain it is the same for many other CAF members as well.  It's not that they don't care, it is that they have been conditioned to think that the Government will look after us when things go pear shaped, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

At the end of the day, every CAF member should have a decent life insurance policy of their own.  We are paid well enough that all that extra money we make, like all that tour money, danger pay, allowances, etc, should be shoved in to Investments, RRSPs, TFSA, Property, etc.

I would love to see things change but I think it's only going to get worse, best milk the cow for all its worth.

The CAF is sharing the experience of many other industries that are moving away from Defined Benefits pensions. An article about GM's changes is below:


GM’s pension plan changes are troubling: Wells


So how’s that workplace pension plan working for you?

Do you even know how it’s defined? Well, do you?

While the deal struck between GM and Unifor this week has been lauded as a success for the union, one significant concession occured: the loss of the company's defined benefits pension plan.

What was lost in bargaining — the vote on the deal is scheduled for Sunday — is the defined benefits (DB) part of the autoworkers’ hybrid pension plan, in favour of a defined contribution (DC) plan for all new hires.

This sweeping away of the DB plan has been cast as an inevitability, the interment of something old-fashioned or out of step with the new world of pensions. So, you know, too bad, but it had to happen.


https://www.thestar.com/business/2016/09/26/gms-pension-plan-changes-are-troubling-wells.html

 

[brihard]

What was lost in bargaining — the vote on the deal is scheduled for Sunday — is the defined benefits (DB) part of the autoworkers’ hybrid pension plan, in favour of a defined contribution (DC) plan for all new hires.

Classic- union members basically selling out future hires for their own benefit.

 

[OldSolduer]

Now that the Court of Appeal sided against us, I don't expect our current government to do a single thing to improve our lot. O'Reagan has done absolutely nothing, since taking over from Hehr, who also did nothing but frig us off. I'll be suprised if they even mention Veterans again before they hit the campaign trail.

Once the writ is dropped we’re going to be front and centre. On the radar of every politician... I can hear them now “blah blah blah...Veterans are a national treasure yadda yadda yadda”.
I’ve stated that NO politicians or their minions are welcome at my house.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The CAF is sharing the experience of many other industries that are moving away from Defined Benefits pensions. An article about GM's changes is below:


GM’s pension plan changes are troubling: Wells


So how’s that workplace pension plan working for you?

Do you even know how it’s defined? Well, do you?

While the deal struck between GM and Unifor this week has been lauded as a success for the union, one significant concession occured: the loss of the company's defined benefits pension plan.

What was lost in bargaining — the vote on the deal is scheduled for Sunday — is the defined benefits (DB) part of the autoworkers’ hybrid pension plan, in favour of a defined contribution (DC) plan for all new hires.

This sweeping away of the DB plan has been cast as an inevitability, the interment of something old-fashioned or out of step with the new world of pensions. So, you know, too bad, but it had to happen.


https://www.thestar.com/business/2016/09/26/gms-pension-plan-changes-are-troubling-wells.html

I've been saying for a number of years that the CAF is eventually going to lose our Defined Benefit Pension, one way or another.  Best prepare ourselves for the brave new world

As far as I'm concerned, the Government of Canada has said that they have no social contract with us; therefore, they shouldn't be surprised when many of us start acting like the mercenaries we essentially are. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Excellent :goodpost: HB.

 

[Good2Golf]

DC is not just the way of the future, it’s really moving forward now. DB, even at increasing member share, like 60/40, will go the way of the Dodo.  Private industry is there already, many pseudo Govt (like Universities) are well on their way to DC (less the old tenured profs on DB) and it’s just a matter of time before CFSA, PSSA and RCMPSA become DC and remain/further devolve to high member share programs. 

A wee bit of that quad/sled/boat in the PMQ driveway would do well to be redirected to a TFSA and a life insurance policy.

:nod:

Regards
G2G

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Pusser]

As for broken promises, it's kind of hard to show that. 
[/quote]

The parties election platform promised no veteran would have to “fight the government” for support.

The federal government took veterans back to court to try to block certain benefits for injured soldiers despite that promise.

I would consider being taken to court fighting for support.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The parties election platform promised no veteran would have to “fight the government” for support.

The federal government took veterans back to court to try to block certain benefits for injured soldiers despite that promise.

I would consider being taken to court fighting for support.

Exactly. That and the last three VAC ministers have sat on their hands, doing SFA except lecturing Vets and families about how we are supposed to be grateful to them for their inaction.

Trudeau's statement of "They are asking for more than we can give" is his point of finality when dealing with Vets. He's saying "I'm not giving you any more. Live with it and quit asking."

We're about to see his new platform, likely full of more promises to be broken once re-elected. It is going to be interesting to see what he's going to say to us, but interesting only to see what kind of fuckery is coming down the pipe. Whatever is promised, will not likely materialize anyway. Unless he promises to cut us all loose. That one I'll believe.

 

[Infanteer]

I've been saying for a number of years that the CAF is eventually going to lose our Defined Benefit Pension, one way or another.  Best prepare ourselves for the brave new world

Not really a novel concept.  Members of the Australian military have no DB Pension and are enrolled in some form of Defined Contribution Plan.