• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

HRC Challenge: Medical discharges thinning ranks & forcing unemployment

As much as I agree with what you are doing, I have the feeling that you are 'elevating' these people much higher than reasonable expectations.  You seem to want more than what benefits and compensation they are currently getting through all the existing programs and insurances.  It leaves me with a feeling that there is more of a monetary demand in what you want, than an attempt to find meaningful employment. 

Do you propose that a system be set up and managed like all other Government Insurances, whereby all monies earned in this job equity/accommodation be deducted from all other Insurances and Benefits that the member receives; managed in a similar manner as EI?
 
One last thing before I go for the day, I just sent this letter to a reporter whose been looking into and challenging DND on this issue: (the letter is in yellow)

Soldiers currently fight their releases, even if they know they can't physically do the job any more, because they have families to feed-just like anyone else in Canada.  They are afraid...and they have a right to be.

In November 2002, the CF became a public sector employee for the purposes of the Employment Equity Act.  meaning the CF had to start being more careful of their accommodating people because they were subject to audit by the Human Rights Commission. 

Link:  http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/E-5.401/SOR-2002-420/index.html

The CF was actually getting better, but recent announcements and policies are going to put a stop to accommodations, as Hillier stated that they can't keep accommodating and maintain the ranks for deployment.

This makes sense, we can't have an army full of sick people.  I've never once said that they should be kept in the CF.

Military personnel sign DND documents as their employment contracts.  The CF can fire people because they have Bona Fide Occupational Requirements.  We are trying to take those requirements completely out of the equation by asking that DND employ broken soldiers.

The logistics of this fundamental change in thinking are overwhelming.  Especially with the unions involved.  But...it is not the fault of soldiers that the DND and CF human resources hacks didn't follow law as the policies were made and figure it out.  Soldiers should not pay the price for the higher ups' poor planning.

I want you to read this policy, http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/dsafeg/pubs/returntowork/00native/RTWManual_e.pdf, The Return to Work policy for injured DND civilian employees.  Note that CF managers are expected to follow these guidelines and accommodate their civilian employees, yet they are supposed to fire their own military employees.

Note statement in Chapter 4," Under the Return to Work Program and the requirement of "Duty to Accommodate" legislation, the department is committed to accommodating all employees with occupation-related injuries/illnesses.  If accommodation within the employee's work group is not feasible, accommodation will be made in the parent organization or in a different Command/Group within the same geographical location".

This is all that we are asking for CF personnel. 

Now, in November 2002, CF personnel became public service employees for the purposes of the Employment Equity Act-equal to public servants with respect to this consideration.  The Minister of National Defence is at the top of the organizational chart that includes all civilian and military personnel.  Whether or not DND employs soldiers, or who works for whom, the basic fact that has never been argued if that the MND is the head of it all.

If he is protecting civilian jobs at the expense of military personnel's human rights, he is in a conflict of interest.

The biggest deterent to opening up DND jobs to injured CF personnel is that the unions will not allow it.  Too bad the National Defence Act forbids CF personnel from forming unions.  It would be nice to have that kind of advocacy, money, and power behind us.


Anyway, the other thing I want you to challenge them on is this:  Priority hire-which they will try to sell to you as their great gift to soldiers as accommodation.  Accommodation is the right to employment.  Priority hire is a helping hand but is not a right to employment.

Soldiers must still apply and compete/meet the requirements for the positions that open up for competition.  Problems:

-When people leave the military, they often have to leave the geographical area- they are not released where they came from, so they move back home -to places where they have no contacts/job networking.

-The Public Service often takes 6 months to a year to staff positions.  The longer someone is out of work, especially if disabled, the smaller the chances of them returning to work.  This fact is acknowledged in the Return to Work Manual for DND employees.

-The Public Service currently staffs mostly term positions- so even if a soldier is hired, there is still no job security.

-Military qualifications often do not compare/equate to civilian qualifications.

-The must compete against union personnel and other priority hire employees, employment equity groups.

- They must request the help for job priority assistance- and when they do, they must jump through hoops (go to doctors, fill out forms etc) in order to activate the benefit.  Then, if it doesn't work out and they choose to not take the job, they can lose the priority hire benefit altogether.  Priority hire, from what I've heard, sometimes causes more problems that it solves.

The duty to accommodate means the employer must find employment for the injured employee.  Our soldiers are out job hunting.

Also, even if they do get into the PS, their seniority is not transferred with them.

My husband- went from a senior analyst to a junior level analyst, big reduction in pay from what he was making, loss of seniority and respect, went from 5 weeks of earned vacation to 3 weeks.

They are penalized for getting hurt-discriminated against for becoming disabled.

Last point- the CF is understaffed and underresourced.  I have reports stating they can't even train the recruits coming in because they are losing their experienced personnel so fast.  And yet, they hire civilians and contract out to fill the shortfalls.


All I know is that the worst thing you can tell one of these men or women, when they come back all broken, is that they are no longer useful.  I know DND/CF understand the principles of disability managment, because they are set out and followed quite nicely for DND civilian personnel.  Can they not apply them to CF personnel as well?

Does this strike you as fair?

Please keep in touch, and if you don't run the piece, could you let me know so that I won't anticipate?

Thanks,


Anyway, we can all only fight for what we believe in.  I'm fighting for what I see as right based on the problems the people I interact with encounter and the experiences I've had. 
I ask that you respect that.

I can see, however, that maybe I should expand my horizons.  I can admit I might only be hearing the bad stories and experiences.  So, I would like to hear from actual soldiers who went through the process of getting rehired into the Public Service and found it an easy process. Do they think they should have had to go through the process in the first place?

I, personally, can't find anyone who found the process endearing.  I'd like to hear from them.

 
George Wallace said:
As much as I agree with what you are doing, I have the feeling that you are 'elevating' these people much higher than reasonable expectations.  You seem to want more than what benefits and compensation they are currently getting through all the existing programs and insurances.  It leaves me with a feeling that there is more of a monetary demand in what you want, than an attempt to find meaningful employment. 

Do you propose that a system be set up and managed like all other Government Insurances, whereby all monies earned in this job equity/accommodation be deducted from all other Insurances and Benefits that the member receives; managed in a similar manner as EI?

To the contrary, I'm not elevating them at all.  I'm trying to put them on equal footing with every other Canadian that becomes disabled.  No special consideration wanted.

Like I said, maybe I am restricting my opinion to the guys I deal with-the guys who would rather continue working and earn their keep than accept Long Term Disability (which is really just the military version of employment insurance, if you think about it) and sent out to look for other employment.

It wouldn't be an added benefit at all- it would be rejecting benefits in order to continue working.  If immediately transferred into a new/equitable position within DND, severance would wait until true and natural retirement-not enforced retirement.  LTD wouldn't be required. Re-education would be given up (presently, many soldiers are told to wait and see if they can find a job before they are given opportunities to retrain anyway, because they are already highly trained), pensions would wait.

Talking here, I am learning things.  That's what discussion is for, right?

So, maybe it should maybe be a choice.

Really disabled, unable to work-LTD and VAC benefits.
Disabled by CF standards but able to work full time by civilian standards- choice between taking the current package as offered, or continuing to work and delaying the severance and pensions. 

Most of the guys (I'm not being sexist here, but I've only corresponded with guys on this issue) want to continue with their life plan and work.  Not ready to "retire".  Can't live on a pension yet and will have to go back to work anyway.

If they want to continue working, should they not have the right to do so-especially since they have an employment contract to back them up and every other person in this country has the right?

It's not about the money, it's about the pride of working and the job.

 
George,
I don't know why this is a problem for you.......I work for the Ontario Govt., specifically Corrections, and if I get hurt somehow and am unable to fulfill my CO requirements then the Govt. will find something suitable that I can do, within REASONABLE limits.

Why should a soldier be less than I am??
 
I have nothing against this, just in its' presentation.  I had a Cpl working for me who was Accommodated.  He was receiving a Tax Free Pension from Veterans Affairs, his normal pay, and had the opportunity to take 'Paid' Leave and get on Government sponsored courses.  He has since taken a Release and is employed by DND.  There are programs, insurance and benefits already in place for the injured soldiers. 

Something about the way that this is being presented by 284_226 in this case just rubs me the wrong way. 
 
George Wallace said:
I have nothing against this, just in its' presentation.  I had a Cpl working for me who was Accommodated.  He was receiving a Tax Free Pension from Veterans Affairs, his normal pay, and had the opportunity to take 'Paid' Leave and get on Government sponsored courses.  He has since taken a Release and is employed by DND.  There are programs, insurance and benefits already in place for the injured soldiers.

You mentioned a VAC disability pension, normal pay, "paid" leave, and government sponsored courses.  Maybe I'm misreading your tone, but you're making it appear as though they're "perks", and something that someone would not normally be entitled to.

According to the Ombudsman at http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/updates/sisip_e.asp, I quote - "I believe that a strong case can be made that VAC pension payments should not be considered as income replacement as such, but rather as compensation for the consequences flowing from disabilities suffered (e.g., loss of enjoyment of life, loss of career opportunities, continuing pain and suffering, etc.)".  In other words, it's something any CF member is entitled to if they have a service-caused condition, whether they're accommodated or not.

Pay is an entitlement for work performed.

Paid leave is an entitlement for work performed/time served.

Government sponsored courses are something any CF member is entitled to under the Reg Force Education Reimbursement program.

So really, the individual you're referring to received the same benefits that any other CF member is entitled to - which really only leaves the issue of them being accommodated.

Something about the way that this is being presented by 284_226 in this case just rubs me the wrong way.

Perhaps I'm being overly analytical about things.  But, people keep claiming that (for example) we have priority hire programs in place, and to counter that point it's necessary to dig into the black and white to prove they really aren't as widely available as some would believe.  I'll still give the same caveat that I'm not 100% certain there isn't some section of legislation that I've yet to discover that allows Cpl Bloggins with the bad back to be given priority hire by the PSC, but everything I've found so far points to priority hire being only available to those injured in a SDA. 
 
Worn Out Grunt said:
I'm in somewhat of the same boat.  I've been doing the battle fitness test (13 km ruck etc) for the last five years, and now find I can't do the express test due to my knees.  I have had my med cat changed as I blew my knees on duty, but with the new regulations DND seems to have changed the rules mid game.  I've got my 20+ in, so I'm very interested to see what compulsory release item I'll be released under.  A 3B with immediate indexing will be fine by me!!!

The current release package is fine for you.  What about the younger guy...not ready to quit...family to feed?  Do you think he should be left to search for alternate employment?
 
Armyvern said:
from 284_226

And I ask again then, what are you fighting for as this is already done. And they've gone above and beyond that...injured CF members are already eligible for priority hire and thus 'accomodation' in ALL federal depts, including as civilians employees in DND. 

Actually, this statement is wrong.  Accommodation means having your disability accommodated (duties modified, work environment modified, retrained for different job) without ever leaving the security blanket of employment. Priority hire is not accommodation.
In an accommodation situation, a worker never has to compete/apply/fulfill requirements for a new job. A new position is found for them or they continue in their old positions with workplace modifications.
 
George Wallace said:
I had a Cpl working for me who was Accommodated.  He was receiving a Tax Free Pension from Veterans Affairs, his normal pay, and had the opportunity to take 'Paid' Leave and get on Government sponsored courses.  He has since taken a Release and is employed by DND.  There are programs, insurance and benefits already in place for the injured soldiers. 

Now I have one for you.  I've been corresponding with a guy- army Bdr, 10 years in.  Medical problem, not injury.  Screwed about by DMCARM- kidney stone issue-hasn't been sick for 6 years-never missed a day of work even when he did have kidney stones.
Released just this past August, no accommodation.  No DVA-because its not service related. Less than $1000.00/month pension.  One 3 year old and a 6 week old baby boy.
Went in last week to apply for a position on base-was mortified because he knew everyone.  Who was in there competing for the same job?  A Sgt he once worked with, large DVA pension and full medical pension, working his accommodation until he finds the job he wants before he releases.

Who do you fit your policies to?  The guys who are accommodated and have time to work the system to their advantage, or the guy who is released without warning and prep...and then flounders?

And believe me, I don't think the two accommodated fellows are opportunists at all.  They're brilliant... and looking out for number one-which is what any of us do when we're told we're to be fired.  They're also incredibly lucky, in their timing and the bosses they have and the people who made the medical decisions on their cases.

It's all random, works for some, sucks for others.  I'd rather over compensate and create policies that work for everyone, than create policies that only work if your timing or circumstances (luck) are impeccable.

The guy I know above, he didn't deserve to have his dignity trampled upon.  He needs a job.



 
Battleaxe: Having kicked around for a while dealing with Veteran issues, I applaud your efforts but caution you that unless you have on board with you the numerous vet groups, orgs and associations the first question the Tribunal will ask you is who do you represent?  Positioning yourself as an advocate for veterans to the tribunal may run you up against having to prove you have standing to even be present at the tribunal as well as demonstrating your constituency and representation. In the alternative, should it just be about your partner and his claim to be accommodated, then everything you use in an advocacy attempt may or will be disregarded as the tribunal will focus on evidence surrounding your partner's claim.  

So if you haven't already, please get in contact with NCVA (http://www.waramps.ca/ncva/home.html)and especially its chair, Cliff Chadderton.  There are very few politicians that take Chadderton lightly and he may be your best heavy hitter. (Failing that, he may have some terrific advice for you to proceed with your action). As well, you may want to contact M. Gauthier at the Cdn Legion NS Provincial Command.  I've had a few dealings with him and he knows his stuff on pensions etc.  http://www.ns.legion.ca/sb.htm (he might be able to assist you during the tribunal).

Good Luck.

 
niner domestic said:
Positioning yourself as an advocate for veterans to the tribunal may run you up against having to prove you have standing to even be present at the tribunal as well as demonstrating your constituency and representation. In the alternative, should it just be about your partner and his claim to be accommodated, then everything you use in an advocacy attempt may or will be disregarded as the tribunal will focus on evidence surrounding your partner's claim.  

The Human Rights Claim is just about my husband at this point.  When he was released, there were two positions open for competition that met all his communications experience.  He was called and told he met the quals, but he lived outside the geographical area, so was excluded from the competition.
He could have so easily been put right into one as an accommodation-given the military move.  Even if he had been given the chance at an interview, he would have felt better.
It was a sin that nobody from TAP would even call to speak on his behalf.  It all fell on deaf ears.

No, we're not going in fighting for everyone, we're fighting for him, and the precedent it will set.  We're not totally dopey, we know the chances are slim (to none).  But even if it makes somebody rethink the situation, and hesitate before canning the next guy, it'll not be such a waste of time.

Thanks for the advice and contact info.  I'll look into it.
 
George Wallace said:
I have nothing against this, just in its' presentation.  I had a Cpl working for me who was Accommodated.  He was receiving a Tax Free Pension from Veterans Affairs, his normal pay, and had the opportunity to take 'Paid' Leave and get on Government sponsored courses.  He has since taken a Release and is employed by DND.  There are programs, insurance and benefits already in place for the injured soldiers. 
 

Many people do end up working for DND/PS, that's true.  But, it doesn't work out for everybody and there is a lot of unneccessary grief and worry for a lot of released military personnel while it all gets done.
The government would have saved a lot by simply continuing this guy's employment in DND rather than giving him pensions/benefits/schooling and then giving him a full time job!  This guy's having a ball now, isn't he?

I'll hazard a guess that this guy was not visibly disabled and didn't have many employability issues.  His is an unusual case, and he's lucky.

For the personnel who are disabled to the point that they have employability issues, the road will not be so smooth.  For the guys who are released with little notice (not accommodated) and don't have time to get all their ducks in a row before release, the road is not so smooth.  For some, finding employment with someone who has no obligation to employ them will be very hard.

 
While I fully understand that there must be standards, the particular regulations must be carefully phrased.  At one time, at least, Commanding Officer's had great latitude in interpreting rules and making recommendations to DCBA/DMILC that addressed a member's unique overall situation, not just one particular sentence in QR&Os/CFAOs.

Case in point is the EXPRES test, which I doubt I will ever pass again.  However, I did deploy last year to theatre on sixteen days notice.  On the other hand pers have been identified for tasking and continually DAG red for ever changing reasons that get forgotten as pers change and members are posted.
 
This sounds oddly familiar...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061028.wxsoldiers28/BNStory/National

Medical discharges thinning military's ranks

GLORIA GALLOWAY

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — The number of Canadian Forces members who were fired because they were too ill or injured to serve in a battle zone doubled between 2002 and 2005 — a puzzling increase that comes even as the military tries to bolster its ranks.

"They are letting go of so many people," said Brenda MacDonald, an ex-military nurse who was released because of a medical illness and who wants the Forces to find jobs for the released soldiers within the Department of National Defence.

The trend appears to be at odds with a recent decision to forgo physical-fitness tests for new recruits. But some veteran members of the Forces suggest there has been a concerted effort to drive out people with disabilities, even as the standards are being weakened for newcomers.

Under a policy called "universality of service," all members of the military must be physically able to participate in missions. If a medical condition prevents deployment, a member of the Forces is released with no guarantee of being placed in another job within the Defence Department or any other branch of government.

Figures released to The Globe and Mail by the military this week show 557 people were let go from the Canadian Forces in 2000 because of their medical conditions. That number began to climb in 2002 when Canada became actively engaged in the conflict in Afghanistan and hit 1,067 in 2005.

In 2000, medical conditions were responsible for 13 per cent of all releases. By last year, they accounted for 24 per cent.

The military is unable to explain the increase. The Afghanistan mission has boosted the injuries incurred within the Forces but military spokesmen say the number of badly wounded soldiers who had to be flown home is about 210, just a fraction of the more than 4,000 medical releases since 2002.

Some veterans say the ill and the injured are simply being pushed out — and they fear the forced exodus is about to expand.

"I was told that now they are going to play hardball," said Bradley MacDonnell, a 31-year-old former bombardier who was recently forced out of his job at CFB Gagetown in New Brunswick because he had kidney stones six years ago.

"Anybody with kidney stones, Crohn's [disease], arthritis — they are kicking them all out."

Mr. MacDonnell and others say it's time that people who are capable of working outside the military — and want to do so — are placed in another job.

The Canadian Forces — not the Defence Department — is their official employer, so they are excluded from a DND policy that obligates the department to find suitable occupations for civilian workers who are injured on the job.

Elaine Coldwell, the director of civilian employment policies for the Canadian Forces, said soldiers who are discharged for medical reasons have priority for placement in government jobs, provided they meet the qualifications.

Since 2001, 278 medically discharged personnel asked to be put in that priority queue, Ms. Caldwell said, and 175 were placed.

"There is not a guarantee," she said. "But we do our best and I think we've proven we're doing quite well in placing our CF members through this process."

But the priority placement process leaves people behind, Mr. MacDonnell said. He said he applied for a civilian position in a warehouse on the Gagetown base and did not get called back for an interview, although two non-commissioned officers who were still fully employed were considered.

Ms. MacDonald said she understands why military personnel who cannot be deployed should be forced to leave the Canadian Forces.

But "why are the ones who choose not to retire and who still have time left on their contract not accommodated as a DND civilian person would be?" she asked.

"While everybody's painting this rosy picture of our guys getting jobs, 1,000 were released and how many got accommodated?" Ms. MacDonald said.

"Of all the things they offer, they don't guarantee a job."

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51805/post-467051.html#msg467051

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51761/post-460829.html#msg460829

Coincidence?  ::)

Frankly, I stopped reading both topics as soon as I read "Human Rights Challenge", but now....  :P
 
Personally I am a bit surprised. I have a serious medical condition and they will not release me at all. I even do not have a medical category. They tell me that I am fit as when I entered the forces.
 
schart28 said:
Personally I am a bit surprised. I have a serious medical condition and they will not release me at all. I even do not have a medical category. They tell me that I am fit as when I entered the forces.

I wouldn't say that too loudly, lest the D Med Pol goon squad be paying you a visit in the very near future  :o
 
Teddy Ruxpin said:
The trend appears to be at odds with a recent decision to forgo physical-fitness tests for new recruits. But some veteran members of the Forces suggest there has been a concerted effort to drive out people with disabilities, even as the standards are being weakened for newcomers.
The medically unfit are not getting in.  That has not changed.

The physically unfit will be trained to meet the same old fitness standards before they get through recruit school.
 
Sending unhealthy people to fight in the Afghanistan summer (or the dreaded Afghanistan Winter) will doubtless thin the ranks as well.
 
Brad Sallows said:
Sending unhealthy people to fight in the Afghanistan summer (or the dreaded Afghanistan Winter) will doubtless thin the ranks as well.

Nobody has suggested sending unhealthy or unfit people into those conditions.
 
284_226 said:
I wouldn't say that too loudly, lest the D Med Pol goon squad be paying you a visit in the very near future  :o

The medical chain of commands even know about it, Med C, CF Med C... No one is taking action.... I don't understand. I even had
a CO tell me that I could go to afghanistan...
 
Back
Top