Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread

[57Chevy]

It is well known that all members of the Forces must meet the physical fitness standard and operational requirements.
But there must be positions within the CF where injured soldiers can/will be employed..
Quote from the article:
"As long as they are employable, if they don't want to leave the Canadian Forces we are going to look to provide them options to stay in the forces in areas where the overlying principle of universality of service doesn't apply."

.....so where are these positions found ?

 

[armyvern]

...

.....so where are these positions found ?

That is the question. Someone has already inferred that they believe these posns are found within "static" purple posns such as Base Supply. I`ve countered with my reasoning as to why that belief is wrong.

So, where are they?

 

[McG]

.....so where are these positions found ?

Anywhere in the CF that a Commanding Officer says I can afford to take that person with their known medical employment limitations and employ that person in this establishment position.  If a CO is not willing to give-up a position to someone who does not meet universality of service, then there is no position in that unit. 

The CO is in the best place to assess if the unit can afford the operational impacts of retaining an unfit member at the expense of having a fit member fill the established position.  The CO is also in the best place to look at the specific limitations of the member and decide if there is a position within the unit that can fully employ the member while accommodating those limitations/restrictions.

But the CO's willingness to take such a person is not the only element in such a decision.  An occupation can only afford to have a certain percentage of its total strength unfit universality of service - if too many people are being accommodated in a given occupation & rank, then it places an unfair burden on the remaining healthy members. 

 

[JMesh]

Anywhere in the CF that a Commanding Officer says I can afford to take that person with their known medical employment limitations and employ that person in this establishment position.  If a CO is not willing to give-up a position to someone who does not meet universality of service, then there is no position in that unit. 

The CO is in the best place to assess if the unit can afford the operational impacts of retaining an unfit member at the expense of having a fit member fill the established position.  The CO is also in the best place to look at the specific limitations of the member and decide if there is a position within the unit that can fully employ the member while accommodating those limitations/restrictions.

But the CO's willingness to take such a person is not the only element in such a decision.  An occupation can only afford to have a certain percentage of its total strength unfit universality of service - if too many people are being accommodated in a given occupation & rank, then it places an unfair burden on the remaining healthy members.

If we're going to do that, how can we call it a BFOR? I understand how it would work internally, in theory, but in practice, it just opens up DND to a lawsuit when someone says if one person can be exempt then it's not a true BFOR.

 

[57Chevy]

Vern,
I aggree with your argument on that. Some people seem to have the tendency
of thinking that Base Supply is limited to always be doing their business in the building.
However,
A position in Base Supply can be catered toward meeting the needs of an injured soldier
without underlying its normal operational requirements much more readily than any
first line unit.

 

[aesop081]

A position in Base Supply can be catered toward meeting the needs of an injured soldier
without underlying its normal operational requirements much more readily than any
first line unit.

Your argument is fine until it meets reality. Even base supply sections ( or any other base/wing support function) need to be filled with deployable individuals as they do get tasked to deploy members regularly and in significant numbers.

 

[dogger1936]

Let's face it...it's not feelings or public preception IRT them "weighing" keeping soldiers around. It all boils down to the mighty dollar. Is it cheaper to retain or release the member.

 

[OldSolduer]

Let's face it...it's not feelings or public preception IRT them "weighing" keeping soldiers around. It all boils down to the mighty dollar. Is it cheaper to retain or release the member.

I must disagree with you on this one.

It's not the money, its the principle of universality of service that determines who may be released and who may be retained.

 

[captloadie]

Anywhere in the CF that a Commanding Officer says I can afford to take that person with their known medical employment limitations and employ that person in this establishment position.  If a CO is not willing to give-up a position to someone who does not meet universality of service, then there is no position in that unit. 

The CO is in the best place to assess if the unit can afford the operational impacts of retaining an unfit member at the expense of having a fit member fill the established position.  The CO is also in the best place to look at the specific limitations of the member and decide if there is a position within the unit that can fully employ the member while accommodating those limitations/restrictions.

But the CO's willingness to take such a person is not the only element in such a decision.  An occupation can only afford to have a certain percentage of its total strength unfit universality of service - if too many people are being accommodated in a given occupation & rank, then it places an unfair burden on the remaining healthy members.

What happens when the CO changes? Is he saddled with the decisions of a previous CO, or do accomodated soldiers have to worry every time there is a change of command that they might be out the door? We already have a path that accomodates a limited number of members for up to three years, but is this just extending the ineveitable?

I think the true answer has to be finding positions that are already civilianized or Reg/Res ones that can be, make them indeterminate positions, and transfer injured soldiers into those positions. The member gets to stay employed, hopefully in a position related to his former trade, and there is even the ability to transfer over the pensionable time.

 

[57Chevy]

This is not a new....
A good friend of mine from way back in the days of the CAR was severly injured in a Mortar accident
somwhere out there on the East Coast.
After spending much of his time in hospital and healing he was retained in the Forces.
He was later accomodated by being employed in the CAR Museum, and I think (but not quite sure) he completed his
term of service.
So, there are static positions out there.....rare as they may seem to be.

The willingness for COs to give up an operational position to accomodate an injured soldier
is an inherited responsibility and must be considered.

 

[armyvern]

The willingness for COs to give up an operational position to accomodate an injured soldier
is an inherited responsibility and must be considered.

Lest there be any doubt, they DO consider it.

Let`s not forget, that we also have many injured & sick who are temporarily deemed non-deployable and whom are expected to make full recoveries who must also have positions within they can work while on those TCats.

Think pregnant female. Think guy who breaks his ankle. They are also going in to that desk job in Customer Services section on a Temp basis until they are healed etc. They too must be treated for that temp period of time in accordance with their TCats. THAT is a whole lot of people already. As they are TCat and are expected to fully recover and return to fit full duties and deployable status, the CO must also consider them in each and every decision he makes for they too must be accomodated in the short term.

 

[57Chevy]

I was not implying that they don't ;D
TCat positions have already been well established throughout the CF and
I am pretty well sure that most, if not all, TCat positions are filled on a regular basis.
Once upon a time I painted the all too many trailers in Petawawa with the (at the time) new cam colors :

The requirement is to find long term solutions that will enable the retention of personnel.
The Government may have to inject new monies and create the necessary positions that
cater to the needs of injured soldiers.
That does not remove the responsibility of COs, Officers, and Snr NCOs to thoroughly
investigate any long term possibilities that can be submitted for consideration.
(Which is probably being done also)

 

[McG]

If we're going to do that, how can we call it a BFOR? I understand how it would work internally, in theory, but in practice, it just opens up DND to a lawsuit when someone says if one person can be exempt then it's not a true BFOR.

We already do it that way.  It works.  If all the involved decision makers agree, the unfit member continues serving for three years - continuing to contribute to the CF while simultaneously entitled to many programmes to prepare for the inevitable transition to the civilian workforce.

What happens when the CO changes? Is he saddled with the decisions of a previous CO, or do accomodated soldiers have to worry every time there is a change of command that they might be out the door? We already have a path that accomodates a limited number of members for up to three years, …

If you look at what I described, you will see that I described the current system and did not propose something new.  Your question can be answered by looking at exactly what happens now. 

 

[childs56]

I heard of a Co in one Reserve Unit who was a Regular Force Member. He had to take command of a Field Unit prior to moving on in his carrer. Due to medical reasons he could not Command a Regular Force Field Unit due to his limitations. He served his two years as CO and moved on in his carrer to a much more important position. Not many others in the CF could do what he was doing in his new posting. 

I  never said that Base Supply or Base OR did not provide members for operations. I did say that they do not deploy as a Unit from a base. You would not see CFB Cold Lake Base Supply pack up shop and deploy to Haiti for example as a static unit.  They would how ever send members to be part of a Battle Group.

Yes you can fit Members with in the system, the way of thinking of some of you seems to be more job protection then actual trying to gainfully employ.

When you look around your base how many people do you have who have never deployed? How many people are employed in static positions? How many Civilians do you have.
There will be a big difference between a Army base, Airforce Base and a Navy Base. There are also jobs out there within the HQ element that could be filled by injured members. It would take a little more thought process then the Military is used to but it is more then possible to do with out affecting Operational Effectiveness.
There are also many Reserve Units and HQs out there across Canada who have office staff who are Reserve Soldiers who work on full time contracts. You could cut some of those contracts and offer the Job up to a Service Inujured member. If they turn down the offer of retraining then they can be released.  At least they are still in a job that needs to be done.

Argue all you want there are close to 68,000 Full time members and 25,000 Primary Reserves plus Supp and Rangers. There is lots of room to place a few thousand Service injured Members.

 

[armyvern]

CTD,

Please state your experience working in 1st line or 2nd line Supply. I am at a loss as to where you've gained your SMEness in that area from. Obviously, it comes from a base that I've never worked at (or apparently, heard of) --- & I may like to request a posting there.

 

[captloadie]

We already do it that way.  It works.  If all the involved decision makers agree, the unfit member continues serving for three years - continuing to contribute to the CF while simultaneously entitled to many programmes to prepare for the inevitable transition to the civilian workforce.
If you look at what I described, you will see that I described the current system and did not propose something new.  Your question can be answered by looking at exactly what happens now.

What we have now is a system that allows accommodation for three years, so maybe a new CO can live with that. But now we are talking about injured soldiers who may be at the beginning or only part way through their career. The original sentiment of this post was we shouldn't be getting rid of these injured soldiers because they fought a war for us. Unlike others who aren't injured in Afghanistan, there seemed to be a feeling we needed to do more for these individuals. So we aren't talking about just 3 years, we are talking about accommodating someone for possibly the majority of their career. I am all for using the current system of accommodation for the members, they get three more years, hopefully enough time to sort out their lives. There shouldn't be a difference between these guys and someone critically injured on workups, or a pilot who breaks his back ejecting, or the clerk who gets carpal tunnel syndrome. However, others on this site, and in the eyes of some of Joe public, this isn't good enough.

 

[JMesh]

We already do it that way.  It works.  If all the involved decision makers agree, the unfit member continues serving for three years - continuing to contribute to the CF while simultaneously entitled to many programmes to prepare for the inevitable transition to the civilian workforce.

Certainly makes sense. In that situation, I am all for it. They are temporarily occupying the position so we can help them transition. We owe them that, at a bare minimum, and they're assisted with that transition. However, if we start making that a long term plan to retain members, rather than a short term plan to help them transition into civilian life, then I would think my lawsuit comment is valid.

 

[McG]

The original sentiment of this post was we shouldn't be getting rid of these injured soldiers because they fought a war for us.  ...  So we aren't talking about just 3 years, we are talking about accommodating someone for possibly the majority of their career.

No.  Some people seem interested in indefinate retention.  I have already posted my opinion that the only sustainable solution for the CF is to transition unfit members to the civilian workforce (Public Service or otherwise).  While "we" may be talking about one thing, that does not imply all of us hold the position that the current system is broke.

 

[Pusser]

I  never said that Base Supply or Base OR did not provide members for operations. I did say that they do not deploy as a Unit from a base. You would not see CFB Cold Lake Base Supply pack up shop and deploy to Haiti for example as a static unit.  They would how ever send members to be part of a Battle Group.

Yes you can fit Members with in the system, the way of thinking of some of you seems to be more job protection then actual trying to gainfully employ.

When you look around your base how many people do you have who have never deployed? How many people are employed in static positions? How many Civilians do you have.
There will be a big difference between a Army base, Airforce Base and a Navy Base. There are also jobs out there within the HQ element that could be filled by injured members. It would take a little more thought process then the Military is used to but it is more then possible to do with out affecting Operational Effectiveness. 

Argue all you want there are close to 68,000 Full time members and 25,000 Primary Reserves plus Supp and Rangers. There is lots of room to place a few thousand Service injured Members.

If only it was that simple, but it's not.  You really don't seem to understand why "static" positions need to be filled with fit people.  It's not just so that we have a pool of augmentees for deployed battle groups.  We also need a place to send fit people so that they get a break from constant operations (or else they won't stay fit for long).  This isn't the Roman Army where men joined and expected to campaign for 20 years.  CF members understand that they have to deploy, but at the same time they also need to have "static" postings so that they can enjoy some semblance of a home life.  How do you think recruiting and retention would go if we expected every member to be operational for their entire careers?  Furthermore, we have a manpower ceiling.  Every permanently disabled soldier we ratain means one less fit person we can recruit. Static positions can and are used for the temporary accomodation of the sick and injured, but it's expected that at some point these folks are going to rotate back into the operational stream.  Using static positions for the long term employment of the permanently disabled just isn't feasible. 

 

[Journeyman]

It would take a little more thought process then than the Military is used to.....

It's a pity that no one in the CF is putting adequate thought into this, and those who are bumbling along with the issue lack the strategic thinking abilities of former-corporals.

Where, oh where, are Scott Taylor and Sunil Ram when we need their insights?  :'(