Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread

[geo]

+1 RG45

 

[battleaxe]

I'm going to drop a big dumb question right here in the middle of this thing.

This is a "what if" hypothetical and I am not learned enough about unions and such to make a truly informed opinion yet but- in the spirit of learning and in order to add to the discussion about options, I'm going to throw this out there...

If it is found that military personnel have the right to the same benefits and considerations as other people in the government...
If military people have skills that are valuable, comparable, and transferrable to many public service positions...
If tax payers invest large amounts of money in soldiers' training and would logically benefit from the continued use of those skills...
If it has been acknowledged that military personnel and vets have the right to advocacy...
and if one were to consider military service the highest form of public service...

then, hypothetically, why not sign military personnel up as PS employees- and simply consider the CF another department within DND?

Don't get mad as a snap reaction...simply think about it.

First argument-CF personnel cannot be unionized.  Why not?  It is legislated.  Yes, and legislation is changed all the time. 
Unionization would undermine discipline in the CF?  Yes, but, let's face it, the days of mindless acceptance of poor treatment are long gone.  Forces personnel have any number of avenues to discuss, negotiate, and resolve their issues. There are already forms of advocacy- and people are screaming for more.  Greivances, the CF Ombudsman, the Human Rights Commission, the media- and all of those are currently backfilled with complaints. What difference, really, will belonging to a union make in how the military runs today- other than the fact that they would have to pay the dues? (This is not a hypothetical question but a real one- would unionization really make a big difference? Maybe another thread? (I'm going now to the search function to see if this has been discussed on this forum before)

Second argument-Union resistance.  Yes.
Third argument...you tell me...

I've admitted to idealism, but am not idealistic to the point of stupidity...and that is why I present this as a hypothetical rather than a concrete suggestion. I also realize the violent visceral reaction that many must feel upon simply considering the option. 

But consider it, please. If one can get past the drama, the legislation and the politics, all of those "it'll never work because" scenarios...would it be a viable option?

It would put military personnel on equal footing with other government employees- from the start- and would open up the door to moving them out of the CF when they cannot deploy and into other govenment employment.

Is unionism the only thing preventing military personnel being signed on as public servants? If yes,  is that rationale even a valid one, in the modern sense?


Bren  (who asks that you all respond to this question guided by the spirit of the saying 'there are no stupid questions"-Thanks)

 

[retiredgrunt45]

Sorry Tess, I re-read my post last night and I seen were someone would get the wrong idea. My apologies.

 

[TCBF]

then, hypothetically, why not sign military personnel up as PS employees- and simply consider the CF another department within DND?

- Asked and Answered.

First argument-CF personnel cannot be unionized.  Why not?  It is legislated.  Yes, and legislation is changed all the time. 
Unionization would undermine discipline in the CF?   Yes, but, let's face it, the days of mindless acceptance of poor treatment are long gone.  Forces personnel have any number of avenues to discuss, negotiate, and resolve their issues. There are already forms of advocacy- and people are screaming for more.  Greivances, the CF Ombudsman, the Human Rights Commission, the media- and all of those are currently backfilled with complaints. What difference, really, will belonging to a union make in how the military runs today- other than the fact that they would have to pay the dues? (This is not a hypothetical question but a real one- would unionization really make a big difference? Maybe another thread? (I'm going now to the search function to see if this has been discussed on this forum before)

- Bren, more forms of advocacy actually water down and delay positive results.  When everyone is responsible, NO ONE is responsible (Ahhhhhh, the joys of socialism!)  It merely employs more well paid bureaucrats to less result.

Second argument-Union resistance.  Yes. ... Is unionism the only thing preventing military personnel being signed on as public servants? If yes,  is that rationale even a valid one, in the modern sense?

- Valid? All power is validation.  Even after WW2, not all of the jobs being 'held' for soldiers were held. As I said above, if it comes to vets in wheelchairs versus PSAC, smart money is on PSAC.

- I am not picking on PSAC either.  Try getting school boards to give preferential hiring to vets who go through teacher's colledge/university.  Then wait for the footage of protesting teachers beating vets in wheelchairs with their picket signs "NO JOBS FOR BABY KILLERS!"  "HELP US KEEP CRAZED SOLDIERS FROM YOUR CHILDREN!"

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

If you can't deploy you should not be retained if you can't get better.  That includes those too out of shape, injured, not willing to deploy etc.  If these wounded personnel have experience to pass on then hire them as consultants.  Now that doesn't mean every chance to get better should be given but I think the current medical release is good with 2 years paid school including 75% of your wage and paying for you books and tools etc.  There is also the 2x 6 month temp categories and a permanent category so its not as if the member has to be released straight away and not have time to converse with his buddies.

 

[battleaxe]

- Asked and Answered.

Do you have a link to a discussion that doesn't list the unions or current legislation (both of which seem to be tired old excuses) as the over riding reasons for why CF personnel are not part of the PS?  I can't find one.

I believe that the union argument may have lost some of its relevance along the way, and I believe that legislation is a dynamic thing that changes-albeit slowly- with the times.
I guess I am asking if union reasons and legslative roadblocks are the only things preventing military personnel being considered public servants. Are there any other reasons?

- Bren, more forms of advocacy actually water down and delay positive results.  When everyone is responsible, NO ONE is responsible (Ahhhhhh, the joys of socialism!)  It merely employs more well paid bureaucrats to less result.

I hate the bureacracy involved in advocacy, too.  I think if things were simply done right the first time, there would be no need for it. Now, however, we have watchdogs guarding the watchdogs who are watching the advocates.  Terrible.

- Valid? All power is validation.  Even after WW2, not all of the jobs being 'held' for soldiers were held. As I said above, if it comes to vets in wheelchairs versus PSAC, smart money is on PSAC.

I'm not sure I understand. I don't want to put words in your mouth or misunderstand so...by this do you mean that you think the union is powerful enough to stop any proposal to include military personnel in the PS?  That the resistance presented by unions would come from the unions themselves rather than from any disciplinary issues that might arise as a result of having a unionized military?

I just want to be clear. Thanks.

Bren

 

[battleaxe]

If you can't deploy you should not be retained if you can't get better.  That includes those too out of shape, injured, not willing to deploy etc.  If these wounded personnel have experience to pass on then hire them as consultants.  Now that doesn't mean every chance to get better should be given but I think the current medical release is good with 2 years paid school including 75% of your wage and paying for you books and tools etc.  There is also the 2x 6 month temp categories and a permanent category so its not as if the member has to be released straight away and not have time to converse with his buddies.

I think the backtracking on this issue- the reversal in thinking that has Hillier counting on his "brightest minds" to figure a way out of the current mess of things- shows that current release benefits and handouts aren't working.  I think that it is becoming apparent that people are more concerned with employment, fairness and dignity than they are about the money and handouts given them upon release.

Bren

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I wouldn't call the program a handout but an attempt to allow the person a chance to find a new career that he or she is physically capable of doing.  Releasing someone who can't deploy shouldn't be unfair or indignant.  To be clear that is how I understand a medical release to work and my understanding my be different from what is actual.

 

[Kiwi99]

There is alot of talk in this thread about the ways or lack of ways to retain wounded soldiers from Afghanistan.  Pretty much it has all been about physical injuries, ie, loss of limbs, etc.  What about mental injuries?  There are plenty of those within the CF that can't deploy, go on exercise, have to do half days, etc.  Why not release them as well?

 

[TCBF]

- A lot are released eventually.  We don't hear about it unless they drive their SUV through the front entrance of the base headquarters building at Steele Barracks.

 

[Kiwi99]

Anf you are guarenteed to get your CD in a presentation full of invited media within 48 hrs as well. if I recall. ;D

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I think its harder to determine how long a mind will heal vs say how long it will take someone to walk.  I believe there is something in the CF that says something to the effect that they can't release you until they either fix you or determine you can't be fixed.  I a person with mental issues can't ever deploy after treatment etc then they too should be released.  If they have some need experience higher them on a private contract.
Our BN is standing up a cell of injured members to help with the up coming tour with regards as to how DVA works, death and injury benefits etc.  So that if needed a spouse or injured member has someone in BN in the know that has been through it.

 

[RHFC_piper]

I think its harder to determine how long a mind will heal vs say how long it will take someone to walk. 

I personally don't believe it's an issue of 'when' the mind will heal, more of an issue as to when the member has reach a point where they can resume duties effectively.  Most cases of PTSD aren't immediate, and most don't just 'heal up' and go away over time like a physical wound (granted; loss of limb doesn't go away either). It's a matter of weather or not the soldier can carry on and work effectively with these 'injuries'.

I have some pretty bad days still, but I'm able to do my assigned duties effectively.

I believe there is something in the CF that says something to the effect that they can't release you until they either fix you or determine you can't be fixed.

The only documentation I've found regarding this is in reference, specifically, to the reserve members; CANFORGEN 116/04 EXTENSION OF CLASS C RESERVE SERVICE FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS WHILE IN SDA/SDO

If a person with mental issues can't ever deploy after treatment etc then they too should be released. 

Well... essentially, if they can't DAG green for deployment due to mental health issues, they probably shouldn't be employed in the CF anyway... depending on the severity of the mental illness, of course.

Our BN is standing up a cell of injured members to help with the up coming tour with regards as to how DVA works, death and injury benefits etc.  So that if needed a spouse or injured member has someone in BN in the know that has been through it.

I think this is a great idea.  And I think more units, both Reg and Res should be getting on this boat.  Each deploying unit should have a deployment cell in place to deal with this kind of stuff for when it happens.  Most Reg F units do this, but it's a big issue in the Res world. Due care should be employed when Res units augment the big R in deployments, 'cause from personal experience, the Reserves struggle to keep on top of their deploying members needs... and it gets a lot worse when casualties return.
Not saying things haven't gotten better, it's just a long time coming and there is always room for improvement.  But it is understandable to an extent; most reserve unit aren't used to dealing with casualties from deployment.

 

[TCBF]

I personally don't believe it's an issue of 'when' the mind will heal, more of an issue as to when the member has reach a point where they can resume duties effectively.  Most cases of PTSD aren't immediate, and most don't just 'heal up' and go away over time like a physical wound (granted; loss of limb doesn't go away either). It's a matter of weather or not the soldier can carry on and work effectively with these 'injuries'.

- Brings to mind a story in a late 1980s  (European edition of 'Stars and Stripes', I believe).  Apparently, a soldier had a breakdown related to his Vietnam service some 15 - 20 years previous.  This started a lot of organizational soul searching related to high ranking positions in 'nuclear capable' units and so on.

- On the flip side, this opens the door to grotesque abuse: recall the smearing of John McCain by his political oponents who stated that his years as a captive by North Vietnam had rendered him unfit to be President.

 

[GAP]

I think this is a great idea.  And I think more units, both Reg and Res should be getting on this boat.  Each deploying unit should have a deployment cell in place to deal with this kind of stuff for when it happens.  Most Reg F units do this, but it's a big issue in the Res world. Due care should be employed when Res units augment the big R in deployments, 'cause from personal experience, the Reserves struggle to keep on top of their deploying members needs... and it gets a lot worse when casualties return.
Not saying things haven't gotten better, it's just a long time coming and there is always room for improvement.  But it is understandable to an extent; most reserve unit aren't used to dealing with casualties from deployment.

Most reserve units are within shouting distance of some form of Reg Force unit....why not use the same cell?

 

[the 48th regulator]

Most reserve units are within shouting distance of some form of Reg Force unit....why not use the same cell?

It's not the decibel level of the the shouting, it is  the level of listening that impedes this help.

dileas

tess

 

[RHFC_piper]

Most reserve units are within shouting distance of some form of Reg Force unit....why not use the same cell?

It's not the decibel level of the the shouting, it is  the level of listening that impedes this help.

dileas

tess

What 48th said is exactly right.

But you also have to keep in mind that members from LFCA deployed with units from RCR, and the furthest reserve units are from as far away as Windsor, London, K-w etc. (6+ hours).  Support stretching that far out usually comes too little too late.
It's probably no different in any other area.

In my mind, the deployment support cell in each unit would cover every aspect of, and only, deployment of their members;
- Selection and pre-pre-training of deploying members
- DAGing issues which need to be covered at CBG/unit level before the member can progress to their deploying unit
- Financial care taking at unit level while the member is working with their deploying unit, but has not yet taken on a class C contract (this is going on right now. our deploying members for 3-08 are on class B paid through our unit by LFCA/31 CBG until Feb when they start their class C deployment contract... all part of the 2 year commitment reservists now make to deploy.)
- Family information network when member deploys (the Deployment support center is nice and all, when you can get through to them via phone... my parents gave up)
- AOs for wounded and KIA.  The Res unit supplies these for their members who are wounded/KIA no matter what Reg F unit they deploy with.
- Post deployment DAG when troops return.  There are members of my unit who deployed in 3-06 who have not completed their post deployment screening/medical, TB testing, etc.  Simply because when they got back, they went back to their civilian jobs and no one from the unit (day staff) had the time/information, to get them going on this. When I started working half days again at the unit, it was my job to do this... by then, the troops had been home 4 months.
- Post deployment assistance issues; employment, education, etc.

These are the kinds of things a Res unit deployment cell could take care of.  Years ago, this may have seemed unreasonable, since most units sent only a few members on deployment, but now reservists are deploying in much greater numbers.  From my unit alone we sent 10 on TF3-06, there are already 10 in training for 3-08 and we're expecting to send a few more... possibly another 10.  Demand is getting greater and greater... and when the troops from 3-08 return, the unit will still be dealing with members from 3-06 (I can guarantee at least 1). 

Perhaps having a cell at each unit is a bit excessive/not cost effective, but it would be good to have one at Brigade level at least.  These cells would have to be tasked only with deployment and nothing else, or they would get bogged down... most Res units have members appointed to take care of some of this stuff, along with their normal tasks, which creates issues... especially when they're class A.

just my $0.02

 

[c_canuk]

you bring up some good points but I don't think there is a really any good solution... Res members like it has already been said, commit 2 years or almost to deploy... unless we spend a wack load of money to provide these services at the Res units... even if just to the areas with multiple units in a single building... you are going to end up keeping the reservists from home even longer.

the two tours I've been on I was away from home 7-8 months max... to go to afghanistan I will be away 15-18 months... I suppose if there were an accelerated IBTS trg for reservists, say a quarterly run 2 month program that worked 16 hour days including saturday we might be able to accomidate the Res a little better... other than that I don't see much of an alternative.

 

[RHFC_piper]

you bring up some good points but I don't think there is a really any good solution... Res members like it has already been said, commit 2 years or almost to deploy... unless we spend a wack load of money to provide these services at the Res units... even if just to the areas with multiple units in a single building... you are going to end up keeping the reservists from home even longer.

the two tours I've been on I was away from home 7-8 months max... to go to afghanistan I will be away 15-18 months... I suppose if there were an accelerated IBTS trg for reservists, say a quarterly run 2 month program that worked 16 hour days including saturday we might be able to accomidate the Res a little better... other than that I don't see much of an alternative.

Well... Honestly, just about everything I've mentioned above is already done by a few day staffers at reserve units anyway... while they try to do their normal duties.  This is when people and their issues slip through the cracks.  Simplest solution: 1 extra class B member working per unit just for deployment... if that's too much of a drain, how about 1 class B member per CBG to co-ordinate everything deploying troops need (as listed above.)

I don't think it's unreasonable.  And the CF reserve system has certainly wasted money on more useless things (like bumper stickers, banners and fliers for a 2 week exercise with limited attendance required.)  Anyway, the point is, I don't think it would cost a "whack load" of money, and where better would this money be spent then on deploying troops? 

These members, who would be looking after deploying pers, would be co-ordinating with already existing services...


As for IBTS and extra training;  Before I deployed, during "selection training", we did it all in Meaford over a few weekends.  I won't go into details, but it was a mess.
The troops we sent up to Pet in March for TF3-08 were put on class B in Jan/feb and spent a couple of months sitting around in the Armoury doing odd jobs, if anything at all, waiting to go.  This is time they could have used to go over IBTS, or at least working with the guys who just came back, but, alas, they did not.  They sat on ass and waited for orders to move.  Why? no one was around to sort them out (well... I was around, but I wasn't allowed to sort them out... 'cause I am but a lowly Cpl with no PLQ)
Anyway, this is the kind of thing a deployment cell, even one consisting of one PLQ qualified member, could cover... once the troops know they're deploying, they could immediately begin unit level work up during regular training nights and some weekends and still stay within budget.
And perhaps they could even learn something from members who have returned from previous tours, wounded or otherwise.

 

[284_226]

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

Wounded will have easier time getting transfers
By MURRAY BREWSTER The Canadian Press
Wed. Dec 26
Article link

OTTAWA — Soldiers who’ve lost limbs or suffered other grievous wounds in Afghanistan will soon find it easier to transfer to training — or other specialties within the Canadian Forces, says the country’s top military commander.

In the first eight months of this year more than 100 Canadian soldiers were injured badly enough on the battlefields of Kandahar to be evacuated home to what many consider to be an uncertain fate.

The Defence Department will not release a precise accounting of the total number of wounded.

One of the first questions Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier says he hears from wounded, most of whom he’s met, is: "Sir, do I have a future in the Canadian Forces?"

The latest episode took place a couple of weeks back and involved a young platoon commander from CFB Valcartier, Que., whose left leg was shredded below the knee as he struggled in vain to reach a comrade in a bombed-out vehicle last fall.

"You’re damn right" you have a future, was Hillier’s answer to the young lieutenant, a Royal Military College graduate, whom he declined to identify.

The same kind of encounters are happening more and more frequently, forcing both the army and the Defence Department to grapple with human resource and health issues it hasn’t faced since the Korean War.

Asked in a year-end interview whether a new policy, meant to keep injured soldiers in uniform, will make it easier for them to transfer to less strenuous occupations, Hillier answered: "Absolutely."

Soldiers will be required to make the decisions individually, based upon what’s best for their career, but red-tape impediments are expected to be removed.

"We have 115 other specialists," Hillier said. "If the wear and tear of being an infantry officer with a (prosthetic limb) is too much, that’ll be his decision to make, then we have all of these other specialities that we’d want you to have a look at."

The quality of treatment given to those wounded in the Afghan war received increasing public attention during the last year as troops, many of whom have no other skills than soldiering, have been forced to confront what can sometimes be an indifferent bureaucracy.

The policy was drafted last summer in the waning days of Gordon O’Connor’s tenure as defence minister, but has yet to be implemented, despite the growing number of Hillier’s emotional interviews with young soldiers.

Hillier defended the delay by saying many of the injured are still recovering and face a long road of rehabilitation before they’re eligible to return to duty.

"We don’t need to rush. We need to get it right."

Under the current system, a soldier who becomes disabled has three years to recover and meet the fitness standard for overseas operations — known as the universality of service rule. If they cannot meet the requirement, they have no choice but to face a medical discharge.

The system was introduced by Hillier as a way to improve fitness in what had become in the late 1990s an increasingly flabby Forces. He has resisted efforts to tinker with the base requirements of the universality rule, despite internal pressure to bend the rules for wounded.

There have been remarkable advancements in prosthetic limbs, which allow amputees the opportunity to remain physically fit, said Hillier.

The message he’s been giving troops is: as long as they pass the fitness test, the injured soldier will be able to retrain for other occupations.

A problem just as vexing, which has yet to be addressed by either the Defence Department or Veterans Affairs Canada, involves the wait time for benefits faced by medically discharged soldiers.

Since members of the Forces are not allowed to apply for health benefits, such as counselling, until after they are released, there is normally a "gap of several months," warned a briefing note to O’Connor, which was released earlier this year.

An official with Veterans Affairs acknowledged in July there is a problem, but no formal steps have been taken to close the gap.