Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread

[Strike]

This should be the exact standard that to be used when implementing this.  Full stop.

dileas

tess

Gonna have to disagree with this one.  There's a tech at 403 Sqn who lost her leg to cancer and has smashed that whole UoS list to shreds.  Unfortunately, because of her prosthetic, she would be considered to require med attention at least once every 6 months and therefore is not deployable.  However, she can still climb onto the aircraft and get the work done.  (Note: She is under the process of trying to deploy.)

 

[Greymatters]

Can you not subject civilians to QR&Os while they are in the employ of the CF?

I talked about this with one guy a few years ago who was in charge of both uniformed and civilian workers.  Basically, he said that although the rules technically applied to every employee, union collective agreements tended to trump QR&O's every time.  You could push your case, but the union pushed back, and once union reps started talking 'walkout', the charges would get dropped.  However, this may not be true for other managers at different bases.     

 

[armyvern]

While it makes sense financially and logistically, there are serious implications in regards to differing levels of performance and discipline.  You can chew a soldier's *** off, but you cant use the same methods of discipline (aka fortification of responsibilities, aka morale-building) with a civilian, especially if that civilian is brought in as a member of the government employee union.  It can also be detrimental to morale and increase interpersonal conflict when you have two employees working side by side, and the civilian gets up and says 'I'm done for the day', while the uniformed member keeps working to get the job done (either through personal dedication to duty, or orders to do so). 

That's the minset though that's still stuck inside the box. I'm a purple trade. We have more civ posns than we do mil posns at this location. The work gets done. The GREAT majority of civ pers are just as dedicated to thier work as mil pers are -- they get the job done and are very professional about it. Don't be so quick to write off "discipline etc" as a detriment to military morale as it's not usually the case.

When my troops are working nights -- the civ staff is as well.

 

[armyvern]

Can you not subject civilians to QR&Os while they are in the employ of the CF?

There is a caveat that they be employed in a position of active service to fall under the Code of Service Discipline:

JAG Legal Basis

The Code of Service Discipline applies to all CF members and, in certain circumstances, to civilians who may become subject to Canadian military law, for example, when accompanying a CF unit on service or active service.

Not all offences can be charged and tried in the military justice system. The CF has no jurisdiction to try any person charged with having committed, in Canada, the offences of murder, manslaughter, or any offence under sections 280, 282 and 283 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

When a person subject to the Code of Service Discipline commits an offence under the Criminal Code or other federal law, the NDA extends jurisdiction to deal with the matter in the military justice system. Similarly, jurisdiction under the NDA may also be extended when an offence is committed contrary to foreign law.

 

[the 48th regulator]

So Cpl Bloggins, injured while preparing to deploy, would not be kept, but Cpl Smith, injured a week later once deployed, would be retained?

Whole lot of worms in this one... and we haven't even begun to consider career limitations - can Cpl Smith be promoted if he can't meet UoS but we've kept him or her anyways?

Gonna have to disagree with this one.  There's a tech at 403 Sqn who lost her leg to cancer and has smashed that whole UoS list to shreds.  Unfortunately, because of her prosthetic, she would be considered to require med attention at least once every 6 months and therefore is not deployable.  However, she can still climb onto the aircraft and get the work done.  (Note: She is under the process of trying to deploy.)

Dapaterson and Strike,

You have both presented very valid points, that I did not even think about.

I have been mulling on a way to answer however, I think I have had my opinion changed on this matter by both of your posts.

This sure does open a large can of worms.

dileas

tess

 

[Strike]

There certainly is no black and white in this matter, that's for sure.

 

[armyvern]

Gonna have to disagree with this one.  There's a tech at 403 Sqn who lost her leg to cancer and has smashed that whole UoS list to shreds.  Unfortunately, because of her prosthetic, she would be considered to require med attention at least once every 6 months and therefore is not deployable.  However, she can still climb onto the aircraft and get the work done.  (Note: She is under the process of trying to deploy.)

An MEL of medical follow-up not less than once every 6 months should be fine. I'm on PCat. Mine reads "requires specialist medical follow-up not less than once every 6 months." That leaves me good to DAG green medical for deployment -- which I have done twice since it was assigned.

If I were to require it more than once every 6 months I would be unfit UoS. After my tumor was removed ... I did sit on the PCat and required medical follow up "once every 3 months" -- at that point in time my retention was in serious doubt until my brain doctor (that's right I have a brain doctor!!  ;D) decided that I could see him once every 6 months. My cat was changed to read such and within a month the WSurg dagged me green to deploy. I deployed the next month ... and recd the paperwork in-theatre advising me that I was unfit UoS and was being medically released. Thank gawd for the assistance of the MO and the AdminO over there who said "wait a minute -- she's DEPLOYED!! She's good enough to serve outside the country, but not inside the country??" Needless, med release action ceased ... and here I am today.

Good luck to your friend Strike ... it's all in the attitude. I wish her all the best.

 

[Greymatters]

That's the minset though that's still stuck inside the box. I'm a purple trade. We have more civ posns than we do mil posns at this location. The work gets done. The GREAT majority of civ pers are just as dedicated to thier work as mil pers are -- they get the job done and are very professional about it. Don't be so quick to write off "discipline etc" as a detriment to military morale as it's not usually the case.  When my troops are working nights -- the civ staff is as well. 

True, I shouldnt broad-brush all civilian workers with the same brush, and the greater majority are dedicated to their work.  Your (former?) staff sound like they were dedicated,  and likely had the benefit of a good boss where the civilian employees knew their efforts were appreciated and were willing to do what everyone else did as part of the team. 

 

[armyvern]

True, I shouldnt broad-brush all civilian workers with the same brush, and the greater majority are dedicated to their work.  Your (former?) staff sound like they were dedicated,  and likely had the benefit of a good boss where the civilian employees knew their efforts were appreciated and were willing to do what everyone else did as part of the team. 

Morale tends to be good on both sides and remain as such when both sides are treated and respected as full members of that said Team.

When one wants to infer that 1/2 of that workforce is somehow lesser --- one tends to reap the lowered morale amongst both halves of that workforce that he/she has sown ... in my experience anyway.

One just needs to remember -- One Team. Two different aspects to their jobs, but each striving to reach the same goal and meet Comds intent. As long as each side is aware of, and respectful of, the unique requirements of the other half -- there's not usually a problem.

 

[battleaxe]

Morale tends to be good on both sides and remain as such when both sides are treated and respected as full members of that said Team.

When one wants to infer that 1/2 of that workforce is somehow lesser ---

You've hit at the very heart of the issue in the above statement.

If the civilian members of your 'Team'-are injured or fall ill, they are not relieved of their positions and employment.  There are great pots of government money and very luxurious accommodation policies that protect the employment of civilian government employees who require special consideration due to injury or illness. 

There have been great strides taken by government to provide LTD and disability awards, rehabilitation and medical care for our wounded soliders.  And this is wonderful.

Civilian government workers get all of these things, as well.  In addition, they have the security of knowing they have a job to return to when they have recovered.  I would like to hear one story of a PS employee losing a leg/getting a kidney stone and being told they are losing their employment as a result.

I feel that this latest 'development' (the article that began this thread) means little and offers nothing more to injured soldiers than what is already offered.  Without the employment security offered all other government workers, CF members will always be treated as 'lesser' than civilian counterparts in government.

Has anyone heard of a study (or know of any stats) of what has happened to all the medically released personnel in the last 2, 3, or 5 years? How are they employed?  I think this type of study would be very illuminating.

Employment is an investment of time and tears, education and sweat.  Many military personnel, through no fault of their own, because they are injured or develop an inconvenient medical condition, lose out on their investments while other government workers continue on reaping the rewards of theirs.

This is the inequity that must be corrected if this issue is ever to be put to rest.

Just my thoughts,

Bren

 

[Greymatters]

Has anyone heard of a study (or know of any stats) of what has happened to all the medically released personnel in the last 2, 3, or 5 years? How are they employed?  I think this type of study would be very illuminating. 

There was supposed to be a study on this topic by Tim Black, assistant professor at University of Victoria (newspaper article I have is dated Apr 2007), but not sure if it has been completed or published yet...

 

[armyvern]

You've hit at the very heart of the issue in the above statement.

If the civilian members of your 'Team'-are injured or fall ill, they are not relieved of their positions and employment.  There are great pots of government money and very luxurious accommodation policies that protect the employment of civilian government employees who require special consideration due to injury or illness. 

There have been great strides taken by government to provide LTD and disability awards, rehabilitation and medical care for our wounded soliders.  And this is wonderful.

Civilian government workers get all of these things, as well.  In addition, they have the security of knowing they have a job to return to when they have recovered.  I would like to hear one story of a PS employee losing a leg/getting a kidney stone and being told they are losing their employment as a result.

I feel that this latest 'development' (the article that began this thread) means little and offers nothing more to injured soldiers than what is already offered.  Without the employment security offered all other government workers, CF members will always be treated as 'lesser' than civilian counterparts in government.

Has anyone heard of a study (or know of any stats) of what has happened to all the medically released personnel in the last 2, 3, or 5 years? How are they employed?  I think this type of study would be very illuminating.

Employment is an investment of time and tears, education and sweat.  Many military personnel, through no fault of their own, because they are injured or develop an inconvenient medical condition, lose out on their investments while other government workers continue on reaping the rewards of theirs.

This is the inequity that must be corrected if this issue is ever to be put to rest.

Just my thoughts,

Bren

But that is one of the "unique" items that must be recognized. Civilians are not employed within the CF, but are employees of DND. The unique requirements of each of these is vastly different. When they are injured it does not directly effect the CFs combat capability or deployment capacity. This is not so when CF members of the Defence Team are injured. To compare the retention "in their regular job" of a civil servant to a CF member is comparing apples/oranges.

That all being said, our injured can be protected without necessarily remaining in the employ of the CF. This can be accomplished by ensuring they are rolled over (or, accomodated if you will) into the public service, preferably within DND ... where they can remain respected and contributing members of the Defence Team.

Not being employed directly within the CF does not equate "not being looked after" in my books. And one does not need to be retained within the CF to be "looked after." If they are injured in service to their country, employment within DND as public service members of the Defence Team, and the transfer of all medical benefits should be a priority and should go far to ensure their well-being and financial stability.

 

[battleaxe]

There was supposed to be a study on this topic by Tim Black, assistant professor at University of Victoria (newspaper article I have is dated Apr 2007), but not sure if it has been completed or published yet...

Thanks, I'll be looking into that.  Anybody else who knows of this, please post link or results.

Bren

 

[the 48th regulator]

Thanks, I'll be looking into that.  Anybody else who knows of this, please post link or results.

Bren

http://communications.uvic.ca/releases/release.php?display=release&id=865

On the above link that was dated November 7th of this year, it describes the survey, and you can contct him directly for results.

dileas

tess

 

[battleaxe]

But that is one of the "unique" items that must be recognized. Civilians are not employed within the CF, but are employees of DND. The unique requirements of each of these is vastly different. When they are injured it does not directly effect the CFs combat capability or deployment capacity. This is not so when CF members of the Defence Team are injured. To compare the retention "in their regular job" of a civil servant to a CF member is comparing apples/oranges.

That all being said, our injured can be protected without necessarily remaining in the employ of the CF. This can be accomplished by ensuring they are rolled over (or, accomodated if you will) into the public service, preferably within DND ... where they can remain respected and contributing members of the Defence Team.

Not being employed directly within the CF does not equate "not being looked after" in my books. And one does not need to be retained within the CF to be "looked after." If they are injured in service to their country, employment within DND as public service members of the Defence Team, and the transfer of all medical benefits should be a priority and should go far to ensure their well-being and financial stability.

I am in complete agreement with you.  You have just basically stated what I said (that released CF members should be swung over into a PS contract) the first time I dared to speak up on this forum last year. At that time, I was involved in a fight (through the Human Rights Commission) to have DND accept responsibility for the continuing employment of released soldiers.

The very idea was, at that time, very promptly and definitively shot down.

Do you mind me asking what prompted the great change in your opinion over the last year? 

Link to old argument:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51761.0.html.

Bren

 

[armyvern]

I am in complete agreement with you.  You have just basically stated what I said (that released CF members should be swung over into a PS contract) the first time I dared to speak up on this forum last year. At that time, I was involved in a fight (through the Human Rights Commission) to have DND accept responsibility for the continuing employment of released soldiers.

The very idea was, at that time, very promptly and definitively shot down.

Do you mind me asking what prompted the great change in your opinion over the last year? 

Link to old argument:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51761.0.html.

Bren

Look back through that whole thread ... 

Priority Hire ring any bells for you?

It wasn't happening remember??

Funny thing is that I've hired for four DND PS positions in the past year (very small unit) and all 4 persons were CF personnel on pri hires due to being medically released from the CF for not meeting UoS.

I've not changed a thing in the past year.

The thread will reveal that you were arguing that DND/CF were one in the same employer ... and myself and others were arguing that they most definitly were and ARE not. What changed your mind in that thread from it's beginning until it's end?

Your arguement was that they MUST be retained within the CF/DND -- I disagree and always have. The CF is out as far as I'm concerned, but DND is preferable, but failing that there is always the already enacted legislation that "accomodates" these members within the Federal Public Service in ANY government department.

 

[battleaxe]

Look back through that whole thread ... 

Priority Hire ring any bells for you?

It wasn't happening remember??

Funny thing is that I've hired for four DND PS positions in the past year (very small unit) and all 4 persons were CF personnel on pri hires due to being medically released from the CF for not meeting UoS.

I've not changed a thing in the past year.

The thread will reveal that you were arguing that DND/CF were one in the same employer ... and myself and others were arguing that they most definitly were and ARE not. What changed your mind in that thread from it's beginning until it's end?

Your arguement was that they MUST be retained within the CF/DND -- I disagree and always have. The CF is out as far as I'm concerned, but DND is preferable, but failing that there is always the already enacted legislation that "accomodates" these members within the Federal Public Service in ANY government department.

I have read all the threads I participated in about accommodation and employment from last year over and over, in an attempt to to figure out how things went so wrong, and how I ended up losing both my temper and my credibility on this site.

(I'm not sure what you mean about priority hire-it was in effect at the time of the thread in question).

I'm sorry I read into your prior statement-I did not mean to put words in your mouth.

I am all too well acquainted with priority hire-and, from experience, its limitations.  I argued then, and will continue to argue, that priority hire and accommodation are two vastly different things.  Priority hire is a nice gesture-one that many other special populations receive.  It does not offer the same level of job security that other government workers enjoy-and it is certainly not an easy pass into a comparable PS job for all people-which is why I would like to see a study on what has happened to all our released military personnel-with regards to re-employment.

I'm hesitant to get into this further.  As long as you continue to equate accommodation with priority hire, I will have to be content to remain in disagreement-because my mind has not changed in the last year either.  We are coming at this issue from such polar opposite positions-you from a position of hiring, me from a position of being medically released and one day hoping to be hired-that arguing this point further will just get me in trouble again.

Once again, sorry to have made an assumption,

Bren

 

[Harris]

Harris,  last thing people need to conclude is that all HQ positions are staffed by the Sick & lame.

Sure, but sick & lame doesn't equal unqualified in my opinion.  If someone can do the job, why would that be seen as a bad thing?  I see people put into jobs all the time who are not qualified, but fit some other "requirement" for the posn.  (I'm referring to Unions for example)

 

[armyvern]

I am all too well acquainted with priority hire-and, from experience, its limitations.  I argued then, and will continue to argue, that priority hire and accommodation are two vastly different things.  Priority hire is a nice gesture-one that many other special populations receive.  It does not offer the same level of job security that other government workers enjoy-and it is certainly not an easy pass into a comparable PS job for all people-which is why I would like to see a study on what has happened to all our released military personnel-with regards to re-employment.

I'm hesitant to get into this further.  As long as you continue to equate accommodation with priority hire, I will have to be content to remain in disagreement-because my mind has not changed in the last year either.  We are coming at this issue from such polar opposite positions-you from a position of hiring, me from a position of being medically released and one day hoping to be hired-that arguing this point further will just get me in trouble again.

Once again, sorry to have made an assumption,

Bren

Quaint.

No where in this thread have I said that accomodation = priority hire. I didn't mention priority hire in this thread, on this subject, until you brought up the previous thread to which I pointed out that my mind has still not been changed. The old thread referenced priority hire ... to which some stated that it sounded good, but was not an actuality. That it had "no teeth" shall we say and THAT is where we differed in the previous thread.  My post in this thread was in direct response to your bringing the old post up and asking where I changed my mind ... I pointed out that I had not -- that the disagreement there was about PRIORITY HIRE.

I haven't confused the two issues at all.

In this thread, I have specificly stated that we CAN look after our soldiers by:

...
That all being said, our injured can be protected without necessarily remaining in the employ of the CF. This can be accomplished by ensuring they are rolled over (or, accomodated if you will) into the public service, preferably within DND ... where they can remain respected and contributing members of the Defence Team. Not being employed directly within the CF does not equate "not being looked after" in my books. And one does not need to be retained within the CF to be "looked after." If they are injured in service to their country, employment within DND as public service members of the Defence Team, and the transfer of all medical benefits should be a priority and should go far to ensure their well-being and financial stability.

...

Hmm, no mention of priority hire there; rather that I believe that soldiers can be (and indeed are being) accomodated as public servants within, preferably, DND.

But, if not within DND, then the legislation already exists to hire these injured pers in other government departments as I previously stated.

There is no reason that these injured members can not be looked after (I think we agree on that), but I do NOT agree that it should be within the CF (due to the impact upon combat capabilities I have previously stated). Nor do I believe that rolling them into DND positions is the only acceptable option, there are plenty of government departments where these injured service members can indeed be accomodated upon medical release.

 

[battleaxe]

Funny thing is that I've hired for four DND PS positions in the past year (very small unit) and all 4 persons were CF personnel on pri hires due to being medically released from the CF for not meeting UoS.

I guess this is what is confusing me. Do you consider the above scenario- the hiring of people with priority hire status-as accomodation?

As for this, "rather that I believe that soldiers can be (and indeed are being) accomodated as public servants within, preferably, DND.
But, if not within DND, then the legislation already exists to hire these injured pers in other government departments as I previously stated."

Do you have a link or reference information for this legislation? Is it new?  I admit I may be out of touch and unaware of new developments-has something come up-other than priority hire- that allows for the hiring of all military personnel into the PS-not just those who are lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time?

Bren