"Spouses of military killed on job get job dibs"

[The Bread Guy]

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

Spouses of military killed on job get job dibs
List of beneficiaries includes those married to RCMP and bureaucrats
Kathryn May, Canwest News Service, 4 Dec 08
Article link

The spouses of Canada's military, reservists, RCMP and bureaucrats who die on the job will now get the inside track on work in the federal government.

The new regulation, announced by Public Service Commission president Maria Barrados, means spouses will get first dibs on jobs within the public service that are advertised externally.

Spouses who qualify for the jobs will be given priority consideration.

It is the latest measure the government has introduced to help the families of Canadian forces personnel and veterans since the initial wave of soldiers, reservists and other bureaucrats was sent to war zones such as Afghanistan.

The priority won't extend to internal job postings that are open only to public servants.

Details of the new "spousal priority" perk, which will include common-law partners, is still being finalized. Spouses will probably have to request it within two years of the death of the person who was killed while on the job. Once requested, the priority in expected to stay in force for two years, but expires once the spouse lands a public service job or turns one down for no sound reason.

The PSC keeps an inventory of all workers who have first crack at job vacancies as they come up. It's a priority list of employees who have returned from leave, are affected by relocation of spouses, been disabled or declared surplus. The commission also announced plans this week to survey those on the priority list to determine the "health" of the system and how it is working.

Details of the new "spousal priority" perk, which will include common-law partners, is still being finalized.

Spouses will probably have to request it within two years of the death of the person who was killed "in the performance of duties or service."....

Once requested, the priority in expected to stay in force for two years, but expires once the spouse lands a public service job or turns one down for no "good and sufficient reason."....

More on link

 

[Haggis]

That's nice.
However it rerally irks me that the press can somehow differentiate between a Canadian military member and a reservist.  :

 

[Occam]

It doesn't appear to be the press that made the error, it was probably the Public Service Commission that made it in their news release.

The Annual Report of the PSC was released two days ago, and it's somewhat clearer than the news release.  It states...

Spousal priority – In 2007-2008, the PSC conducted analyses and consultations on a priority entitlement for external appointments of spouses of members of the Canadian Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and public service employees whose death was attributable to service or work. As the proposal was found to be feasible, practical and in the best interests of the public service, the PSC is drafting a regulatory priority entitlement for external appointments for surviving spouses. This priority is especially timely as it will also now apply to spouses of reservists whose death has resulted from service to the country.

 

[Command-Sense-Act 105]

Reservists are soldiers?

And for that one you are going up the chain.

The Army.ca Staff

 

[vonGarvin]

Well, to be fair to the mount-breather, some reservists aren't soldiers.  They are sailors, airmen or airwomen.

 

[Neill McKay]

What an awful piece of writing.  "Details ... is still being finalized"??

 

[Gasplug]

Talk about a negative slant! Poor reporting in my book.

Gasplug

 

[GAP]

I think we should keep focused on the intent here though.....it's a helping hand.........

 

[Teeps74]

Well, to be fair to the mount-breather, some reservists aren't soldiers.  They are sailors, airmen or airwomen.

;D

To be fair to Hollywood, I am not certain he/she meant the comment to be malicious, I just wanted to point out it could certainly be perceived as being malicious.

 

[HollywoodHitman]

Having been a reservist my whole adult life, I read the article and thought yet again, the public/media/other gov't agencies, whomever, make a differentiation between Canada's Military and a reservist - We are one in the same are we not?

Perhaps if the author of the article phrased it differently, for example: " This INNOVATIVE program is being ammended (or whatever) to now include the spouses of reservists " - instead of making the distinction.

As part of my job, I've spent years talking to the public (even kids and teenagers!) about the CF, all branches, and have spent many hours working to clear up public misconceptions about who and what we are as a collective organisation,  and the mandates of some of our missions, so I make no apologies. The article was poorly written, if not poorly researched.

Malicious? Nope. Somewhat self depricating? Of course. Anyone who knows me, knows I generally don't do malicious...Poor choice of words? Nope. Don't like my sense of humour? Personal problem.

Sarcasm anyone?

 

[Greymatters]

I hope it works a lot better than the supposed 'priority' hiring they have in place for injured members...