Canadian soldier charged with feeding cannabis cupcakes to artillery unit during live-fire exercise

[KevinB]

If that was the case then about a good 5-10% of the CAF would never wear a uniform. Morbid obesity is a matter of pride for some.

Honestly since a uniform is effectively clothes - I really have trouble fathoming what sort of medical category would exist that would preclude a member from not wearing it.

 

[MJP]

Honestly since a uniform is effectively clothes - I really have trouble fathoming what sort of medical category would exist that would preclude a member from not wearing it.

Not category, MELs.

It is very common in mental health situations where the wearing of the uniform could trigger or cause some undesired reaction on the part of the mbr. In this case do you force the issue and make someone wear a uniform giving them leverage after the trial or do you approach it pragmatically? In any case it may be moot in terms of "forcing" as it is a military trial within the CAF sphere, then likely MO assigned MELs still apply.

 

[KevinB]

Not category, MELs.

It is very common in mental health situations where the wearing of the uniform could trigger or cause some undesired reaction on the part of the mbr. In this case do you force the issue and make someone wear a uniform giving them leverage after the trial or do you approach it pragmatically? In any case it may be moot in terms of "forcing" as it is a military trial within the CAF sphere, then likely MO assigned MELs still apply.

I should have got a MEL that allowed me to go streaking.
Color me in the less sensitive crowd - but if you can't wear a uniform due to a MEL - its probably time that you are not longer in the CAF...

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I should have got a MEL that allowed me to go streaking.
Color me in the less sensitive crowd - but if you can't wear a uniform due to a MEL - its probably time that you are not longer in the CAF...

Well, she won’t be for long…

 

[MJP]

I should have got a MEL that allowed me to go streaking.
Color me in the less sensitive crowd - but if you can't wear a uniform due to a MEL - its probably time that you are not longer in the CAF...

No one wants to see you streaking....like literally no one (maybe your wife)

I understand your point and in most cases those with no uniform MELs are likely on their way out medically. However, if a no uniform MEL allows a soldier to overcome a mental issue and become a productive CAF mbr again then so be it.

While I think CFHS is a rogue beast that needs to be reined in, it is not their medical practices I take issue with rather their organization writ large. We have come a long way from essentially ostracizing folks for seeking medical care. We still have a stigma around ppl seeking mental health care but it is getting better so I would hate to regress because we wanted to see someone in uniform at their CM.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Honestly since a uniform is effectively clothes - I really have trouble fathoming what sort of medical category would exist that would preclude a member from not wearing it.

She'll spend the next 30 days in coveralls, anyway.

 

[FJAG]

No one wants to see you streaking....like literally no one (maybe your wife)

I understand your point and in most cases those with no uniform MELs are likely on their way out medically. However, if a no uniform MEL allows a soldier to overcome a mental issue and become a productive CAF mbr again then so be it.

While I think CFHS is a rogue beast that needs to be reined in, it is not their medical practices I take issue with rather their organization writ large. We have come a long way from essentially ostracizing folks for seeking medical care. We still have a stigma around ppl seeking mental health care but it is getting better so I would hate to regress because we wanted to see someone in uniform at their CM.

I have to admit that when I came to Ottawa to work for three years I was flabbergasted by the number of personnel, both civilian and military, that were off on "stress leave". Based on what my son-in-law tells me the RCMP is in much the same way but at least for many of them its because their jobs has put them into having to deal some very horrific scenarios.

In my civilian practice that was hardly a thing and maybe that's because we were heartless bastards or maybe its because we didn't generate stress amongst our employees (and I doubt that's true) or maybe its because the employment insurance programs aren't as generous and expansive as the public purse is.

Seriously. The Army is an organization that's meant to go fight in the most difficult conditions imaginable and I can see caring very, very generously for those who come back damaged by what they went through but when folks get all fragile during the vagaries of every day life and become undeployable/unemployable ... well ...

 

[MJP]

I have to admit that when I came to Ottawa to work for three years I was flabbergasted by the number of personnel, both civilian and military, that were off on "stress leave". Based on what my son-in-law tells me the RCMP is in much the same way but at least for many of them its because their jobs has put them into having to deal some very horrific scenarios.

In my civilian practice that was hardly a thing and maybe that's because we were heartless bastards or maybe its because we didn't generate stress amongst our employees (and I doubt that's true) or maybe its because the employment insurance programs aren't as generous and expansive as the public purse is.

Seriously. The Army is an organization that's meant to go fight in the most difficult conditions imaginable and I can see caring very, very generously for those who come back damaged by what they went through but when folks get all fragile during the vagaries of every day life and become undeployable/unemployable ... well ...

That Boomer era work until you die and don't complain is dying a slow death. Many companies in private industry have yet to come aboard but that is because taking care of your folks costs money.

Regardless I think all people need to be taken care of regardless of what they faced and allowing folks an opportunity to get better. This includes better training for both employees and managers in how to deal with stress so they don't become casualties in the first place. I have no doubt that in some cases there is abuse but having a framework for employees along with good leaders and managers that recognize and work within that framework makes work less stressful overall

 

[mariomike]

Based on what my son-in-law tells me the RCMP is in much the same way but at least for many of them its because their jobs has put them into having to deal some very horrific scenarios.

That Boomer era work until you die and don't complain is dying a slow death.

What choice did they have?

Ontario did not pass PTSD legislation for 9-1-1 Responders until 2016.

 

[FJAG]

That Boomer era work until you die and don't complain is dying a slow death. Many companies in private industry have yet to come aboard but that is because taking care of your folks costs money.

Regardless I think all people need to be taken care of regardless of what they faced and allowing folks an opportunity to get better. This includes better training for both employees and managers in how to deal with stress so they don't become casualties in the first place. I have no doubt that in some cases there is abuse but having a framework for employees along with good leaders and managers that recognize and work within that framework makes work less stressful overall

I'm afraid that the vast majority of businesses are small ones that have neither the time nor the inclination to become the caretakers of the nation. Yes, people with physical and mental health problems need to be taken care of but why should that come through a relationship as tenuous as an employment relationship rather than family or the mental health system? Where the employment relationship causes the issue then, of course, the employment structure should deal with that but through either a public or private health care insurance system. To make an employer directly financially responsible for the ongoing care of a non productive employee is a recipe for destroying what is otherwise a viable business.

Yeah. We "Boomers" do tend to look askance at "Generation X" and the "Millennials" probably the way the "Greatest Generation" and the "Silent Generation" looked askance at us boomer hippies. That's every generation's lot in life. At the same time we need an overarching policy as to who cares for the "stresses-out" and injured including those who remain on government payrolls for years on end leaving their positions either empty and covered by overworking coworkers, or filled (and therefore double payed) by a temp. The logical choice is a workers insurance-like system.

 

[lenaitch]

Does the "up to" 30 days in jail mean there's a chance she'll spend less?

I had the same thought. How does an "up to" sentence work in the military context? In the civilian justice system, sentences are definitive, although actual incarceration periods are typically shorter.

 

[lenaitch]

I have to admit that when I came to Ottawa to work for three years I was flabbergasted by the number of personnel, both civilian and military, that were off on "stress leave". Based on what my son-in-law tells me the RCMP is in much the same way but at least for many of them its because their jobs has put them into having to deal some very horrific scenarios.

In my civilian practice that was hardly a thing and maybe that's because we were heartless bastards or maybe its because we didn't generate stress amongst our employees (and I doubt that's true) or maybe its because the employment insurance programs aren't as generous and expansive as the public purse is.

Seriously. The Army is an organization that's meant to go fight in the most difficult conditions imaginable and I can see caring very, very generously for those who come back damaged by what they went through but when folks get all fragile during the vagaries of every day life and become undeployable/unemployable ... well ...

Most major police services are the same. I have heard the number off on extended leave with my former service and recall being quite astounded. In addition to the ones that are on leave, there are also those who are working, but with accommodations that make me scratch my head (or scream). No doubt some psychologist could put a bow on it but I can't. I'm not sure I fully buy the "horrific scenario" or on-the-job exposure argument. Those situations long pre-date the recent generation of members. Sure, they're busy and staffing is an issue, but my generation got to do it with a very basic and sometimes dodgy radio system, closed holsters and often without backup. They have 12-hour shifts yet complain they are burned out. Perhaps there is such a thing of 'generational resilience' (which the 'greatest generation' had in spades and puts us all to shame). Perhaps they are hiring the wrong recruits. The message is 'you can be (chief)', 'you can help people', you can work with kids'; which is all great, but I wonder if the the realities of street policing (and military service) comes as surprise to many. Perhaps it is a training or probationary evaluation issue.

In the context of the thread, I don't enough of what she apparently went through to comment, but at least the defence called a medical professional to testify to sentencing. Too often now, PTSD seems to be just tossed out without established foundation or sometimes even nexus. It seems to have become the go-to rationale when behavior is called to account - judicially and otherwise. Perhaps we need another diagnostic category. It seems awfully broad when the same diagnosis is used to explain a reaction to your cat dying or loosing your boyfriend, all the way up to seeing a colleague turned into mist. I'm not diminishing what she might have experienced, and its insidious impact, but I glad she was ultimately held accountable. Short of diminished capacity, we are all ultimately accountable for our actions, regardless of the why.

 

[mariomike]

I'm not sure I fully buy the "horrific scenario" or on-the-job exposure argument. Those situations long pre-date the recent generation of members.

Stress Leave was unheard of.

Now, it's taken off like wildfire.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Stress Leave was unheard of.

Now, it's taken off like wildfire.

I trust the medical experts to make the right determination when it comes to my health and the health of my subordinates. If they tell me someone needs stress leave. I would rather have someone on stress leave come back in shape than endure someone that isn’t functional because they “need to suck it up.” We have medical leave as part of our leave policy for a reason.

 

[mariomike]

I trust the medical experts to make the right determination when it comes to my health and the health of my subordinates. If they tell me someone needs stress leave. I would rather have someone on stress leave come back in shape than endure someone that isn’t functional because they “need to suck it up.” We have medical leave as part of our leave policy for a reason.

Glad to hear that.

 

[Furniture]

Stress Leave was unheard of.

Now, it's taken off like wildfire.

Drinking yourself to death, and abusing your family was quite popular in the "good old days"...

How many people came home from the world wars, and inflicted their mental health issues on their families, because mental health wasn't taken seriously back then?

 

[mariomike]

How many people came home from the world wars, and inflicted their mental health issues on their families, because mental health wasn't taken seriously back then?

I'm not arguing with you about "the world wars", Furniture.

I was replying to this,

I'm not sure I fully buy the "horrific scenario" or on-the-job exposure argument. Those situations long pre-date the recent generation of members.

What choice did they have?

Ontario did not pass PTSD legislation for 9-1-1 Responders until 2016.

I'm not defending the pre-2016 times. I didn't make the rules. That's the way it was. It's certainly not that way anymore, from what I am told.

 

[lenaitch]

I trust the medical experts to make the right determination when it comes to my health and the health of my subordinates. If they tell me someone needs stress leave. I would rather have someone on stress leave come back in shape than endure someone that isn’t functional because they “need to suck it up.” We have medical leave as part of our leave policy for a reason.

Agree. It might be different in the CF medical community, where one would think they are more tuned to occupational stress. In the civilian world, it is often the individual's GP who makes that assessment, and their experience might not be extensive. The employer does have the ability to ask for additional and specialized assessment, but often they don't want to be seen as not being supportive. If the stress is job-related, obviously the employer has a role in accommodation/mitigation, but it is not the sole player.

 

[brihard]

I hate the term 'stress leave'. It's sick leave. Physical or mental, an illness precludes you from being able to work. Full disclosure: I burned out hard this time last year and was off for four weeks for exactly this reason, and I'm currently walking on eggshells to avoid it happening again.

To go off on sick leave that would be characterized as 'stress leave', you're getting an opinion from a licensed medical clinician that you're ill, and that for that reason you cannot presently work. Depending on the organization in question, there will be a variety of different configuration of short terma nd long term benefits for illness. In CAF and the RCMP, you simply have indeterminate sick leave while your case is managed by the respective organization's health services, and you potentially end up on a permanent medical category with restrictions, or wholly unfit for further service and you transition out. Other emergency services employers will have some sort of short term sick leave, and then you generally transition to a private insurance company that has some sort of long term disability plan. If you can't come back to your substantive job within a couple years, the goal shift to can you be gainfully employable at all, and you have to work towards that to protect your income replacement benefits. Or, if it's work related you might fall under worker's comp.

As to where this degree of stress comes from? It can be anything from single acute or repeated chronic traumatic exposure, to long term overwork, harassment in the workplace, or reasons wholly unrelated to work.

Fundamentally, this comes down to the rights under human rights legislation to not be discriminated against on the grounds of disability. Anxiety, depression, PTSD or what have you are disabilities, and employers have the duty to accommodate same to the point of undue hardship. Coverage under sick leave and long term disability simply makes sense; those are all set up to try to facilitate the successful recovery of the employee and their eventual return to the workplace.

 

[Furniture]

I'm not arguing with you about "the world wars", Furniture.

I was replying to this,




I'm not defending the pre-2016 times. I didn't make the rules. That's the way it was. It's certainly not that way anymore, from what I am told.

Fair enough, what was your point then?

Back in the day people ignored mental health, it's hardly something to harken back to...

Unless you meant something entirely different by "it's taken off like wildfire".