ArmyVern said:
I'm "one of those people from the other threads". Still am.
No change of heart here, there are ways to look after these people without putting our deployability at risk and reducing the number of fit UoS deployable personnel who will, of course, ultimately be the ones who end up doing the gritty overseas work and deployments. Without an increased Reg F PY capability of posn numbers to match those unfit UoS being resigned -- eventually the CF will see those who are fit and deployable on sick leave and stress leave themselves. And, I think that dapaterson has expressed my thoughts exactly.
Again, valid points.
Accomodation is one thing -- but build in extra posns for those we accomodate or transfer them to civ service with retention of benefits.
Agreed. I'd prefer the former, but the latter would work if the legislation has teeth.
Otherwise, we really are reducing our fit manning levels, but still expecting those reduced numbers of fit pers to accomplish the lions share and burden of deployed ops. Their families, I'm sure, will love that given that they already require 12 months of workups away from home to deploy for 6 months. I see rising divorce rates and increased released rates amongst the fit UoS pers if this comes to pass wihout a necessary increase in funded RegF PY to match those being retained who are unfit.
Agreed. All things remaining equal, the ones who are deployable would be forced to deploy more. It's simple math.
My prediction? It'll all look good for 5 years ... til the fit people doing all the deployments and field work back in Canada say "enough already ..." and get the hell out. Cripes, there's enough of them doing so now without this further decrease in deployable personnel; because, that's exactly what it is -- a decrease in the number of deployable personnel we have. Each of those positions filled by unfit UoS personnel ... mean one less position that we can recruit a fit for deployment or field person into.
There's two schools of thought on that. What about the number of people who are choosing
not to enroll or
not to re-engage because they realize "Hey, we're being shot at now - I'd like to make sure my future is secure if one of those bullets ends up in my body"? You have to admit - the press has a field day with stories of those who return from overseas with debilitating injuries. That
has to play a factor in how we're viewed strictly as an employer, and how we treat our injured personnel.
Kind of how FRP looked good ... until the CF figured out just how badly that came back to bite them in the *** when
all most of their Cpls were 40 years old and everyone above the rank of Sgt was eligible for retirement within 5 years of each other. :
Yup, and we're still feeling the effects of it, even 12 years later. I know, my ex-wife took FRP back in 1995.
It's clear that a blanket "if you're not deployable, you're not employable" policy won't work. It's equally clear that retaining every single member who is faced with a breach of UoS is also an impossibility.
Where's the happy medium?
From the looks of things, now is the time to start talking about it - whether you're a deployable member, or you're an injured member - because both are going to be equally affected by any upcoming change in policy.
