Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread

[armyvern]

What I was referring to was the treatment of injured members, and the amount of press given to them (deservedly) regarding problems with the system.  People don't remember the news story about the member's wife and kids doing a video conference from thousands of miles away on Christmas Eve.  They remember the fella who had to appeal three times to VAC for something or other.

And, let's use this bit of fact to clear up a myth that I am sick and tired of seeing perpetuated by the media (and sometimes by posts such as yours which equate VAC with the CF) ...

VAC does NOT equal the CF.

VAC has a reputation for letting our injured soldiers down, and the media has a reputation of somehow managing to equate them (VAC) to us (the CF) each and every time it hits the news.

They slam our CDS, they slam the CF ... instead of grilling the Minister of Veterans Affairs like they should be. Why the heck does he walk away smelling like roses while the WRONG department and people take it in the teeth. What bullshit that is.

VAC is a whole other government department altogether ... and neither the CDS nor the MND run it or oversee it.

Put the blame for injured troops not being looked after -- squarely on VAC where it richly deserves to be seated.

 

[Command-Sense-Act 105]

VAC does NOT equal the CF.

VAC is a whole other government department altogether ... and the CDS nor the MND run it or oversee it.

Put the blame for injured troops not being looked after -- squarely on VAC where it richly deserves to be seated.

Bravo, Vern.  This message needs to be put out everywhere, loud and clear.

 

[TCBF]

No matter how hard the CF will try to improve it's HR policies, the one problem that will never disappear is that of spouses who cannot adapt to military life.  I bet more promising careers have met an untimely end due to whining, misfit, spoiled, hillbilly-bred, moderately sociopathic spouses than alcohol and tertiary syphilis combined.

They interview well, though.

:

 

[Command-Sense-Act 105]

Bravo, TCBF.  This message needs to be put out everywhere, loud and clear.

 

[Gunner98]

No matter how hard the CF will try to improve it's HR policies, the one problem that will never disappear is that of spouses who cannot adapt to military life.  I bet more promising careers have met an untimely end due to whining, misfit, spoiled, hillbilly-bred, moderately sociopathic spouses than alcohol and tertiary syphilis combined. They interview well, though. :

Is it Careers or Marriages that see an (un)timely demise?

 

[TCBF]

Is it Careers or Marriages that see an (un)timely demise?

- Yes.

;D

- Unfortunately, we often lose the soldier before the soldier can lose the albatross.

 

[284_226]

And, let's use this bit of fact to clear up a myth that I am sick and tired of seeing perpetuated by the media (and sometimes by posts such as yours which equate VAC with the CF) ...

VAC does NOT equal the CF.

No, I didn't suggest that it did.  This thread is about how the CF treats its disabled members, although you've made a distinction that the public is not entirely aware of.  That leads me back to the questions being asked by potential recruits.

VAC has a reputation for letting our injured soldiers down, and the media has a reputation of somehow managing to equate them (VAC) to us (the CF) each and every time it hits the news.

They slam our CDS, they slam the CF ... instead of grilling the Minister of Veterans Affairs like they should be. Why the heck does he walk away smelling like roses while the WRONG department and people take it in the teeth. What bullshit that is.

VAC is a whole other government department altogether ... and neither the CDS nor the MND run it or oversee it.

Put the blame for injured troops not being looked after -- squarely on VAC where it richly deserves to be seated.

No arguments whatsoever.  But again, this thread is about the CF's treatment of disabled members.  I can make the distinction, and I shouldn't have used the example of a fella fighting for VAC benefits to illustrate my point.  My bad.

VAC has nothing to do with this issue.  This is all about how serving members with disabilities are managed.

 

[armyvern]

VAC has nothing to do with this issue.  This is all about how serving members with disabilities are managed.

I could be wrong ... but serving members whose injuries are directly attributable to "military service" or deemed to have been "aggravated by military service" are ultimately VAC handled no? VAC services are provided via the CF while they are still serving.

VAC MUST be included ... the CF is administering to serving members on behalf of VAC those service related or aggravated injuries.

From VACs very own Homepage

Our Clients
We provide pensions for disability or death, economic support in the form of allowances, health care benefits and services to:
members of the Canadian Forces and Merchant Navy veterans who served in the First World War, the Second World War or the Korean War

You may qualify for a disability pension if you have a medical disability that is related to your service and you are:

a Canadian Forces (CF) Veteran or a Merchant Navy Veteran of the First or Second World War or the Korean War;
a current or former member of the Regular or Reserve Force; or
a civilian who served in close support of the Armed Forces during wartime.

VAC is where the problem lies NOT the CF.

 

[284_226]

Back to the Subject line again - we're talking about whether or not - and in what manner - disabled serving members would continue to serve wearing the CF uniform.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

If I was a betting man (and I am) I would bet that we will see the creation of a couple of hundred line serials against which accomodated veterans will be held - thereby alleviating the concerns with respect to "weakening the force". 

As to criteria (and I would not lay a bet on this one), how about the wound stripe?

 

[armyvern]

If I was a betting man (and I am) I would bet that we will see the creation of a couple of hundred line serials against which accomodated veterans will be held - thereby alleviating the concerns with respect to "weakening the force". 

As to criteria (and I would not lay a bet on this one), how about the wound stripe?

Created AND funded are the operative words here.

We've got lots of created posns here -- just not funded. As long as they remain unfunded ... it's taking away from combat capability which is, as we all know, our raison d'etre.

 

[284_226]

If I was a betting man (and I am) I would bet that we will see the creation of a couple of hundred line serials against which accomodated veterans will be held - thereby alleviating the concerns with respect to "weakening the force". 

As to criteria (and I would not lay a bet on this one), how about the wound stripe?

That's certainly one criteria that could be used.  However, I'll draw your attention to the article from yesterday, which said:

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."

I'm really not trying to draw fire here, but does that not lead someone to believe that the UoS principle is soon to be a thing of the past?

 

[dapaterson]

We're going to end up with a bastardized system of "UoS, except where it's not".  And that will fail the courts test.

And PPCLI Guy:  A little bird has whispered a few things to me about the current concept fr retention - you're right, except that you're wrong.  How's that for NDHQ cryptic? 

 

[the 48th regulator]

As to criteria (and I would not lay a bet on this one), how about the wound stripe?

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

dileas

tess

 

[dapaterson]

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?

 

[Kirkhill]

Does CSOR have the same fitness standards as the rest of the army/CF?  How about divers?  Are they as fit/more fit than other members?  Did the Airborne have different fitness standards to the line regiments?

 

[Gunner98]

According to a recent CANFORGEN, you are considered to be eligible for SDA (Special Duty Area) injury/death-related entitlements once you begin pre-deployment training for a specified mission. (I do not currently have access to DWAN for exact ref.)

IMO, I think you will see a lot MMO (Military Manning Overhead) positions used for these soldiers.  As well, many of the pers will be declared as having SPQR (Special Personnel Qualification Requirements) and then they can be retained.

In summary, IMO, Universality of Service will not apply to those soldiers for which their injuries took place during training for or while deployed in a SDA and who have SPQR or are placed in MMO positions

 

[dapaterson]

(1) There's no such thing as an MMO position.  MMO = not held against a position.  People held MMO don't count towards meeting manning levels, but they do count against the paid strength limits.  This has severe knock-on effects.

(2) SPQR - Senatus Populumque Romani.  Perhaps a more appropriate version of the same abbreviation - who do the soldiers go forth to represent, and who is ultimately responsible for their welfare?  (Finally - a use for High School Latin!)

(3) In the CF context, an SPQR is attached to a position, which then, in theory, should have a qualified person posted in.  However, if we're keeping folks MMO, we still have positions vacant and training requirements to fill those same positions.

(4) The CF as a whole desperately needs to get over its uniform fetish.  There are many valid uses for civilians within a military.  The Army, much more than the Navy and Air Force, refuses to admit this, and continues to populate its headquarters with senior officers lacking the background and experience to provide effective counsel in their areas of employment.  Similarly, the training system is ripe for a makeover, filling many traditionally military positions with civilians and reserving military PYs for key leadership and select skills roles.  Replacing those military PYs with civilians holding military backgrounds opens up places for the wounded who can still contribute without tying up military PYs.

 

[Greymatters]

(4) The CF as a whole desperately needs to get over its uniform fetish.  There are many valid uses for civilians within a military.  The Army, much more than the Navy and Air Force, refuses to admit this, and continues to populate its headquarters with senior officers lacking the background and experience to provide effective counsel in their areas of employment.  Similarly, the training system is ripe for a makeover, filling many traditionally military positions with civilians and reserving military PYs for key leadership and select skills roles.  Replacing those military PYs with civilians holding military backgrounds opens up places for the wounded who can still contribute without tying up military PYs. 

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). 

 

[Kirkhill]

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