Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread

[armyvern]

The New PSEA Act already mandates for the "priority hiring" of members who are injured as a direct result of thier military service (or aggravated by) within ANY government department -- it is quite possible to build upon this existant legislation to mandate their transfer to positions with those same department when medically released due to service related injuries.

RTW IS applicable to CF personnel as well as to civilian employees. I have a MCpl being employed outside of the CF (but within another fed dept -- not DND), on the RTW program right now. He is still being paid by the CF.

I already adressed your question as to "priority hire" and "accomodation", quite clearly stating that they were not the same thing, nor was I under the impression that they were.

You brought up the old thread which reffed Priority Hire and asked why my mind had changed. I stated it had not -- the old thread was my thoughts on Priority hire ...

My statements in this thread are ref accomodation.

As for your earlier comment ref "where you lost your credibility on this site" ... I don't think you have. Some people just don't agree with you as to how & where we should go about ensuring the continued employment of our injured soldiers. That doesn't mean that they (as in I) don't find you credible -- it just means that they (as in I) don't agree with you on your entire arguement.

I CARE about my subordinates. I CARE about my comrades-in-arms who have been injured. But I also recognize the fact that the CF's ultimate raison d'etre is to provide a combat capable force. I do not believe that scarce PYs in our reduced military should be taken up by those who are not fully combat capable. I do believe that they should as a PRIORITY (note that my use of priority in this instance does not = "priority hire") be accomodated (I think I used the term 'rolled-over' earlier) within the civilian workforce of DND preferably, and -- should it be required within ANY federal government department WITH a transfer of all applicable benefits/seniority, as I also stated earlier.

 

[Gunner98]

(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!)

dap,

I guess your latin is a little rusty. SPQR would be Senatus Populusque Romanus.  I ack your comments on my use of the phrase - positions. I still think these pers will be held as MMO to specific units or on SPHL as it will take forever to develop individual positions with appropriate prerequisites through Establishment Change Proposals (ECPs). SPHL would allow them to replaced on their unit's establishment with another trained person. 

 

[Kilroy]

What about MENTALLY wounded soldiers? What options are there for them? What if they feel that being in the military is adding to their stress and problems? What help is the military going to give them getting jobs?

 

[the 48th regulator]

What about MENTALLY wounded soldiers? What options are there for them? What if they feel that being in the military is adding to their stress and problems? What help is the military going to give them getting jobs?

All your questions can be found here;

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/41832/post-361725.html#msg361725

In particular;

http://www.cda.forces.gc.ca/dlm/engraph/services/movingon/scan/pdf/new/MovingOnBook_e.pdf

http://www.cda-acd.forces.gc.ca/er/engraph/mss/handbook/pdf/Eng_Chapter_9.pdf

Also, much has been written ont he forums, or you can PM me with any questions.

dileas

tess

 

[battleaxe]

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.

Armyvern,

What I've highlighted above-do you think this is being done successfully-and for enough people? Even expanding it to include the hiring into the whole of the PS-are you content with current policies and legislation regarding the hiring of wounded personnel?

Bren

 

[armyvern]

Armyvern,

What I've highlighted above-do you think this is being done successfully-and for enough people? Even expanding it to include the hiring into the whole of the PS-are you content with current policies and legislation regarding the hiring of wounded personnel?

Bren

It's been a month. I don't have the time nor, quite frankly, the inclination to have this conversation yet again with you.

Sorry, not biting. Feel free to go through my posting history -- it's all been said before and usually to you. Please refrain from visiting the site solely to pose queries to me (because that certainly seems to be MO in the past few months) -- there is just so much more on here ... and people in here.

 

[old medic]

....-do you think this is being done successfully-and for enough people? Even expanding it to include the hiring into the whole of the PS-are you content with current policies and legislation regarding the hiring of wounded personnel?

Bren

That : ("enough people") is impossible to gauge without a proper study of everyone's information.

 

[battleaxe]

That : ("enough people") is impossible to gauge without a proper study of everyone's information.

That's true, and I have looked for information and stats on our released members.  The only time I've ever seen numbers put to the issue is in an article by Gloria Galloway-Globe and Mail 28/10/06.

The director of civilian employment policies told her-at that time-that of 278 medically released personnel who requested priority hire since 2001-only 175 were placed.  The article also goes on to state that over 4,000 medical releases have taken place since 2002.

I don't believe the stats she got were very comprehensive.  I know that many of the thousands released either simply retired, went on to other things, started their own businesses, or were hired into the PS without having to worry about priority hire.  But I do find myself wondering what happened to those 103 who asked for PS employment and never received it-maybe because I've never considered %60 a grade to be overwhelmingly proud of.

I have been looking for info on the subject but it is hard to come by-I will post any findings and would welcome any info from others on the subject.  I plan to look into the Tim Black resource that was posted earlier-haven't been able to, as I've been out of commission since it was posted.

Bren

 

[battleaxe]

It's been a month. I don't have the time nor, quite frankly, the inclination to have this conversation yet again with you.

Sorry, not biting. Feel free to go through my posting history -- it's all been said before and usually to you. Please refrain from visiting the site solely to pose queries to me (because that certainly seems to be MO in the past few months) -- there is just so much more on here ... and people in here.

Please don't bite...and then tell me you're not biting.  It's contradictory.

And the contradictions I noted in your posting history (I have gone through it) are exactly why I asked you the question I did. I think it was a logical question.

I do not show up once a month just to bug you, and don't feel that I've established a pattern of stalking you. It's been a month since I've posted because I've been in the hospital and recovering from surgery-I haven't had a chance to logically follow up on the subject until now.  I post in many topics that touch on release and employment issues-because they interest me.

I simply asked a question.  If you choose not to answer, so be it.  No need to be snide.

Bren

 

[armyvern]

No contradiction in my posts as I've already pointed out to you when you've claimed that before. Apparently you don't read as well as you profess. Two different topics = different answers. And such a quick reader you are too, to manage to review my 7000 & some-odd posting history in a mere hour and a bit. Or perhaps you think that only my posts regarding these subjects in threads which you've been involved in count?? There are many more threads besides the ones you're active in on this forum lest 'ye be so quick to judge.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/66949/post-654366.html#msg654366

That's not being snide, that's being honest. I'd also suggest that the first para by me in the post linked above also answers your question to me posed earlier today ... funny you skipped that entire post to bring back an earlier one. Blinders on.

Have a great day. 

No need to respond to this post. If I have anything else to say to you, or you to me ... it can be via PM. 

 

[Gunner98]

That's true, and I have looked for information and stats on our released members.  The only time I've ever seen numbers put to the issue is in an article by Gloria Galloway-Globe and Mail 28/10/06.

The director of civilian employment policies told her-at that time-that of 278 medically released personnel who requested priority hire since 2001-only 175 were placed.  The article also goes on to state that over 4,000 medical releases have taken place since 2002.

battleaxe,

It is possible that some or all of the other 103 pers did not meet the (original) requirements of the program:

"A priority hiring status with the Public Service Commission is...available for CF members who are injured or who become disabled while deployed to a Special Duty Area."

 

[battleaxe]

Frostnipped Elf (I'd like to hear the story behind that handle),

I hadn't thought of that.  Now that you mention it-it seems so obvious.

As the requirment only changed in December of 2005 to include others (not just those who served in SDAs)- many could have fallen through the cracks between 2001 and 2005 based on that specific requirement.

I was wondering, too, why the number of priority hire requests was so low in that article. I would have thought it would have been higher-given the number of medical releases that was cited.  As only people who had served in SDAs would have been applying for priority hire during that time period-the numbers are logically lower. 

An important detail-thanks for clicking on my light bulb, it makes more sense to me now.

Bren

 

[geo]

Another point to consider is that, regardless of how "generous" a priority hire program might be, the applicant has to meet the requirements of the job he's applying for.  If he doesn't even come close to meeting the job requirement profile, he requires retraining - under DVA or PSP retraining programs.

 

[old medic]

I would have thought it would have been higher-given the number of medical releases that was cited. 

Not every medical release from the CF is a member of the Regular force.

 

[armyvern]

Quite possibly, some of the missing numbers from the RegF have no desire to be accomodated or priority hired within the public service. Perhaps also, some of the missing numbers were undergoing retraining at the time (or doing the 2 years educational upgrade they can also take), and thus had not accepted an offer of employment in a PS position as of the date of those figures.

 

[battleaxe]

Not every medical release from the CF is a member of the Regular force.

No, medically released reserves (there are guidelines to their eligibiity) are also entitled to the same benefits and programs as regular force members.

Link to the 2007 Death and Disability Handbook- http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/centre/pdf/DD_Web_June_e.pdf.  (See page 59).

 

[old medic]

Not every medical release is a member of the regular and reserve force.

Your missing that some of those numbers are cadet instructors, irregular medical enrollment and other reserve lists. etc.
Your are also overlooking the word eligible in that document. 

Primary Reservists on full-time Class
B service of more than 180 consecutive days; Reservist on Class C service;
members of the special force; and, members of the Primary Reservists
on Class A or B service of less than 180 days when the reason for medical
release is attributable to service.

 

[battleaxe]

Not every medical release is a member of the regular and reserve force.

Your missing that some of those numbers are cadet instructors, irregular medical enrollment and other reserve lists. etc.
Your are also overlooking the word eligible in that document. 

old medic,

I do get how the inclusion of the cases you brought up would increase the overall number of medical releases. I don't think, though, that it would have any effect on the number of people that were cited as applying for priority hire.

I've spoken with someone who applied for priority hire and-before he was even able to apply and be put on the priority hire list-he had to submit a letter that stated he fulfilled all the eligibility requirements. Released military personnel do not apply for priority hire, only to then be weeded out because they aren't eligible.  They are weeded out before even applying.

If the 2000-2005 stats only apply to those who served in SDAs, then that, to me (based on the only info I've ever seen released on the subject) means that only slightly more than %60 of those SDA veterans who asked for priority hire were placed.  It's a passing grade, I guess.

I understand that some may not have met the essential requirements for the positions they applied for-but I also think that many probably played second fiddle to PS employees.  The guidebook does say that " CF members who release for medical reasons have a right to appointment in priority of all persons, other than those referred to in section 40 and subsections 41(1) to (4) of the Public Service Employment Act." Those sections and subsections go on to list those PS employees who must be placed before a released military member can even be considered for a position.

I'm not saying that PS employees don't deserve the consideration.  I'm just saying that CF employees don't deserve any less.

I'd like to see someone scare up the stats for 2006/2007.  I'm thinking there will be more substantial numbers in those stats, and a greater chance to see how successful the priority hire program truly is. 

Thanks,

Bren

 

[Michael OLeary]

I'd like to see someone scare up the stats for 2006/2007.  I'm thinking there will be more substantial numbers in those stats, and a greater chance to see how successful the priority hire program truly is. 

Try an Access to Information request.  I think you need to reconsider your approach to trying to get information out of the members of this forum.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[George Wallace]

Excuse me!

I've spoken with someone who applied for priority hire and-before he was even able to apply and be put on the priority hire list-he had to submit a letter that stated he fulfilled all the eligibility requirements. Released military personnel do not apply for priority hire, only to then be weeded out because they aren't eligible.  They are weeded out before even applying.

Where do you get the opinion that Released Military personnel are weeded out before even applying?  You stated that the person you talked to was told that he had to submit a letter that stated he fulfilled all the eligibility requirements.  That does not weed him out, unless he was too lazy to comply with the regulation to provide the letter.  It is not the fault of the employer, but, as shown in this case, the Ex-member who did not provide the prerequisite documentation.