Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread

[Pusser]

Please let me clarify what I'm saying.  I am NOT advocating the retention of unfit personnel as instructors.  If their long-term prognosis is that they will never again be able to erform their full duties as a member of the CAF (including UofS), then they need to be released and we need to prepare them for that release.

What I am saying is that we should also not be allowing their experience and knowledge to walk out the door, IF they still have something to contribute.  This can be done by hiring SOME of them as instructors in our schools (not every veteran would make a suitable instructor).  However, they should not be replacing ALL of our instructors.  There is still a need for instructors who are serving military personnel, if only for currency.  Not every released member of the CAF could be accommodated in this manner, but we should be able to find a healthy balance.  The British Army seems to manage this quite well with a mix of both military and civilian instructional staff in their schools.

One of the reasons the last government failed at increasing the size of the CAF (which they promised to do) was that we had no means to train them, largely due to a lack of instructors.  Technical training was especially difficult and we actually had to introduce special release procedures to allow people who had become disillusioned by waiting too long (in some cases years) in PAT platoons.  The current government has also promised to increase the size of the CAF, but will have the same problem if not addressed.  We need to let go of the idea that instructors need to be currently serving personnel and tap into an hereforeto untapped resource.

 

[PuckChaser]

You can't have people who spend 15 years as an instructor. They'd be really good at teaching, but lose the ground truth from doing their jobs on a daily basis. Max 5 years as a transition period IMHO, of you're going to do that.

 

[Pusser]

You can't have people who spend 15 years as an instructor. They'd be really good at teaching, but lose the ground truth from doing their jobs on a daily basis. Max 5 years as a transition period IMHO, of you're going to do that.

Sure you can.  That's why you need a mix of both currently serving military instructors and former soldiers/sailors.  The current guys teach the current stuff (current tools, procedures, etc).  The older guys teach the stuff that doesn't change (initial principles, background concepts, etc).

 

[BinRat55]

As hard a pill as it is for me to swallow, I honestly see both sides. As one who is being affected by this right now I can tell you - it sucks. It's almost like you're underwater and running out of breath and in the struggle to get breath you will just about break anyone's neck to get there.

I so want to serve. I have done so for almost 27 years. I am doing a VRPSM (Voc Rehab) on base in my trade as a civilian until my pending release. I absolute LOVE it. I have so much knowledge I can pass on to younger techs, I know my job cold. What I don't have to do is go back out on the range at my age and have another heart attack. I have so much "corporate" knowledge as well as the military bearing that will NEVER leave me....

But alas, I know what DAA is saying. Where the opportunity exists in the civilian world it works fine. But to "create" positions for people like me? You would have a new generation of tired, over worked, bitter soldier because they are stuck doing the "hard" work. I get that. No one wants to be the only healthy person on the floor because they are going to be tasked up the hoo haa.

But we wounded, tired and broken are still worth it. We carry the traditions that need to be passed on. Respect to all of you in that boat - mad respect!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You could do it, but it would have to a limited number of slots per unit. One option is to have a extra slot attached to Reserve units to assist the reg force staff. It would be nice to have a portion of the funding coming from outside of DND to reflect the fact that we are saving money by keeping people useful.

 

[PuckChaser]

Sure you can.  That's why you need a mix of both currently serving military instructors and former soldiers/sailors.  The current guys teach the current stuff (current tools, procedures, etc).  The older guys teach the stuff that doesn't change (initial principles, background concepts, etc).

So we double the course staff, or employ people who are only capable of instructing half the material? CFSCE tried civilian instructors who only did theory portions, they're gone now.

 

[Teager]

It should be noted that not every injured/ill person would want to stick around.

 

[Pusser]

So we double the course staff, or employ people who are only capable of instructing half the material? CFSCE tried civilian instructors who only did theory portions, they're gone now.

We would only double the staff if we planned to double the output of the school.  As for only teaching half of the material, in what school does one instructor teach absolutely everything on a course?  There are possibilities here that really do exist.  We just need to open our institutional eyes to see them.  I've seen it work first hand and it really does work.  Can every single medically released member be employed this way?  Of course not, but to dismiss it out of hand is to miss an opportunity.  Keep in mind also that we habitually have problems finding instructors in some schools because the job is sometimes seen as a career-killer.

I sometimes think that some people are just looking to find problems, yet ignore the possibilities.

 

[Brasidas]

We would only double the staff if we planned to double the output of the school.  As for only teaching half of the material, in what school does one instructor teach absolutely everything on a course?  There are possibilities here that really do exist.  We just need to open our institutional eyes to see them.  I've seen it work first hand and it really does work.

I've seen it not work particularly well at CFSCE, and I'm not sorry to hear if its gone.

Some of it was the poor design of course material, but the sheer disconnect between the regular instructors (and students) and the civilian instructors (who were former regforce but had nothing to do with the rest of the course material) was such that I found them ineffective. They might know what's required of a QL3 Sig Op, but the image of one of them holding up a 3.5" floppy and describing the function of a mouse to self-selected army geeks was an apt metaphor for their role there.

Is there a role for pers who don't fit UofS? Maybe. But I've seen one version of this movie, and it wasn't good.

If you can get pers who are excellent instructors who can effectively relate currently needed material to the target audience without otherwise compromising the organization (eg CFSCE?), then great.

 

[Loachman]

We replaced military flying instructors on the Primary Flying Course in Portage with civilians just under twenty-five years ago, and all of the maintainers there as well. The pass rate improved dramatically and immediately and the cost dropped. Several CF aircraft fleets are maintained by civilians.

Yes, this reduces the "rest" postings for people who may otherwise be stuck for longer in high-tempo grinds, but there is ample precedent.

The US Army employs retired Aviators and ATC guys as sim instructors, and also in base ops.

I will be doing my current job for a few more months as a Public Servant for just slightly more than half of the pay rate (but with a decent pension as well, of course), so there would be a cost reduction at a time when we are short of experienced Pilots in cockpits were this position to be converted to a PS one permanently.

Plenty of benefit all around.

 

[PuckChaser]

I sometimes think that some people are just looking to find problems, yet ignore the possibilities.

I said there was a possibility, but there's a time limit on that possibility. There's only so many ways to fly an aircraft, and those civilian instructors are likely not teaching military maneuvers like ground attack or dogfighting.

To continue my Sigs example, we run a course staff of 3 or 4 instructors (all military). For a few years, there is likely a very good opportunity for that member to work as instructional staff and stay in uniform (gee, sounds like the accomodation system we already have). After that, those members are stuck in an "instituational" mode, and are only able to teach theory. Those 3-4 instructors need to be able to go to the field, and mentor young Signallers as they do det setups, and general field craft. They also can't mentor those students if they've been stuck in CFSCE for 10 years, and only know "the CFSCE way". They've lost operational touch, and produce a substandard signaller to the Bdes. We also only cover 1 or 2 weeks on a 3 month course of "theory". You suggest we keep people well past their "best before date" to teach 1-2 weeks every 3 months or so?

There is opportunity for some members, in some trades, to be retained as instructional staff for a limited time. That time would depend on that trade, and how fast TTPs/equipment changes. This isn't ignoring the possibilities, its the reality of the world we live in.

 

[McG]

I think the CDS says all the right things here, but I wonder what the public perception will be.  I think it is also unfortunate that there was no answer on the question of guaranteed transfers into the Public Service for medically released service personnel, but I suppose that statement would have to come from a minister not engaged in these interviews - neither DND nor VA own the PS.

Discharge rule for disabled soldiers must stay in place, general says 
GLORIA GALLOWAY
The Globe and Mail
10 May 2016

The head of the Canadian Forces says he understands it is “gut-wrenching” for some disabled soldiers to be discharged as a result of their injuries, but the military will maintain its rule that all members must be physically and mentally able to deploy anywhere, at any time.

Many military men and women who served in Afghanistan have been forced to return to civilian life because their wounds left them unable to meet a number of fundamental military tasks or to deploy on short notice to any geographical location. It is known as the universality of service rule, and some former soldiers say it caused them more anguish than their actual injuries, and some with mental problems say they suffered in silence out of fear they would be discharged if they came forward.

But General Jonathan Vance, the Chief of the Defence Staff, said there are many reasons why the standard cannot be dropped, even for those who were permanently injured in the line of duty yet are capable of performing a job in Canada.

“We are a small armed forces; everybody’s got to be able to pitch in all the way,” Gen. Vance said in a telephone interview on Tuesday with The Globe and Mail.

Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr held a two-day meeting with representatives of veterans associations in Ottawa this week that included a question-and-answer session that was open to the public.

Brian McKenna, a former warrant officer from New Westminster, B.C., asked if there was any way that the universality of service rule could be changed to accommodate people like him who did not want their military careers to end.

“As someone who has been removed from the military – against my own will, essentially – that was actually the hardest day of my career,” said Mr. McKenna, a veteran of multiple deployments who was discharged as a result of a long-standing neck injury, posttraumatic stress disorder and a gastrointestinal issue he picked up in Afghanistan.

“Is there any way that we can review the strictness of the rule of universality of service?” he asked. “Is there not a way we can be retaining more of these people in the Forces, in either civilian jobs that are within [the Defence Department] or in some other way that we get to serve Canada?”

Mr. Hehr did not answer the question directly. When it was posed to him again later during a news conference, he said he is working with Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan to ensure that disabled soldiers get the help they need to stay in the military and, when that is not possible, to make an easier transition to civilian life.

Gen. Vance agreed that the process of humanely discharging disabled soldiers needs improvement. The military, he said, is working diligently with Veterans Affairs Canada on “this whole issue of closing the gaps and seams as one transitions from healthy activity service to transition out to retirement. I think we could do a better job at that.”

But “it’s unlikely that we’ll change the universality of service policy,” Gen. Vance said. “It is gut-wrenching for them to have to leave. But one of the reasons they joined as a soldier in the first place is because they were joining a high-performance organization that gets things done for the country.”

Even in domestic deployments, it would be impractical to go through the ranks to figure out which members of the military were capable of actively taking part, the general explained.

And if the Canadian Forces allowed its disabled members to stay on in a less strenuous capacity, people who want to join the military but are incapable of meeting the universality of service standards would argue that they should not be prevented from enlisting. “What would happen,” Gen. Vance asked, “if we were now required to accept people in as brand-new recruits who were also incapable of doing a full range of military tasks?”

In addition, he said, a career in the Canadian Forces would not be satisfying for someone who is constrained by their disability. “You are going to be limited,” he said. “And that’s not fair to them and to those who are relying on them to do the job.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/discharge-rule-for-disabled-soldiers-must-stay-in-place-general-says/article29970146/

 

[CountDC]

I think the CDS says all the right things here, but I wonder what the public perception will be.  I think it is also unfortunate that there was no answer on the question of guaranteed transfers into the Public Service for medically released service personnel, but I suppose that statement would have to come from a minister not engaged in these interviews - neither DND nor VA own the PS.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/discharge-rule-for-disabled-soldiers-must-stay-in-place-general-says/article29970146/

I think that is something nobody wants to do - guarantee transfers.  Once you do that people would expect a job regardless of their quals (or lack of) and expect to be hired even if someone much better suited and qualified applied.    Put all the clauses you want in there it won't matter as some will lock on to the guarantee transfer part and scream bloody murder when they don't get the job.  Stick with a Priority Hire if everything else is equal..... oops that actually opens another kettle of worms as we already have priority hire all over the place.  Everything else equal does the female card take priority or does the vet card?  Does it become who has the most pri-hire cards? 

Ok - lets do the guarantee transfer and provide the training.  Seems to be easier after all.

 

[Nudibranch]

I think the CDS says all the right things here, but I wonder what the public perception will be. 

I agree that the CDS says all the right things - dropping Universality of Service would result, over time (given the size of our military, not too long a time) of creating a pyramid structure with an undeployable shadow-VAC population on the bottom, and a deployable pointy end that would end up breaking down quicker...and move down to join the undeployable base.

As for the public perception, there really does need to be some public education wrt "CAF disabled" (ie, breaching UoS) and what the civ world thinks of as "disabled". Of course some of our 3B released mbrs fit into both definitions - but many, many 3B released mbrs happen to merely breach UoS. They are not what Joe Public would recognize as disabled, they are in many cases not even really ill. They may have medical conditions that cause them to be undeployable, because they need to see a specialist every couple of months for routine follow-ups, or they might not be able to stand the FORCE test; but lots and lost of civies working full time have those issues.

Should a 20 year old who twisted their ankle on a run in Basic be guaranteed lifetime PS employment because it didn't recover to 100% and the doc says they shouldn't be marching with a ruck over uneven ground? Breaches UoS, yeah - but that is not what the public perceives as a "disabled veteran".

 

[stellarpanther]

I think they need to take another look at UofS.  Take for example someone who has developed Osteoarthritis and has a hard time doing parades but can do his/her job with no problems and even do the Force test, I don't think someone in that situation should be released.  Basically it should come down to whether or not the person can do their job.  I know several people who have been in for 20+ years and haven't been based on the units they were in.  Don't release someone just because of what MIGHT happen.

 

[dapaterson]

And, in fact, career reviews do take such things into consideration.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think the CDS says all the right things here, but I wonder what the public perception will be.  I think it is also unfortunate that there was no answer on the question of guaranteed transfers into the Public Service for medically released service personnel, but I suppose that statement would have to come from a minister not engaged in these interviews - neither DND nor VA own the PS.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/discharge-rule-for-disabled-soldiers-must-stay-in-place-general-says/article29970146/

Agreed the CDS shows real leadership on this issue.  Its not easy to say but it is 100% needed.

We mush be able to kick people out the door on deployments and tasking's.  While short term issues can be accommodated, long or permanent must be looked at.  We cannot continue to rely on our dwindling numbers of fit and deployable people with out having the redundancy to back them up when they need to breather or start to break down themselves.

 

[TCM621]

I think they need to take another look at UofS.  Take for example someone who has developed Osteoarthritis and has a hard time doing parades but can do his/her job with no problems and even do the Force test, I don't think someone in that situation should be released.  Basically it should come down to whether or not the person can do their job.  I know several people who have been in for 20+ years and haven't been based on the units they were in.  Don't release someone just because of what MIGHT happen.

MELs can be wide ranging and not breach UofS. Can't run every day? You can still be employed. Can't run at all? Probably not.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Halifax Tar]

Medically unfit for deployment? We'll try to employ you elsewhere, says Canada's top general

After public and political criticism, Vance signals a cultural sea change for the military

The Canadian military is redesigning itself to make room for troops who may not be "deployable," but are still "employable," the country's top general said.

The remarks by Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of the defence staff, represent a social and cultural sea change for an institution that has been accused of discarding injured members who, in some cases, have begged to continue serving.

Since the release of the Liberal government's new defence policy last spring, Vance has telegraphed that he wants to improve the career prospects of the wounded and that he was open to being more flexible.

More on link

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/medically-unfit-soldiers-employed-elsewhere-1.4344464

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I'm on the fence with this whole issue;  I know there are some folks who can still serve, but I don't think the deployable fit folks should have to be the ones doing the heavy lifting while others stay home, enjoy every holiday weekend and work Mon-Fri, 8 to 4.

In a force as small as we are, I don't think we can afford to have any less people able to do the real business when push comes to shove.