That's the f$$$ing dumbest thing I've ever read, clearly written by someone who has no understanding whatsoever .
You want to fix the military, you need to reform senior leadership and make it more accountable. Remove civilian bureaucracy when it comes to procurement logistics and kit, and I don't know, maybe spend a proper amount of money on it.
Similarly you need to come up with a properly veterans support system, proper outboarding of leaving members and get rid of the old boys concept when it comes to female members.
It didn't gain steam 2 years ago, why not roll out the same article 2 years later......
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
And if you wanted to force those things to happen the army going on strike and refusing deployment would likely bring those issues to the surface.
On Safety standards and proper working conditions unionization was very effective in the trades same with pensions. So a bunch of the items you would like fixed could be well addressed through unions.
Does that fit within the command structure of an army I have no idea but if you strike for proper equipment you will shed light on the issue quickly.
But, why have a military if you can't mistreat it?
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
That's the f$$$ing dumbest thing I've ever read, clearly written by someone who has no understanding whatsoever .
You want to fix the military, you need to reform senior leadership and make it more accountable. Remove civilian bureaucracy when it comes to procurement logistics and kit, and I don't know, maybe spend a proper amount of money on it.
Similarly you need to come up with a properly veterans support system, proper outboarding of leaving members and get rid of the old boys concept when it comes to female members.
He did 20 years reg force so he might know a thing or too...just sayin
And if you wanted to force those things to happen the army going on strike and refusing deployment would likely bring those issues to the surface.
On Safety standards and proper working conditions unionization was very effective in the trades same with pensions. So a bunch of the items you would like fixed could be well addressed through unions.
Does that fit within the command structure of an army I have no idea but if you strike for proper equipment you will shed light on the issue quickly.
You don't understand
The military as a unit and as collection cannot put themselves above the good of the country and the orders of the government.
As well I can just see a union destroying the trust that's needed between ranks and senior NCM's and officers. That's what they do unions play the class warfare game.
If you have a military that has the ability to go on strike or commit work actions then it goes against the efficiency of the entire structures of the forces.
And the whole striking for better equipment, then who decides on that, some private or corporal? Do privates and corporals have a complete strategic picture of the force and force requirements.
The problems with equipment isn't with the military, its with the government and the civilian bureaucracy, but I would be horrified to see what would happen if a union got their hands involved.
On top of that would you have basically private johnson acting as a shop steward, making demands on deployments? That's why you have senior NCM's to act as the effective line of communication and interpretation of orders.
The guy who wrote that article is completely clueless, he has no idea about what he's talking about.
Not even the soviet union the workers paradise unionized the military. In fact I would be willing to bet that if that happened that every union solider would be shot.
The military is not a company or corporation, when you sign on you sign on knowing certain conditions, and that unless a order is considered to be immoral or generated through incompetence or cowardice that you obey it and accept the conditions.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
The case for unionization has many supporters, but the reality is that the CAF already has many things in place to deal with a multitude of issues that union supporters tend to fight for. For example:
- generous leave policy
- medical, dental, optometrist and Rx benefits
- Life Insurance
- pension
- free financial advice
- military family support
- education subsidization
- single personnel have access to rations and quarters if they choose to live on base
-
The following are available to any service member right now to address a grievance:
- chain of command (CoC)
- use the unofficial CoC if you don't receive satisfaction from the proper CoC.
- Ombudsman
- grievance process
- clergy
- unsatisfactory condition reports if you have an issue with equipment. Believe me when I say that this avenue is rarely used.
- general belly-aching during CO's hours or similar town halls.
A union, I suppose, can provide lobbying power and the ability to back you up in court, though.
Young people who join the military these days are typically educated and sophisticated in a tech-savvy way and long-[possibly] outdated notions of absolute disciplinary submission to superiors continue to dominate our perception of what is right and normal. Soldiers who know that their needs and views will be respected can contribute their innovation, creativity and best abilities, resulting in more effective units and a more effective military.
There are many bad leaders - whether officer, warrant officer or NCO- who can significantly impact careers of others simply because they can lord the National Defence Act over someone. Unfortunately, a great many senior officers (and even junior officers) are technocratic careerists who put their interests above those of their subordinates.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Baron von Kriterium For This Useful Post:
Led by the Edmonton-based 1st Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, a contingent of about 450 Canadians will be headquartered at the Adazi military complex, about 30 kilometres northeast of the tiny Baltic country’s capital of Riga.
When did 450 troops become a battlegroup.....
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Norman’s unexplained removal also raises other questions. Among those:
Since no criminal charges had been laid, why didn’t Gen. Vance consider moving Norman to another position? Vance has declined to comment.
Sources told Postmedia that Vance knew almost from the beginning that the investigation into Norman was not related to national security concerns. Sajjan did not acknowledge publicly that Norman’s removal was not related to national security until a week later. Norman’s supporters say the silence on that point from the Liberal government and the military significantly damaged the vice-admiral’s reputation. Sajjan has declined to comment on that question.
The Canadian Forces claims it can’t talk about the case to protect Norman’s privacy. If so, why did it release to the media Vance’s letter detailing Norman’s removal? The military has declined to comment on this aspect of the matter.
Vance has told military officers he has zero tolerance for leaks of any kind. But military public affairs officers say Vance came up with a process the general has called the “weaponization of public affairs,” which includes the leaking of information to journalists deemed “friendly” to the Canadian Forces. In a September 2015 interview with the Ottawa Citizen, Vance acknowledged using the term but denied it was about strategically leaking information. Norman’s supporters question whether a double-standard is at play.
The Liberals obtained confidential information about the shipbuilding program while still in opposition, including internal Department of Defence documents. Norman’s supporters question why he seems to have been singled out when others in Ottawa, from journalists to lobbyists to political parties, have obtained sensitive shipbuilding information in the past and without any apparent police investigation.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Its not as much a flame thrower as a short range MLRS using thermobaric weapons. So its not as much throwing fire as firing rockets with a 10 KM range that are designed to start super hot fires.
Yeah, its designed to go after fortifications and entrenched enemies, its a particularly nasty anti-infantry weapon, that doesn't use the conventional theory of showering an enemy with shrapnel and high explosives as it creates a firestorm.
Pretty useless against heavy vehicles. though.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Whoever is on the receiving end of that is having a bad day.
Think of it this way. We always see these movies where American's or Russians are using aircraft to drop napalm on an enemy. They drop one or two canisters of Napalm and we see a hill line light up.
While these things fire a really concentrated version of napalm at a rate of 30 missiles every quarter minute.
So the tactical idea behind it is you mix a few of these with conventional artillery.
What used to protect a infantry soldier, a good trench with a well built over head shelter. or a ditch where you pray the law of averages doesn't get you would be gone in a mixed artillary barrage. Not only are you dealing with air and ground bursts, but they are also lighting the area on fire with a super hot uncontrollable fire.
Basically they can kill infantry, while using conventional arty to make sure and probably destroy or damage more lightly armored vehicles and use something like a artillery fired anti-tank sub munition and suddenly you can use artillery to truly peel back a dug in or advancing enemy force.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
