Layton pledges money for military and RCMP veterans
Playing to his base? 
Comments
Seriously I see more criticism of the NDP(no matter what position they take on any given issue) on this site than the MSM does, or that of any other party in this election.
Maybe the MSM has trouble distinguishing between Harper, Ignatieff, and Layton when they all say how much they love the troops? They gotta sell newspapers, you know.
I think they went somewhere where there's no debate and where their comfortable assumptions aren't challenged. Be sure to report back when you find out.
What is going on here is what is called horizontal violence; you attack your peers and are distracted from the real issues.
In this case, basic fairness. Everyone here on this forum should be in favor of that.
How is it fair that the NDP should campaign for better disability benefits for soldiers and mounties, who already have far better benefits than the vast majority of workers (or of NDP voters, for that matter)?
acramer: Its just basic commonly shared notions of fairness to want to see this happen.
Unionist: There is a higher level of fairness which trumps, therefore it is not an expression of basic fairness.
By the way, that argument you are making Unionist- "benefits for soldiers and mounties, who already have far better benefits than the vast majority of workers" is exactly the same one that is used against unionized workers because they have benefits the rest of us dont have. "Its not right they get what most of you do not have."
Actually, unions fight for their own improvements and often are up against a public opinion (generated by lies in media and by politicians).
Soldiers and police are unquestionable heros, despite the fact that they have much safer and better paying jobs than most working people in this country and their jobs involve a whole lot of using overwhleming violence against people with no means to protect themselve (sounds more like cowards).
People like me get pissed at the NDP for giving these extrodinary benefits to only one very select sector of "workers" because the NDP often plays itself as "left wing" or "the party of the working class" at least when they're at our demos. As they have shown everytime that they have ever formed government they are really more like Liberals from the 60's.
Actually, unions fight for their own improvements and often are up against a public opinion (generated by lies in media and by politicians).
That's exactly the point.
And the narrative is not a lie. Just like Unionist's jab is not a lie. They are both using 'truth'.
They are rhetorical devices for attacking and undermining.
People like me get pissed at the NDP for giving these extrodinary benefits to only one very select sector of "workers" because the NDP often plays itself as "left wing" or "the party of the working class" at least when they're at our demos. As they have shown everytime that they have ever formed government they are really more like Liberals from the 60's.
I dont have a problem with you being pissed, and not liking the NDP for reasons like this. Its a perfectly valid and useful perspective. Ditto for Unionist, as far as criticism and expressions of opinion go.
But unlike with you, some take it well beyond criticism and expressions of opinion.
Ever wonder what happened to a lot of the regulars that used to contribute here...yeah.
I think they went somewhere where there's no debate and where their comfortable assumptions aren't challenged. Be sure to report back when you find out.
Debate isnt the type of 'challenge' people want to get away from.
Not to mention that no one who posts on Babble for a while, whatever their inclinations, is going to be undisposed to debate.
Ken, I find their positions are simply ignorant of the history of democratic socialist legislative positions and demands. Folks hereabouts claim to speak for a larger collective, but they are actually only into narrow, ideological invective.
*bolding mine
Wow...LeT, usually I really like your words and thoughts, however in this instance you have moved yourself from your own self imposed purveyourship of all that is "progressive" to a place far far different.
As really, what you have stated and shown in this word grouping is decidedly unprogressive. From my POV at least.
Those words are no different, to me, than those on the right who have nothing but contempt for those who have not pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and 'arrived'.
Not much for 'helping" RCMP veterans in their pension struggles such as they are, or aren't.
However, comments about military veterans and their pensions are way off base. As is the attitude of vitriolic disrespect shown here about them. To me, it borders on hate shedding, and as a progressive and a feminist I will not let it go by uncommented upon.
If you spend time with the homeless you will find a disproportionate amount of veterans. I think it is misplaced hatred to deny them getting their due. Not so much for the RCMP.
Well, this thread goes on:
Quit honestly, I really don't understand why so many people are having trouble with Jack's statement. Here is a partial quote I got from a website, "Homecoming Vets at the Corssroads of Humanity", a blog:
""One of the biggest complaints about the system relates to the New Veterans Charter, which in 2006 overhauled the system of benefits. It replaced lifetime, guaranteed pensions with a sliding scale of lump-sum payments and other benefits for disabilities.
The $285,000 top-end payment is far less generous than what other allied nations give their wounded soldiers. Independent actuarial reports have stated that the lowest-paid and most critically injured soldiers were the ones shortchanged by the revised system."
For me, this is outrageous. Military service people don't enter the service expecting to get something for what they do. I can tell you that like pretty much all of my former service colleagues, I enrolled out of a combination, I emphasize, AS I SAW IT, of a sense of national service, and patriotism. Arguably, you could add attraction to the "romance" of military servie, and knowledge, OF COURSE, of the benefits likely to accrue.
However, the issue really is about how vets under Harper, and even the Libs have been treated. It is completely both unreasonable, and immoral for the national government through messing around with compmesation to find a way out of the obligation to look after vets who suffer life changing injury under combat. This is unrpecedented; it is simply another money-grubbing, neocon ploy to find a way to slink out of meeting an obligation to members of the citizenry. I am very proud of Jack for the stance he took. It is the right one. And frankly, as I detailed above in another post, simply in keeping with the NDP tradition of speakng for votes going back at least to Davey Orlikow, who was very close friend of my departed father, who, by the way was a veteran of the D-Day beaches, and was very much involved in vet causes over much of his life. My father by the way was violently anit-war, and spent most of his life fighting against the spread of conflict as best he could; this even extended to my mother and father providing temporary "shelter", to Vietnam war objectors. I only mention this to explain that I don't come from a "pro-war", blindly "pro-military" familial background. Like my father, I simply joined out of a sense of obligation, and nationalist pride. I welcomed the chance to serve.
So, again, as I detailed above, I simply don't understand from where the animus in this thread is originating; I truly don't understand how the issue of a worker's rightful expectation to personal wellbeing and comfort in their retirement seems to have become a proxy for a battle on another front such as is occuring on this thread. Again, I say it is simply about fairness, and doing what is right. We should all be fighting this together as simply part of the broader unifed front and fight against the opression of worker welfare that all of us have engaged ourselves in fight against.
I don't know any other way to express this.
The NDP is a pro-military party, there is no surprise that this plan is coming out as official policy. I just assume this plan would come out later in the campaign.
(bolding emphasis mine)
That's an eye-opener. This country needs less emphasis on fighting stupid, meaningless conflicts overseas, but I guess that's contingent on getting some decent leadership that is pro-peace.
You are looking at a bullshit interpretation of Jack Layton's and the party's position. based on some kind of felt need to demonstrate an anti-military position, Boomer. It comes with a juvenile - not yet mature -mindset, and one that is extremely vulnerable to influence.
acramer has put it very nicely. Wish I had his/her patience and control.
As really, what you have stated and shown in this word grouping is decidedly unprogressive. From my POV at least.
Those words are no different, to me, than those on the right who have nothing but contempt for those who have not pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and 'arrived'.
Not much for 'helping" RCMP veterans in their pension struggles such as they are, or aren't.
However, comments about military veterans and their pensions are way off base. As is the attitude of vitriolic disrespect shown here about them. To me, it borders on hate shedding, and as a progressive and a feminist I will not let it go by uncommented upon.
I'm not talking bootstraps, remind. I'm talking about the way that the NDP only supports the labour movement under cover of darkness. Or actually attacks unions as was the case in Ontario with Bob Ray's government or Toronto Mayor David Miller. Unlike unions, soldiers enjoy around the clock high fives for being heros from the NDP despite the fact that they are not. The fact that NDP is talking benefits for vets and not ENDING THE INVASIONS OF AFGHANISTAN AND LIBYA is problematic. The RCMP deserve nothing, they are an over-paid fascist gang.
And what's with all this "homeless people are vets" trope. It's a total stereotype that most homeless people are bearded men living rough. Some people without housing are indeed vets, many more are workers who lost their jobs or had no disability or pension.
George Victor, you continue to outdue yourself with patronizing personal attacks. Your politics are not mature, they are status quo.
By the way, that argument you are making Unionist- "benefits for soldiers and mounties, who already have far better benefits than the vast majority of workers" is exactly the same one that is used against unionized workers because they have benefits the rest of us dont have. "Its not right they get what most of you do not have."
Yes, Ken, we unionized workers didn't get our superior benefits by pandering politicians bequeathing them to us - we organized ourselves and fought for them, and in doing so we raised the level of the working class as a whole. Unionized workers never begged for special better treatment from governments. We lobby for better EI and CPP/QPP and minimum wage and health and safety and labour standards for all, union and non-union alike. Layton sheds tears for soldiers. He issues a statement every time one of them gets his ass blown off in Afghanistan. When he does these things, he does not act on behalf of working people.
Of course, if all he hears is the kind of cheerleaders in some of these threads, he will have no reason to fight for higher minimum wage or CPP/QPP (which appears to have receded in his speeches - we'll see) or easier unionization for an increasingly disorganized workforce. He will keep on pandering, and keep on losing - because if you want a militarist and friend of the cops, you really don't need to go to the socialists for that. Harper and Ignatieff will do just fine.
Well...actually you were. You were victim blamming, pure and simple. And setting union workers above other workers as if they were more. Decidedly unprogressive in its entirety.
Absolute lack of mature thinking in that comment, as evidenced by the examples you used below.
Heads up, Bob Rae is a Liberal. And going back 2 decades to him as an example is mind boggling in its lack of any deep thought and /or analysis.
David Miller was a mayor, there is no NDP in mayoralty realities.
The rest of your comments were not applicable to me, so I won't bother responding to your scatter gun inclusion comments.
You know Unionist, I simply can't understand why you display this kind of animus.
I really do get completely that ordinary workers are being attacked; I absolutely agree that the NDP needs desparately to be more vocal on union and worker issues. But I don't at all understand how you can be dismissive of the issues of verteran's needs. Why the animus, and what is it you want? Should Jack just ingore military issues? Should he forget about vets? What s it you want? I am not trying to attack you but I just don't get what you are trying to say. I just don't see how the issue of veterans pensions and benefits is linked to the issue of NDP support for workers and worker rights and well being within, and without the work force.
Unionist, it looks to me like you were rather aggressive towards Todrick who was asking for a clarification, and not denying any sort of rights, or making any sort of statement that warranted your aggression. These are heady times, but please dial it back.
George, your post at #36 had little to do with the topic and reads like a personal attack. I think you know what's wrong with it. If indeed you "lack the patience" of acramer, simply refrain from posting until you have something of substance to offer the discussion. Thanks.
Did you read what i wrote? The claim was being made that calling out the NDP for favouring soldiers and cops over any other worker was the same as saying that unions don't deserve anything because they already get more. This not only confuses political advocacy with contract negotiations it misses the point. My point was not that union workers are better than soliers because they faught for their own (and soldiers') rights. My point was that the NDP has never made an election announcement along the lines of "we are going to expand benefits for people working in unions". I was pointing out that the comparison is not true. And as unionist pointed out, unions have always fought for all working peoples rights and the fruits of their labour have even been realized by the cops who have attacked labour all through history.
Rae is a Liberal but i'm pretty sure that the rest of the government that he lead were NDPers and i'm pretty sure that they all decided to make working people pay for the reccesion (sound familiar?)
Miller wasn't an NDP mayor, Ford's not a PC Mayor and there are no parties in Toronto municipal politics, whatever you want to believe.
Unionist, it looks to me like you were rather aggressive towards Todrick who was asking for a clarification, and not denying any sort of rights, or making any sort of statement that warranted your aggression. These are heady times, but please dial it back.
I reread Todrick's posts and realized I had jumped to a wrong conclusion. I thought he was challenging Le T's proposition that at $77,000 after 36 months, RCMP were vastly overpaid compared to most federal public service workers. I was wrong, and I apologize to him.
But I don't at all understand how you can be dismissive of the issues of verteran's needs.
I am not dismissive of veterans' needs. I am opposed to the NDP making it a campaign issue. I question why Jack Layton wants disabled veterans to be able to collect both disability benefits and a pension, when (as I've repeated over and over) very few workers are lucky enough to have long-term disability benefits, and those who do, don't get to pyramid them with their pensions. I don't think retired or disabled soldiers deserve one iota more gratitude, respect, or money than any other retired or disabled workers.
So tell me - why do you support this specific pledge of Mr. Layton? How do you justify treating soldiers and RCMP better than other workers?
@unionist:
That is a very fair question, and I appreciate you asking me. The answer is very simple; they've earned it. They made the ultimate national sacrifice, and we as a nation have an iron-clad obligation to acknowledge it and provide the compensation to which they are so right entitled. It is that simple.
Regarding worker compensation, again, this should be treated no differently. They have made their obligations to our national social contract, they provided their labour expecting to be fairly treated at the end of their working lives. The issue is reform. I dont know why Jack hasn't spoken to it. I can tell you that when he comes to Winnipeg, I have spoken to him and while he listens when I can get his ear, all he says is thanks. Is that progress? Probably not. All I can do is try to lobby him and my local MP. I won't give up trying. But I don't think Jack shouldn't have spoken out in support of the vets. It probably is at least related to political expediency. But short of what I have tried to do, I don't know what else their is but to keep trying. Maybe some day we can change things.
The fact that these kind of obvious injustices and inconsistencies is certainly a tragedy, to say the least. Again, I don't know any other way to speak to your concerns. I won't give up; please don't give up either.
I hope this appears to be a serious and thoughtful, respectfully response to your query. If I offer now, or have offered offense at any time, I apologize. Certainly, that would never be my intent. Thanks again for allowing me to try and provide you a reply.
Respectfully.
It's not "very simple". It's a total crock of shit. Soldiers do not make the ultimate sacrifice, they do their jobs just like we all do. Their jobs are much safer than most workers' but for some reason they get the "ultimate sacrifice" BS. It's a crock, it's part of getting people to support our imperial war machine.
Well, yea. It's part of that extremely successful campaign, over many years, in which government spending on the military is given a virtual free pass. Other departments get savaged but the military ... gets a free ride.
In fact, that campaign is so successful that many legitimate issues relating to military spending, given the private media in our country, are virtually decided in advance. The NDP is unwilling and unable to challenge this.
The NDP is happy to embarrass the Cons (and the Libs who were much the same) over fairness issues without challenging the premises of imperial military adventures, involvement in NATO, and so on. Since the Cons put a strong emphasis on the military (just look at the Cdn Forces ads and propaganda all over the place) this is actually pretty clever as it "blows them out of the water" on what "should be" their strength.
Pretty clever, if cynical, I think.
Edited to add: It's a strategy of trying to neutralize the advantage of the political enemy.
And it called politics. Whew. To hear the angels discussing it from a morally superior position on high.....
Le T this is where you show your lack of knowlege/mature thought and progressiveness, in respect to military persons and veteran's.
ETA, and their families!!!!!!!!!!
You are way off base, and I hope some day you grab a clue.
But will not continue further with you in this respect, as I have none for you in this matter. So it is pointless and I do not want to think worse of you than I have commenced doing already.
Take care
Right. I need to mature my thought process so that I can fully understand that soldiers and police officers make the ultimate sacrifice for society and we (each and every one of us) have an "iron-clad" obligation to give them special status. Their injuries are more grevious than any other because they are making the ultimate sacrifice. Their families suffer more than any other because they are making the ultimate sacrifice. And the NDP, a party that presents itself as left of something, should campaign to bring soldiers and police officers a special level of disability and pension benefits, availble only to them, because they have made the ultimate sacrifice.
That's fucking bullshit.
Please dial back the rhetoric and personal attacks and engage at the level of ideas, thanks. Le T, remind, George Victor, I'm looking at you.
I think Canadians are making the ultimate sacrifice with maintaining our bullsh!t electoral system. It's like a two-headed coin that only ever has a Tory stooge on one side and a Liberal one on the other.
I'm with Fidel. All that other stuff is baloney.
Meanwhile:
We are sorry, but the spam filter on this site decided that your submission could be spam. Please fill in the CAPTCHA below to get your submission accepted.
Day of Mourning: 4 Canadians killed on the job EVERY SINGLE DAY
That's around 1400 every year.
On the other hand,
Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan
That's around 155 for 10 years IN TOTAL.
ETA: What does this mean in a nutshell? It means that Canadian die on the job 100 TIMES more often than are killed in Afghanistan. There's a difference of two orders of magnitude. Using the 10 year period and the data noted above, we can round our numbers off and say:
For every Canadian soldier who dies in Afghanistan, 100 Canadians die on the job.
We're becoming as jingoistic a nation as the one south of us.
Aside from what they are actually called on to do in support of the imperial war machine, their compensation packages include a slight top up, beyond the standard public service classifications and wage envelopes, which is colloquially referred to as the "X Factor." The X Factor is intended as compensation for unlimited liability. For a variety of reasons including workplace safety, a fire fighter can elect to not enter a building with flames leaping out everywhere, or a cop can elect to not enter a building where a group of armed suspects are holed up, and suffer no career or disciplinary action , but a soldier cannot legally refuse an order to abandon the relative safety of a foxhole and advance into enemy machine gun fire. Alternately, a fire marshall attending the scene of a dangerous fire cannot order his firefighters to their deaths into the inferno. A civilian paramedic cannot be ordered into a situation where a gunshot victim in need of medical care is clinging to life, while gunfire is still going on. The term 'ultimate sacrifice' doesn't adequately describe an arrangement where someone is monetarily compensated to obey an order to place oneself in immediate danger of being killed, where prison is the most likely award for disobedience. A member of any profession can render an 'ultimate sacrifice' to the greater good depending on the dangers involved, and their voluntary willingness to ignore the danger. They still retain the choice to do so even after signing on to the profession. Military service is the only occupation where one exchanges personal choice for unlimited liability, as a prerequisite for signing on.
Providing higher education to people who volunteered to serve their country is the right thing to do.
I don't know about that. As I said, they're already compensated. In such a wealthy country, there is no reason why everyone shouldn't be extended the same opportunities.
I agree that it is the right thing to do to ensure that the only way to higher education for poor kids is to kill for the empire first, otherwise its burger flipping. If our children don't want to kill for our democracy then they don't deserve a education. Who needs an empathetic population lets give even more enhanced benefits to those who are willing to kill.
The NDP would do well do talk about the violence that health care workers at all levels experience everyday in Canada as a result of the serious shortages in our system. My heros heal they don't maim.
General Facts
• More than 1.6 million people worldwide lose their lives because of violence every year (World Health Organization, 2002).
• As many as 72 per cent of nurses do not feel safe from assault at work (International Council of Nurses [ICN], 2004).
• Health-care professionals are at the highest risk for being attacked at work, even when compared to prison guards, police officers, bank personnel or transport workers (Kingma, 2001).
• Nurses are the health-care workers most at risk, with female nurses considered the most vulnerable (ICN, 2004).
• Canadian nurses reported high rates of emotional abuse as well as threats of and actual assault in a study that collected data from 43,000 nurses in five countries (Aiken et al., 2001).
http://www.cna-nurses.ca/CNA/documents/pdf/publications/FS22_Violence_Workplace_e.pdf
Yeah, those 1400 workers who died last year chose to do so through their "voluntary willingness to ignore danger". Workers choose to die on the job, soldiers are duty bound--more bullshit.
WilderMore, providing higher education to every person who wishes to do higher education is the right thing to do. Even if they don't "serve their country", i.e. smash in the doors of poor people on the other side of the world and terrorize them in the name of freedom.
It's true Boom Boom, jingoism is taking hold even on babble.
It isn't bullshit actually. You simply don't grasp the difference with what you are saying. If a particular occupation entails a certain amount of risk, and the worker chooses to continue working with the knowledge that the potential exists for them to become injured or worse, beyond normal personal safety protocols that are in place with every occupaiton, then that is a personal choice in every instance where they are confronted with such a situation.
It is actually two separate questions - RCMP and soldiers.
Before we paint all soldiers as members of a modern Sturm Abteilung I think it bears remembering that many who go into the armed forces do so because they aren't wealthy and there aren't too many other options, not because they want to kill foreigners and protect our investments.
And the riskiness of other lines of work aside, I think it is fair to say that military service (and police service, to a much lesser degree) is a pretty unique case.
At the risk of drawing a shitstorm, when we look at whether one group is being treated fairly or not, it is not always the best thing to compare them with other disadvanteged groups. Not to draw a direct parallel, but when I support fair condisions and wages for unionized workers I don't say "well they're doing better than at the 7-11" because I understand that fairness in one place is a step toward helping people across the board.
Is it shitty that workplace safety standards are so loose that people don't know if the scafffold they are on is going to come out from under them, or if they are going to fall down a shaft or get gassed? Absolutely. That doesn't change the fact that a lump-sum payment for lost body parts and long-term psychological damage is shortsighted - both as compensation for the person who suffers it, and in terms of the real cost we as a society will sooner or later have to pay.
Yeah, this is a complicated issue, all the more complicated because it involves a digsusting evil job, and a motherhood issue that of course all politicians are going to rush to pay lip service to.
All the more reason to dial back the hyperbolae and rhetoric.
On a related note, anyone hear the interview with Bruce Cockburn on CBC The Current on his visit to Afghanistan? Perhaps he has gone over to the dark side too.
And not to quibble with the stats and mess with the demonstration of "who dies more", but how many workers are there across Canada as compared to the number of soldiers in Afghanistan?
It isn't bullshit actually. You simply don't grasp the difference with what you are saying. If a particular occupation entails a certain amount of risk, and the worker chooses to continue working with the knowledge that the potential exists for them to become injured or worse, beyond normal personal safety protocols that are in place with every occupaiton, then that is a personal choice in every instance where they are confronted with such a situation.
That goes for our volunteer armed forces as well. It is a choice that they make. I want secondary education for all young Canadians who have the drive and capacity to succeed at school. I don't want the military to become the only way for poor people to get an education, without mortgaging decades of their future to our bankers.
If a particular occupation entails a certain amount of risk, and the worker chooses to continue working with the knowledge that the potential exists for them to become injured or worse, beyond normal personal safety protocols that are in place with every occupaiton, then that is a personal choice in every instance where they are confronted with such a situation.
Even if your legalistic proposition reflected reality (which it doesn't, because workers are mostly killed by accidents in the true sense, or undetected faulty equipment) - so what? You say the workers face danger voluntarily, while soldiers alone risk prison if they refuse? Then explain to me how that translates into superior benefits for the soldier?
Soldiers voluntarily enter an occupation in the full knowledge (according to you) that they can be ordered into situations where instant death is possible, on pain of incarceration if they decline. How is that different from workers who voluntarily (according to you) put themselves at risk every day, on pain of unemployment and poverty?
If soldiers don't like the risk - or, which I care more about, they don't like being ordered to murder, torture, and maim people who have done nothing wrong in lands which our soldiers invade and occupy - then I have a perfect solution. They should fucking desert. They should not be the beneficiaries of Ignatieff and Layton's largesse on those occasions when their victims actually have the temerity to fight back - or when their comrades and allies blow them up in "friendly" fire.
If soldiers don't like the risk - or, which I care more about, they don't like being ordered to murder, torture, and maim people who have done nothing wrong in lands which our soldiers invade and occupy - then I have a perfect solution. They should fucking desert. They should not be the beneficiaries of Ignatieff and Layton's largesse on those occasions when their victims actually have the temerity to fight back - or when their comrades and allies blow them up in "friendly" fire.
Yes, soldiers voluntarily enter an occupation that has a pre-existing top up for unlimited liability. They can certainly change their minds and opt out by submitting a request for release from the military, which takes upwards of six months to process administratively. In the meantime, the act of submitting a request for release from employment, on the spot lets say, in a situation where they are being ordered to advance into shellfire from the relative comfort of a foxhole, wouldn't be immediately entertained by management to the extent of releasing the individual from their responsibility to comply with the demands placed upon them in that moment. Every other occupation is afforded the latitude of opting out on the spot, by quitting on the spot, or taking the issue to some sort of arbitration for review of the circumstances. As to the kind of things soldiers are expected to do in support of corporatism as we know it, I would hope that you wouldn't seriously take a review of the aforementioned facts as support for those activities.
Because if they choose to be unemployed rather than face lets say, an unreasonable risk associated with their job, they can elect that option right there and then by walking away. If they choose work related risk instead of unemployment and poverty, it is still their choice to make. There are some who make the choice every day to continue working in unsafe conditions, and some that say take this job and shove it. When a military worker says take this job and shove it, it takes up to six months to process the paperwork, through which she or he is expected to fulfill each and every one of their unlimited liability obligations.
Well, they require something of an enticement in order to continue attracting people into the military. The X Factor that I spoke about earlier is just for the everyday routine workplace conditions within Canada. This allows the military chain of command to send troops anywhere in Canada, such as support to security operations at the Olympics, or the G20, floods, avalanches, insurrections and what not. It also allows them to give notice to prepare for deployment overseas. Overseas deployment is not a matter of choice for someone in the Regular component of the CF. The reserves on the other hand do not automatically receive the X Factor supplement as part of their pay package, and thus they are not required to present themselves on demand for deployment on overseas missions. Within the Reserves there is the Class B soldier, full time reservist, who can volunteer for service on operations anywhere in Canada, hence, reservists made up a significant number of troops deployed to Vancouver for the Olympics and the follow on G20. When the Class B soldier volunteers for an operation within Canada or outside of Canada, they switch to Class C Reservist, and are thus entitled to the X Factor top up. There is also the Class A soldier, who only has to show up once a month to sign in at the armoury. Class A soldiers who volunteer to go somewhere within Canada or outside of Canada, depending on the circumstances, can change to Class B or C terms of service. Only Class C provides the X Factor compensation in all cases, because like the Regular Force army, it carries with it the unlimited liability expectation. Of course, while on operations outside Canada, there is provision for additional hardship related compensation depending on the region of the world one is operating in, and the conditions that have to be faced. Khandhar in Afghanistan would fetch a pretty penny, comparatively speaking.
This is not accurate. The RCMP does fairly well in the benefits department, as does the Military, but not quite as good as the RCMP. The military has a few unique benefits that the public services does not enjoy, while there are benefits unique to the public service.
Thanks for the detailed account, Slumberjack. I can't challenge what you're describing, and have no wish to, and I take it as entirely accurate, when it comes to conditions of employment in the military.
I do think, when it comes to civilian employment, you may be somewhat understating the real-life difficulty of walking away from an unsafe situation or for that matter an unsafe job. A miner or construction worker or factory worker (besides the more obvious examples of firefighters etc.) work in inherently unsafe situations every day. The only time they can lawfully exercise their right to refuse unsafe work is when there is an exceptional situation, not part of their normal every-day conditions, which they reasonably believe could jeopardize their health or safety, or that of their co-workers. Even then, workers are generally reluctant to exercise that right (especially in non-unionized contexts), because they fear retaliation.
However, all that is more or less apart from the main point I was making. I don't deny that jobs with inherently greater risk may merit greater compensation in order to recruit and retain staff (although, in real life, there is more often an inverse proportion between risk to life and limb, and compensation!). My point is simpler, and relates to carveout of pension (including disability pension) from long-term disability benefits. Once two workers becomes totally disabled, why would one (a soldier) be entitled to a much higher percentage of his previous earnings than the other? More importantly, why would self-styled progressive politicians go to bat for them, rather than for workers as a whole - especially those who enjoy zero compensation? My answer is simple. It is shameless pandering. And it's genuinely hard for me to see why some here don't see that, or won't acknowledge it.
Since Alexa McDonough rose to prominence from the Navy's hometown in Halifax, it seems there's been a noticeable 'support the troops' mantra to the NDP, and so you do have a point about playing to a base. The NDP has taken great pains to shed an anti-military establishment image by not so much climbing out on limbs to shout support for the various operations undertaken over the past 20 years, although that too has been done occasionally, but by being seen as holding a torch for the military worker (soldier) and the veteran, which includes vocal support for proper equipment for the worker to use. This shift intensified after the public hand wringing over military working conditions and pay during the 90s, which has been maintained as talking points by the NDP ever since.
My view is that the military is already compensated for working conditions both at home and abroad. There is no legitimate need to provide additional benefits over and above that which other workers in Canada enjoy. Long term disability is already augmented with lump sum payouts under the Veterans Charter, along with vocational training, job finding assistance, priority placement in the public service, and a range of other perks and services. What has evolved, which we clearly see manifested today, is that the outpouring of sympathy during the 90s for the military rank and file, combined with the support the troops in Afghanistan business over the past decade, has been used by the military lobbyist industry as a magnet to attract the sort of political pandering you've described.
This is not accurate. The RCMP does fairly well in the benefits department, as does the Military, but not quite as good as the RCMP. The military has a few unique benefits that the public services does not enjoy, while there are benefits unique to the public service.
A legless soldier describing the benefits package offered by Steve's government a couple of months back made a very strong case for the complete unfairness of the offering.
I'll bet the New Democrat critics in this thread can state exactly what that soldier had been expected to get by on, monthly, and what was conceded to him after his situation entered the political debate. If they do not have those exact figures, I question their ethical priorities.
I'll bet the New Democrat critics in this thread can state exactly what that soldier had been expected to get by on, monthly, and what was conceded to him after his situation entered the political debate. If they do not have those exact figures, I question their ethical priorities.
Wow
Unbelievable pomposity. Who are you the arch angel or god.
It's ok, Shoveler, George is just trying to be a teensy bit provocative, but we all understand each other and get along here more or less.
I actually have the precise exact figures that he's looking for, but I won't disclose them here - I just love to watch my ethical priorities being questioned!
Anyway, it would distract from my main point, which is that Jack Layton should have a wee bit of shame and not participate in the "WHO LOVES OUR GLORIOUS HEROES THE MOST!?" Olympics.
But, of course, that is speculative nonsense without the actual figures.
I know how much it takes to live in the world of pensioners.
I can only guess at the world of the legless.
As for archangels and Gods...I do not associate with them, Shoveler, or even believe in their existence. However, people who pronounce on what the wounded should be able to live on are, perhaps, playing those roles.
Whoops, George, thanks - "base" was a typo, but I couldn't correct it in my opening post! Much appreciated.
Actually it was the Libranos that came up with the New Veterans Charter, the one the Cons are currently operating from, which changed the monthly lifelong stipend for disabled fodder into a one shot lump sum, take it or leave it arrangement. To get the max lump sum allowable, one practically has to crawl around on all four stumps to demonstrate ones incapacity to their satisfaction. What it actually demonstrates though is that neither party gives a fuck about the collateral waste of their decisions in government, while the third party sees the situation as a prime opportunity to gather up the physical and emotional pieces of some folks who have figured these things out the hard way.
Whoops, George, thanks - "base" was a typo, but I couldn't correct it in my opening post! Much appreciated.
I guess SJ has just made the most important point around here. To suggest that any party which is prepared to send people into unjust wars really gives a damn about their life and limb - as opposed to looking to reap political gain or to promote its warmongering activities - is pretty cynical at best. "Highway of Heroes" is not a plea to look after the wellbeing of soldiers and their families - it's a jingoistic call to "honour their sacrifice" and exhort others to follow in their footsteps.
George you should look at what has happened to WCB in this country over the last decade. The system is great if you break a leg but for anything long term it leaves workers in poverty. They provide "retraining" with no job guarantees and then they give you a pension based on formulae that never adds up to an amount sufficient to live on. If you have only been maimed in one leg most WCB plans would try to give you a lump sum "pension" payment and wash their hands off you. I am not sure but I think part of the rationale for going to this inadequate system was that it was like WCB.
I have no problem with treating soldiers the same as other workers. I have a problem with making them into the heros and giving them better benefits. The problem is the benefits suck for all workers and the party on the left is hyping the military as deserving when they should be developing programs and dialogue around all the disabled workers living in poverty.
@ Unionist
Well if you want callous, Harper has regularly stated that the reason why Canada should engage in these ventures is because it gives us a greater reputation on the world stage. Nothing about whether that engagement is right or wrong. First time he said it I couldn't believe my ears. But he has repeated it a number of times.
Strangely I don't think any of the media have questioned why it is okay for us to send people out to kill and destroy, have some of them come back in bags, and drain our treasury just so more people will listen to what Harper has to say.
Or why his plan evidently didn't work, given recent events at the U.N.
Strangely I don't think any of the media have questioned why it is okay for us to send people out to kill and destroy, have some of them come back in bags, and drain our treasury just so more people will listen to what Harper has to say.
It's because the movement is weak. That's why none of the "mainstream" political parties consistently raises the challenge that you have enunciated well. And that's why the media have no one "reputable" to quote raising that challenge. It's up to us - and some of "us" unfortunately will defend almost anything if it comes out of the right mouth.
'Course, you could always put yourself in another world mentally and pretend that your purity would sell well in this vale of tears. Like playing house as a child. There's no denying the moral purity, the virtue of such a position.
See, 6079, that's what I meant. Notwithstanding all those who said: "Don't mention Afghanistan! All Canadians are stupid!!", the NDP finally, after years of twists and turns, got around to calling for troops to get out - the only party in the Commons to now be saying that consistently. And one day (soon I hope), it will say: "Maybe we should stop murdering Libyans?" - just as they did their welcome about-face on the bombing of Serbia.
But there will always be those who say that calling for peace is like living in a dream world. Personally, I'd rather dream than descend into the gutter with those who believe that the masses are warmongering idiots by nature. They're the ones holding back any healthy, powerful movement which will actually change the course of this country.
Those who play the tune of moral superiority while denying the reality of the lives of a majority of working people are themselves the elitists. And you only fall into the hands of Steve and his ilk in playing a tune unrecognizeable by the ordinary masses (I believe you positively sanctioned that expression one day while searching desperately about for a descriptor). With acceptance of the previously politically incorrect language of Joe Bageant, this site has made a huge advance toward reality in the last year or two. Let's continue the advance rather than the old fratricidal game of who's the purest, shall we?
I doubt that anyone around here is seriously looking to moral superiority. They'd have to be enjoying one fine delusion for that. I'd be happy if someone were to come along and just stick with a few non-negotiable standards. I believe however that we sometimes ignore the effects of cradle to grave class war indoctrination upon all of the people within this society. Most have never in their lives received anything other than daily dispatches from the various front lines, delivered to us in carbon copy format by corporate mailmen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqjQG-Tw9FY
I just want the waiter of social change to bring me a beer and pizza!
(Sorry SJ, I get your point. I just couldn't help but run with that florid metaphor)
On principle I believe programs to help people need to be universal. I don't like special measures for certain groups. A person who loses a leg to cancer, or an industrial accident, should not get less than someone who is or was in the military.
If the risk is greater for them then that should be reflected both in the pay and concern about where we send them but no, I cannot support the idea that two Canadians would receive different amounts of public support when they are in the same situation just because of how they got there. That is victim blaming/rewarding rather than addressing need amid principles of social justice.
I am not interested here in getting in to debates about the military as this principle is the more important one in this case. I am also not very interested in getting in to arguments about why people go in to the military and what responsibility they have to decisions made by a hawkish PM (or series of hawkish PMs). I am approaching this based on NDP principles and I am sorry to say this does not pass the sniff test. I do not support the NDP ever using public funds for targeted programs that ought to be universal.
I will not trash the NDP for this or make generalizations or suggest that this should be a ballot issue but my position is not favorable on this policy.
I fully concur in Sean's remarks. And this one solitary wrong stand by Jack Layton will have zero effect on my intent to vote NDP. I consider my criticism to be just that. I don't criticize my enemies.
ETA: And I still love listening to Jack when he is playing to his bass!
But, of course, that is speculative nonsense without the actual figures.
I know how much it takes to live in the world of pensioners.
I can only guess at the world of the legless.
As for archangels and Gods...I do not associate with them, Shoveler, or even believe in their existence. However, people who pronounce on what the wounded should be able to live on are, perhaps, playing those roles.
wait, what do you mean you don't believe in me?;-)
Meanwhile, the RCMP continues to function as Harper's private police force: RCMP removes man from Harper rally in Quebec
If the RCMP thought he was a security threat then why did he get to walk away? If he wasn't a security threat then why was he asked to leave?
The NDP is a pro-military party, there is no surprise that this plan is coming out as official policy. I just assume this plan would come out later in the campaign.
While there is valid criticism of the military and police institutions in Canada, I see nothing wrong with giving them decent pensions and government benefits, especially considering how well documented mental health issues are among veterans.
Besides, remember that despite the massive military spending in the US, veterans health services there are underfunded, to the point that a good chunk of homeless people in the US are military veterans.
It's a bit more honest than the party which claims to support their troops, and then tries to get off paying soldiers $150,000 for a lost limb and assuming that is the end of it.
Like it or not, this is a long-term problem that is going to ahve to get paid for one way or another. The problem is pretending that it is not one of the consequences and costs of war.
While there is valid criticism of the military and police institutions in Canada, I see nothing wrong with giving them decent pensions and government benefits, especially considering how well documented mental health issues are among veterans.
Um:
1. Nonsense. Among other things, it will stop the carve-out of pension from LTD benefits (a universal LTD insurance principle), thereby allowing double-dipping. This is a benefit which no unionized workers I am aware of enjoy.
2. This is the purest pandering on the part of Layton. "Support our troops and cops"? Why is that? How about promising to improve benefits and minimum standards in the Canada Labour Code? How about returning to the charge on anti-scab legislation (which was kyboshed by Stéphane Dion)?
This is a simple statement: "Nova Scotians are all military-minded warmongers, so I'll buy some votes here."
Trouble is, Harper outdid him by buying the premier. One step ahead.
This is actually disgusting.
Troops and cops work for the gov't but get much fewer benefits than public servants. This is partial redress. Playing to the base? Hardly. Standing up for fairness? Arguably.
Maybe he could say: "Why have two consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments sent our soldiers to be mutilated and killed, and to mutilate and kill the Afghan people? We see these people not as heroes, but as victims - and we will fulfill our responsibility to look after them, something the heartless ones who sent them as cannon fodder are not even capable of doing."
But he'll never say that, because he doesn't give a shit about these poor veterans (does he???) - he's trawling for votes and proving he's not Taliban Jack.
Disgusting.
ETA: If he actually cares about their supposedly inferior benefits, he should publicly support the RCMP in their fight for the right to unionize and bargain collectively.
@Anyonymouse-- Wrong. Not to mention that an RCMPig will be making $77,944 after 36 short months of harrasing poor people. There is not another job in frontline public work that would pay that much after three years.
What professions are you considering as front line public workers?
The disgusting electoral system made him do it.
And it does appear as though Steve Harper's bosses in Warshington are being advised to negotiate along the lines of Taliban Jack Layton's advice. Jack is just one step ahead of our stooges and Washington and London is all. Afghanistan is just one of those issues that doesn't really concern our colonial administrativeship in Ottawa - our two old line parties don't make these executive kinds of decisions anyway.
What professions are you considering as front line public workers?
"Professions"? Killing people? Wanna rephrase that?
Sorry, I am not sure what you mean?
I ask what professions does Le T consider as "front line public workers".
It was his term not mine, however I believe he means nurses, IT/IS specialists, marine operators, etc, etc.
Sorry, I am not sure what you mean?
I ask what professions does Le T consider as "front line public workers".
It was his term not mine, however I believe he means nurses, IT/IS specialists, marine operators, etc, etc.
Ok, Todrick, where did Le T use the word "professions"? I must have missed it. Or do you think "front line public workers" are professionals - like our fine soldiers and cops? Are you using the word "profession" in some non-English sense that you could decode for us?
Unionist, I did not say Le T used the "professions".
I only wanted to know what professions/occupations/jobs/ does he consider as a "front linen public worker"
What is your definition of "profession"?
What is your definition of "profession"?
Lawyer, physician, architect, engineer... Why don't you check out any labour code:
“professional employee” means an employee who
(a) is, in the course of their employment, engaged in the application of specialized knowledge ordinarily acquired by a course of instruction and study resulting in graduation from a university or similar institution, and
(b) is, or is eligible to be, a member of a professional organization that is authorized by statute to establish the qualifications for membership in the organization;
Doesn't include labourers or counter agents or customer service employees or secretaries or even skilled trades (electrician, pipefitter, machinist, etc.) which require four (4) or more years of classroom and on-job instruction.
And you want to compare soldiers and mounties to "professionals"? What a laugh.
And before you disagree with Le T, why not look up a few of the pay scales of the people I mentioned in the federal public service, and tell me how much they are paid after 36 months. Or would you like me to do so?
What exactly are you trying to prove, anyway? That the NDP should be looking after cops and soldiers better than the Conservatives do? I disagree. I think they should be laying off most of them, with of course decent layoff or departure benefits.
What is your problem? Where did I say or indicate that soldiers or Mounties or any number of number of government employees are professionals?
I am quiet familiar with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and government employee pay rates.
I am not trying to prove anything, I just asked a simple question to Le T. I only wanted to know what he meant in post #7.
You seem to have some sort of issue with the question.
@Unionst:
As a retired Canadian Regular Force Naval officer of 20 plus years, and a card-carrying, longtime New Dem, who has always only voted New Dem, I am not at all suprised by Jack's annoucement. In fact through Peter Stoffer, Jack Harris, and a long time, Davey Orlikow, the NDP has always been a strong voice for Canada's military, especially regarding the treatment of veterans. This isn't "playing to his base". This is simply a reafirmation of something that has always been the NDP's position. I don't get where your animus comes from. Brave Jack, well done! And frankly, thank-you.
Arthur Cramer, Lt(N) CD, Ret'd, Winnipeg
I am quiet familiar with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and government employee pay rates.
Then you'll know that a Typist gets $35,847 after 36 months.
A Stenographer gets $35,125 after 36 months.
A Secretary, depending on level, gets between $34442 and a maximum of $49250 (which is the top-level supervisory position) after 36 months.
You mentioned "marine operations"? A Coast Guard marine communications and traffic service officer gets $53,580 after 36 months.
You want to compare a soldier or a mountie to a nurse? or an IT specialist? I don't think so. That's an awfully confused kind of comparison, in labour market terms.
Layton's plan would provide them with benefits which no Treasury Board employee enjoys (such as, no carve-out of pension on LTD). These are gratuitous and pandering proposals, quite deliberately delivered in Nova Scotia.
You may want to look at CPAC this evening and watch Mr. Layton talk to a group of veterans, who applaud him after he expresses (again) condolences on the death of Corporal Yannick Sherrer in Afghanistan last week. Mr. Layton forgets to mention that the NDP demands that all troops get out this year.
It wouldn't play well with his base. Not at that moment or place, in any event.
Actually, a ST-STN-1 earns $35,125 after 48 months.
Again where did I say I want to compare one occupation to another?
As I said earlier, the NDP is a pro-military party and has been for the last decade, just go back review their policies for the last 4 elections.
Actually, a ST-STN-1 earns $35,125 after 48 months.
Um, no, Todrick. $35,125 is Step 4 on the pay scale, which means that it takes effect on the third anniversary date of hire into that classification and level, and is bumped upward to $35,925 on the fourth anniversary - that is, it's $35,125 between 36 and 48 months after hire. Not a big error, but just thought I'd correct it anyway.
When you challenged Le T, who said:
I was just citing some figures to prove Le T is correct.
As for the NDP being a pro-military party, I don't know what you mean by that. I know Peter Stoffer publicly broke ranks in 2006 when Layton called for withdrawal of troops. But I think of the NDP as being composed of its members, not some tyrannical elite that cynically makes up whatever momentary campaign slogan which the spin doctors recommend.
And even if one supports the troops, that's no excuse to pledge exaggerated benefits to retired soldiers and mounties. For what? Being better than workers? I don't think so!
Anyway, go watch Layton on CPAC at his Dartmouth veterans' rally, if you want a lesson in pandering.
What about Dawn Black, Pat Martin, Jack Layton and Gary Doer? They have all said a lot of pro-military statements over the years.
The NDP have continue to call upon on the imperialistic UN to do the dirty work of western countries and organizations as witness for the call to bomb Libya over the last few weeks.
I am sorry if you think I was challenging Le T, I thought it was a simple question. It was not my intention to cause so much discord and grief?
And I am mistake about the Step 3 and 4 on the wages.
What about Dawn Black, Pat Martin, Jack Layton and Gary Doer? They have all said a lot of pro-military statements over the years.
Pro-aggression, pro-U.S., pro-NATO - yes, though Jack Layton not so bad as the other three. To his credit, he has often listened to the rank and file rather than to these particular warmongers, though the distinction has been difficult to draw at some crucial moments, unfortunately.
I'm aware of that. But being "pro-military" would mean to support the troops and bring them home from unjust, murderous, and suicidal missions. If Canada used its armed forces for peace and justice, and only fought those enemies that want to commit aggression against us, deaths and injuries would be down to negligible numbers.
He was pointing to the obscene rewards given to the RCMP, and the greater obscenity of Jack Layton stumping for them. Who the hell does Layton think he's going to win over with such appeals? In that sense, Le T's basic point was utterly valid, and didn't need a sidebar about whether there are other "frontline" public servants who earn $77000 after 3 years.
As I said, it's not a problem. Treasury Board pay scales are built to confuse honest people, so honest mistakes are understandable.
I'm glad that Layton came out with this. NDP is about fairness to those who labour, and soldiers and police labour. This is not pro-military or police but about common decendency!
I'm glad that Layton came out with this. NDP is about fairness to those who labour, and soldiers and police labour. This is not pro-military or police but about common decendency!
He might have started with those in need. Like the countless disabled workers in this country, of all walks of life, who have no long-term disability salary replacement benefits of any kind, let alone the type applicable to the forces and RCMP. All most workers get is 15 weeks of EI sick benefits (max about $468 per week) - not (say) 70% of their income for decades of disability. I haven't heard him raise that issue at all for those who "labour". And why didn't he speak of the NDP convention plan to reduce maimings and deaths of soldiers, by an "immediate and safe withdrawal" of all troops from Afghanistan?
As for the plan announced by Layton, I still need an explanation of why soldiers and mounties should be allowed to collect both disability benefits and pension benefits, when every single LTD plan I have ever seen provides for a carve-out of pension from disability... otherwise you'd have people earning more while on disability than those at work.
What are we rewarding them for? Putting their lives at risk in unjust wars? Accidentally stepping between a fellow mountie's taser and an Aboriginal victim? How about Layton demanding a "no carve-out" clause for all Canadian workers? Too expensive? Didn't think about it? No votes in it?
I think that this over demonizing soldiers and police is disgusting. Many have made contributions to society beyond killing or hurting people. Take DART for instance. Look, it was the country that broke them it is the country's duty to help them. Most people join believing they are risking thier lives to help people. Yes, that can be niave, given the people in charge, but most have good intentions.
Why are soldiers or police more worthy of "help" from the "country that broke them" than the many, many more people who work for a living and get few or no benefits, work in incredibly unsafe jobs and have no pensions? What about all those "temporary workers" that produce massive amounts of food (and wealth) that don't even get access to basic civil or human rights?
Soldiers are not anymore "heroic" than labourers and in most cases they enjoy a safer workplace with better benefits. As has been stated, if we really wanted to improve the working conditions of soldiers we would stop sending them into imperial battles and get them real jobs that don't involve killing poor, racialized people so that a couple guys downtown can make a billion dollars.
Last week i was at the Raise the Rates rally against cuts to the Special Diet in Ontario. I thought about how the many cops who joined us to make sure that we didn't interfere with business as usual were all getting paid between 80k and 100k per year. Welfare in Ontario is $598 per month.
Fuck the police and fuck Layton and all the NDPers who are more interested in getting the military/cop vote and pandering to "hard working middle-class families" than justice.
What is going on here is what is called horizontal violence; you attack your peers and are distracted from the real issues.
In this case, basic fairness. Everyone here on this forum should be in favor of that.
There are other issues that have been raised, and yes those need addressal. But the fact that Jack did the right thing today should be cheered. I agree, especially as a retired military officer that we shouldn't be in Afgahanistan or Libya, or engaged in military adventurism. But those are different issues. You don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
So let me get this straight, every thread through this campaign will be an NDP bashing session for not throwing out huge lies that they couldn't possibly fulfill, and bashing them on pretty much any issue that some people have a pet peave about. Good to know I post on such a progressive site that want only to point out NDP flaws if someone wanted to understand their position. You do the party proud people.
Seriously I see more criticism of the NDP(no matter what position they take on any given issue) on this site than the MSM does, or that of any other party in this election.
Ever wonder what happen to a lot of the regulars that use to contribute here...yeah.
This is a simple statement: "Nova Scotians are all military-minded warmongers, so I'll buy some votes here."
Barking up the wrong tree.
Its not just pandering for votes. The NDP itself is full of military-minded warmongerers.
I think its a great gesture to people that deserve it.
And I think that other people deserve the help more does not change that.
If you dont like the gensture, you can dislike the NDP more than you already do. [Big change.] And if you are in or close to the NDP, and you dont like it, you can decide what this means to your support.
Playing to his base?
It is playing to a bigger part of the base than the part where you are 'located.'
ETA: Which is not saying/implying that the part of the base where you are located does not matter.
It is calling attention to your presumption about who the base is.
What is going on here is what is called horizontal violence; you attack your peers and are distracted from the real issues.
In this case, basic fairness. Everyone here on this forum should be in favor of that.
How is it fair that the NDP should campaign for better disability benefits for soldiers and mounties, who already have far better benefits than the vast majority of workers (or of NDP voters, for that matter)?
And what problem did you have with the elimination of double dipping on disability and pension benefits? How was that "unfair"? Or have you actually looked at the package he proposed?