babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
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.
Very true, Boom Boom.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Provocative:
Playing to his base?
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.
Harvestor of Sorrow?
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.
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.