Two things we need to get straight
First off, the Belleville Intelligencer needs to get its editorial head around the CF human resources philosophy: the needs of the Forces come first, ahead of the needs of the member. The following sentiment, expressed at the end of an editorial that ran this past Friday, bears no resemblance to the difficult decisions inherent to military HR planning:
What are the paper's editorialists talking about? Well, that's the second thing we need to get squared away: two military parents being sent overseas at the same time, leaving children in Canada.
The Intelligencer editorial staff feel that the needs of the family must come first. They're wrong: soldiers are told from almost Day One that the CF's priorities trump theirs, and if they don't like that situation, they can find less demanding employment elsewhere. Believe me, that policy often offers CF members an abysmal choice, but there's no other practical way to run a military.
But the needs of the family - specifically the need to have at least one parent home during such a difficult and disruptive situation - should be of paramount importance unless there's a compelling operational need for both parents to be gone at once. Given the fact that there are no CF occupations currently performing with only one trained and qualified member, those situations should be extrememly rare, since a replacement should generally be available to keep one parent at home.
It should be noted that there are options for military members in such a situation: they can appeal to their respective chains of command, to their career managers, and to chaplains and social workers, among others. People, uniformed and DND-civilian alike, make these decisions, and those people aren't heartless automatons. Besides, apart from their own feelings, the decision-makers understand quite well that unreasonable domestic stress and pressure reduce the performance and retention of members, and increase medical and absenteeism costs.
And don't forget: those options presume the CF members in question actually want to remain behind while their comrades are sent in danger's way. For many CF members, the opportunity to perform the tasks they've trained at and practiced for years in a dangerous overseas theatre of operations is difficult to refuse, especially if they feel they'd be abandoning their buds if they remained behind. Hard as it may be for many ordinary Canadians to understand, soldiers, sailors, and airmen often join and stay in the CF specifically for the opportunity to live up to responsibilities other jobs wouldn't demand of them.
This is a situation that would have been much less of a problem for previous generations of Canadians in combat, since, in historical terms, the battlefield was a unisex enviroment until quite recently. The issue of children dealing with both parents far away and in danger is far more complicated than the Intelligencer's editorial would lead us to believe, but it's one the DND HR community would do well to reflect upon seriously and compassionately for both the good of the CF and the good of those who make it work.
Their family needs must come first.
What are the paper's editorialists talking about? Well, that's the second thing we need to get squared away: two military parents being sent overseas at the same time, leaving children in Canada.
Warrant Officer Richard Nolan of CFB Petawawa was one of four soldiers killed Sunday morning during a coalition ground assault on an insurgent position west of Kandahar City. His common-law partner, Kelly, is serving a six-month stint in Afghanistan, but not in the same part of the country.
A dedicated family man, Nolan had three school-aged sons and a stepdaughter. The children are currently in the care of his mother who came from his home province of Newfoundland to look after the children while their parents were overseas.
The death of a parent is traumatic enough for young children when the other parent is there to lend their support and love. When the other parent is absent, it is undoubtedly doubly hard for them to deal with their grief. Grief is not the only emotion they would be dealing with however. They must be living in constant fear of their mother being killed as well.
The Intelligencer editorial staff feel that the needs of the family must come first. They're wrong: soldiers are told from almost Day One that the CF's priorities trump theirs, and if they don't like that situation, they can find less demanding employment elsewhere. Believe me, that policy often offers CF members an abysmal choice, but there's no other practical way to run a military.
But the needs of the family - specifically the need to have at least one parent home during such a difficult and disruptive situation - should be of paramount importance unless there's a compelling operational need for both parents to be gone at once. Given the fact that there are no CF occupations currently performing with only one trained and qualified member, those situations should be extrememly rare, since a replacement should generally be available to keep one parent at home.
It should be noted that there are options for military members in such a situation: they can appeal to their respective chains of command, to their career managers, and to chaplains and social workers, among others. People, uniformed and DND-civilian alike, make these decisions, and those people aren't heartless automatons. Besides, apart from their own feelings, the decision-makers understand quite well that unreasonable domestic stress and pressure reduce the performance and retention of members, and increase medical and absenteeism costs.
And don't forget: those options presume the CF members in question actually want to remain behind while their comrades are sent in danger's way. For many CF members, the opportunity to perform the tasks they've trained at and practiced for years in a dangerous overseas theatre of operations is difficult to refuse, especially if they feel they'd be abandoning their buds if they remained behind. Hard as it may be for many ordinary Canadians to understand, soldiers, sailors, and airmen often join and stay in the CF specifically for the opportunity to live up to responsibilities other jobs wouldn't demand of them.
This is a situation that would have been much less of a problem for previous generations of Canadians in combat, since, in historical terms, the battlefield was a unisex enviroment until quite recently. The issue of children dealing with both parents far away and in danger is far more complicated than the Intelligencer's editorial would lead us to believe, but it's one the DND HR community would do well to reflect upon seriously and compassionately for both the good of the CF and the good of those who make it work.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 2:33 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home