Injured Jumpers have pay cut....

[GO!!!]

OK, this little anouncement came from the acting CSM of the 3 VP Para Coy.

It was to the effect that he and the OC were displeased with the number of injuries in the company, and as a result, anyone who was on a medical chit would lose their maroon beret and jump pay, until such a time as they could pass the para pt test.

My question is two fold.

First, is there any precedence for this? Has this been done before? When and where?

Second, why? Obviously if someone is injured or placed on a medical category, and are precluded from jumping again ever, then there is a basis for their removal from a hard jump position, but if they are returning to duty, why would their pay be reduced?

Please restrict your responses to items that you know, or have personally witnessed. I am looking for some insight from serving or retired SNCOs and officers, preferably ones who have served in parachute and combat arms units.

This seems to me to be another kick in the nuts for guys who are already hurt, and distinctly unfair, given that no-one else in the military takes a pay cut when they get hurt.

 

[HItorMiss]

Well correct me if I am wrong but a Jumper can have his wings stripped if he refuse to jump, thus loosing his Jump postion and pay...

I wonder if your CSM and OC are using that little gem as the loop hole to back up there actions?

 

[Kat Stevens]

They're not REFUSING to jump, they're being ORDERED not to jump by the MO.

 

[tomahawk6]

Must have alot of injured for them to make a statement like that.

 

[Journeyman]

I've been a military jumper since 1982, as both a SAR Tech and within the Airborne Regiment, and I've NEVER heard of this happening.

I doubt the legality of it, since the troops are a) qualified parachutist, and b) filling a designated parachute position. A temporary chit is not the same as refusing to jump. If their catagory permanently precludes them jumping, then they should be posted over to a non-para line serial in another Coy or Bn. While this paragraph is just my opinion,  I think any solider whose jump pay is arbitrarily cut by an A/CSM has a pretty good chance of winning their grievance, which I suspect they'll be redressing shortly

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Wow!!......would not pass any legal challenge whatsoever. Go!!!, there is no way the legal experts in DND would even think of allowing this. It sounds like someone is trying to get a hero cookie.......when all they really need is a kick to the nuts....pathetic!!!

I will bring this to a certain members attention who has an interest in this sort of thing.... and the knowledge.

 

[rifleman]

If they aren't jumping, are they entitled to Jump Pay? If it's an allowance, its not a pay cut. Losing the maroon beret is a little draconian though.

 

[Journeyman]

If they aren't jumping, are they entitled to Jump Pay?

If they are qualified and filling a designated jump position, they are entitled to the monthly allowance. It's not like Cas Para, where you claim it by the jump. Sometimes in the Airborne, we could go a couple of months without a jump....and then get 5 in one day - - and the money stayed the same.

 

[the 48th regulator]

If they aren't jumping, are they entitled to Jump Pay? If it's an allowance, its not a pay cut. Losing the maroon beret is a little draconian though.

So what if the jump caused them the injury, should they loose that pay?

Please think your statement over, here I am handing the scissors to help free yourself with the red tape you are tangled up in...

dileas

tess

 

[Armymedic]

Second, why? Obviously if someone is injured or placed on a medical category, and are precluded from jumping again ever, then there is a basis for their removal from a hard jump position, but if they are returning to duty, why would their pay be reduced?

Yes if placed on a category below 333225 then you will not be allowed to jump, and hence not entitled to para allowance. Even if it is a short as a 3 month TCat. After 3 months thier pay could be stopped. Past the 3 months, then the person should pass the PT test, and complete a full refresher prior to be reinstated to the jump posn. I wish I could dig up some sort of regulation for this, but it is how I interpret what I know.

Leadership occasionally sucks. I was recently presented with a similar problem of one of my soldiers not wanting to jump. So do I punish him for not wishing to go beyond his normal job description? If we do XXX then how do we motivate others to attempt? What rewards other then pride do they earn for the extra effort? etc, etc. It is a difficult thing.

Personally though, if they are playing hurt and it is a chronic problem, then I think the RSM/CSM would be in his right to remove pers from the para posn.

edit to add: If they are on a rotating chit (not TCat) and miss thier 3 month time frame to remain current, then I believe the CSM is in his right to remove them from the posn, in order to fill it with other "fit" soldiers.

 

[Cloud Cover]

This seems to me to be another kick in the nuts for guys who are already hurt, and distinctly unfair, given that no-one else in the military takes a pay cut when they get hurt.

I'll go with Armymedic on this one on the basis of my own experience here. Sailors that are unfit sea due to injury and end up posted off their ship lose their sea pay, or used to anyway, until such time as they will be able to return [depending on the length of lay up.]  I would imagine there are other examples, but I think the difference to the situation you have described is that med pers are not making the decisions, the CSM/OC is. Interesting dilemma and one that I don't think squares up with their duty to be fair or at least not act arbitrarily to the extent it damages morale. Obviously, due to the safety factors involved in parachuting, the legal duty to accommodate would not be triggered here and hence the loss of jump pay. That does not explain the loss of the beret adequately, IMO.  A recovery period is temporary, no need to add insult to injury, so to speak. This is clearly a matter of fairness in the face of a certain amount unreasonableness. How many troopers are concealing their injuries and risking further injury all for a beret and a few extra bucks?

Good luck.

 

[axeman]

  i hate to ask this considering im no longer with the herd and now in the navy .. Is Sgt Ford  still wearingthe marron ballon if hes still there ?

 

[GO!!!]

Wow, quite the responses, thank you all!

To answer a few questions;

Yes, there are significant numbers of injuries within the company right now, and yes, a small number of them are probably not genuine, but the majority are post surgery, guys walking around in casts, slings and braces, with multiple physio appointments weekly.

No, these pers are not being kicked out of the company, they are staying in it, just without the beret or the pay. In some cases, they were loaded on PCF courses that they were able to do. (Comms)

Sgt. Ford is still in the Bn, but he does not wear a maroon beret, I'm not sure what his current employment is.

There is no shortage of para positions within the coy. We could probably take another 30 Cpl/Ptes right now, and there are another 12-15 within the coy without a jump course.

This is not a case of the injured being asked to step down to make room for fresh blood, rather it seems to be an attempt to lessen the number of pers on chits within the coy.

As I stated earlier, this is even more of a slam for those troops who were hurt jumping in the first place - to get hurt jumping, then be called a malingerer and take a pay cut.

 

[SHF]

Go,

  From the CBI, if your folks are just injured and still holding designated jump positions then they are entitled to their pay.  We have had similar instances with Air Crew Allowance.  Fight it.  Folks are owed back pay.  Raise your point thru education of the CBIs. 


Cheers,
Bill

205.30 - PARATROOP ALLOWANCE

(1) (Definition) In this instruction, "eligible service" means any period during which the officer or non-commissioned member was posted

to a position requiring parachute jumping designated by the Minister for the purpose of this instruction;
to the Joint Task Force 2 in a position requiring parachute jumping that is designated by the Chief of the Defence Staff for the purpose of CBI 205.385 ( Joint Task Force 2 Allowance); or
to a position designated by the Chief of the Defence Staff for the purpose of CBI 205.385 requiring parachute jumping.
(2) (Entitlement) An officer or non-commissioned member is, while posted to a position requiring parachute jumping that is designated by the Minister for the purpose of this instruction, entitled to Paratroop Allowance at the appropriate monthly rate set out in the table to this instruction for the member's accumulated eligible service, if the member has, during the 12-month period immediately preceding the last day of the month in which the allowance is payable, made a minimum of four jumps, unless the member is receiving Rescue Specialist Allowance under CBI 205.31, Aircrew Allowance under CBI 205.32 or Joint Task Force 2 Allowance under CBI 205.385.

(3) (Combined allowances)An officer or non-commissioned member who is receiving Paratroop Allowance under paragraph (2) shall continue to receive that allowance during any period for which the member is entitled to Casual Aircrew Allowance under CBI 205.325.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote from Whiskey 601,
Sailors that are unfit sea due to injury and end up posted off their ship lose their sea pay, or used to anyway, until such time as they will be able to return [depending on the length of lay up.]

Now, Whiskey I wouldn't think of matching work standards knowledge but you are telling me that a Navy personal injured in the course of his duty on ship is "off pay" from time he leaves the ship? Now I realize technically one is always on duty but I'm talking about a specific " while on duty" injury, as for a recent example...the moment the smoke inhalation injuries from our sub incident were taken off, they lost their sub pay?

 

[GO!!!]

Well, Good news!

I'm not sure who spoke to who, but when asked directly if this action would be taking place, the A/CSM stated that this pay deduction would now not be happening, although he neglected to state why.

Given that this is a complete 180 from his position two days prior, I can only assume that the higher ups disagreed with his reasoning.

I would love to know if this idea of his withered when exposed to the light of day, or if it was always just an idle threat, that he never intended to implement. In any event, the issue now seems to be dead in the water.

Thank you all for your timely responses, issues like this are very difficult to hash out in any sort of objective manner, and army.ca has once again proven to be a gold mine of experience and knowledge.

GO!!!

 

[Jungle]

Good to see there's a happy ending to this.

I don't see any more use to this thread, so I'll lock it.
As usual, anyone wish to add something, contact one of the Mods, it can be reopened.