Leave - Recall and Other Issues [MERGED]

[CountDC]

But it works fine for everyone so it's ok.....until something goes wrong. Cpl Bloggins is supposed to be at work and instead is 200 kms away visiting his wife family and showing off the new baby.  Oops, he gets in an accident, hospital, leg amputated, looking at medical release and the questions start.

I have no problem with giving the member time off if the CO wants to but it should adhere to current regulations.  We don't get to totally ignore the regulation because it suits us.  Compassionate is so wide open for the CO there is no reason the member can not submit the leave pass and have it approved by the CO if the CO wants to go that route. Myself I have always planned accordingly and had annual leave to take until the PATA leave started on Sunday.

 

[ballz]

But it works fine for everyone so it's ok.....until something goes wrong. Cpl Bloggins is supposed to be at work and instead is 200 kms away visiting his wife family and showing off the new baby.  Oops, he gets in an accident, hospital, leg amputated, looking at medical release and the questions start.

While most of your points are valid, this stuff people use about "what if an accident happens" is bunch of silliness. A leave pass exists so the person cannot be convicted for AWOL. It's your permission slip to not show up for work on any given day. It has nothing to do with whether or not you are going to be treated at the hospital or by CF health services. I don't think I have to spell out for you what would happen with regards to being on a leave pass or not if that accident occurred, as you are probably aware of the drill.

I have no problem with giving the member time off if the CO wants to but it should adhere to current regulations.  We don't get to totally ignore the regulation because it suits us.

But that's what CO's / RSMs / others do all the time, no matter how much it irks me or you. And most of the time its to their own benefit and no one else's (not the taxpayer or the member). So, like I said, this is the least of all things I care about.

 

[QV]

The CO sets the working and non working days for the unit.  These days ballz mentions sound like the CO designated them non working days to me. 

 

[PuckChaser]

I sincerely hope I never have to work for the people suggesting we not give out any compassionate leave. And the excuse is a member wouldn't spend all their annual? You can combine annual with compassionate, and the CO can order someone onto annual leave to complete mitigate that issue. CO can also accumulate up to 5 days, without any caveats (which most CO's are extremely afraid to do).

 

[captloadie]

I am getting so sick and tired of individuals thinking they are entitled to the moon and beyond. In the majority of cases, there is no argument for compassionate leave for the healthy birth of a child. If we continue to drift so far from the intent of our regulations they will be changed, and not for the better. The latitude that COs have will be stripped from them because they won't be trusted stay within not just the letter of the regulation, but the intent. We, the CAF, do not have leave entitlement for the birth of a child, it doesn't matter if I agree with it or not. Full stop.

As for the carry over policy, COs aren't scared to authorize it. It gets authorized in those circumstances that are merited. Someone's CoC not being able to apply the management skill of personnel scheduling isn't a reason to sign off on accumulated leave, which by the way, is also not a "given" to CAF members. 

 

[Lumber]

I sincerely hope I never have to work for the people suggesting we not give out any compassionate leave. And the excuse is a member wouldn't spend all their annual? You can combine annual with compassionate, and the CO can order someone onto annual leave to complete mitigate that issue. CO can also accumulate up to 5 days, without any caveats (which most CO's are extremely afraid to do).

On one extremely strict end, we have those who say compassionate can only be used for death or serious injury to an immediate family member, even though the regs don't say anything about compassionate being for "immediate" family only.

On the other extreme end (the laissez-faire end), we have those who will give out compassionate for any death or serious injury in the family; grandmother-in-law, or your dog, for example.

At least, that's what thought the other extreme end was. Two weeks off for the birth of your child? Maybe if there are some extenuating circumstances, like complications risking the health of the wife or child; but, a blanket "having a kid? Have two weeks off!"? It just feels like you're throwing the entire leave manual in the garbage and rejecting the whole idea of efficient management and personnel accountability.

 

[PuckChaser]

I am getting so sick and tired of individuals thinking they are entitled to the moon and beyond. In the majority of cases, there is no argument for compassionate leave for the healthy birth of a child. If we continue to drift so far from the intent of our regulations they will be changed, and not for the better. The latitude that COs have will be stripped from them because they won't be trusted stay within not just the letter of the regulation, but the intent. We, the CAF, do not have leave entitlement for the birth of a child, it doesn't matter if I agree with it or not. Full stop.

As for the carry over policy, COs aren't scared to authorize it. It gets authorized in those circumstances that are merited. Someone's CoC not being able to apply the management skill of personnel scheduling isn't a reason to sign off on accumulated leave, which by the way, is also not a "given" to CAF members.

No problem. As a one of one in a unit, working one rank up and as a secondary duty filling the CCO role, I'll just go ahead and take an entire year off and the CO can worry about the implications to his/her exercises/training with me gone when my 2iC is a first year MCpl who would be responsible for all comms planning.

We're not entitled to Short leave over Christmas either, but we get that. Sometimes you can't just be all stick and no carrot.

As for accumulated leave, I call BS on that. 6 COs, and only 1 has not had the policy of "I will not accumulate leave". In fact, I even delivered a memo (in January) once asking to accumulate 5 annual days so that I could use them in April when my child was due to be born (so I wouldn't take PATA and damage the operational effectiveness of the unit), and was told no. Is that planning far enough ahead?

Sometimes being by the book means your nose is so far into it that your eyes can't see the effect it has on your troops. A little bit of extra leave goes along way to show a troop "This CO has my back" and motivates them to work harder because they know they'll be taken care of.

 

[Pusser]

I am getting so sick and tired of individuals thinking they are entitled to the moon and beyond. In the majority of cases, there is no argument for compassionate leave for the healthy birth of a child. If we continue to drift so far from the intent of our regulations they will be changed, and not for the better. The latitude that COs have will be stripped from them because they won't be trusted stay within not just the letter of the regulation, but the intent. We, the CAF, do not have leave entitlement for the birth of a child, it doesn't matter if I agree with it or not. Full stop.

As for the carry over policy, COs aren't scared to authorize it. It gets authorized in those circumstances that are merited. Someone's CoC not being able to apply the management skill of personnel scheduling isn't a reason to sign off on accumulated leave, which by the way, is also not a "given" to CAF members.

Well said and a perfect example of leave regulations being changed to our detriment because of abuses is current accumulation policy.  Too many people were accumulating too much leave, so the practice was stopped.  We lucky that that is all we lost.  There was serious discussion of reducing our annual leave entitlement as well (i.e. if we weren't using it every year, then we obviously didn't need as much as we were getting).

 

[Pusser]

I sincerely hope I never have to work for the people suggesting we not give out any compassionate leave. And the excuse is a member wouldn't spend all their annual? You can combine annual with compassionate, and the CO can order someone onto annual leave to complete mitigate that issue. CO can also accumulate up to 5 days, without any caveats (which most CO's are extremely afraid to do).

No one is suggesting that Compassionate Leave should never be granted.  We are saying that it should only be granted for those situations for which it was designed.

 

[armyvern]

No one is suggesting that Compassionate Leave should never be granted.  We are saying that it should only be granted for those situations for which it was designed.

Bingo.  Just like PATA is intended for Parental leave.

I dunno --- I didn't think it was rocket science.

 

[Pusser]

No problem. As a one of one in a unit, working one rank up and as a secondary duty filling the CCO role, I'll just go ahead and take an entire year off and the CO can worry about the implications to his/her exercises/training with me gone when my 2iC is a first year MCpl who would be responsible for all comms planning.

We're not entitled to Short leave over Christmas either, but we get that. Sometimes you can't just be all stick and no carrot.

As for accumulated leave, I call BS on that. 6 COs, and only 1 has not had the policy of "I will not accumulate leave". In fact, I even delivered a memo (in January) once asking to accumulate 5 annual days so that I could use them in April when my child was due to be born (so I wouldn't take PATA and damage the operational effectiveness of the unit), and was told no. Is that planning far enough ahead?

Sometimes being by the book means your nose is so far into it that your eyes can't see the effect it has on your troops. A little bit of extra leave goes along way to show a troop "This CO has my back" and motivates them to work harder because they know they'll be taken care of.

Why not take an entire year off? It's actually not that long, unless you are the mother and combining MATA and PATA anyway.  Your unit's scheduling issues are not your problem and you "taking one for the team" won't win you any extra points.  No one will thank you for not exercising an entitlement.  Furthermore, your unit can legitimately backfill your position under these circumstances, so if your CO does his/her job, there should be no significant gap.

Your idea of planning ahead for Accumulated Leave is simply not supported by regulation.  The policy is quite clear.  Annual Leave can only be accumulated if you are unable to use it for operational reasons.  Even then, the approving authority still needs to be comfortable that you honestly had no opportunity to use it.  "Banking" it may seem like a good idea, but is simply not allowed.  Note that this issue was well-examined and discussed c. 1995 when the regulations on the accumulation of Annual Leave were changed.  As an aside, although the chief reason for almost completely stopping the accumulation of Annual Leave was in order to reduce the overall CAF liability for it, another reason was to force COs to ensure that their personnel were actually getting leave.  There were cases where individuals were effectively being denied leave and were burning out (e.g. combing ships' leave periods with short work periods, where many engineers effectively got no time off).

A CO can look after his/her troops and "have their backs" within the framework of policy and regulation.  Reckless disregard for policy and regulation doesn't actually help anyone in the long run and as I've said before, can come back to bite folks later.  Granting unauthorized leave now will get picked up in an audit later and could be costly (e.g. two days taken as a Cpl will be paid back as a CWO).  Doing the "right thing" now that eventually ends up screwing the troops over, isn't really the "right thing" is it?

 

[kev994]

The one thing I learned from taking parental was that I should have taken it all. People will appreciate you coming back, but that appreciation doesn't go very far. Take it all.

 

[CountDC]

While most of your points are valid, this stuff people use about "what if an accident happens" is bunch of silliness. A leave pass exists so the person cannot be convicted for AWOL. It's your permission slip to not show up for work on any given day. It has nothing to do with whether or not you are going to be treated at the hospital or by CF health services. I don't think I have to spell out for you what would happen with regards to being on a leave pass or not if that accident occurred, as you are probably aware of the drill.

But that's what CO's / RSMs / others do all the time, no matter how much it irks me or you. And most of the time its to their own benefit and no one else's (not the taxpayer or the member). So, like I said, this is the least of all things I care about.

Didn't even think the slightest about treatment for the injury. The leave pass also has an effect on benefits.  Injured on duty, while AWOL or injured on leave will result in different benefits or have they changed the rules in the last year. 

CO's/RSMs/others doing it does not make it right.  Get that you don't care same as many others don't care but that doesn't change the regulation or the fact that there is a system in place already to deal with these situations.  Absolutely no reason for the member to not use annual or PATA leave.  I have done it 3 times myself for 9 months.  The excuse some use of not wanting to go through all the work is bull as it is the MATA/PATA clerk that does all the real work.  The member simply submits his memo, it gets approved, sent to the clerk who does up everything for the member to sign.  Only other thing the member has to do is make sure they send in the birth certificate and provide the EI print outs.

Unit needs as a reason for not taking PATA is another lame excuse.  Sure someone else will do the work while you are gone for the 9 months and the world will not fall apart.  If you are in a position that really is that important they will do their homework and get a backfill, it is done a lot so no rocket science to it.  Go into REO and you will see lots of positions looking for reserves to fill in.

I understand people wanting to be flexible but a clear break of the regulations for convenience sake is pure crap.

 

[armyvern]

Didn't even think the slightest about treatment for the injury. The leave pass also has an effect on benefits.  Injured on duty, while AWOL or injured on leave will result in different benefits or have they changed the rules in the last year. 

CO's/RSMs/others doing it does not make it right.  Get that you don't care same as many others don't care but that doesn't change the regulation or the fact that there is a system in place already to deal with these situations.  Absolutely no reason for the member to not use annual or PATA leave.  I have done it 3 times myself for 9 months.  The excuse some use of not wanting to go through all the work is bull as it is the MATA/PATA clerk that does all the real work.  The member simply submits his memo, it gets approved, sent to the clerk who does up everything for the member to sign.  Only other thing the member has to do is make sure they send in the birth certificate and provide the EI print outs.

Unit needs as a reason for not taking PATA is another lame excuse.  Sure someone else will do the work while you are gone for the 9 months and the world will not fall apart.  If you are in a position that really is that important they will do their homework and get a backfill, it is done a lot so no rocket science to it.  Go into REO and you will see lots of positions looking for reserves to fill in.

I understand people wanting to be flexible but a clear break of the regulations for convenience sake is pure crap.

I'll just add that it isn't what "we" (COs, RSMs etc) do all the time to our benefit; not at this Unit, not at my previous Unit, not in the Unit prior to that ...

Someone needs to check his disgruntedness because he's waaaayyyy f'n off-base.

...
But that's what CO's / RSMs / others do all the time, no matter how much it irks me or you. And most of the time its to their own benefit and no one else's (not the taxpayer or the member). So, like I said, this is the least of all things I care about.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Wow.  Just wow.

Leave Policy is just that - policy.  It is not a law.  Policy is intended to provide guidance to Commanders.  Commanders are expected to make judgements and decisions, guided by that policy.  Note that I said guided. 

We have a fragile force right now, for a host of reasons.  Mindless application of "policy" without consideration of the circumstances of either the member or the unit is part of how we got there.  That is a good indication of a commander abrogating his duty to care for not just his troops but his unit.  It is an indication of being risk averse, usually to the detriment of the member and the unit.  We have COs to make those calls - it is what they get paid for.  If it is just a matter of slavishly following the rules, there are a few posters upthread who are clearly ideally suited to be a CO - and one who takes no risk, and could safely command from inside their office without once talking to his or her troops, or listening to the counsel of peers and subordinates, or considering the state or culture of the unit he or she served.

I have been a boss a few times in my career.  Along the way I have been (once) the benefactor of and (frequently) the granter of some form of buckshee leave.  In every case, I made a command judgement of what would best benefit both the member and the unit.  And each case, I simply defined the place of work for the individual.  I happily stand by each and every one of those cases, and would do so in any forum: social, administrative or legal.  I simply did what I was paid to do, which was to make decisions guided by the principle of prioritizing my decisions based on a hierarchy of mission, man, and self.

My 2 cents

 

[GAP]

Once again confirming that "Common Sense is not that Common"......thank you

 

[Pusser]

Wow.  Just wow.

Leave Policy is just that - policy.  It is not a law.  Policy is intended to provide guidance to Commanders.  Commanders are expected to make judgements and decisions, guided by that policy.  Note that I said guided. 

We have a fragile force right now, for a host of reasons.  Mindless application of "policy" without consideration of the circumstances of either the member or the unit is part of how we got there.  That is a good indication of a commander abrogating his duty to care for not just his troops but his unit.  It is an indication of being risk averse, usually to the detriment of the member and the unit.  We have COs to make those calls - it is what they get paid for.  If it is just a matter of slavishly following the rules, there are a few posters upthread who are clearly ideally suited to be a CO - and one who takes no risk, and could safely command from inside their office without once talking to his or her troops, or listening to the counsel of peers and subordinates, or considering the state or culture of the unit he or she served.

I have been a boss a few times in my career.  Along the way I have been (once) the benefactor of and (frequently) the granter of some form of buckshee leave.  In every case, I made a command judgement of what would best benefit both the member and the unit.  And each case, I simply defined the place of work for the individual.  I happily stand by each and every one of those cases, and would do so in any forum: social, administrative or legal.  I simply did what I was paid to do, which was to make decisions guided by the principle of prioritizing my decisions based on a hierarchy of mission, man, and self.

My 2 cents

Except that the "law" often says, " follow the policy."  In other words, the policy is a lawful command and not following it is disobedience of a lawful command, which is to break a pretty serious law.

Having said that, I agree that COs need to exercise their discretion and do the thing that best supports their personnel.  I'm not above stretching regulations, but I hope then when doing so I ensure that there is no long-term ramification that will bite the member later.  I also take care to ensure that what I'm doing is within the spirit and intent of the policy.  I too have granted buckshee leave from time to time, without guilt or remorse.  Sadly though, I've also seen folks so dogmatically adhere to what they think a policy statement says, that they actually violate its intent.  That's very frustrating.  However, when a policy exists that actually achieves the aim, it's simply stupid not to follow it.  In this particular discussion we are talking about granting an inappropriate form of leave (i.e. Compassionate) that is neither appropriate, nor intended for the circumstances because it is apparently easier than granting the form of leave (i.e. PATA) that is both appropriate and intended for this purpose? 

 

[ballz]

No one is suggesting that Compassionate Leave should never be granted.  We are saying that it should only be granted for those situations for which it was designed.

At least, that's what thought the other extreme end was. Two weeks off for the birth of your child? Maybe if there are some extenuating circumstances, like complications risking the health of the wife or child; but, a blanket "having a kid? Have two weeks off!"? It just feels like you're throwing the entire leave manual in the garbage and rejecting the whole idea of efficient management and personnel accountability.

As I said already, it's not compassionate leave. I think a CO using discretion to do what's good for the member, the unit, and the taxpayers, is exactly within the spirit of the regs and his duties.

Injured on duty, while AWOL or injured on leave will result in different benefits or have they changed the rules in the last year.

If it were to happen, I guarantee it would be found that the member was injured while on leave. Not while AWOL (I'd go to jail myself before I'd see that happen) and not while on duty.

In every case, I made a command judgement of what would best benefit both the member and the unit.  And each case, I simply defined the place of work for the individual.  I happily stand by each and every one of those cases, and would do so in any forum: social, administrative or legal.

Exactly. The CO is a grown up and can answer to his decisions.

 

[Journeyman]

There are leaders and there are managers; very rarely do the troops have trouble distinguishing the two.

 

[Lumber]

There are leaders and there are managers; very rarely do the troops have trouble distinguishing the two.

Except the troops, and apparently people on here, don't always realize that you need both. I've met fellow officers who were great, inspiring "leaders", but who couldn't manage time, money or effort.