Ottawa is facing a multimillion-dollar bill to find work for border guards who can't - or won't - carry guns, newly released documents show...an internal analysis indicates that between 25% and 30% of those guards will be unable or unwilling to carry sidearms - as many as 1,440 employees.What do you mean you want us to physically guard the border in exchange for our salaries and benefits? You mean just showing up in uniform and squealing for help and letting somebody else assume the risks isn't enough?
[More from "The Only Ones" Files]
5 comments:
What an idiotic problem. If someone is unqualified or unwilling to do their job, fire the dumb SOB. Only a government bureaucracy would put up with BS like that. If you hired a bunch of bus drivers, and some of them couldn't/wouldn't drive a bus, you wouldn't look around for another non-driving job for them; you would tell them to hit the road.
If I could find just one willing Boy Scout troop, I'd invade Canada and run it like my own.
If you *can't* qualify for some reason, they should find you something else to do. However, if you *won't* carry a gun, your ass should be fired.
I've never had a job where I couldn't qualify, Nimrod, and certainly didn't expect my employers to find me something if I couldn't fulfill their requirements. Why should bureaucrats get a pass courtesy of the tax cows?
Whether they can't or won't is irrelevant. If they don't do the job, out they go.
This might sound a tad leftist, but they were hired on under the expectation that they would have specific duties to perform, which, in this case, did not entail the use of firearms. If, for some reason that is no fault of their own, they are not capable of properly using a firearm in the course of their duties, they should be found a job elsewhere in the 'company'.
You can't change the rules on them in the middle of the game. I'm sure that would be tortious.
However, if they *refuse* to carry a gun, and are capable of doing so, then they should be shown the door.
Post a Comment